lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Smart steel: new paradigms for the reuse of steel enabled by digitaltracking and modelling

David Ness a, *, John Swift b, Damith C. Ranasinghe c, Ke Xing d, Veronica Soebarto e

a Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australiab Prismatic Architectural Research, Clarence Park, SA 5034, Australiac Auto ID Lab, Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australiad School of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australiae School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 11 February 2013Received in revised form9 July 2014Accepted 18 August 2014Available online xxx

Keywords:Steel reuseResource efficiencyRFIDBIMNew paradigms

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 8 83021821/þ61E-mail address: david.ness@unisa.edu.au (D. Ness)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.0550959-6526/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., eJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http:/

a b s t r a c t

When reconfigured into a cohesive system, a series of existing digital technologies may facilitatedisassembly, take back and reuse of structural steel components, thereby improving resource efficiencyand opening up new business paradigms. The paper examines whether Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) technology coupled with Building Information Modelling (BIM) may enable components and/orassemblies to be tracked and imported into virtual models for new buildings at the design stage. Theaddition of stress sensors to components, which provides the capability of quantifying the stressproperties of steel over its working life, may also support best practice reuse of resources. The potentialto improve resource efficiency in many areas of production and consumption, emerging from a novelcombination of such technologies, is highlighted using a theoretical case study scenario. In addition, acase analysis of the demolition/deconstruction of a former industrial building is conducted to illustratepotential savings in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) from reuse whencompared with recycling. The paper outlines the reasoning behind the combination of the discussedtechnologies and alludes to some possible applications and new business models. For example, a com-pany that currently manufactures and 'sells' steel, or a third party, could find new business opportunitiesby becoming a 'reseller' of reused steel and providing a 'steel service'. This could be facilitated by itsownership of the database that enables it to know the whereabouts of the steel and to be able to warrantits properties and appropriateness for reuse in certain applications.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is nowonly room formarginal improvement on the basis of existing

The construction industry accounts for more than one third oftotal energy use and its associated global greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions. The corollary to this is that the construction sector hasthe largest potential for cutting GHG emissions (UNEP, 2012). As thesteel industry is responsible for about 6.5 per cent of emissions, and51 per cent of global steel is used for construction (Basson, 2012)hence the challenge of mitigating the effects of climate change,coupled with carbon pricing mechanisms and global financialpressures, are placing increasing pressure on the steel industry toreform its production and consumption processes (EnvironmentalLeader, 2007). Although the amount of energy required to pro-duce a tonne of steel has been dramatically reduced (approximately50 per cent) since the 1980s, the industry acknowledges that ‘there

401122 651..

t al., Smart steel: new paradi/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

technology’ and that major ‘breakthrough’ technological changesare required (World Steel, 2012, p. 2).

Globally, while steel recovery rates for recycling are estimated at85 per cent for the construction sector, there is a relatively low-level of reuse of components. According to Sustainable Steel Con-struction (SSC), reuse of steel in construction means taking steelcomponents from an older building and using them in a newproject with minimal reprocessing; thus, ‘structural componentssuch as beams, columns or non-structural components such ascladding panels or staircases are taken from one project and reusedin another’ (SSC, 2012). As SSC has also noted, reuse is well-knownto be more resource efficient because less energy is required toreconfigure or re-manufacture products. However, there are anumber of barriers to reuse, including the lack of confidence ofdesigners in the structural properties and performance of reusedsteel components. Anecdotally, the identification of materials to bere-used in the design phase is a significant factor in the uptake of

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e122

re-use as there is no easily defined marketplace for salvaged ma-terials. This situation is further exacerbated by the absence ofprocedures in the current design codes for determining thenecessary properties for reclaimed steel.

Accordingly, this paper proposes the reconfigured use of adisparate collection of existing technologies and business modelsinto a cohesive system to improve the current low level reuse. Witha focus on the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)sector, a system is envisaged that would facilitate an automatedapproach to the location and carbon allocation of high embodiedenergy components such as structural steel elements used exten-sively in the construction industry. Further to the concept ofassigning a unique identifier and mapping the physical steel ele-ments, a CAD based database could be employed using the samecaptured information to provide a virtual open market place forelements sale prior to reuse. Moreover, combined with the use ofRFID enabled movement tracking technology, this process wouldallow an accurate accounting of indirect (transport) embodied en-ergy costs of a given element at a given time or potentially part ofthat element over a different period of time.

The paper is arranged as follows. Firstly, challenges facing thesteel industry are outlined in Section 2, including cost pressures andthe need to reduce emissions due to clean energy requirements andcarbon pricing legislation, with the industry seeking to project itselfas exercising responsible stewardship of resources. This leads to theresearch questions, with the subsequent sections structured toaddress these. After putting forward (Section 3) a vision and theorytowards a more resource efficient steel industry, the role that couldbe played by steel reuse in such a transformation is discussed. InSection 4, the paper examines how enabling ‘smart’ technologiessuch as RFID and BIM may enable the reuse of steel, and presents atheoretical case studyscenario to illustrate the connectionsbetweenthe various technologies and demonstrate that the approach isworkable. Section 5 indicates how these technologies may create aplatform for new paradigms and profit centres such as a life cycledata service, reselling service and product-service system (PSS). Acase analysis is presented in Section 6, illustrating the potentialenergy savings that could accompany reuse in comparison to recy-cling. After further discussing potential benefits in terms of emis-sions reductions and cost savings, Section 7 examines circumstancesrequired for successful application and factors that may motivatechange, including legislative imperatives such as the green buildingrating system. As this is an embryonic field of endeavour andempirical research is yet to be conducted, the paper is concluded inSection 8 by discussing limitations of the research approach andputting forward a pathway towards more extensive research onreuse of steel in the AEC sector.

2. The challenges and research questions

2.1. The steel industry and its challenges

Globally, over 1.3 billion tons of steel are manufactured and usedevery year, with close to 50 per cent of steel produced and used inmainland China, and it is predicted there will be continuing stronggrowth in the volume of steel produced. While steel is one of theworld's most recycled products, it is claimed that ‘this continuedgrowth prevents the demand for steel being met by means of recy-cling of end-of-life steel products alone, hence, making it necessaryto continue converting virgin iron ore into steel’ (World Steel, 2012).However, whilst this may be the case given current approaches tosteel production, consumption andbuilding configurations, are therescenarios, configurations and technologies that may enable muchincreased reuse and recycling in future, involving less primary pro-duction, which may enable the necessary paradigm shift?

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

In theory, steel is 100 per cent recyclable, which means its lifecycle is potentially endless: ‘steel is an almost unique material in itscapacity to be infinitely recycled without loss of properties orperformance’ (World Steel, 2012, p. 3). In Australia, about 65 percent of steel available for recycling goes back into the making ofnew steel (BlueScope Steel, 2009). This involves ‘urban mining’ andmelting down and ‘up-cycling’ of old inefficient cast iron bycombining this with higher quality steel to produce a more efficientproduct suitable for certain applications. BlueScope produces steelusing a blast-furnace oxygen technique (BF-BOS), which uses virginmateriale including iron ore, coke and fluxese as well as 17-20 percent scrap steel (BlueScope Steel, 2012).

However, steel making, recycling and associated processes useconsiderable amounts of energy leading to high level of greenhouseemissions; for example, in Australia, BlueScope Steel's totalgreenhouse gas emissions in the financial year ending 30 June 2007were 12.53 million tonnes (BlueScope Steel, 2008). It is among 500Australian companies impacted by the Australian Government'splan for a Clean Energy Future and especially its carbon pricelegislation (Australian Government, 2011a,b). To assist the steelindustry make this transition and be competitive in this newmarket, the company has been granted AUD$100 million under theGovernment's ‘Steel Transformation Plan’ (Wilson, 2011).

