EBSCOhost_ Designing With Reused Building Components_ Some Challenges

7/28/2019 EBSCOhost_ Designing With Reused Building Components_ Some Challenges

1/14

Designing with reused building

components: some challenges

Mark Gorgolewski

Department of Architectural Science,Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street,Toronto,Ontario M5B 2K3,

Canada

Email [email protected]

What are the implications of component reuse strategies on the way buildings are designed and procured? Two building

project case studies highlight the organizational and procedural problems for reusing components. Designers need

additional information to design effectively with reclaimed components for new projects. They need to understand the

risks, economics and implications to the programme. The design process needs to allow for more flexible design and

specification. Additional skills are needed to source and evaluate components. Robust procurement contracts are needed

to accommodate component dismantling and reuse. The impediments to the reuse of construction components are

rarely technical or economic. Instead, they are mostly based on organizational, contractual and social structures.

Keywords: adaptive reuse, component reuse, construction process, design process, design skills, reclaimed components

Quelles sont les incidences des strategies de reutilisation de composants sur la conception et lapprovisionnement des

batiments? Deux etudes de cas relatives a des projets de construction mettent en lumiere les problemes dorganisation

et de procedure relatifs a la reutilisation de composants. Les architectes ont besoin dinformations complementaires

pour concevoir de maniere effective de nouveaux projets en utilisant des composants de reemploi. Ils ont besoin decomprendre les risques, de connatre les caracteristiques economiques et les consequences pour les programmes. La

procedure de conception doit prevoir des specifications et des concepts plus souples. Des competences additionnelles

sont necessaires pour trouver et evaluer des composants. Il faut des contrats dapprovisionnement bien structures

prevoyant le demontage et la reutilisation de composants. Les obstacles a la reutilisation de composants de

construction sont rarement techniques ou economiques. En revanche, ils sont, dans leur majeure partie, bases sur des

structures organisationnelles, contractuelles et sociales.

Mots cles: reutilisation adaptative, reutilisation de composants, processus de construction, processus de conception,

competences de conception, composants de reemploi

IntroductionThe ever-expanding economies and populations of the

world are increasing demand for many constructionmaterials and putting enormous pressure on naturalresources. This is particularly relevant for major con-struction materials such as steel and cement, whichare exchanged on world markets. In todays globaleconomic climate significant competitive advantagesas well as strategic and environmental benefits canpotentially be gained from the efficient use of resources.

The way buildings are designed and constructed leadsto huge volumes of waste being generated as well as

the use of large volumes of primary materials, whichare extracted with considerable environmental

damage. How can buildings be designed that avoidwaste being generated in the process of constructionand demolition? How can buildings be built usingwaste products from construction or other industries?Are there opportunities for establishing closed loopsfor the flow of materials and components?

Existing buildings are huge reservoirs of materials andcomponents that can potentially be mined to providemuch needed resources (Kohler and Hassler, 2002).They are combined in various, ever more complex

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2008) 36(2), 175188

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ISSN 1466-4321 online# 2008 Taylor & Francishttp: www.tandf.co.uk journals

DOI: 10.1080/09613210701559499


2/14

ways, which often make their assembly and disassem-bly difficult to achieve. However, there is increasingrecognition that a building at the end of its life is anasset to be valued and that the use of recycled materialsand reused components extracted from an old buildingcan potential lead to a reduction in waste that needs to

be disposed of, as well as a reduction in primaryresources used and savings in greenhouse gas emissions(Gorgolewski et al., 2006).

Objectives and methodsThis paper is based on work carried out to examine theopportunities for building component reuse in Canada.The aim is to highlight the implications of a componentreuse strategy particularly on the design and procure-ment process of a building and to develop a greaterappreciation of how such a strategy will impact onthe design team, the design process, and the impli-

cations for the client in terms of process, time, and risk.

The paper is based on a project called FacilitatingGreater Reuse and Recycling of Structural Steel in theConstruction and Demolition Process (Gorgolewskiet al., 2006), which aimed to develop a greater under-standing of the materials flows in the steel constructionindustry and use this knowledge to provide tools thatfacilitate greater reuse and recycling of steel com-ponents. The two case studies presented herein formpart of a group of eight projects featuring reused com-ponents that were either observed during constructionby independent researchers, or data were collectedafter construction. Information about the issues that

the design team had to address when reusing com-ponents was identified through site observationsduring or in some cases after construction, interviewswith key members, and a review of relevant docu-ments. Researchers were not directly involved in theprojects. The information was used to identify keylessons that are of relevance to design teams andclients wishing to adopt a strategy of maximizing com-ponent reuse.

BackgroundMaterials recovery and component reuse are not new

concepts. They have existed for many years and weremuch more widely practised in the pre-industrial era(Talbot, 1920, p. 308; Strausser, 1999, p. 355).Materials recovery activities have fluctuated overtime depending on changes in the economy, technologyadvances, codes and fashions, trends towards conven-ience, and the disposability of components. In particu-lar, metal reuse and recycling has existed as long as theuse of metal itself (Strausser, 1999). Currently, manystructures such as travelling exhibitions, trade fairs,expos, and sports facilities (tents and air-supported

structures) are designed as temporary buildings witha view to relocation. Other temporary structures aretaken down and the material reused in more permanentbuildings. For example, at the Vancouver Expo 86many of the smaller pavilions used standardizedmodules with the intention to resell the structural com-

ponents for reuse throughout the province after theevent for tourism and other provincial needs. Lessonsfrom these buildings suggest that maximum flexibilityand adaptability are needed if they are to be success-fully reused. Issues such as different environmentalloadings, transportation, and deconstruction processare all important. However, most of the existing build-ing stock was not designed for relocation or disman-tling. This is due to the low cost of constructionmaterials and the high cost of labour required for thedismantling process which have made the economicsor reuse uncompetitive in many cases. Also, the estab-lished design and construction processes make reusemore difficult to integrate since they rely on readily

available standard materials. As environmental con-cerns are becoming more prominent in the decision-making process, and as material costs increase toreflect the true environmental cost of their supplyindustry, the dismantling and reuse of components isattracting more interest. However, designing withreused components presents other sets of problemsfor the design team which have not been widelyexplored and which are considered in this paper.

