Understanding and overcoming the barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective

Abstract

Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Abstract: To meet greenhouse gas emission targets, at global, national and sector level, reduction opportunities should be explored in both the embodied and operational carbon of the built environment. One underexploited option to reduce embodied carbon is the reuse of structural steel. However, in the UK, work by Sansom and Avery (2014) suggests a picture of declining levels of reuse. This paper explores why this is the case by identifying the practical barriers to structural steel reuse through a series of semi-structured interviews with UK construction industry members. Whilst there were many identified barriers, five practical barriers were prioritised as being most significant: cost, availability/storage, no client demand, traceability and supply chain gaps/lack of integration. These contrast with those most commonly identified in global literature: cost, supply chain gaps/integration, risk, jointing technique, composite construction and time for deconstruction; with only two overlaps: cost and supply chain gaps/integration. Many of the barriers from literature have a technical focus (reducing salvage yield rather than completely preventing reuse) differing from the largely systemic barriers that the interviews prioritised. These systemic barriers will need to be dealt with first to increase reuse rates. This will require a coordinated approach across the UK construction supply chain. Building on interview insights, this paper proposes four mechanisms to overcome these systemic barriers: (1) the creation of a database of suppliers/reused section availability, (2) a demonstration of client demand (3) technical guidance and education for the construction industry and (4) government leadership. Together these mechanisms would improve reuse rates in the UK, reduce the embodied emissions of the built environment and play a crucial role in meeting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

Strategies for improving the sustainability of structural metals

“…Enabling re-use provides considerable opportunities for steel and aluminium, given that many applications in building and transportation reach end-of-life not because they fail but because they are replaced for economic reasons. Barriers to re-use are typically not technical in nature but rather economic, such as lack of demand, traceability concerns and lack of supply chain infrastructure 91 . These systemic barriers need to be addressed to realize re-use potential through government leadership, education and information sharing.…”

From Waste Management to Component Management in the Construction Industry

“…Growing academic attention has focused on the reuse of structural steel, thanks to steel's ubiquity, the significant environmental benefits that would arise from shortcutting recycling, and the intuitive feasibility of deconstructing and reusing these relatively high-value components. The literature identifies barriers and constraints; looks at cases of successful reuse to determine whether barriers are real or perceived; finds the economic case marginal; and proposes systemic and technical interventions to encourage a more effective supply chain [32,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73].…”

“…It was noted, however, that the demand projects that can directly reuse components A detailed understanding of specific building components is not necessary for them to serve as feedstock for conventional recycling, because they will be returned to the state of raw material. This loss of specificity means that recycling can provide certainty over future (albeit lower) utility [68]. The utility of a specific reclaimed component, with its idiosyncrasies, is far less clear-cut.…”

How resource-efficient is the global steel industry?

“…Only two studies were found that include ME strategies as part of forecasting exercises: studies performed by (Milford et al, 2013) and (IEA, 2015a). Other studies have examined strategies for recycling and re-use, employing metrics such as recycling rates (%), recycled content (%), scrap diversion (%); re-use rates (%), material intensities (tonnes per area, volume or service) (Allwood, 2014;Allwood et al, 2010b;Cullen and Allwood, 2012;Densley Tingley et al, 2017;Graedel et al, 2011). Embodied energy (GJ/t) and emissions (tCO 2 /t) also provide measures of cumulative savings, and are useful for making comparisons between ME options.…”