The development of a circular building assessment - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The development of a circular building assessmentmethodology encompassing environmental, economic and social parameters

Katherine Tebbatt Adams, Loughborough University and BRE

Slide2

The Building As Material Banks (BAMB) project Introduction to the Circular Building Assessment (CBA) methodologyCircular Building Scenarios and CBA Introduction to the CBA Proof of Concept Platform Piloting the methodologyContents

Slide3

Buildings as materials banks – EU h2020 Project

Slide4

From a linear and static built environment …

Slide5

REFURBISH

MAINTAIN

REFURBISH

TRANSFORM

Reuse of Buildings

Reuse of Building products & systems

Reuse of Materials

… Towards

a circular and dynamic built environment

REUSE

MAINTAIN

UPCYCLE / RECYCLE

Slide6

Buildings as Material Banks

Reversible

Building Design

Materials

Passports

Circular Value Network

Circular Building Assessment

BAMB Project Overview

Slide7

Circular

Building Assessment

WEB

Platform

Building on existing approaches

Environmental

LCA

C

ircular

E

conomy

Circularity Indicators

R

eversible

B

uilding

D

esign

Social Value

New

Methodology

Material

Passport

BIM

User

Information

BAMB

Plug-in

BAMB

Product

Property

Set

Supporting Databases

Economic

LCC

Economic Assessment

Environment Assessment

Building on existing approaches

Circular building assessment - Overview

Slide8

Reversible building design assessment in CBAFocusing on:Connections and level of reversibility/ ease of disassemblyFunctional separationResidual life (amount used versus ultimate technical life span)

To provide following outputs results at building & element level:Total mass of reusable materials Total mass of reused materialsThese could also be key performance indicators (e.g. % reclaimed content/reuse potential). An inventory/quantity of reusable elements feeds into the environmental and economic assessments

Slide9

Environmental assessment

Slide10

Economic assessmentSubjectProposed ApproachNotes on impact on economic assessment

Service life of componentsDo not cap service life to maximum of design life of building.Allows full residual value to be modelled across 3 generations of building. Means however that library data on service lives may need review.

Annual equivalent value (AEV)

Include AEV as well as Net Present Value as default metrics

Allows impact of service life extensions to be shown.

Discount Rate

Include lower inter-generational social discount rates as recommended by HM Treasury in addition to 3% standard rate from EN 16627.

Allows more realistic assessment of very long periods of

analysis.

Spent costs

Do not automatically ignore costs incurred before the economic assessment commenced (e.g. on a previous building)

Allows 3 generation thinking.

Module D in EN 15643

Allow incomes and costs from recycling and re-use (residual values) within main calculation of economic impact.

Demonstrates full impact of circular economic assessment.

Slide11

Social assessment (manual assessment)Retention of local & loved built assets (adaptability & transformation capacity)Reduced local impacts – noise, dust, transportHeath & well being benefitsCommunity benefits – new businesses, training, jobs opportunities

Slide12

External Walls

Windows

Upper Floor Types

Roof Tiles

Internal Partitions

Ground Floors

Roof Structure

1,570.00

Cost

896

Embodied Carbon

52%

Reclaimed Content

7.24

Reuse Potential/ RBD score

5.75

Transformation capacity

60

Life cycle co-ordination

Circularity Indicators

67%

Recycled Content

6.24

Recyclability

41%

Virgin/primary resource

indicator

896

Embodied Environmental Impact

Circularity indicators examples

Slide13

Circularity indicators Interest: Workshop

Slide14

Displacing new products & materials Future reuse

potentialTransformation capacity

Basic circular building Scenarios To be tested

Slide15

Environmental building (b16) example80 000 reclaimed bricks

30% future reuse potential of bricksFlexible internal layout

Constructed Watford,1997

Slide16

BRE’s B16 environmental and economic assessment examples Scenario 1a – use of reclaimed bricks for B16 onlyScenario 1b- use of reclaimed bricks for

B16, then reclaimed at end of B16 lifeScenario 1c – use of reusable partitions moved every 20 years over a 60-year study periodScenario 1d – use of reusable partitions moved every 20 years over a 80 year study period

Scenario

1e

– whole

B16

assessment over 80-year study period

Slide17

LIFECYLCE STAGES

Slide18

1a – Use of reclaimed bricks – 100% landfill at end of B16 life

Reduction of 42 tonnes of CO2eq or 98% of the impact in A1 to A3 (product) modules.