The widespread adoption of the green building ratingsystems such as Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED1; US Green Building Council(USGBC), 2002) has had a considerable impact on

the industry in North America and has increased inter-est in reuse and recycling in construction. In addition,difficulties with waste disposal and limitations onland filling have stimulated interest in the potentialeconomic benefits of alternatives. Waste is becomingregarded as a lost resource and a loss of potentialprofit. Processes that add value to waste materialscan lead to significant financial benefits. This hasdriven considerable interest and research into issuesof deconstruction, design for deconstruction, and thereuse of components and material recycling. Kernan(2002) and Morgan and Stevenson (2005) illustratethe increased interest from local government in NorthAmerica and Europe for the potential for building

material reuse to address waste minimization. InCalifornia the Integrated Waste Management Boardhas produced various publications related to construc-tion material reuse and recycling in support of thestates 50% waste diversion goal. They estimate thatconstruction and demolition materials account foralmost 22% of the waste stream and have introducedmixed construction and demolition recycling facilitiesthat are routinely recovering 6090% of all thematerials brought to them. Their A Technical Manualfor Material Choices in Sustainable Construction

Gorgolewski

176


3/14

(Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB), 2000)outlines the opportunities for reuse in construction,and lists potential components that can be successfullyreused. The Deconstruction Training Manual(IWMB,2001) aims to grow a viable industry and reduce theamount of construction and demolition debris that

makes its way into Californias waste stream. This indi-cates that deconstruction may cost 3050% less thanstraight demolition due to lower machinery and dispo-sal costs.

There is also considerable interest in the potential forsavings in greenhouse gas emissions from materialsrecycling and reuse strategies. The US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) has developed a methodto quantify the energy benefits of improved materialsmanagement and found that recycling and sourcereduction conserve large amounts of energy leadingto significant savings in greenhouse gas emissions(Ferland, 2006). The USEPA undertook a study to cal-

culate the energy benefits of improved material man-agement throughout a materials life cycle. The studydeveloped net energy factors for a selection of materialsanalysed for four waste management options: sourcereduction, recycling, combustion, and land-filling.The study shows that energy savings are generatedfor all the materials studied when they are recycled.These vary depending on the material and are drivenlargely by the difference between manufacturing thematerial using virgin inputs and manufacturing thematerial using recycled inputs. The study also demon-strates that source reduction efforts resulting fromreuse can reduce greenhouse gas emissions comparedwith recycling by over 60% for materials such as

steel and glass. A Canadian study with similar con-clusions has also been published (ICF Consulting,2005).

From an economic point of view, a report, CreatingWealth from Everyday Items, from the Institute forLocal Self Reliance (ILSR, 1998), profiled nineprivate and four government reuse operations (Blockand Wood, 1998). Based on these, the ILSR estimatesthat on a per ton basis, reuse operations generatenine times more jobs than traditional recycling and38 times more than land-filling and incineration. Ifthe 25.5 million tons of durable goods disposed ofannually in the US were reclaimed by reuse operations,

more than 220 000 new jobs could potentially becreated in this industry alone, the report states.Mincks (1995) suggests a formula to determine andcompare the cost of new and used building materials,and points out that an assessment of the materialsstructural quality, durability, and aesthetics needs tobe accounted for when considering and comparingthe cost of salvaged and new materials.

Geyer et al. (2002) developed a life cycle analyticalmodel to investigate the comparative benefits of steel

recycling and reuse. The results emphasize howlimiting factors such as market demand, product inno-vation and depreciation can dominate the system per-formance. Ultimately, the analysis demonstrates thatthere are strong environmental and economic benefitsthat favour a shift away from the recycling of steel as

a material to reuse of steel components. However,the research also indicates that bottlenecks such as alimited supply of reused components due to limiteddeconstruction, a lack of technical feasibility to reuse,or limited market demand can invert the situation.An uncoordinated supply chain could lead to highercosts and environmental impacts. Thus, the designersrole in the process is important to ensure this doesnot create bottlenecks. Similarly, Raess et al. (2002)show examples of deconstruction projects inGermany and France, and use a cost-optimizedconcept for minimization, recycling and reuse of demo-lition waste including a techno-economical assessmentof recycling options for the various fractions of

materials. Based on this analysis they conclude thatthe dismantling of selected construction elements com-bined with adequate recycling options is a promising,cost-competitive approach to fulfil various legislativerequirements in Germany and France that aim toprevent (where possible) and recover waste in the con-struction sector.

The Center for Construction and Environment (CCE)at the University of Florida has worked closely withindustry on a variety of deconstruction and reuse pro-jects. Six one- and two-story houses representingtypical Southeastern US wood-framed residentialconstruction were deconstructed to examine the

cost-effectiveness of deconstruction and salvage whencompared with traditional demolition (Guy andMcLendon, 2002). Reuse and materials redistributionincluded on- and off-site redistribution. Over 500pieces of salvaged lumber were graded visually tounderstand the damage resulting from use and thedeconstruction process on salvaged lumber and thepotential reuse for structural applications. The studyconcluded that deconstruction can be more cost-effec-tive than demolition when considering the reductionin landfill disposal costs and the revenues fromsalvage. Although the cost of the deconstructionprocess was on average 21% higher than demolition,the net cost of deconstruction after factoring in the

revenue from sales was 37% lower than demolition.

Another study from the CCE by Kibert et al. (2000)analysed the feasibility of replacing demolition and tra-ditional disposal of materials with deconstruction andreuse. It identified a series of factors including labourcosts, tipping fees, hazardous materials, existingmarkets, reuse materials markings, material gradingsystems, time and economic constrains, contractualagreements, and public policy as relevant to the suc-cessful implementation of deconstruction and reuse

Designingwith reused building components: some challenges

177


4/14

practices. Several of these factors, including contrac-tual issues, time and economic constraints, and theavailability of reused component, were also highlightedby the cases studies reported in this paper, and theirimpact on the design process are discussed below.

Further improvements can be achieved by consideringfuture demolition and disassembly of building elementsat the planning stage of new buildings. Design forDeconstruction or Disassembly (DfD) (used inter-changeably) integrates waste prevention into thedesign process. In recent years a considerable amountof interest has been generated in the concept of DfDwith many studies and papers (Crowther, 2001;Deconstruction Institute, n.d.). The ease of deconstruc-tion is affected by the building systems and technol-ogies used, and the availability of relevantdocumentation and information. The appropriate useof technologies and their successful integration intothe design process will facilitate an increased reuse of

structural components. The Canadian Standards Insti-tute has been developing a Draft CSA guideline ondesign for disassembly and adaptability in the builtenvironment (Canadian Standards Association (CSA),2004). This work includes a proposal to use a lifecycle assessment methodology to identify the overallbenefit of different approaches. The aim was toprovide designers with more information on designfor disassembly and develop a tool for the assessmentof the building elements that focuses on selection forthe different building layers/components. Guy et al.(2002) explore strategies and details for Design for Dis-assembly at the Chartwell School in Seaside, Califor-nia. Strategies include segregating utilities from wood

framing to allow for easier disassembly and to reduceholes in the framing, thereby increasing futuresalvage value. Windows are designed so they can bereplaced by simply removing the wood trim, withoutdisturbing the adjacent finishes. Similarly, the woodsiding is fastened with clips screwed into the backingfor ease of disassembly.

