case study: designing out waste brighouse and sowerby ... leisure...regulatory requirements are...

Case study: Designing out Waste

Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge Leisure Centres, Calderdale

A design review of the project to build new leisure centres at Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge in Calderdale in Yorkshire identified easy to implement ideas to reduce construction waste with the potential to reduce total project costs by £56,175, reduce the amount of waste produced on site by 251 tonnes and reduce embodied carbon by 479 tonnes.

Project code: WAS400-002 Research date: July 2008 – March 2009 Date: March 2010

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Written by: Capita Symonds Ltd

Front cover photography: Brighouse leisure centre, artists impression (Calderdale Council / Saunders Boston) WRAP and Capita Symonds believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

Executive summary Designing out Waste during the design stage of a construction project presents a significant opportunity to prevent waste from occurring on site, reducing the construction industry’s waste burdens and improving the efficiency of material usage. Through working with design teams on live projects, WRAP (Waste & Resources Action programme) has created a series of exemplar case studies which demonstrate the benefits of taking action at the design stage to reduce waste and embodied carbon by making changes that either saved money or were cost neutral based on the five key principles of Designing out Waste:

Design for Reuse and Recovery;

Design for Off Site Construction;

Design for Material Optimisation;

Design for Waste Efficient Procurement; and

Design for Deconstruction and Flexibility.

This report describes the work conducted by WRAP with Willmott Dixon and Capita Symonds to demonstrate these principles in practice by identifying cost-effective and feasible waste reducing opportunities in the design of the Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge leisure centres for Calderdale Council in Yorkshire. The Designing out Waste process comprises three stages:

Identify – engagement with the design team in a design review workshop to identify and prioritise

opportunities to reduce waste based on the five key principles of Designing out Waste;

Investigate – qualitative and quantitative analysis of prioritised alternative designs compared with the base

design, including calculation of savings in cost, waste and carbon; and

Implement – selection of solutions to implement into the design and build based on the outcome of this

analysis.

The ideas generated at the workshop were evaluated by the design team in terms of their waste reduction potential and their feasibility for implementation on the project. The following ideas generated at the design review workshop were assessed as being the most applicable and feasible to the Calderdale leisure centres and therefore taken through the next stages:

accurate assessment of material requirements to reduce over ordering and use of Good Practice rather than

Standard Practice wastage rates;

reduction of packaging where possible by bricks being delivered with just metal strapping (i.e. no pallet or

polythene shrink-wrap);

use of pre-lagged duct products instead of installation of ducting following by lagging on site;

precast concrete stairs instead of stairs cast in situ; and

selection of ceramic tile sizes to best match the size of area being tiled.

A comparative assessment of these five opportunities (i.e. base design versus alternative design) to reduce waste was undertaken to determine the difference in the overall construction cost, quantity of waste, embodied carbon, cost of waste disposal and value of material wasted. The table below summarises the results of this assessment for four of the ideas; the fifth (use of smaller tile sizes) is omitted because the design team rejected it due to its considerably higher cost than the original design. Implementing the four alternative designs would:

reduce total project costs by £56,175;

reduce waste created on site by 251 tonnes;

reduce embodied carbon by 479 tonnes;

reduce waste disposal costs by £13,582;

reduce the value of materials wasted by £20,257; and

1

2

reduce estimated labour requirements on site by 552 hours.

Results of quantitative analysis of design solutions for the Calderdale leisure centres project

Design solution Total project cost saving

Reduction in waste (tonnes)

Reduction in embodied carbon

(tonnes) A

Reduction in waste

disposal costs

Reduction in value of

materials wasted Good Practice wastage rates

£49,233 241 51.8 £12,308 £17,777

Reduced packaging on bricks

£943 6.44 15.1 £943 N/A

Pre-insulated ducting

£5962 1.58 410 £267 £657

Precast concrete stairs

£37 1.68 1.36 £64 £1823

Total £56,175 251 479 £13,582 £20,257 A: Resulting from reduced materials used and/or reduced waste created. It does not include carbon contributions from transport of materials and waste.

Contents 1.0 ............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction

1.1 .......................................................................................................5 The construction scheme1.2 ...................................................................................................................5 The project team

2.0 ................................................................................................... 5 Designing out Waste process2.1 ........................................................................................................6 Design review workshop

2.1.1 ....................................................................................................6 Awareness session2.1.2 ......................................................................................................6 Creativity session2.1.3 .....................................................................................................6 Reasoning session

2.2 ..............................................................................................................9 Quantitative analysis2.2.1 ..................................................................................................................9 Calculate2.2.2 ................................................................................................................10 Compare

2.3 ...........................................................................................................10 Selection of solutions3.0 .................................................. 11 Cost, waste and carbon reductions from selected solutions

3.1 .............................................11 Using Good Practice wastage rates to inform materials ordering3.2 .............................................................11 Bricks brought to site held with metal strapping only3.3 ............................................................................................11 Use of pre-lagged duct product3.4 ...............................................................................................12 Use of precast concrete stairs3.5 ..............................................13 Use of 100 100mm tiles to floor and 20 20mm tiles to pool

4.0 .............................................................................................................................. 13 Discussion4.1 .................................................................................................................13 Potential savings4.2 .......................................................................................14 Comments on the design solutions

Appendix A Quantitative analysis results........................................................................................... 15 Use of Good Practice wastage rates on materials ordering ..................................................................15 Brick packaging reduced...................................................................................................................18 Use of pre-lagged ducting.................................................................................................................20 Precast concrete stairs......................................................................................................................22 Use of smaller ceramic tiles sizes ......................................................................................................25

Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge Leisure Centres, Calderdale 3


1.0 Introduction The construction industry is the biggest user of materials in the UK economy, consuming more than 400 million tonnes of materials each year. It also generates over 120 million tonnes of construction, demolition and excavation waste each year – over a third of all waste – only half of which is currently recycled or reclaimed back into construction. The WRAP Construction Programme is helping the construction industry cut costs and increase efficiency through the better use of materials. It aims to set new standards for good and best practice in resource and waste management in the construction industry, and provides free access to tools and knowledge to allow contractors, designers and clients to increase the materials resource efficiency of their projects and to increase industry awareness of the commercial benefits of doing so. The best opportunities to reduce materials use and waste in construction occur by working at the earliest stages possible in the construction process. Empowering design teams to identify and act upon these opportunities to design out waste is therefore key to achieving the Government’s and industry’s commitment to Halving Waste to Landfill by 2012. Decisions made throughout the evolution of a design can have a major impact on the levels of materials used and waste which arises during the physical construction and future demolition, of a project. Often these decisions are made based on considerations such as site constraints, client requirements for improved performance or finish, or compliance with Building Regulations, but currently these considerations rarely include improving materials resource efficiency or reducing waste. ‘Designing out Waste’ during the design stage presents a major opportunity to prevent the generation of waste on site thus improving resource efficiency, reducing waste to landfill and saving carbon – and reducing project costs. The five key principles of Designing out Waste are:

Design for Reuse and Recovery;

Design for Off Site Construction;

Design for Material Optimisation;

Design for Waste Efficient Procurement; and

Design for Deconstruction and Flexibility.

