WO2024019620A1

WO2024019620A1 - System and method for evaluating and scoring building designs

Info

Publication number: WO2024019620A1
Application number: PCT/NO2023/060017
Authority: WO
Inventors: Raymond SHEEN
Original assignee: Produktif Norway As
Priority date: 2022-07-21
Filing date: 2023-07-07
Publication date: 2024-01-25

Abstract

The present invention generally relates to a system and method for analyzing prospective building designs so as to determine an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of the structure. The invention analyzes the design of construction components and assemblies to determine their design efficiency, then develops a set of ratios that considers the design efficiency from a component functional perspective, the efficiency of an assembly of a building on a construction site, and the efficiency of the disassembly of the same building at a construction site. The three efficiency ratios are a measure of the labor effort needed to assemble and disassemble. The ratios are combined with a theoretical minimum number of components required to construction the building with the designed size and functionality. The set of measures provides relative assessment between design concepts, not specific estimates of labor hours or labor costs.

Description

System and method for evaluating and scoring building designs for assembly and disassembly

Field of the Invention

[0001] The present invention generally relates to system and method for analyzing prospective building designs and, more particularly, a system and method for determining an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of structures.

Background of the Invention

[0002] Recently many administrative agencies in Europe have declared that all future construction must be undertaken with both assembly and disassembly analyzed prior to construction. Nothing in the art provides an efficient solution to this new requirement.

[0003] Prior art systems and methods of estimating building design efficiency have generally relied upon thousands of external calculations that are not easily combined and compared as a whole. What is needed is an overall system and method to efficiently determine the relative ease of assembly and disassembly of a structure. What is also needed is multiple subsystems and methods that will allow for the overall system and method to efficiently determine the relative ease of assembly and disassembly of a structure.

[0004] Related but mostly dissimilar methods have been utilized in the art, such as principles developed by Boothroyd and Dewhurst and codified in their Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) Technique. DFMA was developed for the automotive industry and is based upon the manufacture of high-volume standard precision parts in a controlled factory environment. In contrast, the assembly and disassembly process within the construction industry is a low volume process, is unique to every construction site, and occurs on jobsites that are subject to numerous environmental and other variables. The DFMA approach is wholly inappropriate for this environment as a result. However, some of their principles have corollaries within the construction environment.

[0005] The requirement for disassembly was not a design consideration for automotive design. However, this is a fundamental requirement for the construction industry going forward. Several of the critical constraints associated with disassembly are the need to separate materials at the time of disassembly into categories of those available for immediate reuse, those requiring some

Substitute sheet refurbishment or modification in a nearby construction workshop, those that can be recycled through a material supplier, and those that must be disposed.

[0006] There are two critical constraining elements of analysis for both assembly and disassembly on construction sites that affect the performance with respect to the new metrics. The first is that the building design is based upon a grid with intersecting planes that represent the walls, floors, and ceilings. This grid establishes alignment criteria and often establishes an order or sequence of assembly and disassembly. The other element is the availability and use of tools and fixtures. Unlike a factory setting, construction site operators normally only have access to hand tools and generic handling equipment. Some of the components, during both assembly and disassembly, may require special handling tools to assist in the lifting and transporting process due to fragility or the overall size and shape. A methodology is necessary to take these constraints into consideration.

[0007] What is needed is an analytical methodology that is focused on the efficiency of the assembly and disassembly process for building construction. The component fabrication cost is not a factor that is required in this analysis. The component cost is subject to sudden changes in material costs and fabrication process selection. In addition, this analysis need not necessarily consider the useful life of components or assemblies. The aging characteristics of the materials chosen is also not a critical factor in this analysis. Nor must the analysis address the durability and wear and tear of components and assemblies that have been through multiple assembly and disassembly iterations.

[0008] In addition, the actual cost of labor varies greatly from location to location. It is not essential that the methodology monetize the efficiency estimates. Rather it should provide measures of relative efficiency. Two building designs and the associated assembly approaches can be analyzed to determine which is better and to estimate how much better on a percentage basis. Essentially, we can say that one assembly approach may be 40% more efficient than another. However, the precise number of labor hours is much more difficult. Over time, an organization that uses a viable solution may be able to calibrate the metrics with their unique labor costs. However, these will not be universal.

Object

[0009] The main object of the present invention is to provide an overall system and method to efficiently determine the relative ease of assembly and disassembly of a structure. [0010] A further object of the present invention is to also provide multiple subsystems and methods that will allow for the overall system and method to efficiently determine the relative ease of assembly and disassembly of a structure.

[0011] More specifically, an object of the present invention is to provide a system for determining an efficient design for assembly and disassembly (DFAD).

[0012] A further object of the present invention is to provide a system for determining a theoretical minimum number of components (TMNC) for use in the assembly and disassembly of a structure.

[0013] A further object of the present invention is to provide a system for determining a building component efficiency (BCE) for use in the assembly and disassembly of a structure.

[0014] A further object of the present invention is to provide a system for determining a building assembly efficiency (BAE) for use in the assembly and disassembly of a structure.

[0015] A further object of the present invention is to provide a system for determining a building disassembly efficiency (BDE) for use in the assembly and disassembly of a structure.

[0016] Further objects of the present invention will appear from the following description, claims and attached drawings.

The invention

[0017] The present invention accomplishes the foregoing object by providing a design analysis system and method that analyzes the design of construction components and assemblies to determine their design efficiency. The invention develops a set of ratios that considers the design efficiency from a component functional perspective, the efficiency of an assembly of a building on a construction site, and the efficiency of the disassembly of the same building at a demolition site. The three efficiency ratios are a measure of the relative labor effort needed to assemble and disassemble. The ratios are combined with a theoretical minimum number of components required to construct the building with the designed size and functionality. The set of measures provides relative assessment between design concepts, not specific estimates of labor hours or labor costs. Design for Assembly and Disassembly

[0018] The invention provides a system and method called Design for Assembly and Disassembly (DFAD). This methodology is comprised of four metrics for analyzing the efficiency of a design within the context of building construction:

• TMNC - Theoretical Minimum Number of Components

• BCE - Building Component Efficiency

• BAE - Building Assembly Efficiency

• BDE - Building Disassembly Efficiency

[0019] These metrics must be treated as a set. They provide measures of "goodness" for the design of components and assemblies. Each of the metrics address a different aspect of the construction assembly and disassembly process. A perfect rating in each of the three efficiency ratios is 100%. However, it is unreasonable to expect that any building design can achieve those values in all three efficiency ratios. As a rule of thumb, a design with values exceeding 50% in all three ratio categories is considered an excellent, balanced and efficient design. The theoretical minimum value expresses design efficiency by indicating the minimum number of components needed to perform all functions. The lower the value the more efficient design. There is often a trade-off in design characteristics of the components with respect to assembly and disassembly. In order to maximize one of the ratios, the design decisions may undermine effectiveness in another area. A system balance is needed to find optimal performance.