Much of the work reviewed above focuses on whattypes of materials can be reused, and the technicalissues of deconstruction and reuse. There is littleresearch about the implications of component reuseon the design process. This paper considers how thedesign process may have to change when using of

reclaimed components.

ReuseThere are three ways of reusing previously used com-ponents in a project:

. Reuse an existing structure on the site and possiblyadd to it or extend it (Figure 1). This approach,often called adaptive reuse, is now relatively

common with heritage structures as they are seento have cultural value. It is also possible for manyexisting buildings where it may be appropriate tostrip the building to its bare structure to improvethermal performance. Significant financial savingsare also possible. Adaptive reuse normally impliesa change of function resulting from buildingobsolescence.

. Move most or all of an existing building to a newlocation (Figure 2). Relocation sometimes occursfor pre-engineered buildings such as industrial build-ings and warehouses, and occasionally for otherbuilding types. Temporary buildings offer lessons

about how to design to allow for future relocation.

. Reuse individual components extracted from thedemolition of one project in a new building(Figure 3). This form of reuse is sometimes calledcomponent reuse. Structural components such asbeams, columns, or non-structural componentssuch as cladding panels, bricks or staircases aretaken from one project and used in another (seethe case studies below). This is not yet commonother than for heritage components. It helps to con-sider at the design stage how a building will bedeconstructed to make it more feasible that com-ponents are reused.

Environmental benets of reuse

From an environmental and economic point of view,the reuse of buildings or reclaimed components isusually regarded as more beneficial than the recyclingof materials. Reuse of components or whole buildingsgenerally requires less reprocessing, so greater environ-mental benefits often result compared with recycling.Component reuse is not usually possible for materialssuch as in-situ poured concrete which are destroyed

Figure 1 Adaptive reuse: this old building industrial structurewas adapted, reclad and reused for a new use as a car salescentre

Gorgolewski

178


5/14

during the demolition process (and can be crushed for

use as aggregate down-cycling), but is more realisticfor many engineered components that can be decon-structed undamaged.

The USEPA study referred to above showed that wastereduction efforts resulting from the reuse of com-ponents can generate energy and greenhouse gas emis-sions savings of over 60% greater than recycling(Ferland, 2006).

Designing with reclaimed components

Nevertheless, the reuse of building components hasgreater implications on the building design process

than using recycled materials. Recycling generallyinvolves a used material being fed back into the manu-facturing process either of the same material (e.g. steel)or of a different material (e.g. waste paper into celluloseinsulation). Designers can then assess the specificationsof these recycled materials and make informedchoices to replace virgin materials with others that aremade partly or entirely from recycled materials. Insome cases, such as for many metals, there is noclear distinction between the recycled material andthe virgin material. Many industries are trying toincrease the recycled content of the materials theyproduce.

In contrast, the reuse of components reclaimed fromdemolition usually requires the designers to be farmore flexible and willing to adapt their normal pro-cesses. This is because reclaimed components areoften not readily available from stock and their specifi-cations may not be clear. Therefore, the reuse ofreclaimed components often requires a change inapproach and process. The barriers resulting fromorganizational and economic conditions and a lack ofclear information and guidance for designers aboutthe design and procurement procedures to adopt

when reusing components and how to best integrate

them into new projects are considered below and inthe case studies. Industry scepticism and traditionhave been identified as standing in the way of change:

Standard practices for construction, renovationand demolition are heavily geared towards thefastest, easiest and most economical way to getthe job done. Designing and constructing for dis-assembly, when viewed in isolation, can seemcostly and laborious compared to the norm.However, the incremental cost will be dimin-ished or even eliminated when practices becomemore standardized and when the cost savings interms of recycling and reuse as well as the

environment are factored into the overallequation. Potentially, less money will bespent on new materials or landfill, makingdesigning for disassembly a more economicalventure.

(Catalli and Williams, 2001, p. 27)

Designers who have attempted to integrate reclaimedcomponents in the design of permanent buildings saythat:

using reclaimed materials adds a whole new levelof complexity to the project.

(Chapman and Simmonds, 2000, p. 2)

One of the principal problems with reuse is to coordi-nate demand with supply, and this can affect the wholedesign and construction process: reclaimed materialsdo not show up at the right time, in the right amountor the right dimension.

With a traditional approach to design, the constructioncomponents are specified and sized to suit the spanningrequirements of the architects proposals, usually usingoff-the-shelf (e.g. standard) sizes. However, reused

Figure 2 This school building was relocated from northernBritish Columbiato Vancouver largely intact

Figure 3 Component reuse: these open-web steel joists weretaken from an oldbuildingfor usein a newproject


179


6/14

components do not generally come off the shelf.Rather, they are identified on demolition sites bysalvage contractors and may be difficult to source.When proceeding to construction, the required size ortype of component may not be readily available. Thismay necessitate a redesign to suit the available

reclaimed components or choosing whichever over-sized components are readily available.

In future, to maximize the potential for reuse, the start-ing point for a new design may be an inventory of theavailable materials from salvage. For structural designthe size and length of the available members will thendetermine the spans and spacing possible in the newstructure, thus maximizing structural efficiency fromthe available components (see The Mountain Equip-ment Co-op (MEC) case study below). This requiresthat the available components are identified early inthe design process, and that these are purchased orreserved to prevent the salvage contractor from

selling them elsewhere since they are unlikely to guar-antee the availability of specific materials or productsfor the duration of the design and tender period thatmay last years. This has severe cash flow implicationsand management consequences as the client may berequired to dedicate resources to the purchase of com-ponents early in the design phase when a contractor hasnot yet been appointed. Furthermore, this will involvethe design team in considerable additional research atthe front end of the project to identify, locate, inspectand choose appropriate components. There may alsobe a further need for testing to ascertain the structuralqualities of the components involved to minimizeadditional professional risk for the design team. This

may lead to additional cost in design and testing fees.In some cases these can be offset against reducedmaterials costs, but this will vary from case to case.Some companies in North America have identifiedthis as a business opportunity and are now offering adeconstruction service and marketing an inventory ofreused components. Also, consultants are now offeringtheir expertise to source reused components.