Also in response to the challenges, the industry is seeking toreduce emissions, improve efficiency of resource use, and projectitself as a ‘responsible’ industry. The World Steel Association hasintroduced a ‘climate action recognition program’, recognising steelproducers who fulfil their commitment to participate in a CO2 datacollection program, and promotes a life cycle approach to measuregreenhouse impacts fromall stages ofmanufacture, product use andend-of-life (World Steel, 2012). In Australia, a ‘steel stewardshipforum’was initiated in 2007 to implement sustainable developmentover the steel life cycle (Steel Stewardship Forum, 2011).

2.2. Research questions

Rynikiewicz (2008) has highlighted the dramatic shifts requiredin the steel industry, noting that attention has moved from ‘cleanerproduction’ to ‘regime transformation’ or socio-economic paradigmshift, and that the industry may be one of the first sectors to expe-rience ‘industrial transformation’. He has proposed that changes arerequired not only in technologies but also ‘at the levels of systems ofproduction, distribution and in consumption patterns’. This leads tothe research questions forming the basis of this paper, namely:

a) What part could reuse of steel play in such industrial trans-formation? (which is discussed in Section 3);

b) What are the enabling technologies and alternative businessapproaches? (which are explored in Sections 4 and 5);

c) What are the potential savings in energy and greenhouseemissions? (which are analysed through a case example inSection 6).

The rest of this paper is structured to address these researchquestions, with the relevant sections shown in brackets above.Accordingly, a ‘Smart Steel’ paradigm for effective reuse of steel isproposed (Section 5) while the potential for implementation of thenew paradigm, and its implications, are also discussed (Section 7).

3. A vision for the steel industry

3.1. A resource circulating industry

As encapsulated by Schmidt-Bleek (2000) and others, theconcept of resource efficiency (RE) involves delivering more

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12 3

services (S) or outputs, with less material input (MI). In simpleterms, resource efficiency is the amount of resource used per unit ofinput - similar to the concept of material input per unit of service(MIPS). The less the material input per unit of output or service, thegreater is the resource efficiency, and vice versa. Conversely,resource productivity is the economic output or value added perunit of resource use (Gross and Foxon, 2003); it is often designatedas the reciprocal of MIPs i.e. S/MI (Wallbaum and Buerkin, 2003;Ritthoff et al., 2002). Von Weizs€acker et al. (1998) argued that weneed to achieve a Factor 4 improvement in resource productivity,that is, a doubling of prosperity in terms of service outputs, whilsthalving resource consumption or material inputs. This has sincebeen extended to notions of Factor 5, Factor 10 and Factor X(Reijnders, 1998).

As Ayers (1999) described in his seminal paper, ‘since productsare essentially carriers of service, the trick is to find ways ofdelivering the service without wasting the material carrier’. Inother words, we need to find ways of delivering the messagewithout discarding the messenger: ‘the messengers need to beused many times, not merely once’. Previously, Ayres (1997, p. 168)had introduced the notion of metals industry manufacturersshifting away ‘from their current orientation (selling products toconsumers) to selling the services of their products, while retainingownership and/or responsibility for those products’. In this regard,Rynikiewicz (2008) canvassed the idea of ‘moving from sellingproducts to providing performance, managing the material contentof products together with their asset value’, highlighting the‘promises of product-service systems (PSS)’ within the steel in-dustry (Rynikiewicz, 2008, p. 786; see also Stahel, 2013). This leadsus to the notion of a ‘resource circulating society’ where materialsand products are reused continuously, being reconfigured andredirected from one use to another (Morioka et al., 2006).

The ‘open building’ approach, which facilitates systematisationof the built environment as a set of distinctly layered sub-systems,is conducive to a resource circulating building industry. One sub-system can be replaced by various alternatives without disturbingother sub-systems. An urban design may enable a variety ofbuildings to be erected and replaced without altering the basicurban patterns of space and infrastructure. The systems or levelsare: ‘urban tissue, support (base building) and infill (fit-outs)(Cuperus, 2001; Yashiro, 2003). Open building organises parts ac-cording to their life span. The urban tissue is the longest lifeelement, subject to less frequent change (say 200 year cycle), whilethe infill or fit-outs are subject to more rapid change (10e20 years).Brand (1994) talked of ‘shearing layers of change’ regarding thedifferent rates of change and replaceability of building components,calling the layers ‘site’, ‘skin’, ‘structure’, ‘services’, ‘space plan’ and‘stuff’. As Kendall (1999, p. 14) said, ‘Open building has a goal ofmanufacture and design for assembly, disassembly and reuse’,while Cuperus (2001) linked this to ‘lean construction’ as the key toreducing waste. Taking this thinking further, Kieran and Timberlake(2004) put forward a vision of how manufacturing methodologiesare poised to transform building fabrication by means of modular,reusable components, accompanied by 4D CAD and similar infor-mation technologies.

In terms of open building, steel components within buildingsthat are subject to more rapid change (10e20 years) may be suit-able for reuse. Whilst some structures are designed to be recon-figured, there is a substantial amount of lightweight cold rolledsteel framing which is used extensively in ‘infill’ partitions ofcommercial building fit-outs. Due to the expedient nature of thesepartitions they are readily demolished but not re-purposed forchanges in commercial layouts. This type of partition's usable life isinextricably linked to the expansions and contractions of spacerequired by the commercial entities leasing this space. Steel framed

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

industrial structures may also have relatively short lives of (say) 10years. Such assemblies and components may be disassembled,reused, reconfigured and re-fabricated where necessary, so thatthey carry more services throughout their extended life, in keepingwith the notions of a resource circulating society and resource ef-ficiency, towards achieving a Factor X change in resource produc-tivity (Ness et al., 2005b).

While further research is required to estimate the proportion ofstructures and volume of steel that may be suitable for reuse inbuilding, it is notable that around 33 per cent of straight rail track inthe US rail industry is derived from used rail that is disassembled atredevelopment sites (World Steel, 2009).

3.2. Reuse of steel

While product stewardship tends to focus on resource recoveryand recycling, reuse of steel offers the most potential among the‘3Rs’ (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) for resource efficiency, as rec-ognised by Stahel (1982). This concept is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Loop 3 represents resource recovery as commonly practised,whereby waste materials are intercepted before they becomelandfill and the materials are recycled back into themselves. Loop 2represents the repair and remanufacturing process which,although reducing the demand for new raw materials, may stillrequire a lot of energy. On the other hand, the inner loop 1 rep-resents the reuse of goods e the ‘cradle to cradle’ idea e wherebythe goods themselves circulate continually. When carried to itsultimate potential, they never go to waste and little energy-consuming remanufacturing is required. As BlueScope Steel(2012) has acknowledged, ‘reuse is the ultimate in recycling, noreprocessing energy is required; the component is simply moved fromone location to another’.

Although steel products have long life spans, eventually mostbuildings and infrastructure will be decommissioned. Reusing andrecycling components is inherent to sustainability at this phase ofthe lifecycle. BlueScope Steel (2012) has also recognised that ‘oneof the emerging strategies to increase sustainability is to designfor disassembly. High-grade, durable materials e such as steel ework best in designs for disassembly, where components, orentire structures, are removed and reused’. Gorgolewski (2008)has reported on Canadian initiatives to disassemble and reusesteel structures, noting the challenges for designers whilst high-lighting the environmental and cost benefits. The 2000 SydneyOlympics Aquatic Centre spectators' stand was disassembled andrelocated to the WIN Stadium at Wollongong, where it wasrefabricated and reassembled. The reuse of more than 80 per centof the steel structure resulted in an improved environmentaloutcome through the reduction of resources and energy use,whilst minimising waste and emissions in the life cycle of theproduct and saving on cost (Australian Government, 2006, p. 41;OneSteel, 2013).