WRAP has worked closely with the construction industry to develop a design review process for ‘Designing out Waste’ to help design teams apply these principles to minimise the amount of construction waste produced through early changes to design, specification and procurement. A guide, Designing out Waste: A design team guide for buildings1 presenting this design review process was published by WRAP in June 2009 and is recognised by RIBA within its core curriculum. This report describes work conducted as part of a WRAP project to work with the design teams of major live construction projects. The WRAP project had four main objectives:

to identify opportunities to minimise the amount of construction, demolition and excavation waste produced at

the outline design stage;

to positively influence projects by gaining client, contractor and design team buy in to identify and adopt

appropriate waste minimisation design solutions;

to gather evidence of the waste, cost and embodied carbon savings as a result of the adopted solutions; and

to follow and test WRAP’s design guidance and design review process.

A number of construction projects were selected to be involved in this WRAP project and to produce exemplar case studies. This report summarises the findings of work by Capita Symonds (on behalf of WRAP) conducted with Willmott Dixon to identify and investigate opportunities for Designing out Waste on the Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge leisure centres for Calderdale Council in Yorkshire.

1 Available from the WRAP website (www.wrap.org.uk/designingoutwaste)

1.1 The construction scheme Calderdale Council has undertaken to provide two new public swimming pools in Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge as replacements for the existing/previous provision of swimming pool facilities. The Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge leisure centres are being built on land owned by Calderdale Council. The Brighouse Pool is to be located at Wellholme Park on the site of existing tennis courts and car park. The site is close to Brighouse town centre and nearby local transport links. The Sowerby Bridge Pool will be located on the site of a demolished outdoor market close to the town’s railway station. The project design is presently at RIBA Stage D and both sites are scheduled to be completed by spring 2011, with the Brighouse Pool targeted to open in autumn 2010. The combined budget for the schemes is £11 million and the buildings will be designed and constructed to attain a BREEAM ‘good’ rating. The new buildings will offer modern swimming facilities suitable for public leisure users, schools and other local community users. Furthermore, the specification for the development is to ensure accessibility for users of all ages and abilities. The pools will be 25m by 10.5m and capable of providing for basic competitions and training, including classes for local schools and community groups. Each building will house a learner pool facility and fitness suite and provide car/coach parking. The Brighouse site also involves the relocation of the existing tennis courts. A number of specifications and conditions may limit potential changes to the designs.

The location of both sites means they are subject to strict planning conditions relating to the visual impact of

the development.

The two locations are very different areas with respect to the external appearance of the existing buildings. As

such, each facility has been designed to suit the surrounding area and any change to one building design may

not be applicable to the other without adaptation.

The design of the buildings and pool needs to comply with various different regulations and guidance relating

to public use (e.g. Sports Council and Sport England Design Guidance) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

legislation.

1.2 The project team Capita Symonds was contracted by WRAP to:

facilitate the design review workshop (see section 2);

carry out the subsequent cost, waste and environmental assessments; and

develop the exemplar case study.

Capita Architecture, one of the UK’s largest architectural practices and the architectural brand of Capita Symonds, supported Capita Symonds in developing this exemplar case study. The project team is made up of:

Willmott Dixon (main contractor);

Turner and Townsend (project manager);

Saunders Boston (architect);

The Building Services Partnership (M&E engineer);

GCM Consulting Engineers (structural engineer); and

Re-Thinking (BREEAM consultants).

2.0 Designing out Waste process The Designing out Waste process devised by WRAP involves three stages: 1 Identify alternative design solutions which reduce materials use and/or creation of waste, and prioritise

those that will have the biggest impact and be easiest to implement. This stage requires some form of design review, and WRAP’s Designing out Waste guide presents the format for a facilitated design review workshop which ensures a robust approach involving all the design team.


2 Investigate the prioritised solutions further and quantify the benefits in terms of reductions in waste, cost and carbon. This enables evidence-based decision-making on which design solutions to implement.

3 Implement the agreed solutions in the project through the plans, specifications and contracts. Record the solutions in the Site Waste Management Plan to ensure they are fully communicated to the contractor and the quantified benefits are communicated to the client.

Designing out Waste: a design team guide for buildings recommends undertaking the design review workshop during RIBA Stage C. 2.1 Design review workshop The design review workshop was held during RIBA Stage C of the project on 24 February 2009 at Turner & Townsend’s office in Leeds. It was attended by:

Michelle Powers – Capita Symonds;

Chris Hubball – Capita Architecture;

Sarah Bacsich – Turner and Townsend;

Mark Howl – Willmott Dixon;

Simon Paxford – Willmott Dixon;

Duncan Brundell – Calderdale Council;

Brendan Mowforth – Calderdale Council;

Martin Lindus – Saunders Boston Architects; Nathan Swift – Saunders Boston Architects;

Andrew Critoph – Saunders Boston Architects;

John Abbott – Building Services Partnership; Martin Tunnicliffe – Building Services Partnership; and

Crystal Macleod – BREEAM Assessor, Re-Thinking

The workshop had three separate but consecutive sessions:

Awareness session – review of Designing out Waste principles and summary of the construction project;

Creativity session – ideas generation; and

Reasoning session – ideas classification and prioritisation.