If the pre-purchase of components is not possible, it isessential to provide flexibility in the design, particu-larly in the choice of structural components, so alterna-tive options can be used and the design adjusted to suitdepending on component availability later in the

process. This requires appropriate contractual pro-cedures to be used as the final materials may not bespecified at the time of tendering. Engineers and archi-tects can benefit from developing working relation-ships with demolition and salvage contractors toincrease their awareness of available reclaimedmaterials, thus improving their choices when suchcomponents are required and help to manage risk bybenefiting from the expertise of the salvage industry.An alternative approach would be to identify and pur-chase a suitable building already condemned for

demolition that contains suitable components, andreuse as many components as possible in the newproject, as was done in the MEC case study below.

Case studiesTwo Canadian projects are briefly presented thatfeature the use of reclaimed components. In both pro-jects an old building on the site became the source ofmany components that were used in the new design.

The MountainEquipment Co-op (MEC)

The MEC is a well-established retail company operat-ing as a membership cooperative, supplying qualityoutdoor equipment in Canada for over 30 years. Itoperates retail facilities in ten locations acrossCanada, from Vancouver to Halifax, many of whichaddress issues of sustainability in their building prac-

tices. The MEC prides itself on a reputation as agreen company and has set an example to other com-mercial retailers about how to integrate environmentalconsiderations into their activities. The MECs designphilosophy focuses on creating the most environmen-tally and socially sensitive structures possible. Someof the features found in their recently constructedbuildings include green roofs, composting toilets, daylighting systems, recycled or reused materials, radiantflooring, efficient heating and cooling techniques, andother energy-saving measures, which are unusual inretail buildings in North America. MEC is a particu-larly strong believer in reusing materials in construc-tion, and reclaimed components feature in several

recently completed MEC stores.

The new MEC store in Ottawa (Figure 4) is a two-storey, 2600 m2 retail facility located on a shoppingstreet close to downtown, which was completed inJune 2000. The building consists of a heavy timberstructure on the ground floor and a steel structure onthe first floor with open-web steel joists supporting ascrew-fastened steel deck roof with mineral wool insu-lation providing a U-value of 0.14 W/m2K. The wallcladding consists of 240 mm thick engineered woodI-joists clad with locally salvaged plywood sheathingwith recycled cellulose insulation (U 0.18 W/m2K).Various materials were used for cladding for aesthetic

reasons, including corrugated steel panels for dura-bility, fibre cement boards in areas where vines are togrow, and rock excavated from the site.

Performance targets for the building were set by theclient (MEC) based on its research about green build-ing and included reducing the environmental impactof building materials. Other goals related to the per-formance of the building were dictated by the designteams aim to achieve a gold rating using an earlyversion of the LEED green building rating system

Gorgolewski

180


7/14

(USGBC, 2002). The selection of materials for the

project was driven by the goal of using the maximumpossible amount of reclaimed, rather than new,materials. The project is an example of how key struc-tural components from an old building can be used tocreate a new energy-efficient building on the samesite, significantly reducing the need for new materials,and potentially leading to environmental and costbenefits. The design team calculated that the buildinguses 56% of recycled or reused content by weight,and the MEC has since applied a similar approachfor several other buildings and shown that it is econ-omically feasible and practically achievable.

Processof reuseWhen the MEC acquired the site, it was occupied by a40-year-old, one-storey, 1000 m2 former grocery storewith steel columns, beams and open-web steel joists.The challenge posed by the site and existing structurewas how to integrate the components of the existingbuilding functionally and efficiently into a new two-storey building the best to serve its particularpurpose. It was not possible to reuse the existing struc-ture in place so it was carefully deconstructed in orderto reuse the available components in the new building.The original one-storey steel frame was not damagedduring dismantling although some of the existingopen-web steel joists were distorted and the original

profiled steel roof deck was welded so its removal ledto damage beyond repair and it had to be sent for recy-cling as raw steel. The components were labelled andmostly taken off-site as there was no room for stockpil-ing, and, in any case, the required modifications couldbe made in the shop rather than at the site (Figure 5).

Seventy-five per cent of the weight of the structure andshell of this existing building, including the steelcolumns, beams and most of the open-web steeljoists, were incorporated into the new building. The

remaining materials and components from the existingbuilding were sorted and, wherever practical, sent forreuse at other local sites or for recycling. An openhouse was held where demolition contractors andother end-market users were invited to view materialsin order to identify end-markets. This was followed

by an on-site sale of materials not reused on-site.

Reusing structural components requires establishingwith confidence their structural characteristics. In thiscase, the original specifications and drawings for theexisting structure were available to the design teamand contractor. They were used to label all the steelas it was dismantled. All the members were inspectedfor damage and assessed by the structural engineer toconfirm their structural capacities. A primary decisionwas to reuse these structural components in the newbuilding in such a way that they supported similarloads to their previous use. Since their loading wassimilar to the old building the structural engineers

were able to demonstrate building code compliance.

The original building was used to support a roof with asnow load typical for Ottawa, but was not suitable foruse to support a floor structure with a far higher(5 kPa) retail floor load. However, the new buildingneeded to be two storeys high to accommodate thespatial needs of the MEC, so it was decided that thereclaimed steel should be used for the roof structureabove a new first floor. The gridlines and columnlocations were sited to enable the existing foundations,columns and beams to be reused, and the existing con-crete floor slab and terrazzo finish were retained. Thenew structure supporting the first-floor timber floor con-

sists of large locally reclaimed Douglas fir columns andbeams. These were chosen to create a timber-framedground floor that satisfied aesthetic requirements, withlow embodied energy and high reclaimed content.These timber components had to be sized, inspected,

Figure 4 The Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC),Ottawa

Figure 5 Materials storage at The Mountain Equipment Co-op(MEC) after deconstruction


181


8/14

and graded to fit with the steel structure used on thesecond floor. This structure created a two-storey formthat provided a retail space for the building that couldaccommodate the interior climbing wall feature, walldisplays, and a two-storey atrium space.

All the main elements of the primary structure includ-ing steel and heavy timber columns and beams and50% of the open-web steel roof joists in the new build-ing were reused components, supplemented with newsteel joists and a new deck. Since the structural spanschosen for the new building were based on the spansused in the old building, the load requirements forthe new roof were virtually unchanged, though joistspacing was tightened in some locations to accommo-date roof projections and rooftop equipment.

