Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Integrating G2G, C2C and resource flow analysis into life cycle
assessment framework: A case of construction steel’s resource loop
Liu Lanfang a , Srour Issam b , Chong Wai K. c,∗ , Hermreck Christopher d
a
Arup Engineering, 560 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA
b
American University of Beirut, Department of Engineering Management, PO Box: 11-0236/EMP, Beirut, Lebanon
c
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University, 501 E. Tyler Mall, Tempe, AZ
85287, USA
d
JE Dunn Construction, 1001 Locust St, Kansas City, MO 64106, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a new life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to model life cycle impact of materials
Received 27 February 2014 that integrates both Cradle-to-Grave (C2G) and Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) approaches. The new approach,
Received in revised form 3 June 2015 also known as the resource loop, has the capability to capture both C2G and C2C lifecycles of most
Accepted 15 June 2015
products, processes or policies. The C2C LCA model represents the footprint of a product, process or
Available online 13 August 2015
policy that never ends (i.e., recycled or reused). It reflects the footprint of a product, process or policy
that terminates at the end of its useful life (i.e., disposed or landfilled). In this paper, Material and Energy
Keywords:
Flow Analysis (MEFA) is integrated into the C2C LCA model to enhance the model’s capability to capture
Resource loop
Construction Steel
and integrate material and energy information internal and external of LCA. The flows are relabeled
Lifecycle “leaks” and “feeds”, of which the material and energy could leak out of or feed into the life cycle system.
Material and energy flow The “leaks” and “feeds” reflect the flows of materials and energy in and out of the life cycle process. They
can also be integrated with the life cycles of other product, process or policy. Such integration is a step
closer toward a more comprehensive LCA model for a finished product that contains multiple material
and energy flows (e.g., a building). Resource loop (RL) reflects the material and energy flows and loops
of one or more complex systems more accurately. The RL incorporates leaks and feeds that reflect the
reality of a product’s lifecycle. Through data collected from selected sources, the paper illustrates the
use of the construction steel RL. For every 1 kg of construction steel product made and disposed, 0.74 kg
was found to remain in the loop through reuse or recycling. The remaining 0.26 kg ends up in landfills
representing unrecoverable “leaks”.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction throughout their lifecycle. Landfills and incinerators consume land

The US produces over 4.4 pounds of waste per capita daily,
and 35% of it are recycled or composted while the rest is sent to
landfills (EPA, 2015). The construction industry contributed sig-
nificantly to the waste problem with more than 320 million tons
of waste generated annually in the US alone (Lachimpadi et al.,
2012). Despite tougher and more aggressive government legis-
lations, recycling rates of most construction materials have not
grown rapidly as is the case of bituminous material in Portugal
(Coelho and de Brito, 2013). Energy is also consumed throughout
the materials’ life cycle, from extraction to recycling or disposal.
Construction materials generate significant environmental impacts
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.+1 512-496-1719.
E-mail address: ochong@asu.edu (W.K. Chong).
for other more productive uses and generate air pollution, respec-
tively, while energy use to transport, manufacture and store these
materials generate significant amount of carbon emissions and pol-
lutions. Understanding the energy use and environmental impacts
of construction materials at different life cycle stages is critical in
reducing materials’ lifecycle impacts.
Process-based and economic input-output models (Chong and
Hermreck, 2010a) are the two most commonly used life cycle anal-
ysis methods to quantify the life cycle environmental impact of
materials. Life cycle analysis is also known as the Cradle to Grave
(C2G) method (Van der Velden et al., 2014). It is a one-way lin-
ear flow method and assumes that material life will be disposed
eventually. Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) is a circular process that model
after the natural process whereby nutrients in nature circulate and
never have end in their life (McDonough and Braungart, 2002).
The C2C concept introduces concepts like technical metabolism,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.009
0921-3449/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
144 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
biomimetic, regenerative, ecosystems, synthetic and organic into
the life cycle analysis model. In reality, C2G and C2C can occur to
all materials, and even the same material can have more than one
representative C2G or C2C model.
The objective of this paper is to present a unified and compre-
hensive framework for analyzing the life cycle impact of materials
that combine C2G and C2C lifecycle. At the core of the concept is the
resource loop (RL). RL combines C2C and C2G LCA concepts into one
broad LCA concept. The paper presents the development of RL by
identifying the material and energy use, and environmental impact
at different lifecycle stages. Energy and materials flowing in and out
of an LCA model but are previously unaccounted for are labeled as
leaks and feeds in the RL. They represent the processes of material
and energy flows within the RL. The proposed framework is illus-
trated for the case of steel, a highly recyclable material that can
easily fit into the C2G and C2C models. Material and energy use
data were collected and analyzed from four construction projects
(Table 1) and various reliable sources to develop and validate the
loop.