2.1.1 Awareness session The first session included a brief overview of WRAP’s construction programme, materials resource efficiency and the aims of the design review workshop. The design team then gave a short presentation on the Headley Court scheme, highlighting some of the specifications from the design brief and project restrictions. 2.1.2 Creativity session A brainstorming session was then undertaken where all members of the team were encouraged to suggest ideas of how waste could be prevented or reduced. The aim was to create an atmosphere where ideas were stimulated through people thinking ‘outside of the box’. Attendees were encouraged to ‘brainstorm’ a series of design opportunities that would effectively reduce construction waste in the project. The role of the facilitator was to encourage the design team to have a free flow of ideas, and to identify as many opportunities as possible. All ideas, regardless of feasibility, were recorded. 2.1.3 Reasoning session Following the brainstorming session, the complete list of ideas was reviewed by the whole team with ideas being sorted into those already incorporated into the design (Table 1) and new ideas that were not incorporated (Table 2). The ideas were then evaluated by the group for their waste reduction potential and their feasibility for implementation on the project in terms of cost, programme and quality. Although a rough initial assessment, this helped to quickly identify the top opportunities with the greatest impact on waste and the most likely to be pursued on the project. All ideas were prioritised by the team by classifying as either A, B, C or D as per the simple ‘opportunity’ matrix shown in Figure 1:



Section A – High impact on waste reduction, easy to implement.

Section B – High impact on waste reduction, difficult to implement.

Section C – Low impact on waste reduction, easy to implement.

Section D – Low impact on waste reduction, difficult to implement.

The facilitator steered the discussion towards selection of those ideas with the greatest potential to minimise waste and applicability to a wide range of construction projects.

Figure 1 Opportunity matrix used to evaluate waste reduction ideas

Table 1 Ideas already incorporated into the design Idea Rating Cut and fill balance to prevent removal of material. A Capping of contaminated areas to prevent the need for disposal. A Reuse of existing car park. A Mulch or composting of trees removed for the development. A Off site manufacture of changing room cubicles. A Sequencing of ordering and sub-contractor management to reduce waste. A Set ‘design freezes’ dates throughout the programme. A Inclusion of easily recyclable materials: steel frame, timber cladding, windows. A Raising the building level to allow deposit of material under the slab to reduce waste exported off site (Sowerby Bridge only).

B

Crushing of existing slab for sale to another project/ground works contractor (Brighouse only). B Provision of a range of skips and containers for source segregation. C


Table 2 Ideas not incorporated into the design Idea Rating Use of precast concrete stairs. A Cool duct pre-lagging and/or use of ‘insulation only’ ducting which requires no metal work. A Use of tarmac instead of concrete paving. A Building designed to accommodate standard cladding sizes. A Selection of ceramic tile sizes to best match the size of area being tiled. A Accurate assessment of material requirements to reduce over ordering and use of Good Practice wastage rates.2

A

Reduction of packaging where possible by delivery of bricks with no pallet or polythene – just strapping and specification of Euro pallets to be used where possible.

A

Sourcing of take back schemes for packaging. A Sale of stone to ground works contractor. B Sell or recycle tarmac off site. B Off site pre-lagged pipe work. B Use of precast floor slabs. B Use of non-standard materials sized to better match the design e.g. plasterboard. B Reuse of tennis court sub base type 1 under building slab or hard standing areas. C Timber planks for cladding cut to size off site. C Greywater system for site compound to remove and reduce need for temporary drainage systems. C Specification of recycled content in aggregate blocks, soft floor coverings, gypsum board/partitions, recycled glass sand, screed and aggregates.

C

Use of a composting toilet during construction. D Crushing of existing slabs for reuse on site. D Reuse of stone from the river wall to form gabions. D Panellised timber cladding. D Use of pre-finished stainless steel pool tanks. D Use of toilet pods. D Reduction in the number of pool tanks (only have one pool). D Sequencing of the ordering and delivery to minimise site storage time. D The team then created a shortlist of their preferred options (Table 3) with the aim of including up to 10 design solutions with those rated ‘A’ the most preferable, followed by ‘B’ and ‘C’, then ‘D’.

Table 3 Shortlist of design solutions Idea Rating Use of precast concrete stairs. A Use of cool duct pre-lagging and/or use of ‘insulation only’ ducting with no metal work. A Use of tarmac instead of concrete paving. A Building designed to accommodate standard cladding sizes. A Selection of ceramic tile sizes to best match the size of area being tiled. A Accurate assessment of material requirements to reduce over ordering and use of Good Practice wastage rates.

A

Reduction of packaging where possible by delivery of bricks with no pallet or polythene – just strapping and specification of Euro pallets to be used where possible.

A

Further research and discussion helped to refine and clarify the design solutions on the shortlist to decide on those appropriate for quantitative analysis. The following questions were considered:

Would the design solution satisfy the client’s requirements?

What would be the likely cost (based on previous experience and industry knowledge of the design team)?

2 The percentage amount of a component (i.e. single material or product) that is likely to be wasted based on procurement and construction practice consistent with implementing Good Practice within a Site Waste Management Plan.

How practical was the solution (based on previous experience, knowledge of the design team and

understanding of site constraints in implementing solutions, e.g. storage of components)?

Based on this discussion, the following options were discounted:

Use of tarmac instead of concrete paving. The design team stated that this would not get client approval

for aesthetic reasons.

Building designed to accommodate standard cladding sizes. Kingspan cladding is specified in the base

design and it is ordered to size as standard; therefore this idea is already incorporated.

There were problems with taking further the idea of using cool duct pre-lagging and/or use of ‘insulation only’ ducting with no metal work as, at the time of the assessment, the design was not developed enough to give estimates of the quantities of ducting required for the building. However, the design team was very interested in this idea, so Capita Symonds looked into the products available and the potential savings to be achieved as part of the assessment. As a result of this selection process, four alternative design opportunities (Table 4) were taken forward to a full quantitative analysis:

Table 4 Ideas selected for quantitative analysis Base design Alternative design Applying Standard Practice wastage rates to materials. Using Good Practice wastage rates to inform materials

ordering. Bricks being brought to site on pallets with polythene shrink wrapping and metal strapping.

Bricks brought to site held with metal strapping only (i.e. no pallet or polythene).

Installation of metal sheet ducting followed by lagging of ducting on site.

Use of pre-lagged duct product such as Kingspan KoolDuct.

Concrete stairs cast in situ. Use of precast concrete stairs. Use of 300 300mm tiles to floor and 200 100mm tiles to pool.

Use of 100 100mmm tiles to floor and 20 20mm tiles to pool.

2.2 Quantitative analysis Five design ideas were selected at the workshop for quantitative analysis. The impact of the changes was quantified by comparing the original design (base design) with the alternative design as shown in Table 4. A quantitative analysis was undertaken of the potential cost, waste and embodied carbon savings by changing from the base design to the alternative design. To provide the most accurate assessment of the actual quantities involved and costs of materials, Capita Symonds cost consultants drew estimates from the latest design drawings and cost plan estimates available at the time of assessment. 2.2.1 Calculate The first step in the assessment was to calculate:

Total construction cost of design – based on the material composition of the design and the unit rates

(including labour, plant and material costs) provided by the surveyor;

Quantity of waste created on site – application of industry material wastage rates (%) to material

quantities (m3) summed to give the volume of waste (m3) arising from the base design and alternative design.

