Dissertation

Bachelor of Architectural Technology and Construction Management
7th
Semester Dissertation
Cradle2Cradle Design:
An Approach on Integrating Healthy Material Use/Indoor Air
Quality Strategies in “UGBL” School Project
Author: Claudia-Esthera Gheorghe
Consultant: Heidi Sørensen Merrild
VIA University College, Horsens, Denmark
March 2015

Bachelor of Architectural Technology and Construction Management –
BATCoM
Dissertation title: “Cradle to Cradle Design: An Approach on Integrating
Healthy Material Use/Indoor Air Quality Strategies in “UGBL” School Project”
Author: Claudia-Esthera Gheorghe
Consultant: Heidi Sørensen Merrild
Student number: 175247
Date/Signature: 27th
of March, 2015 _______________________.
Number of copies: 2
Number of pages: 43
Number of characters: 79177
Font: Calibri 12
All rights reserved – no part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior
permission of the author.
NOTE: This dissertation was completed as part of the Bachelor of Architectural Technology
and Construction Management degree course – No responsibility is taken for any advice,
instruction or conclusion given within!

Claudia-Esthera Gheorghe – 27th of March, 2015
3
AQNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to those who helped me in completing
this dissertation. A special thanks to my consultant, Heidi Sørensen Merrild, for the feedback,
guidance and advices given, but also for the confidence and great help in coordinating my
work and ideas, without whom I would not have done such research.
I am also very grateful to Søren Lyngsgaard, to whom I would like to thank, for the time spent
and answers to my questionnaire, supporting me in writing this dissertation. His advices and
information regarding the Cradle to Cradle subject were highly useful throughout this
document.

4
ABSTRACT
The Cradle to Cradle concept in buildings is related to how we plan and think when we design
something. As a new way of doing things, people are getting more and more interested in this
subject, which eliminates the concept of waste, with respect to nature, resources and living
creatures. The purpose of this dissertation is to give a clear understanding about the Cradle
to Cradle concept and its importance in the building industry, focusing on healthy material
and good indoor air integration, in order to implement these strategies in the “UGBL” School,
the Bachelor project I chose.
The main content of this dissertation is divided into three chapters, in order to answer the
following research questions:
1- What is the Cradle to Cradle concept defined by, and what are the added values of
using C2C products in our buildings?
2- What is the relation between building materials and the indoor climate and what
examples of C2C healthy materials integration strategies are there?
3- How can healthy materials and good indoor climate strategies be integrated in the
“UGBL School” project?
The first chapter contains theories on the C2C principles and its main characteristics, as well
as an investigation of the C2C certification program, criteria of evaluations and levels of
certification. The second part involves an approach on how to make the right material choice,
as well as their impact on the indoor climate and analyzing healthy materials integration
strategies of four different buildings. Finally, the last chapter of this dissertation is putting in
practice all the knowledge gained from the first parts and compares three external wall
constructions, based on C2C values and LCA calculations, with the purpose of integrating C2C
healthy material and good indoor climate strategies in the “UGBL” School.
The research of this dissertation is based on internet resources, but also on books, articles
and brochures related to this subject. My empirical data is based on a questionnaire about
C2C, healthy material use and indoor climate, answered by Søren Lyngsgaard, founder of
Cradle to Cradle Denmark (“Vugge til Vugge”). I strongly believe this dissertation gives a good
knowledge on the C2C concept and will be of great help in successfully solving my Bachelor
project, in which I am planning to integrate C2C strategies.
Key Words:
Healthy materials, Cradle to Cradle, circular economy, zero waste, nutrients, upcycling, design
for disassembling, biological cycle, technical cycle, renewable materials, indoor climate,
resource use, maximize quality, lifecycle assessment, C2C products.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Background information and presentation of subject............................................ 7
1.2 Rationalization of choice of subject and profession relevance............................... 7
1.3 Problem statement and research questions........................................................... 7
1.4 Delimitation............................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Theoretical basis, research methodology and empirical data ................................ 8
1.6 The report’s overall structure and argumentation ................................................. 8
2. UNDERSTANDING “CRADLE TO CRADLE” ..................................................................... 9
2.1 Cradle to Cradle concept – Why is it important?.................................................... 9
2.2 Linear Economy versus Circular Economy............................................................. 10
2.3 Basic Cradle to Cradle Principles ........................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Waste equals Food................................................................................................ 11
2.3.2 Use solar income................................................................................................... 12
2.3.3 Celebrate diversity ................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Cradle to Cradle Certification Program ................................................................. 13
2.4.1 Criteria for a Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Product ............................................... 13
2.4.2 Certification Levels................................................................................................ 14
2.5 Conclusion on 1st Part............................................................................................ 15
3. C2C MATERIAL PRODUCTS & PRACTICAL EXAMPLES ANALYSIS .................................. 17
3.1 C2C Inspired Elements........................................................................................... 17
3.2 Healthy Material Use / Air Quality, Indoor Climate .............................................. 17
3.2.1 Design for disassembly.......................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Building materials relation to indoor climate ....................................................... 18
3.2.3 Choosing the right products.................................................................................. 19
3.3 Examples of C2C Products ..................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Ytong – aerated concrete blocks (Basic) ............................................................... 20
3.3.2 Troldtekt – wood wool cement panels (Silver) ..................................................... 20
3.4 Examples of Buildings with a C2C approach.......................................................... 21
3.4.1 The Upcycle House................................................................................................ 21
3.4.2 The Modern Seaweed House (Det Moderne Tanghus)......................................... 25

6
3.4.3 “2226” – Office Building ........................................................................................ 27
3.4.4 Woodcube House – Apartment Building............................................................... 29
3.5 Conclusion on 2nd Part........................................................................................... 31
4. INTEGRATING C2C STRATEGY IN THE “UGBL SCHOOL” PROJECT................................. 32
4.1 UGBL School – Project Description........................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Site and Rooms Arrangement ............................................................................... 32
4.2 UGBL School – C2C Implementation and Design Strategies ................................. 35
4.2.1 Describing goals and intentions ............................................................................ 35
4.2.2 External wall construction..................................................................................... 35
4.3 Conclusion on 3rd Part ........................................................................................... 47
5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 48
6. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................................................................................. 49
7. LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 53
8. LIST OF ANNEXES ...................................................................................................... 57
9. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................. 57
9.1 Annex 1: Questionnaire......................................................................................... 57
9.2 Annex 2: LCA calculation for the three external wall solutions ............................ 60

7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information and presentation of subject
This report is written as a 7th semester dissertation for the Bachelor of Architectural
Technology and Construction Management education, at VIA University College Horsens,
Denmark.
The subject of this report is based on the Cradle to Cradle concept in buildings and offers
knowledge in this area, focusing on healthy materials and C2C products, as well as their
impact on the indoor climate. It also involves analyzing how these C2C strategies are
integrated in projects and what it needs to be considered in order to make it possible. In the
end, all this information is meant to be used in the “UGBL” School project, towards finding
the right products and materials.
1.2 Rationalization of choice of subject and profession relevance
This subject was chosen for various reasons. First of all it is an area which I find interesting
and challenging and I wanted to make this research for gaining more knowledge in this
domain. Building in a Cradle to Cradle method requires innovative thinking and being creative
in finding solutions that would change the way we design and construct today. This reason
leads to the second reason of choosing this subject, the fact that I want to integrate C2C
strategies in my Bachelor project, the “UGBL” School, which is part of this report as well.
I am hoping to have the opportunity of working in this area, which is why I wished to improve
by elaborating this report. The importance of the C2C concept is attracting people to adopt
to this new innovative thinking and many companies started developing projects and planning
with respect to it, which is why I believe it is a subject all constructing architects should be
aware of.
1.3 Problem statement and research questions
In this dissertation am focusing on two of the Cradle to Cradle inspired building elements
category: healthy material use, including material reutilization and recycling, and air quality
of the indoor climate, which I believe is very much related to the first one. The main goal is to
integrate these C2C strategies in my Bachelor project, therefore the report will answer the
main question: How is The Cradle to Cradle concept related to building industry and what is
involved in integrating this is the “UBGL” School project?
In order to answer this, the following research questions are formulated:

8
1- What is the Cradle to Cradle concept defined by, and what are the added values of
using C2C products in our buildings?
2- What is the relation between building materials and the indoor climate and what
examples of C2C healthy materials integration strategies are there?
3- How can healthy materials and good indoor climate strategies be integrated in the
“UGBL School” project?
1.4 Delimitation
This dissertation does not include analysis on: renewable energy systems, installations
generating biological nutrients or systems of cleaning water, as other C2C strategies. These
are only mentioned, since the focus of this report is to elaborate about C2C materials and
products integration.
1.5 Theoretical basis, research methodology and empirical data
In order find the information necessary in writing this report, regarding C2C theory, I will look
into different materials found at the library, use books of regulations within construction
industry, such as “The Building Regulations 2010”, but also internet sources. To collect
information on the practical examples I have to analyze I will also use articles and brochures,
besides the electronic resources.
The research involved in this dissertation is mostly qualitative, based on secondary research
from the resources stated above. The quantitative research is represented by the LCA
calculations included in this report, as a primary research, which together with a
questionnaire answered by Søren Lyngsgaard, forms the empirical data of my analysis.
1.6 The report’s overall structure and argumentation
The structure of this report is simple, being divided into three chapters, one for each research
question. The first chapter consists of theoretical data and definitions of different C2C subject
related terms and forms the foundation of this document. This is done in order to gain more
knowledge and to give the reader an idea of what the C2C concept is about.
The second chapter points out the impact of building materials on the indoor climate and
evaluates the criteria of choosing good materials and products. It also involves analyzing
practical examples of integrating C2C strategies regarding healthy materials. All this
information is used in the last chapter, including analysis of my Bachelor project, in order to
implement C2C strategies regarding materials and indoor climate.

9
2. UNDERSTANDING “CRADLE TO CRADLE”
2.1 Cradle to Cradle concept – Why is it important?
“The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation.”
-Albert Einstein-
The Cradle to Cradle concept (C2C) is one of the strategies towards sustainability, built on
economic, social and ecological values, aimed to form the basis for the design of products and
systems. The reason is simple: Population on globe is increasing every day with approximately
200.000 people, and with it, the need for products. This mass production is requiring a huge
amount of resources, which will lead us soon enough to resource scarcity. Another problem
is waste, since most of the manufacturers are still working with the “take, make, waste”
strategy (Fig. 1). It could be a good start to reduce the consumption of materials, encourage
recycling and minimize the amount of energy used in a product life-cycle, but it is only making
us less bad and we would only postpone the Earth’s resource depleting. The C2C system is
about being “100 % good”, instead of being less bad. (Braungart & McDonough 2002, p.4-5)
Cradle to Cradle approach is an innovation framework meant to be implemented in the early
stages of a product design, intended to shape the human industry by processes of nature,
where all materials are nutrients for something else, and therefore eliminates the concept of
waste, instead of minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Entirely beneficial to all
parties involved, including the nature and human beings, C2C design suggests that
manufacturers must protect and enrich the environment’s ecosystems and metabolism for
the circulation of organic and non-organic materials, improving the quality of life.
The Cradle to Cradle principle was developed by Michael Braungart and William McDonough
in the 1990s. Michael Braungart (born in 1958) is a German chemist who founded in 1988 the
Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA), a research company in Hamburg,
Germany. He met William McDonough (born in 1951), an American architect and advisor,
when establishing an EPEA office in New Work and in 1995 they created a consulting company
called McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC). They are co-authors of Cradle to
Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (2002), the international bestseller, and The
Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability–Designing for Abundance (2013), books illustrating the
principles and meaning of C2C design, based on MBDC research over the past 17 years,
encouraging people to improve towards a totally positive impact on the environment.
(Miller, Vandome & McBrewster 2010, p.1-2; Braungart & McDonough 2002, p.1; http://en.wikipedia.org)
During the last years and still continuing, more and more companies from all different
industries adopt the C2C system and redesign their production, but in this dissertation I will
focus on building products and materials. This domain is very important since there are
thousands of materials involved in making our buildings, and therefore a huge amount of
waste and need for energy and resources comes from the building industry.

