CIRCULAR ECONOMY | SERVICES CONSTRUCTION 10-15% USING SPACE 35-40% of building material wasted during construction of European offices are not used during working hours 0-0.5% 50% productivity increase per year in most European countries 1990-2015, whereas 2% per year achieved in some countries of residential dwellers report living in too much space USING ENERGY END OF LIFE of energy in existing buildings can be profitably conserved of demolition materials landfilled, while some countries only landfill 6% 20-40% Passive building standards at or near profitablity for most new-build segments, but still only constitute a minority of buildings 54% Most materials unsuitable for reuse as they contain toxic elements Figure 2: Waste in construction. Source: EMF/Arup paper First steps towards a circular built environment systems, specifically those of Marshgate 1, UCLs new 35,000m2 building in Stratford, East London. Supported by Schneider Electric, and with input from Aecom lifecycle cost consultants, the work sought to use circular principles to address the key challenges faced by UCL relating to its MEP systems. These challenges included the need to avoid the early obsolescence of installations, by future-proofing designs, addressing the performance gap that often arises between design and installation, and overcoming the barrier of upfront cost being a greater driver for design decisions than the total cost of a system over its life. Another aspiration of UCL was to incorporate sustainability measures that would go beyond Breeam, while addressing the key operational challenges. The project hoped to indicate the cost and whole-life carbon benefits of applying circular principles. Technology now enables key circular economy principles, such as the sharing of information, tracking material flows, real-time usage data and straightforward collaboration. In short, digital technology has unlocked the potential of the circular economy in the built environment. The circular economy building blocks and levers defined by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation were used to create five scenarios, each focusing on a different aspect, tailored to achieve the aims set out by UCL (see panel, Circular framework). There are several key considerations to be made for each scenario, along with opportunities and current barriers to implementation. In the case of the UCL Marshgate building, there were reductions in whole-life cost and carbon across the board, demonstrating the business case for a building services circular economy. Each project is unique and shall lend itself to a different combination of approaches. Appropriate consideration of the maintenance strategy must be included during the design stages to support whichever approach is taken. Application of these principles shows that design and operations engineers should look together at the circular economy from beyond a component recycling and reuse level. It is equally vital to design out waste to ensure the value of materials are maximised throughout their lives. The application of these scenarios enables the sector to systematically offer more value to building operators by reducing costs and improving system performance, while improving environmental outcomes. The outcomes of this research form the basis of a CIBSE technical guidance document, set for publication at the end of the summer, setting out each scenario, key considerations, opportunities, barriers and key enablers. CJ HARRY POPPLEWELL is a mechanical engineer at Arups buildings London team; RICHARD BOYD is a senior engineer at Arups advanced digital engineering team; BEN STUBBS is senior sustainability manager at UCL Estates; and DAVID STEVENS is assistant director at UCL Estates and vice-chair, CIBSE FM group CIRCULAR FRAMEWORK These five approaches provide a framework that can be applied to any construction, refurbishment or strategic maintenance project to incorporate circular economy principles. The universal scenario is a response to architect Stewart Brands theory that simple, flexible buildings get better with time, while complicated, inflexible buildings get worse. A universal building can accommodate several functions, allowing the building to be upgraded or change function in response to changing owner and occupant demands. Flexible buildings maintain their value for longer, or depreciate slower, than inflexible buildings, keeping the materials in the building at their highest possible value for as long as possible. The joint venture approach aims to align the drivers of each stakeholder within a project by placing them under a single financial umbrella, where payment is dependent on system performance. The result is that designers become more invested in the buildings operation, while greater input is taken from facilities managers and potential occupants during design, reducing the risk of a performance gap. The concept of passive buildings has been around for a long time. This approach minimises the use of active systems, replacing them with passive processes, such as natural ventilation and daylighting. Resource consumption is therefore designed out. The aim of the recover scenario is to minimise the reliance of the building on external resource flows, particularly water and energy. Capturing the value of waste flows, such as low-grade heat and wastewater, are also prioritised. The consumption of virgin resources is thus minimised. The pre-loved scenario is about how to incorporate secondhand equipment into buildings to create a market demand model for pre-used equipment, adding value to what is currently a waste flow. 26 September 2019 www.cibsejournal.com CIBSE Sep19 pp25-26 Circular Arup.indd 26 23/08/2019 15:13