1

Sustainable Structural Engineering: A Life Cycle Assessment of Steel Reuse

 2

Introduction

The construction sector is leading in global development, creating GDP but producing the

most harmful waste emissions to our atmosphere. As a crucial part of the sector, structural

engineering has the first dilemma of providing safety and lastingness of infrastructures and then

showing minimal environmental effects. Steel, due to its strength, diversity, and recyclability,

azimuths to be a primary construction material. However, the manufacturing and disposal of iron

is still an energy-consuming process that generates increased carbon emissions and resource

depletion. In this vein, the significance of sustainability in structural engineering is gaining

popularity, capturing the objective of incurring no environmental impact throughout the

structural building process while ensuring the integrity and functionality of a structure.

Ecological consciousness manifested in structural engineering is not a dictate but has to

do with the environmental dilemmas of current times like climate change, resource deprivation,

and ecosystem degradation. Sustainability means utilizing resources more efficiently, reducing

garbage volumes, and producing carbon emissions. It is related to the construction industry.

From all of the recycling strategies considered, steel recycling denotes a case with the maximum

potential to realize the sustainability goals. Recycling steel is not only an effort to conserve

resources and energy since it produces less greenhouse gas emissions than new steel.

Nevertheless, such systematical reuse is limited compared to the issue of faulty logistics,

economy, and industry technology in construction engineering (Tavares et al., 2021). However,

the undeniable fact is that steel remains a crucial figure in the construction sector. It is super

strong with a good weight ratio, capable of withstanding heavy traffic, and shatter-resistant.

These features suit it best for civil construction applications, from buildings and bridges to

industrial facilities. Nevertheless, the central concern is CO2 emission in the steel industry from
 3

the production process (Brütting et al., 2020). The old cycle of taking the materials, using and

disposing of them linearly creates a stream of material consumption that runs forever, and as it

does, it generates much waste. Stake climate change and environmental problems wisely, and a

circular economy, under which used materials are recycled and reused, can considerably reduce

those impacts.

The construction industry stands at the forefront of global development, driving

economic growth and contributing significantly to environmental degradation. Structural

engineering, as a critical component of this sector, faces the dual challenge of ensuring the safety

and durability of infrastructures while minimizing ecological impacts. Due to its strength,

versatility, and recyclability, steel has become a cornerstone material in construction. However,

the production and disposal of steel are energy-intensive processes associated with substantial

carbon emissions and resource depletion. In this context, sustainability in structural engineering

is gaining prominence, highlighting the need for practices that reduce environmental impacts

without compromising structural integrity and functionality. This study examines the life cycle

assessment of steel structures for reuse. Research has been conducted on design methods for

efficiently extracting materials from structures for reuse or using materials already removed to

apply reuse in the Construction sector. Research on design for deconstruction has developed

strategies for deconstructing structures in the design process and evaluating tools for ease of

disassembly. Research related to design for reuse (DfR) has investigated new structures'

environmental effects and design strategies using reusable materials. Nevertheless, materials are

rarely reused in the AEC sector, and there needs to be more information on reusable materials

and their properties. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) systematically evaluates the environmental

impact of systems, products, materials, or services over the entire life cycle, from raw resources
 4

to waste extraction (Tavares et al., 2021). This approach implies identifying and quantifying

emissions, materials, and energy consumption that affect the environment throughout the product

life cycle. This holistic perspective allows for comparing two or more options to determine

which is better regarding the environmental impacts.

Literature Review

Significance of Steel, Timber, and Concrete in Construction

Unlike many other materials, steel boasts an exceptional strength-value-weight ratio: it is

used everywhere where strength and versatility are paramount, from skyscrapers and bridges to

houses of different designs. Regarding flexibility, post-tensioned concrete can be manipulated

into different structural designs, including long spans and more complex shapes that other

materials might fail to bear. The flexibility of steel adds to earthquake resistance, one of the

criterion priority regions that experience earthquakes. Steel is not only material in such

applications but also has promising properties that enable its recycling without losing quality, for

which steel contributes to increasing construction sustainability.