[0020] The DFAD of the present invention provides a method of determining an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: receiving a bill of materials for a structure; determining the assembly process for each of a multiplicity of components to be used in said structure; calculating a component assembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; determining whether any one or more of said multiplicity of components is a candidate for combination with another of said multiplicity of components; calculating the theoretical minimum number of components comprising said multiplicity of components; determining a disassembly process for each of said multiplicity of components; calculating a component disassembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; calculating a building assembly efficiency; calculating a building component efficiency; and determining an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of said structure using said theoretical minimum number of components, said component assembly efficiency score, said building assembly efficiency, component disassembly efficiency score, and said building component efficiency. [0021] In another aspect of the invention a method is disclosed for determining a building component efficiency for use in assembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: determining the scope of the structure; creating a bill of materials for said structure; analyzing a multiplicity of components, whereby each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed for motion, material, service, planes and ability to unlock; calculating a theoretical minimum number of components necessary for comprising said multiplicity of components; and calculating a building component efficiency score for said structure.

[0022] In yet another aspect of the invention a method is disclosed for determining a building assembly efficiency for use in assembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: determining the scope of the structure; creating a bill of materials for said structure; establishing a component handling value for each of a multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component handling value; establishing a component orientation value for each of said multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by biaxial symmetry and primary axis to determine said component orientation value; establishing a component placement value; establishing a component connection value; and calculating a building assembly efficiency with said component handling value, component orientation value, component placement value, and component connection value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

[0023] In yet another aspect of the invention a method is disclosed for determining a building disassembly efficiency for use in disassembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: determining the scope of the structure; creating a bill of materials for said structure; establishing a component disconnection value for each of a multiplicity of components; establishing a component handling value wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component disconnection value; establishing a component degradation value for each of said multiplicity of components; and calculating a building disassembly efficiency with said component disconnection value, component handling value, and component degradation value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

[0024] In another aspect of the invention a system is disclosed comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with a bill of materials for a structure for use in determining the assembly process for each of a multiplicity of components to be used in said structure; the data further comprising information used to calculate a component assembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to determine whether any one or more of said multiplicity of components is a candidate for combination with another of said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to calculate the theoretical minimum number of components comprising said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to determine a disassembly process for each of said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to calculate a component disassembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to calculate a building assembly efficiency; the data further comprising information used to calculate a building component efficiency; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to determine an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of said structure using said theoretical minimum number of components, said component assembly efficiency score, said building assembly efficiency, component disassembly efficiency score, and said building component efficiency.

[0025] In yet another aspect of the invention a system is disclosed comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with the scope of said structure and a bill of materials for said structure; the data further comprising information used to analyze a multiplicity of components, whereby each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed for motion, material, service, planes and ability to unlock; the data further comprising information used to calculate a theoretical minimum number of components necessary for comprising said multiplicity of components; wherein operations upon said data in the non- transitory computer readable medium may be performed to calculate a building component efficiency score for said structure.

[0026] In another aspect of the invention a system is disclosed comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with the scope of said structure and a bill of materials for said structure; the data further comprising information used to establish a component handling value for each of a multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component handling value; the data further comprising information used to establish a component orientation value for each of said multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by biaxial symmetry and primary axis to determine said component orientation value; wherein operations upon said data in the non- transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component placement value; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component connection value; and wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to calculate a building assembly efficiency with said component handling value, component orientation value, component placement value, and component connection value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

[0027] In still another aspect of the invention a system is disclosed comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with the scope of said structure and a bill of materials for said structure; the data further comprising information used to establish a component disconnection value; wherein operations on said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component disconnection value for each of a multiplicity of components; wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component handling value; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component degradation value for each of said multiplicity of components; and wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to calculate a building disassembly efficiency with said component disconnection value, component handling value, and component degradation value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

[0028] Further preferable features and advantageous details of the present invention will appear from the following example description, claims and attached drawings.

Example

[0029] The present invention will below be described in further detail with references to the attached non-limiting drawings of example embodiments, where:

[0030] Fig. 1 is a flow chart view of a method of design for assembly and disassembly according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0031] Fig. 2 is a flow chart view of a method of determining a building component efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0032] Fig. 3 is a flow chart view of a method of determining a building assembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, [0033] Fig. 4 is a flow chart view of a method of determining a building disassembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0034] Fig. 5 is a first portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine a building component efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0035] Fig. 6 is a second portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine component handling score as a component of a building assembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0036] Fig. 7 is a third portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine component orientation and placement scoring as a component of a building assembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0037] Fig. 8 is a fourth portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine component connection score as a component of a building assembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0038] Fig. 9 is a fifth portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine component disconnection score as component of a building disassembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention,

[0039] Fig. 10 is a sixth portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine component handling score as a component of a building disassembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, and

[0040] Fig. 11 is a seventh portion of a spreadsheet view for input using the invention to determine component degradation score as a component of a building disassembly efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

Description of the preferred embodiments

[0041] Referring now to Fig. 1, a flow chart of a DFAD system and method is illustrated according to a preferred embodiment of the invention. The process starts with a Bill of Material for the building or building subsystem to be analyzed. Each component is then analyzed against three different set of criteria. The component is analyzed for functional uniqueness. A building assembly and disassembly process is established. Each component is then analyzed within those processes to creates component scores for each unique component that are then combined mathematically to create a component assembly or disassembly score. An overall assembly score is determined based upon the component score of all the components within the assembly. A key clarification is that the score is for all components, not just component types. For instance, if an assembly requires 100 nails, the assembly score will need to multiply the score for a single nail by a factor of 100. Unique components fall within one of these five component categories:

■ A physical fabricated part (Example: a pine wood timber component);

■ A subassembly that is pre-assembled before arriving at the job site. (Example: a roof truss system);

■ A portion of bulk material; the portion being the amount normally used in one assembly step (Example: one application of caulk adhesive applied to a panel prior to installation);

■ Digital settings or software that is loaded into a digital component by the operator at the job site (Example: identifying IP address of each airflow sensor in a smart house application); or

■ For products that are molded or formed onsite, the components will include any molds or mold forms that are assembled on site and then disassembled once construction is complete. (Example: forms required for a poured concrete foundation).

[0042] The analysis does not include as components the tools, equipment and fixtures used on site (with the exception of mold forms mentioned above). However, these items will have an impact on the selection of construction techniques and the associated component scoring for assembly and disassembly.

[0043] Maximizing the efficiency ratios will result in the following savings:

• Reduced assembly/disassembly labor costs

• Reduced assembly/disassembly cycle time

• Reduced overhead costs associated with construction on-site management

• Increased availability of components for reuse in additional buildings.

[0044] The invention methodology recognizes that total cost, which includes labor costs, is always a consideration in building construction. For that reason, the analysis may indicate that a particular component should be redesigned in a manner that may increase the component cost. However, the associated savings from the increased performance characteristics, reduced number of total components and reduced labor will more than offset the component cost increase. It is also understood that durability is a major factor for construction projects that will be assembled and disassembled numerous times. Therefore, the builder may select different design concepts or materials than those with optimal DFAD ratios due to these other considerations. However, whatever material or concept is selected, the assembly and disassembly efficiency can be determined with this methodology. [0045] Referring now to Fig. 2, a flow chart for determination of a Building Component Efficiency

(BCE) is illustrated according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

BCE and TMNC

[0046] BCE considers the total number of building components and whether that number is required for construction. In this analysis a critical metric is calculated which is the Theoretical Minimum Number of Components (TMNC). When the total number of components used in a construction project is reduced, there are reductions in the assembly and disassembly labor because of fewer components, there is a reduction in logistics overhead, there is scheduling simplification which leads to fewer schedule conflicts and delays, and there is a reduction in the amount of handling. Less handling saves labor costs and normally results in less breakage and defects.

