Building Research & Information

ISSN: 0961-3218 (Print) 1466-4321 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks

Anne Sigrid Nordby , Bjørn Berge , Finn Hakonsen & Anne Grete Hestnes

To cite this article: Anne Sigrid Nordby , Bjørn Berge , Finn Hakonsen & Anne Grete Hestnes
(2009) Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks, Building Research & Information, 37:1,
55-67, DOI: 10.1080/09613210802476023

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210802476023

Published online: 09 Jan 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 180

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20

Download by: [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] Date: 23 September 2015, At: 09:29
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2009) 37(1), 55– 67

Criteria for salvageability:

the reuse of bricks

Anne Sigrid Nordby1, Bjrn Berge2, Finn Hakonsen1 and Anne Grete Hestnes1
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015

1
Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, Department of Architectural Design, History and Technology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Alfred Getz vei 3, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
E-mails: anne.sigrid.nordby@ntnu.no, ¢nn.hakonsen@ntnu.no and annegrete.hestnes@ntnu.no

2
GAIA Lista, N-4560 Vanse, Norway
E-mail: bjoern@gaiaarkitekter.no

Bricks can be regarded as an environmentally beneficial building material only over the whole life cycle. Its high
durability fulfils the demand for environmental payback. However, since a long component lifetime also implies
different uses, the design and construction should enable the potential for reuse. This Norwegian study investigates
how component design and different construction methods influence the salvageability for reuse in order to avoid
down-cycling. The results show that the single brick itself has great potential as a reusable component. Simplicity and
small scale provide a unique architectural flexibility, which increases the potential for a second service life. Regarding
brick constructions, the most important parameter is the choice of connectors. The lime-based mortar used in
historical buildings is far more flexible than the cement mortar commonly used today, and recent developments point
to a reintroduction of limes. On the other hand, the use of bolted connections can make mortar-less masonry
possible, but this approach may lead to sub-optimization in achieving overall environmental goals.

Keywords: brick, brickwork, building materials, design for disassembly, reuse, salvageability, service life, waste
reduction, Norway

Les briques ne peuvent être considérées comme un matériau de construction bénéfique pour l’environnement que si l’on
prend en compte l’ensemble de leur cycle de vie. La grande durabilité de ce matériau répond à la demande d’un bénéfice
en retour pour l’environnement. Néanmoins, étant donné que la longue durée de vie d’un élément de construction
implique également des usages différents, sa conception et sa fabrication devraient pouvoir lui assurer un potentiel de
réutilisation. Cette étude norvégienne examine comment la conception des éléments de construction et des méthodes
de construction différentes influent sur la capacité de récupération des matériaux pour permettre un réemploi qui
évite leur dévalorisation. Les résultats montrent que la simple brique elle-même possède un grand potentiel en tant
qu’élément de construction réutilisable. Sa simplicité et sa petite taille lui assurent une souplesse architecturale
exceptionnelle, ce qui accroı̂t ses chances potentielles de connaı̂tre une seconde vie. S’agissant des constructions en
briques, le paramètre le plus important est le choix des joints. Le mortier de chaux utilisé dans les bâtiments
historiques est beaucoup plus souple que le mortier de ciment couramment utilisé aujourd’hui, mais de récents
développements indiquent une réintroduction des mortiers de chaux. D’un autre côté, l’utilisation de joints boulonnés
peut permettre l’utilisation d’une maçonnerie sans mortier, mais cette approche peut conduire à une sous-
optimisation dans la réalisation des objectifs environnementaux globaux.

Mots clés: brique, maçonnerie en briques, matériaux de construction, conception permettant le démontage, réemploi,
capacité de récupération, durée de vie, réduction des déchets, Norvège

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2009 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210802476023
 Nordby et al.
Introduction
Bricks in a life cycle perspective
There is an abundant supply of clay in Norway. Gener-
ally, the low content of lime and the high content of
iron in the clay have resulted in good-quality bricks.
At the start of the 1900s, 200 brickyards were distri-
buted around the country. Today there is only one.
Since the Norwegian brick industry has become
strongly centralized, bricks can no longer be con-
sidered a local material, and many brick products are
also imported from abroad. Of a total of 19 –21
million bricks traded in Norway yearly, about 70% is
nationally produced. Imported bricks typically come
from Finland, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
(personal communication with Tove Narvestad at
Maxit-Wienerberger, Norway, 2008). This develop-
ment has caused a great increase in the need for trans-
portation. Since bricks are heavy and are mainly
transported by road, the effect of centralization has
an adverse impact on the carbon balance.
Furthermore, the production of bricks results in a con-
siderable environmental load. The burning of clay at
high temperatures requires large amounts of energy
and results in emission of CO2 and toxic gases. The
climatic impact of a half brick veneer wall covering
an underlying construction of wood framework is esti-
mated to be almost 100 kg CO2-equivalents per m2
wall surface (Nordby et al., 2006). This load results
from emissions during the extraction, production,
and transport of building materials, and shows a ‘day
zero’ situation for the building (i.e., excluding operat-
ing, maintenance, alteration and end of life impacts).
Compared with a complete exterior wall in wood,
the environmental load is five times higher, and for
an insulated cavity wall with two half brick leaves
the load is about ten times as high.
There are several measures that could improve the
general environmental profile for bricks. One step
would be to reconstruct local kilns so that the environ-
mental loads from transport between extraction, pro-
duction and building sites could be reduced. The
transition to renewable energy sources for production
is another action that could directly improve the situ-
ation. Furthermore, pollutants caused by heating of
the clay, such as sulphur and fluorine compounds,
can be neutralized by adding 15 –20% lime to the
clay (Berge, 2000). Further measures to consider in
optimizing the brick-making process are described in
publications such as Best Available Techniques in the
Ceramic Manufacturing Industry (Institute for Pro-
spective Technological Studies (IPPC), 2006).
However, it is only when looking at the whole life
cycle that it becomes possible to compare the environ-
mental profile, and also the total financial costs, of one
building material to another. The logic of environ-
mental justifiable lifetime (Nordby et al., 2006) states
56
that the environmental loads of a material should be
expected to be mirrored in a correspondingly high
durability. And indeed, when it comes to maintenance
and technical lifetime, bricks achieve high scores. In
this way, the production of bricks with its relatively
high-energy input may be regarded as an investment
for the future. Brickwork can survive for centuries
without maintenance costs worth mentioning, giving
the original environmental burden a long payback
time.
Reuse and recycling
A building rarely remains in the same physical state
over such long time spans. Modifications, demolition,
and rebuilding caused by new functional or technical
needs will probably occur, and should be accommo-
dated in the whole technical lifetime of the com-
ponents. In traditional brickwork, reuse and recycling
was allowed for. Weak mortar types made it possible
to deconstruct a wall so that the building blocks
could be reclaimed, and this practice was a natural
basis for brick-building cultures throughout history.
Generally speaking, the salvageability of bricks was
facilitated as long as pure lime mortar was in
common use, which in Europe lasted until around the
1920s. Constructions using other building materials
such as wood were also prepared for reuse. These con-
struction principles were unfortunately not transferred
to the modern building industry, and the consequences
are seen in increasing amounts of waste and more
pressure on new raw material. When focusing on
better material resource use in future buildings, salva-
geability must be reintroduced as a design parameter.
Only through facilitating a possible reuse or at least a
recycling of components can one justify a high environ-
mental investment in the production of building
materials.
Bricks and concrete make up half of the Norwegian
construction waste generated through new construc-
tion, refurbishment and demolition, and correspond
to about 600 000 tonnes per year (Landet, 2007).
In the context of industrialized building, the salvage
of bricks today is first and foremost associated
with recycling through crushing, together with con-
crete and other masonry materials, for the purpose of
being used as hardcore. This process is referred to as
down-cycling, which is a poor environmental option
because the procedures use energy and results in emis-
sions while the product is reduced to a material with
less utility value than the original. The ambition must
be to avoid down-cycling by organizing the pro-
duction and construction of brickwork to stimulate
reuse. Changes in the building industry are needed if
this is to occur, although it is encouraging to see
that some countries already salvage and reuse old
brick for applications in heritage contexts as well as
in new buildings.