Economic discussion

There was some resistance from three of the four con-

tractors bidding for the project because of the unfami-liar challenge of using reclaimed components and thiswas reflected in a natural inclination to bid higher. For-tunately, the lowest bidder on the project was also verykeen to undertake the work and very much interestedin the concept of reusing components, so this bid wasaccepted. To assist the tendering contractors, an openhouse was held where materials were viewed beforetender. Any materials not reused or recycled in thenew building were later sold at an on-site sale.

The MEC had expected additional costs of about 10%to achieve its strict environmental criteria and energyefficiency. The total building and site development

costs were approximately CA$2.9 million, includingconsultant fees, which accounted for 10% of the con-struction costs for a gross floor area of just over

2600 m2. The costs are therefore just over CA$1100per m2, which is about 13% above typical big boxretail in Ottawa (CA$980/m2). Much of this is dueto the increased thermal and environmental standardsand not due to the material reuse, which may havesaved money overall.

The specification of reused components required con-siderable additional effort from the design team. Thisbuilding was designed under Canadas C2000 pro-gramme. This provided financial support to offset theadditional design costs (not capital costs) necessary tomeet higher standards of energy efficiency, andreduce environmental impact. Thus, some of theextra costs incurred by the design team to develop asustainable specification were covered. Also, the build-ing was designed using the C2000 integrated designteam process which requires the team to work closelytogether throughout the project, and to use a series ofdesign charrettes.

740 rue Bel-Air

The new government building at 740 rue Bel-Air in therevitalized west end of Montreal is another example ofhow the deconstruction of an old building can provideconstruction resources for a new project at the samelocation. The site consisted of a series of industrialbuildings mainly using brick, iron and steel datingfrom 1851, with various more recent additions. Anold drawing from a newspaper indicates that the build-ing was the first in Montreal to use saw-tooth north-facing lighting in the roof. It had previously been

used for a variety of heavy industries including afoundry, but in more recent times the buildingsserved as storage space. Public Works and Government

Table 1 Fifty-six per cent of materials by weight usedat TheMountainEquipment Co-op,Ottawa, came from reused or recycled sources

Element Reused f rom existing b uilding o n-site Reused f rom o ther l ocations

Substructure Existingfoundations werereused by using the samestructural grid; concrete removed from the sitewas crushed and used as backll, slabunderlayandparking lotll

Primarystructure Primarysteelstructure from the originalbuilding wasreused on the second level of the newbuilding

300 mm square Douglas r structuralcomponents salvaged from old log boomsfrom the St LawrenceRiver were used in theground oor structure

Ro of Open- web ste el joists f rom t he or iginal building werereused in the newroof structure

Wall Rock salvaged f rom t he s ite w as used for c ladding o nthe north face; blocks from the original buildingwere used to createa two-hour re-rated partywall on the east side of thebuilding

Salvaged plywoodwas specied for externalsheathing of walls,but was not available at thetime of construction

Floo r Exist ing oor s lab w it h terraz zo oo r was u sed f or t henew building

Floor nish for the second storey was a structuralwood deckusing salvaged Douglasr

Other Ofce and staff rooms were furnished with usedor recovered furniture; salvaged wood wasused for sunshades and other details

Gorgolewski

182


9/14

Services Canada (PWGSC), who owned the site,wanted to use the project to showcase a range ofgreen strategies, including the reuse of the buildingsor components and recycling of materials that werealready on-site. It proposed a facility to house variousgovernment departments including warehousing,

office space, and other specialized uses, sharing facili-ties such as meeting rooms, storage space, andheating and lighting systems, allowing the tenants tobenefit from the economies of scale and reducing theneed for building space. The new 15 700 m2 building(with additional below-ground parking) has amixture of concrete and steel structure, with brickand metal cladding and a flat roof (Figure 6). Ageothermal heating and cooling system is used withsome supplementary solar power. The design alsofocuses on daylighting and natural ventilation toreduce electricity consumption and improve personalcomfort. To conserve water, rain is collected for usein toilets and to water the grounds. The combined

effect of these strategies is expected to help achieve agold LEED green building rating. Many of the originalbuilding components and materials were reclaimed andreused (in this and other projects), or recycled, and newmaterials were carefully screened and selected for theirenvironmental impact. Materials from the old build-ings reused in the new project include steel joists,steel cladding, bricks, and crushed concrete as fill.

Deconstructionprocess

The client appointed AEdifica, a Montreal architec-tural practice, to oversee the deconstruction processand identify materials that could be reused, either on-site in the new building or elsewhere. A contractor spe-cializing in deconstruction (as opposed to demolition)was hired to take down the existing building and findways of reusing as many components as possible andrecycling the rest of the material, where possible(Figure 7). Most of the material was reused off-site in

other projects around Montreal or was sent forrecycling. A materials audit was carried out, tracingwhich materials were available and where they weredisposed of. This indicated that approximately 325open-web steel roof joists were identified as suitablefor reuse in the new building, although 15% of these

were damaged in the process of deconstruction orduring storage due to their lightweight characteristics.In addition, a considerable amount of steel cladding,brick, timber, and electrical and mechanical equipmentsuch as elevator components could be reused. Othermaterials such as wiring, pipes, wood beams, andother steel sections were suitable for recycling, and8000 tonnes of concrete were crushed to use as fillduring the shoring process or for site engineeringworks. In total, it is estimated that the project wasable to divert about 9000 m3 of building materialsfrom landfill for reuse or recycling.

Designprocess

The architects developed initial conceptual ideas forredeveloping the site, and then inspected the materialsand components available from the deconstruction ofthe existing building to identify components thatcould potentially be used in the new building(Figure 8). The designs were then revised to suit theavailable reclaimed materials. The availability of infor-mation at the appropriate time in the design processwas found to be crucial. The dimensions of the com-ponents that could be reused were not available tothe design team when the critical structural spacingdecisions were being made. This meant that thedesigns had to be based on estimates and the architects

tried to maintain as much flexibility in the design toaccommodate a range of sizes. This complicated theprocess. In such a situation old drawings of the existingstructure can save time and facilitate the process, aswell as increasing reuse opportunities. In this case thearchitects found relevant information which initiallywas thought to have been lost at the Public Works

Figure 6 740 rue Bel-AirFigure 7 Deconstruction process at 740 rue Bel-Air, December2002


183


10/14

Canada archive, and which helped them to identify thestructural characteristics of components. Nevertheless,to establish their structural integrity and suitability,X-ray imaging and chemical analysis had to becarried out of the open-web steel joists, at a cost ofapproximately CA$20 000. This showed they weresuitable for the new building, provided they wereused at closer centres than modern joists. Initially,100 joists were put aside for use on this project, withthe remainder being disposed of for other reuse pro-jects or for steel recycling. Ultimately, some 65 joistswere reused.