[0047] The BCE ratio considers the number of functions that must be performed by the components which comprise the assembled building and the number of building component parts used. The BCE metric penalizes the assembly design for using multiple components to perform the same function. The goal is to maximize the BCE ratio.

[0048] The BCE can be calculated for an entire building or for a particular subassembly or portion of the building. It is normally easier to analyze the BCE at a subassembly level. A subassembly is usually a portion of the building such as the roof subassembly or the kitchen subassembly. The selection of the size of the subassembly and the portion of the building included in the subassembly analysis is made by the design agency when performing the analysis. The process for calculating TMNC and BCE is found in Figure 2.

[0049] The process flows as follows:

[0050] Step 1. Determine the scope of the building or building subassembly that will be analyzed. Determine the building, portion of a building, or major building subassembly that is to be analyzed. a) This is normally done based upon the building design and use, such as the roof assembly, the kitchen assembly, or the first-floor assembly. b) The building grid is of primary importance when making this decision. It is recommended to work with one layer of the grid at a time. c) This technique can also be used with small subassemblies for a construction project such as a wall panel. [0051] Step 2. Create the Bill of Material for the building or building subassembly. Create a Bill of Material that lists every component of the assembly or subassembly that is used to create that portion of the building at the construction site. a) If a subassembly is manufactured and assembled in an off-site facility and then transported to the construction site as a completed subassembly, it should be treated as a single component within the construction site subassembly. (Example: a building roof truss is built offsite and considered as one component in the construction assembly analysis) b) If the same component type is used multiple times within the assembly, each instance must be counted. (An assembly with 1,000 bricks needs to include the brick values 1,000 times to account for all instances.) c) If the component is a bulk building material that is "used as required," then the quantity should be the probable number of applications of that material within the building construction process. (Example: a brick normally requires three applications of mortar therefore the number of instances of mortar in the analysis is three times the number of bricks planned for use.)

[0052] Step 3. Analyze the value each component brings by being a unique component. a) Within the building or building construction site assembly, identify one component as the "base component." a. Theoretically the "base component" can be any component and the analysis should yield the same result. b. In practice, it is easier for most individuals to select a "base component" as a structural component located at the corner of the building grid. b) The "base component" is granted a "Yes" answer to all of the unique criteria questions. This is acknowledging that the overall system has unique value. All other components will be analyzed to determine if they provide additional unique value. c) For every component that directly touches the "base component" ask the questions: a. Is the component under consideration supposed to MOVE with respect to the Base Component once the building is erected? i. Example: door swings open and closed; moves relative to the door frame. b. Does the component under consideration need to be a different MATERIAL from the base component because of fundamental material properties that the component under consideration must have for safe and proper building performance? i. This requirement is that the materials of the mating component and component under consideration must be a different material. Even though the two components may be different materials, if both could be the same material, the answer to the question is, "No". ii. Examples: component provides a thermal barrier for insulation or the material must be transparent to allow light into a building space. c. Does the component under consideration need to be removed and replaced on a regular basis in order for the building users to provide regular SERVICE or maintenance to a system within the building? i. A specific service/maintenance operation can only be applied to one component - not multiple components. ii. Example: Agrill or grate must be removed to gain access to an airfilterthat requires regular replacement. d. Does the component under consideration serve as an intersection of building components or assemblies that are assembled along multiple independent PLANES within the building grid? i. A specific planar interface can only be applied to one component - not multiple components. ii. Example: A 90-degree joint that connects a floor sill to a wall assembly. e. Does the removal of the component under consideration UNLOCK the assembly so that some or all of the other remaining components can be removed without requiring any other disassembly step? i. Tools used in stacking, loading or transporting components once disassembled do not apply to this test. ii. Example: Removal of the keystone component of an arch assembly allows all remaining elements to be separated from the assembly with no additional disassembly actions. d) If the answer to any of the questions is "YES" then the component under consideration has unique design requirements and must be a unique component. It is designed and installed as a separate component from its mating component(s). a. The Base Component is given a "YES" score in all five categories. The assumption is that there is an overall requirement for the building. e) If the answer to all five questions is “NO" then the component under consideration is a Candidate for Combination (CFC). It should be redesigned so that its form and function are combined with a component to which it mates. a. This will normally require a redesign of both components in order to incorporate the functionality of both components into one. b. Many components interface with multiple components. The redesign to combine components may not be between the base component and the component under consideration but rather between the component under consideration and another component to which it mates but is not a candidate for combination.

[0053] Step 4. Continue the process until all components are analyzed. a) Once all the components that directly interface to the base component have been analyzed, then analyze the components that interface with the previous components under consideration using the same five questions. a. When analyzing the second tier of components, the mating component is not the base component, rather it is the component that is connected to the base component. b. Example: i. Base component is a door frame and the mating component is a door. ii. The door is the new base and a door hand interfaces with the door. ill.. iv. Therefore, the door handle is analyzed with respect to the door, and in that case the answer for motion is "NO;" the handle does not move with respect to the door. b) Continue this process of considering components with respect to the component to which they mate until all components on the Bill of Materials have been analyzed.

[0054] Step 5. Calculate the Theoretical Minimum Number of Components (TMNC). Once all components within an assembly have been evaluated for component functional design, a TMNC for the building or subassembly can be calculated. a) Determine the number of all components in a building or subassembly - this is the Total Count a. This includes hardware (nails, screws, bolts) used to connect the components; but does not include any tools used in the assembly process. b. When the same component type is used multiple times, the count needs to include all instances. b) Sum the number of components that received at least one "YES" answer - this is the Theoretical Minimum Number of Components (TMNC) a. A component type may be used multiple times. The "Yes/No" answer is based upon how each instance it is used in construction. The same type of component could be found in both the lists of TMNC and CFC i. Example: A bolt type may be used 10 times in an assembly. One instance may be to unlock the assembly. One instance may be to allow a service to occur. One instance may be used to provide an electrical ground path through what is otherwise electrical insulating material. If the answers for the others are all "NO" then three of bolts are included in the TMNC and seven are CFCs. b. The total component count for the building or subassembly should be the sum of the CFC and TMNC. If the sum does not match the total building count then an error has been made in the calculation. c. The TMNC is based upon the design or construction concept that is being used. Different concepts will have different TMNCs. i. Design optimization can occur if one component can be designed to meet multiple "Yes" answers versus needing multiple components to achieve the same number of "Yes" answers required by the design goals of the building. d. Concept efficiency can be analyzed by determining the TMNC for each concept. The lowest value is the most efficient building concept from a component perspective.

[0055] Step 6. Calculate the Building Component Efficiency (BCE). Once all components within an assembly have been evaluated for component functional design, a BCE for the building or subassembly can be calculated a) The BCE is the ratio of the TMNC/Total Count expressed as a percentage. a. The BCE indicates the efficiency of the design concept that has been selected. The TMNC indicates which design concept has the opportunity to be most efficient. b. The BCE ratio should be maximized for best efficiency. c. The highest possible score is 100%. Any design that achieves a score above 50% is considered a very efficient design.

[0056] The BCE value is an upper limit to the additional analyses of BAE and BDE. A low BCE will result in low BAE and BDE values for a building or subassembly.