Fujita and Iwata (2008) proposed a reuse system involving steelbuilding structures to reduce the environmental burden, accom-panied by a data base and business management model. However,such previous examples and research have not examined the po-tential of ‘smart’ technologies such as RFID, stress sensors and BIM,while alternative business models have been mentioned onlybriefly.

4. Enabling technologies and alternative business models

4.1. A smart industry

Among others, Greis (2010) has envisaged the future of greenproducts and industry, where ‘green’ is synonymous with ‘smart’:

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

Fig. 1. The reuse, remanufacturing and recycling loops.Adapted from Stahel (1982).

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e124

This future is populated by smart products linked by smartprocesses to intelligent, closed loop networks (c.f.manufacturing and logistics) that produce, maintain (andenhance) the utility of the product until its ultimate disposal orreuse.

This paper now examines how such thinking could be applied tothe building industry, in particular the steel sector, examining thepotential for interlinked RFID and BIM to inform such smart pro-cesses. While there is a wealth of information on RFIDs and BIM,very little has beenwritten about the overlap of these technologies.The literature that does address elements of RFIDs and point theirconnection to BIM, for example, does so with a focus on new ma-terials being taken from fabrication to site (see Xie et al., 2011). Thework of Cheng and Chang (2011) has also addressed some aspectsof linking RFIDs to BIMs. However, it does not consider the impli-cations for energy saving that would result from such a scheme and,while this work addresses life cycle issues, it does not addresschanges in ownership or BIM assisted auction/sale of the buildingelements.

The proposition is put forward that connecting these technol-ogies and approaches may substantially improve reuse andresource efficiency, especially when applied to demountable steelstructures and interior steel components that are subject to morerapid change, in ‘open building’ terms.

4.2. Digital tags (RFID)

Gershenfeld (1999) points to a future in which the digital worldmerges with the physical world in his book When Things Start toThink. In this regard, Saar and Thomas (2002) ask: ‘what is therelation between the environment and digital futures? Surely ITcould make product recycling and life-cycle management easierand cheaper?’ Similar to Greis (2010), they explore the propositionthat bar codes and RFID tags could greatly increase the effective-ness of product recycling, reuse and end-of-life management.

RFID is a wireless technology capable of unique and automaticidentification of objects (or even people). In contrast to traditionalidentification technologies such as bar codes, RFID is a contactlesstechnology that operates without line-of-sight restrictions. Allmodern RFID systems infrastructure consist of RFID tags (theminiature computing devices forming an interface to the physicalworld), RFID Readers and antennas, and backend system(Ranasinghe et al., 2010, 2011).

Each RFID label may have added features such as sensors formonitoring physical parameters: temperature, pressure, or harmfulagents: toxic chemicals, bacterial agents. The system networksobjects seamlessly by communicating with these labels at suitably

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

placed locations: portals, mobile locations, through handheld de-vices and, potentially, for some tags, continuously throughout theenvironment. A network of RFID Readers is then used to collect datafrom tagged objects. The RFID labeled objects communicate an EPC(Electronic Product Code) to identify themselves as unique entities.In essence, the EPC is a pointer to a database record describing thetagged object and the functionalities provided by the tag.

RFID tags, when coupled to a Reader network, form the linkbetween physical objects and the virtual world in the EPC Network.RFID tags have a small radio antenna that transmits informationover a short range to an RFID tag Reader. RFID technology may useboth powered and non-powered means to activate the electronictags. Powered or active devices use batteries to actively transmitdata from the tags to more distant Readers. Passive RFID devicesliterally harvest energy from the electromagnetic field of an activeReader to both power the tag and transmit the data. In the mostcost effective and popular technology, the tags are passive and inconsequence the ranges of operation are limited (a few metres)(Finkenzeller, 1999). Passive systems are well suited for use in theEPC Network due to their low cost.

The concept of RFID tagging has already been applied to theconstruction process to promote lean construction (Taylor et al.,2009; Taylor, 2010), and Xie et al. (2011) developed a modelcombining RFID, BIM and Virtual Reality (VR) simulation focused onsteel fabrication and site steel erection. Jun et al. (2009) have shownhow RFID can aid decisions over the lifecycle of products, includingtheir end of life phase involving disposal, recycling or reuse. Bj€orket al. (2011) showed how tagging could enable tracking or ‘trace-ability’ of forestry products, and hence monitoring of environ-mental performance. Sørensen et al. (2008, 2010) have alsoreviewed existing ontologies for creating a digital link betweenvirtual models and physical components.

Thus, applying existing technologies and research, a unique IDcan be assigned via an RFID tag to a structural steel element,associated with the manufacturer's branding. An RFID tag couldhold data which would identify characteristics such as expected lifespan in situ, embodied energy, warranty limitations as well as moreperfunctory information such as date and place of manufacturer inaddition to legal details such as dates, identities and contact detailsof owners. Other more sophisticated data could include life cycleembodied energy and carbon content. In addition, as Lynch and Loh(2006) have described, stress sensors can be combined with RFIDtags to monitor the structural performance of structures e.g.bridges; this may open up opportunities for steel suppliers towarrant the integrity of steel for reuse in particular circumstances.

The cost of an RFID tag can cover a wide spectrum, especiallyactive tags compared with passive. Hence, a substantial factor inthe success of a workable and cost effective system as outlined inthis paper would rely on choosing the correct tag and reading

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12 5

equipment for the appropriate element. In theory, more expensiveactive tags could be more appropriate and cost-effective for largesteel structural members, while passive tags could be used for coldformed steel purlins and the like. However, the issue of what is theappropriate tag to use in a particular situation is a technical one,outside the main scope of this paper.

4.3. Building Information Modelling (BIM)

At its simplest a BIM, if constructed properly, can be simulta-neously a tool for structural integrity, artistic impression, quantitysurveying, construction programming and ‘clash detection’ (Editor,2012), among others. In addition to those usages, RFID informedBIM could be employed as a resource locator/qualifier for the reuseof high embodied energy elements. Traditionally, the application oftechnologies for 3D CAD have been to enhance visual representa-tions such as bitmaps and colour maps generically for the purposeof what could be termed sales ormarketing purposes, and relativelyless effort has been put into information specifically for the reuse ofmaterials. Despite this, it is possible to create intelligent connec-tions between RFID tags and CAD-based databases and the virtualworld of BIMs (see Taylor et al., 2009). The unique ID assigned viaan RFID tag to a structural steel element may be linked to a parallelBIM to account for where a tagged element may be found. A BIMdatabase can also be employed to align the identification technol-ogies with an international standard to yield a reliable embodiedenergy account. Unique RFID identifiers can be recorded as an openformat e.g. Industry Foundation Class (IFC) attributes in a CADmodel, and the coherent and completed CAD model can be postedon an IFC server.

Within Building Information Modelling, the virtual buildingmodel is a database of information that tracks all the elements thatmake up the actual building. A CAD/BIM virtual model is the elec-tronic equivalent of the physical building, providing comprehensiveand consistent building information to support activities in lifecycle modelling. A CAD object represents a real world entity byencapsulating its characteristics, both data and function. Data de-scribes the state of the object while function describes its behaviourunder certain conditions (Garba and Hassanain, 2004; Gu andLondon, 2010.).

The life span, ownership, carbon content and other details, oncerecorded on an RFID tag, could then be mirrored as attributes ofthat unique element into a BIM. This record could be housed as partof the BIM on a secure server. From this point any changes to thestructural elements could, via the unique identification capabilityof RFID technologies, dynamically update the BIM.