Problem statement and methodology
How can bricks can be developed as an environmen-
tally sound material through strengthening the salva-
geability? What potential and challenges exist for
of reusing bricks? The investigation presented here
applies the theory from earlier studies (Nordby et al.,
2007a), where the criteria for salvageability and an
assessment method are defined. The aim is to investi-
gate how component design, as well as different con-
struction methods, limit or support the reusability.
Therefore, two levels are addressed: Part A: The
brick as a single component; and Part B: Complete
brickwork constructions.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
The design guidelines for salvageability used in this
study are compiled from a number of studies on
Design for Disassembly (DfD) (Berge, 2000; Fletcher,
2001; Thormark, 2001; Sassi, 2002; Crowther, 2003;
Durmisevic, 2006). The aim is to create a structured
system suitable for communicating both the basic cri-
teria and the detailed strategies within three levels of
investigation: the component, construction and indus-
try levels. However, as the design guidelines also
relate to the processes of sorting, transport, new
design and reassembly, the term ‘Design for Disassem-
bly’ can be perceived as being confined and misleading.
The suggested replacement Design for Salvageability
tries to include all lines of action that contribute to
salvage building materials in one way or the other.
For a more detailed description of the systematization,
see Nordby et al. (2007a).
Earlier studies have also introduced various assessment
methods (Thormark, 2001; Sassi, 2002; Durmisevic,
2006). However, there is generally no direct connec-
tion between the specific design guidelines and the
assessed parameters. The current study attempts to
investigate whether or not the traceability of the
method can become more apparent by applying the
specific guidelines directly in the assessment. The sys-
tematization matrix for salvageability is earlier used
for rating massive wood components (Nordby et al.,
2007b), but not for assessing constructions. Therefore,
this is a pilot study.
The structured guidelines for salvageability can be used
as a basis in various types of investigations in this field.
The criteria summarize the key points of the guidelines,
and are expressed as general performance standards.
The criteria are worded in a value-based way so that
the direction can be instantly understood. The criteria
are used both as topics for discussion in Part A, and,
together with the accompanying prescriptive strategies,
in an assessment matrix in Part B. Some criteria are
used in both Parts A and B. The strategies still represent
different aspects of salvageability, depending on which
level is in focus. The functional units and the details of
the rating system in the assessment matrix are further
described in Part B.
Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks
In Part A the single brick is discussed for four aspects of
component design. The criteria for salvageability of a
component are defined as limited material selection,
durable design, high generality, and accessible infor-
mation. One criterion; Flexible connections, that is
common to both levels of the investigation, will only
be pursued in Part B because it is more relevant when
discussing the connections between components. Simi-
larly, the criterion Information and access is more suit-
ably pursued in Part A.
Since the single brick is not compared with other build-
ing components, it is not relevant to use the assessment
matrix in Part A. Instead, in addition to explaining the
background for each criterion, the authors ask what
the practical, technical and architectural consequences
are for the single brick with respect to the given strat-
egies. Challenges as well as potentials are discussed.
Part A: Salvageability of the single brick
Limited material selection
A limited material selection is desirable when recycling
is the goal. Simplicity in the material composition for
each element, and also for the whole building, gives
several advantages in the processes of deconstruction,
sorting and reuse.
Bricks consist of dried and fired clay, and the material
may be classified as a monomaterial, although it con-
tains some additives. The term ‘monomaterial’ implies
that a component consists of a homogeneous material
throughout (Berge, 2000). Many building products
today are laminated and built up of materials with
different technical lifetimes. This results in poor
resource management because when only one layer
wears out, the whole component must be replaced.
The use of monomaterials also facilitates the reuse
process because it enables necessary quality control of
components. Another favourable property of bricks is
that no surface treatment is needed. Both as whole com-
ponents and as crushed aggregate the material is clean
and not subjected to contamination in the form of
mixing of material types. In addition, fired bricks do
not contain environmentally toxic material that could
otherwise complicate the recycling process.
The means of connection between bricks is usually
mortar. On the one hand, it is favourable to use only
one kind of connector. On the other hand, the mortar
causes problems because it has a chemical attachment
to the bricks. This dilemma is discussed in more
detail in Part B.
Durable design
To be able to justify the high environmental investment
involved in manufacturing, bricks have to last a long
57
 Nordby et al.
time and endure repeated reuse. Bricks achieve high
scores in terms of their technical lifetime; brick
constructions from both the Chinese and Roman
empires have survived for more than 1500 years, and
when choosing building material for applications
such as a school building that might be subject to
vandalism, bricks can be a first choice. However; as
extreme durability and frost resistance have become
the norm, all Norwegian bricks are burnt at high temp-
eratures. Although facades protected by plaster
and bricks used for interior walls do not need the
highest quality, only hard-fired bricks are offered for
sale today.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
It is possible to achieve a number of environmental advan-
tages by differentiating the quality through varying the
baking temperatures. The interior leaf of a cavity wall
does not need burning to sintering (10008C), which is
common for conventional bricks. Temperatures of
400–6008C are sufficient, and thereby the energy use
may be drastically reduced. Since the range of appli-
cations for bricks varies, a greater selection of brick
types with varying burning temperatures can also
meet other and new demands, such as for moisture
regulation. In low-fired bricks, the material keeps a
more open pore structure that can absorb and
emit moisture. This property can have a significant
effect in rooms with high fluctuations of vapour
pressure. It is also possible to utilize unfired bricks,
which have very good moisture-regulating capacity,
in interior leaves. Appropriate material choice may in
some cases even reduce the need for complicated
heating, mechanical ventilation and air-conditioning
(HVAC) systems (Simonson, 2002; Stevenson et al.,
2005). In addition to decreased energy use, unfired or
low-fired bricks have the benefit of easier material
recycling.
A greater differentiation of brick qualities may present
challenges to production and also to sorting for reuse.
Here, product labelling is a key factor, and will be dis-
cussed in a separate section.
High generality
If building materials are to be considered for reuse, the
components should be designed in such a way that
architectural flexibility is kept. This will enable the
components to enter into different architectural con-
texts regarding functions, structure, expression and
detailing. Miscalculated housing policies or financial
speculation may lead to an excess of function-specific
buildings that cannot be transformed to other uses.
If these buildings are to be deconstructed and the
materials reused, the design of the new buildings
must not be predetermined by components that are
too large or too specific, something which unfortunately
is often the case in contemporary prefabricated build-
ings. Traditional building materials often provide
58
for more generality, and can serve as models when
designing new building components.
The brick component is in several ways optimally
shaped to give architectural flexibility: weight and
dimensions give great opportunities to solve functional
as well as structural challenges. A relatively small
format is the starting point. Furthermore, the differing
dimensions for base, stretcher and header faces, and
also possibilities for adjustment in the mortar fillet,
make the brick highly adaptable. This applies to differ-
ent construction requirements as well as to desired
variations in expression and detailing. Construction
principles include a variety of columns, arcs and
vaults, and architectural styles as different as the classi-
cal and the functionalistic have exhibited totally differ-
ent expressions in brick.
The small format is suitable for do-it-yourself building,
which is assumed also to encourage local reuse. Rela-
tively simple tools and methods make minor construc-
tion works feasible for a non-professional. The reuse of
bricks will thereby be feasible not only through the
industry, but also on the private market.
Accessible information
In facilitating reuse, it is an advantage to have product
information tagged or printed directly on the com-
ponents. The company name of the kiln, an indication
of the raw material- and baking-qualities, as well as the
production site and date are information about the
bricks that could be forwarded to coming generations,
and become a basis of assessment for possible further
use. Other sources of building information, e.g. ‘as
built’-drawings and material-logs, are also of great
value for the future. However, the transfer of infor-
mation through these sources depends on the level of
ambition of the builder and of the ability of coming
generations to update it, something that cannot be
granted at the time of production, and by no means
by the manufacturer. In a situation with a greater differ-
entiation of brick qualities than today, product label-
ling becomes an important aspect. Sorting low-fired
and hard-fired bricks of a deconstructed cavity wall
then becomes a manageable task after the mortar has
been removed.
Since bricks are cast, product labelling would not
become a major inconvenience in the production
process. Marking information can be placed in the
moulds. Indeed, historic bricks dating back to the
Roman Empire were often stamped to indicate the pro-
ducer. This fact has made bricks an important finding
in archaeological excavations (Darvill et al., 1984).
Some Norwegian brick products have also been
marked by the producer, and this tradition could
be expanded to include data on quality. Symbols
can be standardized in the industry, so that a simple