2. Assessing the product lifecycle enviromental impact
2.1. Lifecycle environmental impact in the context of sustainable
development
There are many definitions of sustainable development or
sustainability. Examples include: “development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987), “using methods, systems
and materials that won’t deplete resources and harm natural cycle”
(Rosenbaum, 1993a,b), and “a concept and attitude in development
that looks at a site’s natural land, water, and energy resources as
integral aspects of the development” (Vieira, 1993). Sustainability
is often illustrated where all three pillars (economic, environment
and social) converge (Adams, 2006). Sustainability in the construc-
tion industry refers to the ability of design solutions to address
the three pillars of sustainability (Chong et al., 2007; Chong et al.,
2009). The design team is expected to be familiar with climate and
material resources (Azhar et al., 2011). Terms associated with a
sustainable design include energy efficiency and carbon footprint
(Ammouri et al., 2011).
Several standards, tools, and eco-labels can be used to determine
project, product and material sustainability. The U.S. Green Building
Council (USGBC)’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) (USGBC) assesses the sustainability of buildings, while the
National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST)’s Building for
Economic and Environmental Sustainability (BEES, 2008) assesses
the sustainability impact of construction materials. Other standards
focus on particular sustainability features, like Energy Star by the
US Department of Energy which evaluates the energy efficiency of
electrical products, and the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label
which provides a volatile organic compounds (VOCs) standard for
carpet and adhesives (The Carpet and Rug Institute, 2009). These
sustainability standards, tools and labels rarely consider the com-
plete lifecycle due to the lack of comprehensive models, and reliable
information. This paper aims to develop a model that combines the
C2C with the C2G models. This is that the first step toward the
development of the RL.
2.2. Lifecycle material flow models
2.2.1. Cradle to Grave (C2G): one end of the spectrum
The C2G model has been the most commonly used model for
industrial product designs (Jones, 2008). As shown in Fig. 1, the
model is a single directional flow process (Steffen, 2006). Virgin
materials are extracted from the Cradle before being manufac-
tured, shipped and sold as products or become part of products,
and eventually disposed as waste into the Grave (i.e., landfills or
incinerators) (Graedel, 1998). The life span of a material and prod-
uct is determined by its usage intensity, integrity, aesthetics, and
the rate of technological advancement (McDonough and Braungart,
2002). The product manufacturing process consumes resources and
energy, and generates wastes and pollution (Shrestha et al., 2014).
Resources are often combined together to make into different prod-
ucts (e.g., glass, wood, rubber, and adhesive for doors), while wastes
generated during the process (leak) may be used to make other
products (feed). Waste recapture and disposal can happen during
any life cycle stages, not just at the end of life. Recycling takes place
at all life cycle stages (pre-industrial and post-consumer), and thus
leaks and feeds of materials take place at different life cycle phases
too. The C2G LCA model is unable to capture this complex pro-
cess of feeds and leaks, and the model ends when the life of the
product ends. The linear nature of LCA neglects the less critical pro-
cesses throughout the life cycle. As a result, the resource and energy
in a C2G LCA model cannot include multiple or minor paths, and
some resource and energy will not be captured. A C2G LCA model
for a product cannot be connected with the other products and
resources, and thus it is never possible to obtain a comprehensive
impact of a product.
2.2.2. Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C): beyond the end of the original
spectrum
Achieving sustainability requires a transition from a one-way
linear process for representing materials’ lifecycle to a cyclical pro-
cess (Miyatake, 1996). McDonough and Braungart (2002) used a
cherry tree as an example to show how a circular system works
in nature. The nutrients from the cherry tree flow continuously in
a cycle along with the life span of the plant. Similarly, the prin-
ciple of C2C, also known as the biological metabolism (Altman
and Dittmer, 1968), also applies to industrial activities (Ayres and
Simonis, 1994). The C2C model embodies the concept of industrial
metabolism, which uses biological metabolism as a reference to
design for cyclical industrial activities. In the C2C model, indus-
trial resources do not have an end-of-life even though products
have, as resources are recycled in the industrial metabolism sys-
tem and become technical nutrients for new resources (van Dijk
et al., 2014). A product ends its life when it transforms from one
product to another product, but it remains a resource and nutrient
for other purposes.
The C2C model addresses the three pillars of sustainability. It
offers a practical framework for creating products while main-
taining a positive relationship between environmental health,
economic growth, and social development (Braungart et al., 2006).