Standard conversion factors applied to convert to mass (tonnes);

Cost of waste disposal – volume of waste (m3) calculated above multiplied by the unit cost of waste

disposal;



Value of materials wasted – material unit rates (£) multiplied by the volume of waste (m3) to determine

the cost.3 This cost was multiplied by the materials percentage to exclude plant and labour and determine the

value of materials wasted (£); and

Total embodied carbon – the sum of the embodied carbon of the materials used for a function in a design

and the embodied carbon of the material waste resulting from that design.4 The savings in the embodied

carbon of waste materials was measured by converting the savings in waste materials (m3) to tonnes of

carbon. The Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE)5 developed by researchers at the Department of Mechanical

Engineering, University of Bath was used for the conversion.

WRAP’s Net Waste Tool, Guide to Reference Data, Version 1.0 (May 2008)6 was used to source Good Practice wastage rates, waste disposal costs and materials percentages. The detailed calculations are presented in Appendix A. To estimate the quantity of waste diverted from landfill due to the changes in design, recycling/recovery rates would need to be applied to the quantity of waste arising on site. These rates depend on the site waste management strategy chosen for the site, which is usually not fixed at the design stage of the project. WRAP provides guidance on planning and implementing Good Practice site waste minimisation and management projects.7 2.2.2 Compare The second step was to compare for the base design and alternative design of the different ideas on the shortlist:

total construction cost;

quantity of waste created on site;

cost of waste disposal;

total project cost (total construction cost + cost of waste disposal);

value of materials wasted; and

total embodied carbon.

The results of the quantitative analysis of the five waste reducing opportunities are summarised in section 3. 2.3 Selection of solutions Following the quantitative analysis, the results were presented to the design team, client and contractor, with the aim of pursuing and implementing in the construction project those alternative designs which were shown to reduce waste and to either break even or give cost savings. These are discussed in section 4.

3 The value of materials wasted provides a measure of a component of the total construction cost which is spent but does not form a useful function in the finished building. It also represents a measure of unnecessary depletion of finite natural resources which could be avoided by reducing waste through the alternative design change.

4 These are assessed independently as although a reduction in waste from a design change will also reduce the embodied carbon of the waste impact, the alternative design may itself have a higher embodied carbon than the original design. For example, a design manufactured off site may produce less waste than the traditional in situ solution and thus the embodied carbon impact of waste may be less, but it may use materials with a higher embodied carbon or a more carbon intensive manufacturing process.

5 www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/

6 www.wrap.org.uk/nwtool

7 www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guidance/waste_minimisation_and_management/waste_man_guidance.html

3.0 Cost, waste and carbon reductions from selected solutions 3.1 Using Good Practice wastage rates to inform materials ordering The financial impact to the project of using Good Practice wastage rates would be a saving in the total project cost of £49,233 (Table 5). There would also be environmental benefits in using Good Practice wastage rates in terms of:

a total reduction in waste created on site of 240 tonnes; and

a total reduction in embodied carbon of 52 tonnes.

The saving in waste disposal costs would be £12,308 and the saving in the value of materials wasted £17,777.

Table 5 Using Good Practice wastage rates to inform materials ordering – results of quantitative analysis

Base design Alternative design Reduction

Total project cost A £334,559 £285,326 £49,233

Waste created on site 308 tonnes 67.1 tonnes 240 tonnes

Embodied carbon in materials 317 tonnes 317 tonnes 0 tonnes

Embodied carbon in waste B 66.7 tonnes 14.9 tonnes 51.8 tonnes

Total embodied carbon 383 tonnes 332 tonnes 51.8 tonnes

Cost of waste disposal £16,099 £3791 £12,308

Value of materials wasted £23,833 £6056 £17,777

A: Includes cost of waste disposal. B: Does not include carbon impact of transporting waste or recycling/recovery/disposal method. 3.2 Bricks brought to site held with metal strapping only The financial impact of reducing the packaging on the bricks delivered to site would be a saving in waste disposal costs of £943 (Table 6). There would also be environmental benefits in terms of:



Table 6 Bricks brought to site held with metal strapping only – results of quantitative analysis


Total project cost A £943 £0 £943

Waste created on site 7.79 tonnes 1.35 tonnes 6.44 tonnes

Embodied carbon in materials Not applicable


Total embodied carbon 15.3 tonnes 0.27 tonnes 15.1 tonnes

Cost of waste disposal £943 £0 £943

Value of materials wasted Not applicable

A: Includes cost of waste disposal. It is assumed that the supply cost of the bricks does not change. B: Does not include carbon impact of transporting waste or recycling/recovery/disposal method. 3.3 Use of pre-lagged duct product In the absence of any project specific quantities, an arbitrary length (500m) of ducting was used in the assessment. The figures given in Table 7 are therefore for comparison only. The financial impact of using pre-lagged ducting would be a saving in the total project cost of £5962 (Table 7). There would also be environmental benefits in terms of:




The saving in waste disposal costs would be £267 and the saving in the value of materials wasted £657. It is estimated that the use of pre-lagged duct could also reduce the site labour requirement by 552 hours.

Table 7 Use of pre-lagged duct product – results of quantitative analysis


Total project cost A £23,676 £17,714 £5962

Waste created on site 1.58 tonnes 0 tonnes 1.58 tonnes

Embodied carbon in materials 398 tonnes 0 398 tonnes

Embodied carbon in waste B 12.3 tonnes 0 12.3 tonnes

Total embodied carbon 410 tonnes 0 410 tonnes


Value of materials wasted £954 £297 £657

A: Includes cost of waste disposal. B: Does not include carbon impact of transporting waste or recycling/recovery/disposal method. 3.4 Use of precast concrete stairs The savings for the use of precast concrete stairs are relatively low because there are only two staircases; the financial impact would be a saving in the total project cost of only £37 (Table 8). The cost of the alternative design (£10,530) is slightly higher than the cost of the base design (£10,503) but the reduction in waste disposal costs of £64 makes up for this. However the base design would result in £1823 worth of wasted materials, whereas the alternative design does not waste materials. There would also be environmental benefits from using precast concrete stairs in terms of:


a total reduction in embodied carbon of around 1 tonne.

The saving in waste disposal costs would be £64 and the saving in the value of materials wasted £1823. It is estimated that the use of precast concrete stairs could also reduce the site labour requirement by 22 hours.