10
2.2 Linear Economy versus Circular Economy
As I mentioned above, a lot of manufacturers are still working by the “Take, Make, Waste”
system, called linear economy. This industrial process and everything that comes with it
would eventually deplete finite reserves, by creating products that end up in landfills or
incinerators, a process known as Cradle to Grave. To quote Michael Braungart: “Through
incineration you lose all the nutrients that should go back into their biological or technical
cycles”. He and his co-worker, William McDonough, believe that “using fire to fight waste is a
medieval behavior” (Braungart & McDonough 2002, p.5).
People started to realize that the more we evolve and
create more and more products, the bigger our problem
of waste and resources would become for our planet.
Walter R. Stahel, founding father of the industrial
sustainability was one of them, being the source of the
expression “Cradle to Cradle” in the late 1970s, worked
on creating a closed loop production process, today
called circular economy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki)
A very well-known report entitled “Towards the Circular
Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition”, released by Ellen MacArthur
Foundation in 2012 was the first to point out the
advantages and the economic and business
opportunities of changing from linear to the circular
model, followed by “Towards the Circular Economy: Opportunities for the consumer goods
sector” in 2013 and “Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global
supply chains” in 2014. (www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org)
Ellen MacArthur states in one of her YouTube videos that “we spend a lot of money and effort
taking stuff out of the ground, making something from it and then we throw it away. But
where is “away”?”. The circular economy system consists of rethinking the process of making
things and recommends the use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, especially
regarding the building industry. An assessment has been done over resource depletion, based
on current recycling levels. According to this, many of the elements on the periodic table,
extremely used in the industries are at risk to be finished, such as gold, silver, indium, iridium,
tungsten, etc. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company 2014, p.22)
The circular economy system is based on the three basic Cradle to Cradle principles, explained
in the following subchapters.
Fig.1: Linear and circular economy
scheme

11
2.3 Basic Cradle to Cradle Principles
2.3.1 Waste equals Food
Everything is used as a nutrient for something else. The nature and our entire planet functions
according to a system in which there is no such thing as waste. When industries came, this
natural balance of materials changed and resources from our planet were modified and
combined into a new kind of elements and materials that cannot return to the soil. This
divides the material flows into two categories: biological and technical.
The Cradle to Cradle design framework adopted the nature methodology systems in order to
eliminate the concept of waste, and instead sees all materials used in the industrial processes
as nutrients, classified into biological and technical nutrients. These material flows form a
biological mass, useful to the bio-system, or “biosphere”, respectively a technical (industrial)
mass, which is useful for the systems of industrial processes, called “technosphere”.
Technical and Biological Cycles
Due to the categories of nutrients above, there is a biological and a technical cycle (Fig. 2).
When designing buildings, we try to close the loop and stay in the circular economy system,
returning our materials either in their biological cycle or in the technical one. In some cases
the two circles may overlap, for example, when organic and non-organic materials are mixed
in order to create products. Depending on how the product itself is designed, in some
situations it might be difficult in the end to separate them and instead of cradle-to-cradle, we
would have a cradle-to-grave system.
The cradle-to-grave is a linear model for
products, involving resource extraction,
manufacturing and ending up with a
“grave”. The product is not reusable,
but disposed of in a landfill or
incinerator, and therefore, as both C2C
founders state in their book, the value
of the materials is lost.
Products made of mixed materials have
been called “Monstrous Hybrids”: “[…] of greater concern are the nutrients – valuable “food”
for both industry and nature – that are contaminated, wasted, or lost. […] many products are
what we jokingly refer to as “Frankenstein products” or […] “monstrous hybrids” – mixtures
of materials both technical and biological, neither of which can be salvaged after their current
lives” (Braungart & McDonough 2002, p.98-99).
Fig.2: Technical and biological cycle scheme

12
Upcycling
A product can be recycled, remaining in a closed-loop industrial cycle. This means that it is
able to be reused, keeping a similar quality level as before. The upcycling of a product involves
reusing the product at a higher quality than before or better environmental value, requiring
that at the products end of life the materials can be separated and go back to the technical
or biological cycles. The whole purpose of upcycling is to prevent any possible useful products
and materials within to be wasted and instead of consuming new raw materials and energy,
use existing ones.
Downcycling
Unfortunately, most of the products when recycled are actually being downcycled.
Downcycling is the opposite of recycling and involves the reuse of materials and products at
a lower quality. A well-known example is steel, being downcycled when is melted along with
paint or plastics that were unable to be totally removed when recycling. Besides the fact that
the material loses its value, there is also another problem: the plastics and paints contain lots
of harmful chemicals that are released in the melting process, leading to the contamination
of the biosphere. (Braungart & McDonough 2002, p.92-114)
2.3.2 Use solar income
Cradle to Cradle concept relies only on the use of renewable energy sources ultimately coming
from the sun, such as solar energy, wind energy, water and other innovative bio-based
sources, respecting the first principle of C2C. The amount of energy used in the industrial and
domestic buildings in the EU countries is approximatively 44 % of the total energy use.
Therefore buildings are the biggest energy users, which is why more and more are starting to
produce energy for its use. While most buildings are now focusing on minimizing the amount
of energy used, the Cradle to Cradle strategy focuses on maximizing the amount of energy
that a building can produce, supporting the use of renewable energy sources, instead of
reducing the non-renewable ones. (www.glassforeurope.com)
2.3.3 Celebrate diversity
The third principle of C2C implies promoting healthy eco-systems, respecting human, natural
systems, having a social responsibility. Respecting the diversities of all kinds includes
biodiversity, cultural diversity and innovation diversity, all these being part of Cradle to Cradle
concept. It encourages designers to create systems that are beneficial to all domains:
economy, society and environment. In my opinion, every time we design and build something,
we need to keep in mind the question: what is the right thing to do for this place? We must
make decisions considering the surroundings and the impacts that all our processes would

13
have on the surrounding environment, but also with respect to the society and cultural
diversity.
2.4 Cradle to Cradle Certification Program
The Cradle to Cradle certification program (Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM) provides guidelines
to help manufacturers integrate the Cradle to Cradle framework, focusing on safe material
use, which can be disassembled and recycled, serving as nutrients for the biological or
technical cycles.
The certification program was founded in 2005 by MBDC and later in 2010, the two co-
founders of the C2C concept formed a non-profit institute called “Cradle to Cradle Products
Innovation Institute”, to administer the program as third-party eco-label independent
organization. The program analyzes whether the product is harmful to humans and the
environment and is performed by an independent organization trained by the Institute. After
receiving the Assessment Summary Reports, the Institute, according to the results, certifies
the products and gives licenses to the manufacturer in the use of Cradle to Cradle
CertifiedTM design marks. The certification lasts for two years, when producers must
demonstrate constant improvement in order to get their products recertified.
This is a great advantage for the producers, because they know if there is something harming
the environment or people and they can document their product’s development and get
advices, from a C2C perspective. On the other hand, this certificate is not determining how
the product may react in practice and I believe there are more facts to be analyzed in this
matter.
2.4.1 Criteria for a Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM
Product
Products assessed by the certification program are being deeply analyzed in order to evaluate
the design and all practices involved in the manufacturing. The materials and manufacturing
processes of the product go through five evaluation categories, applied equally to all products
of all categories and industries: Material Health, Material Reutilization, Renewable Energy
Use, Water Stewardship and Social responsibility.
Material Health
All substances and composites of the product are going through the evaluation. The program
holds a detailed inventory of the materials to decide if there are any problematic
characteristics, if it is toxic or carcinogenic. These substances are categorized into three lists
depending on the level of impact:
 The X list, includes the most dangerous substances, which could be carcinogenic,
teratogenic, mutagenic, or harming the environment and human health directly, even
if some of them haven’t been proved to be so. Examples: asbestos, benzene, vinyl

14
chloride. The substances on this list have the highest priority, the optimization of the
product requiring phasing out these ingredients.
 The gray list, contains less problematic substances, not urgently in the need of phase
out.
 The P list, is the “positive” list, which includes healthy substances safe for use.
Material Reutilization
Products need to be designed in such way that is possible to be recycled as technical nutrients
and reused for creating new products, or to be biodegradable as a biological nutrient. In order
to increase the material recovery and keep them in the closed loop, products must improve
continuously.
Renewable Energy & Carbon Management
This is a criteria which requires that all manufacturing is powered with renewable energy only,
and carbon neutralization.
Water Stewardship
In the processes of manufacturing products clean water needs to be considered a precious
resource for all living things and for the highest certification level, the water needs to be as
clean as potable water.
Social Fairness
Products have to be designed with consideration to all natural systems and humans, in order
to have an entirely beneficial impact on the planet. The operations within manufacturing
process needs to consider the impact on all people and biodiversity affected by the creation,
use, end of life or recyclability of a product.
2.4.2 Certification Levels
There are five levels of certification: Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The Basic
certification level is the lowest and is described as being the beginning of the product’s
certification and regarding the material health and reutilization, the product needs to be
entirely identified by its generic materials (aluminum, steel, etc.) and if the case, product
category and names. It must not contain any of the chemicals from the “banned list” and
should have identified which are the technical and the biological nutrients.
The Platinum level is the highest, products with this certification, after assessment, must have
no chemicals from the X list and a material reutilization score of 100, compared to the Bronze
level, where the requirements for material reutilization score is ≥ 35, for the Silver level ≥ 50
and the Gold level ≥ 65.

15
As specified on the official C2C certification program website, the product receives the
certification, based on the lowest score level, which will represent the overall level mark (Fig.
3). This is available for all categories. (www.c2ccertified.org; http://c2cproducts.com)
2.5 Conclusion on 1st
Part
In this first chapter of my dissertation I have pointed out the theoretical basis related to the
Cradle to Cradle concept, towards a better understanding and in order to gain better
knowledge and information that would help throughout my further research and analysis of
the report. After this research, I made a clear overview of why the C2C strategy is necessary,
especially in the building industry and also the advantages and added values brought up by
integrating these into buildings. I have structured this chapter, focusing on the importance of
circular economy, the three principles of C2C strategy and the certification scheme.
The C2C concept is about rethinking our methods of doing things, eliminates the concept of
waste in industries, focuses on renewable energy and respects biodiversity together with all
its living creatures. It is also about maximizing the quality of products, while minimizing the
resources, and people are giving more and more attention to this subject. I believe in the near
future, the C2C will be a strategy that all of us will adopt sooner or later, because socially and
financially it is a great solution for all industries.
Regarding the certification program and the criteria the products have to go through, I found
out that there are five levels of certification, all of them concentrated on careful analysis of
the material’s substances, the reutilization and the cycles they belong to, but also an analysis
Fig.3: Example of a product scorecard

16
of the energy used in the process, cleaning the water consumed and social fairness. This
certification is a good tool of evaluating the substances within a product, but only tells us that
if it is healthy or not. Depending on how it is used and under what circumstances, we can
determine if the product is suitable for our building, how it works in relation with other
materials and how it is going to be recycled at the end of life, meaning that there is more to
discuss about when integrating C2C strategies and the C2C certification is just a small piece
of it.
From a theoretical point of view, I believe I had approached all the subjects required, in order
to answer my first research question and have a foundation for my next chapters, where I will
approach this subject form a more practical perspective.

17
3. C2C MATERIAL PRODUCTS & PRACTICAL EXAMPLES ANALYSIS
In this chapter I am aiming to “learn from practice” and so, first, I will state what is important
to have in mind in order to make the right product/material selection, and then analyze a few
buildings made with C2C considerations, their strategies and construction principles, which
will help me integrate a healthy material use in my project.
3.1 C2C Inspired Elements
Everyone with an interest in Cradle to Cradle is aware that there is no such thing as a C2C
building today. Yet. In the building industry I believe there is a bigger focus on the price of
components, trying to find the cheapest solutions, rather than system integration. This is the
reason why, I chose to focus on C2C elements towards integrating systems which would add
value to my project. There are five different ways of integrating Cradle to Cradle design
systems, and they all connect with each other at some point, but further more I will continue
with the first two topics (Mouhall & Braungart 2010, p. 8-10):
 Healthy material use
 Air quality, indoor climate
 Generation of biological nutrients
 Improvement of water quality
 Integration of renewable energy
3.2 Healthy Material Use / Air Quality, Indoor Climate
3.2.1 Design for disassembly
A very important part of Cradle to Cradle concept, regarding materials is designing for
deconstruction, which is a huge challenge to manufacturers and designers. They need to
create building components in such way that it can be disassembled after use and separate
each material to go back to the factory and be reused, or go to the biological cycle.
But the idea of design for disassembly is not only about manufacturing the products but also
about how we think about our buildings. We need to design our buildings with regards to
continuous improvement, being flexible and able to replace or remove components without
tearing apart the whole construction. We have to think about the materials and building parts
as “borrowed” components and ask ourselves: how much time can they actually “live”, what
is their life-span? Renovation and improvements take place all the time and at some point
these components will have to be returned back. But to achieve all this we need
manufacturers that would receive back old and used products and using a good strategy, to
produce new ones from it. Shortly, we need to design our buildings adaptable to the future
changes and improvements.

