Options to make steel reuse profitable: An analysis of cost and risk distribution across the UK construction value chain
Open accessAbstract
Although steel reuse has been identified as an effective method to reduce the carbon and energy impact of construction, it is in effect only a marginal practice. A detailed analysis of the costs and risks of reuse in practice in the uk is lacking. We found that although there is a sufficient spread between the price of steel scrap and new steel, this difference cannot be captured by the demolition contractors. Rather, reused steel is somewhat more expensive than new elements, except in certain circumstances such as when the reused elements are available from a nearby site, or when testing elements can be avoided. Further, we show that neither the costs of steel reuse, nor the risks, nor its benefits are spread equitably throughout the construction industry supply chain: most of the substantial and capital-intensive changes required for the widespread adoption of steel reuse are concentrated on steelwork contractors and stockists. Based on this analysis, we suggest helping the emergence of a specialised stockist.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Extra charges can yield a higher deconstruction cost when compared with demolition of the same building.
“These extra charges can yield a higher deconstruction cost (when compared with the demolition of the same building) (Chileshe et al., 2015; Dantata et al., 2005; Dunant et al., 2018; Rose and Stegemann, 2018; Tingley et al., 2017; Yeung et al., 2015)”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
Section 3.2 identifies a cost for striking down a building, and Section 4.2 lists time on the worksite as a cost for demolition contractors. The paper does not compare deconstruction with demolition of the same building or establish that these charges make deconstruction more expensive. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe restriction of insufficient supply encourages contractors to sell their reusable waste to recycling companies regardless of its high quality.
“According to Dunant et al. (2018), the above restriction encourages the contractors to sell their reusable waste to the recycling companies regardless of their high quality (Huuhka and Hakanen, 2015; Sansom and Avery, 2014; Tingley et al., 2017; Yeung et al., 2015, 2017).”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al. (2018)
Section 4.2 (page not specified) says demolition contractors find it easier to sell steel for scrap regardless of its condition. It attributes this to limited storage infrastructure and an illiquid reuse market, not insufficient supply, and does not identify recycling companies as the buyers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredClose cooperation between construction and demolition companies can address the barrier of lack of a mature reuse market.
“Hence, as advised by Dunant et al. (2018) and Nußholz et al. (2019), close cooperation between construction and demolition companies can address this barrier.”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
The Conclusion (section 5; page not provided) recommends cooperation to help a market for reused steel take off, but specifies stockists and steelwork contractors—not construction and demolition companies. Section 4.1 says owners of demolished and replacement buildings must coordinate for one limited reuse scenario, rather than presenting that coordination as a general solution to an immature market. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn many instances, coordination between the owners of the demolition site and the new building never happens.
“However, in many instances, this coordination never happens (Dunant et al., 2018, Nußholz et al., 2019).”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
Additional charges which can increase the overall price of recovered components are cost of testing, cost of treatment of salvaged parts, cost of insurance and cost of marketing.
“Other additional charges which can increase the overall price of the recovered components are cost of testing (Dunant et al., 2018; Gorgolewski, 2008; Rameezdeen et al., 2016; Tingley et al., 2017; Yeung et al., 2015), cost of treatment of the salvaged parts (Chini and Acquaye, 2001; Dunant et al., 2018; Huuhka and Hakanen, 2015), cost of insurance (Tingley et al., 2017) and cost of marketing for”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
In some cases, the fabrication cost of recovered building components might be higher than the fabrication cost of new elements.
“In some cases, the fabrication cost of the recovered building components might be higher than the fabrication cost of the new elements (Dunant et al., 2017, 2018; Tingley et al., 2017).”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
Extra charges eventually increase the price of recovered components.
“and eventually increase the price of the recovered components (Chileshe et al., 2015; Chileshe et al., 2016a; Dunant et al., 2018; Rameezdeen et al., 2016; Shaurette, 2006; Tingley et al., 2017).”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
Inequality in distribution of risk among stakeholders can still challenge motivated clients and architects.
“Nevertheless, the inequality in the distribution of risk among the stakeholders (Dunant et al., 2018) can still challenge motivated clients and architects.”
From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Dunant et al., 2018
Dunant et al suggest the introduction of new market actors that would identify, quality-control, stock, and market disused components.
“Dunant et al [95] suggest the introduction of new market actors that would identify, quality-control, stock, and market disused components.”
From Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—a review (2019) · cites this paper as [95]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Material efficiency: A white paper
Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., Gutowski, T. G., & Worrell, E. (2011) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.11.002 · Cited by 927 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing the environmental impact of metal production processes
Norgate, T. E., Jahanshahi, S., & Rankin, W. J. (2006) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.018 · Cited by 726 · see citing works
Sustainable materials with both eyes open
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-3871 · Cited by 435 · see citing works
Comparison of Environmental Effects of Steel- and Concrete-Framed Buildings
Guggemos, A. A., & Horvath, A. (2005) · Journal of Infrastructure Systems · doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2005)11:2(93 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Circular Economy: Theoretical Benchmark or Perpetual Motion Machine?