Connecting RFID tags with BIM enables components to betracked, located, and imported by designers into models for newbuildings, thus adding new capabilities to a given BIM. Rather thanspecifying virgin steel, a designer may search and locate, via theInternet, components and assemblies in the vicinity of the new siteand import those into a new design. Fujita and Iwata (2008) pre-viously suggested use of the Internet to provide database access toan unlimited range of designers and other users, but not forimporting components into BIM designs. Accessing data from stresssensors, as mentioned earlier, will also enable the designer to haveconfidence in the structural properties of the existing steelwork foruse in its new circumstances.

4.4. A scenario for RFID supported BIM

A scenario is now presented that builds upon the currentlyincreasing uptake of BIM in architecture, proposing an additionalfunctionality that would allow for the reuse of steel elements, withthe confidence that there is a real understanding of the savings

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

made from both financial and environmental aspects of a project. Itdemonstrates the connections between the various technologiesand how they could be combined to provide a more ethical andsophisticated use of steel. This is premised on the assumption thatthe data that records the type, location and other accumulatedinformation can be recorded, stored, sorted and retrieved withoutundue complication or proprietary reservation.

Whilst the scenario is computed within itself, it does not ac-count for all the possible permutations of interactions between theparties and various stages. Hence, the scenario envisaged is notextensive nor are the various interactions mutually exclusive.Furthermore, the responsible party can act as a broker if that bettersuits the party's business practices.

A construction or engineering company is approached fordesign and construction services with the proviso that they mustminimise the carbon footprint of the development. The company inquestion, once it has completed a functional analysis of the brief,formulates the most effective way to ascertain which elements tospecify in line with the client's brief; using some rudimentary sizes,they can conduct an Internet based search for suitable steel. Theparameters that could be considered in the search, apart from theobvious fitness for structural purpose, may include variables suchas distance from existing site to future site, mode of transport be-tween locations, time frame of disassembly and the historical stresslevels to which the elements have been subjected. Further to thisinitial enquiry, it may be that several in situ elements could beconsidered. The engineering required to size a structural element istraditionally undertaken in conjunctionwith many other elements.For example, a post and beam construction or portal frame could beconsidered as a single engineered unit comprising columns, lintelsand connecting plates/bolts/pins. From this assertion, it followsthat the potential buyer may need a similar post and beamarrangement and may amend their plans to allow for the reuse of acollection of existing structural elements. If we extend this ideafurther, we can see the potential for a possible buyer, using theexisting BIM data of the in situ steel work, to simulate and testagainst their design criteria. In short, sections from a ‘for sale’structure can be copied from an existing BIM and imported into apartially complete BIM to determine how or whether that steel-work would be adequate for a given intended use.

Once the virtual sale has been completed, taking account ofcriteria such as travel distance, energy/carbon emissions and cost,the BIM could be updated to some future use. Then, as the physicalelements are relocated from use to reuse without recycling (morelikely in the case of modular, readily demountable structures) orthe interim storage usually required, a Reader would record thetransit and the new location. In the most energy intensive trans-actions a parallel can be drawn with the movement of currencybetween banks and ATMs. That is, a deficiency or need is identifiedand a resource, in this case currency, is moved fromwhere there isan excess to where there is a deficit. Whilst this example illustratesan accepted way of moving resources, the movement of highembodied energy elements could be seen in the same light, butwith the obvious differences in time scale and universality ofresources.

5. New paradigms

The above technologies open up opportunities for new servicesand profit centres for steel companies. In addition to their corebusiness focussed on steel product manufacturing, they could enterthe business of steel product recovery (reuse/recycle) and provideinnovative information management services including life-cycledata (see Fig. 2). The customer domain is extended beyond thoseassociated with the initial building design and construction to

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

Fig. 2. Integrated business models.

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e126

those involved in the use of steel products, such as facility man-agers, and the reuse, redesign and reconstruction. The three busi-ness models are inherently interconnected and interdependent toensure an overall value-adding business outcome.

Alternatively, if the steel companies do not see it as their re-sponsibility to install RFID tags or manage RFID enabled BIM, orprovision of information management services and steel productrecovery, then such services could be the core business of thirdparty companies.

5.1. Information management services

As Ranasinghe et al. (2011) have shown, developments in thearea of RFID and sensor network technologies have created newpossibilities for product life-cyclemanagement (PLM): ‘a significantaspect in the through-life management of products is the gatheringand management of data related to the product during the variousphases of its lifecycle. Both RFID and wireless sensor technologieshave created novel levels of product status visibility and automaticidentification with granularity to the level of individual compo-nents’ (Ranasinghe et al., 2011, p. 1015; Jun et al., 2009).

While it is important to incorporate life-cycle characteristics ofsteel products (such as embodied energy and carbon emissions,evolution of physical conditions during the use phase, reliability,reusability, etc.) into building design and construction decision-making models, often the biggest challenge is the availability, ac-curacy, and comprehensiveness of real-life data to facilitate

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

modelling and evaluation. So far, most of the life-cycle data ofbuilding products, including steel components, are eitherliterature-based, compiled from past records, or collected fromlimited industrial sources, which fail to cover varieties of productsand the processes/technologies that are used to make them. Inaddition, a lot of such data is experience-based and possessed in-house by a few consultants or consulting firms, making it verydifficult for independent architects, small-medium building con-structors, as well as building operators to access and use that in-formation in their own projects.

Such limitations and needs present another new business op-portunity for steel manufacturers, particularly the major players,which not only produce materials but also products and compo-nents, to provide information management services to their clientsrelated to the life-cycle inventory (LC inv) and life-cycle manage-ment (LCM) of steel products. With the support of digital taggingand information technologies, a steel company or third party canbetter monitor and record the physical and functional states of itsproducts from production to construction, use, and recovery.

As indicated in Fig. 2, the company can develop life-cycle in-ventory databases and life-cycle management applications for steelproducts, and offer them as additional BIM Applications (BIM Apps)e such as ‘Information-as-a-Service’ and ‘Application/Software-as-a-Service’ - to architects, engineers and other clients. Increasingly,manufacturers of building elements are providing their productswith a virtual version, allowing a designer to download and importcontent from a third party into a 3D CAD model thus ensuring the

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

Fig. 3. Part of Tonsley steel structure.

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12 7

integrity of the third party components from fabricator to CADmodel. The information service envisaged is an extension of suchexisting services, with the RFID information being kept as part ofBIM, and the resources to maintain additional data are considerednegligible. The information management service could be accom-panied by ‘virtual auctions’, thereby facilitating transfer of dataamong various owners of the steel over its life-cycle, the redirectionof dismantled components to other locations, and thus thecontinual reuse of the physical steel components.

Thus, although the core business of a steel company is stillmanufacturing and providing steel products, becoming a life-cycle information service provider for its clients can create newbusiness portfolios and profit centres, increasing the businesscompetitiveness.

5.2. Steel recovery and reuse services

As Allwood et al. (2011, p. 377) have noted, new business op-portunities related to resource efficiency may occur through newrevenue streams, “such as primary metals producers developing a‘second-hand’ supply chain (for instance reconditioning, re-certifying and re-selling used I-beams) exactly as car makers aimto control their re-sale chains”.

As Roos (2012) pointed out, manufacturing is a major employerespecially if this can be combined with related services and solu-tions. Thus, a steel company that currently manufactures and sellssteel could take up recovery and resale of decommissioned steelproducts, becoming a ‘reseller’ of reused steel. This could be facili-tated by its ownership of the above database, which enables thecompany to know the whereabouts of its products, to be able tounderstand, license and warrant their properties and appropriate-ness for reuse in certain applications, as an alternative to scrapping,and to either take them back or redirect them to other locations.