18
The Design for Disassembly or Deconstruction (DfD) strategy excludes the usage of adhesives,
gluing materials together, making it difficult to separate them without destroying it, and
recommends the modular design in order to simplify the construction. For example, a window
frame designed so it is demounted easily for maintenance and reassembly, to be used again
after being improved. DfD is seen as a smart alternative to demolition. Demolition process
follows the linear model of economy, while the disassembly respects the principle
“waste=food” and keeps the materials in the closed loop. Besides, when a building material
is discarded in the demolition process, the embodied energy within would be lost, too. The
total energy requirements of the built environment can be significantly reduced if embodied
energy can be recovered together with the materials. (http://www.academia.edu/)
3.2.2 Building materials relation to indoor climate
First of all what exactly is involved in having a high-quality indoor climate in a building? When
we talk about good indoor air quality we know there is a need for fresh air inside the building,
optimal natural sun-light and many more, but there is also things to prevent in our buildings
for a good indoor air, such as chemical emissions from some materials, or other substances
released into the air.
People usually spend a lot of time indoors, and is necessary that the indoor climate has a good
quality, otherwise it might lead to, headaches, troubles in focusing on our work, or even
worse, if various dangerous emissions in the air get to our body. Therefore it is highly
important to have these in mind when we analyze materials and products. We have to know
exactly what the products contain and what the risks are once we implement it in our
construction. My concern regarding indoor climate and the approach I wish to make is from
Fig.4: Diagram comparing demolition to disassembly

19
the material’s perspective. How can the materials that we put in our buildings affect the
indoor climate? It can have a significant influence on the indoor, in terms of sound, humidity,
smell and heating also.
In Denmark there is an organization for testing and labeling products regarding their indoor
climate impact. The Danish Indoor Climate Labelling (Dansk Indeklima Mærkning) is a
voluntary labeling scheme used in Denmark but also Norway to assess building materials and
their impact on the indoor air, being recognized anywhere in the world. In the General
Labeling Criteria report is stated that the product is tested firstly for emissions and this
includes a chemical analysis to assess the mucous membrane irritation and a sensory analysis
to evaluate the odor impact. Another test is for the release of fibres and particles. Regarding
degassing, all products are labelled with a time value in days. This represents the indoor
climate value and is the time that passes before the degassing “fades”. (www.teknologisk.dk)
3.2.3 Choosing the right products
We can find out how products are affecting the indoor
climate first of all by looking at their EPD
(Environmental Product Description), since not all
products are C2C certified. The EPD contains
information regarding environmental performance,
including LCA (Life-Cycle Analysis), which is put
together based on common rules, called Product
Category Rules (PCR). The EPD is used to document
resource and energy consumption, as well as any
negative environmental impacts resulted from the
whole life cycle of the product (production, use and
disposal). EPD can be compared when same PCR has
been used and considering also the functionality of
the materials. (www.epddanmark.dk)
Regarding material choice and C2C integration, is important to think from the beginning what
are the goals we want to achieve, what are our intentions, and I think with this in mind, we
can maximize quality and using tools such as EPD and LCA calculations we obtain quantitative
analysis, too. Another thing to consider is choosing products and materials that we know, that
are harmless, and to be sure we are on the safe side, use as much renewable materials as
possible. (Annex 1: Questionnaire)
Fig.5: EPD example – UK (BRE
Environmental Profiles)

20
3.3 Examples of C2C Products
3.3.1 Ytong – aerated concrete blocks (Basic)
Ytong’s aerated concrete block, a product called Xella
Ytong Energy Plus, has received the basic Cradle to Cradle
certification in 2011, being the first blocks to receive it.
Xella is one of the biggest manufacturer of aerated
concrete and lime construction materials in the world.
The Ytong Energy Plus blocks are suitable for load-bearing
walls, low-energy and passive houses constructions, due
to the insulating layer in the middle. At 500 mm the U-
value can be 0.11 W/m2K, without extra insulation with a
thermal conductivity (lambda value) of 0.07 W/mK for 400 mm and 0.06 W/mK for 500 mm.
(www.ytong.dk)
The aerated concrete blocks can be crushed and used as raw material for new products of
aerated concrete. I believe a big disadvantage of these lightweight blocks is that there are
more risks of cracking, compared to bricks, cannot be separated and reused again.
3.3.2 Troldtekt – wood wool cement panels (Silver)
Troldtekt acoustic panels have received a silver C2C
certification in August 2012 for the “Troldtekt natural
wood” product range, and a year later they got re-
certified, including the painted acoustic panels.
Compared to the 2012 certification, they have improved
regarding energy, from silver to gold. The panels are
made of natural materials: wood and cement. The panels
are manufactured in Denmark, using local materials, minimizing the transportation.
Both PEFC and FSC-certified, Troldtekt uses wood from the forests in west of Jutland and the
cement from Aalborg Portland plant, a company which focuses on reducing CO2 emissions
and aims to improve environmental impacts by using biofuels from waste and biomass. At the
end of life, products can safely return to their biological cycles, being separated from screws
or anything mixed with it and sent to composting plants, which use biomass for producing soil
improvers. Sorted cement wood wool waste fits the composting process, due to the big
amount of lime, which raises the oxygen level during the process and the wood is an extra
organic material, improving the compost.
The panels have very good sound absorbing properties and are used in many different
buildings, such as schools, commercial and industrial buildings or private houses. It is resistant
to fire due to the cement with the classification of B-s1, d0 and A2-s1, d0, depending on the
Fig.6: Ytong Energy+ block
Fig.7: Troldtekt panel

21
type of panel. Troldtekt has also achieved a Danish Indoor Climate Labelling, where products
were tested for fiber and particles release in the air and received the 10 days classification for
degasing, which is the best category. (www.troldtekt.com)
3.4 Examples of Buildings with a C2C approach
3.4.1 The Upcycle House
Project description
The Upcycle House project is one of the five detached, single family houses, which were part
of an experiment for implementing reduced CO2 solutions considering the total life cycle of
the buildings (MiniCO2 Houses). The project was initiated by Realdania Byg, a Danish
foundation supporting innovation and good practice in the buildings. All knowledge acquired
from constructing these houses was used to build a sixth house, called the MiniCO2 Standard
House.
Project data:
Architects: Lendager Arkitekter
Location: Nyborg, Denmark
Client: Realdania Byg
Contractor: Egen Vinding & Datter
Construction Year: 2013
Floor Area: 129 m2
The purpose of the Upcycle House was to demonstrate whether the carbon emissions during
the construction process can be reduced or not, by using recycled (upcycled) building
materials. The team expected a 65% reduction of CO2 emissions, but the results showed an
86% CO2 reduction, compared to a traditional house. The Upcycle House was developed with
consideration to sustainable principles being designed carefully with regards to orientation,
shape, summer and winter thermal impacts, daylight optimization, natural ventilation etc.
The idea was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions during the use of the building, also. The
results show that CO2 emissions from the Upcycle House are 0.7 kg CO2/m2/year, compared
to 5.0 kg CO2/m2/year for a traditional house.
Construction Principles and Materials
In order to create a building with a low carbon footprint, they used materials with low
embodied energy: upcycled and recycled materials, therefore they consumed less raw
materials. An important strategy when choosing the building materials was considering:
Fig.8: The Upcycle House

22
 CO2 reduction between existing material and new material;
 Maximizing operation and minimizing maintenance;
 Finding close, local materials.
The whole concept of the Upcycle House is based on the
two recycled shipping containers. These steel structures
replace the concrete and form the bearing structure of
the entire project. The first stage of construction implied
delivering the containers to the workshop, in order to cut
holes for the windows and doors and also for plumbing
fixtures and wiring. Afterwards, they were taken to the
building site, where they were assembled. The two
containers are placed on both ends of the building, taking
all loads from the house and are fixed on a point foundation, made from recycled screw piles.
Insulation materials:
Technopor glass foam insulation
The floor under the greenhouse is insulated with
Technopor insulation, made of recycled glass (from used
glass bottles). The glass foam granules serve as a
lightweight mineral insulation of cellular glass, made of
100 % recycled glass. This insulation is solid, durable and
simple to use and serves as capillary breaking layer (self-
draining), keeping moisture from going up the floor. It is
naturally frost-resistant, non-combustible and has a
thermal conductivity is approximately 0.8 W/mK.
Paper wool insulation (Papiruld Danmark)
For insulating the external walls and the roof, it was used
loose paper wool insulation, made of recycled
newspapers. The producer, Papiruld Danmark, uses only
energy from the sun and wind in the manufacturing
process, therefore reducing the CO2 emissions from the
production process. Paper wool is known to have great
thermal properties (lambda value is 0.039 – 0.04 W/mK)
and is able to absorb and release moisture.
Wood fiber insulation (Homatherm)
Some of the external wall are insulated with Homatherm
wood fiber flexible boards. This material can also be used
in insulating the roof without requiring a ventilated roof
construction. Similar with the cellulose, this insulation has
Fig.9: Containers are placed on site
Fig.10: Technopor granules
Fig.11: Paper wool insulation
Fig.12: Wood fiber insulation board

23
a great capacity of transferring moisture, contains no chemical wood protection, having
approximately the same thermal insulating properties, λ = 0,038 W/mK. It is efficient not only
in winter, but in summer, too, by keeping the heat outside: based on an experiment in
Germany, in the house insulated with wood fiber batts, the temperature was 6 degrees lower
compared to the one where mineral wool was used.
Recycled plastic gallons with water
The separation wall between master bedroom and living
room it is a translucent thermal mass wall made of old
plastic water bottles, called Pollibricks. The idea came
from a company in Taiwan, which collects water bottles
and uses it as raw material. They melt the plastic in order
to create new angular shaped bottles, which connect to
each other. In the Upcycle House, the bottles were
mounted a plastic plate secured by the cap, to keep a
straight surface of the wall. The bottles are filled with water, to create a thermal mass, which
would store the heat from the house, during the day and restore it to the indoor climate again,
when is cold, in the night. Besides this, the wall has architectural values as well, allowing the
light from the living room going through, creating a warm glow inside the bedroom.
Façade and roof materials:
Aluminum façades (Muncholm)
Parts of the façade and the roof are covered with
aluminum corrugated panels made of 95% recycled
aluminum. This material provides corrosion protection, is
durable and does not require maintenance. The most
interesting characteristic of aluminum sheets is that it can
easily be dismounted and reused again or upcycled into
other building materials. Another façade and eave
covering is the thin aluminum plates, from the same
producer (Fig. 14).
Windows
In order to keep the idea of upcycling materials and
components, the architects and contractors wanted to
reuse old windows for the Upcycle project. The solution was found in window factories, where
a lot of products lie as waste in their warehouses, as a result of mistakes that occurred in
dimensioning the windows. Most of them are new products, and if they are not used, their
embedded energy is lost. Therefore, they have decided to use only the glass, placing it on the
outside of the façade, sealing between the wall and glass. In this way, the glass just needs to
be bigger than the window hole. I believe it is a very innovative solution, which would
minimize the cold bridges also: the bigger the glass overlap, the smaller the cold bridge.
Fig.13: Translucent wall
Fig.14: Aluminum corrugated panels