This is achieved through the process of recycling which turns prod-
ucts, at the end of their useful life, into nutrients or usable raw
materials to make new products (Cameron, 2003). Recycling also
turns waste into nutrients. These nutrients do not necessarily have
the same lifecycle. For example, it might be more efficient to trans-
fer the steam generated in an electrical power station to a new cycle
such as oil refining (Kibert, 2008). The effectiveness of recycling is
illustrated by the increase in the%age of recycled municipal solid
waste in the US from 16.7% in 1985 to 34.5% in 2012 (EPA, 2015).
2.2.3. Differences between C2G and C2C models
The C2C model is a circular loop without an end, while the C2G
model is linear with one or more ending points. The C2C model
assumes zero waste, while the C2G model assumes 100% waste at
the end of life. Even though C2G assumes recycling and disposal can
take place at the same time, it neglects the process at the end of a
product’s life, and the processes when a product turns into another
 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
Table 1
Case study projects.
Project Name Location Building type
Project 1 Southwest Commercial
Project 2 Pacific Northwest Public order & safety
Project 3 Midwest Commercial
Project 4 Midwest K-12 education
Fig. 1. C2G materials flow model (Source: Graedel, 1998).
(and the energy and resources consumed during the conversion).
A new approach to model lifecycle impact is needed to address
the gaps of both models. Lifecycle processes of any products are
dynamic as there can be many types of procedures for the same
processes, and procedures can change frequently. LCA models have
to have the capability to address such dynamism.
2.3. Resource loop
The production of products and materials involves multiple
activities, processes, procedures, and lifecycles. Resources and
energy used in the production processes are applied at different
phases, and not consumed at one specific time. A production pro-
cess can generate by-products for or use by- products from other
production processes. When a product reaches its end of life, parts
of the product can be recycled, reused or disposed. The processes
and procedures are also driven by many factors, such as, production
locations, availability of facilities, and quality of resources (Chong
and Hermreck, 2010b). A product made in California, and the same
one made in Tennessee can have very different lifecycle paths. Envi-
ronmental laws require the modification to existing production
methods, and thus the production methods for U.S. States that have
stricter environmental laws are very different than those states that
do not have these laws.
Industrial production processes consume large amount of raw
materials (Hendrickson and Horvath, 2000) and generates large
amount of wastes (Poon et al., 2004) at different lifecycle stages.
Green construction standards, codes, and tools (e.g., International
Green Construction Code) are adopted by various agencies to
reduce environmental footprints. They require construction stake-
holders (e.g., engineers, architects, owners and builders) to adopt
different practices to the design, construction, maintenance, oper-
ation and disposal of buildings.
The complex relationships between industrial activities and the
stakeholders make it extremely demanding to implement sus-
tainable design strategies (Savitz, 2006). For example, different
entities are in charge of different processes ranging from design
to deconstruction. Architects do not have control over the manu-
facturing process, and contractors are forced to avoid recycling if
they cannot find a recycling facility within the proximity of their
145
Gross floor area LEED accreditation
125,580 m2 Platinum
24,805 m2 Gold
30,193 m2 Silver
29,264 m2 Silver
projects. The extensiveness of a building lifecycle makes it difficult
to track material flow, use the sustainability accounting methods
such as Economic Input-Output and Lifecycle Analysis (Hermreck
and Chong, 2009), and estimate energy consumption and embod-
ied energy reliably (Australia State of the Environment Committee,
2001).
The main purpose of this paper is to develop an alternative
LCA approach (so-called resource loop or RL) that could integrate
C2C and C2G lifecycles in the context of construction materials.
This work builds on previous studies which recommended using
RL to represent material flows in a system (Matsuno et al., 2007;
Michelson, 2007). All kinds of materials are consumed and flow
through the lifecycle of a product. The flow can be contained in the
product (glass for windows) or an agent to make the product (sand
paper for finishing wood). The presence of both types of materials
requires an LCA model to be open and close at the same time. RL
will also allow designers to pool materials, energy, and sustaina-
bility together to foster the understanding of how materials flow in
or out of the product’s lifecycle, how embodied energy affects the
efficiency of sustainable design, and how different materials are
connected together. The flow of materials (chemicals, raw mate-
rials, minerals, fossil fuels) within the RL indicates the stages of a
product’s lifecycle. Energy is consumed at these various stages. It
also flows in and out of the RL, or when material is transported from
one stage to another (Baird and Chan, 1983). In this context, leaks
are defined as materials and energy, which flow out of the RL, while
feeds refer to materials, and energy, which flow into the RL. Once
the product completes its function, some of the materials will be
disposed of as waste, and others will be reused or recycled as nutri-
ents (McDonough and Braungart, 2002). Due to the extensiveness
of the scope of work, the paper focuses only on the energy and iron
used in the production of construction steel.