code language suitable for moulding of clay can be
developed. Symbols, codes and brand images could in
this way, eventually together with letters, give the
future the necessary information required for reuse.
Furthermore, one can imagine that the printing of
information about quality, etc. in addition to the purely
technical advantage can have a decorative effect. The
bricks can be designed so that the surface (or surfaces)
containing information give added value of texture/
relief that can contribute to give facades distinctive
architectural expressions.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
Part B: Salvageability of brickwork
constructions
Five different examples of external wall construction
are used to evaluate the potential for salvageability
of different construction methods. The possibility
for future reuse of the bricks and other components
in the walls are the main issues that are discussed.
Other properties, such as thermal and structural
capacities, are not considered.
As an example of historic masonry, ‘Trondheimshulmur’
is chosen. This is a two-and-a-quarter brick cavity wall,
laid with lime mortar. Two commonly used masonry
walls with contemporary thermal insulation standard
using cement mortar (cavity wall and veneer wall) are
selected from the Norwegian Building Research
Design Sheets (SINTEF Byggforsks byggdetaljblader).
Finally, two mortar-free masonry walls are collected
from recently built projects: the IRCAM building in
Paris from 1989, where bricks are used in a demounta-
ble external skin (described by Dahl et al., 1992), and
an experimental building in Japan with pre-stressed
dry-masonry ‘SRB-DUP’ as an insulated cavity wall
(described by Yamaguchi et al., 2007). The masonry
constructions are set in chronological order from
when they were introduced, and thereby somehow
also represent a historical development of brickwork
(Figure 1).
The assessment matrix
The four criteria used to assess the salvageability at the
construction level are: limited material and component
selection, suitable layering, high generality, and flex-
ible connections. The strategies that more specifically
describe the desired measures of the design are listed
for each criterion (Table 1). The reasoning given for
the strategies helps to differentiate their importance
for the assessment. Furthermore, the objective of the
assessment (reuse) is a decisive factor for the weighting.
The strategies receive a maximum score that reflects
their importance within the criterion. A total of 24
points is given to each criterion, and the assumed
Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks
relative importance of each strategy is shown by a
number of x’s. These points can be easily distributed
between the different numbers of strategies as well as
between their relative importance.
Each case is then given scores for their various qual-
ities. The scores are based on judgements made by
the authors, and are subject to interpretations.
However, a principle followed is that no score is
given when the desired characteristics are not present,
and a maximum score is given when the desired charac-
teristics are fully present. Figure 2 shows the combined
scores for the different criteria as clustered columns.
The total number of points for each case is not added
up because the criteria are considered to represent
different aspects of reusability that might vary in
importance from one assessment to the other.
The assessment is presented below. Then, the back-
ground and the practical, technical, and architectural
consequences of the design measures for each criterion
are explained and discussed. Aspects regarding the
evaluation of each criterion are also commented upon.
Limited material and component selection
Bricks may be used as both a load-bearing structure
and as external/internal cladding. Thereby, construc-
tions with few material types are achievable. One
advantage of keeping a limited material and com-
ponent selection is that it is possible to sort in fewer
fractions when deconstructing the building. This sim-
plifies the sorting job, and in addition it is space-
saving. Many construction sites in dense urban areas
have problems finding room for the necessary
number of containers for waste treatment in the build-
ing period, and it is not necessarily easier at the time of
deconstruction.
Another point of using fewer material types in a building
is that the quantity of each material becomes relatively
larger and thereby the marketing situation after decon-
struction becomes more favourable. In earlier times, as
mentioned, the industry of construction materials was
more decentralized. The local material resources then
made the basis for a common building tradition in the
region to a greater extent, and this could also give
benefits for reuse. In a situation where there are fewer
material types from which to choose, the market for
reused materials will correspond more closely to the
market for new products, and reuse may therefore be
incorporated more easily into new building activity.
When rating the different functional units within this cri-
terion, the cavity walls (cases 1, 2 and 5) receive the
highest scores. Here there are few types of materials,
components and connectors. The historic brickwork
has only one kind of component and one kind of connec-
tor, and therefore it is rated the highest. The IRCAM
59
 Nordby et al.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015