Table 8 Use of precast concrete stairs – results of quantitative analysis


Total project cost A £10,567 £10,530 £37

Waste created on site 1.68 tonnes 0 1.68 tonnes

Embodied carbon in materials 4.42 tonnes 3.48 tonnes 0.94 tonnes



Cost of waste disposal £64 0 £64

Value of materials wasted £1823 0 £1823

A: Includes cost of waste disposal. B: Does not include carbon impact of transporting waste or recycling/recovery/disposal method.


3.5 Use of 100 100mm tiles to floor and 20 20mm tiles to pool The financial impact of using the smaller tiles would be an increase in the total project cost of £36,070 (Table 9), primarily due to the higher labour costs. However, there would be environmental benefits in using smaller tiles in terms of:

a total waste reduction of 4 tonnes; and


The saving in waste disposal costs would be £120 and the saving in the value of materials wasted £1144.

Table 9 Use of 100 100mmm tiles to floor and 20 20mm tiles to pool – results of quantitative analysis


Total project cost A £149,610 £185,680 (£36,070)

Waste created on site 8.40 tonnes 4.15 tonnes 4.25 tonnes

Embodied carbon in materials 39.8 tonnes 34.3 tonnes 5.58 tonnes




Value of materials wasted £6127 £4983 £1144

A: Includes cost of waste disposal. B: Does not include carbon impact of transporting waste or recycling/recovery/disposal method. 4.0 Discussion 4.1 Potential savings The design team agreed to implement four of the five ideas assessed:

use of Good Practice wastage rates;

reduction in packaging by bricks being delivered with just metal strapping (i.e. no pallet or polythene);

use of pre-lagged duct products (products available for cool duct pre-lagging/‘insulation only’ ducting were

considered in the absence of project-specific quantities); and

use of precast concrete stairs.

Although selecting ceramic tile sizes to best match the size of area being tiled (i.e. using smaller tile sizes in and around the swimming pools) was shown to give small but significant waste and embodied carbon reductions, the high cost was not felt in this instance to be justified. Table 10 shows the benefits to the project of implementing the four alternative designs adopted by the design team. The figures exclude the savings from using smaller tiles as this idea was rejected by the design team following the quantitative analysis. The total project cost saving is £56,175 of which £13,582 is due to savings in waste disposal costs. There is also a reduction of £20,257 in the total value of materials wasted. The environmental benefits are also significant; the reduction in waste created on site is 251 tonnes and the total reduction in embodied carbon is 479 tonnes. Greater use of off site construction (precast concrete stairs and pre-lagged ducting) is estimated to reduce labour requirements by a total of 552 hours.


Table 10 Potential benefits of the four adopted design solutions

Design solution Total project cost saving A

Reduction in waste (tonnes)

Reduction in embodied carbon

(tonnes) B

Reduction in waste

disposal costs

Reduction in value of

materials wasted Good Practice wastage rates

£49,233 241 51.8 £12,308 £17,777

Reduced packaging on bricks

£943 6.44 15.1 £943 N/A

Pre-insulated ducting

£5962 1.58 410 £267 £657

Precast concrete stairs

£37 1.68 1.36 £64 £1823

Total £56,175 251 479 £13,582 £20,257 A: Cost of construction + waste disposal cost B: Total of embodied carbon in materials and waste. 4.2 Comments on the design solutions All five of the design solutions considered in detail for the Calderdale leisure centres at Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge offer the potential for waste and embodied carbon. Most also achieve this with cost savings or being cost neutral, though the design solution to use smaller tiles was found to have a significant additional cost. This increased cost in part reflects the increase in labour required to install the tiles. The idea of having bricks delivered to site with reduced packaging came from a previous Willmott Dixon project where one of its national suppliers delivered bricks strapped together with no pallet or polythene wrapping. Other ideas for reducing packaging were discussed during the workshop and Willmott Dixon is working on a national scale with its suppliers to reduce and reuse packaging where possible. The reduction of brick packaging gives good waste savings on site and the lack of polythene has the additional benefit of reducing the likelihood of wind-blown litter on site. However, it depends on finding suppliers willing to try this method. The size of Willmott Dixon’s operations make options such as this more likely to be successful than a smaller contractor as the company’s greater purchasing power tends to give it greater control over its supply chain. The assessment on the use of pre-insulated ducting was based on an arbitrary figure. Ideally this assessment would be refined later in the design programme to allow project specific figures to be determined.


Appendix A Quantitative analysis results In the tables below:

Container bulking factors refer to the amount of void space within a skip and are required to calculate the

actual volume of space taken up by a particular material. There are two sets of bulking factors – one set for

non-compacted waste and another for compacted, both of which apply at the material level.

Unit waste disposal costs are based on segregated skip strategy rates and non-compacted bulking factors.

Use of Good Practice wastage rates on materials ordering Base design: Applying Standard Practice wastage rates to materials.

Alternative design: Using Good Practice wastage rates to inform materials ordering.

Table A1 Base design – quantification of material and waste

Element Material

Quan

tity

Unit

Oth

er dimen

sion

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Waste rate (%

)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

External and internal blockwork (6137 m2)

Dense aggregate concrete blocks; 140mm thick

7671.25 m2 0.14 1.40 1073.98 1503.57 20 214.80 300.71

Carpet tiles 500 500 carpet tile 578.95 0.01 1.50 5.79 8.68 5 0.29 0.43

Vinyl flooring 2.5mm vinyl flooring 1533.68 m2 0.003 1.10 4.60 5.06 5 0.23 0.25

Hardwood skirting

125mm hardwood skirting

1350.00 m 0.0013 0.50 1.76 0.88 10 0.18 0.09

Suspended ceiling

600 600 ceiling tile and grid

2549.48 m2 0.02 3.00 50.99 152.97 3 1.53 4.59

Insulation (under slab) 100mm 1585.88 m2 0.09 0.02 142.73 2.85 15 21.41 0.43

Insulation (to cavity) 50mm 4397.65 m2 0.05 0.03 219.88 6.60 15 32.98 0.99

Total 1499.73 1680.61 271.41 307.49


Table A2 Alternative design – quantification of material and waste

Element Material

Quan

tity

Unit

Oth

er dimen

sion

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Waste rate (%

)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

External and internal blockwork (6137 m2)