24
Besides, it gives something interesting to the building and when looking out through the
window, you can only see the glass, no frame. Of course, these windows cannot be opened,
but it keeps a balance to the energy of the house, together with the other windows, opened
for fresh air, which are insulated through the covers they have, a principle of the houses built
in 1960.
Richlite façade
The dark façade panels hiding the container are made of
recycled granulated paper, which was pressed together
with a bio resin and heat treated. The product resulted is
called Richlite and is extremely strong material that can
be used also for kitchen worktops, even skate ramps. The
price for this is paid off during the material life,
considering the low maintenance and durability.
Floor materials
OSB-panels and champagne corks
Inside the house, the floor and the walls are covered with
OSB-panels (oriented strand boards), made of waste
wood from different production sites. The wooden chips
are pressed together without using any glue. Champagne
cork was used for the floor in the kitchen area. The cork is
an interesting natural material, not only it has insulating
properties, but is also sound absorbing, contributing to a
good indoor climate.
UPM Profi deck
For the terrace floor, it was used UPM Profi boards, which
is made of 40% cellulose from paper waste and 60%
plastic polymers from self-adhesive plastic labels
productions. According to the manufacturer, the boards
are recycled after the use, restoring the materials to their
cycles.
(Birgitte Kleis – Brochure; www.realdaniabyg.dk;
www.lendagerark.dk; www.inhabitat.com)
Fig.15: Richlite façade and windows
Fig.16: Cork and OSB flooring
Fig.17: UPM Profi deck

25
3.4.2 The Modern Seaweed House (Det Moderne Tanghus)
Project description
The same non-profit organization, Realdania Byg, together with Vandkunsten architects,
developed another project, aiming to experiment the use of seaweed for roof covering and
insulation of the building. Before building The Modern Seaweed House, they restored a 150
years old building, Kaline’s House, a house with a traditional thatched seaweed roof.
Project data:
Architects: Vandkunsten
Location: Læsø, Denmark
Builder: Realdania Byg
Gross Area: 90 m2
The project is based on the cultural characteristics and the building traditions of the Læsø
Island. People were using seaweed to build their homes, since it was a lot of it on the beaches.
Before, there were hundreds of houses built in this way, with cladding and roof coverings of
seaweed, but now there are only very few left, which is why the organization wanted to build
a house using the same traditional materials, but in a modern way. They hope that, by doing
this, others will preserve this tradition too, developing the use of seaweed in buildings.
The holiday house is designed with a high ceiling living room and kitchen on the center and
rooms on both sides. Above the rooms, in the loft, there is extra space for sleeping and all the
rooms have access to the terrace. The building has a duo-pitch roof, carefully designed with
maximum consideration to the surroundings and local traditions, intended to emphasize the
materials used and not the shape of it.
By looking back to the old building traditions, there is always something to learn, since
everything was much simpler. People were using whatever the nature and surroundings
Fig.18: The Modern Seaweed House – front view
Fig.19: The living room Fig.20: Rooms in the loft Fig.21: Openings to the terrace

26
would provide them, and this is exactly what the habitants of Læsø were doing also. The
seaweed was used because they could get it from their local environment, it was free, very
effective insulator and extremely durable. Besides, the salt that it contains makes it naturally
protected against vermin or rotting. All these characteristics make the seaweed a very
interesting sustainable material.
The Modern Seaweed House has a very low energy consumption, because it fulfills the 2020
energy demands. According to the LCA calculation, the building has a negative carbon
footprint, meaning that the amount of CO2 within the house is bigger compared to the one
emitted during transportation and manufacturing of products, and all this thanks to the use
of seaweed as cladding and roof covering material.
The house is built as a light construction, having as main materials timber and seaweed. No
concrete, steel or other heavy materials were used. The house had to be designed and built
in a year, since the construction site was on an island and transportation of the materials are
very expensive and also, the workers would need to stay there during the construction.
Therefore, in order to minimize the construction period and costs, the use of prefabricated
elements was the best solution. The use of seaweed was developed in three different ways in
The Modern Seaweed House: as insulation material, internally clothed (linen) ceiling and
external cladding.
Prefabricated wooden elements
The prefabricated elements were manufactured in
different places of the country, and then gathered at the
building site in Læsø, in order to reduce the construction
time as much as possible. In the workshops, the elements
used to build the floor, façades roof and interior walls
were made as wooden chambers, filled afterwards with
loose seaweed, serving as insulation for the house. The
loose seaweed was weighed, ensuring that the insulation
had the right density before it was put in the timber
frames, in order to be used in a correct way. In the end,
the elements were closed with wooden coverings and
prepared for transportation.
Seaweed (eelgrass)
The seaweed used in this house is from Bogø, where a
farmer owned a field next to the sea. He checked the
beach after windy days for seaweed, harvested it and
spread it on the ground. After the seaweed was “washed”
by rain, it needed to get dry in the wind and sun, so it
Fig.22: Seaweed timber elements
are assembled on site
Fig.23: Finished roof and cladding

27
could be put into bales and sent to the manufacturer of the elements. The seaweed used is
called eelgrass, a natural water plant found on the island’s beach. The leaves are light green,
around 1 cm wide and up to 3 m long. Used as insulation, it has the same performance as
mineral wool, very good acoustic properties and the ability to absorb and release moisture
contributes to a good indoor climate. The eelgrass roof and façade can last more than 150
years, if well maintained, being naturally fire resistant and protected against unwanted
insects.
The idea was to find a modern way of using this material,
so for the façade cladding and roof covering, the seaweed
was stuffed into net bundles (Fig. 23). These were
attached horizontally to the wooden elements, creating a
traditional look of the house. The tradition was kept on
the inside as well, where the ceiling seaweed is stuffed
and covered with clothing, making it look like a mattress.
(www.realdaniabyg.dk; www.vandkunsten.com,
www.norwegian.com; www.theyearofmud.com)
3.4.3 “2226” – Office Building
Project description
The “2226” is a six-storey new office building, designed without any mechanical ventilation,
heating or cooling systems installed. Although it was not intended, the building is actually a
passive house, without a ventilation unit. The name “2226” represents the temperature range
of 22 to 26 degrees of the indoor climate, achieved by the building’s performance.
The architect focused on simplicity and so, reduced the costs of maintenance of technical
services, maximizing the energy savings. The energy flow is controlled by a computer, called
“Algorithmus”, monitoring the natural ventilation needs and the indoor air, through sensors
of temperature and CO2 levels. The design reflects the main idea and purpose of building and
allows big amounts of daylight and fresh air inside.
Project data:
Architect: Baumschlager Ebele
Client: AD Vermietung OG
Structural engineer: Mader & Flatz
Ziviltechniker
Location: Lustenau, Austria
Gross Area: 3201 m2
Fig.24: Linen ceiling - mattress
Fig.25: 2226 Building perspective and façade detail

28
The building has a square shape, with the structural internal walls creating a loadbearing
pinwheel on the plan, which separates the space inside. Window’s vertical shape allow big
amounts of natural light to enter the high rooms of 4,21 meters on the ground floor and 3,36
meters on the upper floors. These are aligned to the inside part of the façade, creating shading
through the thickness of walls, to avoid overheating, and have fixed glazing with ventilation
openings, controlled by the “Algorithmus”. In winter time, it will only open when fresh air is
needed and in summer would open in the night for cooling.
Perforated clay blocks (Porotherm)
What is really interesting about this building is the construction of the external walls. Façades
are built with perforated Porotherm clay blocks, a C2C silver certified product, having a large
variety of blocks depending on acoustic and thermal needs, but also load bearing capacity.
These provide a big thermal mass wall of 760 mm, as seen in Fig.27. The massive brick wall is
made of two layers of clay blocks, each of 380 mm. The inner layer of bricks is the supporting
part of the wall, while the outer layer is the insulating part and consists of blocks with more
perforations, for better thermal efficiency.
Walls were rendered with a lime plaster on the inside
and a lime mortar of 18 mm, followed by a lime render
on the outside, as seen in the details above. These clay
blocks were used to build the internal walls also,
including the elevator shaft, since it is a simple
construction, fire resistant and thermal efficient.
Insulation was only used in the roof and floor slab
construction.
(www.baumschlager-eberle.com; www.detail.de; Arkitektur N 2015, p.37-40)
Fig.27: “2226” external wall details
Fig.26: Walls construction-clay blocks

29
3.4.4 Woodcube House – Apartment Building
Project description
The “Woodcube” house is a five storey apartment building, part of the International Building
Exhibition (IBA) Hamburg, 2013. The multistorey building demonstrates the possibilities and
advantages of solid timber construction, saving approximately 8500 tons of CO2 during
construction phase only. Almost all the load bearing parts of the building are constructed of
wood, except for the staircase, which, due to regulations, they had to build in concrete. A
photovoltaic unit providing electricity is installed on the roof, generating around 23,000 kWh
per year, exceeding the annual energy consumption of the building.
Project data:
Architect: architekturagentur, Stuttgart
Project development / initiation:
DeepGreen Development Hamburg
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Gross Floor Area: 1480 m2
The floor components as well as the outer walls are designed in a way that they can be
disassembled and reused at the end of building’s life, without any waste. These are screwed
together, no glue or chemical treatment was used in the wooden structures. The dry
construction, without any mortar allows the building to be split again into elements that can
be reused. The individual layers of wood can be separated and the timber is to be used again
for new products. No composite heating pipes were used, instead stainless steel pipes were
installed, also with consideration to deconstruction and possibility of separating materials.
In order to get permission from the authorities in order to build the “Woodcube”, it had to be
proven that a wooden construction like this is possible, fulfils the thermal and fire regulations.
According to the German fire regulations, the wall must last at least 90 minutes. During the
fire tests, because of wood’s poor heat transfer abilities and thickness, the wall lasted over
five hours. The wooden walls have been built without plastic, preserving its natural abilities
of taking moisture and releasing it back, as an opened construction. This helps creating a good
indoor climate and allows the building to breathe.
Timber elements (Thoma Holz100)
Solid wood elements with cross-laminated timber (Holz100) were used in the construction of
external wall and floor-ceiling components. The wooden layers in the elements are put
Fig.28: Woodcube House

30
together without gaps, laid vertically and horizontally for maximizing strength, resulting in a
massive compact wooden element. Pre-dried beech wood dowels are used to connect the
layers (20 dowels per m2). These absorb residual moisture from the wooden layers and
expand, thus, creating a strong, fixed connection, airtight. The elements have an interesting
aspect, made of 100% wood, using no metal bonding or adhesives and also have a gold C2C
certification.
The total thickness of the external wall is 324 mm, and has a U-value of 0.19 W/m2K. The
elements include dowelled crosswise and diagonal layers: 80 mm load bearing layer and on
the inside, extra board layers with thicknesses varying from 26 to 29 mm, for fire protection.
These “sacrificial” layers burn 0.9 mm per minute, delaying the fire to get to the structural
layer. Overall, the building has a fire resistance of 120 minutes.
The Holz100 elements have a bulk density of 435 kg/m3 and the timber used in the elements
is 95 % fir wood and 5 % spruce, while the 80 mm load bearing wooden layer has a strength
class C24. The façade is finished with 29 mm board panels dowelled with two soft fiberboards,
each of 22 mm and a 26 mm ventilated cladding, made of untreated larch wood boards. In
addition, a wind paper is fixed from the factory between the board layers. Unlike standard
Thoma Holz100 elements, the ones developed specifically for the “Woodcube” do not contain
wood fiber insulation boards.
The floor partitions are made with the same solid timber construction system, using dwelled
cross-laminated wooden elements, timber beams and steel composite elements. The ceiling
elements are wedged into the UPE steel profiles and fixed to the wooden beams. Above
ceiling elements, mineral fiber insulation for noise prevention was used, soft wood
fiberboards and Kraft papers as dividing or protective layers.
Fig.29: Mounting solid wood elements in “Woodcube” building Fig.30: Section of Thoma wall element

31
The experience and information gained from the “Woodcube” is in developing process. In
future wooden buildings, it is hoped that longer spans of floors and ceilings will be a possibility
and that other load bearing components like the staircase would also be wooden made.
(www.iba-hamburg.de; http://www.gizmag.com; www.german-architects.com)
3.5 Conclusion on 2nd
Part
The second part of my dissertation is based on the integration on healthy materials and C2C
products in buildings, as well as their influence on the indoor climate and what to have in
mind when choosing these products for our projects. I learnt that is important the way we
design and to think from the beginning of planning. We need to create components that are
able to be separated and disassembled, and in order to make the right choices, it is important
to know exactly what the product contains and investigate whether is harmful for the
environment or not, and to do so, the EPD of the products is an useful tool.
Learning from practice is critical for my future chapter, therefore I have researched about a
few C2C certified products and four projects where Cradle to Cradle approach was integrated,
and special consideration was given to material choice and indoor climate air: The Upcycle
House and The Modern Seaweed House (built in Denmark), followed by the “2226” office
building (Austria) and the “Woodcube” residential building (Germany).
The Upcycle House is a very good practical example regarding the thought behind the reuse
of materials and how this can reduce the CO2 emissions, while The Modern Seaweed House
highlights the use of renewable materials. “2226” building and the “Woodcube” taught me
insulation is not particularly necessary and made me aware of the interesting products they
used, such as the Thoma wooden elements built for disassembly, without any adhesive, or
the simple clay blocks construction.