5.3. Product-service systems (PSS)

Taking these approaches to another level of sophistication, the‘reselling’ strategy outlined above could create a platform for thecompany to provide a ‘steel service’, retaining ownership of thesteel over its lifetime, licensing its use by customers in appropriatelocations and circumstances, and providing it as part of a PSS, withsome similarities to leasing and renting. As Allwood et al. (2011, p.377) noted, leasehold could be a new business model, ‘to retainmaterials on the balance sheet and hence nurture their value’.

Akin to Ayers (1999) concept of ‘products as service carriers’, aPSS is an innovation strategy that shifts the focus of a business fromdeveloping and selling physical products to developing and selling asystem of products and services capable of fulfilling specific de-mands of clients (Manzini and Vezzoli, 2003). In PSS, physical, ortangible, product entities are responsible for carrying out the func-tions of PSS, while nonphysical, or intangible, service entities are toensure the smooth delivery of the functions (Maussang et al., 2009).

PSS has been mainly applied to consumer products, withInterfaceFlor being among pioneers in offering modular carpet tilesto customers as part of a service while retaining ownership (seeNess et al., 2005a). Detachable and loose fit’ components of build-ings have previously been provided as part of a service, such as airconditioning services and even lift services (Von Weizs€acker et al.,1998). Furthermore, Yashiro and Nishimoto (2002) and Yashiro(2003) explored how building infill units could be provided usingnew business models such as leasing and PSS. In theory, because oftheir strength and durability, steel components for short-life anddemountable buildings could also be provided to customers as partof a leasing or service contract, thereby facilitating take-back andreuse.

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

Such innovative models require new forms of business re-lationships between producers and customers e a shift from rolesas manufacturers and consumers and one-off transactions to acontinuing, longer-term partnership. From a producer's perspec-tive, this creates the opportunity to provide an increased suite ofservices to a customer, with increased profit pools (Gadiesch andGilbert, 1998). On the other hand, the customer may benefit froman improved service e.g. the provider is responsible for the main-tenance and performance of the component or assembly over theterm of the contract.

These schemes promise improved resource efficiency, wherebyproducers retain stewardship of a product over its lifetime, takingback and remanufacturing or reconfiguring the product for anotheruse. As Ness et al. (2005a) indicated, such mechanisms are likely toreduce energy, emissions and waste, and provide financial benefitsfor both producer and customer.

6. Potential energy savings: local example

The benefits of enabling extended use of metals through reus-ing, remanufacturing, recycling, or avoiding dematerialising arequite clear. According to Ayres (1997), over 16 tons of non-renewable material inputs (including coal, iron ore, and other re-sources) as well as considerable amount of air and water pollutantscan be reduced by recycling just one ton of used iron products.Reuse of steel components will also make use of the energy already‘embodied’ in existing steel products, thus reducing the need fornew energy. In this section, a local example of demolition of aformer vehicle manufacturing plant is analysed to show potentialenergy savings that could be achieved from facilitating reuse ofstructural steel products.

6.1. Case context and scenarios

The South Australian Government is transforming Tonsley, a61 ha site in southern Adelaide, into a collaborative and high-valueindustry, education and residential precinct. The former vehiclemanufacturing plant comprises extensive steel trusses and col-umns, part of which is shown in Fig. 3. While deconstruction workin the northern part of the Main Assembly Building is in progress,large parts of the steel structure are being demolished, with thetrusses being machine cut, compressed, trucked to a nearby port,from where they will be transported by sea to China and melteddown to become new steel. However, it is also identified that someof the special trusses can actually be reused in the redevelopmentof buildings on site, and are therefore being removed manually.

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e128

Given such context, for the purposes of the case study thefollowing two simplified scenarios are examined for comparisonand assessment of embodied energy savings.

� Scenario 1efull recycling: it is assumed that all the trussmembersremoved from the demolished Main Assembly Building will betransported by truck to a steelworks located 400 km (approx.)north to Adelaide, instead of being shipped overseas, for recy-cling and formakingnewstructuralmembers. The samequantityof new steel members will then be delivered to a constructionsite that is 30 km south to Adelaide for trusses in new buildings.

� Scenario 2 e full reuse: as an alternative scenario, for theoreticalcomparative analysis it is assumed that all the trusses andcomponents can be disassembled for reuse on another con-struction site located 30 km to the south of the original site.Although not included in this case analysis, passive electronictags could be attached to truss components, as indicated inFig. 4, with an RFID reader being located at the site exit to recordthe movement of the trusses.

6.2. Case analysis: embodied energy

From surveying the structure of the Main Assembly Building, itis identified that in total 677 units of trusses need to be removedduring the demolition process. To estimate the amount of steel inthose trusses in this case study, all steel size andmass measures arebased on Carrick (2005) and AS/NZS 3679.1-300 Steel. Accordingly,a typical in-situ truss unit which is close to the smallest truss on siteweighs approximately 710.5 kg. For the purpose of simplifying thecalculation and analysis, this does not include allowance for purlins,columns, and roof sheeting. Therefore, the overall mass of 677trusses is around 480 tons.

Based on the two scenarios presented above, under ‘full recy-cling’ the 480-ton dismantled steel members will undergo theprocesses of demolition, delivery to the steel works, recycling, re-fabrication, transportation to the new site, and on-site installationfor a new building. The process flows are illustrated in Fig. 5.Meanwhile, for ‘full reuse’ the 480-ton steel members will undergodeconstruction, transportation to the new site, and then re-assembly, as shown in Fig. 6. In this reuse scenario, RFID tagscould be attached to truss members prior to disassembly.

To compare the embodied energyof the trusses and components,the energy consumption related to the processes of the respectivescenarios in this case study can be calculated as follows (Eq. (1)):

EEtotal ¼EEos þms

haðEEdc þ EEt þ EEcÞ þ

�1� a

�

��EEdm þ EEt0 þ EErf þ EEc

�i (1)

EEtotal: total embodied energyEEos: embodied energy of original steel members

Fig. 4. Truss with RFID tags.

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

EEdc: embodied energy of disassembly/deconstructionEEt, EEt0 : embodied energy of transportationEEc: embodied energy of installationEEdm: embodied energy of dismantlingEErf: embodied energy of recycling and re-fabrication of struc-ture steelms: total mass of steel members (in kg)

In the equation above, a is the ratio of steel members suitable forreuse (a2[0,1]). Therefore, a is 0 for Scenario 1 and a is set as 1 forScenario 2. Meanwhile, EEdc and EEdm are affected by how thedeconstruction is carried out as well as whether and how poweredtools are used in the respective process. Due to lack of detailed dataand information related to the on-site operations for the MainAssembly Building deconstruction, in this particular case analysis itis assumed that the energy consumptions for demolishing thetrusses and for disassembling the truss members are the same.Also, the energy consumption for in-situ truss assembly/installa-tion is considered to be the same under both scenarios. Therefore,the difference in the embodied energy between the two scenarios,DEE, is measured as shown in Eq. (2):

DEE ¼ ms

hEEt �

�EEt0 þ EErf

�i(2)

While the embodied energy (primary production) of low carbonor mild steel, commonly used for steel sections in construction,sheet roofing and concrete reinforcement, is 25e28 MJ/kg (Ashby,2013, p. 462e3), structure steel made from recycled sources (sec-ondary production) is on average between 8.9 MJ/kg (Alcorn, 2003,p. 19) and 10 MJ/kg (Hammond and Jones, 2008, p. 51). In themeantime, impacts of transportation of steel are shown in Table 1.

Using the figures in Table 1 and the processes depicted inFigs. 5e6, the DEE between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 can becomputed with the data in Table 2, which indicates a difference oftotal 4,790,400 MJ in embodied energy.

