More time required for deconstruction process

Since deconstruction entails the cautious disassembling of a structure, in most cases manually, as opposed to
demolishing a structure using heavy machinery, it is more time consuming. This can be a problem in cases
where there are narrow construction schedules. If possible, begin deconstruction activities during the design
and documentation processes. An added benefit may be the discovery of potentially reusable unknown
structures in time to incorporate them into the design.

Cleaning, processing, and refurbishing materials can take time, which translates to added costs. Removal of
connectors such as nails, screws, and joist hangers, as well as cleaning paints, mortar, sealants, and adhesives
from materials, is necessary to prepare them for reuse.
Economic considerations

Designing for deconstruction is likely to have a higher initial cost, both in terms of design time and therefore
cost and in construction price. In many cases clients will find it hard to justify this higher initial cost,
particularly if they cannot see how they will benefit from a building that is designed to be deconstructable.
More ecologically minded clients may see that the future benefits of minimising waste and maximising the
use of resources within the building (as opposed to using more of the earth’s virgin resources) are worth the
potential extra cost. However, for clients to take this view they need to be aware of the issues and benefits
involved. Lui, et al. (2003) state the importance of promoting deconstruction awareness to potential clients,
architects, engineers and other designers; explaining that this will lead to the ‘more widespread
implementation and practical use of deconstruction’ (Lui et al. 2003, p.187). More widespread use of
deconstruction will also encourage further developments and enhanced use of technology within the field,
which will further promote its use.

At the end of the building’s life it is generally seen that demolition is the most cost effective way to remove a
building, due to the speed at which this can be done. However, deconstruction can be a viable removal
technique that is not necessarily more expensive. Whilst it is normally a more time consuming process, and
will therefore incur higher labour costs, the salvaged materials can be sold which generally offsets the higher
labour costs; reusing and recycling materials rather than taking them to landfill will also result in savings by
minimising landfill costs, which can be very high in some areas (to specifically discourage land-filling
materials). The Overture project in Madison, USA achieved savings of around $29,000 by deconstructing the
buildings within the project and reusing or recycling the salvaged materials. When compared with predicted
landfill costs, had the buildings been demolished and the majority of the debris taken to landfill, the potential
cost of the project was $357,000, whereas the actual projects costs (including additional consultation fees for
deconstructing) totalled at $328,000 (Newnhouse, et al. 2003).

The increased time for disassembling a structure equates to greater labour expenses. Financial aspects is the
single most common factor that structures are not normally deconstructed.
Lack of well-established supply/demand chains

Lack of salvage or recycling markets is the second most prevalent reason that project planners choose to demolish and not to deconstruct. In many regions markets for reclaimed or
recycled materials are weak. This almost always corresponds to the cost of landfill tipping fees as there is a point at which it becomes more cost effective to deconstruct than to pay
the landfill fees. Many states run online databases listing salvage outlets, salvage dealers, recycling centers, and materials exchanges.

Who has possession of the reclaimed materials after the deconstruction of a building? It is presumed, in many cases, that the recovered materials will be claimed by the contractor
(selling these materials may well be included within the tender for the job). If the contractor takes possession, then it would be their responsibility to carry out an inventory of
materials as the deconstruction of the building occurs, so that they know what materials have been salvaged. The contractor would also be responsible for selling these materials on,
storing them for sale at a later date, or as a last resort recycling them if they cannot be sold. This is potentially a whole other dimension of work for the contractor, and as such many
contractors might not want to get involved. A further problem for this is that within the UK, and indeed many countries where deconstruction is being considered as an alternative to
demolition, there is a lack of a supply and demand chain for reused materials (Guy & Shell, 2002). Development of such a system or the growth of second-hand material shops as
discussed by Odom (2003) would enable deconstruction to become a more appealing option for contractors. It would become much easier to sell the materials on, and therefore
provide an additional source of profit for the contractor. According to Gorgolewski (2006, p.491) ‘mechanisms are required to stimulate the market for recovered resources.’ Some
work has been done on the idea of developing business models for reused materials (Guy & Ohlsen, 2003; Penn et al. 2003; Lui, et al., 2003), however, the majority of this has occurred
within the USA, so systems specific to the UK may need to be developed. Lui, et al. (2003) suggest an internet database to record reused items that are available or required, so people
could search

The deficiency of salvage or reuse supply chains is the also amoungst prominent barriers that developers
decide on demolishion over deconstruction and reuse to deconstruct. Throughout pretty much all areas of the
world the markers for reclaimed structural components are non-existent. This often relates the expense of
landfill tipping rates considering that there is a stage at which it ends up being more economical to
deconstruct over paying landfill fees. Some states administer online databases showing salvage outlets,
salvage dealers, recycling centers, and materials exchanges.