32
4. INTEGRATING C2C STRATEGY IN THE “UGBL SCHOOL” PROJECT
4.1 UGBL School – Project Description
For my Bachelor project I chose the UGBL Independent School (Ugelbølle Friskole), designed
by Krads Architects. The project was created in 2010 and was developed considering the
wishes and social interaction of all children, parents and teachers towards the project.
The architects created a workshop at the beginning of the project, in September 2009, in
order to get some answers regarding school environment and construction. Parent’s and
children’s opinions were considered, therefore after a dialogue with the project team, the
statements and answers were collected and used as a basis for the development of the school
project. The goal was creating a building that offers a functional and inspiring environment
for studying, using simple construction systems.
4.1.1 Site and Rooms Arrangement
The building site is located in Ugelbølle, a small town in Jutland, which is four kilometers away
from Rønde. The building is placed in the north-western part of the plot on Langkær 2, 8410
Rønde, with an exit to the street from the northern façade. The plot’s location is creating an
advantage to the green, recreational area in the southern part of the site, away from the road
(Fig. 32). Main access to the building is made from Langkær, to a parking with 16 places, in
the eastern part of the plot, but when coming to school by foot or by bike, it is possible to
enter through the green space in the back also. Therefore, there is a main entrance from the
road, on the north-eastern part of the building and a secondary entrance form the south.
Fig.31: North-West overview of the building

33
The shape of the building is based on two squares, of which different triangle parts were
moved around, creating the final shape. For example, a triangle part facing south was moved
to form the outdoor space. There are two wings containing classrooms and staff facilities that
form an angle towards south-west and a corner towards north-east. The angle creates a
common area where there are stairs connecting the two levels of the building. Some of the
rooms have the flexibility of separating the room with folding or sliding walls and all rooms
are directly connected to common areas or the common area by the stairs.
Next to the entrances there are changing rooms and lockers separated for preschool pupils
and middle school as well, placed on the 1st floor. The building includes offices for teachers,
kitchen at the ground floor in the common area next to the stairs and another common area
with view to the terrace on the 1st floor and down the stairs, considered to be the “heart” of
the school. At the end of the stairs there is a multi-workshop room intended to be used for
art facilities and could also serve as a scene, so the stairs would be the tribune. A music room
is located at the top floor as well.
The sports area is located in the east wing on ground level, having an increased ceiling height.
Somehow it is separated from the rest of the building to reduce noise and is connected to an
outdoor space for sports activities with a level-free access. Handicap toilets are placed on
both floors, as well as elevator.
(“UGBL” School Outline Proposal brochure)
Fig.32: Site plan

34
Fig.33: Ground floor plan
Fig.34: 1st
floor plan

35
4.2 UGBL School – C2C Implementation and Design Strategies
4.2.1 Describing goals and intentions
The Cradle to Cradle strategy I wish to integrate in this project is related to the first principle
of C2C concept, “Waste equals Food- Everything is a nutrient for something else”. My goal is
to have building components made of healthy products, and to demonstrate that the
materials and substances within are defined and safe to use, with regards to indoor climate
as well, and that they can safely be disassembled to return to their cycle of nutrients.
In this dissertation, I will analyze the external walls, as a start for my project analysis. For this
component three solutions will be defined, and compared. To do this, I will go through the
following stages:
 Stating regulations regarding external wall construction;
 Stating the materials/products and defining each solution, considering the
regulations, their LCA calculations for 1 m2 of construction and result;
 Comparison of the three LCA (quantitative) results, C2C perspective (qualitative)
analysis and comparison, and final choice.
4.2.2 External wall construction
Building Regulations and Demands
The main regulations that have to be considered for the construction of the external wall are:
thermal insulation, sound and fire demands. Regarding these subjects, following regulations
are pointed out, from the Danish Building Regulations 2010 (BR10) and Protection against Fire
in Buildings (PAF):
Thermal insulation
“Building elements around rooms/spaces that are normally heated to a minimum of 15°C
must have a heat loss of no more than as stated in the column marked temperature T>15°C
[…]”. (BR10, Ch.7.3.2(1), p. 133)
In order to fulfil 2015 building regulations, the external wall should have a U-value of
maximum 0.12 W/m2K. (www.connovate.dk)
Fig.35: U-value table (BR10 p.134)

36
Sound demands
“Buildings and their services must be designed so as to limit noise nuisance from adjoining
rooms, from the services of the building and from nearby roads and railways. This must be to
the extent required for the planned use of the buildings and such that the occupants of the
buildings are not subjected to noise nuisance. […]”. (BR10, Ch. 6.4.3(1), p.119)
“Educational buildings include primary and secondary schools, educational institutions,
universities etc. […] the functional requirement for educational buildings is deemed to be met
if they are built in compliance with the following values: Noise level – In teaching rooms from
traffic ≤ 33 dB.” (BR10, Ch. (6.4.3(1)), p.119-120)
Fire demands
“Buildings must be constructed, laid out and fitted out so as to achieve satisfactory protection
against Fire and the spread of fire to other buildings on the same and neighboring plots.”
(BR10, Ch. 5.1(1), p.90)
Also according to BR10, the school is included in usage category 2: “Usage category 2:
Teaching rooms, school day-care centers and other after-school facilities, day centers and
similar rooms occupied by no more than 50 people. Each room is a fire-resisting unit.” (BR10,
Ch. 5.1.1(1), p.92)
The table below shows how load bearing, separating and non-separating building
components are carried out in buildings, according to their usage categories and building
height. (Protection against Fire in Buildings, p.45)
Fig.36: Load carrying building components fire classes (PAF p.45)

37
Material choice and construction – Solution 1 (Aerated concrete blocks)
The first solution involves using the Ytong aerated concrete blocks, basic C2C certified
products. These are made of sand, cement and lime and are suitable for load bearing
constructions. The blocks have a height of 250 mm and length of 500 mm. The product is
made of three layers:
 a bearing inner layer of aerated concrete with a
density of 340 kg/m3 (155 mm)
 an insulating layer (Ytong Multipor) in the middle
with the density of 115 kg/m3 (180 or 280 mm
thick);
 a 340 kg/m3 density layer, assuring the resistance
needed of the façade (65 mm).
Regarding thermal insulation, an external wall made of
Ytong Energy+ blocks don’t require any extra insulation.
The two different thicknesses of 400 and 500 mm have a
U-value of 0.15 and 0.11 W/m2K. For this project I will
choose the 500 mm wall, in order to fulfil also 2015 U-value
regulations.
The aerated concrete blocks are fireproof, classified as A1 materials and REI 120 building
component. The massive wall of aerated concrete has good sound absorbing properties also.
Traffic noise demands are easily fulfilled with a thick 500 mm wall.
The external wall construction is
simple. The blocks are laid one by
one, fixed with lime mortar and a
reinforcement net of 480 mm
width. The net is pressed into the
mortar, so that the joint thickness
is 2 mm. The blocks are covered on
the outside with 10 mm lime
plaster to create a smooth surface
and on the outside as well.
(www.ytong.dk)
In my opinion, these blocks can suit
the external wall construction for
my project, because they are
strong, with a good bearing
capacity and don’t require using
Fig.37: Ytong Energy+ block sizes
10 mm plaster (as a
finished façade)
Ytong Energy+
Density 340 kg/m3
U-value 0.11 W/m2K
480 mm Ytong Energy+
reinforcement joint
Fig.38: External wall construction
with Ytong Energy+ blocks

38
extra materials or insulation. According to the manufacturer, the blocks are 100% recyclable,
but they are actually being downcycled – crushed and used for producing new blocks, since it
is hard to separate them due to the mortar joints.
LCA calculation for 1 m2 – Solution 1 (Aerated concrete blocks)
The results of the LCA calculation for the Ytong Energy+ blocks external wall are shown below.
To see the full calculation, please refer to Annex 2.
Fig.39: LCA results – Ytong Energy+ wall
Fig.40: GWP graphic of Ytong Energy+ wall

39
Material choice and construction – Solution 2 (Clay blocks)
Having the “2226” office building strategy as an inspiration, I decided to use a similar
construction as a second solution for my external wall, made of Porotherm clay blocks.
Porotherm clay blocks contain small air pockets, which makes them good thermal insulators,
retaining the heat. It can absorb heat from the sun, but also from the indoor temperature,
creating a pleasant indoor environment during summer. In winter or at night, when is cooler
inside the building it releases the heat, reducing the need for heating. Another advantage is
the vapor permeability and the fact that it doesn’t burn, and in case of fire it does not release
any toxic substances. During the production process, the bricks are burnt at approximately
1000 °C and, for example, a wall of 80 mm can resist 90 minutes. Therefore, fire protection is
not a concern in this case. There are four types of simple perforated clay blocks used in the
construction of external walls, differing in thickness, thermal properties, sound resistance and
strength (Fig. 41). (www.wienerberger.de)
As I previously mentioned, the “2226” building’s external walls were made of two layers of
380 mm blocks. We can see in their technical properties above that the thick block of 365 mm
is not exactly the strongest, but it has the lowest thermal conductivity of 0.12 W/mK. If the
blocks used in the “2226” building have the same lambda value, their external wall would
have a U-value of 0.15-0.16 W/m2K. It does not fulfill the 2015 U-value demands, but this is
because in their design strategy they focused more on the value of their wall, rather than the
Fig.41: Porotherm blocks range

40
U-value. For a 2015 energy frame result, more insulation and better U-values can be achieved
in the other components (roof, ground slab).
The advantage of a thick 760 mm clay wall is, first of all, that it acts as a thermal mass storage
and contributes to the heating and cooling of the indoor climate, and thus, the heating and
cooling systems were excluded. Comparing this to my project, I believe that the plot size and
doesn’t allow such thick walls and having this massive construction would significantly
minimize the net internal area. Therefore, it would be better to have these values, but in a
thinner external wall construction.
In order to solve this matter, I will choose as an alternative to the perforated clay blocks, the
Porotherm blocks filled with perlite insulation, developed in Germany for the construction of
passive houses. The perlite is derived from volcanic ash and is a non-combustible material.
These bricks filled with perlite could give the same U-value of 0.15 W/m2K at 425 mm, with a
lambda value of 0.08 W/mK, and is a good choice when we need thinner walls, but compared
to the perforated bricks, it has less abilities of heat storage.
The blocks are called Poroton and differ, as the perforated blocks, based on thermal
conductivity, strength and sizes. The outer clay layer has a minimum thickness of 15 mm for
an increased cracking resistance. The bricks require only very thin bed joints with special thin
wall ties; they connect to each other thorough an interlocking system, due to their shape. The
brick type I chose as a second solution, is the Poroton T7 (Fig. 42), which can be produced as
seen in the picture, a more resistant internal part for bearing the loads, and a highly insulating
external part.
Properties:
 Dimensions: length – 248 mm,
width – 490 mm and height – 249 mm;
 Thermal conductivity (lambda
value): 0.07 W/mK;
 Compressive strength: ≥ 6 N /
mm², more than enough for a 2 storey
building;
 U-value achieved: 0.014 W/m2K;
 The perlite does not emit
pollutants, is not susceptible to rotting
or vermin infestation;
With the 6 internal
insulation chambers best
static values are reached.
The 3 outer greater
insulation chambers
provide excellent
thermal insulation.
All perlite-filled
chambers provide high
sound insulation.
Fig.42: Poroton T7 block properties

