Primary Care Nurse Practitioners in Nebraska

https://digitalcommons.unmc.edu/coph_policy_reports/1021/thumbnail.jp

HOW TIMBER BUILDINGS CAN BE DESIGNED FOR DECONSTRUCTION AND REUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISO 20887

There is a need for a shift towards circular economy in the building and construction sector. Design for deconstruction and reuse (DfDR) and design for adaptability (DfA) have been suggested as means to facilitate reuse of buildings and diminish waste and material consumption. A standard, ISO 20887:2020, has appeared to support the implementation of DfDR/A. One objective of this study is to demonstrate timber building design examples that can be considered consistent with the standard and designs that should be avoided. Another objective is to examine if there are important aspects of DfDR/A for timber buildings that are insufficiently covered by ISO 20887:2020. The broader, long-term aim of the work is to remove thresholds to DfDR/A by providing support for designers and industry in applying the standard. The principles and strategies in ISO 20887:2020 are illustrated with practical examples from case studies, organised in a searchable database

HOW TIMBER BUILDINGS CAN BE DESIGNED FOR DECONSTRUCTION AND REUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISO 20887

There is a need for a shift towards circular economy in the building and construction sector. Design for deconstruction and reuse (DfDR) and design for adaptability (DfA) have been suggested as means to facilitate reuse of buildings and diminish waste and material consumption. A standard, ISO 20887:2020, has appeared to support the implementation of DfDR/A. One objective of this study is to demonstrate timber building design examples that can be considered consistent with the standard and designs that should be avoided. Another objective is to examine if there are important aspects of DfDR/A for timber buildings that are insufficiently covered by ISO 20887:2020. The broader, long-term aim of the work is to remove thresholds to DfDR/A by providing support for designers and industry in applying the standard. The principles and strategies in ISO 20887:2020 are illustrated with practical examples from case studies, organised in a searchable database

Material Compatibility and Optimisation for Home-Grown Mass Timber Systems

A report produced for work package 3.2 of the Innovate UK funded "Transforming Timber" projec

Design of Timber Buildings for Deconstruction and Reuse — Three methods and five case studies

There is a need for a shift towards circular economy in the construction sector and design philosophies as Design for Deconstruction and Reuse (DfDR) and Design for Adaptability (DfA) are being developed as means to design out waste and enhance resource efficiency. However, applying these philosophies is not yet common practice. The amount of DfDR/A timber buildings described in literature is limited. This study aims at increasing and spreading knowledge on DfDR/A for timber buildings. It has four goals: 1) To suggest methods to apply DfDR/A. 2) To suggest new design solutions. 3) To collect experiences on connections in relation to DfDR. 4) To suggest how guidelines for deconstruction and reuse can be formulated. The study presents three methods that all proved valuable in applying DfDR/A: one discussion-based method to improve an already existing timber building design, one indicator system to assess the DfDR/A potential of building designs, and one matrix to guide design decisions. We used the first method to conduct five case studies in four European countries. The studied designs were judged to be well or relatively well adapted for deconstruction and reuse already today. The fact that the studied buildings are all offsite manufactured and of modular composition benefits the deconstruction process, partly because construction and deconstruction are similar processes so that the knowledge and infrastructure that companies have can be directly transferred to enable deconstruction and reuse. Where large modules can be recovered, the time and energy needed for deconstruction as well as the risk for damage will be reduced. Disadvantages to deconstruction and reuse identified were typically linked to the complexity of building modules and that individual components are not independent. This was reflected as irreversible or hidden connections, inaccessible services, interconnected layers of the structural modules and many different component sizes. One of the case study buildings, designed with mass timber panels, excelled in the simplicity and reduction of number of steps required for maximum material recovery. New designs suggested included making fasteners more accessible to deconstruction, avoiding letting sensitive materials as plastic foils and particle boards pass continuously over joints between elements, and (for cases where standard units are not already used) standardizing elements. One case suggested using solid wood components instead of engineered wood products to achieve durability. The study showed that simple changes in design can lead to an augmented reuse potential. Some of the new design solutions generated will be taken into production by the participating manufacturers. Insights on connections included recognizing the fact that the use of reversible screwed connections is not sufficient to ensure deconstructability and that although nailed or glued connections severely complicate reuse of components, they might be accepted within elements in case reuse on element level is the target. Guidelines for deconstruction and reuse were developed in all case studies. Taken as a group of studies, there are advantageous additions proposed to earlier guidance documents. Despite being based on the same source, the different plans suggested varied substantially. There was a noteworthy difference between manufacturers’ in-house plans to those proposed by architects, engineers, or researchers, which speaks to the uncertainty regarding the appropriate structure and format

Where are the breaks in translation from theory to clinical practice (and back) in addressing depression? An empirical graph-theoretic approach

BACKGROUND: Research in depression has progressed rapidly over the past four decades. Yet depression rates are not subsiding and treatment success is not improving. We examine the extent to which the gap between science and practice is associated with the level of integration in how depression is considered in research and stakeholder-relevant documents. METHODS: We used a network-science perspective to analyze similar uses of depression relevant terms in the Google News corpus (approximately 1 billion words) and the Web of Science database (120 000 documents). RESULTS: These analyses yielded consistent pictures of insular modules associated with: (1) patient/providers, (2) academics, and (3) industry. Within academia insular modules associated with psychology, general medical, and psychiatry/neuroscience/biology were also detected. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that the domain of depression is fragmented, and that advancements of relevance to one stakeholder group (academics, industry, or patients) may not translate to the others. We consider potential causes and associated responses to this fragmentation that could help to unify and advance translation from research on depression to the clinic, largely involving harmonizing employed language, bridging conceptual domains, and increasing communication across stakeholder groups