489

The implications of reuse and recycling for the design of steel buildings1
Mark Gorgolewski

Abstract: There is an increasing interest in reuse and recycling in the Canadian construction industry. This interest is driven partly by the recent adoption in Canada of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System and partly by a greater general awareness of environmental issues. Designers are beginning to look at how to incorporate reused steel components into construction projects, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions by saving on primary steel production. However, although some designers are willing to redesign their projects to make use of available reclaimed structural steel components, it is often difficult to identify suitable materials in the local area at the appropriate time in the life of a project. A limiting factor is that designers, construction companies, and others perceive a lack of a well-established and easily available mechanism for exchange of reclaimed components. This paper reviews the issues that are relevant to increasing recycling and reuse in construction and focuses on examples that illustrate the benefits that steel can bring to sustainable construction. In particular, it discusses the issues relevant to designing to enable future disassembly and the way in which steel components can be readily reused. Key words: reclaimed steel, reuse of materials, steel recycling, design for deconstruction, sustainable construction. Rsum : Lintrt saccrot envers la rutilisation et le recyclage dans lindustrie canadienne de la construction, principalement en raison de ladoption au Canada du Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System et par laccroissement gnral de la sensibilisation aux questions environnementales. Les concepteurs commencent examiner la manire dincorporer des composants en acier rcupr dans les projets de construction, rduisant ainsi les missions de gaz effet de serre en conomisant sur la production dacier primaire. Toutefois, bien que certains concepteurs soient prts repenser leurs projets pour utiliser des composants en acier structurel rcupr, il est souvent difficile didentifier les matriaux adquats disponibles localement au moment appropri de la vie dun projet. Un facteur limitatif est que les concepteurs, les compagnies de construction et dautres peroivent quil ny a pas de mcanisme bien tabli et facilement disponible pour changer des composants rcuprs. Cet article examine les questions connexes laugmentation du recyclage et de la rutilisation dans la construction et met lemphase sur des exemples illustrant les avantages que lacier peut apporter dans la construction durable. Plus particulirement, il aborde les questions touchant la conception dans le but de faciliter le dmantlement futur et la manire dont les composants en acier peuvent tre rapidement et facilement rutiliss. Mots cls : acier rcupr, rutilisation des matriaux, recyclage de lacier, conception pour le dmantlement, construction durable. [Traduit par la Rdaction] Mark Gorgolewski 496 habit of their Bodies; so that Catharrs, Phthisicks, Coughs and Consumptions, rage more in this one City, than in the whole Earth besides.

1. Introduction
Environmental degradation is not new, as can be seen from this description of London by Evelyn (1661):
her Inhabitants breathe nothing but an impure and thick Mist, accompanied with a fuliginous and filthy vapour, which renders them obnoxious to a thousand inconveniences, corrupting the Lungs, and disordering the entire Received 1 December 2004. Revision accepted 10 January 2006. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjce.nrc.ca on 13 May 2006. M. Gorgolewski. Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada (e-mail: mgorgo@ryerson.ca). Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 August 2006.
1

But the global scale of it is new, as this quote from Gro Harlem Brundtland (1994) on the challenge of sustainable production and consumption patterns suggests:
it is simply impossible for the world as a whole to sustain a Western level of consumption for all. In fact, if 7 billion people were to consume as much energy and resources as we do in the West today we would need 10 worlds, not one, to satisfy all our needs.

This article is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue on Steel Research.

In reality, the sustainability debate is very much about the old truth that the poison is the dose. The Earth can sustain a small human population consuming and polluting to Western levels or a larger number with a far more ecologically appropriate lifestyle. But it cannot absorb 7 or 8 billion people all wishing to have a Western lifestyle. Thus, sustainability is about balancing population numbers with the level of resource use and pollution, and if we do not recognise this then the
2006 NRC Canada

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33: 489496 (2006)

doi:10.1139/L06-006

490

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006 Fig. 1. Canadian construction and demolition waste (total 11.187 Mt).