Construction processThe project was divided into three contractual phases:deconstruction; site remediation including shoring andother ground works; and new construction. This led tosome coordination problems such as contractors notaccepting responsibility for dealing appropriatelywith the materials that were to be reused. Unfortu-nately, the deconstruction process caused damage toabout 15% of the steel joists which made them unsui-table for reuse. There was also a shortage of suitablespace on-site for storage during construction. Thiscaused the materials to be moved several timesaround the site from one external storage area toanother and eventually to be placed in a storage yard

off-site. This multiple handling and the time delaybetween deconstruction and reuse (over two years)led to further damage and resulted in additionalcosts. Eventually, the open-web steel joists were sentto a steel fabricator for sorting and minor refabrica-tion. This was necessary as it was found that therewas some variation in their length. Although somewere adapted in length in the workshop, there werestill problems that required adjustment of the joistseats on-site. The joists were also cleaned and repaintedbefore installation on-site. The steel cladding required

trimming of damaged areas and repainting beforeinstallation in the new building.

These issues arose due to the piecemeal nature of theproject with the division of contractual phases over along period of time and the lack of overall control by

one contractor. It is clear that to minimize problemsa clear chain of responsibility should be establishedand careful planning is required to ensure thatmaterials are processed, stored, and refabricatedappropriately and location to minimize multiple hand-ling and damage.

Economic discussion

The construction cost of the new building was approxi-mately CA$34 million for a 15 700 m2 building andadditional car parking. It is estimated that theadditional environmental features cost about CA$2million extra, but will have a payback period ofabout eight years. The precise cost implications orreusing materials are unknown, but the structuralengineer for the project felt that the reuse of open-web steel joists was not a cost saving as the additionalrefabrication, storage and handling charges weregreater than the cost of new joists. AEdifica estimatesthat the overall cost of the deconstruction processwas no higher than the cost of traditional demolitionwhen the revenue resulting from the reused materialsis considered. However, the issue of timing is critical.The deconstruction process requires more time todeal with the materials carefully, and this must beincluded in any overall project programme. In thislarge project there were also additional fees fordesigners to identify reusable components, but thesewere recouped through the resale of the extracted com-ponents and materials. Also, deconstruction requires

Figure 8 Reused open-web steeljoists at 740 rue Bel-Air

Table 2 Thefollowing materials from the demolished building at740 rueBel-Air were reused on-site in thenew building

Element Reusedcomponent

Groundwork 8000tonnesof crushedconcrete wereused asll in engineering works

Structure 325 open-websteeljoistswere identied intheoldbuilding; 65 were reused on-site in theroof structure; the remainder were sold forlocal reuse or recycling

Cladding Steel claddingfrom theoldbuildingwasusedascladding for internal nishesof warehousespaces;

old brick,although deemed unsuitable for useexternally due to concerns about moistureabsorption, was appropriatefor internal wallsurfaces;

the entrancehall retainedthe facade of theformer steel foundry

Other Incidentalsalvagedtimber was usedwhereverappropriate;

some electrical and mechanicalequipmentsuch as elevator componentswere reused

Gorgolewski

184


11/14

space for storage of the reclaimed materials, ideally on-site, or, if necessary, elsewhere before new uses arefound for them.

Lessons learned

The two projects illustrate how a determined client andinspired design team can adapt the procurementprocess so that it is possible to incorporate significantquantities of reclaimed construction components intoa new building, working within time, distance, andcost constraints. Nevertheless, the projects also high-light the challenges inherent in such an approach tobuilding, which include the following:

. Deconstructing rather than demolishing a buildingcan be economically viable for the client butrequires more time to deal with the materials care-fully and space for storage of materials, preferablyon-site before they are sold. There may also be

higher design fees due to additional work in sour-cing the reused components. Both case study pro-jects demonstrate that reclaimed materials can beput to a new use and be economically viable, butmust be integrated carefully into any overallproject programme.

. Using reclaimed materials adds a new level of com-plexity to a project and significantly changes thedesign and construction process. Reclaimedmaterials do not show up at the right time, in theright amounts or at the right dimensions. Forexample, the reclaimed plywood specified for theMEC was not available at the time of construction.

In some cases materials may need to be purchasedearly when they are available and stored, causingadditional costs.

. Using materials and components that are availablefrom an old building on-site eliminates some of theunknowns and allows the design team to develop adesign around the available components. The MECwas able to reuse even the foundations by basingthe design around the spans of the original struc-tural components. However, this can lead to pro-blems of storage of materials during theconstruction process, and requires careful plan-ning. It is most economic to avoid multiple hand-

ling, but this may require sufficient space on-sitefor storage in out-of-the-way locations.

. Establishing structural characteristics is a concernto design teams. In both case studies the originaldrawings and specifications were available thatincreased reuse opportunities, helped establish thestructural characteristics of the material, savedtime and facilitated the design process. Neverthe-less, at the MEC structural tests were performedon the old concrete blocks, and a professional

wood grader was hired to examine and grade thesalvaged timbers. The structural engineer andsteel sub-trade had to assess the old steel for anydamage and for conformity to current code stan-dards. At 740 rue Bel-Air it was necessary to estab-lish structural integrity and suitability of the open-

web steel joists using X-ray imaging and chemicalanalysis.

. A strategy to reuse materials may require consider-able flexibility from the design team and a willing-ness to adapt the design as materials becomeavailable. The availability of information at theappropriate time in the design process is important.Accurate information about the sizes of availablereclaimed components in the early stages ofdesign helps to facilitate appropriate designdecisions. In the MEC some elements of the steelroof and timber floor systems were redesignedthree times to accommodate the available materials

and the 740 rue Bel-Air design was adapted severaltimes to suit the particular specifications of the steeljoists. Clearly this has significant implications ondesign fees. It is beneficial if decisions on usingreclaimed materials are made early in the designprocess, and reclaimed materials and componentsare identified early on so they can be designed in,and additional costs can be minimized. However,this means that materials may need to be purchasedand stored early in the design process before a con-tractor is appointed, which may cause difficultiesfor the client and the contractual process. Oneway to identify potential components for reuseearly on is to purchase a whole old building and

reuse its components, or reuse components froman existing building on the site as the issues oftiming and security of supply are reduced.