Cullen, J. M. (2017) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12599 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing, Understanding and Unlocking Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Snellings, R. (2016) · RILEM Technical Letters · doi:10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.12 · Cited by 348 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This is an open access article Concrete framed buildings have relatively little scope for improvement, aside from the introduction of novel substitution cementitious materials (SCM) as the current production of SCM is almost wholly exploited (Snellings, 2016).”
BackgroundThe Environmental Impacts of Reuse: A Review
Cooper, D. R., & Gutowski, T. G. (2017) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12388 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of office buildings
Dimoudi, A., & Tompa, C. (2008) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.09.008 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Supply Loops and Their Constraints: The Industrial Ecology of Recycling and Reuse
Geyer, R., & Jackson, T. (2004) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41166210 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
Understanding and overcoming the barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective
Densley Tingley, D., Cooper, S., & Cullen, J. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.006 · Cited by 261 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Many previous studies of steel reuse in the UK list barriers extracted from interviews and establish a hierarchy (Vukotic, 2013; Kuehlen et al., 2014; Tingley et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEffects of structural system on the life cycle carbon footprint of buildings
Nadoushani, Z. S. M., & Akbarnezhad, A. (2015) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.05.044 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction
Densley Tingley, D., & Davison, B. (2012) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
A Market‐Based Framework for Quantifying Displaced Production from Recycling or Reuse
Zink, T., Geyer, R., & Startz, R. (2015) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12317 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
da Rocha, C. G., & Sattler, M. A. (2009) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.004 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Smart steel: new paradigms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling
Ness, D., Swift, J., Ranasinghe, D. C., Xing, K., & Soebarto, V. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.055 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Real and perceived barriers to steel reuse across the UK construction value chain
Dunant, C. F., Drewniok, M. P., Sansom, M., Corbey, S., Allwood, J. M., & Cullen, J. M. (2017) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.036 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationEnergy analysis of the non-domestic building stock of Greater London
Choudhary, R. (2011) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.006 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Briefing: Reuse and recycling rates of UK steel demolition arisings
Sansom, M., & Avery, N. (2014) · Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability · doi:10.1680/ensu.13.00026 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Self-citationThe role of geometric characterization in supporting structural steel reuse decisions
Yeung, J., Walbridge, S., & Haas, C. (2015) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.08.017 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Regularity and optimisation practice in steel structural frames in real design cases
Dunant, C. F., Drewniok, M., Eleftheriadis, S., Cullen, J. M., & Allwood, J. M. (2018) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.009 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationRe-Valuing Construction Materials and Components Through Design for Disassembly
Crowther, P. (2018) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-78714-619-820181024 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
(2006) · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Barriers for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials in Germany
Kühlen, A., Thompson, N., & Schultmann, F. (2014) · Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) · doi:10.5445/ir/1000052698 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Fujita, M. (2012) · Key engineering materials · doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.517.513 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Guy, B., Shell, S., Esherick, H., 2006. Design for deconstruction and materials reuse. Proc. CIB Task Group 39, 189e209.
- Ley, J., Samson, M., 2003. A life-cycle energy model of the UK steel construction sector. In: System-based Vision for Strategic and Creative Design, Franco Bon- tempi Edition, vol. 1, pp. 309e314.
- Vukotic, L., 2013. Assessment of the Potential for Structural Steel Reuse in the UK Construction Industry. Dissertation for Master of Studies in Construction En- gineering. University of Cambridge.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hertwich, E. G., Ali, S., Ciacci, L., Fishman, T., Heeren, N., Masanet, E., Asghari, F. N., Olivetti, E., Pauliuk, S., Tu, Q., et al. (2019) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab0fe3 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
Sustainability through alloy design: Challenges and opportunities
Cann, J. L., De Luca, A., Dunand, D. C., Dye, D., Miracle, D. B., Oh, H. S., Olivetti, E. A., Pollock, T. M., Poole, W. J., Yang, R., et al. (2021) · Progress in Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100722 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review
Rakhshan, K., Morel, J.-C., Alaka, H., & Charef, R. (2020) · Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x20910463 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
“This lack of space for storage (Chinda and Ammarapala, 2016; Dunant et al., 2017, 2018; Gorgolewski, 2008; Rose and Stegemann, 2018; Shaurette, 2006) results in the transportation and storage of the recovered components at a different location and would increase the overall cost of the reused…”
BackgroundInfluentialReusing Heavy-Section Steel in Buildings: Carbon Reduction Potential and Material Availability
Berglund-Brown, J., & Ochsendorf, J. (2025) · Journal of Architectural Engineering · doi:10.1061/jaeied.aeeng-1918 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dunant, C. F., Drewniok, M. P., Sansom, M., Corbey, S., Cullen, J. M., & Allwood, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Steel Construction Institute (GB)
- Foundry (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dunant, Cyrille F.
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 183
- Pages
- 102-111
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2792048640
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 13.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Supply Chain Integration for structural steel reuse (132106)
- epsrc Material demand reduction (NMZL/112, RG82144)
- EPSRC (EP/N02351X/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
- Keywords
- steel reuse, steel scrap, cost analysis, risk allocation, construction supply chain, demolition contractors, UK construction industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