truth is likely to be forced on us by the very real limits of the Earths ability to provide resources and absorb pollution. Our Common Future, the Brundtland Commission report for the United Nations, defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). As the worlds human population will not decrease for the foreseeable future, we must develop patterns of resource use and pollution that can be accommodated by the Earth without significant long-term damage. The consumption of non-renewable resources and the creation of wastes have been identified as among the key issues that our society must address on behalf of future generations. The construction industry, in common with many others, is being encouraged to improve the efficiency with which it uses materials. In Canada, initiatives of the federal and provincial governments are encouraging the construction industry to use new processes that conserve primary resources and minimize waste, often leading to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These processes include the recycling of materials; the reuse of buildings and components; and the use of waste materials from construction, demolition, and other industries. It is recognised that the use of recycled materials and the reuse of components in buildings can lead to lower environmental impacts. However, the practical, environmental, and economic aspects of using these materials are often not properly understood within the construction industry. Construction professionals give many reasons for not embracing recycled materials and used components more widely. These reasons include issues of economics, technical considerations, or perception, but they are often exacerbated by prejudice and the lack of information and clear guidance. 1.1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design In North America over the last few years, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System has provided a framework for informing building design and construction decision-making. It is also used to evaluate the sustainability of building projects. The LEED Canada-NC version 1.0 Green Building Rating System (CaGBC 2004), adopted in 2004, addresses new commercial construction, major renovations, and high-rise residential buildings in Canada. Credits are organized within six core categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design process. There are also prerequisites that must be met, such as minimum energy performance, elimination of chlorofluorocarbons, and collection of recyclables. Up to 70 points are available. These can be scored for a range of measures, including both proven practices and emerging technologies. Depending on the total number of points achieved, a building can be classified as certified (2632 points), silver (3338 points), gold (3951 points), or platinum (5270). For better or for worse, LEED has been rapidly embraced as a design tool by designers and owners interested in addressing sustainability issues and bringing additional value to their projects. The materials and resources category deals with efficient use of material resources, including building, component, and material recycling and reuse.

Thirteen points are available for storage and collection of recyclables; reuse of buildings; management of construction waste; reuse of resources; and use of recycled content, renewable materials, and local or regional materials as appropriate. LEED provides a stimulus for change in the industry and an indication of the importance of the conservation of materials and resources. 1.2. Construction industry The construction industry represents 12% of Canadas gross domestic product (GDP) and has a tremendous impact on our environment. Much of this is associated with the use of resources and the creation of emissions and waste (CIRIA 1992). Approximately 30% of total energy use and GHG emissions result from operating buildings. Furthermore, it is estimated that 10%30% of GHG emissions are generated indirectly by the production and transport of building materials and construction and demolition (C&D) waste (Busby 2002). Canadas GHG production in 2003 was 740 Mt per year, 3% more than the previous year (Environment Canada 2005). The countrys Kyoto commitment is to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, which equates to about 571 Mt/year, by 20082012. Canadas emissions in 2010, if nothing is done, are predicted to be more than 800 Mt, fuelled by an expected increase in GDP of about 30% (Environment Canada 2005). This would exceed the Kyoto commitment by 30%. In addition to global warming, other concerns are the rapid depletion of mineral reserves and the creation of waste for disposal. The construction industry is the dominant user of most minerals, and the Worldwatch Institute estimates that by 2030 the world will have run out of many raw materials for buildings, and we will have to recycle and mine the landfills (Brown 1990). At the same time, landfills are becoming more expensive, so Canada has set targets for reducing the amount of material going into landfills. Canada also ranks second only to the United States in per capita generation of solid waste per year. Currently, C&D waste represents about 35% of the total waste stream in Canada (CCA 2001) and weighs 11 Mt (Fig. 1). In addition, approximately 40% of annual national resource production is consumed by the construction industry. In todays global economic climate, competitive advantage realised through efficient resource use is likely to generate greater strategic
2006 NRC Canada