[0057] Referring now to Fig. 3, a flow chart for determination of a Building Assembly Efficiency

(BAE) is illustrated according to a preferred embodiment of the invention. BAE

[0058] BAE considers the ease with which the components of a building assembly can be connected. This includes the handling of the component, the placement of the component and the permanent or semi-permanent connection of that component to the other components in the assembly. The goal is two-fold. First is to minimize the amount of labor effort and time associated with the onsite assembly of a building. Second, reduce the likelihood of an error or defect in the assembly process. A high level of BAE is associated with a low level of construction labor, a low overhead to support that labor, and high quality of the assembly.

[0059] The BAE analysis requires that an assembly process has been proposed for all components. Specific assembly work instructions are not necessary, but the general process must be clear so that the appropriate analysis decisions can be made (Is it nailed, screwed, bonded, or snapped together?). The analysis is done by estimating component assembly values for each component in the assembly. These values are combined for a given assembly and then incorporated into a formula using the TMNC for that assembly. The result is an assembly efficiency score. For this reason, the BCE ratio is always calculated first. The BAE analysis requires the use of the TMNC, which is calculated for a given building or subassembly as part of the BCE portion of the methodology. Because the TMNC is being used, the construction components, or Bill of Materials, contained in the BAE analysis must be identical to those used in the BCE analysis. The process for calculating BAE is found in Figure 3.

[0060] Step 1. Determine the scope of the building or building subassembly that will be analyzed. This is the same process as was described for the BCE calculation and completing the step once can apply to all calculations.

[0061] Step 2. Create the Bill of Material for the building or building subassembly. This is the same process as was described for the BCE calculation and completing the step once can apply to all calculations.

[0062] Step 3. Establish the Component Handling Value. The Component Handling Value is based upon attributes of the component that affect the ease with which an operator can work with the component. These attributes are overall size, weight, and special component attributes that complicate handling. The Component Handling Value is the sum of the three factors.

[0063] Size factor: There is an optimal size for handling. When components become too large, they are difficult to handle and when too small they are difficult to handle on a construction site. Size is determined by both the total volume and the longest component dimension. Some building components are bulk material. A portion of the bulk is used by the operator when doing the building assembly operation. In that case, the size value for a component is determined when the component is in a condition that is ready to install in the assembly. For bulk components, that is the size used by the operator. For instance, when laying bricks, the size of the mortar component is the amount of mortar the operator places on their trowel. Whether working with stand-alone components or a portion of a bulk component, select the smallest size factor for which the component qualifies. If the component is digital (software or settings) use the size of the digital interface (keypad or screen) when selecting the size value. Select one of these values: a. 1 = Optimal size i. Minimum volume = 40 cm³ (golf ball) ii. Maximum volume = 50,000 cm³ (basketball) ill. Maximum dimension in any one axis = 1 meter b. 2 = Small i. Minimum volume = 15 cm³ (marble) c. 2 = Large i. Maximum volume = 1 m³ or ii. Maximum dimension in any one axis = 3 meters d. 3 = Very small i. Volume < 15 cm³ (marble) e. 3 = Very large i.Volume > 1 m³ or ii. Dimension in any one axis > 3 meters

[0064] Weight factor: The lower the weight the easier the component is to handle. When the weight is low, there is no additional impact on the initial component value. As the weight increases, the operator will require two hands to handle the weight and eventually may even require assistance from another operator or mechanical assistance to handle the weight. As with size, if the component is a bulk material, use the weight for a normal portion of the bulk material used by the operator. Select one of these values. f. 0 = Light weight, < 5 kg (11 lbs.) g. 1 = Moderate weight, component weight > 5 kg (11 lbs.) and < 20 kg (44 lbs.) i. At this weight, the operator will often require two hands to lift or manipulate the component h. 2 = Heavy weight, component weight >20 kg, (44 lbs.) and < 35kg (77 lbs.) i. At this weight the operator will normally need a second person to assist in lifting or manipulating the component or they will use some type of mechanical assistance i. 3 = Excessive weight, component weight > 35 kg (77 lbs.) i. At this weight the operator will require multiple people to work with the component or the operator will need to use a hoist, forklift, or some other lifting device to work with the component. The complexity and overhead associated with the component has significantly reduced its assembly efficiency.

[0065] Special handling factor: The special handling conditions create complications for handling the component. These normally require extra caution or in some cases personal protection apparel or equipment in order to work with the component on a construction site. A component may not have any special handling conditions or it may have several conditions. Many of these conditions can be subjective (sticky, slippery, fragile), the guidance for when to apply these is whether they require extra precautions on a construction site. The special handling factor value for a component is the sum of all applicable special handling condition values for that component. Select all of these values that apply to a given component. j. 0 = no special handling conditions k. +1 = sticky - the component has an exposed adhesive on one or more surfaces l. +1 = slippery - the component surfaces are slippery or slick, requiring extra caution so that the component is not dropped or positioned incorrectly m. +1 = sharp edges or points - the component has sharp edges or points that could cut or injure an operator, this will normally require gloves or other personal protection gear, if the component has multiple sharp edges or points, this factor can be increased by the number of edges that create concern. n. +2 = fragile - the component can be easily broken, scratched or damaged in a manner that makes it unacceptable for use in the building; this requires special protection during handling o. +2 = nest or tangle - the component has features that tangle with other components, or the component can nest inside other components. In either case, the component must be carefully separated from other components to ensure that only one has been selected. p. +2 = removal of protective coating - the component requires the removal of a protective coating on one or more surfaces before it can be placed into the assembly. This score could be included for each surface that has a protective coating that must be removed. This protective coating would include stripping insulation from wires before installation. q. +2 = application of coating - in order for the component to be placed into the assembly, it must have a coating, lubricant, or bonding material applied on itself or on another component in the assembly to which it mates. This score should be included for each location where the applicator is used on one of the assembly components. r. +3 = seal protection - the component has a waterproof or vapor seal that must be protected while handling and installing. Damage to the seal either requires a repair or the component must be disposed of as unusable. s. +5 = toxic - the component has toxic characteristics that require the use of personal protective gear or other special handling processes so as to prevent the operators actually contacting the component t. +3 = Hand-tool mechanical assistance required -the nature of the component (size, shape, weight, viscosity, rigidity) are such that the operator(s) must use special fixtures or hand tools in order to manipulate the component. The tooling could be custom built jigs and fixtures or it could be hand tools such as trowels, pliers, tweezers, or clamps. u. +5 = Mechanized mechanical assistance required - the nature of the component (size, shape, weight, viscosity, rigidity) are such that the operator(s) must use equipment to manipulate the component. This equipment could be pumps, cranes, fork-lifts, hoists, or other mechanized equipment.

[0066] Add the size factor, weight factor, and values for all applicable special handling conditions to determine the Component Handling Value.

[0067] Step 4. Determine the Component Orientation Value. The Component Orientation Value is a measure of the ease of orienting the component for proper placement within the assembly. There are two elements to this value, the axial symmetry of the component and the existence of a primary axis for the component. These two factors are multiplied to determine the Component Orientation Value.