Figure 1 Functional units of brickwork constructions.The illustrations are reprinted with permission:1. Building Research Design Sheets,
723.308; Eldre yttervegger av mur og betong. Metoder og materialer (SINTEF Building and Infrastructure); 2. Building Research Design
Sheets, 523.231; Skallmurvegg med vanger av murstein og murblokker (SINTEF Building and Infrastructure); 3. Building Research Design
Sheets, 542.301; Murt forblending (SINTEF Building and Infrastructure); 4. DETAIL, Review of Architecture þ Construction Details,1990/4,
p. 396; 5.Yamaguchi et al. (2007)

60
 Table 1 Assessment matrix showing criteria, strategies, reasoning, assumed relative importance (within each criterion), and scores

Salvageability of brickwork Assessment

Criteria Strategies and Relative importance Maximum 1. Historic 2. Cavity 3. Veneer 4. IRCAM 5. SRB-DUP
reasoning (for criteria) score
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015

Limited material 1. Minimize the number of † Simpli¢es dismantling and  14 14 10 4 0 8

and component materials and components, sorting
selection and of different types of † Simpli¢es quality control of
components components before reuse
† Makes reuse more attractive
due to greater number of
each material and
component type
2. Minimize the number of † Simpli¢es dismantling and  6 6 3 3 3 5
connectors and of different the reassembly of
types of connectors components
3. Avoid secondary ¢nishes † Reduces the potential  2 1 1 2 2 2
deterioration of usefulness/
attractiveness for reuse
4. Avoid toxic and hazardous † Reduces potential health  2 2 2 2 2 2
materials risks that might otherwise
discourage disassembly
Suitable layering 5. Design the layers of the † Facilitates dismantling,  18 9 9 9 15 17
construction as structurally particularly when only some
independent systems parts of a building are being
removed
6. Arrange the layers according † Reduces damage to  6 6 0 0 6 0
to the expected functional components when only
and technical life cycles of some parts of a building are
the components being removed
High generality 7. Aim for modular construction † Gives architectural £exibility  8 8 8 8 4 8
and use a standard structural in second life
grid
8. Aim for small-scale and † Eases handling and  8 8 6 4 2 6
lightweight components transport
† Facilitates self-building and
local reuse

Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks

† Gives architectural £exibility
in second life
9. Reduce the complexity of † Special tools may not be  8 8 8 6 2 6
constructions and plan for identi¢ed or available
using common tools and † Facilitates self-building and
equipment local reuse
† Gives architectural £exibility
in second life
Flexible 10. Use reversible connections † Enables dismantling of  16 16 0 0 16 16
connections between building parts subassemblies
† Enables quality control of
components before reuse
11. Design joints to withstand † Reduces damage to  4 4 0 0 3 4
repeated use components
12. Allow for the parallel † Simpli¢es dismantling,  4 0 0 0 3 0
disassembly of components particularly when only some
parts of a building are being
61