. Structural component reuse is easier if componentscan be reused for a purpose similar to their originalone. When incorporating structural componentsfrom an existing building in a new project, usingsimilar structural layouts and maintaining originalspan sizes in the new design makes reuse easier.

. Hot-rolled structural steel with bolted connectionsand large timber components are easier to reusethan more lightweight open-web steel joists or

timber studs, as the lightweight nature of thesemakes them more susceptible to damage, and thehigher value of the larger elements make theeffort to salvage more cost-effective.

. The nature of junctions is important to the practi-cality of deconstruction. Reversible joints such asscrews and bolts are desirable, permanent fixingssuch as welding can make deconstruction difficultand components are more easily damaged.Decking spot-welded at the MEC made removal


185


12/14

without damage difficult and also led to some diffi-culties with the removal of the open-web steeljoists. Reversible jointing systems such as boltingwas used in the new MEC building to facilitatefuture deconstruction.

.

Some contractors may be nervous about tenderingfor unusual projects of this kind. There is a need toeducate contractors and work with them to ensurethat full cost benefits can be realized.

. The role of the client is crucial in any deconstruc-tion and reuse strategy. In both case studies theclient was committed to a strategy of materials con-servation and reuse. Both were willing to adapt theprocurement process to maximize the potential formaterials reuse and accepted that there are someadditional risk and more time is needed whenreclaiming and reusing materials.

.

Reusing materials is very site-specific and time-dependent. The location, space constraints, timeconstraints, and design requirements all have animpact on what may be feasible and realistic.

ConclusionsThe case studies discussed above suggest that the reuseof components in buildings can contribute signifi-cantly to meeting environmental goals. But the reuseof materials in buildings is site-specific and time-dependent, requiring acceptance that the design and

construction process may need to change. Currently,standard construction and demolition practicesfocus on the fastest, easiest and most economicalway to get the job done. When this is combinedwith a lack of clear information and guidance fordesigners and owners about the implications of speci-fying reclaimed components and recycled materials, itcreates barriers to a more ecologically sound use ofresources. Using reclaimed components has signifi-cant implications on the process of design as wellas construction. These need to be understood by thedesign team and client so that appropriate strategiesare put into place.

What aspects of the design process need to change toaccommodate component reuse, and what new/otherskills/training do architects and engineers need? Akey issue for designers is the increased risk involved.Designers may perceive that they are taking additionalrisks by specifying components with less predictablecharacteristics. In the case studies reported in thispaper the client was willing to take on this risk for ideo-logical reasons, but this will not be the case in mostprojects. In many cases standard specificationsprevent or inhibit the use of reused components for

reasons of limiting liability. The industry needs todevelop a level of comfort with the use of reused com-ponents and to established procedures for approval. Itis also true that many old components may be equallyas good, or even better, than new versions. Generally, asteel beam can be expected to perform equally well

even if it has been used before, and some old timberis of a higher quality than new timber that has beenplantation grown. Some designers have been able tomanage the risks and the additional time required bygetting a strong commitment from their clients or bypassing the risk to specialist companies. But the indus-try can help by developing codes and standards thatidentify accepted procedures and good practice forcomponent reuse which will provide reassurance forclients and designers.

Linked to risk is the issue of timing and availability.Reclaimed components are not currently easily avail-able off the shelf in quantities and a range of specifica-

tions that designers expect. A limited availability ofsuch components makes it difficult for designers whowish to specify them. There is a lack of a coordinatedsupply chain that ensures a consistent supply. Insome cases designers have been able to identify specificcomponents early on during the design process atdemolition sites or reclamation yards. However, atthis stage the contractor is often not appointed yet,so the client has to spend money up front purchasingmaterials, which many clients will not be willing todo. To overcome this problem a management contrac-tor can be appointed at an early stage in the designprocess who is responsible for securing reclaimed com-ponents that are identified for the project. A manage-

ment contractor may also be more willing to embracethe project aims of reusing materials than a tradition-ally tendered contractor. If a conventional main con-tractor is used, the requirement for reclaimedmaterials must be specified in a robust way or elsethe contractor may be unwilling to make the effortrequired and may well try to avoid this once theproject is underway

In some areas such as British Columbia, a fewcompanies have identified reuse as a business opportu-nity and have started to assemble an inventory ofreused components. An increase in deconstructionpractices will improve the supply of reused com-

ponents, but demolition rather than deconstruction isstill generally the rule for perceived economic and pro-gramming reasons. To address this issue, some archi-tects in Canada have identified specific buildingslisted for demolition to use as a material andcomponent source for their new product. In this waythey are assured of a known list of components toreuse early on in the design process, and have somecontrol of their supply. This may be the most effectiveway to address some of the difficulties of componentreuse.

Gorgolewski

186


13/14

If specific reclaimed components are not identifieduntil late in the design or when a contractor is order-ing materials, there may be a need to vary the designto suite available components. Thus, a flexibledesign which allows maximum change in the com-ponents used at the late stages of design or even

during construction allows more scope for includingwhatever reused components are available. Also, stan-dard sizes and often used components are more likelyto be available for reuse, so sticking to such com-ponents increases the likelihood of them being avail-able. However, all of this often requires far moreeffort and time from the design team. As was men-tioned above, some elements in the case study projectswere redesigned several times to accommodate theavailable materials adding to the design costs. Atpresent some designers are willing to take on thisextra workload for ideological reasons, or, as in thecase study projects, there are additional public fundsavailable to help prime new approaches to sustainable

design. But in the long-term it is unlikely that designteams will be willing to take on additional workwithout increased fees. In North America, wheredownward pressure on fees is strong, this may be amajor obstacle. Opportunities may arise if reusedcomponent costs in the long run go down as the infra-structure for deconstruction and reuse becomes estab-lished, which will unlock funds for higher design fees.In Canada, the cost of a reused steel beam may typi-cally be 6080% of the cost of an equivalent newbeam provided that additional fabrication costs arenot high. The savings can offset additional designfees. However, as the higher costs of the reusedopen-web steel trusses at 740 rue Bel-Air case study

indicate, reused components can be more expensiveif there is a need for multiple handling and refabrica-tion. Thus, careful planning is required and costs canbe reduced if the demolition contractor is aware thatthe component is to be reused.