[0068] Axial symmetry: Axial symmetry refers to the ability of the operator to visually determine if the component is properly oriented. Axial symmetry value is selected by considering the three primary axes for the component and determining if the component is symmetrical about each axis. Essentially it is determining if top and bottom are the same, left and right are the same and front and back are the same. When considering symmetry, it is functional symmetry that matters. An asymmetry that does not affect functionality or fit, is not used for this analysis. For instance, if a timber has a knot visible on one side but not the other and the knot did not impact the structural capability of the timber, it would be considered symmetrical. Select one of these values: a. 1 = symmetrical about all three axes (Example: brick) b. 1.1 = symmetrical about two of the three axes (Example: nail) c. 1.3 = symmetrical about one of the three axes (Example: shelf bracket) d. 1.5 = asymmetrical about all three axes

[0069] Primary axis of orientation: One of the three component axes is considered the primary axis for insertion orientation purposes. In other words, when placing the component in the assembly, the orientation axis determines proper placement. (Example, a brick is symmetrical about all three axes, but has a primary axis of orientation when placed in a brick wall.) a. 1 = no primary axis of orientation b. 1.1 = placement requires the primary axis of orientation

[0070] Multiply the axial symmetry value times the primary axis of orientation value to determine the Component Orientation Value.

[0071] Step 5. Determine the Component Placement Value. The Component Placement Value is a measure of the ease of placing the component under consideration at the precisely proper position within the assembly. The placement of a part is associated with its mating component, as discussed in the BCE analysis. It considers factors that make it easy to place the component under consideration in the precise location where it belongs. This analysis is based upon the typical conditions found at a construction site. There are a number of factors that are considered. The Component Placement Value is the sum of all applicable factors. Some of the factors are negative values, however, if the sum of the Component Placement Values is a negative number, it will revert to zero. a. +1 = Base Component - the base component for an assembly will always have a component placement value of one. The other factors considered in this section do not apply to the base part since it is not being placed but rather the other components under consideration are being connected to their respective base component. If the assembly is a subassembly that will be installed in the final building, the building level analysis will consider the subassembly as if it were a component at that level and the placement of the subassembly will be evaluated in the full building analysis. b. +3 = Normal Component Placement - all components, except the base component, will start with a score of three. This score represents the effort required to position the component correctly within the assembly. That score will be increased or decreased based upon the ease of placement. c. -1 = Self-aligning - this reduction in the score occurs if either mating component design includes lips, chamfers, or other mechanical features to guide a component into position. d. -1 = Keyed alignment - this reduction in the score occurs if the component under consideration was asymmetrical about the primary axis of insertion. The score is included if the mating part has a feature that aligns the component under consideration so that the asymmetry is correctly aligned as the component is placed in position. e. +1 = resistance to insertion - this addition to the score occurs if the placement of the component under consideration requires force to insert it into the proper position. This value is applicable to minor force applied by hand. If a greater force requiring some type of hand tool (e.g., hammer) is required, the value for "placement tooling required" should be selected. f. +1 per bend = positioning of flexible component - this addition to the score is associated with components that can flex or bend, (such as electrical wiring) and therefore must be shaped at the time of placement. For instance, point-to-point wiring is in this category. g. +2 = blind mate/blind fit - this addition to the score occurs if the operator cannot directly see that the component under consideration has been properly placed. The operator must rely upon a tactile or audible signal that the placement is correct. h. +2 = magnification/lighting - this addition to the score occurs if the operator must rely on using special magnification or special lighting instruments when placing the component under consideration to ensure proper placement. i. +2 = placement tooling required - this addition to the score occurs when the operator must use tooling in order to properly place the component under consideration. This tooling may be used on the component under consideration or it may be used on the mating part or other assembly parts in order to gain access to the correct position for placement of the component under consideration.

[0072] Sum all of the applicable factors to determine the Component Placement Value. If a component has multiple occurrences of a particular factor, include a value for each occurrence. For instance, if two tools are required during component placement, double the value used for "placement tooling required."

[0073] Step 6. Determine the Component Connection Value. The Component Connection Value is a measure of the effort required to connect components together in the onsite building construction process. The Connection Value is based upon the connection process being done in a manual manner, although it accounts for the availability of powered hand tools such as electric screwdrivers and nail guns. It has a value for all normally used connection processes that exist on construction sites. The Connection Values are associated with each part that is being connected. The connection normally occurs after the part has been correctly positioned in the assembly. In most cases, only one connection value will be selected for a component, however, it is possible that some components may have multiple connection actions. When that occurs, the Component Connection Value should be the sum of all applicable process scores. a. 1 = Snap Fit, no deformation or relocation - this value is selected if the placement of the component results in a snap or click connection that secures the component. In most cases, when this Component Connection Score is selected, "Resistance to Insertion" was selected as one of the factors in the Component Placement Value. b. +2 = Snap Fit, minor deformation or relocation - This value is selected if following the placement of the component, a minor deformation or relocation of either the component under consideration or the mating part occurs in order to secure the component. An example could be to slide a cover over the component which prevents it from disengaging from the mating component. This operation may involve the use of a hand tool such as pliers or screwdriver. c. -1 = Lock in place - This value is selected when the component under consideration will lock or hold other components in their correct position once this component's connection is complete. These other components would otherwise move about without the locking component holding them in place. d. +3 = Hold in Place for further operation - This value is selected if the component must be manually held or clamped in place until either a further securing operation occurs or until an additional component is added to the assembly which serves to lock the first component under consideration in the correct position within the assembly. This "hold" operation may be only a temporary hold for several seconds until the next component is placed or a securing operation is performed. Or this "hold" operation may last for several days until the final securing operation is completed. When it is a long-term "hold," it is normally accomplished with clamps or some other mechanical device. e. +3 = Bending - This value is selected if a portion of the component under consideration or the mating part must be bent or deformed in order to secure the component under consideration. This often takes the form of bending tabs down to secure the component. If bending is required, the score is applied for every feature that must be bent. (Example: if three tabs must be bent to hold a component in place then the total score for bending would be nine.) This bending operation is for a manual bend of the component feature. If a tool is required, then a "Nailing/hammering" value should be selected. f. +3 = Screwing using semi-automated equipment - This value is selected if the component under consideration or the mating component must be screwed into place to secure the component under consideration. The score is used when the process involves the use of an electric screwdriver or a torque gun. If a nut and bolt are involved, the screwing operation is only applied to one of the components, the other often requires a "Hold in place" score while the screwing operation is underway. g. +3 = Nailing/hammering using semi-automated equipment - This value is selected if the component under consideration is secured either by nailing or pounding on the component (such as a roll pin) until it is properly secured in place. This value is appropriate when a pneumatic hammer or nail gun is used. h. +4 = Screwing using manual screwdriver - This value is selected if the component under consideration or the mating component must be screwed into place to secure the component under consideration. The score is applied when a manual screwdriver is used. If a nut and bolt are involved, the screwing operation is only applied to one of the components, the other often requires a "Hold in place" score while the screwing operation is underway. i. +4 = Nailing/hammering using manual hand tool - This value is selected if the component under consideration is secured either by nailing it or pounding on the component (such as a roll pin) until it is in the correct secured position. The value is appropriate when a manual hammer is used. j. +6 = Bonding/Curing - This value is selected if the component under consideration is secured within the assembly through a bonding process or curing process. In most cases, when this securing method is selected then an "Application of Coating" will have been selected as part of Component Handling Value. The score is based upon ensuring that there are no bubbles or contamination on the bonding surface and protecting the connection until the bond is set. This operation may also require a "Hold in Place" action until the bond is set. k. +6 = Mold assembly/disassembly - This value is selected if the component under consideration has a mold or form component used to create the shape for a bulk material that cures to a rigid state. Once the bulk material component is cured, the mold or form is removed for reuse on other projects. If the mold or form is not removed, but becomes part of the building, then a different component connection value should be selected based upon how the mold or frame interfaces within the assembly. l. +6 = Riveting - This value is selected if the connection process is riveting. This score is applied once for each planned rivet. A "Hold in Place" score is often necessary when this is the securing method selected. m. +8 = Soldering - This value is selected if the connecting process is soldering. This score applies both to soldering of electrical connections and soldering pipes in plumbing connections. Since this is occurring at a construction site, the assumption is that the soldering operation is being done manually. The score is applied once for each soldering connection made. For example, if a component requires soldering at three points to be fully connected, then the total soldering score is 24. n. +12 = Welding - This value is selected if the connecting process is welding. The same score is used regardless of the materials being welded. Since this is occurring at a construction site, the assumption is that the welding operation is being done manually. The score is applied for each welding bead or tack that is required to secure the component under consideration. For example, if the component required four tack welds, then the total welding score would be 48.