6460.00 m2 0.14 1.40 904.40 1266.16 5 45.22 63.31

Carpet tiles 500 500 carpet tile 561.22 0.01 1.50 5.61 8.42 2 0.11 0.17

Vinyl flooring 2.5mm vinyl flooring 1486.73 m2 0.003 1.10 4.46 4.91 2 0.09 0.10

Hardwood skirting

125mm hardwood skirting

1278.95 m 0.0013 0.50 1.66 0.83 5 0.08 0.04

Suspended ceiling

600 600 ceiling tile and grid

2523.47 m2 0.02 3.00 50.47 151.41 2 1.01 3.03

Insulation (under slab) 100mm 1418.95 m2 0.09 0.02 127.71 2.55 55 6.39 0.13

Insulation (to cavity) 50mm 3934.74 m2 0.05 0.03 196.74 5.90 5 9.84 0.30

Total 1291.05 1440.18 62.74 67.08

Table A3 Base design – cost of waste disposal

Material type Quantity of waste Unit Bulking

factor Material

type

Unit cost of waste disposal

Total cost of waste disposal

External and internal blockwork (6137m2) 214.80 m³ 0.5 Inert £28 £12,028.52

Carpet tiles 0.29 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £20.84 Vinyl flooring 0.23 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £16.56 Hardwood skirting 0.18 m³ 0.5 Timber £18 £6.32 Suspended ceiling 1.53 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £110.14 Insulation (under slab) 21.41 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £1,541.48 Insulation (to cavity) 32.98 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £2,374.73

Total £16,098.59

Table A4 Alternative design – cost of waste disposal


factor Material

type



External and internal blockwork (6137m2) 45.22 m³ 0.5 Inert £28 £2,532.32

Carpet tiles 0.11 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £8.08 Vinyl flooring 0.09 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £6.42 Hardwood skirting 0.08 m³ 0.5 Timber £18 £2.99 Suspended ceiling 1.01 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £72.68 Insulation (under slab) 6.39 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £459.74 Insulation (to cavity) 9.84 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £708.25 Total £3,790.48


Table A5 Base design – value of materials wasted

Material Quantity Unit Unit rate Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Waste rate

Value of wasted

materials External and internal blockwork (6137m2)

7671.3 m2 £25.72 £197,306 44% £86,814 20% £17,363

Carpet tiles 578.9 m2 £22.96 £13,292 77% £10,235 5% £512 Vinyl flooring 1533.7 m2 £12.80 £19,631 40% £7,852 5% £393 Hardwood skirting 1350.0 m2 £7.70 £10,395 72% £7,484 10% £748 Suspended ceiling 2549.5 m2 £16.41 £41,837 57% £23,847 3% £715 Insulation (under slab) 1585.9 m2 £7.31 £11,593 78% £9,042 15% £1356

Insulation (to cavity) 4397.6 m2 £5.55 £24,407 75% £18,305 15% £2746

Cost of base design £318,460 Total value of wasted materials £23,833

Table A6 Alternative design – value of materials wasted

Material Quantity Unit Unit rate Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Waste rate

Value of wasted

materials External and internal blockwork (6137m2)

6460 m2 £25.72 £166,151 44% £73,107 5% £3655

Carpet tiles 561 m2 £22.96 £12,886 77% £9,922 2% £198 Vinyl flooring 1487 m2 £12.80 £19,030 40% £7,612 2% £152 Hardwood skirting 1279 m2 £7.70 £9,848 72% £7,090 5% £355 Suspended ceiling 2523 m2 £16.41 £41,410 57% £23,604 2% £472 Insulation (under slab) 1419 m2 £7.31 £10,373 78% £8,091 5% £405 Insulation (to cavity) 3935 m2 £5.55 £21,838 745% £16,378 5% £819 Cost of alternative design £281,535 Total value of wasted materials £6056

Table A7 Base design – impact on CO2 emissions

Element Material Quantity materials (tonnes)

Quantity of waste in design

(tonnes)

CO2 equivalents

Material CO2

impact (tonnes)

Waste CO2

impact (tonnes)

External and internal blockwork (6137m2)


1202.85 300.71 0.20 240.57 60.14

Carpet tiles 500 500 carpet tile 8.25 0.43 3.97 19.09 1.72

Vinyl flooring 2.5 mm vinyl flooring 4.81 0.25 3.97 0.38 1.00

Hardwood skirting 125mm hardwood skirting

0.79 0.09 0.48 2.97 0.04

Suspended ceiling 600 600 ceiling tile and grid

148.38 4.59 0.02 6.33 0.09

Insulation (under slab) 100mm 2.43 0.43 2.61 6.33 1.12

Insulation (to cavity) 50mm 5.61 0.99 2.61 14.63 2.58

Total 316.72 66.71


Table A8 Alternative design – impact on CO2 emissions


Quantity of waste

(tonnes)

CO2 equivalents

Material CO2

impact (tonnes)

Waste CO2

impact (tonnes)

External and internal blockwork (6137m2)


1202.85 63.31 0.20 240.57 12.66

Carpet tiles 500 500 carpet tile 8.25 0.17 3.97 32.75 0.67

Vinyl flooring 2.5 mm vinyl flooring 4.81 0.10 3.97 19.09 0.39

Hardwood skirting 125mm hardwood skirting

0.79 0.04 0.48 0.38 0.02

Suspended ceiling 600 600 ceiling tile and grid

148.38 3.03 0.02 2.97 0.06

Insulation (under slab) 100mm 2.43 0.13 2.61 6.33 0.33

Insulation (to cavity) 50mm 5.61 0.30 2.61 14.63 0.77

Total 316.72 14.90

Table A9 Summary Base design Alternative design Reduction Cost of design £318,460 £281,535 £36,925

Cost of waste disposal £16,099 £3791 £12308

Total project cost £334,559 £285,326 £49,233

Total waste arisings 307.49 tonnes 67.07 tonnes 240.43 tonnes

Value of wasted material £23,833 £6056 £17,777

Material carbon 316.72 tonnes 316.72 tonnes 0 tonnes

Waste carbon 66.71 tonnes 14.90 tonnes 51.80 tonnes

Total carbon 383.43 tonnes 331.63 tonnes 51.80 tonnes Brick packaging reduced Base design: Bricks being brought to site on pallets with shrink wrapping and metal strapping.

Alternative design: Bricks brought to site held with metal strapping only.