removed
 Nordby et al.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
Figure 2 Scores for each criterion shown as clustered columns
building receives the lowest score due to the many
material types. The two remaining strategies within
this criterion, avoid secondary finishes and avoid toxic
and hazardous materials, are regarded to be less import-
ant in this analysis. The walls that are plastered have
been subtracted because of this, but apart from that
none of the constructions is very different.
Suitable layering
A frequently recommended principle in life cycle
planning is the need for layered constructions. The
theory is based upon the observation that different
parts or layers of a building are changed at different
time rates. Therefore, an adaptive building should
allow slippage between differently paced systems
(Brand, 1994). When each layer is made structurally
independent and each component is exchangeable, the
challenges of the mismatch between the often long tech-
nical lifetime of components and the often short service
life of a building or of a building layer are met. This
strategy has evident benefits from the maintenance per-
spective. On the other hand, from the point of facilitat-
ing reuse after terminated functional lifetime, limited
material selection and simplicity of construction
methods are seen as equally important parameters.
Components that can meet a number of challenges of
the exterior skin may therefore be preferred to special-
ized components that can carry out only one task.
Regarding exterior brick constructions, the demand
for better heat insulation has resulted in a breakdown
of the earlier integrated masonry. This detachment
has both technical and architectural consequences.
Today, there is usually no connection of brick
binders between the outer skin and the load-bearing
members behind, thus the facade no longer communi-
cates the structure of the building:
From being a resilient, flexible construction, at
the same time performing as load-bearing wall,
62
rain screen and carrier of architectural
expression, masonry was reduced to an evocative
stage set by the stroke of a pen.
(Dahl et al., 1992, p. 7; translated by the author)
As a consequence of this structural differentiation, the
load-bearing layer is often replaced by more rational
backing systems in wood, steel or concrete.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the authors have
been hesitant about letting layered construction be a
declared measure for salvageable constructions. The
main thing for facilitating the reuse of components
after their first service life is not whether the construc-
tion is layered. But if it is layered, the layers should
be structurally independent. In addition, the layers
should be organized in the correct order regarding
the expected lifetime so that there is access to the com-
ponents that are likely to be replaced first (Durmisevic,
2006). This applies to both functional and technical
lifetime; some components are replaced because of
new technical requirements or because of a desire for
a new appearance, other components must be replaced
because the material has decayed. The dilemma is
demonstrated in the insulation layer of a modern
cavity wall, which becomes an Achilles’ heel in the
construction. The layer of Rockwool used in cases 2
and 3 cannot be replaced without demolishing the
cement-mortared brick leaves that are technically far
more durable. As a result of these discussions, the
wording of the criterion and of strategy number 5 is
rewritten.
The results show that the three first cases receive a
half score for layering with constructional indepen-
dence. Even though only the interior leaf is load-
bearing, the layers are structurally integrated with
wall ties. The two mortar-less walls (4 and 5) are
further developed as independent layers, and receive
higher scores. Concerning the order of the layers
with regard to expected lifetime, the two un-insulated

walls (1 and 4) get full scores, whereas the others
receive none.
High generality
Generality is more thoroughly discussed at the com-
ponent level. When assessing the generality of a
construction, an aggregated generality for the com-
ponents of which the construction consists have been
estimated. The components of all walls except the
IRCAM building receive the top score for modular
design and standardization. The IRCAM building dis-
plays a range of custom-made concepts which makes
the components less salvageable despite their demount-
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
ability. The building also receives low scores for com-
ponents with moderate size and weight, and for
reduced complexity in the construction.
Flexible connections
An important principle for a reusable construction
is that the joints are designed as reversible connec-
tions. Mechanical fasteners are preferred to chemical
bonding. Since mortar generally is chemically fixed to
the bricks, this point is problematic in the most com-
monly used brick constructions today. However, the
strength of the bonding depends on the type of mortar.
Norwegian masonry-work built before 1925 usually
used pure lime-based mortars which are weak and
allow disassembly without damaging the bricks. Build-
ings from the period between 1925 and 1955 may also
be demountable, although limited amounts of cement
were added to the lime. However, the various
cement-based mortar mixes used after 1955 are
usually stronger than the bricks themselves, and there-
fore the bricks will break before the mortar during
demolition (Madsø, 2001; Yates et al., 2007). Since
lime mortars are used in historic buildings, the knowl-
edge and use of limes today is primarily related to
building conservation. However, in addition to provid-
ing demountable constructions, lime-based mortars
also show a range of other technical and environmental
benefits. For these reasons, a reintroduction of lime-
based mortars is currently under development.
Lime-based mortars include products with various
properties. Non-hydraulic lime (or pure/fat/air lime),
hydraulic lime (or water lime), and hydrated lime (or
slaked lime) have different characteristics for
curing and for strength (see http://www.scotlime.org/
trad_lime.html). As more extensive information
about lime mortars can be found elsewhere (Allen
et al., 2003; Waldum et al., 2006), the important
aspect considered here is whether or not the bricks
can be feasibly demounted and cleaned.
However, some challenges should be noted when using
lime mortars. A critical point is the curing time. Limes
Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks
require more time for setting and for gaining strength,
thus the construction efficiency may be reduced. Fur-
thermore, frost must be avoided before setting, and
therefore working and curing must take place in the
summer season. Another limitation is related to the
resistance to lateral loads, both during construction
and in use. Since historic lime mortar walls relied
on a certain mass of masonry to give stability, building
a half brick wall in lime mortar following the same
rules/designs as for a cement mortar is likely to
become a problem (personal communication with
T. Yates, 2007). Therefore, attention should be paid
to the design of the wall.
Another possibility is to use bricks without mortar.
Examples of this are shown in cases 4 and 5: the
IRCAM building in Paris by architect Renzo Piano;
