structural steel reuse
Jonathan Cullen [email protected] Michal Drewniok [email protected]
Steel and the circular economy The Building Centre, London 30 November 2016 Contents
the case for 1 structural steel reuse the barriers to 2 structural steel reuse
4 conclusions
the costs of structural 3 steel reuse the case for structural steel reuse SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS WITH BOTH EYES OPEN
JONATHAN M CULLEN JULIAN ALLWOOD UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
www.withbotheyesopen.com global flows of steel steel
Reduction Steelmaking Casting Rolling / Forming Fabrication End-use products Global demand for steel goods Oxygen Continuous Hot Cold Blast furnace blown furnace casting (slab) strip mill rolling mill = 1088 million tonnes Cold rolled coil 108 Galv. plant Cars 88 CRC coated 12 Vehicles Slab 640 540 139 Trucks 20 Iron ore Pig iron 928 Liquid steel 892 CRC galv. 58 Ships/other 31 1002 Tin mill Tin plated 8 Electrical 8
Mechanical 143 9 HRC galv. Industrial Primary Plate mill Hot rolled coil 130 equipment Ingot mill 176 125 Electrical 33 Direct 89 HR narrow strip 33 reduction Open hearth DRI 66 furnace Plate 87
Continuous Rod and Forming casting (billet) bar mill Scrap Welded tube 59 preparation Extrusion Electric Seamless tube 26 furnace Buildings 358 End-of-life Billet 484 462 scrap 290 Construction 596 Scrap steel 570 Liquid steel 407 Reinforcing bar 165 Infrastructure 238 Wire rod 133 Continuous casting (bloom) Section mill Hot rolled bar 84 Bloom 99 94 Rail section 10 Light section 42 Food packaging 8 Steel product casting Heavy section 38 Metal Appliances 31 goods 177 Cast steel 10 Other 138 Iron foundry casting 68 Cast iron 68 End-of-life Global steel flows for cast iron scrap 2008 in million tonnes Cullen, Alwood, Bambach Environ Sci Technol Forming scrap 99 2012 46(24):13048-55.
Fabrication scrap 186 … and energy inputs steel the economic margin availability of used structural steel
Structural steel scrap arising from demolitions - prediction 1400
1200
1000
800
600 + 5 years Steel (kt) 400
200 - 5 years
0 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Consumption of structural steel (sections, fabricated sections, hollow sections) Prediction of structural steel scrap arising from demolition (INPUT as sections, hollow sections, plates) Steel sections sent for recycling or reuse as 40% of metals sent for recycling of reuse - NFDC data - kt successful reuse of structural steel
740 Rue Bel-Air Montreal, Quebec
BedZED London successful reuse of structural steel
Carrwood Park, Doncaster
Blue Steel Building, Leeds successful reuse of structural steel
Kings Science Academy, Bradford
University Technical College, Leeds successful reuse of structural steel
9 Cambridge Ave (Segro), Slough
Honda Warehouse, Swindon why is reuse not happening at scale?
Year Author Reuse Recycle Landfill Note
Steel Construction 2001 12% 93% 5% Heavy sections Institute
2006 Gorgolewski et al. 10% 90% nil Sections, Canada
2012 EUROFER 7% 96% 2% Heavy sections
Reuse rates in the UK for structural steel are low and are falling hypothesis : current practice
Buyer Small-scale local reuse Seller wants reused steel Reuse happens when the buyer and seller wants to sell a for new building can easily communicate, or are the same entity property or building
Requests reused steel for project
Designer (engineer /architect) designs building
Designs for reused sections
Fabricator frames incorporate reused steel sections hypothesis : where we would like to be
Buyer Small-scale local reuse Seller wants reused steel Reuse happens when the buyer and seller wants to sell a for new building can easily communicate, or are the same entity property or building
Requests reused Sees value in extracting old steel steel for project from building
Demolition Designer contractor (engineer /architect) deconstructs designs building building to recover steel
Generic design for Delivers reused new or reused steel steel to stockist
Fabricator Full-scale reuse market Stockist frames incorporate Steel stockist holds certified reused steel holds new and reused steel sections Clients / designers not part of decision-making cretified reused steel hypothesis : a step along the way
Client Small-scale local reuse Developer wants reused steel Reuse happens when the buyer and seller wants to sell a for new building can easily communicate, or are the same entity property or building
Requests reused Sees value in extracting old steel steel for project from building
Demolition Designer Supply—demand website contractor (engineer /architect) Linking demand and supply for reuse steel deconstructs designs building Regular updates of quantities and timing building to recover steel
Generic design for Delivers reused new or reused steel steel to stockist
Fabricator Full-scale reuse market Stockist frames incorporate Steel stockist holds certified reused steel holds new and reused steel sections Clients / designers not part of decision-making cretified reused steel the barriers to structural steel reuse Building lifecycle and supply chain actors
Main Demolition Client Architect contractor contractor
Concept Design Construction Use Demolition
Structural Fabrication engineer Fabricator
Recycling route Structural steel section Reuse route Links between the actors is critcal Stockist Mill barriers identified
• Profit opportunity/cost additional cost and risk of reusing steel • Programme disruptions causing delays to the project timeline • Quality/certification/traceability certifying the properties of structural steel • Availability/Dimensions difficulties sourcing the correct section sizes • Old/New perception concerns that reused steel is inferior • Trust/Lack of communication issues of trust and liability • Uncommon practice Barriers to structural reluctance to change current practices steel reuse identified in the literature • Design for deconstruction challenges in recovering sections from buildings experience of steel reuse