6.3. Comment on findings

As demonstrated in the case analysis, the full reuse of 480-tonsteel truss members (Scenario 2) from a demolished industrybuilding can lead to approximately 9980 MJ/ton, or 9.98 MJ/kg,potential energy saving in comparisonwith the full recycling option(Scenario 1). The associated Greenhouse Gas Emission (GGE) aswell as cost savings can be estimated in the similar way. Althoughthe majority of the energy savings can be obtained from avoidingextra processing of recycling and re-fabrication, transportation alsocontributes to about 12.6 per cent of total embodied energy ofrecycled steel due to distances between cities in Australia are inexcess compared to many more populated countries and regions.

While the two scenarios examined in this case study representsimplified and idealised situations, in reality there is always a mixof reuse and recycling for end-of-life structural steel products frombuilding demolition. The recent development of the demolitionproject at the Tonsley site indicates that around 26 trusses(18,473 kg of steel) from the dismantled Assembly Building struc-ture will be salvaged to use as replacement units, which can resultin a sizeable saving of 184,361.54 MJ embodied energy.

7. Further discussion

7.1. Environmental and other benefits

From the case analysis, it is clear that reuse of steel, with com-ponents being redirected from one location to another, has thepotential to save embodied and transportation energy, especially

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

Fig. 5. Processes of Scenario 1.

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12 9

where the new location is in the vicinity of the dismantled struc-ture. This can be achieved by increasing the ratio of reuse throughimplementing smart technology and smart design.

Allwood et al. (2011, p. 372) have also highlighted environ-mental benefits of component reuse, which they claim is ‘aneffective emissions abatement strategy. However, Allwood et al.(2013, p.7) note that ‘maintaining an energy-using product in useover a longer life may delay the opportunity to adopt technologyimprovements which lead to reduced energy requirements in use’.For example, the development and use of lighter steels could resultin improved energy outcomes, in the long run, via replacementversus reuse, so some tradeoffs may be required.

In addition to environmental benefits, the approach offers thepossibility of cost savings for producers and customers (e.g. due toreduced cost of raw materials and processing). As Allwood et al.(2011, p.372) also point out, ‘economically, reuse appears attrac-tive’, and ‘the additional cost of deconstruction appears to be offsetby the increased revenue from sale of reclaimed components,combined with avoidance of disposal changes’. As discussed earlier,

Fig. 6. Processes i

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

reuse may also open up opportunities for new profit centres,businesses and employment in the services sector.

7.2. Circumstances required for successful application

The approach will require, as Ayres (1997, p. 168) noted, thatsteel companies ‘think of their products as assets to be conserved:this would automatically result in greater emphasis on reuse, repairand remanufacturing as means of saving energy and conservingvalue-added embodied in products’. Arguably, though, it is not juststeel companies that need to change mindsets and approaches, butalso their supply chain, designers, constructors and, ultimately,their customers. Taking this wider system and network view, lifecycle assessment and industrial ecology have important roles toplay (see Chubbs and Steiner, 1998; Sagar and Frosch, 1997).

Taxing materials and energies will promote low-carbon andlow-resource solutions, as Stahel (2013) has noted, with carbonpricing likely to improve resource efficiency in the steel and otherindustries (Allwood et al., 2013. In addition, incorporation of

n Scenario 2.

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

Table 1Impacts of transportation of steel in Australia (source: Strezov and Herbertson, 2006,p. 11).

Mode oftransport

Impacts of transport pertonne per 100 km

Average steel freightwithin Australia

Energy MJ GGE kg CO2 eq Tonnage Mt Distance km

Ship 2.5 0.18 6 665Rail 57.5 4.0 2 965Truck 134.6 10.0 1 250

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e1210

requirements for interlinked BIM and RFID in government pro-curement of projects could not only stimulate markets for resourceefficiency of steel and other products, but also benefit facilitiesmanagement (Allwood et al., 2013).

Except in the case of temporary structures (such as exhibitionpavilions) construction with substantial use of reclaimed compo-nents remains challenging, especially because the supply chain is notwell developed (Allwood et al., 2011, p. 372). To achieve its fullbenefits, the approach should be accompanied by modularisation ofsteel components and building design, such as is alreadywidespreadin the industrial buildings sector e.g. warehouses, temporary struc-tures. Innovative engineering and construction companies arealreadydelivering anextensive rangeofmodular solutions, includingsmart wall and building systems, using automated processes tomanufacture construction components in a controlled offsite envi-ronment. Towards a vision of a zero-carbon future, Laing O'Rourke(2013) is applying Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) toprojects ranging from schools to hospitals, hotels and mining infra-structure. Such approaches could accompany the application ofadaptable, ‘open building’ and ‘design for disassembly’ principles,being especially applicable to the more frequently inter-changeableand replaceable components of buildings and temporary struc-tures.Within thecontextof openbuilding, Yashiro (2009)posited theidea of an ‘information-embedded building’, involving ‘life cycletraceabilityof buildingcomponents andequipmentusingRFID’. Suchapproaches may be integral to a transition to a ‘resource circulatingsociety’ (Morioka et al., 2006) and the ‘remanufacturing architecture’future envisaged by Kieran and Timberlake (2004).

Remanufacturing and standardisation is alreadywidely practisedin the automobile industry by BMW and others, with up to 60 percent of parts able to be reutilised at the end of their specified life-time. In addition, every exchangeable part is subject to exactly thesame quality specifications as an original BMWpart and even carriesthe same 24-month warranty. According to BMW, ‘Ninety-five percent of all parts that cannot be directly refurbished are recycled. Andthese figures make sense not only for the environment but for yourpocket as well e BMW remanufactured parts cost up to 50 per centless than the new component’ (BMW, 2012). Fuji Xerox also adoptsthis approach by designing its copiers in modular, demountableform, recovering parts for remanufacturing (Ken and Ryan, 2001).

7.3. Legislative imperatives

The legislative push and market drive for ‘green’ buildings leadto growing interest from building designers and constructors in thecarbon footprint, recyclability and reuse of building structural

Table 2Embodied energy comparison between two case scenarios.

Scenario Mass of steelmember (ton)

Road transport(km)

S1 e Full Recycling (a ¼ 0) 480 830S2 e Full Reuse (a ¼ 1) 480 30

a Based on 8.9 MJ/kg, data from New Zealand (Alcorn, 2003), for the production in Au

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

components, many of which are made of steel. In Australia, thevoluntary ‘Green Star Office’ tool validates the environmental ini-tiatives of the design phase of new office construction or basebuilding refurbishment (GBCA, 2011). Material is weighted thethird of all categories in Green Star, following energy and indoor airenvironment. A design will earn points for reusing an existingbuilding and using recycled steel, with the aim ‘to encourage andrecognise the reduction in embodied energy and resource deple-tion associated with reduced use of virgin steel’. Two points out of25 points are awarded where 90 per cent of all steel, bymass, in theproject either has a post consumer recycled content greater than 50per cent, or is reused. Material (e.g. using recycled steel) is alsoimportant in other worldwide schemes such as the US LEED and theUK BREEAM, a similar environmental rating tool as Green Star.

8. Conclusions

Whilst the AEC sector is responsible for the production of asignificant amount of high embedded energy components, theirreuse in this industry sector is not commensurate or comparablewith other less resource intensive industries. The sector is tradi-tionally conservative in the adoption of innovations compared toother comparative industries. However, the approach outlined,which uses a novel combination of familiar and proven technolo-gies, may be expected to enjoy a higher level of acceptance e

especially as steel components lend themselves to reuse due totheir robustness and durability. Architects and engineers are wellplaced to drive change through new RFID enabled BIM.

RFID has been used in the automobile industry (Schmitt et al.,2007) and has been used to achieve efficiencies in the on-siteconstruction process (Xie et al., 2011). However, the notion ofRFID enabled BIM and associated processes, including the use of theInternet to conduct on line auctions, could be a novel addition toarchitectural and industry practices that may facilitate reuse ofcomponents. Such techniques may not only open the way to a moreresource efficient and low carbon steel industry, but also to newbusiness models and profit centres.