Not only can renewable and ornamental Timber match the characteristics of concrete, but

this type of timber gains more advantages such as the trees can be used again after they felled,

the aesthetic appeal, and the environmental benefits that are becoming more and more

recognized in modern green construction (Martínez-Muñoz et al., 2020). First, being a renewable

resource by-product yields lower environmental emissions, and they tend to be lower emitting

primary when sourced from sustainable forest management. Carbon dioxide occurs as a spillover

when forests grow naturally, but timber helps to reduce the level of increased greenhouse gases

that result from it. Wood is a multifunctional class building material that takes care of structural
 5

systems, exterior cladding, and interior fixtures, giving the buildings a natural look. This

insulating ability could go a long way in overcoming the challenge of improper energy efficiency

in buildings.

Given its matchless durability and flexibility, which make it a perfect choice for

architecture and construction, concrete has been the most commonly used construction material

overall. Its malleability is the critical feature that makes it possible to mold it into various shapes;

thus, the creative world in architecture design is not limited. Strictly speaking, chip concrete's

pressure strength allows it to support much weight, which is why it is suitable for foundations,

flooring, walls, and many other network structures. Alongside it, it equally provides considerable

fire resistance, so the safety and reliability of buildings can be reached. Nevertheless, the issue of

the environmental impact of cement production, whose production requires a principal ingredient

of concrete, has been considered in studies aimed at finding substitution and methods to

minimize climate pollution.

The combined application of steel, timber, and liming stones in construction projects

savvy utilization of desirable features of each material to deliver innovation, efficiency, and

design sustainability. Among these, one example is visible in the case of the hybrid construction

methodology, in which the tensile strength of the steel is used together with the compression

capabilities of the concrete to build high-rise and more resilient buildings (De Wolf et al., 2020).

Likewise, integrating wood features in private and public spaces can increase the overall

sustainability of the urban environment and create more aesthetically appealing and thermally

better places to live and work. Besides being useful independently, steel, timber, and concrete in

the construction industry provide a collective input to advancing construction technologies,

implementation of sustainability, and architecture (Xia et al., 2020). Acquiring an understanding

 6

of the casual and functional relationship between the properties and application of the

constructed facilities can be considered the first step in developing strategies for improving

infrastructure based on modern needs, environmental protection, and responsible social

behavior. To sum up, now, with the evolution of the building economy, these materials are

fighting for the system to be sustainable, and in the end, they will have to eliminate the negative

ecological impacts of the built environments.

Environmental Footprints of Material Production

The ecological effects of fabricating steels, timbers, and concretes vary from one

another. Unprecedented production needs and significant CO2 emissions are the Ingenieur of the

steel-producing sector. However, Forestation is sometimes viewed as an ecological advantage;

however, at the same time, concerns regarding the sustainability of forest management and the

adverse effects of deforestation may come to the forefront. Currently, we have two main

processes that cause CO2 emissions in concrete's environmental footprint: cement production

and intensive natural material extraction. Such insights can not only identify strategies but also

point directly to their need throughout the life cycle of the construction material.

Research from 2020 by De Wolf et al. states that the circular economy is both a zero-waste

philosophy and an all-encompassing theory of utilization management. For a city to be built

without carbon emissions, this approach must serve as the basis for environmental remodeling.

Implementing a circular building design in the construction sector aims to achieve resource

optimization via waste reduction, resource recycling, and material reuse. This idea is embodied

in circular constructions because of the sustainable design solutions they integrate. Methods like

resource recovery, adaptive reuse, and modular design are part of the solution set. These

buildings are adaptable enough to meet the needs of the future while simultaneously cutting
 7

down on waste and optimizing resource use. Consequently, they create spaces where use is more

nuanced, which is healthy for the planet. Underlying the circular economy is the guiding

principle of continually minimizing the environmental impact of the construction sector via

eliminating waste and optimizing resource efficiency. Sustainable structural design adheres to

the same principles to lessen the adverse ecological effects of the construction industry.

When implementing a circular economy strategy, buildings are considered throughout their

entire lifecycles, from initial design to final demolition. Flexibility, reusability, and the use of

renewable and recyclable materials are essential features of sustainable structural systems,

according to a study from 2020 by De Wolf et al. Prioritizing methods that facilitate the easy

disassembly and reassembly of structural components, such as modular construction and

prefabrication, helps to boost the reuse and repurposing of buildings (Xia et al., 2020). A more

sustainable and resilient built environment may be achieved via sustainable structural designs,

which effectively reduce raw material consumption, decrease energy and water use, and achieve

these goals. To achieve this, the principles of circular economies are smoothly integrated into the

design phase. A method for determining the in-situ strength of concrete involves extracting cores

from the material and then subjecting them to compressive load testing. This one is more reliable

than previous ways, although it is still quite harmful.

Frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment

Over twenty years, from 1995 to 2018, Majid Bahramian and Kaan Yetilmezsoy studied how life

cycle evaluation has changed in the building industry. From what we can see, life cycle

assessment is mainly concerned with buildings that are either shorter (one to five stories) or not

as tall (five stories or higher). Studies on taller buildings, which tended to be commercial, were

more numerous than those on shorter-term, primarily residential buildings. Most studies focused
 8

on the production and consumption stages, emphasizing impact factors, including the potential

for accelerated global warming and embodied energy. Shorter buildings had emissions ranging

from 0.07 to 35,765 kg CO₂eq/m2, whereas wood constructions had emissions reductions of

12.9 to 361 kg CO₂eq/m2. The life cycle evaluation found that different structures had lifespans

ranging from twenty to over a hundred years. The functional units, or measurement units, also

differed substantially. While "m2" was used by 61% of the studies, "whole building" by around

20% shows inconsistency. Ecoinvent was cited with the highest frequency (65%) for building

life cycle evaluation, followed by the University of Bath ICE database with 11%, the US

database with 9% (Xia et al., 2020), and the Australian material inventory database with 7%.

Oladazimi et al.'s study from 2020 found that out of many computer software solutions, SimaPro

was listed the most often at 40%, followed by ATHENA Impact Estimator at 7.5% and GaBi

software at 4%. The study found that research results cannot be directly compared owing to

variations in building features (design, materials), lifespan, functional units, and scope. Research

in building life cycle assessment has recently primarily focused on the following areas: dynamic

life cycle assessment of buildings; life cycle assessment of building refurbishments; life cycle

assessment of carbon emissions; integration of life cycle assessment with building rating

systems; integration of life cycle assessment with social life cycle assessment and life cycle

assessment; and building information modeling (BIM) based life cycle assessment of buildings.

Recent work by Fatma Abdelaal and Brian H.W. Guo suggests that green construction practices

such as construction Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are far

from standardized. Remember that BIM and LCA are highly related regarding their importance

for these buildings. Many involved feel positively about BIM and LCA, seeing the two as

complementary tools with complementary strengths. However, these romantic views are at odds
 9

with BIM and LCA's actual implementation, suggesting that much work is needed to integrate

these technologies into green buildings effectively.

References

Bahramian, M., & Yetilmezsoy, K. (2020). Life cycle assessment of the building industry: An

overview of two decades of research (1995–2018). Energy and Buildings, 219, 109917.

Brütting, J., Vandervaeren, C., Senatore, G., De Temmerman, N., & Fivet, C. (2020).

Environmental impact minimization of reticular structures made of reused and new

elements through Life Cycle Assessment and Mixed-Integer Linear

Programming. Energy and Buildings, 215, 109827.

 10

De Wolf, C., Hoxha, E., & Fivet, C. (2020). Comparison of environmental assessment methods

when reusing building components: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, p. 61,

102322.

Joensuu, T., Leino, R., Heinonen, J., & Saari, A. (2022). Developing Buildings’ Life Cycle

Assessment in Circular Economy-Comparing methods for assessing the carbon footprint

of reusable components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 77, 103499.

Martínez-Muñoz, D., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2020). Steel-concrete composite bridges: design,

life cycle assessment, maintenance, and decision-making. Advances in Civil

Engineering, 2020, 1-13.

Oladazimi, A., Mansour, S., & Hosseinijou, S. A. (2020). Comparative life cycle assessment of

steel and concrete construction frames: a case study of two residential buildings in

Iran. Buildings, 10(3), 54.

Tavares, V., Soares, N., Raposo, N., Marques, P., & Freire, F. (2021). Prefabricated versus

conventional construction: Comparing life-cycle impacts of alternative structural

materials. Journal of Building Engineering, 41, 102705.

Xia, B., Ding, T., & Xiao, J. (2020). Life cycle assessment of concrete structures with reuse and

recycling strategies: A novel framework and case study. Waste Management, 105, 268-

278.