Experience of steel reuse
No experience of steel reuse
Experience of steel reuse
38 interviewees from 30 semi-structured interviews 24 respondents to on-line surveys interview and survey results
Design for deconstruction
Old / new perception
Uncommon practice
Trust/lac of communication
Programme
Profit opportunity / cost
Quality / certification / traceability
Availability / dimensions
Percentage of actors who mentioned a barrier (%) Similar scores for the survey and interviews gives confidence in the results salience score
Salience is the state or condition of being prominent
ng – number of mentions of barrier in group Salience x Ng – number of respondents in group score N – total number of respondents
nb – number of mentions of barrier
the importance of the inverse of the the barrier for the importance of the barrier actor group across all interviewees
A higher salience score indicates that a barrier is particularly important to that actor Salience of barriers fromSalience survey of barriers from survey 3.0 3.0 Salience of barriers from survey
3.0 2.5 2.5 Salience of barriers from survey 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 Salience of barriers from survey 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.5 1.5 1.5Saliencescore 1.0 2.5 2.0Saliencescore 1.0 Saliencescore 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 Saliencescore 1.0 1.5 0.0 salienceSaliencescore 0.0 : barrier ranking,Salience by of actorbarriers from interviews 0.5 1.0 3.0 Salience of barriers from interviews Salience of barriers from interviews 0.0 0.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 Salience of barriers from interviews 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 Salience of barriers from interviews 2.0 1.5 3.02.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.51.5
1.5 Saliencescore 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.01.0 Saliencescore 0.5
Salience score Salience 0.0 1.0 1.5 Saliencescore 0.5 0.0 Saliencescore 0.53.0 0.5 1.0 Stockists Engineers Saliencescore Demolition
0.0 Fabricators 0.0 0.52.50.0 Contractors Stockists Engineers Engineers Stockists Demolition Fabricators
Fabricators Demolition Contractors 0.0 MainContractors Architects & Clients & Architects 2.0 Structural Contractors Architects & Clients Main Contractors Structural MainContractors Stockists Stockists Architects & Clients & Architects Engineers Structural Engineers Demolition Fabricators Demolition Contractors Profit opportunity/cost Programme Fabricators Uncommon practice 1.5 Profit opportunity/cost ProgrammeContractors
Quality/certification/traceability Availability/DimensionsStockists Design for deconstruction Engineers Demolition Fabricators MainContractors Old/New perception ProfitTrust/LackQuality/certification/traceability opportunity/cost of communicationContractors ProgrammeAvailability/Dimensions MainContractors Architects & Clients & Architects Structural
1.0 Clients & Architects Structural
MainContractors Quality/certification/traceabilityOld/New perception Availability/DimensionsTrust/Lack of communication Architects & Clients & Architects Structural Profit0.5 opportunity/cost Old/NewProgrammeUncommon perception practice Trust/LackDesign of for communication deconstruction Profit opportunity/cost Programme Quality/certification/traceabilityProfit opportunity/cost UncommonAvailability/DimensionsProgramme practice Design for deconstruction 0.0 Old/NewQuality/certification/traceability perception Trust/Lack of communicationAvailability/Dimensions Quality/certification/traceability Availability/Dimensions Stockists Engineers Fabricators Demolition UncommonOld/New practice perception Design for deconstructionTrust/Lack of communication Old/New perception MainTrust/Lack Contractors of communication Contractors Architects & ClientsStructural UncommonUncommon practice practice Design for deconstructionDesign for deconstruction Profit opportunity/cost Programme Uncommon practice Quality/certification/traceability Availability/Dimensions Design for deconstruction Old/New perception Trust/Lack of communication salience : actor ranking, by barrier perception of costs and programme
Perceptions taken from the on-line survey the costs of structural steel reuse costs considered
• Transport and handling • Storage/administration • Price of steel elements • Premium for uncommon sections • Connection design • Profit margin • Fabrication operations recondition costs, cutting, welding, drilling, etc. • Materials bolts, primer • Erection • Deconstruction as opposed to demolition Costs were reconstructed from • Testing and certification the information given in interviews • Coating and fire protection Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel
New Steel low Typical Price given high
Reuse Steel low Baseline Scenario highthe cost structure for reuse Examples of successful reuse case studies
Reusing low steel elements high
Reinforcing low old structures high
Whole structure low reuse high Profitability bounds £ 0 £ 200 £ 400 £600 £800 £1000 £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 Other Costs Steel cost Fabrication Costs Recondition Costs Transportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Erection Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel
New Steel low Typical Price given high
Reuse Steel low Baseline Scenario highthe cost structure for reuse Examples of successful reuse case studies
Reusing low steel elements high
Reinforcing low old structures high
Whole structure low reuse high Profitability bounds £ 0 £ 200 £ 400 £600 £800 £1000 £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 Other Costs Steel cost Fabrication Costs Recondition Costs Transportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Erection Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds
The cost of reusing steel at scale is at least as expensive as new steel successful reuse case studies?