[0074] Step 7. Continue the process until all components are analyzed. a. Once all the components that directly connect to the base component have been analyzed, then analyze the components that connect with the previous components under consideration using the same criteria for Handling, Orientation, Positioning, and Connection. b. Continue this process of considering components with respect to the component to which they mate until all components on the Bill of Materials have been analyzed.

[0075] Step 8. Calculate the Building Assembly Efficiency. Once steps 1 through 7 have been completed for all components in the assembly, the BAE ratio can be calculated. a. For each component multiply the Component Handling Value times the Component Orientation Value. b. Next add the Component Placement Value and the Component Connecting Value to the product that was just calculated. c. This sum is the Component Assembly Efficiency Score for that component. d. Add all the Component Assembly Efficiency Scores for the assembly to determine the Total Assembly Efficiency Score. If an assembly has a particular component that is used multiple times, ensure that you have included scores for all of the components in the assembly. e. Retrieve the Theoretical Minimum Number of Components (TMNC) for this assembly from the BCE calculation. f. Multiply the TMNC by 3 and divide that product by the Total Assembly Efficiency Score value.

[0076] The BAE is the resulting ratio expressed as a percentage.

[0077] Referring now to Fig. 4, a flow chart for determination of a Building Disassembly Efficiency (BDE) is illustrated according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0078] Building Disassembly Efficiency (BDE) considers the ease with which the components of a building can be disconnected, separated, inspected and inserted back into the supply chain for use in another construction project. This includes the handling of the component, the disconnection of that component from the other components in the building or assembly, and the likely damage or degradation of that component due to the disassembly process. The goal is two-fold. First is to minimize the amount of labor effort and time associated with the onsite disassembly of a building. Second, reduce the likelihood of damage or defect occurring in the component during the disassembly process. A high level of BDE is associated with a low level of disassembly construction labor, a low overhead to support that labor, and high quality of the recovered components.

[0079] The BDE analysis requires that a disassembly process has been proposed for all components. Specific disassembly work instructions are not necessary, but the general process must be clear so that the appropriate analysis decisions can be made (Is it unlocked, unscrewed, pried apart with hand tools, broken into pieces with manual or semi-automated tools?). The analysis is done by estimating component disassembly complexity and degradation values for each component in the building or assembly. These values are combined for a given assembly and then incorporated into a formula using the TMNC for that assembly. The result is a disassembly efficiency score. The analysis requires the use of the TMNC, which is calculated for a given building or subassembly as part of the BCE portion of the analysis. Because the TMNC is being used, the construction components contained in the BDE analysis must be identical to those used in the BCE analysis.

[0080] This analysis of disassembly efficiency is being done at the time of building design. The actual disassembly may not occur until many years in the future. It is impossible to predict what type of tooling, automation, or other environmental factors may be of concern then. Therefore, for this analysis, we use the present methods of disassembly that are available. The BDE value is therefore an estimate of future impact, it is not an estimate of current project cost or timing. However, it is a means to estimate the effort and environmental liability created by the building design. Figure 4 show the process flow for calculating the BDE. [0081] Step 1. Determine the scope of the building or building subassembly that will be analyzed. This is the same process as was described for the BCE calculation and completing the step once can apply to all calculations.

[0082] Step 2. Create the Bill of Material for the building or building subassembly. This is the same process as was described for the BCE calculation and completing the step once can apply to all calculations.

[0083] Step 3. Determine the Component Disconnection Value. The Component Disconnection Value is a measure of the effort required to disconnect and separate the component from other components within the building or subassembly. The Disconnection Value is based upon the disconnection process. It is normally done in a manual manner with hand tools, although it accounts for the availability of hand-held powered tools such as a Sawzall, chipping hammer or jackhammer. It has a value for all normally used disconnection processes that exist on construction sites as part of a demolition or refurbishment project. The Disconnection Values are associated with each part that is being disconnected. The disconnection normally occurs after the component has been made accessible to the operator by the removal of other components. Unlike the BCE and BAE analysis, there is no need to establish one component as a base component. The "base component" is the building or assembly that is to be disassembled. The disconnection assessment will be with respect to disconnecting the component from others in the building or assembly. Some disconnects may require multiple operations. In that case, select all that apply and add them for the Component Disconnect Value. a. +1 = Slide or lift apart- Component slides or lifts away from the assembly; no mechanical force or tool is required for component to move apart. b. +2 = Snap apart (some resistance but no plastic deformation) - Component separate from the assembly by pulling apart with normal hand force; no component deformation is required; no tooling or mechanical assistance is required c. +2 = Unlock feature is moved using hand force - Component has an "unlock" feature whose movement releases the component from the assembly; unlock feature requires hand forces to move or release d. +3 = Bend or twist by hand in order to separate or unlock (plastic deformation) - component is released from the assembly by deforming it in some fashion such as bending or twisting using hand forces; once removed, component can be bent back into shape that is similar to original form e. +4 = Use of tools to bend, twist, or deform the component - component is released with the aid of a tool (pliers, pry bar, hammer, mallet) in order to separate or unlock it f. +4 = Unscrew/Unbolt - component is bolt or screw hardware that must be removed to release additional components; unscrewing and unbolting normally required the use of hand tools. If a nut and bolt are involved apply this score to only one of the components, the other is likely to be scored as "slide or lift apart." g. +6 = Pry apart - Use of hand tools to destroy some aspect of the component's structural integrity or that of the remaining assembly components. This normally causes significant damage to one or more components h. +8 = Use of cutting equipment to separate components - cutting tools, normally mechanized cutting tools, are used to divide the component into multiple sub-components for removal; this normally destroys the structural integrity of the component but the small pieces may be reusable. i. +8 = Use hand tools to destroy component - through the use of hand tools such as sledge hammer, the component is destroyed. There is no reusable portion of the item. While the destruction is often fast, there is normally a need for protective gear and extensive cleanup. j. +12 = Use equipment to destroy component - through the use of electro-mechanical tools, the components integrity is destroyed and the small pieces removed from the assembly. While the destruction is often fast, there is normally the need for protective gear and extensive cleanup.

[0084] Select the appropriate category. In some cases, a component may require multiple actions. When that happens, select all that apply and add them together. The final result is the Component Disconnect Value.

