ICE Demolition Protocol Case Study
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
This Case Study describes how the ICE Demolition Protocol facilitated
Leicester City Council to translate their commitment to the principle of
sustainable development into a structured approach to the recovery and
specification of reused and recycled materials. This Case Study also
examines communication within the project team.
Project code: AGG0087
Research date: March 2005 – March 2007
Date: March 2007
Front cover photograph: Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester – Brick structure scheduled for demolition and
replacement with low level bridge.
WRAP and Envirocentre 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. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk.
Published by
Waste & Resources
Action Programme
The Old Academy
21 Horse Fair
Banbury, Oxon
OX16 0AH
Tel: 01295 819 900
Fax: 01295 819 911
E-mail: info@wrap.org.uk
Helpline freephone
0808 100 2040
Executive summary
This case study overviews the implementation of the ICE Demolition Protocol during the development of the
Upperton Road Viaduct project from the conclusion of the outline design through to the completion of the
detailed design and the development of the target cost for the construction works.
The Upperton Road Viaduct is situated within the urban conurbation of Leicester. The project involves the
demolition of a 12 span viaduct built circa 1890. This structure is to be replaced with a new low level road and
bridge over the river. The requirement for the project stems from concerns over the capacity of the existing
structure to continue to carry the heavy traffic loading of this key road route within the Leicester conurbation.
The construction sequence required the construction of a temporary road and river crossing prior to the
demolition of the existing viaduct. Following demolition, the new road will be constructed along the alignment of
the existing viaduct
Key aspects of the project case study include:
„ Implementation: Outputs (Bills Of Quantities, Recovery Targets etc)
„ Stakeholder Engagement: Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
The following conclusions are drawn to the Upperton Road Viaduct case study:
„ The ICE Demolition Protocol provided a structured approach for the client to translate a commitment to the
principles of sustainable development into practice through material resource efficiency.
„ The ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies stimulated the early consideration of material resource issues
such that potential barriers could be further explored and where possible overcome.
„ Engagement with the team allowed the preliminary pavement design report to include a section discussing
recycling opportunities. This allowed the client group to understand how the thinking of the design team was
evolving and provided a trigger for the client group to re-engage with the design team - to reiterate the
corporate commitment to the use where possible of recycled materials.
„ The client decision to adopt the ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies and the importance placed on
sustainable development was not effectively communicated out with the core project team. This meant that,
on occasions, there was the potential for agreed approaches to be omitted.
„ A number of influencers in the industry remain to be convinced that recycled aggregates can perform on a like
for like basis with primary aggregates in the context of road pavements.
„ A lack of knowledge and technical expertise may represent a barrier to certain clients making an informed
decision on the use of recycled aggregates.
The following recommendations arise from the Upperton Road Viaduct case study:
„ Clients should give consideration to issuing explicit instructions to their appointed design teams to incorporate
appropriate references and information to support the implementation of material resource efficiency. This
could in part be achieved through the design team being required to complete as part of the key
documentation the Tender & Contract Check List for Recycled & Secondary Aggregates as published by
WRAP.
„ A rolling programme of research and Continuing Professional Development should be maintained to address
the concerns still held by influencers and designers with regards to the specification and use of recycled
aggregates, particularly in higher value applications.
„ The availability of case studies and good practice guidance on the AggRegain and Highway Agency web sites
should continue to be publicised within trade journals, targeted mail shots and industry exhibitions.
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
1
Contents
1.0
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1
The WRAP ICE Demolition Protocol Case Study Series .............................................................3
2.0
The Upperton Road Viaduct ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Viaduct Structure ...................................................................................................................3
3.0
4.0
2.2
Construction Sequence ..........................................................................................................3
2.3
Project Structure ...................................................................................................................3
2.4
Client Aspirations ...................................................................................................................3
Implementation of the ICE Demolition Protocol ...................................................................... 4
3.1
Outputs Required by the ICE Demolition Protocol ....................................................................4
3.2
Demolition & Site Clearance Phase .........................................................................................4
3.3
New Build Phase ....................................................................................................................5
3.4
Site Planning .........................................................................................................................6
Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................................................................... 6
4.1
Project Team Communication .................................................................................................6
4.2
4.1.1
Preliminary Pavement Design Report ..........................................................................7
4.1.2
Demolition Contract Enquiries ....................................................................................7
Highways Agency ..................................................................................................................7
5.0
Impact of Support to the Project Team ................................................................................... 8
6.0
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 8
7.0
Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix 1: ICE Demolition Protocol ................................................................................................... 9
Appendix 2: New Build Bill of Quantities ........................................................................................... 10
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
2
1.0
Introduction
This case study describes one of a number developed by WRAP across the UK, involving the implementation of
the ICE Demolition Protocol on a range of projects. The case study overviews the process followed during the
development of the Upperton Road Viaduct project from the conclusion of the outline design through to the
completion of the detailed design and the development of the target cost for the construction works.
1.1
The WRAP ICE Demolition Protocol Case Study Series
The series of case studies developed by WRAP concentrate on the issues and opportunities resulting from
implementation of the ICE Demolition Protocol. The focus of the case studies is the recovery and use of recycled
aggregates. Key aspects of the project case studies include:
„ Implementation: Outputs (Bills Of Quantities, Recovery Targets etc)
„ Stakeholder Engagement: Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
Background information on the ICE Demolition Protocol is provided in Appendix A. Further information on
terminology or other good practice support tools and guidance is available on WRAP’s AggRegain website:
www.aggregain.org.uk.
2.0
The Upperton Road Viaduct
The Upperton Road Viaduct is situated within the urban conurbation of Leicester. The project involves the
demolition of a 12 span viaduct built circa 1890 over the Old River Soar and adjoining former railway yards. This
structure is to be replaced with a new low level road and bridge over the river. The requirement for the project
stems from concerns over the capacity of the existing structure to continue to carry the heavy traffic loading of
this key road route within the Leicester conurbation. The replacement of the viaduct will also facilitate the
regeneration of the former railway yard area, currently an area of vacant and derelict land.