Slide19

Scenario 1B : use of reclaimed bricks for B16, then reclaimed at end of B16 lifeBenefits for the previous building of 2.7 tonnes of CO2eq as bricks have been diverted from landfill.

There are also benefits to future buildings as the assumption made in scenario 1b is that the reclaimed bricks will be reclaimed in a future building, saving another 38 tonnes of CO2eq – assuming all bricks are reclaimed – in the next building (stages A1 to A3 only).

Slide20

Scenario 1b: use of reclaimed bricks – 100% reclaimed at the end of B16 life and future building versus BAUThe initial construction costs for BAU are lower as construction costs using reclaimed materials may be more, due to labour and material costs. The additional

construction cost incurred in selecting reclaimed bricks is outweighed by sales income prior to the second lifetime of useThere is an income shown at year 60 (i.e. at the beginning of B16 use, where red line drops in figure) which represents the sale of the reclaimed bricks by the owner of the earlier building. For the building owner of the first building at the time of disposal a considerable proportion (assumed to be around 15%) of the original costs can be reclaimed at the end of life of the building.

However

, the owner at year 60 is unlikely to be the same owner who incurred the original costs to procure the bricks.

Slide21

Scenario 1c – Use of reusable partitions moved every 20 years over a 60 years study periodThe results show that the initial burden of using a reusable partition is offset at 19 years against a BAU approach of using a “one life” partition. Over 60 years, the use of reusable partition will lead to a 740 kgCO2

eq saving

Slide22

Scenario 1c: use of reusable partition moved every 20 years over a 60 years study versus BAUNet Savings compared to BAU represent around £29/m2 overall, or around £1/m2 per year better in terms of the AEV

For the first 20-year lifespan the additional initial construction cost of the reusable partitioning specification means that it is a less favorable solution As soon as a replacement occurs though the advantage of lower cost de-construction and re-use in situ means that the circular solution is preferable in economic terms. Each

cycle of reuse increases

the

economic advantage.

T

he

issue of different ownership is less problematic than for bricks

as

the current owner of the building gains the advantage of lower operating costs. Only the initial procurer carries the additional initial cost.

Slide23

Undertaking these assessments requires:Special knowledgeData that is not available at the same locationData that is not available at allA lot of timeLIMITATIONS

Slide24

Slide25

Slide26

BAMB pilotsGreen Transformable Building Lab (Heerlen, Netherlands)Green Design Centre (Mostar, B&H)Circular Retrofit Lab (Brussels)BRIC (Brussels)Environmental Building (Watford, UK)Testing the methodology

Slide27

Warehouse refurbishment and asset management (Belgium )New social housing project (Scotland)Airport development and asset management (London)Railway assets - replacement versus retention (London)New commercial development (Brussels, Barcelona, UK)Innovative housing system (UK)

New University buildings and refurbishment (Belgium, UK)

Retail units (Antwerp)

Façade replacement (Belgium)

Public buildings (Mostar)

Training and demonstration (Brussels, Netherlands)

Zero carbon exemplar (Germany)

Possible pilots so far..

Slide28

Other authors Gilli Hobbs, Flavie Lowres, Kiru Balson, Mirko Farnetani, BRE, Bucknalls Lane, Watford, WD25 9XXKathryn Bourke, Whole Life Ltd, Watford, UK

Wim Debacker, Neethi Rajagopalan, Wai Chung Lam , Sofie De Regel, Vito, Boeretang 200, BE-2400 MOL, Belgium

Elma

Durmisevic

, University of Twente,

Drienerlolaan

5, 7522 NB Enschede, Netherlands

Slide29

Thank you

info@bamb2020.euk.adams@lboro.ac.uk

Linkedin

:

uk.linkedin.com/in/

katherine-adams-02410a7

Twitter:

Kathbuildcircular

https://www.bamb2020.eu/news/call-for-abstract-bamb-circpath/