<<

structural steel

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 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 / Forming Fabrication End-use products Global demand for steel goods Continuous Hot blown furnace casting (slab) strip mill rolling mill = 1088 million tonnes Cold rolled coil 108 Galv. plant 88 CRC coated 12 Slab 640 540 139 Trucks 20 928 Liquid steel 892 CRC galv. 58 /other 31 1002 mill Tin plated 8 Electrical 8

Mechanical 143 9 HRC galv. Industrial Primary Plate mill Hot rolled coil 130 equipment 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 Welded tube 59 preparation 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 165 238 rod 133 (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 Appliances 31 goods 177 Cast steel 10 Other 138 Iron casting 68 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 or reuse as 40% of 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,

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 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

and handling • Storage/administration • of steel elements • Premium for uncommon sections • Connection design • Profit margin • Fabrication operations recondition costs, cutting, , 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