2.1
Viaduct Structure
The existing Upperton Road Viaduct structure is a combination of arched spans formed by engineering brick and
simple supported spans framed in steel. The deck of the viaduct across the steel framed sections was formed by
barrel vaulted brick. The linear edge walls forming a barrier either side of the single carriageway road beyond
the footpaths were constructed from brick capped with cope stones. Parts of the structure were also formed in
concrete including the strip foundations supporting the steel frame columns.
2.2
Construction Sequence
The construction sequence required the construction of a temporary road and river crossing prior to the
demolition of the existing viaduct. Following demolition, the new road will be constructed along the alignment of
the existing viaduct.
2.3
Project Structure
The project was structured on the basis of early contractor involvement, the contractor having been appointed to
the project team by the conclusion of the preliminary design stage. The project team is set out below:
„ Client: Leicester City Council
„ Designer: Jacobs
„ Contractor: Edmund Nuttall
EnviroCentre joined this project team at the conclusion of the preliminary design phase in the capacity of
sustainability consultant.
2.4
Client Aspirations
Leicester City Council is committed to the principles of sustainable development. This commitment was
translated into a practical desire to ensure that material resource efficiency through the recovery and reuse of
recycled materials was adopted as a design principle on the Upperton Road Viaduct project. The methodology
adopted by the Council to achieve their aspirations was the ICE Demolition Protocol.
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
3
3.0
Implementation of the ICE Demolition Protocol
The implementation of the ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies helped to inform in a structured approach the
material resource opportunities presented by the Upperton Road Viaduct project.
3.1
Outputs Required by the ICE Demolition Protocol
The key outputs and requirements derived from the implementation of the ICE Demolition Protocol
methodologies are:
„ Demolition & Site Clearance Phase:
„ Pre-demolition audit, identifying quantities and quality of materials likely to be generated during demolition
and site clearance works.
„ Demolition Bill of Quantities (D-BOQ) presenting the data from the pre-demolition audit in a transparent and
accessible format.
„ Recovery Targets, setting out the percentage and tonnage of material to be recovered during the demolition
and site clearance phase, including identifying potential material re-use/recovery options.
„ Demolition tender and contract documentation, explicit reference to the ICE Demolition Protocol requirements
and the recovery targets established during the pre-demolition phase.
„ Demolition audit, to verify that the recovery targets have been achieved and reconcile any variation between
anticipated and actual material tonnages recovered.
„ Site planning to identify location of material processing plant (on-site or off-site).
„ New Build Phase
„ Material resource assessment, to identifying where recovered materials could substitute for primary materials
on the basis of equivalent standards, specifications, cost etc.
„ New Build Bill of Quantities (NB-BOQ), presenting the data from the material resource assessment in a
transparent and accessible format that maps onto the tools being used by the project team to quantify and
order materials for the new build phase.
„ New Build Recovery Target, setting out the percentage and tonnage of material to be reused or from recycled
sources to be incorporated into the new build.
„ New build audit, to verify the design targets have been achieved and reconcile any variation between
anticipated and actual recovered material tonnages incorporated into the works.
3.2
Demolition & Site Clearance Phase
The quantity and character of the material to arise from the demolition of the existing viaduct structure was
determined through undertaking a pre-demolition audit. The audit was informed by a site walkover and a
structural condition survey report previously commissioned by the Council. Material quantities were thereafter
taken off from as built drawings held by the Council.
The output from the pre-demolition audit is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Demolition Bill of Quantities
Item
Description
Recovery
Potential
Quantity
Unit
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Demolition
Recovery
Index %
Demolition
Recovery
Material
Potential
1
Brick from existing viaduct
RA
4,577
m3
9,154
90.0%
8,239
2
Road construction
RA
81.9
m3
164
80.0%
131
3
Stonework
Reuse
15.8
m3
38
80.0%
30
4
Granite kerbs
Reuse
2.6
m3
7
80.0%
5
5
Paving slabs
Reuse
19.8
m3
48
50.0%
24
9,410
89.6%
8,429
TOTAL
4,697
A
Steel / wrought iron
Recycled
Not quantified
B
Internal unbound fill
Recycled
Not quantified
90%
50%
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
4
The pre-demolition audit highlighted the significant volume of brick to arise from the demolition of the existing
viaduct structure. The brick on crushing would produce Recycled Aggregate. Of particular interest was the likely
high quality of the engineering brick used to construct the viaduct given the structural loading that the brick was
designed to carry. This introduced the possibility that the crushed brick would produce a higher quality Recycled
Aggregate than would normally be able to be achieved from crushed brick.
At the time of writing the Demolition Recovery Target was the subject of on-going discussions within the project
team. The recovery target will be influenced by the method of demolition adopted for the main brick structure
over the old River Soar. Consideration is being given to dropping the brick arches into the river and recovering
the fallen brick through the subsequent dredging works. As the brick will be recovered with basal sediments of
unknown character, this may reduce the percentage recovery and the quality of the recycled aggregate that can
be produced (on crushing the brick described above). Whilst this approach is not favoured in terms of material
resource efficiency, it is being given active consideration on the grounds of health and safety and potential cost
savings. However, the adoption of the ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies allows the project team and, in
particular the client, to understand the potential material resource held within the existing viaduct structure and
thereby factor the identified recovery opportunities into a decision as to the demolition method to be adopted.
Since the Demolition Recovery Index was agreed by the project team, higher rates of recovery have been
observed on other demolition projects, with the recovery of hard materials such as brick in above ground
structures tending towards 100%. These observations will be factored into the process being followed to agree
the Demolition Recovery Target.