and an experimental building with the SRB-DUP pre-
stressed dry masonry system in Japan (Yamaguchi
et al., 2007). The first example has a demountable
facade with perforated bricks mounted in aluminium
frames. This concept facilitates replacement when
one or more components are worn. This particular
rain-screen may not be sufficiently watertight for a
Norwegian coastal climate. However, one might
think of similar principles used in other places in the
building, e.g. in interior leaves. The second example
shows pre-stressed dry masonry, where steel plates
and bolts for every course keep the bricks together.
The system provides a strong masonry sidewall par-
ticularly suited to absorb shearing stress in an earth-
quake-exposed part of the world. For Norwegian
seismic conditions the strength of this wall is probably
overdone. Nonetheless, the demountable brick leaf is
an interesting principle to discuss as the components
may easily be unscrewed and reused.
Walls 1, 4 and 5 are highly credited for having both
reversible connections between components and for
having durable joints. However, only the IRCAM
building receives additional points for the possibility
of parallel disassembly. Walls 2 and 3 get no score
for flexible connections because the strong cement
mortar prohibits disassembly.
Discussion
Environmental pro¢le of bricks
The construction industry will increasingly have
to respond to concerns about carbon emissions
and embedded energy. In the future, different types
of material salvage could be specified at the stage of
issuing a building permit – for either the reuse of
material and/or the design and construction to allow
for the future reuse of the materials and components.
For brick constructions a transition to reversible con-
nections will in this context be the single most import-
ant aspect.
63
 Nordby et al.
Bricks may be developed as an environmentally sound
material through accommodating the following:
. more regionally distributed brick production/
kilns, and thereby less transport
. differentiation of quality through variable firing
temperatures
. tagging of product information when moulding
. transition to lime-based mortars or mechanical
connectors
Cost is an important framework condition for how
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
buildings are being created, and is often presented as
an obstacle in achieving salvageability. However, in a
long-term perspective, sustainable solutions might be
financially advantageous. As pointed out by the Stern
Review (Stern, 2006), global environmental threats
such as climate change require setting broad bound-
aries for the financial analyses, both geographically
and in terms of period of time. Decision-making in a
single building project is usually based upon mere
acquisition costs, but in order to make sustainable
solutions financially viable, a life cycle perspective
must be used. This will influence thermal insulation
standards as well as durability, maintainability and
flexibility. With these intentions, life cycle costing
(LCC) was made mandatory for public procurements
in Norway in 2001 (MD Miljøverndepartementet,
2007). Although the LCC methodology is limited in
accounting for environmental, social and cultural
assets, and the costs involved in buildings, the hope is
that it might help to focus on long-term sustainability
(Cole and Sterner, 2000).
The salvage of building materials was financially prof-
itable in earlier times, and is still so in developing
countries. The reason why reuse is usually not profit-
able in the West today is a complex issue. However,
it is important to remember that the ‘non-profitability’
of salvaging building material is conditioned by the
prevailing financial framework, which is changeable.
Results of the analysis of bricks and brickwork
The results of Part A show that the single brick itself
has great potential as a reusable component. The tra-
ditional brick may be seen as an almost ideal com-
ponent regarding most criteria for salvageability.
Particularly, through simplicity and its small scale,
bricks possess a high generality, which eases their inte-
gration in most building contexts. Without great
changes in dimensions, bricks have been applied in
various vernacular traditions as well as in a range of
architectural styles. This fact substantiates the unique
architectural flexibility of bricks, which is an important
prerequisite for enabling future life cycles. Bricks
64
represent a ‘molecular’ level in buildings, a level that
may be of growing importance both in environmental
considerations and as a point of departure for architec-
tural design.
The analysis of the exterior walls in Part B shows that
there is no obvious right answer to what is the optimal
brick construction regarding salvageability. However,
the results point to some interesting trends of develop-
ment. The historic 19th-century brickwork laid with
lime-based mortar is considered among the best, a
result that may seem to be an unfair judgement since
the functional unit is not corrected for the rather
poor U-value. The insulated cavity wall (case 2) was
introduced in the 1940s precisely as an answer to the
demand for decreased energy consumption during
building operation. However, with more material
types and concrete-based mortar, it gets fewer points
within all criteria for salvageability. Furthermore,
the veneer wall with a concrete backing (in use from
the 1960s) is a logical continuance of the split-up
masonry. This solution is considered to have the
lowest chance for salvageability in this study. The
IRCAM building from 1989 introduces an advanced
wall system with a demountable facade. This concept
receives high scores for both sensible layering and flex-
ible connections. However, new challenges arise in the
form of many material types and customized designs
with low generality. The bolted, dry-masonry SRB-
DUP wall from 2005 shows relatively good results
within all the criteria, and may therefore seem as the
most promising brick construction for the future.
Still, since this assessment only addresses salvagea-
bility, it does not take into account other environ-
mental considerations. With regard to the amount of
steel needed to construct this wall, the environmental
investment may be considerably higher than for mor-
tared masonry. It will therefore probably not be envir-
onmentally advisable to use such a construction in
areas where earthquakes are not a critical issue.
This analysis is an attempt to assess the salvageability
of bricks and brick constructions. Since salvageability
is only one aspect of environmental building measures,
there will always be the risk of solving one problem and
unconsciously creating others on the way. The case
study of the brick walls may be read as a history of
sub-optimization. In the pursuit for better insulation
value, basic qualities of masonry definitely became
lost. One of these lost qualities was demountability.
On the other hand, in the pursuit for demountability,
other criteria for the broader scope of salvageability
as well as basic environmental aspects are disregarded.
If designing demountable brick masonry means apply-
ing great amounts of highly resource-intensive
materials like steel and aluminium, it might be time
to think twice. The conclusion is that it is important
to consider the environmental investments of the
materials as well as the component function in a life

cycle perspective before choosing the type of construc-
tion. As the development of the exterior brick wall
through the last 130 years evidently shows, this is not
necessarily a simple task.
Challenges with the reuse process
In the process of reusing salvaged bricks, several steps
need to be undertaken. A project at the former indus-
trial area Lilleborg in Oslo where 55 000 bricks were
salvaged reports on methods for testing bricks for
reuse in facades for new dwellings (Madsø, 2001).
After surveying the feasibility for salvaging bricks
from the variously dated buildings, tests were under-
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
taken to document their quality for future use. These
tests regarded compressive strength as well as the
density, water adsorption and pore-filling capacity of
the material. An investigation was also performed of
the bond characteristics between the reclaimed bricks
and various mortars for new building. Particular atten-
tion was paid to the resistance of the bricks to freeze/
thaw. After extensive testing of sample selections, it
was concluded that the bricks needed better resistance
to freeze/thaw. Since exterior and interior layers of
bricks with varying qualities had not been separated
during deconstruction, the chosen solution was re-
baking all the bricks. This involved additional costs
and energy use for baking as well as for transport to
and from the brickyard that carried out this operation
in Denmark.
Sorting and cleaning of reclaimed bricks are labour-
intensive processes that generally represent a financial
obstacle to reusing bricks. Although lime mortars are
far easier to separate from the bricks than cement,
the working conditions can be a problem. As cleaning
machines cause dust pollution and noise, manual
labour is still often preferred (Madsø, 2001; also
personal communication with Kenneth Urdshals
at Stavne Gård Salvage Yard, Trondheim, 2008).
Although bricks salvaged from mortar-less masonry
may be easier to process regarding cleaning and
perhaps also sorting, quality control remains an inevi-
table point. The Lilleborg report concludes that separ-
ate standards and accompanying test methods should
be set for reclaimed bricks based on historic national
standards.
New developments of blocks, bricks and mortars
The construction industry is perceived as a conserva-
tive and slowly changing sector. Cement-based
mortars are by far the most commonly used bonding
for brick and block masonry, whereas lime mortars
are mainly described for use in conservation. Norwe-
gian mortars are developed for gluing bricks of thin
veneers and for supporting lean, reinforced structures
with reduced masonry mass, and are generally stronger
than the mortars used in other Scandinavian countries.
Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks
The Norwegian standards even prescribed shearing
stress firmness in the bonding with bricks. However,
this demand is now abandoned in the harmonization
process with European standards (personal communi-
cation with F. Madsø, 2007). Even so, the strength of
the commonly used mortars greatly exceeds what is
desired for achieving salvageability.
A new way of thinking about masonry is required,
and some new developments of blocks, bricks and
mortars point to interesting solutions. Fired clay pro-
ducts like poroton and lightweight aggregate blocks
show better insulation properties than traditional
bricks. These building components are therefore
preferred for the construction of masonry walls in a
great number of new buildings in Central European
countries, possibly in combination with facing bricks
or tiles (Leimand, 2007). An additional advantage is
that these blocks are stackable and neatly detailed so
that a minimum quantity of mortar is necessary.
Some blocks even have a tongue and groove locking
system that makes them independent of mortar
altogether. Thus, the problem of the cold bridges of
the mortar fillet is avoided, and an optimal homo-
geneous masonry construction is achieved. The
method naturally also facilitates salvage of the blocks.
Other construction methods for sustainable masonry
show a ‘back-to-basic’ trend. Low-technology material
types like earth, straw or hemp mixed with sand and
lime have a low environmental impact, and the use of
straw or hemp fibres improves the thermal insulation
properties of bricks. These materials may either be
compressed in casting frames or shaped into blocks.
Either way, a homogeneous and constructionally inte-
grated wall is produced, leading to reduced complexity
and architectural coherence as well as easy material
recycling (Stevenson et al., 2005).
Recent projects, particularly in the UK, have experi-
mented with using lime mortars in new building. In
spite of the challenges involved in construction men-
tioned above, cavity walls in brick with thermal insula-
tion have shown good results with limes (personal
communication with M. Beare, 2008). Lime mortar
is more flexible and more hygroscopic than cement,
and expansion joints can be avoided (Allen et al.,
2003). Also, when using limes as connector and
as plaster the environmental investments are kept low
(Fossdal, 2003). One of several advantages here is
demountability.
Considerations about the methods
The research method is based upon the structured
guidelines for salvageability. The criteria are used
both as topics for a discussion in Part A, and in an
assessment matrix for a case study in Part B. In both
Parts A and B, some criteria clearly have stronger
65
 Nordby et al.
practical and architectural implications for bricks than
others. Since the criteria are considered to represent
different aspects of reusability, they may vary in
mutual importance from one assessment to the other.
Therefore, the authors suggest that the criteria should
be kept as separate measures also in future research.
In the assessment matrix, the various strategies within
each criterion are weighted according to the objective
of the particular study, such as recycling of materials,
reuse of components, or relocation. General examples
of weighting of design principles according to objectives
are given in Crowther (2003, pp. 300–301), Addis and
Schouten (2004, p. 26), and Durmisevic (2006, pp.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
272–274). In this study, if the objective was recycling
instead of reuse, other strategies would have been
stressed. These could be strategies 3 and 4; Avoid second-
ary finishes and Avoid toxic and hazardous materials.
Hence, the resulting weighting of each assessment will
vary. Furthermore, in weighting the strategies and in
giving scores, different solutions will seem preferable
depending on the context. For instance, since distance
from suppliers determines the transport situation, the
choice of lightweight components will probably be of
more emphasis in a rural setting, particularly if the objec-
tive is distant reuse or relocation. Also, minimizing
material types will be important in a rural setting
because the marketing potential for reused material
will be better when the quantity of each material type
is higher. Furthermore, the strategies might be weighted
differently depending on the type of reuse involved. The
industrialized construction business will have other
incentives for ‘plug-in’ concepts than the handicraft
trade pursuing historical preservation. The strategy stres-
sing modular construction will consequently be weighted
higher in the first case than in the latter.
The assessment matrix used in Part B has already
been used for assessing massive wood components.
Assessing salvageability at the component level is less
complicated because there are fewer factors to be
incorporated in the assessment. In this study of brick-
work, all the components in the exterior wall have to
be taken into account when giving scores. Therefore,
an assessment at the construction level will be more
subjected to rough estimates than at the component
level. The different experience and viewpoints of the
researchers will also probably affect the results. In an
ideal situation, a team of professionals representing a
wide range of experience in the field of construction
and deconstruction should perform the assessment. A
team would guarantee more robust research results.
The way the structuring of the guidelines for salvage-
ability is set up makes it open-ended and applicable
in different types of investigations. Because several
levels within the framework are adaptable, it is import-
ant that the method is kept transparent. Generally, it
seems that transparency is achieved, but that there
66
might be a mismatch between the degree of accuracy
in the matrix and the more approximate estimate of
the qualitatively given scores. However, further detail-
ing of the conceptual framework might improve the
precision. Therefore, more case studies are needed to
investigate the usefulness of the method.
Conclusions
The single brick itself has great potential as a durable
and architecturally flexible building component – as
demonstrated throughout history and shown in Part
A of this paper. In the assessment at the construction
level in Part B, both historic brickwork and the SRB-
DUP system have the best overall scores for salvage-
ability. However, this result needs to be placed in a
broader perspective. In achieving salvageability, revers-
ible connections is considered the most important
strategy, and the two possible lines of action indicate
different design solutions. The use of weak (lime)
mortars, on the one hand, and the development of
mortar-less masonry using metallic connectors, on the
other hand, also have different consequences for the
overall environmental profile. In the authors’ view,
avoiding sub-optimizations in buildings is of primary
concern. Although the total environmental load is not
calculated in this case study, there is reason to believe
that the environmental costs of using steel bolts out-
weigh the advantages of easier cleaning of bricks after
disassembly. Therefore, the study suggests that further
development of lime mortars is the most promising
measure in achieving salvageable brickwork.
As shown, the dilemma of the strategy suitable layering
is closely related to the historical developments of
exterior walls. Aiming at decreasing the energy
demand, the Norwegian building code imposes strict
requirements on thermal insulation. However, in
order to avoid sub-optimization when evaluating
environmental effects of buildings, holistic assessments
and long-term perspectives must be used. Holistic
evaluation methods go beyond the question of energy
use for operation, and include a set of aspects regarding
the life cycles of the products. In a Scottish project,
construction issues like buildability, waste, biodegrad-
ability, embodied energy, transportation, and a biore-
gional approach to materiality are assessed as well as
the physical performance regarding thermal properties,
ventilation, moisture balance, air quality and acoustics
(Stevenson et al., 2005). Deconstruction, disposal and
salvageability could furthermore be added to this list
of parameters. Also, to comply with long-term
demands for resource efficient material use, life cycle
costing should be implemented as a compulsory finan-
cial framework for all buildings. Before the Norwegian
building authorities impose even stricter demands for
thermal insulation, more holistic studies are needed to
document the complexity and the full environmental
effects of how buildings are constructed.

The structuring of the guidelines for salvageability can
be used as a framework in different types of investi-
gations. The strategy level gives the most specific
input for design and can be useful as a checklist and
for evaluation of solutions. For use as an assessment
matrix, however, the scoring may be relatively rough.
For this reason, the assessment should be performed
by a multidisciplinary team of professionals. The cri-
teria level, on the other hand, is important for pedago-
gical purposes because here the core points of
salvageability are expressed as performance standards
that may be easily grasped. Also, the criteria appear
to be useful for framing discussions.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 09:29 23 September 2015
The question is if, and to what extent, the requirements
for environmental solutions in general and for salvage-
ability in particular will influence future architecture.
The authors believe that the criteria and strategies for
salvageability can be a point of departure for creating
interesting and sustainable architecture. Through
these processes fired clay may change and enter into
new constructional contexts. However, as long as life
cycle thinking is anticipated, bricks should have a
good chance of being confirmed as an environmentally
sound building material.
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the Norwegian Directo-
rate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren).
References
Addis, W. and Schouten, J. (2004) Principles of Design for
Deconstruction to Facilitate Reuse and Recycling, CIRIA
Books, London.
Allen, G., Allen, J., Elton, N., Farey, M., Holmes, S., Livesey, P.
and Radonjic, M. (2003) Hydraulic Lime Mortar for
Stone, Brick and Block Masonry, Donhead Publications,
Shaftesbury.
Berge, B. (2000) Ecology of Building Materials, Oxford Architec-
tural Press, Oxford.
Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn, Penguin, New York, NY.
Cole, R.J. and Sterner, E. (2000) Reconciling theory and practice
of life-cycle costing. Building Research & Information,
28(5/6), 368–375.
Crowther, P. (2003) Design for disassembly. Thesis, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD.
Dahl, T., Sørensen, P. and Beim, A. (1992) Den hule mur, et
udviklingsprojekt, Kunstakademiets Arkitektskoles Forlag,
Copenhagen.
Darvill, T. and McWhirr, A. (1984) Brick and tile production in
Roman Britain: models of economic organisation. World
Archaeology, 15(3), ‘Ceramics’, 239 –261.
Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks
Durmisevic, E. (2006) Transformable building structures. Thesis,
University of Delft.
Fletcher, S.L. (2001) Developing disassembly strategies for
buildings to reduce the lifetime environmental impacts
by applying a systems approach. Thesis, University of Sheffield.
Fossdal, S. (2003) Miljødeklarasjoner av kalkmørtel og ulesket
kalk fra Franzefoss Kalk AS etter Økodek metoden. BRI/
Riksantikvaren, Oslo.
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPPC) (2006) Best
Available Techniques in the Ceramic Manufacturing Indus-
try, European Commission, Institute for Prospective Techno-
logical Studies, Seville.
Landet, R.R. (2007) Nasjonal handlingsplan for bygg- og
anleggsavfall (NHP) 2007–2012 (available at: http://
www.byggemiljo.no).
Leimand, N. (2007) Det Homogene blokmurværk og Det
Massive Teglmurværk, Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole,
Copenhagen.
Madsø, F. (2001) Lilleborg – Gjenbruk av tegl. Report for NCC,
Oslo kommune, Statsbygg.
MD Miljøverndepartementet (2007) Miljø- og samfunnsansvar i
offentlige anskaffelser. Handlingsplan 2007–2010 (available
at: http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/md).
Nordby, A.S., Hestnes, A.G. and Berge, B. (2006) Lifetime and
demountability of building materials, in M. Mourshed
(ed.): Proceedings of the Global Built Environment:
Towards an Integrated Approach for Sustainability
2006 (available at: http://www.ab.ntnu.no/bht/ansatte/
nordby.html).
Nordby, A.S., Hestnes, A.G. and Berge, B. (2007a) Salvageability
of building materials, in Proceedings of the SB07 Conference,
‘Sustainable Construction, Materials and Practices’, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Nordby, A.S., Hestnes, A.G. and Berge, B. (2007b) Reusability of
massive wood components, in Proceedings of the SB07 Con-
ference, ‘Sustainable Construction, Materials and Practices’,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Sassi, P. (2002) Study of current building methods and products
that enable dismantling and their classification according
to their ability to be reused, recycled or downcycled. Paper
presented at the International Conference for Sustainable
Building, Oslo, Norway.
Simonson, C.J. (2002) The effect of structures on indoor humid-
ity – possibility to improve comfort and air quality. Indoor
Air, 12(4), 243–251.
Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (available
at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/
stern_review_economics_climate_change).
Stevenson, F., Taylor, B. and Morton, T. (2005) Optimising the
use of unfired clay products in rural housing: the role of hol-
istic evaluation, in Proceedings for the SB05 Conference,
Tokyo, Japan.
Thormark, C. (2001) Recycling potential and design for disas-
sembly in buildings. Thesis, Lund University.
Waldum, A.M. and Kjeldsen, G. (2006) Hydraulisk kalkmørtel.
Historie, egenskaper og anvendelse. Prosjektrapport No.
399 BRI/Riksantikvaren, Oslo.
Yamaguchi, K., Matsufuji, Y. and Koyama, T. (2007) A new
structural system: friction-resistant dry-masonry. Building
Research & Information, 35(6), 616– 628.
Yates, T. and Ferguson, A. (2007) Guidance on the Use of Lime
Based Mortars, Draft for Discussion. BRE Trust, London.
67