Material Quantity Unit Density (tonnes/m3)

Volume of material

(m3)

Tonnes of material

Wastage rate (%)

Quantity of waste

(m3)

Quantity of waste

(tonnes) Pallets @ 0.99kg/m2 blockwork

6076 kg 0.50 12.15 6.08 100% 12.15 6.08

Plastics @ 0.06kg/m2 blockwork

368 kg 0.35 1.05 0.37 100% 1.05 0.37

Metal strapping @ 0.22kg/m2 blockwork

1350 kg 2.70 0.50 1.35 100% 0.50 1.35

Total 13.70 7.79



Material Quantity Unit Density (tonnes/m3)

Volume of material

(m3)

Tonnes of

material

Wastage rate (%)

Quantity of waste

(m3)

Quantity of waste (tonnes)

Metal strapping @ 0.22kg/m2 blockwork

1350 kg 2.70 0.50 1.35 100 0.50 1.35

Total 0.50 1.35



factor Material

type Unit cost of

waste disposal Total cost of

waste disposal Pallets @ 0.99kg/m2 blockwork 12.15 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £868.52

Plastics @ 0.06kg/m2 blockwork 1.05 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £75.20

Metal strapping @ 0.22kg/m2 blockwork 0.50 m³ 0.5 Metal £0 £0

Total £943.72



factor Material

type Unit cost of


waste disposal Metal strapping @ 0.22kg/m2 blockwork 0.50 m³ 0.5 Metal £0 £0

Total £0


Element Material Quantity of

waste (tonnes)

CO2 equivalents Waste CO2

impact (tonnes)

Pallets @ 0.99kg/m2 blockwork 6.08 0.48 2.89

Plastics @ 0.06kg/m2 blockwork 0.37 2.53 0.93 Packaging for 6137m2 blockwork

Metal strapping @ 0.22kg/m2 blockwork 1.35 8.53 11.52 Total 15.34


Element Material Quantity of

waste (tonnes)

CO2 equivalents Waste CO2

impact (tonnes)

Packaging for 6137m2 blockwork

Metal strapping @ 0.22kg/m2 blockwork 1.35 0.20 0.27

Total 0.27


Table A16 Summary Base design Alternative design Reduction Cost of design N/A N/A N/A


Total project cost £943 £0 £943


Value of wasted material N/A N/A N/A

Material carbon N/A N/A N/A


Total carbon 15.34 tonnes 0.27 tonnes 15.07 tonnes Use of pre-lagged ducting Base design: Installation of metal sheet ducting followed by lagging of ducting on site.

Alternative design: Use of pre-insulated duct product such as Kingspan KoolDuct.


Element Material

Quan

tity

Unit

Oth

er dimen

sion

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Wastage rate

Quan

tity of waste

(in base unit)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

250mm diameter spiral sheet metal ducting (mild steel)

500 m 0.015 7.85 5.89 46.25 3% 15.00 0.18 1.39 Ducting for heating/air conditioning/ ventilation

40mm lagging 714 m2 0.04 0.05 28.56 1.29 15% 107.10 4.28 0.19

Total 4.46 1.58


Element Material

Quan

tity

Unit

Oth

er dim

ension

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Wastage rate

Quan

tity of w

aste (in base unit)

Quan

tity of w

aste (m3)

Quan

tity of w

aste (tonnes)

Ducting for heating/air conditioning/ ventilation

250mm diameter Spiralite ducting – pre-insulated

500 m 0.02 0.001 8.69 0.01 3% 15.00 0.26 0.00

Total 0.26 0.00



Material type Quantity of waste

Unit Bulking factor

Material type Unit cost of


waste disposal

Mild steel ducting 0.18 m3 0.76 Metals £0 £0

40mm thick duct wrap insulation

4.28 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £306.20

Total £306.20



Unit Bulking factor

(increase in rates) Material type


Total cost of waste

disposal Spiralite pre-insulated ducting

0.26 m³ 0.76 Mixed £36 £38.82

Total £38.82


Material Quantity Unit Unit rate

Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Wastage

rate

Value of wasted

materials 250mm diameter spiral sheet metal ducting (mild steel)

500 m £33.78 £16,890 54% £9121 3% £273.62

40mm lagging 500 m £12.96 £6480 70% £4536 15% £680.40

Cost of base design £23,370 Total value of wasted materials £954.02



Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Wastage

rate

Value of wasted

materials 250mm diameter Spiralite ducting – pre-insulated

500 m £35.35 £17,675 56% £9898 3% £296.94

Cost of alternative design £17,675 Total value of wasted materials £296.94




CO2 equivalents

Material CO2 impact

(tonnes)

Waste CO2 impact

(tonnes) 250mm diameter spiral sheet metal ducting (mild steel)

46.25 1.39 8.53 394.48 11.83 Ducting for heating/ air conditioning/ ventilation

40mm lagging 1.29 0.19 2.61 3.35 0.50

Total 397.83 12.34





CO2 equivalents

Material CO2 impact

(tonnes)

Waste CO2 impact

(tonnes) Ducting for heating/ air conditioning/ ventilation

250mm diameter Spiralite ducting – pre-insulated

0.01 0.00 2.61 0.03 0.00

Total 0.03 0.00

Table A25 Summary Base design Alternative design Reduction Cost of design £23,370 £17,675 £5695


Total project cost £23,676 £17,714 £5962

Total waste arisings 1.58 tonnes 0 tonnes 1.58 tonnes

Value of wasted material £954 £297 £657

Material carbon 397.83 tonnes 0 tonnes 397.83 tonnes

Waste carbon 12.34 tonnes 0 tonnes 12.34 tonnes

Total carbon 410.17 tonnes 0 tonnes 410.17 tonnes NB: The requirement for labour is estimated to be reduced by 552 hours. Based on straight installation, 60% reduction quoted

for Spiralite product. Precast concrete stairs Base design: Stairs cast in situ.

Alternative design: Use of precast concrete stairs.


Element Material

Quan

tity

Unit

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Waste rate (%

)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

Concrete 6.03 m³ 2.40 6.03 14.47 5% 0.30 0.72

Formwork 0.69 m³ 0.50 0.69 0.35 100% 0.69 0.35 Precast concrete stairs; two half landings; 4m rise. Reinforcement 0.45 t 7.85 0.06 0.45 1% 0.00 0.00

Concrete 3.61 m³ 2.40 3.61 8.66 5% 0.18 0.43

Formwork 0.35 m³ 0.50 0.35 0.17 100% 0.35 0.17 Precast concrete stairs two flights 1.2m wide; 4m rise. Reinforcement 0.27 t 7.85 0.03 0.27 1% 0.00 0.00

Total 1.52 1.68



Element Material

Quan

tity

Unit

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Waste rate (%

)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

Precast concrete stairs; two half landings; 4m rise.