Opportunities also arise to recycle materials recovered from the temporary road built during the initial phases of
the project. The material resource incorporated into the temporary road is set out in the New Build Bill of
Quantities set out below. The temporary bridge structure is proposed to be a Bailey bridge, designed for
repeated reuse.
3.3
New Build Phase
The completion of the preliminary design informed the preparation of an initial bill of quantities for the temporary
and permanent works. This bill of quantities formed the platform for developing the New Build Bill of Quantities
described by the Demolition Protocol. The output from this process is summarised below and presented in detail
within Appendix 2.
The New Build Recovered Material Potential is shown in Table 2. Although the methodologies of the ICE
Demolition Protocol go beyond the consideration of bulk materials and aggregates in particular, the decision was
made to focus on the higher volume materials.
Table 2: New Build Bill of Quantities Summary
Description
Temp bridge
Temp road
New bridge
New road
Retaining walls
Total Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse Aggregate
weight (tonnes)
599
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
New Build
Recovered
Material Index
%
387
278
46.4%
9,625
9,494
95.6%
7,533
6,816
76.0%
8,830
92.5%
Piling platform, capping
9,935
Capping, sub-base
8,973
Piling platform, structural concrete
9,547
8,948
Capping, sub-base, basecourse, topsoil, foundation concrete, brickwork
588
331
208
35.4%
Structural concrete, fill material, brickwork
The New Build Bill of Quantities summary highlighted the significant opportunities for procuring recovered
materials, recycled aggregates in this instance, as part of the temporary and permanent works. With respect to
the materials considered the new Build Material Index range lies between 35.4% (retaining wall) and 95.6%
(temporary road).
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
5
The phasing of the works was such that if recycled aggregate were to be incorporated into the temporary works
this would require to be sourced from off-site. Consideration of the potential demand for recovered materials
during the construction of the temporary road early in the design process, coupled with early Contractor
involvement, allowed the Contractor to make informed enquiries regarding recycled material availability in parallel
with their normal pre-construction material enquiries.
Recycled aggregate arising from the crushing of brick from the demolition of the existing viaduct would be
available for incorporation into the permanent works. The opportunity to directly reuse selected bricks to face
concrete retaining walls and structures was also identified at this stage in the process. The issue of being able to
break the existing brick bonding without damaging the brick was identified as a potential constraint to the direct
reuse of the bricks arising from the demolition. The significance of this issue was to be informed by undertaking
a trial on a test panel early in the demolition phase of the works.
The New Build Recovered Material Potential assumed the specification of 20% Recycled Concrete Aggregate
(RCA) in the structural concrete associated with the new bridge sub-structure including pile caps and abutment
walls. It is recognised that that this approach is not consistent with the limitations placed on the use of RCA in
areas potentially becoming exposed to de-icing salts. However, the followed methodology to compile the New
Build Bill of Quantities has allowed this to be highlighted as a future opportunity to be explored if and when a
wider research base becomes available with regard to the interaction of RCA and de-icing salts.
At the time of writing the New Build Recovered Material Target was the subject of on-going discussions within the
project team and the Highways Agency. These discussions are reviewed in the Section 4 below, which examines
the interaction between members of the project team and other stakeholders. The opportunity for the temporary
road construction to further test the performance of recycled materials incorporated within the construction at a
relatively low risk was recognised.
3.4
Site Planning
In addition to highlighting the recycling opportunities, the pre-demolition bill of quantities informed the quantity
of recycled aggregate capable of being produced from the brick arising from the demolition of the existing
structure. This allowed consideration to be given at an early stage to site planning and the identification of areas
within the site for crushing and stockpiling materials. Early consideration of these issues was particularly
important at the Upperton Road Viaduct site as the temporary road was also required to be routed through the
site, therefore space was limited necessitating good site planning. This opportunity to consider site planning
issues in advance was facilitated by the early contractor involvement of Edmund Nuttall.
4.0
Stakeholder Engagement
The opportunities to maximise material resource efficiency on the Upperton Road Viaduct project were enhanced
through early consideration of these issues in the design and construction process. Early contractor involvement
and the structured approach established by the ICE Demolition Protocol facilitated this process.
Material resource efficiency was integrated to the development of the design and project planning through
discussion at selected project team meetings. The importance of material resource efficiency to the Council was
emphasised to the core members of the project team through the attendance at these meetings of the Council’s
Sustainability Officer.
Whilst the outputs from the pre-demolition audit were generally accepted by the project team, the new build
material bill of quantities provoked more discussion. This is considered to have arisen as the use of recycled
materials in higher value construction products is a market that is continuing to develop. This discussion added
value to the process through identifying potential barriers early in the process and highlighting additional
opportunities to incorporate recycled materials into the temporary and permanent works.
4.1
Project Team Communication
As members of the wider project team outwith the core group (that met at project team meetings) became more
involved in the project, the clear client message relating to sustainability and the importance of material resource
efficiency was perceived to be diluted. Further pressure was exerted on the lines of communication through
members of the core team changing during the planning stages of the project. This dilution of the client
message relating to material resource efficiency was observed through the preliminary pavement design report
and the demolition enquiries described below.
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
6
4.1.1 Preliminary Pavement Design Report
The preliminary pavement design report included a section discussing the opportunities for the use of recycled
materials in both the temporary and permanent works. The inclusion of such a section in a technical design
report was beneficial as the proposed use and specification of recycled materials in the works was transparent.
This also demonstrated that the use of recycled materials had been considered at the outset of the detailed
design process rather than after as an after thought.