three types of successful case study Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel
New Steel low Typical Price given high
Reuse Steel low Baseline Scenario high successful reuse case studies Examples of successful reuse case studies
Reusing low high steel elements Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel Reinforcing low old structures high New Steel low Typical Price given high Whole structure low reuse high Profitability bounds Reuse Steel low Baseline Scenario high£ 0 £ 200 £ 400 £600 £800 £1000 £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 Other Costs Steel cost Three types of successful reuseFabrication case studies Costs Recondition Costs Transportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint ExamplesRecovered ofsections successful reused in reuse newErection design case studies Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Reusing low steel elements high
• minimal sourcing or stocking of steel required (grey) Reinforcing low • transport costs are minimised (black); testing or engineering judgement high old structures • examples: BedZED, Carwood Park, 740 Rue Bel-Air
Whole structure low reuse high Profitability bounds £ 0 £ 200 £ 400 £600 £800 £1000 £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 Other Costs Steel cost Fabrication Costs Recondition Costs Transportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Erection Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel
New Steel low Typical Price given high
Reuse Steel low Baseline Scenario high successfulBaseline comparison reuse between case reuse studies and new steel Examples of successful reuse case studies NewReusing Steel low Typicalsteel elements Price given high
Reinforcing low Reuse Steel old structures highlow Baseline Scenario high
Whole structure low reuse high Profitability bounds £ 0Examples £ 200 of£ 400 successful £600 reuse £800 case £1000 studies £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 ReusingOther Costs low Steel cost Three types of successful reuseFabrication case studies Costs Recondition Costs steel Transportation/Handlingelements high Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Refurbishment of structure in situ (withErection strengthening) Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Reinforcing low old structures high
• testing costs are eliminated (grey), but onsite fabrication increases (pink) Whole structure low • transport (black) and stocking (light grey) costs are reduced reuse high • examples: Blue Steel, Kings Science, UTC Profitability bounds £ 0 £ 200 £ 400 £600 £800 £1000 £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 Other Costs Steel cost Fabrication Costs Recondition Costs Transportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Erection Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel
New Steel low Typical Price given high Baseline comparison between reuse and new steel
Reuse Steel New Steel low Baseline Scenario high Typical Price given high successful reuse case studies Examples of successful reuse case studies Reuse Steel low BaselineReusing Scenario highlow steel elements high
Reinforcing low old structures high Examples of successful reuse case studies
low ReusingWhole structure low steelreuse elements high Profitability bounds £ 0 £ 200 £ 400 £600 £800 £1000 £1200 £1400 £1600 £1800 Reinforcing low Other Costs Steel cost Fabrication Costs high Three types of successful reuse case studies Recondition Costs old structuresTransportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Relocation of entire structure to newErection site Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Whole structure low reuse high Profitability bounds
£ 0 • £ minimal200 £sourcing 400 £600or stocking £800 of steel £1000 required £1200 (grey) £1400 £1600 £1800 • testing required (blue), fabrication costs are reduced (pink) Other Costs •Steelexamples: cost Segro, Honda Warehouse,Fabrication Portal PowerCosts Recondition Costs Transportation/Handling Operating and profit margins Bolts/Primer Connexion design Administration Shotblasting low Steel cost above scrap price high Testing Paint Erection Strike down Cutting, drilling, weldin g, Sandblasting Removing plates/welds Conclusions Conclusions
Motivation • The economic margin and availability of old steel sections appear to favour reuse • Several successful case studies of structural steel reuse exist Conclusions
Findings • Different barriers to reuse affect different actors along the supply chain • Barriers are most salient for fabricators, stockists and demolition contractors • Barrier perception and reality are not always aligned Conclusions
Findings • The costs of reusing structural steel at scale are at least as high as specifying new steel • Successful examples of reuse can be explained by the elimination of one or more of the cost components • Three types of successful case studies are identified: - Recovered sections reused in new design - Refurbishment of structure in situ (with strengthening) - Relocation of entire structure to new site thank you
Jonathan Cullen [email protected] Michal Drewniok [email protected]
Steel and the circular economy The Building Centre, London 30 November 2016