Mark Gorgolewski

491

benefits. In Europe, C&D waste has been identified as a primary waste stream and targeted for reduction. Both Sweden and Germany have programs to reduce C&D waste by 50% in 10 years, and other European countries are following suit, partly driven by new European Union directives. 1.3. Strategies for change These three major issuesthe reduction of GHGs from the production and transport of buildings materials, the consumption of primary resources, and the pressure to reduce waste going to landfillshave stimulated interest in the role of recycling and reuse of construction materials. There is increased recognition that waste is an asset to be valued and that the use of recycled and reused materials can lead to waste reduction, a drop in primary resource use, and decreased GHG emissions. Many materials recovered from demolition projects can be incorporated into new construction, although mechanisms are required to stimulate the market for recovered resources. McDonough and Braungart (2002) and others advocate a more significant change to systems that are based on the principles of industrial ecology, where all waste is treated as a resource, and that we need to redesign our systems so that all materials at the end of one life cycle become a resource for the next. Both manufacturers and consumers need to change their habits to more closely match those of an industrial ecosystem if the industrialized world is to maintain its standard of living and the developing nations are to raise theirs to a similar level without adversely affecting the environment. Traditional models of industrial activity, in which individual manufacturing processes take in raw materials and generate products to be sold plus waste to be disposed of, should be transformed into a more integrated model: an industrial ecosystem. In such a system, in addition to optimizing consumption of energy and materials and minimizing waste generation, the effluents of one process, such as blast furnace slag from steel manufacture and fly ash from electricpower generation, serve as the raw material for other processes, thus significantly reducing or eliminating the need for primary material resources. In an ideal industrial ecosystem, resources are not depleted any more than those in a biological ecosystem: a piece of steel could potentially show up one year in a drink can, the next year in an automobile, and 10 years later in the structural frame of a building, as expressed by Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989):
Manufacturing processes in an industrial ecosystem simply transform circulating stocks of materials from one shape to another; the circulating stock decreases when some material is unavoidably lost, and it increases to meet the needs of a growing population. Such recycling still requires the expenditure of energy and the unavoidable generation of wastes and harmful by-products, but at much lower levels than are typical today.

conditions create barriers to this, and designers lack clear information and guidance on the benefits of reused and recycled materials and products. Industry scepticism and tradition have been identified by Catalli and Williams (2001) as standing in the way of designing for disassembly:
Standard practices for construction, renovation and demolition are heavily geared towards the fastest, easiest and most economical way to get the job done. Designing and constructing for disassembly, when viewed in isolation, can seem costly and laborious compared to the norm. However, the incremental cost will be diminished or even eliminated when practices become more standardized and when the cost savings in terms of recycling and reuse as well as the environment are factored into the overall equation. Potentially, less money will be spent on new materials or landfill, making designing for disassembly a more economical venture.

However, to move significantly toward such a system requires changes to the way things are done in the construction industry and, in particular, increases in the reuse and recycling of materials and components. There is a need to identify methods that will facilitate disassembly of buildings so that components can become valuable resources for the next generation of buildings. Currently, organizational and economic

1.4. Steel recycling Each structural system has opportunities and constraints when evaluated as a part of an environmental design effort. Steel production creates a significant demand for scrap steel, stimulating recycling and inherently contributing to sustainable design efforts. The iron cycle, in which recycling is well established, is a very mature process, with a history dating back thousands of years, even though extensive production of steel did not begin until the 19th century. The steel industry has well-established infrastructure for scrap collection, as this scrap is a feedstock to the steel manufacturing process, which uses between 20% and 100% recycled steel to manufacture new steel (depending on the technology used). According to the Steel Recycling Institute (SRI 2004), about 70 Mt of steel is recycled in North America. Worldwide, 400 Mt of steel was recycled in 2001more than the amount of all other recycled materials (including paper, glass, aluminium, and plastic). In North America, approximately 40 Mt (59% of total recycled steel) was derived from C&D waste, and the steel salvage market accounts for an additional 4 Mt/year. Each tonne of recycled steel saves 1100 kg of iron ore, 600 kg of coal, and 50 kg of limestone. The American Institute of Architects Environmental Resource Guide (AIA 1997) also states that every kilogram of steel produced from recycled sources rather than from raw materials saves 12.5 MJ of energy. Furthermore, 47% less oil is used, 86% fewer emissions to air are produced, 76% less water is contaminated, 40% less water is used, and 97% less mining waste is created. Sources of steel in the C&D waste stream include structural steel sections, studs and tracks, mechanical and electrical systems, siding, and rebar. Nevertheless, most steel salvaged from C&D waste goes for recycling, which still requires significant sources of energy and creates emissions. Reuse of steel components is still rare. However, reuse requires minimal reprocessing, and energy for transport is generally the only significant impact. Thus, reuse should be the next step in the move to an industrial ecology system, and this requires easier disassembly of buildings.