However, the pavement design report stated that although the Specification for Highway Works allowed the use
of recycled aggregates in the unbound layers, the use of primary aggregates was recommended. This
recommendation was offered without an explanation as to why the detailed design had drawn such a conclusion
or why the crushed engineering brick was considered to be unlikely to be suitable for incorporation into the
unbound layers, either as the primary constituent or part of a blended primary / recycled aggregate material. It
is also interesting to note that the pavement design report failed to make reference to the ICE Demolition
Protocol. This is considered in part to have arisen from the fact that the author of the pavement design report
was not a member of the core project team and had not attended any of the meetings where the approach to
material resource efficiency and the adoption of the ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies had been discussed.
4.1.2 Demolition Contract Enquiries
The enquiries issued to potential demolition contractors to inform the target cost for the site works appeared to
make no reference to the ICE Demolition Protocol or cross reference the outputs from the pre-demolition bill of
quantities. Other issues that were not explicitly described within the enquiry document related to the:
„ Percentage target in terms of material recovery from the demolition works;
„ Material grading to which the materials were to be crushed in support of fulfilling the requirements of the
WRAP Quality Protocol;
„ Ownership of the material arising from the demolition works; and
„ Client aspiration to achieve material resource efficiency.
Whilst it is recognised that these issues could be picked up later prior to works starting on-site, the risk is that the
opportunity will be lost to take the necessary decisions and set in place the appropriate mechanisms necessary to
optimise material resource efficiency. Again, this is considered in part to have arisen from the fact that the
author of the demolition enquiries was not a member of the core project team and had not attended any of the
earlier meetings where the approach to material resource efficiency and the adoption of the ICE Demolition
Protocol methodologies had been discussed.
4.2
Highways Agency
A meeting was convened with selected members of the project team and a representative from the Highways
Agency to further explore the opportunities to use recycled aggregates in the temporary and permanent works.
This meeting sought to build upon the discussion triggered by the preliminary pavement design report and in
particular to better understand where the design team and the Highways Agency, in their regulatory role viewed
recycled aggregates on a par with primary aggregates.
The case for the wider consideration of the use of recycled aggregates was presented to the design team and the
Highways Agency. This was supported through reference to comparable case studies on the AggRegain website
where the use of recycled aggregates in the pavement construction for trunk roads was referenced including
examples where no adverse feedback had been recorded on the performance of the recycled aggregates over
extended periods of time of heavy traffic loading.
Despite this body of evidence and the Specification for Highway Works allowing the use of recycled aggregates,
reservations were still held by the design team and the Highways Agency. These reservations in part were
associated with:
„ Past experience / rumour of recycled aggregates performing poorly;
„ Recycled aggregates failing to meet specification requirements;
„ Limited data on the long term performance of recycled aggregates in pavements; and
„ Appropriateness of current test methods to determine the quality of recycled aggregates.
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
7
The technical content of the above discussion was a potential barrier to clients without a pavement design
knowledge base to fully engage with the process. Where the decision to incorporate recycled aggregates into the
temporary or permanent works is influenced by technical issues highlighted by the design team or regulator, this
may be reflected in the client adopting a more conservative approach through accepting a presumption in favour
of primary aggregates.
The market development of recycled aggregates in Leicestershire may also have been stifled as a result of the
numerous primary aggregate quarries in the local area depressing the price of primary aggregate such that the
cost incentive to develop confidence in recycled aggregates observed in other geographic areas has been absent.
The overall outcome from the meeting attended by the Highways Agency was positive, with a commitment from
the design team and the Agency to reassess the wider potential to incorporate recycled aggregates into
temporary and permanent works. The opportunity to gain local confidence in the performance of recycled
aggregates was also recognised through the construction and operation of the temporary road over a period of
time. This operational period would be prior to when final material selection decisions were required to be made
for the permanent pavement.
5.0
Impact of Support to the Project Team
The support to the project team funded by WRAP through the case study enabled direct support to be given to
the client to keep the wider project team focused on sustainable construction outputs in terms of the recovery
and reuse of recycled materials. This support is considered to of been particular benefit when potential barriers
to the use of recycled aggregates were identified by stakeholders. A higher proportion of the time allocated for
the case study was committed to supporting the stakeholder engagement process than envisaged at the out set
of the case study. Support to this process was considered to be important to achieve the successful outcomes
described above.
A reduced level of time was committed to supplier development (e.g. structural concrete suppliers who have the
ability to incorporate Recycled Concrete Aggregate into their supplied mixes) and increasing awareness of the
opportunities offered by the Upperton Road Viaduct project with local material recycling and recovery companies.
However, it is considered that the agreement of a challenging New Build Recovered Material Target will serve as
a driver for Edmund Nuttall to take forward these discussions.
6.0
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn to the Upperton Road Viaduct case study:
„ The ICE Demolition Protocol provided a structured approach for the client to translate a commitment to the
principles of sustainable development into practice through material resource efficiency.
„ The ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies stimulated the early consideration of material resource issues
such that potential barriers could be further explored and where possible overcome.
„ Engagement with the team allowed the preliminary pavement design report to include a section discussing
recycling opportunities. This allowed the client group to understand how the thinking of the design team was
evolving and provided a trigger for the client group to re-engage with the design team - to reiterate the
corporate commitment to the use where possible of recycled materials.
„ The client decision to adopt the ICE Demolition Protocol methodologies and the importance placed on
sustainable development was not effectively communicated out with the core project team. This meant that,
on occasions, there was the potential for agreed approaches to be omitted.
„ A number of influencers in the industry remain to be convinced that recycled aggregates can perform on a like
for like basis with primary aggregates in the context of road pavements.
„ A lack of knowledge and technical expertise may represent a barrier to certain clients making an informed
decision on the use of recycled aggregates.
7.0
Recommendations
The following recommendations arise from the Upperton Road Viaduct case study:
„ Clients should give consideration to issuing explicit instructions to their appointed design teams to incorporate
appropriate references and information to support the implementation of material resource efficiency. This
could in part be achieved through the design team being required to complete as part of the key
documentation the Tender & Contract Check List for Recycled & Secondary Aggregates as published by
WRAP.