Who has possession of the reclaimed materials after the deconstruction of a building? It is assumed, in the
majority of situations, that the reclaimed components will be claimed by the contractor (offering these
components may well be included within the tender for the job). If the contractor takes ownership, at that
point it would be their obligation to conduct an inventory of components as the deconstruction of the
building transpires, to ensure that they have knowledge of what components have been recovered. The
contractor would additionally be in charge of reselling these components on, storing them for sale at an in the
future , or as a last option recycling them in the case they can not be resold. This is essentially an entire new
dimension of services for the contractor, and because of this a large number of contractors may not choose to
get involved. An additional complication with regard to this is that throughout the UK, and undoubtedly
numerous other narions where deconstruction is being contemplated as a substitute for demolition, there is
an absence of a supply and demand chain for reused components (Guy & Shell, 2002). Development of such a
system or the growth of second-hand material shops as discussed by Odom (2003) would enable
deconstruction to become a more appealing option for contractors. It would become a lot simpler to sell the
components on, and consequently offer an added source of earnings for the contractor. According to
Gorgolewski (2006, p. 491) 'mechanisms are required to stimulate the market for recovered resources.' A little
work has been carried out on the concept of establishing business models for reused elements (Guy & Ohlsen,
2003; Penn et al. 2003; Lui, et al., 2003), having said that, most of this has taken place in the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, so programs particular to the UK may need to be created. Lui, et al. (2003) propose an online
database to present reused elements which are on offer or required, so designers could search for them when
needed.

Lack of standards for use of some recovered materials

Lack of standards and established track records for some recovered materials will inhibit their use, decreasing
the market for them. Recycled aggregates such as concrete rubble and waste tire chips are a good example of
this. An increasing number of states have incorporated standards for their use in the past few years, and as a
result, the market for natural aggregate substitutes has expanded quickly. Other recovered materials are
relatively untested and not widely collected or reused.

Re-certification of materials for structural reuse Re-certification of structural materials is currently a fairly
significant barrier to deconstruction and the subsequent reuse of structural components. It potentially affects
different materials in different ways. In some countries, like New Zealand, timber can be reused structurally if
a structural engineer states that it is fit for reuse, which means that it must be seen to last for at least fifty
years in the context of its new use (Storey, 2002). In the USA, theoretically, salvaged timber can be re-graded
using the existing grading rules, although these do not take into account problems specific to reused timber,
like nail holes. There is also the problem that many grading companies will not re-grade salvaged timber to be
used for structural purposes, as there are concerns that they will be held liable for any future problems with
it. This issue should be improved in the future as a certification system for salvaged timber is currently being
developed by the USDA/F’s – forest products laboratory. Once this is implemented is should become much
easier to reuse timber for structural purposes (Chini & Bruening, 2003, pp.23-24). Whilst further work does
seem to have been done in this area, specific certification from the forest products laboratory does not seem
to have been issued. However, there is now an FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) standard (2007) for sourcing
reclaimed material for use in FSC product groups or FSC certified products, which may be making the reuse of
timber easier.

A possible development that may help the identification of structural steel members is compulsory CE
marking for steel elements. CE marking demonstrates to ‘purchasing clients, the authorities and others that
the product complies with the appropriate harmonised European Standard’ (BCSA, 2008 p.11). The CE mark
can be placed in one of three places: the product, the packaging, or in the manuals or supporting literature.
Ideally, the CE mark and basic material properties will be placed on the product as this would make it easier to
identify elements within buildings that are about to be deconstructed, the CE mark could then link into more
detailed information about the product contained within construction drawings, enabling the maximum
amount of information about the element to be stored, which should make it easier to reuse the element. It
would also be possible to use electronic tagging of the elements to store the design information for retrieval
at the deconstruction state. Saleh (2009) suggests building information modelling (BIM) as a digital way of
storing design information, drawings, and deconstruction plans for projects so that information can be easily
accessed in the future when deconstruction will take place. If there is clear information about the material
properties and what forces the element was designed to withstand, then it should be much easier to re-certify
and reuse the element.

Within the British design codes of practice there are allowances made for the reuse of structural materials,
however test data is often required, which means it will take more time and money to specify reused
products. The design codes can be seen to imply that the use of new materials is preferable and normal
practice, which may discourage people from reusing materials (Addis, & Schouten, 2004). In addition to this, if
people recognise that it is difficult to reuse materials, this may prevent them from designing for
deconstruction on the basis that it would serve little purpose if the materials cannot be reused at the end of
the building’s life, and the additional cost would be incurred for nothing.

Buildings and sites are not designed to be deconstructed

to be deconstructed There is a high variability in assembly techniques. Connections such as pneumatically

driven nails, welding, and adhesives make disassembly challenging, and materials can be ruined during efforts
at removal.