2. Opportunities for recycling and reuse

To close the loop between demolition of one project and construction of the next, demolition should be seen as the
2006 NRC Canada

492

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

start of the new project and as an opportunity to integrate the resources available from the old building into future building work. To achieve this goal, the following issues need to be addressed: (i) willingness of the client, the designer, the contractor, and the public to accept secondhand materials; (ii) reliability and safety of second-hand materials and liability in the event of their failure; (iii) insufficient quantity of any one material or product at the time of use and unreliable markets; and (iv) a clear definition of the term waste. Many materials that require little or no processing before reuse are being treated by regulators as waste. A review of design for easier future disassembly has suggested that guidance may be grouped under the following headings (Fletcher et al. 2000): Systems levelThis calls for adaptable, durable, flexible steel structures, with a long life, that can adapt to changing requirements. The design of such buildings may require some over- specification of structure to allow for future change. Product levelThe components of the building, such as steel cladding, are designed to allow upgrading, repair, reuse, and replacement. To achieve this it helps for buildings to be constructed in layers so that the most-replaced components form the most-accessible layers. Material levelWhen a component has been stripped back to its constituent materials, these can be recycled, such as with rebar. The design of the components needs to facilitate easy separation of the constituent materials so that economic recycling can occur. Processes such as bonding and finishing should not make recycling difficult. Every stage of the construction project cycle presents opportunities for the project team to promote or allow the use of recycled or reused materials. Entec UK Ltd., working for the British Airport Authority on the potential Terminal 5 site at Heathrow Airport, has developed the following formalized steps toward meeting the design challenge of reducing waste and increasing recycling and reuse (CIRIA 1998): (1) Secure the commitment of all participants by expressing potential benefits. (2) Plan and organize by choosing the right team, ideally a subgroup within the design team with responsibility for waste minimization. (3) Carry out an initial review to map what is needed and who will do what. (4) Collect data to determine quantities and costs. (5) Prioritize waste management strategies based on the calculated true cost of waste. (6) Set up a brainstorming session to determine the options and the alternatives. (7) Monitor the implementation. (8) Communicate progress to disseminate information on success, benefits, failures, and lessons learned.

with which they can be readily extracted from the waste stream as a result of their magnetic property. However, in many cases the steel components would be damaged and only suitable for recycling, not for reuse. Demolition practices are now gradually including disassembly, particularly as economic value is attached to the various salvaged components, the demand for the components is increasing, and the cost of disposal to landfill is also increasing. This provides more incentive for steel components to be extracted undamaged and suitable for reuse with little or no reprocessing. Nevertheless, the ease with which components can be recovered from a building is greatly affected by how the building was put together in the first place. Thought is needed at the design stage about final obsolescence and about how the environmental and financial value of a building can be maximized at the end of its useful life. In this way the supply of salvaged components for reuse can be increased. Wyatt and Gilleard (1994) advocated the following:
Disassembly technology is the antithesis to the technology that put the building together in the first place. Simply by reverse running the process of construction (back to the manufacturer if needs be) and looking at the building and its constituent parts we may have far reaching consequences for the transition point of building demolition.

Other industries are rethinking how products are put together so that the usefulness and value of components at the end of their life can be maximized, as Fletcher et al. (2000) have identified:
Reversible joints, upgradeable components, and materials that can be separated are all now being incorporated into the next generation of appliances. For example, Xerox the photocopier supplier have adopted the DfD (design for dismantling) approach. At the end of a photocopiers life or when it is superseded it is taken back and asset stripped. This basic disassembly frees many of the existing elements enabling them to form the basis of the new model.