„ A rolling programme of research and Continuing Professional Development should be maintained to address
the concerns still held by influencers and designers with regards to the specification and use of recycled
aggregates, particularly in higher value applications.
„ The availability of case studies and good practice guidance on the AggRegain and Highway Agency web sites
should continue to be publicised within trade journals, targeted mail shots and industry exhibitions.
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
8
Appendix 1: ICE Demolition Protocol
The ICE Demolition Protocol was launched at the Institution of Civil
Engineers in November 2003. Since then, the Protocol has been
implemented on a range of projects and has been supported by
WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action Programme) at different
levels, including implementation support, the development of targeted
guides and through its inclusion in the development of AggRegain’s
on-line Demolition Module.
The Protocol is applied as a project management tool which ensures
that the potential to recover resources from demolition (and
refurbishment) has been considered and implemented effectively. A
key driver is the demand for procuring recovered (recycled/reclaimed)
materials in the new build. Figure A2 below indicates how the supply
and demand mechanisms work for both the new build and demolition.
Figure A1. The ICE Demolition Protocol
– launched in Nov 2003
Figure A2. The Supply & Demand Mechanisms Of Protocol Implementation
The mechanisms described above are a key part of the resource efficiency process, and are driven by the
Protocol methodologies. The specification of recovered materials related to new build projects is key, without
which there will be little demand/incentive for recovering material effectively from demolition, refurbishment or
excavation projects. Another vital part of its implementation is that it should be applied on the basis of options
being identified which are either cost neutral or lower cost.
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
9
Appendix 2: New Build Bill of Quantities
The Bill of Quantities data was extracted from the bespoke contract pricing package operated by Edmund Nuttall
into Microsoft Excel to allow manipulation to calculate the New Build Bill of Quantities. During this data transfer
process item descriptions were truncated and therefore have not been documented in full below. Item
descriptions highlighted in GREEN represent existing opportunities to utilise recycled materials in the new build.
Item descriptions highlighted in YELLOW represent emerging opportunities at the time of writing.
TEMPORARY DIVERSION ROAD
Item Description
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse
Aggregate
weight
(tonnes)
Recycled
Material
Allowed
%
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index %
350 m
6 no
15 no
29.1
6.2
0.2
11.62
2.49
0.07
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
2.32
0.50
0.01
8%
8%
8%
90 m
2 no
5 no
1.0
0.40
20.0%
0.08
8%
550.8
550.80
100.0%
550.80
100%
Quantity
Unit
6/1
Ch 0m - 50m
Series 400--Site Clearance
Site cleanace to temporary
0 ha
6/2
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
Site Hoarding
260 m
6/3
Series 400--Road Restraint
Barrier
160 m
6/7
6/8
6/9
Series 500--Temporary drainage
Western side
300mm diameter pipe
Manholes 1350dia
Gullies complete incl
Eastern side
300mm diameter pipe
Manholes 1350dia
Gullies complete incl
6/10
6/11
6/12
6/13
6/14
Series 600-Earthworks
Excavation (40*15.3*.9*0.5)
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formation
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
276 m3
276 m3
612 m2
367.2 m3
612 m2
6/15
6/16
6/17
6/18
6/19
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Tack Coat to above
91.8 m3
612 m2
612 m2
612 m2
612 m2
137.7
137.70
100.0%
137.70
100%
6/20
6/21
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
10*5 Kerbs
Edgings
140 m
140 m
10.8
5.4
4.34
2.17
100.0%
100.0%
4.34
2.17
40%
40%
6/22
6/23
Footpaths
Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
Footpath Surfacing (two
52.5 m3
420 m2
78.8
100.8
78.75
45.36
100.0%
33.0%
78.75
14.97
100%
15%
6/24
Ch50-180m
Site cleanace
0.33 ha
6/25
Series 400--Site Clearance
Site cleanace
0.33 ha
6/26
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
Site Hoarding
310 m
6/27
Series 400--Road Restraint
Barrier
260 m
6/28
Series 500--Temporary drainage
Included
6/4
6/5
6/6
0
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
10
6/29
6/30
6/31
6/32
6/33
6/34
6/35
Series 600-Earthworks
Excavation (95*15.3*.9)
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formation
Filling (13m*15.3m*.95m)
Compaction of fill area
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
1380 m3
1380 m3
1453.5 m2
188.96 m3
198.9 m2
872.1 m3
1453.5 m2
6/36
6/37
6/38
6/39
6/40
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Tack Coat to above
6/41
6/42
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
10*5 Kerbs
Edgings