Lack of incentives to deconstruct

One of the major barriers to deconstruction/designing for deconstruction is that there are very few incentives
in terms of legislation. Many practices which are considered to be sustainable design have legislation
supporting them – either for example requiring the design team to consider the insulating properties of the
building and for these to meet a certain standard, or there are schemes, like BREEAM which reward
sustainable design considerations. However, there is no specific legislation in Great Britain that requires the
design team to consider designing for deconstruction (Addis & Schouten, 2004), and as discussed earlier there
is no explicit wording within BREEAM to reward designing for deconstruction. Addressing these two issues
could potentially make a huge difference to the implementation of design for deconstruction within the UK, as
it would give clients an incentive to consider it within their scheme.

Among the significant barriers to designing for deconstruction is that there are really couple of rewards in
regards to legislation. Numerous practices which are thought about to be sustainable style have legislation
supporting them-- either for instance needing the style group to think about the insulating residential or
commercial properties of the structure and for these to satisfy a specific requirement, or there are plans, like
BREEAM which reward sustainable style factors to consider. Nevertheless, there is no particular legislation in
Great Britain that needs the style group to think about creating for deconstruction (Addis & Schouten, 2004),
and as talked about previously there is no specific phrasing within BREEAM to reward developing for
deconstruction. Resolving these 2 problems might possibly make a substantial distinction to the execution of
style for deconstruction within the UK, as it would provide customers a reward to consider it within their plan.
Health and Safety

Deconstructing structures may potentially present dangers to employees, as structural elements can be
weakened and also fail through the course of the deconstruction procedure. Additionally, products for
removing paint, sealants, and also adhesives can be harmful to employee health and well-being.

At an early design phase, there should be a thorough and holistic consideration to worker health and safety
during the construction and deconstruction procedures. By doing this, certain dangers can be avoided, or at
the very least significantly lowered. A number of the safety concerns that impinge on the deconstruction
procedure will coincide with those that impinge on the construction procedures; this is due to the fact that
the disassembly procedures are fundamentally the opposite of the construction procedures.

A risk assessment must be performed prior to the start of any work and undertakings specific to
deconstruction must be taken into consideration, similar to every other construction undertaking.
Disassembly is more hands on than traditional demolition methods, which can indicate that there is possibly
greater danger for the labourers during this process. Nevertheless, provided that this is taken into
consideration and preventative measures are undertaken where required, deconstruction should not lead to
a greater number of accidents when compared to traditional demolition.

An essential aspect that should be factored in prior to deconstruction is the stability of the structure, since it
will be disassembled element by element. The safest approach to accomplish this should be investigated,
bearing in mind any propping and additional temporary works that might be needed to achieve this. Assuming
that the risk assessment carried out for the construction procedures are documented and preserved
alongside the structural records, these are utilised to showcase possible challenges for the deconstruction
procedure. To conclude, the deconstruction procedure should not be more hazardous when compare to
traditional demolition procedures, the hazards faced will closely resemble those associated with those
encountered during the construction procedure.
Existing perception towards reused materials

Clients generally have preconceived notions with regards to structural elements which
have previously been used, and these can often be fairly unfavourable. Most people
having a perspective that pre-used structural elements are subpar and of a lower
quality. Likewise, it is also believed that it is unsafe to reuse structural components,
which is possibly true when it comes to particular components made from some
materials, however certainly not all.

One way to tackle the preconceived notions regarding reused structural components is
to educate clients regarding the advantages and positive aspects of reusing structural
elements. One aspect is that reused elements are typically less expensive, whilst still
actually being of good quality. It is likewise essential to stress the harmlessness of
reusing particular structural elements. For instance, the majority of structural steel
elements can be reused, since defects such as deflections and corrosion will be
apparent to the eye. Whilst it is less complicated to anticipate the performance of a
reused structural steel element compared to other materials, this doesn’t imply that
structural elements of a different material cannot be reused; however, they will most
likely simply require testing prior to being reused.
Insurance/legal constraints

The majority of insurance policies indirectly dissuade the utilisation of reused

structural elements by raising the cost of their policy when they are incorporated in
a project. Educating insurance providers of the dangers of making use of reused
elements as well as the positive aspects of utilising these elements could potentially
reassure the insurance providers, and result in a decrease in their premiums. This
would thereby assist in promoting reuse. Additionally, there are also possibly a
number of legal restrictions to utilising reused elements - conventional contracts
frequently indicate the use of structural elements, and where reused elements are
being utilised as opposed to new elements, the client will need to validate making
use of the substitute component, and in most cases will need to present a
manufacturers guarantee.

Inexperienced contractors

Presently, contractors that possess expertise and experience with the procedures of deconstruction are
scarce. Standard demolition contractors are familiar with the standard techniques of building demolition and
therefore will probably inflate costs as a result of the unfamiliar aspects that come with disassembly and
deconstruction.