The problem of the limited supply of reused com-ponents due to limited deconstruction is slowly beingaddressed by the development of Standards for decon-struction and by the increased costs and difficulty oftraditional methods of disposal of construction waste.Demolition contractors are becoming aware of poten-tial markets for reclaimed components and are settingup methods for marketing these components through

websites or by appointing personnel whose responsibil-ity it is to survey buildings listed for demolition andidentify markets for the components. In this waymuch of the steel required for shoring projects inToronto is supplied from steel reclaimed from demoli-tion projects. This is possible as the structural designfor shoring work is relatively flexible, and much ofthe steel is then left in place below ground.

As the impact of green building rating systems such asLEED increase, and as waste legislation addressing

construction and demolition waste becomes morewidespread, more design teams are encouraged toconsider a strategy of materials reuse.2 Many partsof the world are now legislating to reduce waste tolandfills by introducing landfill taxes or bans oncertain materials to landfill. Increasingly the focus is

on contractors to manage resources and waste on-site and so more materials and components arebecoming available for reuse. Salvage contractorsare becoming more aware of the value of the com-ponents they extract and the cost of disposing ofthem to landfill, and so the supply of reused com-ponents is likely to increase. It is important that atthe same time the design professions understand theimplications of using reclaimed components andembrace new design processes otherwise componentreuse may not become widespread.

AcknowledgementsThe paper is based on work funded by NaturalResources Canada and the Canadian Institute for SteelConstruction and it looked at the potential for reuseof construction components. The author wishes toacknowledge the financial support of Natural ResourcesCanada Enhanced Recycling component of the Gov-ernment of Canada Action Plan 2000 on ClimateChange, Minerals, and Metals Program and by theCanadian Institute for Steel Construction (CISC). Theauthor is grateful for the information and images pro-vided by Christopher Simmonds Architect, AEdificaand Provencher Roy & Associes Architects.

ReferencesBlock, D. and Wood, A. (1998) Second time around: rescuing

materials from landfills. Biocycle, 39(2), 6669.Catalli, V. and Williams, M. (2001) Designing for disassembly.

Canadian Architect, 46(1), 2729.Chapman, L. and Simmonds, C. (2000) Mountain Equipment

Co-op Ottawa Store, CBIP-C2000 Case Study, NaturalResources Canada, Ottawa.

Crowther, P. (2001) Developing an inclusive model for design fordeconstruction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of theCIB Task Group 39: Deconstruction, Meeting of the CIBWorld Building Congress 6, Wellington, New Zealand.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2004) Draft CSA Guide-line on Design for Disassembly and Adaptability in the BuiltEnvironment, CSA, Mississauga, Ont.

Deconstruction Institute (n.d.) (available at: http://www.deconstructioninstitute.com).

Ferland. H. (2006) Solid waste management and greenhousegases: a life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks.Resource Recycling, January, 23 (available at: http://yose-mite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ActionsWasteToolsSWMGHGreport.html).

Geyer, R., Jackson, T. and Clift, R. (2002) Economic andenvironmental comparison between recycling and reuse ofstructural steel sections. Paper presented at the IISI WorldConference, Luxembourg.

Gorgolewski, M., Straka, V., Edmonds, J. and Sergio, S. (2006)Facilitating Greater Reuse and Recycling of Structural Steel


187


14/14

in the Construction and Demolition Process. Ryerson Uni-versity Report to Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa (avail-able at: http://www.reuse-steel.org/contact/).

Guy, B. and McLendon, S. (2002) Building Deconstruction:Reuse and Recycling of Building Materials, Center for Con-struction and Environment, University of Florida, Miami, FL(available at: http://www.recyclecddebris.com/rCDd/Resources/CaseStudies.aspx) (accessed on 21 December

2006).Guy, B., Shell, S. and Homsley, E. (2002) Design for Deconstruc-

tion and Material Reuse, Building Deconstruction Consor-tium (available at: http://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Sustain/BDC/documents.html) (accessedon 21 December 2006).

ICF Consulting (2005) Determination of the Impact of WasteManagement Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions:Update. NRCAN Action Plan 2000 on Climate Changeand Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) (1998) Creating Wealthfrom Everyday Items. Report, ILSR, Washington, DC.

Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) (2000) A Techni-cal Manual for Material Choices in Sustainable Construc-tion. Publication No. 431-99-009, IWMB, State ofCalifornia, Sacramento, CA.

Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) (2001) Decon-

struction Training Manual Waste Management Reuseand Recycling at Mather Field. Publication No. 433-01-027, IWMB, State of California, Sacramento, CA.

Kernan, P. (2002) Old to New Design Guide for SalvagedMaterials in New Construction, Greater VancouverRegional District, Vancouver.

Kibert, C., Guy, B. and Languell, J. (2000) Implementing Decon-struction in Florida, Florida Centre for Solid and HazardousWaste Management, Gainesville, FL.

Kohler, N. and Hassler, U. (2002) The building stock as aresearch object. Building Research & Information, 30(4),226236.

Mincks, W. R. (1995) The contractors waste management plan:cost effective analysis and implementation of waste

reduction and disposal alternatives. Paper presented at theConference on Cost Effective Management of Constructionand Demolition Waste and Green Building Procurement,Toronto, Ontario.

Morgan, C. and Stevenson, F. (2005) Design for Deconstruction.DesignGuides forScotlandNo. 1, Scottish Executiveand theScottish Ecological Design Association (SEDA), Edinburgh,UK.

Raess,C., Schultmann, F.,Seemann, A. andRentz,O. (2002)Dis-mantling of structures with an emphasis on steel as a buildingmaterial. Paper presented at the IISI World Conference,Luxembourg.

Strausser, S. (1999) Waste and Want, Metropolitan Books HenryHo, New York, NY.

Talbot, F. (1920) Millions from Waste, J. B. Lippincott,Philadelphia, PA.

US Green Building Council (USGBC) (2002) Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design Green Building RatingSystem for New Constructions and Major Renovations(LEED NC) Version 2.1, USGBC, Washington, DC (avail-able at: usgbc.org).

Endnotes1LEED is a registered trademark.

2LEED includes two credits which can be achieved by the reuse ofmaterials: Resource Reuse (Materials & Resources, credit 3)aims to extend the useful life of building components by specify-ing reclaimed or refurbished components; and Innovative Design(Innovation & Design Process, credit 1) aims to support greenbuilding design initiatives not included in the existing ratingscheme. A reuse strategy can also contribute to other creditssuch as the Construction Waste Management credit (Mater-ials & Resources, credit 2), the Recycled Content credit(Materials & Resources, credit 4), and the credit for RegionalMaterials (Materials & Resources, credit 5.1).

Gorgolewski

188

Documents

EBSCOhost_ Designing With Reused Building Components_ Some Challenges