6/43
6/44
283.4
283.44
100.0%
283.44
100%
1308.2
1,308.15
100.0%
1,308.15
100%
218.03 m3
693.5 m2
693.5 m2
693.5 m2
693.5 m2
327.0
327.05
100.0%
327.05
100%
210 m
210 m
16.3
8.1
6.50
3.25
100.0%
100.0%
6.50
3.25
40%
40%
Footpaths
Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
Footpath Surfacing (two
78.75 m3
630 m2
118.1
151.2
118.13
68.04
100.0%
33.0%
118.13
22.45
100%
15%
6/45
Ch 200m - 240m
Series 400--Site Clearance
Site clearance
0.08 ha
6/46
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
Site Hoarding
170 m
6/47
Series 400--Road Restraint
Barrier
80 m
6/48
Series 500--Temporary drainage
Included
0
6/49
6/50
6/51
6/52
6/53
Series 600-Earthworks
Excavation (48*15.3*.95)
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formation
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
698 m3
698 m3
734.4 m2
440.64 m3
734.4 m2
661.0
660.96
100.0%
660.96
100%
6/54
6/55
6/56
6/57
6/58
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Tack Coat to above
218.03 m3
350.4 m2
350.4 m2
350.4 m2
350.4 m2
327.0
327.05
100.0%
327.05
100%
6/59
6/60
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
10*5 Kerbs
Edgings
96 m
96 m
7.4
3.7
2.97
1.49
100.0%
100.0%
2.97
1.49
40%
40%
6/61
6/62
Footpaths
Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
Footpath Surfacing (two
36 m3
96 m2
54.0
23.0
54.00
10.37
100.0%
33.0%
54.00
3.42
100%
15%
6/63
Ch 265m- 378m
Series 400--Site Clearance
Site clearance (17.65*167*.95)
0.28 ha
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
11
6/64
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
Site Hoarding
419 m
6/65
Series 400--Road Restraint
Barrier
334 m
6/66
Series 500--Temporary drainage
Included
0
6/67
6/68
6/69
6/70
6/71
6/72
6/73
Series 600-Earthworks
Excavation (125*1765*.9)
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formation
Excavation of embankment
Disposal of material (clean)
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
1986 m3
1986 m3
2207 m2
288 m3
288 m3
1325 m3
2207 m2
6/74
6/75
6/76
6/77
6/78
6/79
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Anti-skid surfacing at
Tack Coat to above
6/80
6/81
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
10*5 Kerbs
Edgings
6/82
6/83
Footpaths
Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
Footpath Surfacing (two
6/84
Ch180m - 200m (under viaduct)
Series 400--Site Clearance
Site cleanace (60*17m)
0 ha
6/85
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
Site Hoarding
230 m
6/86
Series 400--Road Restraint
Barrier
140 m
6/87
Series 500--Temporary drainage
Included
0
6/88
6/89
6/90
6/91
6/92
Series 600-Earthworks (Allow
Excavation (60*15.3*.9)
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formation
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
1239.3 m3
1239.3 m3
1377 m2
826.2 m3
1377 m2
6/93
6/94
6/95
6/96
6/97
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Tack Coat to above
826.2 m3
657 m2
657 m2
657 m2
657 m2
1987.5
1,987.50
100.0%
1,987.50
100%
218.03 m3
1163 m2
1163 m2
1163 m2
350 m2
1163 m2
327.0
327.05
100.0%
327.05
100%
250 m
250 m
19.4
9.7
7.74
3.87
100.0%
100.0%
7.74
3.87
40%
40%
93.75 m3
750 m2
140.6
140.63
100.0%
140.63
100%
1239.3
1,239.30
100.0%
1,239.30
100%
1239.3
1,239.30
100.0%
1,239.30
100%
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
12
6/98
6/99
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
10*5 Kerbs
Edgings
Footpaths
6/100 Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
6/101 Footpath Surfacing (two
263 m
150 m
20.4
5.8
8.14
2.32
100.0%
100.0%
8.14
2.32
40%
40%
18.75 m3
450 m2
28.1
108.0
28.13
48.60
100.0%
33.0%
28.13
16.04
100%
15%
196.2
196.20
100.0%
196.20
100%
Connection to CHP
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
6/102 Site Hoarding
110 m
Series 400--Road Restraint
6/103 Barrier
40 m
Series 500--Temporary drainage
6/104 Included
0
Series 600-Earthworks
6/106
6/107
6/108
6/109
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formation
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
196.2 m3
218 m2
130.8 m3
218 m2
6/110
6/111
6/112
6/113
6/114
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Tack Coat to above
21.9 m3
146 m2
146 m2
146 m2
146 m2
32.9
32.85
100.0%
32.85
100%
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
6/115 10*5 Kerbs
6/116 Edgings
47 m
40 m
3.6
1.5
1.46
0.62
100.0%
100.0%
1.46
0.62
40%
40%
Footpaths
6/117 Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
6/118 Footpath Surfacing (two
9 m3
72 m2
Connection to Contractors
Series 300--Fencing(Tempary
6/119 Site Hoarding
60 m
Series 400--Road Restraint
6/120 Barrier
60 m
Series 500--Temporary drainage
6/121 Included
0
270.0
270.00
100.0%
270.00
100%
6/122
6/123
6/124
6/125
6/126
Series 600-Earthworks
Excavation (30*10*.9)
Dispose of material U2
Compaction of Formatiom
Capping material
Compaction of cappping layer
270 m3
270 m3
300 m2
180 m3
1453.5 m2
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
13
6/127
6/128
6/129
6/130
6/131
Series 700--Pavements
Sub -base 150mm thick Pavement details
ditto