In Europe, some legislation is making the producer responsible for disposal of products at the end of their useful life. Car manufacturers, encouraged by legislation and competition, have begun to consider the end of life disposal of their products. Cars are now being designed to enable recovery of components on unassembly lines and easier replacement and reuse of worn parts. This process has led to a realization that simpler designs and assembly processes using fewer materials, in some cases leading to cost savings, are more suitable for disassembly. Similar approaches may soon be extended to the North American construction sector; producers of goods would be required to take them back at the end of their life for reuse, recycling, or disposal. Such a policy is likely to lead to more interest in buildings designed to facilitate deconstruction. 3.1. Guidance For easy disassembly, components should be incorporated into buildings in a way that facilitates separation and reuse, and materials should be chosen that can be readily reused or recycled. To facilitate disassembly, the designer should consider the following:
2006 NRC Canada

3. Design for disassembly

The cost and ease of removal of components from a building at the end of its life are significant factors affecting the amount of reuse and recycling that occurs. With traditional demolition practices, removal of steel components is attractive because of the high value of scrap steel and the ease

Mark Gorgolewski

493

(1) Choosing materials and parts, such as steel and components, that have recognised routes for recycling and reuse will greatly encourage their reuse in future. (2) Components with fasteners and connections that are designed to be easy and quick to take apart, such as bolts rather than welds, are more likely to be reused or recycled. (3) The product structure should lend itself to reuse, and ways of reusing it should be clear. (4) Whoever is doing the reclaiming, whether the manufacturer or a third party, may need instructions, such as disassembly or refurbishment plans, or information, such as specifications for the materials. (5) Time should be allowed for a building to be disassembled at the end of its useful life. Thus, designers should consider at the outset how components will be replaced in the building during its useful life and how the building will be dismantled at the end of its life to maximize the usefulness of the components and materials. The design team needs to think through, at the concept stage, the buildings lifetime changes. Potential problems during refurbishment and eventual dismantling should be investigated. For example, allowing site access for machinery and designing floors to take the additional load of demolition plant and rubble should be a consideration. The following general guidance on designing for dismantling has been suggested by various authors (Wyatt and Gilleard 1994; CIRIA 1998; Fletcher et al. 2000; SCI 2000): (1) A disassembly plan should be provided. Demolition is the reverse of construction, and the design team should consider this process and prepare a strategy for the dismantling of the building similar to that developed for many temporary, relocatable buildings. (2) The lifetime of various components in a building can vary considerably, from a range of 25100 years for the main structure to perhaps a range of only 510 years for internal fitout and even shorter periods for furniture and decoration, which are largely driven by fashion and not physical obsolescence. Thus, the building should be designed so that each component can easily be removed and recycled when obsolete. (3) The building should be built in layers that can be easily replaced as necessary throughout the life of the building. The components with the shortest lifetimes should be in the most easily accessible layers. (4) Simple structural grids with clear support lines will be most easily understood during disassembly and will provide regular-sized components that can most easily be reused. (5) Sufficient space should be provided for the machinery that will be needed for dismantling. (6) Methods of fixing are important. Reversible mechanical fixings are preferable. Generally, mechanical fixings are easier to separate than adhesives or cement. Materials secured with bolts or screws are easier to deconstruct than those secured with nails or rivets. Processes that are inherently irreversible, such as welding, should be avoided.
2

(7) Complex composite materials are difficult to separate and recycle. This category often includes treatments and finishes applied on site. (8) Prefabricated components that are assembled on site can often be easily disassembled for reuse or recycling. (9) Materials applied in wet construction, such as in situ concrete or plaster, cannot generally be reused and are often more difficult to recycle. (10) The impact of certain treatments, such as fire protection for steel, should be considered. Some treatments, such as screening with mineral wool or encasing in gypsum, are more amenable to recycling than encasing in concrete or spraying. (11) Hazardous materials create many future problems and should be avoided. (12) During a buildings life there should be a log that includes information on the design of the original building, specifications for materials used in construction, details of refurbishment work carried out during the life of the building, and information relevant to dismantling that would enable materials to be readily extracted for reuse and their specifications to be followed through their different life phases.