41
An example of an external wall construction can be seen in the detail below (Fig. 43),
illustrating a standard connection with a floor slab, using Poroton products. The detail is
similar to the “2226” walls, except here is made of one layer of bricks. The external wall will
have inner and outer lime plastering of approximately 15-20 mm. (www.schlagmann.de)
LCA calculation for 1 m2 – Solution 2 (Clay blocks)
The results of the LCA calculation for the Poroton blocks external wall are shown below. In
order to see the full calculation, please refer to Annex 2.
Fig.43: Poroton T7 wall standard detail
Exterior plaster
POROTON brick
Interior plaster
Wall blocking rail
Mortar leveling layer
Reinforced concrete slab
POROTON Ceiling trim shell
Reinforcement
Edge protection
Fig.44: LCA results – Poroton clay blocks wall

42
Material choice and construction – Solution 3 (Lightweight construction)
For this solution I will make a lightweight construction, using Thoma products for the
loadbearing inner leaf, wood fiber insulation boards and a ventilated façade system finished
with Mosa tiles.
Thoma Holz (Wood) 100 elements have a C2C gold certification from 2013, and as seen in the
“Woodcube” house, these are produced with no adhesives or other toxic substances, allowing
the construction to be disassembled at the end on life stage, and to be used again. The
producer uses wood from sustainably certified forests, such as FSC (Forest Stewardship
Council). The wood is harvested using an old method in specific months of the year and is
called “moon-wood”, due to the lunar phases in which is harvested. Therefore, the wood is
to be harvested during the autumn and winter months, when the sap is lowest in the days
before new moon. This is done in order to increase its durability by naturally protecting it
from insects and fungus.
The elements have increased breathability and high heat storage capacities, contributing to a
good indoor climate. Thoma Holz100 walls are resistant to fire and so, a 170 mm thick wall
has the REI 60 classification, enough to fulfill fire requirements. All the elements are made of
spruce, fir, pine or larch wood and the dowels connecting the layers are made of hardwood.
Maximum size of an element is 3 x 8 m. There are three types of external wall elements:
Fig.45: GWP graphic of Poroton clay blocks wall

43
Holz100 standard, Holz100 thermal and Holz100 sound insulation. The
“Holz100 thermal” has the best insulation properties, with a lambda
value of 0.079 W/mK. Since all of the three types of elements have the
same bearing capacity, I will choose the Holz100 thermal, for its extra
insulating abilities. Thicknesses available are: 250, 306, 364 mm, of
which I shall use the 250 mm (Fig.46). (www.thoma.at)
The insulation I chose for this solution is the Homatherm flexible wood
fiber boards (HolzFlex Standard), used in the Upcycle House project. It
is a vapor permeable insulation, suitable for this construction, with the
following properties:
 Board size: 1220 x 580 mm;
 Board thickness (chosen): 200 mm;
 Thermal conductivity: 0.038 W/mK.
Along with this insulation, a more resistant, wood fiber insulation board
with a high compressive strength is added, for wind protection
(Homatherm UD-Q11 protect), with the characteristics:
 Produced with a tongue and groove system;
 Board size: 1800 x 590 or 2500 x 590;
 Thickness chosen: 35 mm;
 Density: 190 kg/m³;
 Thermal conductivity: 0,043 W/mK.
(http://www.homatherm.com/)
The cladding will consist of Mosa tiles, made of natural ceramic powder, which would give a
beautiful appearance to the school. Besides, the ceramic tiles fit the purpose also, being
resistant to graffiti. The façade made with these tiles require a very low maintenance, is
fireproof, moisture and UV-resistant and don’t reflect much light in the surroundings.
The Mosa ventilated façade system products are C2C silver certified, designed with special
regards to disassembly, the world’s first ceramic tiles company to get a C2C certification for
all their products. All the products used in the façade system are to be dismounted and
reclaimed by Mosa Façades at the end of life, in order to be
reused.
The ventilated system I chose is visibly attached (Fig. 47) and
according to the manufacturer, is connected to the wall using a
clamp screwed into the vertical wooden battens, as shown in the
detail below (Fig.48). (www.mosafacades.nl)
Fig.47: Mosa tiles –
visibly attached system
Fig.46: Holz 100
thermal wall
element

44
With this construction we have a strong inner leaf, easily supporting the two floors of the
school project, and a good insulation, both made of renewable materials, which give plenty
of good values to the overall construction. In addition, we have a ventilated façade of ceramic
tiles, designed for disassembly and circular economy. It is fire and sound resistant and after a
small U-value calculation (Fig. 49), we can see it is also good insulated, with a result of 0.11
W/m2K, fulfilling the 2015 regulations.
An overview of the final wall construction is
seen in Fig. 50. The wall needs to be breathable
in order to allow moisture regulation in the
wall, therefore, a membrane opened to
diffusion is fixed on the wood fiber board, right
before placing the counter battens. This way,
the construction is protected from outside
moisture and, in the meantime, permits the
wall to breathe and remain “healthy”.
Fig.48: Connection of Mosa tiles in a ventilated façade system – Horizontal section
Fig.49: U-Value calculation for 3rd
solution wall
Fig.50: Wooden wall (Vertical section)

45
LCA calculation for 1 m2 – Solution 3 (Lightweight construction)
The LCA calculation results for this lightweight external wall solution are shown below. To see
the entire calculation, please refer to Annex 2.
Comparing the three solutions and final choice
Quantitative comparison
This comparison refers in our case to the LCA calculation, which reveals the impact on the
environment of the three solutions, from the production phase of materials, until the end of
life, in the form of numbers indicating the Global Warming Potential (GWP), measured in kg
Co2. In the graphic below is illustrated the results of the entire life cycle GWP of the different
walls and we can see that the wall made of Ytong blocks has the highest GWP of 139.02 kg
Fig.51: LCA results – Lightweight wall
Fig.52: GWP graphic of lightweight Thoma wall

46
CO2, but with a small difference from the Poroton blocks wall, which has a GWP of 116.4 kg
CO2. The best value comes from the third solution, the Thoma element wall, which has a
negative value of -44.67 kg CO2. In the production phase, the biggest amount of CO2 comes
from manufacturing the Ytong blocks wall (121.43 kg CO2), using more energy than the other
two wall solutions.
Another quantitative aspect is the U-value achieved. As seen above, the Ytong wall and the
Thoma wooden wall have 0.11 W/m2K, which is the best value, while the clay wall has a U-
value of 0.14 W/m2K, all of them having more or less the same thickness.
Qualitative comparison
The life cycle analysis above represents but a small part of the Cradle to Cradle analysis of the
three wall solutions. It is important to consider all the social, economic and environmental
issues and impacts of the components before making a choice:
 The Ytong wall is easy to build with and gives a good insulation to the building, but
compared to the clay brick wall, the aerated concrete doesn’t bring extra good values
to the project. The clay bricks can store a lot more heat and contribute to the indoor
climate, reducing the energy use and it has the longest life span compared to the other
two walls.
 At the end of life, the Poroton bricks can be separated and used again, compared to
the Ytong blocks, which need to be crushed, serving as raw material for new blocks.
Fig.53: GWP graphic comparison of the three external walls

47
 The wooden wall, on the other hand, is built without any adhesives, using just screws
to fix the wooden battens and easily attached ceramic façade. This makes the
component easy to disassemble at the end of life, minimizing waste.
 The wooden wall construction is a little more complex than the other two walls,
requiring insulation compared to the other ones, which is perhaps an economic
disadvantage.
Choice of external wall
Considering all the above, I believe both wooden wall and clay blocks wall are interesting
solutions for the “UGBL” school’s external wall. From a Cradle to Cradle perspective, I believe
the clay façade has more advantages, which is why I choose the wall made of Poroton blocks,
filled with perlite insulation. On a long term view, these walls are very resistant and through
its properties of retaining heat and releasing it again when needed, it would be an energy-
efficient solution.
4.3 Conclusion on 3rd
Part
The aim of this chapter was to integrate healthy materials and products, with respect to the
C2C concept, in the “UGBL” School construction. Since analyzing all the components in the
building would have been too much for this report, I chose to focus only on external walls and
deeply analyze three solutions.
I started the chapter by describing and understanding the project I will work with. Afterwards,
I made a small research regarding the regulations and demands related to the external walls
construction, which have to be fulfilled. For this component I compared three different
solutions, which were carefully analyzed, emphasizing their qualities and C2C credits. Finally,
LCA calculations were made for 1 m2 of each external wall construction, which helped me
compare them in a more quantitative matter and so, the wooden wall with a ventilated façade
had the best LCA results, with a negative CO2 emission of its entire life-cycle. The highest
number came from the Ytong wall, which had the highest CO2 amount in the production
phase.
Considering these results, as well as other C2C perspectives, I have chosen the wall made of
Poroton clay blocks filled with perlite insulation, plastered on both sides. Over the years, this
construction is the most resistant, would keep its original values and besides, when the
building would be disassembled, the bricks can be reused in other construction.
I believe the research and analysis done in this chapter offered me a different way of looking
at products, reminding me there are many things to consider before making final choices for
a project.

48
5. CONCLUSION
The overall purpose of this dissertation was to investigate and find out more about Cradle to
Cradle products and healthy materials and learn about C2C integrated strategies in order to
implement it in the “UGBL” School building, the project I chose for my 7th semester. The main
content of the dissertation is split in three chapters, each corresponding to one research
question.
My first chapter is about understanding the C2C concept, containing all the theoretical data
related to the three C2C principles and the circular economy system, answering the first
research question: “What is the Cradle to Cradle concept defined by, and what are the added
values of using C2C products in our buildings?”. The C2C thinking involves minimizing
resources, while maximizing the product quality, recommends using renewable energy and
eliminates the concept of waste. The C2C certification program is a tool of analyzing and
labeling the products, based on a criteria of evaluation. The advantage of using C2C products
in buildings is that, first of all, we are aware of the substances within those products and we
know if it is affecting us or the environment. Another advantage is the effectiveness of the
building in terms of economy, resource use and energy consumption.
The second part of my dissertation answers the following research question: “What is the
relation between building materials and the indoor climate and what examples of C2C healthy
materials integration strategies are there?”. The materials can have a strong impact on the
indoor climate, by releasing particles in the air, or toxins. C2C certification and The Danish
Indoor Climate Labelling can be used to determine if a product is harmful. These tools, along
with the product’s EDP are used to make good choices of materials in buildings. To study
healthy material integration in buildings, I have analyzed four houses with different C2C
approach: upcycling materials, the use of local, renewable materials, using massive clay brick
walls as thermal storages and designing for disassembly.
I believe the most important chapter was the last one, where I used the information gained
in the first and second parts, in order to answer the last research question: “How can healthy
materials and good indoor climate strategies be integrated in the “UGBL School” project?”. I
have analyzed three solutions of the external wall construction: aerated concrete wall, clay
blocks filled with perlite and wooden wall with wood fiber insulation and ventilated façade.
In order to make the right choice, we need to consider the demands of sound, fire and heat
transition, compare the solutions based on their C2C added values and LCA results. The
chosen construction was the clay blocks, because, from a C2C perspective, the clay wall has
more value, a bigger life span and contributes more to the indoor air, by storing and releasing
heat.
In my opinion, I have managed to answer all the research questions, gaining a lot of
knowledge, which I will use in solving my final project, towards maximizing the benefits of the
building.