ditto
Tack Coat to above
Series 1100--Kerbs, footways
6/132 10*5 Kerbs
6/133 Edgings
Footpaths
6/134 Fill to footpths (Re-cycled
6/135 Footpath Surfacing (two
45 m3
219 m2
219 m2
219 m2
219 m2
67.5
67.50
100.0%
67.50
100%
60 m
30 m
4.6
1.2
1.86
0.46
100.0%
100.0%
1.86
0.46
40%
40%
6.75 m3
54 m2
10.1
13.0
10.13
5.83
100.0%
33.0%
10.13
1.92
100%
15%
9,935.02
9,624.56
9,493.50
96%
FOR ALL AREAS ABOVE
Series 1200 Road Markings and
6/136 Road Markings
6/137 Traffic Signs including
1 item
10 no
Series 1200
6/138 Toucan Crossing
6/139 Anti-skid to crossing
1 item
80 m2
Series 1300 Street lighting
6/140 Supply and install lighting
21 no
Drainage attenuation to temp
West Side
6/141 say Attenuation Volume
125 m3
Tactile paving
6/142 Tactile paving
57 m2
Noise Fencing
TOTAL AGGREGATES
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
14
TEMPORARY BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
7/1
7/2
7/3
7/4
7/5
7/6
7/7
7/8
7/9
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/13
7/14
Foundations for temp bridge-Excavate for foundations
Disposal of material
Piling platform 300mm thick
Mobilise piling contractor
Piling to bases 900mm dia
Break down tops of piles
Blinding to base
Concrete to base
Rebar to base @ 130Kg/cum
Formwork to bases
Finishing to bearing shelf
Filling with capping material
Run-on slabs 5m*14m*.4m-Re-bar @150kg/cum
7/15
Supply and erect bridge
Temporary Bridge 45m span Ha &
1 item
7/16
Remove Steel Bridge
Credit for sale of bridge
1 item
7/17
Remove Bridge foundations
Break up, remove off site old
7/18
Drainage
Gully at end of bridge
4
no
7/19
Parapets to bridge
Supply and fit parapets
1
incl
7/20
Surfacing to bridge
Anti-skid surfacing on steel
1
incl
7/21
Lighting to bridge
Lighting in Road Items Page 6-
1
incl
TOTAL
288 m3
250 m3
96 m3
1 item
28 no
28 no
4.5 m3
142 m3
18.46 tonnes
42 sqm
56 m2
68 m3
56 m3
8.4 tonnes
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse
Aggregate
Weight
(tonnes)
Recycled
Material
Allowed %
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index %
144.0
144.00
100.0%
144.00
100.0%
10.8
340.8
4.32
136.32
100.0%
20.0%
4.32
27.264
40.0%
8.0%
102.0
102.00
100.0%
102.00
100.0%
0.8
0.32
20.0%
0.06
8.0%
598.4
386.96
277.648
46.4%
198 m3
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
15
NEW ROAD
Item Description
Quantity Unit
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse
Aggregate
weight
(tonnes)
Recovered
Material
Allowed %
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index %
8/1
8/2
8/3
Series 500 Drainage
Western Side
300mm diameter pipe
Manholes 1350dia
Gullies complete incl
300 m
5 no
15 no
24.9
5.2
0.2
9.96
2.07
0.07
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
1.99
0.41
0.01
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8/4
8/5
8/6
Eastern side
300mm diameter pipe
Manholes 1350dia
Gullies complete incl
50 m
2 no
5 no
4.2
2.1
0.1
1.66
0.83
0.02
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
0.33
0.17
0.00
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
2430.0
2,430.00
100.0%
2,430.00
100.0%
Series 600
Excavation
8/9
Fill
Fill to west area
1620 m3
8/10
Disposal off site
Cart to tip non-hazardous
6680 m3
8/11
Prepare formation
Prepare formation and compact
7400 m2
8/12
Capping
Capping to new road 350mm
1190 m3
1785.0
1,785.00
100.0%
1,785.00
100.0%
8/13
Series 700
Sub-base to road 150mm thick
2400 m2
3600.0
3,600.00
100.0%
3,600.00
100.0%
8/14
8/15
8/16
8/17
Surfacing to new road
35mm TSCS
60mm DBMBinderC
175mm DBMBC
Additional cost for higher PSV
2400 m2
2400 m2
2400 m2
2400 m2
20.2
34.6
100.8
9.07
15.55
45.36
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
2.99
5.13
14.97
14.9%
14.9%
14.9%
8/18
8/19
8/20
8/21
Cold Milling to tie-ins
Cold milling to western side
Cold Milling to Eastern side
Additional wearing course to
Anti-skid surfacing
1 day
2 day
620 m2
150 m2
8/22
Series 1100
Kerbs
250*125 kebs
654 m
49
19.62
100.0%
19.62
40.0%
8/23
Surfacing to footpaths
Sub base 100mm
1000 m2
150
150.00
100.0%
150.00
100.0%
8/24
8/25
8/26
8/27
Surfacing slabs @ say £20sqm
Marshalls Courdroy slabs
Channel drainage
Seperation kerbs
Tactile paving
1000 m2
540 m
450 m
57 m2
240
81
96.00
81.00
100.0%
100.0%
96
81
40.0%
100.0%
8/28
8/29
Series 1200 Traffic Signs and
Large signs say
Road markings
6 no
1 item
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
16
8/30
8/31
Traffic Signals
Remove and reinstall tempoary
New traffic signals to
1 item
1 item
8/32
Series 1300 Road Lighting
Street lighting 10m posts
1 item
8/33
8/34
8/35
Series 1400 Ducting and
Ducts 100mm say 4 way each
Ducts 150mm say 2 way each
Chambers for above
8/36
Series 1700--Concrete
See Section 10
0
8/37
8/38
8/39
8/40
8/41
Series 2400--brickwork
Excavation to footings
Disposal of material
Foundation Concrete in
Mesh in footings
Formwork to footings F1
150 m3
150 m3
77 m3
201 m2
192 m2
8/42
8/43
8/44
8/45
8/46
8/47
Brickwork
Brickwork 440mm thick in
Brickwork 440mm thick in
Brickwork 440mm thick faced
Brickwork 440mm thick faced
Brickwork 440mm thick faced
