ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT The European steel sector has developed LCA assessment methods over many years, methods taking into account benefits of recycling. Unlike recycling, the reuse of steel structures extends the steel life with lower impacts, because steel recovery through melting process is not needed. Benefits based on the savings in natural/virgin resources seem to be obvious by re-using materials, structures or buildings and giving them second, third or even fourth life. However, to show the benefits with the using a well justified methodological framework is not easy or straightforward as assumptions about the future reuse should be made. End of life processes, further processing, material identification and possible modification, and re-construction are the processes should be evaluated for the reuse case.
Earlier studies have shown difficulties in the analysis of realistic economic impacts of reuse concepts. The number of possible alternatives is high and in worst cases, the reuse could lower the benefits compared to steel recycling.
This theoretical case study is a part of PROGRESS project (Provisions for greater reuse of steel structures). The goal is to show the greenhouse gas impacts (as GWP) and life cycle costing (LCC) of the steel framed industrial building for the first life cycle and for the case of steel frame and envelope reuse. The study pointing out benefits and loads and by discussing the meaning of methodological differences when using building Life Cycle Assessment methods (LCA).