49
6. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1: Linear and circular economy scheme [image online] Available at:
<http://desso-thegreatindoors.com/files/2014/01/desso-CE-artwork-
01_what-is-the-CE.png>.
Figure 2: Technical and biological cycle scheme [image online] Available at:
<http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/pathsthroughtheforests/files/201
4/04/Cradle-to-Cradle-Design.jpg>.
Figure 3: Example of a product scorecard [image online] Available at:
<http://www.c2ccertified.org/images/uploads/bronze_product_scorecard.jp
g>.
Figure 4: Diagram comparing demolition to disassembly [image online] Available at:
<https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/5v53chpyyo9xcm4/images/4-
c05dbec7df.jpg>.
Figure 5: EPD example – UK (BRE Environmental Profiles) [image online] Available at:
<http://www.pe-international.com/typo3temp/pics/2c164daa9a.jpg>
Figure 6: Ytong Energy+ block [image online] Available at:
<http://www.ytong.dk/dk/img/ytong_energy.jpg>.
Figure 7: Troldtekt panel [image online] Available at:
<http://www.troldtekt.com/~/media/Images/Products/Troldtekt%20types/Tr
oldtekt/300%20px/Troldtekt%20acoustic%20panel.jpg>.
Figure 8: The Upcycle House [image online] Available at: <http://lendagerark.dk/wp-
content/uploads/Upcyle-house.-aug.9.jpg>.
Figure 9: Containers are placed on site [image online] Available at:
<http://www.architetturaecosostenibile.it/images/stories/2014/620x320xup
cycle-house-container-e.jpg.pagespeed.ic.5qQLZQkYg9.jpg>.
Figure 10: Technopor granules [image online] Available at: <http://www.self-
build.co.uk/sites/default/files/rsz_bottle_and_technopor.jpg>.
Figure 11: Paper wool insulation [image online] Available at:
<http://www.realdaniabyg.dk/imagegen.ashx?height=154&width=513&const
rain=true&image=/media/184137/papirisolering.jpg>.
Figure 12: Wood fiber insulation board [image online] Available at:
<http://www.ecomerchant.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df
78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/0/e01220_flex_faecher_7.jpg>.
Figure 13: Translucent wall [image online] Available at: <http://lendagerark.dk/wp-
content/uploads/IMG_3108_cropped.jpg>.
Figure 14: Aluminum corrugated panels [image online] Available at:
<http://multimedia.pol.dk/archive/00770/SpisUpcycle9_770830c.jpg>.

50
Figure 15: Richlite façade and windows [image online] Available at:
<http://trends.archiexpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/upcycle-house-
lendager-arkitekter-15.jpg>.
Figure 16: Cork and OSB flooring [image online] Available at:
<http://o.homedsgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Upcycle-House-16-
800x1198.jpg>.
Figure 17: UPM Profi deck [image online] Available at: <http://lendagerark.dk/wp-
content/uploads/Upc._kons_cropped.jpg>.
Figure 18: The Modern Seaweed House – front view [image online] Available at:
<http://dv5lc0nz60nfv.cloudfront.net/contentFiles/image/oct-
2013/seaweedhouse-720x390.jpg>.
Figure 19: The living room [image online] Available at: <http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/07/Seaweed-House-Vandkunsten-Realdania-
Byg-5.jpg>.
Figure 20: Rooms in the loft [image online] Available at:
<http://www.vandkunsten.com/public_site/webroot/cache/project/Tanghus
_03.jpg>.
Figure 21: Openings to the terrace [image online] Available at:
<http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/07/Seaweed-House-Vandkunsten-Realdania-
Byg-3.jpg>.
Figure 22: Seaweed timber elements are assembled on site [image online] Available at:
<http://i2.wp.com/www.theyearofmud.com/wp-
content/uploads//2014/07/seaweed-house-panels.jpg?resize=575%2C322>.
Figure 23: Finished roof and cladding [image online] Available at: <http://www.bee-
inc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Modern-Seaweed-House-in-
Denmark-468x288.jpg>.
Figure 24: Linen ceiling - stuffed eelgrass mattresses [image online] Available at:
<http://i0.wp.com/www.theyearofmud.com/wp-
content/uploads//2014/07/seaweed-house-int-
roof01.jpg?resize=575%2C431>.
Figure 25: 2226 Building perspective and façade detail [image online] Available at:
<http://www.detail.de/typo3temp/pics/buerogebaeude-lauterach-2226-2-
fassade_0_2bdaf1b1e1.jpg>; <http://www.baumschlager-
eberle.com/uploads/tx_beprojects/be2226_0504.jpg>.
Figure 26: Walls construction-clay blocks [image online] Available at:
<http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/x/t/d/aLustenau-
construction203-red_633.jpg>.
Figure 27: “2226” external wall details [image scanned] Available from: “Arkitektur N”
magazine, number 01, 2015.

51
Figure 28: Woodcube House [image online] Available at: <http://deepgreen-
development.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Panorama-2--
1044x357.jpg>.
Figure 29: Mounting solid wood elements in “Woodcube” building [image online]
Available at:
<http://www.proholz.at/fileadmin/proholz/media/Hamburg_woodcube_dec
kenverlegung.jpg>.
Figure 30: Section of Thoma wall element [image online] Available at:
<http://www.woodarchitecture.se/BinaryLoader.axd?OwnerID=9887ae66-
10d0-432c-9c4d-
d0b8d1fe1665&OwnerType=0&PropertyName=Image&FileName=wbox6.jpg
&ResizeHeight=600&ResizeWidth=520>.
Figure 31: North-West overview of the building [image – brochure] Available from:
“UGBL” School Outline Proposal brochure.
Figure 32: Site plan [image PDF] Available from: “UGBL” School – Outline Proposal
brochure.
Figure 33: Ground floor plan [image PDF] Available from: “UGBL” School – Outline
Proposal brochure.
Figure 34: 1st floor plan [image PDF] Available from: “UGBL” School – Outline Proposal
brochure.
Figure 35: U-value table (BR10 p.134) [image PDF] Available from: “Building Regulations
2010”.
Figure 36: Load carrying building components fire classes (PAF p.45) [image PDF]
Available from: “Protection against Fire in Buildings”.
Figure 37: Ytong Energy+ block sizes [image online] Available at:
<http://www.xella.co.uk/en/docs/Ytong_Energy_blocks(1).pdf>.
Figure 38: External wall construction with Ytong Energy+ blocks [image online] Available
at: <http://www.ytong.dk/dk/docs/Rev_D_96_27_120.pdf>.
Figure 39: LCA results – Ytong Energy+ wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 40: GWP graphic of Ytong Energy+ wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 41: Porotherm blocks range [image online] Available at:
<http://www.rgbltd.co.uk/userfiles/cms/Building_Materials/Wienerberger__
Porotherm_/Porotherm.pdf>.
Figure 42: Poroton T7 block properties [image online] Available at: <http://www.frank-
bau.net/images/t7-montage.gif>.
Figure 43: Poroton T7 wall standard detail [image online] Available at:
<http://www.wienerberger.de/servlet/util/getDownload.jsp?blobtable=WB
Media&blobcol=urlimage&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1394399401769&blobhe
ader=multipart/octet-stream&blobheadername1=Content-

52
Disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Wienerberger_Detail_
1.04.1.1.2_130130.JPG&sl=wb_de_home_de>.
Figure 44: LCA results – Poroton clay blocks wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 45: GWP graphic of Poroton clay blocks wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 46: Holz 100 thermal wall element [image online] Available at:
<http://www.justwoodit.com/pliki/parts%20catalog.pdf>.
Figure 47: Mosa tiles – visibly attached system [image online] Available at:
<http://www.mosafacades.nl/files/cache1406f6e2d5f4d5f6b8d714fd7fca42e
e.jpg>.
Figure 48: Connection of Mosa tiles in a ventilated façade system – Horizontal section
[image online] Available at:
<http://www.mosafacades.nl/files/5114/1476/2533/gevntileerd-
zichtbaar.pdf>.
Figure 49: U-Value calculation for 3rd solution wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 50: Wooden wall (Vertical section) [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 51: LCA results – Lightweight wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 52: GWP graphic of lightweight Thoma wall [self-image] Author: Claudia-Esthera
Gheorghe.
Figure 53: GWP graphic comparison of the three external walls [self-image] Author:
Claudia-Esthera Gheorghe.

53
7. LIST OF REFERENCES
Books:
 Braungart, M & McDonough, W (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make
things. USA: North Point Press.
 Boer, P., van Heeswijk, J., Heideveld, A., den Held, D. & Maatman, D (2011). Inspired
by Cradle to Cradle®: C2C practice in education. Venlo, The Netherlands: Drukkerij
Knoops.
 Construction Products Association (2012). A guide to understanding the embodied
impacts of construction products. London.
 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company (2014). Towards the Circular
Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. Geneva, Switzerland:
World Economic Forum.
 Erhvervs og Boligstyrelsen (2004). Protection against fire in buildings – A collection of
examples. Denmark: Paperjam Aps.
 Miller, F.P, Vandome, A.F, McBrewster, J (2010). Cradle to Cradle. Beau Bassin,
Mauritius: Alphascript Publishing.
 Mouhall, D & Braungart, M (2010). Cradle to Cradle®: Criteria for the built
environment. Venlo, The Netherlands: Knoops, Eco Printing.
 The Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs & Danish Enterprise and
Construction Authority (2010). Building Regulations 2010. Denmark.
Brochures / Articles:
 “The Mini CO2 Houses in Nyborg” brochure, by Birgitte Kleis.
 “Arkitektur N” magazine, January 2015, article on pages 37-40.
 “UGBL” School Outline Proposal brochure.
Electronic sources:
 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Braungart> Accessed: 02 March, 2015.
 <http://www.mbdc.com/about-mbdc/overview/> Accessed: 02 March, 2015.
 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy> Accessed: 02 March, 2015.
<http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/about/history-1> Accessed: 02 March,
2015.
 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZb2kj61HTg> Accessed: 03 March, 2015.
 < http://www.glassforeurope.com/en/issues/faq.php> Accessed: 03 March, 2015.
 <http://c2cproducts.com/detail.aspx?linkid=2&sublink=8> Accessed: 03 March,
2015.
 <http://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/product-certification-levels> Accessed:
03 March, 2015.

54
 < http://www.c2c-
centre.com/sites/default/files/Registry%20for%20C2C%20Inspired%20Elements.pdf
> Accessed: 03 March, 2015.
 <http://epea-hamburg.org/en/content/cradle-cradle-inspired-buildings> Accessed:
03 March, 2015.
 <http://www.academia.edu/178424/Deconstruction_and_Design_for_Disassembly>
Accessed: 03 March, 2015.
 <http://www.teknologisk.dk/ydelser/dansk-indeklima-maerkning/dim-
omfatter/253,2> Accessed: 04 March, 2015.
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/Environment/EPD> Accessed: 04 March, 2015.
 <http://www.epddanmark.dk/site/index_eng.html> Accessed: 04 March, 2015.
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/Environment/Cradle-to-Cradle> Accessed: 04 March,
2015.
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/About-us> Accessed: 04 March, 2015.
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/Environment/Product-life-cycle/Transport>
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/Environment/Product-life-cycle/Disposal> Accessed:
04 March, 2015.
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/Products/Acoustic-panels/Fire-safety> Accessed: 04
March, 2015.
 <http://www.troldtekt.com/en/Products/Acoustic-panels/Indoor-climate> Accessed:
04 March, 2015.
 <http://www.ytong.dk/dk/content/news_2476.php> Accessed: 05 March, 2015.
 <http://www.ytong.dk/dk/content/ytong_energy_2419.php> Accessed: 05 March,
2015.
 <http://www.ytong.dk/dk/content/yong_energy__2434.php> Accessed: 05 March,
2015.
 <http://www.realdaniabyg.dk/projekter/minico2-husene/summary-in-english>
 <http://lendagerark.dk/projekter/upcycle-house/#> Accessed: 06 March, 2015.
 <http://visuall.net/2014/01/10/upcycle-house-by-lendager-arkitekter/> Accessed:
07 March, 2015.
 <http://inhabitat.com/upcycle-house-lendager-arkitekter-unveils-incredible-house-
made-entirely-from-recycled-materials/lendager-arkitekter-upcycle-house5/>
 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX8WouBllC4> Accessed: 08 March, 2015.
 <http://www.megeshelters.com/en/newsview.aspx?tid=208&id=121> Accessed: 08
March, 2015.
 <http://www.norbord.co.uk/news/danish-upcycle-house-clad-osb-panels> Accessed:
08 March, 2015.