Anti- grafitti coating
8/48
8/49
173
173
69.12
69.12
100.0%
100.0%
69.12
69.12
40.0%
40.0%
185
73.92
20.0%
14.784
8.0%
73 m2
17 m2
13 m2
94 m2
21 m2
128 m2
77
18
14
99
22
77.09
17.95
13.73
99.26
22.18
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
77.088
17.952
13.728
99.264
22.176
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Copings
Copings in reconstituted stone
Copings in reconstituted stone
273 m
57 m
41
9
40.95
8.55
100.0%
100.0%
40.95
8.55
100.0%
100.0%
8/50
8/51
8/52
8/53
8/54
Railings
Railings as drawings 600mm
Railings as drawings 600mm
Railings as drawings 1200mm
Concrete footings to 1200mmm
E.O. forArchitectual features
200 m
21 m
38 m
38 m
16 no
9/1
9/2
9/3
9/4
9/5
9/6
9/7
9/8
9/9
9/10
Series 3000 Landscaping
Topsoil
Ground Preparation and
Seeding and Turfing
Planting of Trees -- Acer
Grasscrete surfacing
Pedestrian cycleways off
Removalble bollards
Fixed Bollards
Construct steps to footpaths
load and spread railway
1050 m3
7000 m2
7000 m2
48 no
72 m2
300 m
9 no
16 no
3 no
500 m3
210
210.00
100.0%
210.00
100.0%
9,547
8,948
8,830
92.5%
TOTAL
720 m
720 m
16
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
17
NEW BRIDGE
Item
Description
10/1
10/2
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/8
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
10/14
10/15
10/16
10/17
10/18
10/19
10/20
10/21
10/22
10/23
10/24
Abutments--size 26m*5.4m*1m
Excavation for abutment in old
Piling plantform 300mm thick
Piles to base 900mm dia 8m
Mobilise
Pile to wing walls 900mm dia Break off pile tops
Blinding to bases 75mm thick
concrete to pile caps
Rebar to pile caps @ 100Kg/cum
Formwork to pile caps
Concrete to walls to abutment
Rebar to abutment walls
Formwork to abutment walls
Concrete to wing walls --66m
Rebar for walls @150Kg/cum
Formwork for wing walls Concrete to capping beam
Rebar to capping beam @150Kg/
Formwork to capping beamFormwork soffit
Finishing to bearing shelves
Works to ballast wall
Anti-graffitti coating to
Silane treatment
5000 m3
84 m3
28 no
1 no
12 no
40 no
25.92 m3
280.8 m3
28.1 tonnes
125.6 m2
286 m3
37.18 tonne
297 m2
146 m3
21.9 tonnes
363 m2
124 m3
18.6 tonnes
248 m2
25 m2
26 m2
1 item
197 m2
394.5 m2
10/25
Infilling to abutments
Filling of material to
4300 m3
10/26
10/27
10/28
10/29
10/30
10/31
10/32
10/33
10/34
10/35
10/36
10/37
10/38
10/39
10/40
10/41
Steel Bridge
Steeelwork to bridge Bearings
Omnia formwork to soffit
Soffit shutter and support to
Rebar to deck (150Kg/cum)
Concrete to deck incl upstands
Formwork for upstand
Wateproofing to deck
Expansion joint
Hot poured joint -fixed end
Parapet P2
Red sand asphalt 25mm -Machine
Kerb drainage
Drainage sliding joint
Fill to footpaths--lightweight
Surfacing-road--2 course
252 tonnes
12 no
638 m2
58 m
15.3 tonnes
101.5 m3
70 m
638 m2
23 m
23 m
58 m
630 m2
58 m
1 item
26 m3
377 m2
10/42
10/43
10/44
Surfacing -footpaths
Marshalls Courdroy slabs
Channel drainage
Seperation kerbs
TOTAL
Quantity
Unit
174 m2
58 m
58 m
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse
Aggregate
weight
(tonnes)
Recovered
Material
Allowed %
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index %
126.0
126.00
100.00%
126.00
100.00%
62.208
673.92
24.8832
269.568
100.0%
20.0%
24.8832
53.9136
40.0%
8.0%
686.4
274.56
20.0%
54.912
8.0%
350.4
140.16
20.0%
28.032
8.0%
298
119
20.00%
23.808
8.00%
6450.0
6,450.00
100.00%
6,450.00
100.00%
244
110
33.00%
36.28
14.85%
42
16.70
100.00%
16.704
40.00%
4
2
100.00%
1.74
40.00%
8,937
7,533
6,816
76.27%
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
18
RETAINING WALLS
Unit
Coarse
Aggregate
weight
(tonnes)
Recovered
Material
Allowed %
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index %
Item
Description
11/1
11/2
11/3
Excavation
Excavation in hard material
Temporary supports to
342 m3
16 m3
174 m2
11/4
11/5
11/6
11/7
11/8
11/9
11/10
11/11
11/12
11/13
11/14
11/15
Concrete Works
Blinding Concrete
Base concrete 40N
Rebar to base
Concrete to walls
Rebar to walls
Formwork F1
Formwork F3
Finishes to concrete
Joints
Waterproofing to walls and
Waterproofing to walls-vert
Finish to steps--ant-slip
18 m3
96 m3
14.4 tonnes
64 m3
9.6 tonnes
340 m2
64 m2
159 m2
150 m
272 m2
145 m2
1 item
43.2
230.4
17.28
92.16
100.0%
20.0%
17.28
18.432
40.0%
8.0%
153.6
61.44
20.0%
12.288
8.0%
11/16
11/17
11/18
11/19
Brickwork
Brickwork single skin 1/2
Brickwork 440mm faced both
Copings
Anti Grafitti
106 m2
27 m2
13 m
133 m2
25
29
25.44
28.51
100.0%
100.0%
25.44
28.512
100.0%
100.0%
11/20
Filling
Filling 6N material
71 m3
106.5
106.50
100.00%
106.50
100.00%
11/21
11/22
11/23
Railings
Railings 1200mm high straight
Railings 1200mm inclined down
Handrail
106 m
6 m
15 m
588
331
208
35.47%
TOTAL
Quantity
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Upperton Road Viaduct, Leicester
19
Written by: David Hay & Brian Menzies
Published by
Waste & Resources
Action Programme
The Old Academy
21 Horse Fair
Banbury, Oxon
OX16 0AH
Tel: 01295 819 900
Fax: 01295 819 911
E-mail: info@wrap.org.uk
Helpline freephone
0808 100 2040
www.wrap.org.uk