Concrete stairs manufactured off site

2.00 item - - - 0% 0.00 0.00

Precast concrete stairs two flights 1.2m wide; 4m rise.

Concrete stairs manufactured off site

2.00 item - - - 0% 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00



Unit Bulking factor


waste disposal

Total cost of waste

disposal Concrete 0.48 m³ 0.5 Concrete £28 £26.86

Formwork 1.04 m³ 0.5 Timber £18 £36.86

Reinforcement 0.00 m³ 0.5 Metals £0 £0.00

Total £63.72



Unit Bulking factor

Material type Unit cost of waste disposal


Off site manufactured item

0 m³ 0.5 Concrete, reinforcement £30 £0.00

Total £0.00



Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Wastage

rate

Value of wasted

materials Concrete 9.64 m³ £185 £1783 55% £981 5% £49.03

Formwork 1.04 m³ £5600 £5829 30% £1749 100% £1748.71

Reinforcement 0.72 t £4000 £2891 88% £2544 1% £25.44

Cost of base design £10,503 Total value of wasted materials £1,823.19




Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Wastage

rate

Value of wasted

materials Precast concrete stairs; two half landings; 4m rise.

2 £2925 £5850 70% £4095 0% £0.00

Precast concrete stairs two flights 1.2m wide; 4m rise.

2 £2340 £4680 70% £3276 0% £0.00

Cost of alternative design £10,530 Total value of wasted materials £0.00



Quantity of waste

(tonnes)

CO2 equivalents

Material CO2 impact (tonnes)

Waste CO2 impact

(tonnes) Concrete 23.13 1.16 0.13 3.10 0.15

Formwork 0.52 0.52 0.48 N/A 0.25 In situ stairs

Reinforcement 0.72 0.007 1.82 1.32 0.01

Total 4.42 0.42



Quantity of waste

(tonnes)

CO2 equivalents

Material CO2 impact (tonnes)

Waste CO2 impact

(tonnes) Concrete 19.44 0.00 0.13 2.60 0.00 Precast

concrete stairs

Reinforcement 0.48 0.00 1.82 0.88 0.00

Total 3.48 0.00

Table A36 Summary Base design Alternative design Reduction Cost of design £10,503 £10,530 (£27)


Total project cost £10,567 £10,530 £37

Total waste arisings 1.68 tonnes 0 tonnes 1.68 tonnes


Material carbon 4.42 tonnes 3.48 tonnes 0.94 tonnes


Total carbon 4.84 tonnes 3.48 tonnes 1.36 tonnes


Use of smaller ceramic tiles sizes Base design: Use of 300 300mm tiles to floor and 200 100mm tiles to pool.

Alternative design: Use of 100 100mmm tiles to floor and 20 20mm tiles to pool.


Element Material

Quan

tity

Oth

er dimen

sion (th

ickness)

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Wastage rate (%

)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

200 100 mm rectangular tiles 1202 0.01 2.00 12.02 24.05 10% 1.20 2.40

Fixing adhesive 421 0.34 0.42 10% 0.03 0.04 Pool walls and floors

Grout 120 0.10 0.12 10% 0.01 0.01 300 300 mm tiling 2419 0.01 2.00 24.2 48.38 12% 2.90 5.81

Fixing adhesive 847 0.68 0.85 12% 0.08 0.10 Other wet areas

Grout 242 0.19 0.24 12% 0.02 0.03

Total 4.25 8.40


Element Material

Quan

tity

Oth

er dimen

sion (th

ickness)

Den

sity (tonnes/m

3)

Volum

e of m

aterial (m3)

Tonnes of

material

Wastage rate (%

)

Quan

tity of waste

(m3)

Quan

tity of waste

(tonnes)

20 20 mm rectangular tiles 1148 0.01 2.00 8.03 16.07 5% 0.40 0.80

Fixing adhesive 402 0.32 0.40 5% 0.02 0.02 Pool walls and floors

Grout 230 0.18 0.23 5% 0.01 0.01 100 100 mm tiling 2311 0.01 2.00 23.1 46.22 7% 1.62 3.24

Fixing adhesive 809 0.65 0.81 7% 0.05 0.06 Other wet areas

Grout 300 0.24 0.30 7% 0.02 0.02

Total 2.11 4.15



Unit Bulking factor


waste disposal

Total cost of waste

disposal Ceramic tiles 4.11 m³ 0.5 Inert £28 £228.82

Adhesive and grout 0.15 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £10.56

Total £239.39



Unit Bulking factor


waste disposal


Ceramic tiles 2.02 m³ 0.5 Inert £28 £112.56

Adhesive and grout 0.09 m³ 0.5 Mixed £36 £6.25

Total £118.81




Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Wastage

rate

Value of wasted

materials Ceramic tiling 100 200 mm

1093 m2 £43 £46,879 31% £14,532 10% £1453.24

Ceramic tiling 300 300 mm

2160 m2 £47 £102,492 38% £38,947 12% £4673.64

Cost of base design £149,371 Total value of wasted materials £6126.88



Cost Materials

percentage Value of

materials Wastage

rate Value of wasted

materials Ceramic tiling 20 20 mm

1093 m2 £50 £55,033 35% £19,261 5% £963.07

Ceramic tiling 100 100 mm

2160 m2 £60 £130,529 44% £57,433 7% £4020.29

Cost of alternative design

£185,561 Total value of wasted materials £4983.36




CO2 equivalents

Material CO2

impact (tonnes)

Waste CO2

impact (tonnes)

Ceramic tiling to pool Tiles and ceramics 24.05 2.40 0.55 13.23 1.32

Ceramic tiling to wet areas

Tiles and ceramics 48.38 5.81 0.55 26.61 3.19

Total 39.84 4.52



Quantity of waste

(tonnes)

CO2 equivalents

Material CO2 impact

(tonnes)

Waste CO2

impact (tonnes)

Ceramic tiling to pool Tiles and ceramics 16.07 0.80 0.55 8.84 0.44

Ceramic tiling to wet areas

Tiles and ceramics 46.22 3.24 0.55 25.42 1.78

Total 34.26 2.22



Table A45 Summary Base design Alternative design Reduction Cost of design £149,371 £185,561 (£36,190)


Total project cost £149,610 £185,680 (£36,070)



Material carbon 39.84 tonnes 34.26 tonnes 5.58 tonnes


Total carbon 44.36 tonnes 36.48 tonnes 7.88 tonnes

www.wrap.org.uk/designingoutwaste

case study: designing out waste brighouse and sowerby ... leisure...regulatory requirements are...

Documents