4. Reuse
In general, greater environmental benefits result from reusing steel components than from recycling them. Thus, from an environmental, and often economic, point of view it is desirable that as many components of a building as possible be extracted from the waste stream for reuse at the end of their useful life, as reuse generally requires little reprocessing. Reuse is not usually possible for materials such as concrete that need to be demolished (concrete can be crushed for use as aggregate, which is downcycling). Reuse is more realistic for engineered components, which can be disassembled. A UK study by the Steel Construction Institute suggests that reuse leads to significantly greater environmental benefits than recycling and correlates well with savings in GHG emissions (SCI 2000). More designers are looking for opportunities to use steel components from the demolition of existing buildings in their new designs. Reuse of steel components, however, requires designers and contractors to be more flexible. Designers who have attempted this say that using reclaimed materials adds a whole new level of complexity to the project (Chapman and Simmonds2). Salvaged components may not be readily available off the shelf and may be difficult to source. One of the principal problems with reuse is coordinating demand with supply, and this can affect the whole design and construction process: reclaimed materials do not show up at the right time, in the right amount or the right dimension (SCI 2000). With a traditional approach to design, the steel components are specified and sized to suit the spanning requirements of the architects proposals. This is not a problem if new steel components are to be used, off the shelf. However, reused components do not generally come off the shelf; rather, they are identified on demolition sites by salvage contrac-

Chapman, L., and Simmonds, C. 2000. Mountain Equipment Co-op Ottawa store: CBIP-C2000 case study, Ottawa, Ont. Unpublished report.
2006 NRC Canada

494

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Fig. 2. Part of the new structure for the Mountain Equipment Co-op store in Ottawa was designed around steel structural components dismantled from a building on the site.

tors. Thus, when the project is proceeding to construction, salvaged steel of the required size may not be readily available. This may necessitate redesigning to suit the available salvaged components or choosing whichever oversized components are readily available. To maximize the potential for reuse, the starting point for the new design may in the future be an inventory of available materials from salvage. For structural design, the size and length of the available members will then determine the spans and spacing possible in the new structure, thus maximizing structural efficiency with the available components. This requires that the available steel components be identified early in the design process and purchased or reserved to prevent the salvage contractor from selling them elsewhere. Few, if any, salvage contractors will guarantee the availability of specific materials or products for the duration of the design and tender period, which may last years. This may have severe cash flow implications and management consequences, as the client might be required to dedicate resources to the purchase of components early in the design phase, when a contractor has not yet been appointed. Furthermore, this will involve the design team in considerable additional research at the front end of the project to identify, locate, inspect, and choose appropriate components. In addition, there may be a further need for testing to ascertain the structural qualities of the components involved. According to Taggart (2001),
Creating a workable structure for a new building using salvaged materials can be the single biggest challenge for architects. Many other materials and products are straightforward to use, but may be more difficult to source Procuring all the materials in advance of tender requires money up front and a great deal of research, but enables tender documents to be complete, contractors to view the materials before submitting a bid.

If pre-purchase of components is not possible, it is essential to build flexibility into the structural design so that alternative options can be used and the design can be adjusted to suit component availability later in the process. Appropriate contractual procedures are necessary, as the final materials might not be specified at the time of tendering. Engineers and architects can benefit from developing working relationships with salvage and demolition contractors to increase their own awareness of available salvaged materials and thus to improve their choices when such components are required. An alternative approach is to identify and purchase a suitable building already condemned for demolition that contains suitable structural steel or other components and then to reuse as many components as possible in the new project. At present, the difficulties of incorporating salvaged materials into new buildings discourage clients and designers from embracing reuse unless it is for principled rather than financial reasons. Although material costs can be lower through reuse, it must be recognised that these may be offset by higher labour costs and increased design fees for the additional research required. In addition, there is likely to be greater uncertainty over costs, and delays can occur if key components cannot be readily sourced or there are delays in the demolition process. However, in some areas consultants who specialize in material procurement are emerging, and their expertise can reduce the risks of disruption or delay. Furthermore, the situation is likely to quickly change with altering priorities and as salvage contractors become more aware of the value of the components they extract. 4.1. Examples A considerable number of reclaimed wide-flange steel sections are used in many areas of Canada by the shoring industry, with significant environmental and cost benefits.
2006 NRC Canada

Mark Gorgolewski

495

Fig. 3. The University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Student Centre uses steel from the demolition of the Royal Ontario Museum to help achieve the students green aims.