Recognising that this is an embryonic field of endeavour andempirical work is yet to be conducted, the authors have put forwarda plan for more extensive research. It is first proposed to undertakea ‘desk-top’ proof of concept exercise, with data e including detailsof owner, manufacturer, date and place of manufacture, physicalcharacteristics and the like e to be added to a series of tags on anotional building plan, to examine their traceability when relo-cated, and to synchronise data between RFID tags and BIM. Whilethe Tonsley case example has illustrated the potential for achievingenergy saving from reuse, a more detailed analysis and refinementof the model for embodied energy assessment, with comparisonunder more realistic scenarios, will be conducted by using the nextphase of the Tonsley deconstruction. This will involve testing thesynchronisation of RFID and BIM on an actual steel building aboutto be dismantled, tracking the components after they leave the site,and conducting further more detailed analysis andmodelling basedon energy, GGE, cost and other factors. The authors then plan towork with interested parties to examine the viability of alternativebusiness models to facilitate an increase in reuse over recycle. Thus,

EEt (truck)(MJ/ton/km)

EErf of Refab. Steelmember (MJ/ton)

DEE (S1eS2) (MJ)

537,840 4,272,000a 4,790,40019,440 0

stralia and assumed fully from recycled steel.

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12 11

further steps may be taken towards more ethical, coherent andresponsible use of the earth's resources by one of the most energyintensive sectors.

Acknowledgements

The assistance of Renewal SA, South Australia, is gratefullyacknowledged for assistance with drawings and data for theTonsley case analysis, while Bluescope Steel kindly provided dataon their processes.

References

Alcorn, A., 2003. Embodied Energy and CO2 Coefficients for NZ Building Materials.Centre for Building Performance Research, Victoria University of Wellington.http://www.victoria.ac.nz/architecture/centres/cbpr/resources/pdfs/ee-co2_report_2003.pdf (accessed 03.07.14.).

Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G., Worrell, E., 2011. Material efficiency: awhite paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 362e381.

Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G., Worrell, E., 2013. Material efficiency:providing material services with less material production. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A371, 20120496.

Ashby, M.F., 2013. Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice,second ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, USA.

Australian Government, 2006 October. Stewardship: Leading Practice SustainableProjects for the Mining Industry. http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/resources/enduring_value/stewardship.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Australian Government, 2011a. Securing a Clean Energy Future, the Australian Gov-ernment's Climate Change Plan. http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CleanEnergyPlan-20120628-3.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Australian Government, 2011b. National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER):Greenhouse and Energy Information 2010e11. Department of Climate Changeand Energy Efficiency. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/nger-greenhouse-energy-information-2010-11.aspx (accessed 19.02.13.).

Ayers, R., 1999. Products as Service Carriers: Should We Kill the Messenger e orSend it Back? Zero Emissions Forum, UN University, Tokyo. http://archive.unu.edu/zef/publications_e/ZEF_EN_1999_01_D.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Ayres, R., 1997. Metals recycling: economic and environmental implications. Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 21, 145e173.

Basson, E., 2012. Sustainable steel: at the core of a green economy. In: Presentationto Rio þ20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio, 19 June. http://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/speeches-and-presentations/basson-Rioe20.html (accessed 19.02.13.).

Bj€ork, A., Erlandsson, M., Hakli, J., Jaakkola, K., Nilsson, A., Nummila, K.,Puntananen, V., Sirkka, A., 2011. Monitoring environmental performance of theforestry supply chain using RFID. Comput. Ind. 62, 830e841.

BlueScope Steel, 2008 18 April. Submission to Garnaut Climate Change Review.http://www.garnautreview.org.au/ca25734e0016a131/WebObj/D0846055ETSsubmission-BlueScopeSteel/$File/D08%2046055%20ETS%20submission%20-%20BlueScope%20Steel.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

BlueScope Steel, 2009. Recycling in the Steel Industry. http://www.bluescopesteel.com/go/about-bluescope-steel/student-information/recycling-in-the-steel-industry/recycling-in-the-steel-industry (accessed 19.02.13.).

BlueScope Steel, 2012. Sustainability. http://sustainability.bluescopesteel.com.au/(accessed 19.02.13.).

BMW, 2012. Original BMW Remanufactured Parts. http://www.bmw.com/com/en/owners/parts/bmw_original_parts/bmw_remanufactured_parts.html (accessed19.02.13.).

Brand, S., 1994. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. Viking,New York.

Carrick, L.J., 2005. Lysaght Referee, 31st ed. Art Imprint, Dee Why NSW.Cheng, M.-Y., Chang, N.-W., 2011. Radio frequency identification (RFID) integrated

with building information model (BIM) for open-building life cycle informationmanagement. In: Proc. 28th Int. Sym. Autom. Robot. Constr. Min. (ISARC), Seoul,Korea, pp. 485e490.

Chubbs, S.T., Steiner, B.A., 1998. Life cycle assessment in the steel industry. Environ.Prog. 17 (2). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ep.670170215/abstract(accessed 19.02.13.).

Cuperus, Y., 2001. An introduction to open building. In: Chua, D., Ballard, G. (Eds.),Proc. 9th Int. Group Lean Con. Conf. Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore, 6e8 August2001. Nat. Uni, Singapore.

Editor, 2012 11 March. Clash detection in BIM modelling. BIM J. http://www.bimjournal.com/2012/03/clash-detection-in-bim-modeling/ (accessed08.07.14.).

Environmental Leader, 2007 11 October. Steel industry to report CO2 emissions.Environ. Energy Manag. News. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/10/11/steel-industry-to-report-co2-emissions/ (accessed 19.02.13.).

Finkenzeller, K., 1999. RFID Handbook: Radio Frequency Identification Fundamen-tals and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

Fujita, M., Iwata, M., 2008. Reuse system of building steel structures. Struct. Infra.Eng. 4 (3), 207e220.

Gadiesch, O., Gilbert, J., 1998 MayeJune. Profit pools: a fresh look at strategy. Harv.Bus. Rev. 139e147.

Garba, S.B., Hassanain, M.A., 2004. A review of object oriented CAD potential forbuilding information modelling and life cycle management. In: Proc. 1stASCAAD Int. Conf. e-Des. Archit. KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, December.http://www.ascaad.org/conference/2004/pdfs/paper21.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

GBCA, 2011. Green Star Office v3. Green Building Council Australia.Gershenfeld, N., 1999. When Things Start to Think. Holt, New York.Gorgolewski, M., 2008 May. Designing with reused building components: some

challenges. Build. Res. Inf. 36 (2), 175e188.Greis, N.P., 2010. Smart ¼ green: a systems perspective to greening the supply

chain. In: Proc. Greening Optim. Int. Forum, 10e13 December. Natl. Tsing HuaUniv, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Gross, R., Foxon, T., 2003. Policy support for innovation to secure improvements inresource productivity. Int. J. Environ. Technol. 3 (2), 118e130.

Gu, N., London, K., 2010. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AECindustry. Autom. Constr. 19, 988e999.

Hammond, G.P., Jones, C., 2008. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), Version 1.6a,64. http://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/ICE.pdf (accessed 23.08.13.).

Jun, H., Shin, J., Kim, Y., Kiritsis, D., Xirouchakis, P., 2009. A framework for RFIDapplications in product lifecycle management. Int. J. Comp. Integr. Manuf. 22.7,595e615.

Ken, W., Ryan, C., 2001 Feb. Eco-efficiency gains for remanufacturing: a case studyof photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji Xerox Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 9 (1),75e78.

Kendall, S., 1999. Open building: an approach to sustainable architecture. J. Urb.Technol. 6 (3), 1e16.