[0085] Step 4. Establish the Disconnected Component Handling Value. The Disconnected Component Handling Value is based upon attributes of the component that affect the ease with which an operator can work with the component. These attributes are overall size, weight, and special component attributes that complicate handling. In some cases, the original component is modified to become multiple smaller components. When that happens, the Component Handline Value is the sum of the values for all the smaller components which originally comprised the component under consideration. (Example, if the disconnect process broke a component into two parts, the handling value is the sum of the handling values for each of those parts.) The Component Handling Value for any component or sub-component is the sum of the three factors. a) Size Factor: There is an optimal size for handling. When components become too large, they are difficult to handle and when too small they are difficult to handle. Size is determined by both the total volume and the longest component dimension. Some building components are bulk material. When disassembly occurs, the bulk material is often separated into small portions. Whether working with stand-alone components or a portion of a bulk component, select the smallest size factor for which the component qualifies. If the component is digital (software or settings) use the size of the digital interface when selecting the size value. Select one of these values: a. 1 = Optimal size i. Minimum volume = 40 cm³ (golf ball) ii. Maximum volume = 50,000 cm³ (basketball) ill. Maximum dimension in any one axis = 1 meter b. 2 = Small i. Minimum volume = 15 cm³(marble) c. 2 = Large i. Maximum volume = 1 m³ or ii. Maximum dimension in any one axis = 3 meters d. 3 = Very small i. Volume < 15 cm³ (marble) ii. With very small particle sized components (demolition dust) there may not be any need to recover the component. If that is the case, do not include the very small components (essentially dust) in the analysis e. 3 = Very large i. Volume > 1 m³ or ii. Dimension in any one axis > 3 meters b) Weight Factor: The lower the weight the easier the component is to handle. When the weight is low, there is no additional impact on the initial component value. As the weight increases, the operator will require two hands to handle the weight and eventually may even require assistance from another operator or mechanical assistance to handle the weight. As with size, if the component is a bulk material, use the weight for a normal portion of the bulk material following disconnection from the assembly. Select one of these values. a. 0 = Light weight, < 5 kg (11 lbs.) b. 1 = Moderate weight, component weight > 5 kg (11 lbs.) and < 20 kg (44 lbs.) i. At this weight, the operator will often require two hands to lift or manipulate the component c. 2 = Heavy weight, component weight >20 kg, (44 lbs.) and < 35 kg (77 lbs.) i. At this weight the operator will normally need a second person to assist in lifting or manipulating the component d. 3 = Excessive weight, component weight > 35 kg (77 lbs.) i. At this weight the operator will require multiple people to work with the component of the operator will need to use a hoist, forklift, or some other lifting device to work with the component. The complexity and overhead associated with the component have significantly reduced its disassembly efficiency. c) Special Handling Factor: The special handling conditions create complications for handling the component. These normally require extra caution or in some cases personal protection apparel or equipment in order to work with the component on a disassembly site. A component may not have any special handling conditions or it may have several conditions. Many of these conditions can be subjective (sticky, slippery, fragile), the guidance for when to apply these is whether they require extra precautions on a disassembly site. The special handling factor value is the sum of all applicable special handling condition values. Select all of these values that apply. a. 0 = no special handling conditions b. +1 = sticky - the component has an exposed adhesive or active bonding agent on one or more surfaces c. +1 = slippery - the component surfaces are slippery or slick, requiring extra caution so that the component is not dropped or damaged d. +1 = sharp edges or points - the component has sharp edges or points that could cut or injure an operator, this will normally require gloves or other personal protection gear, if the component has multiple sharp edges or points, this factor can be doubled. e. +2 = fragile - the component can be easily broken, scratched or damaged in a manner that makes it unacceptable for use in another building; this requires special protection during handling f. +2 = nest or tangle - the component has features that tangle with other components, or the component can nest inside other components. In either case, the component must be carefully separated from other components to ensure that only one has been selected. g. +2 = application of protective coating - the component requires a protective coating or cover on one or more surfaces before it can be transported to another location. h. +3 = seal protection - the component has a waterproof or vapor seal that must be protected while handling. Damage to the seal either requires a repair or the component must be disposed of as unusable. i. +5 = toxic - the component has toxic characteristics that require the use of personal protective gear or other special handling processes so as to prevent the operators actually contacting the component j. +3 = Hand-tool mechanical assistance required - the nature of the component (size, shape, weight, viscosity, rigidity) are such that the operator(s) must use special fixtures or hand tools in order to manipulate the component. The tooling could be custom built jigs and fixtures or it could be hand tools such as shovels, rakes, or wheelbarrows. k. +5 = Mechanized mechanical assistance required - the nature of the component (size, shape, weight, viscosity, rigidity) are such that the operator(s) must use equipment to manipulate the component. This equipment could be pumps, cranes, fork-lifts, hoists, or other mechanized equipment. d) Add the size factor, weight factor, and values for all special handling conditions of each subcomponent to determine the Component Handling Value.

[0086] Step 5. Determine the Component Degradation Value. The Component Degradation Value is associated with the impact of the disassembly process on the component or portions of the component under consideration. This analysis does not include effects for aging, exposure to the elements while assembled in the building, or normal wear and tear on the component while it was in the building. It does include the degradation impact to the component that would be associated with both its initial installation into the building assembly and the disassembly of the component from the building assembly. The degradation score is based upon the component being fit for its original use. A degraded component may be ideally suited for another application, but this analysis considers whether it is still suited for its original application. The Component Degradation Value is the sum of all applicable factor scores for the component and any subcomponents into which it may have been divided. a. +1 = No degradation - the size, shape, appearance and performance are unchanged; the disassembly process left the component in a "good as new" condition b. +2 = Minor appearance flaws - Size and shape are unchanged, minor appearance flaws exist, but no degradation in performance; component is "scuffed" or residue of coatings and appearance features are visible such as paint c. +3 = Size or shape is modified - Size or shape of the component is changed but all appearance and performance criteria are unchanged; this is normally done to remove a portion of the component that was damaged by the assembly or disassembly process; the component may be eligible to be "trimmed" and the remaining portion is fully functional; for this rating, the modification is done by hand by the operator. If the modification requires tools (saw, chisel) the onsite repair option should be selected. d. +3 = 10% performance degradation - Size, shape, and appearance of the component is unchanged, however performance is degraded by 10% or less; disassembly process is likely to create some minor permanent damage to the component that creates minor limits on its use and performance. e. +3 = Component requires "cleaning" - either physical or electronic cleaning is required to restore the component to its original capabilities when it can be reused with same size, shape, appearance and performance characteristics as the original component f. +4 = Fit for a different function - Component is no longer fit for original use, but is capable of fulfilling a different function in its current state g. +6 = 25% performance degradation - Size, shape, and appearance of the component is unchanged; however, the performance is degraded by 10% - 25%; disassembly process is likely to create permanent damage; the component is only fit for limited use h. +6 = Onsite repair/refurbish required - Structural integrity is damaged but can be easily repaired at the construction site; repair may be to remove the damaged portion in which case the remaining portion would now have a smaller size or different shape. i. +8 = Onsite re-purpose modifications - Component is no longer fit for original use, but can be made suitable for an alternative construction use through tools and equipment available at the construction site j. +10 = Factory repair - component must be returned to factory for repair or refurbishment before a reuse k. +12 = 50% performance degradation - Size, shape, and appearance of the component is unchanged; however, the performance is degraded by 25% - 50%; disassembly process is likely to create permanent damage; the component is only fit for limited use l. +12 = Recycle for bulk material - Structural integrity is destroyed and component is unusable in current form but can be recycled m. +20 = Disposal required - Component cannot be used, refurbished or recycled. It must be destroyed.