More efficient extraction of steel during demolition would make this practice more widespread. However, there are also many projects that despite the problems outlined above use reclaimed components, including structural steel components, in the structures of new buildings. Some of these projects are LEED rated, and steel reuse can earn LEED points. The Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) has demonstrated the practicality of reusing components in several of its retail stores across Canada. The MEC in Ottawa (Fig. 2) features steel structural components from an older structure on the site, and the MEC in Winnipeg (a LEED gold project) features cast iron columns from an older structure. The University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Student Centre (Fig. 3), designed to achieve LEED silver, features about 18 t of reclaimed steel that was extracted from the demolition of the Royal Ontario Museum, refabricated, and used in the new building to help address the students desire for a green building. Similarly, the Chapiteau des arts (LEED silver), in Montral, Quebec, a building dedicated to circus productions and presentations, uses reclaimed steel components. In addition, many pre-engineered industrial buildings are dismantled for re-erection at different sites because of the easy nature of the process.

design stage, so we need to rethink how we design and build our buildings and how we demolish them. This requires a change in the approach of designers; they need to design out waste, rather than minimizing its effects once it has arisen. Such a change in design strategy can then reshape the entire process of procuring our buildings. As we move toward industrial ecology principles of closed-loop cyclical systems, existing buildings should be treated as sources of materials for our future buildings. Steel is a material used in manufactured, engineered components that are used for various functions in buildings, including the substructure, the superstructure, cladding, and infill walls. Because of the engineered nature of steel components, the accuracy with which they are manufactured, and their magnetic characteristics, systems can be readily developed that will permit disassembly so that the components can be reused in the future. The design of many temporary steel structures and portable buildings indicates that suitable technologies are available for building designers to use to integrate steel components into buildings that can be readily disassembled.

5. Conclusions
Buildings are huge reservoirs of energy and materials. They are combined in various increasingly complex ways, which often make their assembly and disassembly difficult to achieve. Recent concerns about the huge amounts of resources consumed and waste generated by the construction industry have led to various initiatives to reduce this waste and to increase recycling. However, these are largely end of pipe solutions, which deal with waste once it has arisen. Most waste, however, is caused by decisions made at the

References
AIA. 1997. Environmental resource guide. American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C. Brown, L. 1990. The state of the world. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. Brundtland, G.H. 1994. The challenge of sustainable production and consumption patterns. Address delivered at the Soria Moria Symposium on Sustainable Consumption, Oslo, Norway, 1920 January 1994. Busby, P. 2002. Building Kyoto. Canadian Architect, 47(7): 1819.
2006 NRC Canada

496 CaGBC. 2004. LEED Green Building Rating System for new buildings and major renovations: LEED Canada-NC version 1.0. Canadian Green Building Council, Ottawa, Ont. Catalli, V., and Williams, M. 2001. Designing for disassembly. Canadian Architect, 46(1): 2729. CCA. 2001. A best practice guide to solid waste reduction. Canadian Construction Association, Ottawa, Ont. Standard Construction Document CCA 81. CIRIA. 1992. Environmental impact of building materials. Vol. A: Summary. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK. Publication SP 116. CIRIA. 1998. Minimising construction waste. Notes of Construction Industry Environmental Forum, December 1998. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK. Environment Canada. 2005. Moving forward on climate change [online]. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ont. Available from http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/english/ccplan.asp [accessed 20 April 2006]. Evelyn, J. 1661. Fumifugium or the inconvenience of the air and smoke or London dissipated. Early English Books Online. Available from http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home [accessed 20 April 2006]. Fletcher, S.L., Popovic, O., and Plank, R. 2000. Designing for future reuse and recycling. In Proceedings of the CIB TG39 Con-

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006 ference on Deconstruction Closing the Loop, Watford, UK, 18 May 2000. Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK. Frosch, R.A., and Gallopoulos, N.E. 1989. Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, 189(3): 152. McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. 2002. Cradle to cradle remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York, N.Y. SCI. 2000. Environmental and economic assessment of a steel frame building using recycled and reused materials. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, UK. Publication P305. SRI. 2004. The inherent recycled content of today's steel [online]. Steel Recycling Institute. Available from www.recycle-steel.org [accessed on 20 April 2006]. Taggart, J. 2001. Salvaged materials in new buildings. Canadian Architect, 46(1): 3233. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Wyatt, D., and Gilleard, J. 1994. Deconstruction: an environmental response for construction sustainability. In Sustainable Construction, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of CIB TG16, Tampa, Fla., 69 November 1994. Edited by C.J. Kibert. Center for Construction and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.

2006 NRC Canada