Kieran, S., Timberlake, J., 2004. Refabricating Architecture: How ManufacturingMethodologies Are Poised to Transform Building Construction. McGraw-Hill.

Lynch, J.P., Loh, K.L., 2006. A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor net-works for structural health monitoring. Shock Vib. Dig. 38 (March), 91e128.

Manzini, E., Vezzoli, C., 2003. A strategic design approach to develop sustainableproduct-service systems: examples taken from the ‘environmentally friendlyinnovation’ Italian prize. J. Clean. Prod. 11, 851e857.

Maussang, N., Zwolinski, P., Brissaud, D., 2009. Product-service system designmethodology: from the PSS - architecture design to the products specifications.J. Eng. Des. 20 (4), 349.

Transition to a resource circulating society: strategies and initiatives in Asia. In:Morioka, T., Haruki, K., Yabar, H. (Eds.), 2006. Proc. 2006 Int. Symp. Res. Inst.Sustain. Sci. Osaka Uni. Press. http://www.riss.osaka-u.ac.jp/jp/publication/Transition.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Ness, D., Clement, S., Field, M., Filar, J., Pullen, S., 2005a. (Approaches towards)sustainability in the built environment through dematerialization. In: Proc.World Sustain. Build. Conf. Tokyo, September.

Ness, D., Pullen, S., Field, M., 2005b. Making better use of what we've got: stew-ardship of existing buildings and infrastructure. In: Proc. ‘Fabricating Sustain-ability’, Conf. Archit. Sci. Assoc. Wellington, NZ, November.

OneSteel, 2013. Sustainable Design: WIN Stadium, Wollongong, Aust. http://www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/pages/page21_Sustainable_Design_Win_Stadium.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

O'Rourke, Laing, 2013. Engineering the Future: Product and Process Innovation.http://www.laingorourke.com/engineering-the-future.aspx (accessed19.02.13.).

Ranasinghe, D.C., Sheng, Q.Z., Zeadally, S. (Eds.), 2010 September. Unique RadioInnovation for the 21st Century: Building Scalable and Global RFID Networks.Springer.

Ranasinghe, D.C., Harrison, M., Framling, K., McFarlane, D., 2011. Enabling throughlife product-instance management: solutions and challenges. J. Netw. Comput.Appl. 34 (3), 1015e1031.

Reijnders, L., 1998. The Factor X debate: setting targets for eco-efficiency. J. Ind. Ecol.2 (1), 13e22.

Ritthoff, M., Holger, R., Liedtke, C., 2002. Calculating MIPS: Resource Productivity ofProducts and Services. Wuppertal Inst. Clim. Environ. Energ.

Roos, G., 2012. Manufacturing into the Future. Adelaide Thinker in Residence2010e2011, Gov. South Aust. http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/thinkers/roos/report.aspx (accessed 19.02.13.).

Rynikiewicz, C., 2008. The climate change challenge and transitions for radicalchanges in the European steel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 781e789.

Saar, S., Thomas, V., 2002. Toward trash that thinks: product tags for environmentalmanagement. J. Ind. Ecol. 6, 133e146.

Sagar, A.D., Frosch, R.A., 1997. A perspective on industrial ecology and its applicationto a metals-industry ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 5 (1e2), 39e45.

Schmidt-Bleek, F., 2000. The Factor 10/MIPS-concept Bridging Ecological, Economic,and Social Dimensions with Sustainability Indicators. Factor 10 Institute. http://www.factor10-institute.org/files/MIPS.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Schmitt, P., Thiesse, F., Fleisch, E., 2007. Adoption and Diffusion of RFID Technologiesin the Automotive Industry. Auto-ID Labs, White Paper. http://forum.autoidlabs.org/uploads/media/AUTOIDLABS-WP-BIZAPP-041.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Sørensen, K.B., Christiansson, P., Svidt, K., Jacobsen, K., Simoni, T., 2008. Towardslinking virtual models with physical objects in construction using RFID - reviewof ontologies. In: Rischmoller, Leonardo (Ed.), Proc. CIB-W78 25th Int. Conf. Inf.Technol. Constr, pp. 418e428. Santiago de Chile, July 15e17. http://www.it.civil.aau.dk/it/reports/2008_07_w78_chile_kbs.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055

D. Ness et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e1212

Sørensen, K.B., Christiansson, P., Svidt, K., 2010. Ontologies to support RFID-basedlink between virtual models and construction components. Comput. AidedCiv. Infra. Eng. 25, 285e302.

SSC, 2012. Steel Reuse, Sustainable Steel Construction. http://johnjing.co.nz/green_web/reuse.php (accessed 02.07.12.).

Stahel, W., 1982. The Product-life Factor. Product-Life Institute, Geneva. http://www.product-life.org/en/major-publications/the-product-life-factor (accessed02.07.12.).

Stahel, W.R., 2013. Policy for material efficiency e sustainable taxation as a departurefrom the throwaway society. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20110567. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1986/20110567.short (accessed 03.07.14.).

Steel Stewardship Forum, 2011. Responsible Steel. http://steelstewardship.com/(accessed 19.02.13.).

Strezov, L., Herbertson, J., 2006 April. A life cycle perspective on steel buildingmaterials. Aust. Steel Inst..

Taylor, M., 2010. Radio frequency identification (RFID) and the lean constructionprocess. In: Proc. 18th CIB World Congr. 2010, May. http://cibworld.xs4all.nl/dl/publications/w078_pub361.pdf#page¼46 (accessed 19.02.13.).

Taylor, M., Coady, S., Chesser, J., 2009. Radio frequency identification (RFID) andbuilding information modelling (BIM): integrating the lean construction pro-cess. In: Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Civ. Struct. Environ. Eng. 1e4 September, Funchal,Madeira, Portugal.

UNEP, 2012. Climate Neutral: Building and Construction. UN Environment Program.http://www.unep.org/climateneutral/Topics/Buildingandconstruction/tabid/141/Default.aspx (accessed 02.07.12.).

Please cite this article in press as: Ness, D., et al., Smart steel: new paradiJournal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

Wallbaum, H., Buerkin, C., 2003 AprileSeptember. Concepts and Instruments for aSustainable Construction Sector. UNEP Ind. Environ, pp. 53e57.

Von Weizs€acker, E., Lovins, A.B., Lovins, L.H., 1998. Factor Four: Doubling Wealth,Halving Resources. Earthscan.

Wilson, L., 2011 22 December. Combet Delivers $100m BlueScope Aid Package. TheAustralian.

World Steel, 2009 September. The Three Rs of Sustainable Steel, Fact Sheet: theThree Rs.

World Steel, 2012. Steel's Contribution to a Low Carbon Future. World Steel Assoc. Po-sition Paper. http://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/downloads/publications/Climate-change-position-paper-A4/document/Climate%20change%20position%20paper%20A4.pdf (accessed 19.02.13.).

Xie, H., Shi, W., Issa, R., 2011 February. Using RFID and real-time virtual realitysimulation for optimization in steel construction. J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

Yashiro, T., 2003 AprileSept. The open building concept for an adaptable builtenvironment. Ind. Environ. Q. Rev. 26, 2e3. UN Environment Program, Sustain.Build. Constr.

Yashiro, T., 2009. Overview of building stock management in Japan. In:Fujino, Y., Noguchi, T. (Eds.), Stock Management for Sustainable UrbanRegeneration, cSUR-UT Series: Library for Sustainable Urban Regeneration,vol. 4. Springer.

Yashiro, T., Nishimoto, K., 2002. Leasing of infill components e new business modeldevelopment for dematerialisation of building related industry. In: Proc. Sus-tain. Build. Symp. 2002. Nor. Build. Res. Inst.

gms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling,014.08.055