55
 <http://inhabitat.com/lendager-architects-building-175000-upcycle-house-entirely-
from-recycled-materials-in-denmark/upcycle-house-lendager-architects-
2/#ixzz3STiOvJXK> Accessed: 09 March, 2015.
 <http://www.jetsongreen.com/2014/04/upcycle-house-built-from-used-shipping-
containers.html> Accessed: 09 March, 2015.
 <http://www.technopor.dk/> Accessed: 09 March, 2015.
 <http://www.ecomerchant.co.uk/technopor-foamed-glass-sub-floor-
insulation.html#sthash.mSJeJoq1.dpbs> Accessed: 09 March, 2015.
 <http://www.papiruld.dk/> Accessed: 10 March, 2015.
 <http://www.homatherm.com/en/start/builders/> Accessed: 10 March, 2015.
 <http://www.upmprofi.com/Pages/default.aspx> Accessed: 10 March, 2015.
 <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/10/the-modern-seaweed-house-by-
vandkunsten-and-realdania/> Accessed: 10 March, 2015.
 <http://www.realdaniabyg.dk/projekter/tanghuse-paa-laesoe-det-moderne-
tanghus/kalines-house-and-the-modern-seaweed-house> Accessed: 11 March, 2015.
 <http://www.norwegian.com/magazine/features/2013/10/how-do-you-build-a-
house-from-seaweed> Accessed: 11 March, 2015.
 <http://www.vandkunsten.com/dk/Projekter/Projekt/Fakta/det-moderne-tanghus-
p%C3%A5-l%C3%A6s%C3%B8/263-9.p> Accessed: 11 March, 2015.
 <http://www.theyearofmud.com/2014/07/06/modern-seaweed-house/> Accessed:
11 March, 2015.
 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quyrglWd7vw&t=63> Accessed: 12 March,
2015.
 <http://www.detail.de/architektur/themen/haus-ohne-heizung-buerogebaeude-
von-baumschlager-eberle-in-lustenau-022701.html> Accessed: 12 March, 2015.
 <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/low-energy-office-building-in-austria-by-baumschlager-
eberle/5066091.article> Accessed: 12 March, 2015.
 <http://www.baumschlager-eberle.com/en/projects/project-
details/project/buerogebaeude.html> Accessed: 12 March, 2015.
 <http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/scorecard/clay_brick_porotherm >
 <http://informationsdienst-
holz.de/index.php?id=65&tx_locator_pi1%5BstoreUid%5D=426> Accessed: 13
March, 2015.
 <http://www.gizmag.com/woodcube-apartment-block-
architekturagentur/28790/pictures#3> Accessed: 13 March, 2015.
 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/woodcube-apartment-
germany_n_3832269.html> Accessed: 14 March, 2015.
 <http://www.german-architects.com/de/projects/40962_woodcube> Accessed: 14
March, 2015.

56
 <http://www.iba-hamburg.de/en/themes-projects/the-building-exhibition-within-
the-building-exhibition/smart-material-houses/woodcube/projekt/woodcube.html>
 <http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/scorecard/thoma_holz100> Accessed: 15
March, 2015.
 <http://www.iba-hamburg.de/fileadmin/Mediathek/Whitepaper/14-06-
16_White_Paper_WOODCUBE.pdf> Accessed: 15 March, 2015.
 <http://www.connovate.dk/teknologi/overview-of-u-values-
%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bfor-different-wall-thicknesses/?lang=en> Accessed: 15
March, 2015.
 <http://www.xella.co.uk/en/docs/Ytong_Energy_blocks(1).pdf> Accessed: 16
March, 2015.
 <http://www.ytong.dk/dk/docs/102412_ENERGY_BOGEN_LOW.pdf> Accessed: 16
March, 2015.
 <http://www.ytong.dk/dk/docs/102370_3_YTONG_MONTAGEANV_ENERGY.pdf>
 <http://www.rgbltd.co.uk/userfiles/cms/Building_Materials/Wienerberger__Poroth
erm_/Porotherm.pdf> Accessed: 18 March, 2015.
 <http://www.wienerberger.de/wandloesungen/download-center/details/details-
monolithisch/geschossdecke/abmauerung-mit-
deckenrandschale.html?lpi=1397054391277> Accessed: 19 March, 2015.
 <http://www.wienerberger.de/t7-490-p.html> Accessed: 19 March, 2015.
 <http://www.schlagmann.de/images/content/pdfs/2015-Zehnkaempfer.pdf>
 <http://www.thoma.at/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Folder_English.pdf> Accessed:
20 March, 2015.
 <http://www.thoma.at/en/> Accessed: 20 March, 2015.
 <http://www.thoma.at/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Holz100_Bauteilkatalog_Mrz_2014.pdf> Accessed: 20
March, 2015.
 <http://www.homatherm.com/en/produkte/holzflex-standard-6/> Accessed: 20
March, 2015.
 <http://www.homatherm.com/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/en/holzFlex_standard.pdf> Accessed: 20 March, 2015.
 <http://www.homatherm.com/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/en/UD_q11_protect.pdf 20 March 2015> Accessed: 20
March, 2015.
 <http://www.mosafacades.nl/en/mosa-facades/ceramic-facade-cladding/>
 <http://www.mosafacades.nl/en/losse-pagina/geventileerde-gevel-2-2/visibly-
attached/> Accessed: 22 March, 2015.

57
8. LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1: Questionnaire – Søren Lyngsgaard
Annex 2: LCA calculation for the three external wall solutions
9. ANNEXES
9.1 Annex 1: Questionnaire
C2C Questionnaire: Healthy material use/Air quality, Indoor climate
(Answers from Søren Lyngsgaard, founder of Cradle to Cradle Denmark)
QUESTION 1: Why do you think is important to implement C2C strategies in buildings?
ANSWER: First of all, I think it’s important because when you implement C2C strategies
in buildings, you begin to plan for sustainability already from the beginning. A
C2C strategy, would mean that you already from the beginning start creating
goals and long term strategies for the building in order to be good for its
surroundings and for the environment. So, a C2C strategy is important because
you, from the beginning, start planning and setting goals for different parts of
the building and for what kind of materials you want to put in it. From the
beginning you can plan for total economy, which means that you can begin to
plan that the building would be financially and economically good, seen in a
total economy perspective over 30 years, for example. A C2C strategy is also a
way that you can address the whole circular economy perspective that you
want to (already from the beginning) define your materials, so they can either
come back into the same circle and reusing maybe the product itself, or part
of the product, or maybe only having all the materials recycled into another
product.
Another reason would be that when you go for C2C strategies in buildings, then
you naturally want to breakdown cycles between the different disciplines,
because you want all the beneficial goals to be part of a collaboration between
the disciplines, and since it’s not only the health of the materials, but it’s also
how can the materials work together and with the design, in order to be
beneficial. So when you begin to work together, between the disciplines and
their competencies, then you begin to create solutions and strategies that will,
over years, be more beneficial, because the strategy is not only seen as good
in one discipline.
For example, it can be more than just producing clean energy, it could also be
cleaning the air and it could be supplying more bio-diversity. Therefore, when
you begin to work horizontally in between the disciplines, you get strategies

58
that are much more organic to the place and to the building. In the end, I think
implementing C2C strategies in buildings makes the building more efficient and
more effective, when it comes to energy, water, etc. I think we can, this way,
make much more effective buildings, seen from a sustainability point of view,
also socially and financially.
QUESTION 2: What building elements can be designed to be modular, flexible and used in
such way to be reused at the end of a building’s life?
ANSWER: I think all building elements can be designed to be modular, flexible and used
in such a way that they can be reused at the end of a building’s life. It’s only a
matter of creativity and will. And of course it’s also related with the identity of
the building project, with what kind of developer or entrepreneur you are
working with. I think that making modular building elements that can be
disassembled in much more intelligent ways than we are doing now, would be
much more used in the future, it’s just a matter of creativity and that you begin
to work together with people maybe from the other industries or with people
that are already using these elements. So, we need to be much more opened
to solutions from everywhere.
QUESTION 3: Why do you work with these kind of products? What are the advantages of
having a C2C certification?
ANSWER: There is a difference between: why I want to work with these products and
why the producer wants to work with these kind of products. Producers want
to work with these products, because it has a lot of value, they know what’s in
their product, that they don’t poison the environment and the people that
work with them and they eventually have a plan for what they want to achieve
with their design.
They want to have products that can be disassembled and going into the
biological and technical metabolisms without a problem and they want to
know if there is something of risk in their product and that’s what you can get
with the certification. You can document where you are in your development
over a C2C product and you can get advice and have your risks minimized. So
there is a lot of risk management in the certification, but also you can already
say that you are improving towards a circular economy. The producer knows
what he is doing and he can brag himself with this, which is a good thing,
because, especially the architects, they believe is good knowing what kind of
sustainability approach the different producers have. And that is what you get
with a C2C certification, if you are on “Bronze”, you have to get to “Silver” and
after that you improve towards “Gold” and you get a kind of motivation also

59
to become more sustainable with the water, the energy, social fairness and so
on.
QUESTION 4: When talking about healthy materials and C2C products, what are the most
important characteristics you would consider, in order to choose the best
solutions?
ANSWER: We always start from where we actually are. Of course if you are developing a
totally new product you want to be able to have healthy materials that are not
in any way affecting humans and other life and there is a standard for that. C2C
has a “no-go” list where these ingredients cannot be in the product and there
is a difference between the biological and technical metabolism, because the
biological metabolism consists of products and materials that get into the
water or get into the air because it’s used up. For example, tires: the rubber
goes on the road and in the ditch besides the road, so you want to have a
rubber that is not toxic. Or shoes: you want to have shoe soles that is not toxic
because it comes into the water and so on.
Therefore, you want to have biological materials that are not toxic at all.
Whereas in the technical metabolism, you can actually have materials that are
toxic if they are protected in a way that it doesn’t come in contact with the
environment and living things and you can actually recycle it in a way that is
safe for humans and everybody else. So, that’s the difference between the two
metabolisms. The most important fact is using your common sense and use
materials that you know, that are harmless and you should definitely be sure
about that, if you make a product that is living in the biological metabolism.
QUESTION 5: What challenges do you encounter when integrating C2C products in a
building?
ANSWER: Lots of problems, because, first of all, you really want a project team that
knows what C2C is, since it is not only about products, it is a whole thought
system, where everybody in the project team should know about C2C. Many
people think that sustainability is about minimizing the risk and minimizing the
weight of the materials, but C2C thinks differently: how can we maximize the
benefits of the solutions? So maybe is better to use higher quality materials
because they can do a better job for many years and still have value in the end
when it’s going into a new metabolism. It can do a better job and keep up the
value of the building in the meantime. It can do a better job at the site, when
it is in use, so it is very important that you think of C2C not as jut products, but
as a thought system. We don’t only want to minimize the footprint but we
want to actually maximize the beneficial outputs of the building. Because
eventually there is a better economy in doing that.

60
QUESTION 6: In order to have a high quality indoor climate in a building, what is essential to
point out and what are the issues we are dealing with? How can the material
use affect the indoor air quality in a building?
ANSWER: Seen from a C2C perspective, we don’t want no toxic materials that can affect
the indoor climate in a building, and you can be aware of that, if you use C2C
products. But not all products are C2C products, so you can use EPDs, in order
to find out what impact they have on the indoor climate. You want to create
solutions where you, for example, use products or biological materials that can
actually absorb CO2 and clean the air. Some products do that actually, but also
plants and other kinds of materials can clean the air. For example, Desso
carpets can clean the air because it holds statically dust particles in a better
way. So there is all kinds of things that you can do to create a better indoor
climate.
So that should be part of your C2C strategy from the beginning: how do you
want to clean the air? Indoor natural ventilation is also a C2C strategy, by using
chimney principles to have natural ventilation. Therefore, creating C2C
strategies that eliminates the CO2 and clean the air with materials and natural
ventilation can maintain a high quality indoor climate.
9.2 Annex 2: LCA calculation for the three external wall solutions
 LCA – Ytong Energy+ external wall:

61
 LCA – Poroton blocks external wall:

62
 LCA – Thoma lightweight wall:

63

Dissertation

More Related Content

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation