A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of construction waste

in construction sites
Amnon Katz
*
, Hadassa Baum
National Building Research Institute, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 1 January 2010
Available online 27 January 2010
a b s t r a c t
This paper focuses on the accumulation of construction waste generated throughout the erection of new
residential buildings. A special methodology was developed in order to provide a model that will predict
the ow of construction waste. The amount of waste and its constituents, produced on 10 relatively large
construction sites (700032,000 m
2
of built area) was monitored periodically for a limited time. A model
that predicts the accumulation of construction waste was developed based on these eld observations.
According to the model, waste accumulates in an exponential manner, i.e. smaller amounts are generated
during the early stages of construction and increasing amounts are generated towards the end of the pro-
ject. The total amount of waste from these sites was estimated at 0.2 m
3
per 1 m
2
oor area. A good cor-
relation was found between the model predictions and actual data from the eld survey.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Construction waste in Israel accounts for about 60% of the coun-
trys total solid waste, and consists mainly of concrete debris, dif-
ferent types of bricks and blocks, various kinds of tiles, steel
reinforcement, wood, plastic materials and paper, as well as gravel
and soil. A rough estimate of the quantity of construction waste is
7.5 million tons a year, which is compatible with values reported
by Chini (2005) for industrialized countries. During the past two
decades, the amount of waste has increased signicantly, due to
the increase in the standard of living, changes in consumption hab-
its, as well as the natural increase in population.
Dealing with waste is one of the most difcult environmental
problems faced by many nations. While countries such as Belgium,
Holland and Denmark recycle 8090% of their construction waste
(Symonds et al., 1999), Israel recycles only about 20% and most
of the rest is dumped in legal and illegal landlling sites.
Reasons for illegal dumping include a shortage of legal landll-
ing sites, long transportation distances and high tipping fees, as
well as the lack of enforcement measures and lack of knowledge
on recycling options. Reliable information on the expected quanti-
ties of waste accumulated on construction sites is important in or-
der to establish enforcement policies as well as to propose
alternative solutions. Thus, many previous studies have concen-
trated on estimating the total amount of waste generated in vari-
ous countries (Poon, 1997; Franklin, 1998; Symonds et al., 1999)
or on the possibilities for treating such waste (Symonds et al.,
1999; Wang et al., 2004).
Waste is generated on construction sites usually due to defec-
tive materials, leftover materials, wastage, etc. (Poon et al., 2004).
Despite educational activities to reduce waste (CIOB, 1980), it
may contain some amounts of valuable materials that can be used
as is (Symonds, 1999; Humphreys, 1994), in addition to signi-
cant amounts of rubble. Another work found that one of the main
characteristics of construction waste is its considerable packaging
waste content (ADEME, 1997).
Several studies were conducted, whereby the actual waste gen-
erated on construction sites was measured. Most of them sampled
relatively small sites due to the difculties involved in conducting
a survey on large-scale projects. Results of such studies enable to
draw general conclusions regarding the extent of the problem in
various countries; they cannot, however, serve site managers in
predicting the ow of waste that accumulates at various stages
of a particular project. Based on data published by Franklin
(1998) and assuming tipping fees of approximately $100/ton
(Chini, 2005), it appears that the cost of waste amounts to about
0.30.4% of the entire project cost. Managers on various construc-
tion sites in Israel reported estimates in the range of 0.21.5%.
The purpose of this study was to develop a methodology that
would evaluate the accumulation of construction waste generated
in medium to large residential construction sites, from start to end
of the project. This information will help project managers to man-
age their sites, estimate the ow of outgoing materials from the
site, and estimate their cost. Managers will be able to locate any
unexpected changes in the ow of waste, which in turn might
indicate a problem in the construction process. In addition, this
0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.008
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +972 4 8293124.
E-mail address: akatz@technion.ac.il (A. Katz).
Waste Management 31 (2011) 353358
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Waste Management
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ wasman
knowledge is important to local authorities in the preparation of
treatment sites (e.g. recycling facilities or landll sites) as well as
in the establishment of tax policies and enforcement systems.
2. Research program
2.1. Methodology
Since the ow of construction waste must be evaluated accord-
ing to the type of waste and construction activity, the ideal method
would be to isolate the different construction activities and moni-
tor the waste generated in the course of each activity. This would
probably yield the most accurate information on the waste associ-
ated with each activity. Integration of all the activities over the en-
tire duration of the project would produce the most accurate
information on the total waste generated in the entire project. This
concept is seen in part in the work of Snook et al. (1995), in which
relatively small containers (0.125 m
3
) were distributed throughout
the construction site, and were used to collect the waste in a local
manner. However, in medium to large construction sites, such as
multi-story residential buildings, it is impossible to follow this
methodology without disturbing the construction activities, not
to mention the need for accurate statistics that require sampling
(and disturbing) many construction sites. In addition, construction
activities on a single project may last for several years, by which
time the purpose of collecting the data might be forgotten or ren-
dered irrelevant.
The methodology developed here suggests a relatively short
study duration that included three phases: (1) site observation
and eld sampling of the waste generated on several construction
sites; (2) sampling and collecting data on the total waste generated
on the sites during that time period; and (3) development of an
empirical model for predicting waste quantities and its rate of
accumulation. Construction sites were selected carefully to repre-
sent different construction activities and stages (structural frame,
nishing works, etc.). The eld survey then served as the basis
for the development of the empirical model.
2.2. Site observation
The purpose of site observation is twofold: (1) visual observa-
tion of the dumpsters in order to evaluate the composition of the
waste, and (2) estimating the construction stage at the time of
observation. It is important to sample a different dumpster each
time, and to avoid observing the same dumpster twice, which
might yield misleading information. Therefore, the maximum sam-
pling rate was adjusted to half the rate at which dumpsters are re-
moved from the site (turnover time).
2.3. Sampling total waste
Data on the total amount of waste generated on the various
sites each month during the sampling period was collected from
the accounting books of each site. Most construction sites employ
a sub-contractor to remove the waste, and such sub-contractors
are paid on a monthly basis. Thus, the required data is readily
available from the project accounting books. The frequency of sam-
pling the total amount of waste depends on the rate of change in
the construction works. Usually, a construction project of one or
more multi-story buildings lasts 12 years or even more; Thus, a
sampling frequency of once a month ensures that data is collected
for each of the various activities separately (for instance, structural
frame at the beginning of the project or nishing works at the end)
and is not mixed with data on the other activities.
It is assumed that the results from the site observations de-
scribed above provide a good estimate of the composition of the to-
tal waste as collected from the accounting books.
2.4. Differentiation of construction works
The construction work was divided into three categories
according to the waste generated in each one: structural frame,
early nishing and late nishing (Fig. 1). In general, the structural
frame works produce the least waste for all types of construction
materials whether it is made of steel, concrete or wood. Construc-
tion materials are supplied to the construction site in accurate
amounts with little wastage, small amounts of packing materials
are used, and most of the waste is recyclable. The early nishing
works (e.g. partition walls, plastering, drywalls, oor tiles, and pip-
ing) produce larger quantities of mixed waste that requires more
extensive separation treatment before recycling. Waste from the
late nishing works are the most difcult to treat and are produced
in the largest quantities. Waste from this stage is expected to con-
sist of a mixture of all materials found on the construction site,
including signicant amounts of packing materials. Foundation
and underground activities vary from site to site and were not in-
cluded in this study.
When monitoring the waste accumulated on a construction site,
it is reasonable to assume that waste accumulated during the early
stages of the work is related to the structural frame, whereas waste
accumulated during the nal stages of construction is related to
the late nishing works only (Fig. 1). On large construction sites,
the time overlap between the stages and activities is greater and
pure structural frame works or late nishing works can be found
only at the very beginning or very end of the project. In such sites,
waste produced during the majority of the project duration is a
mixture of waste from all three stages.
3. Field survey
3.1. Selection of construction sites
This study sampled 10 new construction sites of residential
buildings, which constitutes the majority of the newbuilt area con-
structed in Israel. The following parameters were considered in the
selection of the sites:
Different regions of the country, to avoid the effect of local work
traditions and habits.
Multi-story residential projects (516 oors), each with a built
area of at least 5000 m
2
.
Projects are at different stages of construction, after foundations
and basements.
All sites must represent construction methods that are typical to
Israel.
Foundation and
underground works
Project lifetime
Early finishing works
Late finishing works
Structural frame
Construction
waste
Mixed waste Finishing
waste
Fig. 1. Type of construction works and waste generated during a projects lifetime.
354 A. Katz, H. Baum/ Waste Management 31 (2011) 353358
Waste is removed routinely from the construction site in special
dumpsters by an independent sub-contractor.
A previous study (Baum and Katz, 2002) found that the collec-
tion of construction waste is related to the construction habits of
each individual rm. However, some common regional factors lead
to different waste collecting methods in different branches of the
same rm. Sites were therefore selected from different regions.
The last parameter, waste removal by a sub-constructor, is essen-
tial to allow routine monitoring of the waste and to receive
monthly accounts of all waste removed from each site. Table 1 pre-
sents typical data on the selected sites.
The eld survey was carried out at the selected construction
sites over a period of eight months, about half the construction
time of a single building, and consisted of approximately two
observations each week (Table 1). Some 60 observations were
made at each site, amounting to approximately 700 observations
in all. The maximum sampling frequency for each site was deter-
mined to be half the turnover time of a dumpster in order to
avoid sampling the same dumpster twice. In addition, the monthly
amount of waste removed from each site was recorded according
to data collected from the accounting department of each rm.
Method of sampling. On every site visit, the observer lled out a
report indicating the total volume of the dumpster, its degree of
lling, and the relative volume (in percentage) of a list of waste
constituents as follows:
1. Concrete; 2. Concrete blocks; 3. Autoclaved aerated concrete
(AAC) blocks; 4. Aggregates; 5. Cement-based mortar; 6. Soil; 7.
Tiles (ceramics, terrazzo, natural stone, etc.); 8. Steel; 9. Wood;
10. Paper; 11. Gypsum; 12. Sealing and insulating materials; 13.
Aluminum; 14. Plastics; 15. Glass.
In addition to the written data, a photo was taken of the dump-
ster, and the construction stage was noted.
Typical construction method. On all the sites surveyed, the struc-
tural frame (beams, columns and slabs) was made of cast-in-place
reinforced concrete. In six sites, the external walls were made of
cast-in-place concrete; in two sites precast concrete walls and
two sites autoclaved aerated concrete blocks. All external walls
were covered with stone cladding. All roofs were at, covered with
a bituminous membrane. Internal partition walls were made of
either concrete blocks covered with cementitious plaster or gyp-
sum drywall. Floorings were natural stone tiles, ceramic tiles or
terrazzo tiles. All other materials and construction methods were
typical to residential structures, i.e. electrical and plumbing sys-
tems, and carpentry.
3.2. Results of eld survey and discussion
3.2.1. Composition of construction waste
Table 1 presents the total waste removed from each site during
the sampling period. Fig. 2 describes the distribution of some of the
waste constituents relative to the total waste. It can be seen that
recyclable materials, such as concrete, steel, blocks, tiles, plastic
and paper, were found in relatively large amounts in the waste
of all 10-construction sites despite the different construction stage
of each site. The difference in the relative content of the various
materials in the waste depends on the construction stage as well
as on construction technology and local construction habits.
Thus, for example, Site Nos. 1 and 2 were relatively similar to
each other: both were constructed by the same contactor using
Table 1
Quantities of waste removed from the inspected sites (m
3
) and their description.
Site No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a
9 10
Work stage Frame works Frame works + nishing works Late nishing works
Build area (m
3
) 9000 15,000 17,200 7000 5000 32,000 18,000 11,600 8000 18,000
Sampling month
1 10 30 100 60 90 200 230 128 168 120
2 10 30 120 160 90 152 190 176 72 140
3 40 70 180 60 130 128 120 192 144 190
4 20 30 44 70 130 336 120 240 48 220
5 30 30 112 80 100 336 150 256 36 230
6 40 40 128 80 100 320 150 344 36 130
7 60 60 122 40 130 248 250 232 36 240
8 30 70 160 40 130 312 210 344 36 160
Total 240 360 966 590 900 2032 1420 1912 576 1430
Granular material 40 57 25 51 60 30 23 27 20 22
Steel 32 24 10 14 11 6 8 9 4 7
Paper 3 7 11 8 6 8 9 11 19 9
a
Not including a 13,000 m
2
parking lot that was built at the same time.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Site No.
%

v
o
l
.

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

w
a
s
t
e
Concrete
Steel
Concrete bricks
Mortar
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Site No.
%

v
o
l
.

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

w
a
s
t
e
Tiles
Plastic
Paper
Gypsum
(b)
Fig. 2. Distribution of waste constituents relative to total waste (from data
collected during the sampling period).
A. Katz, H. Baum/ Waste Management 31 (2011) 353358 355
the same construction method. However, during the structural
frame stage, the amount of concrete waste on Site No. 2 was 35%
greater than on Site No. 1, whereas the amount of steel waste
was 25% smaller, differences that indicate a dependency on the lo-
cal working habits of the particular groups that work on each site.
Without close inspection of each site from start to end, which
was not within the scope of this study, it is difcult to correlate
specic amounts of waste with a particular construction method
since other activities also produce similar types of waste at the
same time. The exterior walls on Site No. 8, for example, were
made of precast concrete elements that are delivered to the con-
struction site already covered with stone tiles. The amount of tile
waste on this site was not, however, signicantly different from
any other site, although it was expected to be lower. It appears that
oor tiles accounted for the majority of tile waste on this site, and
it was not possible for the site observer to differentiate between
the two kinds of tile. In the context of estimating the total amount
of waste, it is insignicant which activity produces which type of
waste.
Paper and cardboard were found in the waste of all construction
sites, but at a higher content on those sites in which nishing
works were being performed. The amount of this constituent was
signicantly larger on Site No. 9. This project consisted of com-
pleted apartments that were already inhabited while work was
still going on in other parts of the buildings. As a result, packing
materials from tenants belongings were disposed of in the same
dumpsters as the construction waste. It is expected that in large
construction projects, tenants will start occupying apartments in
nished buildings while other buildings are still under construc-
tion, thus accumulation of packing material at this stage is
unavoidable.
3.2.2. Composition of construction waste at various construction
stages
As expected, structural frame works generate waste that con-
sists of over 50% concrete and steel (Site Nos. 1 and 2, Fig. 2). Dur-
ing the overlapping stages of structural frame and nishing works,
these amounts drop to 1520%, while waste from the nishing
works occupies a larger volume. Thus, mortar, blocks, gypsum
and tiles are more readily found on those sites (Site Nos. 38).
Packing materials, such as wood, plastic, insulation, paper and
cardboard, also accumulate resulting from nishing materials
delivered in protected units rather than in bulk form, which is
more characteristic of the way in which materials are delivered
during the stage of structural frame. In addition to packing uses,
some materials were also used for special applications. Thus, for
example, more than 1000 m
2
of plastic sheets were used to protect
ceramic oor tiles on Site No. 3. The amount of paper and card-
board waste was also large on sites in which nishing works were
being carried out.
Increasing amounts of soil were found towards the end of the
projects. Waste fromSite Nos. 9 and 10 contained 38% and 16% soil,
respectively. Gardening and landscaping activities are performed
towards the completion of the buildings, thus larger amounts of
soil waste are expected at this stage.
3.2.3. Recyclable waste
Some construction waste can be recycled using known and ap-
proved technologies. Granular waste, such as concrete, blocks, tiles
and mortar can be used in various applications ranging from low-
grade backll material to high-grade aggregates for structural con-
crete. In some cases, waste soil can be treated similarly, depending
on the amount of contaminants it contains. Steel is melted down
and used in the production of new steel. Paper and plastics are also
used in the production of new products. The amounts of recyclable
materials in the waste are described below.
During structural frame works, recyclable granular materials,
such as concrete and bricks debris, occupy about 49% of the waste.
Of the remaining 51%, about 28% consists of recyclable steel, 5%
recyclable paper and the rest (18%) are non-recyclable materials,
such as plastic, wood, gypsum, soil, etc. This means that during
the structural frame works about 80% of the waste can be recycled
in one way or another (Fig. 3a).
Finishing works are characterized by smaller amounts of recy-
clable materials (40%). Although there are less concrete works
at that stage, there is a denite increase in various kinds of tiles
and waste caused, for instance, by changes in the location of the
partition walls imposed by the tenants. Site development and land-
scaping in the vicinity of the building characterize the nishing
works stage. These activities lead to an increase in the amount of
soil and stone, that their recycling possibilities are doubtful. As a
result, the amount of granular waste that can be recycled safely de-
creases at this stage to only 21% (Fig. 3). There is also a signicant,
but expected, decrease in steel waste at this stage, from 28% to
6%. On the other hand, the amount of paper and cardboard waste
increases notably, about threefold, from 5% to 14% and a signif-
icant increase in the non-recyclable materials waste is observed as
well (60%). Over all, about 40% of the waste generated during the
nishing works stage can actually be recycled (Fig. 3).
During the overlapping stages of structural frame and nishing
works, the composition of the waste does not necessarily represent
an average of the two stages. At this stage, there might be cases in
which site development and landscaping works are being pre-
formed in the vicinity of completed buildings, leading to large
amounts of soil and stone. In addition, the amount of paper and
cardboard varies, depending on whether tenants start to occupy
the nished buildings. As a result, the share of non-recyclable
materials might increase.
It should be noted, however, that the best way to maximize the
amount of recycled materials involves on-site separation of the
recyclable waste. This requires the cooperation of the site staff.
Trial projects in which on-site separation of construction waste
was implemented were carried out in the USA and in Hong Kong
with partial success (Uhlik et al., 1997; Formoso et al., 1999;
Chung, 2000; Poon et al., 2001). The main complaints relate to
insufcient cooperation on the part of contractors and project
managers in performing actions that, in their opinion, slow down
the construction rate or cause difculties in site organization and
management.
Granular,
49%
Steel, 28%
Paper, 5%
Other, 19%
Granular,
36%
Steel, 10%
Paper, 9%
Other, 46%
Granular,
21%
Steel, 6%
Paper, 14%
Other, 60%
C. Finishing
B. Structural frame
+ Finishing
A. Structural frame
Fig. 3. Distribution of waste constituents at different building stages.
356 A. Katz, H. Baum/ Waste Management 31 (2011) 353358
4. Development of an empirical model
Since collecting data from a sufcient number of large construc-
tion sites, from start to nish of each, is practically impossible, an
empirical model was developed in order to produce a tool that will
enable to predict the amounts of waste generated in the construc-
tion of new residential buildings. The model developed here de-
scribes the accumulation of waste vs. time using parameters
normalized according to
b
V ws, where the normalized time, s,
describes the duration of the project from start (0.00) to nish
(1.00) and the normalized volume of waste,
b
V, describes the
instantaneous total waste volume (m
3
) per 1 m
2
oor area, as if
the total waste volume was generated at that very moment.
The derivative of this equation yields the rate of waste accumu-
lation at each stage of the construction works, whereas integration
over a certain period, or over the entire project lifetime (Eq. (1))
yields the waste accumulated during this period or the total waste,
V
tot
, generated on the site, respectively:
V
Z
s
2
s
1
wsds 1
The function wwas determined experimentally according to the
eld survey described above. The monthly quantities of waste
measured on each construction site were converted to
b
Vi using:
b
V
i

Vi
A
D 2
where
b
Vi is normalized amount of waste as measured by the ith
monthly sampling, expressed in m
3
per 1 m
2
oor area. V(i) is abso-
lute monthly amount of waste as measured by the ith monthly sam-
pling, m
3
. A is total built area of the project, m
2
. D is the total
duration of the project, months.
The normalized time of each sampling is calculated according
to:
si
mi
D
3
where s(i) is normalized time of the ith monthly sampling. m(i) is
month in which the ith monthly sampling was taken. D is the total
duration of the project, months.
The values of s(i) and
b
Vi were calculated based on observa-
tions at 10-construction sites as mentioned above. Data from all
of these sites were collected periodically over a period of about
8 months, which represent different construction stages at each
site. Transforming the data to normalized values as described
above enables analysis of the data on a common basis, as presented
in Fig. 4, denoted (+) in the gure. A moving average was calculated
for all the data points (denoted (h) in Fig. 4) and a regression line
was calculated according to W(s) = as
b
.
The coefcients a and b in this equation were found to be
0.52 0.03 and 1.60 0.09, respectively, at a condence level of
95%; R
2
= 0.94. ANOVA statistics yielded an F value of 1175 for
which the signicance level is 8 10
49
.
Integration of the regression line enables to predict the amount
of waste generated during various stages of the construction life
(Eq. (1)), as shown in Fig. 5. Thus, the total amount of waste ex-
pected to accumulate in a residential construction site is estimated
at 0.2 m
3
/m
2
. This gure correlates well with data collected from
landlling sites for construction waste when the total waste deliv-
ered from a single construction site is summed up.
It can be seen that the amount of waste accumulated during the
early construction stages is quite low and it increases signicantly
towards the later stages of work. It is expected that during the rst
third of the projects duration, most of the construction works re-
late to erection of the structural frame and thus generate only
5% of the entire projects total waste. The nal third of the pro-
jects duration generates a signicant amount of waste, and is esti-
mated at about 65% of the entire projects total waste.
Quantities of waste expected to be generated on each site dur-
ing the sampling period were calculated using the model and are
presented in Table 2. Fig. 6 presents the calculated quantities vs.
the actual quantities of waste collected. Deviation from the diago-
nal line represents model inaccuracies: dots above the line repre-
sent the models overestimation whereas dots below that line
represent models underestimation. The dashed lines denote a
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
project stage (), %
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
a
n
e
o
u
s

t
o
t
a
l

w
a
s
t
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n


(
m
3
/
m
2
)
( )=0.52
1.6
R
2
=0.94
Fig. 4. The instantaneous total waste volume generated during the construction of
a residential project (+ collected data, h moving average).
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 20 40 60 80 100
Project Duration (%)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

W
a
s
t
e

(
m
3
/
m
2
)
Fig. 5. Accumulation of construction waste throughout the project duration.
Table 2
Actual amounts of waste collected on all sites compared with the calculated values
according to the model.
Site No. Built area
(m
2
)
Sampling duration (%) Collected
(m
3
)
Calculated
(m
3
)
Start End
1 9000 31 61 240 342
2 15,000 21 46 360 346
3 17,200 48 71 966 902
4 7000 60 88 590 633
5 5000 52 86 900 493
6 32,000 52 74 2032 1756
7 18,000 57 87 1420 1672
8 11,600 64 92 1912 1141
9 8000 67 90 576 652
10 18,000 42 71 1430 1100
A. Katz, H. Baum/ Waste Management 31 (2011) 353358 357
20% deviation of the actual waste from the calculated values. It
can be seen that a good correlation exists despite the large variabil-
ity among the sites inspected. The sites differ from each other in
terms of the construction methods used, materials used in nish-
ing works, stage of construction works, size, etc. Two sites gener-
ated signicantly larger quantities than expected according to
the model, Site Nos. 8 and 5. For Site No. 8, an extremely large
parking lot can account for these larger quantities, which was lar-
ger than those of the other sites, when compared based on built
area only. In other sites, the parking area either was an outdoor
lot or was more limited in space. No visible reason was seen for
the extraordinarily large quantities of waste in Site No. 5 (Table
2) and it is possible that either the amounts of wastage in this site
were indeed extremely large (poor management) or that other
sites in the vicinity used the dumpsters on this site without
permission.
It is interesting to note that no correlation was found between
the construction methods and the amounts of waste generated.
Several construction methods were used on the sites inspected,
including conservative methods consisting of casting beams and
columns in temporary forms, casting of external walls using large
forms in which the stone cladding serves as part of the form, and
precast external wall elements. Despite the different construction
methods used for the structural frame, no signicant difference
was seen in the amounts of waste actually collected. It should be
noted that the structural frame works and nishing works were
executed simultaneously on most of the sites. The amount of waste
generated during the erection of the structural frame is low com-
pared with the amount generated during the nishing works (see
previous discussion). Therefore, changes in the construction meth-
od, which relate only to the construction of the structural frame,
have only a minor effect on the total amount of waste generated
on the site.
5. Summary and conclusions
An empirical model to evaluate the ow of construction waste
was developed. The model is based on results from a eld survey
in which 10-construction sites of residential buildings were moni-
tored. The construction sites, representing typical construction
methods, were inspected periodically according to the methodol-
ogy developed in this study in order to obtain information on the
amount of waste according to the construction stage, as well as
on the kind of waste generated.
Based on the data collected and on the numerical model, it
seems that about two-thirds of the amount of waste accumulates
during the last third of the construction time. On the other hand,
relatively small amounts of waste accumulate at the early stages
of the construction works. At the early stages, the waste is charac-
terized by relatively large amounts of recyclable material such as
granular material from concrete, blocks and steel. Towards the
end of the project, the total quantities of waste increase, but the
share of recyclable material decreases due to increased quantities
of packing materials. Appropriate management of the waste
throughout the entire projects lifetime can lead to valuable recy-
cling of more than 50% of the waste.
The model developed here can assist site managers in tracking
the amounts of waste removed from the site, thus providing indi-
cation of any unusual wastage that occurs in the course of the
work. The total amount of waste generated throughout a residen-
tial construction project is estimated at 0.2 m
3
/m
2
. This value was
validated by information collected from landlling sites and can
serve construction site managers when preparing for the expected
cost of waste removal, as well as local authorities that must offer
solutions for that waste.
Acknowledgment
This study was funded in part by a grant from the Israeli Minis-
try for Environment Protection.
References
ADEME, 1997. Guide des Dechets de Chantiers de Batiment, Research Report.
Baum, H., Katz, A., 2002, An Integrated Approach Towards the Reduction of Waste
Production Construction Waste. National Building Research Institute,
Research Report 017-707, Haifa, Israel, 70pp (in Hebrew).
Chini, A.R. (Ed.), 2005. Deconstruction and Materials Reuse An International
Overview. CIB Report TG 39, Publication 300, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
CIOB Chartered Institute of Building, 1980. Try Reducing Building Waste.
Committee Report, Surrey, UK, 54pp.
Chung, J.K.O., 2000. Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong 1998. Hong Kong,
Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong Government Printer.
Formoso, C.T., Isatto, E.L., Hirato, E.H., 1999, Method for waste control in the
building industry. In: Seventh Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA, USA.
Franklin Associates, 1998. Characterization of Building-related Construction and
Demolition Debris in the United States. The US Environmental Protection
Agency Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste, Division Ofce of Solid Waste,
Report No. EPA530-R-98-010, 94pp.
Humphreys H. and Partners, 1994. Managing Demolition and Construction Waste.
Report for the department of the Environment, UK, HMSO, London.
Poon, C.S., 1997. Management and recycling of demolition waste in Hong Kong.
Waste Management & Research 15 (6), 561572.
Poon, C.S., Ann, T.W. Yu, Ng, L.H., 2001. On-site sorting of construction and
demolition waste in Hong Kong. Resources Conservation & Recycling 32 (2),
157172.
Poon, C.S., Yu Ann, T.W., Jaillon, L., 2004. Reducing building waste at construction
sites in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics 22 (5), 461470.
Snook, K., Turner, A., Ridout, R., 1995. Recycling Waste from the Construction Site.
The Chartered Institute of Building, Berks, England. 47p.
Symonds, ARGUS, COWI and PRC Bouwcentrum, 1999. Construction and Demolition
Waste Management Practices and their Economic Impacts. Report to DG XI
European Commission, Department of the Environment Transport and the
Regions, HMSO, London.
Uhlik, F., Kibert, C.J., Tenah, K., 1997. Development of an On-Site Waste System and
Recycling Infrastructure for Residential Construction in Florida. Technical
Report No. 98. School of Building Construction, University of Florida.
Wang, J.Y., Touran, A., Christoforou, C., Fadlalla, H., 2004. A systems analysis tool for
construction and demolition wastes management. Waste Management 24 (10),
989997.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Collected (m
3
)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

(
m
3
)
+20%
-20%
Fig. 6. Calculated waste generated during the sampling period vs. actual waste
collected.
358 A. Katz, H. Baum/ Waste Management 31 (2011) 353358