[0087] Step 6. Continue the process until all components are analyzed. [0088] Step 7. Calculate the Building Disassembly Efficiency. Once steps 1 through 6 have been completed for all components in the assembly, the BDE ratio can be calculated. a. For each component add the Component Disassembly Value, the Disconnected Component Handling Value and the Component Degradation Value to determine the Component Disassembly Efficiency Score for that component. b. Add all the Component Disassembly Efficiency Scores for the assembly to determine the Total Disassembly Efficiency Score. If an assembly has a particular component that is removed multiple times, ensure that you have included scores for all of the components in the assembly. c. Retrieve the Theoretical Minimum Number of Components (TMNC) for this assembly from the BCE calculation. d. Multiply the TMNC by 3 and divide that product by the Total Disassembly Efficiency Score value. e. The BDE is the resulting ratio expressed as a percentage.

Design for Assembly and Disassembly Optimization

[0089] The three efficiency ratios, BCE, BAE, and BDE and the related TMNC comprise a systems view of the onsite construction with respect to labor required and overhead to manage the complexity. In the case of the three efficiency ratios the goal is to have a high efficiency ratio. The TMMC represents the building functions and complexity. A small TMNC represents a simple building or very efficient use of components and would be faster and less expensive. However, the TMNC is in the numerator of all three ratios. So, a low TMNC would have a tendency to reduce the efficiency ratios instead of increasing them.

[0090] The dominant term in the analysis is the Theoretical Minimum Number of Components (TMNC). It is the only term found in all three ratios. A high TMNC is an indication of high building functionality, which typically means high building complexity. High levels of complexity have a tendency to drive up the Total Assembly Score and the Total Disassembly Score. These are the values in the denominator of the BAE and BDE respectively. When they are high, they tend to drive down the efficiency ratios.

[0091] A suggested optimization approach is to first use the BCE to identify the TMNC and CFC components. Redesign the building to minimize the CFC components. Each CFC that is eliminated will eliminate the corresponding score for that component found in the Total Assembly Score and Total Disassembly Score. This will improve the BAE and BDE ratios. Next consider the connection techniques used for assembly and their impact these techniques have on disassembly. Revise the connection techniques where possible to use ones with a lower factor score. Iterate on this process until a desired level of performance is achieved.

[0092] In order to simplify and accelerate the analysis process, a spreadsheet tool has been developed that automates the calculations for a building or building subassembly. The Bill of Material for the building or building subassembly is entered into the left column and the quantity of each of those items used in the building or building subassembly is entered into the next column. The analysis team then considers each component and selects the appropriate category for that component with respect to the scoring criteria described herein. The spreadsheet calculates the TMNC, BCE, BAE, and BDE for the building and the building component.

[0093] Fig. 5 illustrates a first portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component efficiency according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0094] Fig. 6 is a second portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component handling score according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0095] Fig. 7 is a third portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component orientation and component placement scores according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0096] Fig. 8 is a fourth portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component connection score according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0097] Fig. 9 is a fifth portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component disconnection score according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0098] Fig. 10 is a sixth portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component disconnection handling score according to a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0099] Fig. 11 is a seventh portion of a spreadsheet for user input so as to allow the invention to determine a building component degradation score according to a preferred embodiment of the invention. [0100] The invention has been described with reference to the preferred embodiments without limit thereto. Additional embodiments and improvements may be realized which are not specifically set forth herein but which are within the scope of the invention as more specifically set forth in the claims appended hereto

Claims

1. A method of determining an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: receiving a bill of materials for a structure; determining the assembly process for each of a multiplicity of components to be used in said structure; calculating a component assembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; determining whether any one or more of said multiplicity of components is a candidate for combination with another of said multiplicity of components; calculating the theoretical minimum number of components comprising said multiplicity of components; determining a disassembly process for each of said multiplicity of components; calculating a component disassembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; calculating a building assembly efficiency ratio; calculating a building component efficiency ratio; calculating a building disassembly efficiency ratio; wherein determining an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of said structure using said theoretical minimum number of components, said component assembly efficiency score, said building assembly efficiency ratio, component disassembly efficiency score, building disassembly efficiency ratio, and said building component efficiency ratio.

2. A method of determining a building component efficiency for use in assembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: determining the scope of the structure; creating a bill of materials for said structure; analyzing a multiplicity of components, whereby each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed for motion, material, service, planes and ability to unlock; calculating a theoretical minimum number of components necessary for comprising said multiplicity of components; and calculating a building component efficiency ratio for said structure.

3. A method of determining a building assembly efficiency for use in assembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: determining the scope of the structure; creating a bill of materials for said structure; establishing a component handling value for each of a multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component handling value; establishing a component orientation value for each of said multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by biaxial symmetry and primary axis to determine said component orientation value; establishing a component placement value; establishing a component connection value; calculating a building assembly efficiency ratio with said component handling value, component orientation value, component placement value, and component connection value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

4. A method of determining a building disassembly efficiency for use in disassembly of a structure, comprising the steps of: determining the scope of the structure; creating a bill of materials for said structure; establishing a component handling value for each of a multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component handling value establishing a component disconnection value for each of a multiplicity of components; establishing a component disconnection handling value for each of a multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component disconnection handling value; establishing a component degradation value for each of said multiplicity of components; calculating a building disassembly efficiency ratio with said component disconnection value, component disconnection handling value, and component degradation value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

5. A non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with a bill of materials for a structure for use in determining the assembly process for each of a multiplicity of components to be used in said structure; the data further comprising information used to calculate a component assembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to determine whether any one or more of said multiplicity of components is a candidate for combination with another of said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to calculate the theoretical minimum number of components comprising said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to determine a disassembly process for each of said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to calculate a component disassembly efficiency score for said multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to calculate a building assembly efficiency; the data further comprising information used to calculate a building component efficiency; the data further comprising information used to calculate a building disassembly efficiency; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to determine an optimal design for assembly and disassembly of said structure using said theoretical minimum number of components, said component assembly efficiency score, said building assembly efficiency, said component disassembly efficiency score, said building disassembly efficiency, and said building component efficiency.

6. A non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with the scope of said structure and a bill of materials for said structure; the data further comprising information used to analyze a multiplicity of components, whereby each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed for motion, material, service, planes and ability to unlock; - the data further comprising information used to calculate a theoretical minimum number of components necessary for comprising said multiplicity of components; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to calculate a building component efficiency score for said structure.

7. A non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with the scope of said structure and a bill of materials for said structure; the data further comprising information used to establish a component handling value for each of a multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component handling value;

- the data further comprising information used to establish a component orientation value for each of said multiplicity of components, wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by biaxial symmetry and primary axis to determine said component orientation value; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component placement value; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component connection value; and wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to calculate a building assembly efficiency with said component handling value, component orientation value, component placement value, and component connection value established for each of said multiplicity of components.

8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with a structure, comprising: data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the data comprising information associated with the scope of said structure and a bill of materials for said structure; the data further comprising information used to establish a component disconnection value for each of a multiplicity of components; the data further comprising information used to establish a component disconnection handling value for each of a multiplicity of components wherein each of said multiplicity of components is analyzed by size, weight, and special handling factors to determine said component disconnection value; wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to establish a component degradation value for each of said multiplicity of components; and wherein operations upon said data in the non-transitory computer readable medium may be performed to calculate a building disassembly efficiency with said component disconnection value and component degradation value established for each of said multiplicity of components.