3. Materials and methods
The paper is divided into two parts with the goal of formulating
a RL model. The paper first illustrates the various steps of a RL for
construction steel. Steel is selected as it is a common construction
material, highly reused and recycled, yet significant quantities of
steel still go to the landfill. By 2012, the worldwide recycling rates
146 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
Fig. 2. Typical RL.
of steel reached 88% (Steel Recycling Institute, 2013). The second
part of the paper presents and analyzes data collected from vari-
ous sources (e.g., Steel Recycling Institute), industry practitioners,
and four LEED certified projects. The research team examined the
steel recycling rates, the types and amounts of materials and energy
used, waste generated at various phases, deconstruction rates, and
distance from project sites to steel mills and recycling facilities. All
four projects achieved the LEED Materials and Resources credit.
3.1. Proposed model and illustration: the case of steel
Fig. 2 illustrates a typical RL model to track material flow and
energy consumption of industrial products. The depicted model
includes four main stages that construction products typically
go through: manufacture, product assembly, customer use, and
reuse/recycling. The dashed lines and arrows indicate the material
flow direction among these four stages. Feeds and leaks can occur
at any of the stages. The model is mainly of closed loop nature as
illustrated by the link between the last stage, reuse/recycling, and
the first stage, manufacture. The opened loop is represented by a
system of leaks and feeds into and out of the loop.
The total life cycle leaks, LCL, and life cycle feeds, LCF, are rep-
resented by the following equations:
LCL = M l + PAl + Cl + R&R l (1)
LCF = M f + PAf + Cf + R&R f (2)
where Ml , PAl , Cl and R&Rl are leaks during the manufactur-
ing, product assembly, customer use, and reuse/recycling stages,
respectively, Mf , PAf , Cf and R&Rf are feeds at the same stages.1
1
Leaks are represented by the subscript letter l and feeds are represented by the
subscript letter f.
Leaks can be turned into feeds at any stage of the RL. For example,
the total amount of feeds occurring during manufacturing, Mf can
be summarized in the following equation:

n

n
Mfi = a × Mli (3)
i=1 j=1
where Mlj represents the potential leak of type j, and Mfi represents
the potential feed of type i that can occur during the manufac-
turing phase. The coefficient a is an indicator of the efficiency of
recyclability, which is a function of the initial design strategies, the
development of the recycling industry, and material characteris-
tics (Srour et al., 2010). In most cases, a should be 0 in a perfect C2G
model, 1 in a perfect C2C model, and between 0 and 1 for a model
that combine C2C and C2G models. The number represents the rate
of resource recaptured from a process.
The proposed model is illustrated for the case of construction
steel in the US. The following section describes the lifecycle of con-
struction steel highlighting its various stages, flow systems, and
production processes.
3.2. The lifecycle of construction steel
The strength, durability and wide range of application of steel
have made steel extremely popular in construction (AISE, 1998).
The demand growth for steel surpasses the growth rate of other
materials (MEPS LTD, 2008). The global consumption of steel
reached 1606 million tons in 2013 and represented a growth of 3.6%
over the consumption in 2012 (Worldsteel Association, 2015). The
construction industry consumes about 20% of all global steel supply
(American Iron and Steel institute, 2008). High steel prices make it
extremely profitable to recycle steel and the increasing demand
for steel makes it necessary to produce steel from ore and recycled
sources at the same time. For example, Park et al. (2011) studied the
steel market in Korea and found that steel scrap recycling rates are
projected to increase significantly due to the high recycling rates
of construction products and transportation equipment.
 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
Raw material
production
BF/BOF1 Steel EAF2 Steel
making route making route
Intermediate
product
Construction
Steel Product
Construction
Maintenance of
construction steel
Recycling
Deconstruction
Reuse
Sorting
Waste Disposal
Fig. 3. Typical life cycle of a steel construction product (Source: Sansom and Meijer,
2001).
Steel production from iron ore and recycled sources follow
different flow patterns and production processes. As reported by
Wang et al. (2014), the full steel cycle is comprised of eight steps:
reduction, steel-making, casting, hot rolling, cold rolling, coating,
fabrication, and scrap preparation. These steps entail 30 processes
and 129 types of steel materials. Hence, the patterns and processes
are extremely complex, and the sustainability of steel is influenced
by many factors that are distributed throughout the lifecycle of
steel. Examples of such factors include rate of recycling and reuse,
travel distance, and availability of facilities. In addition, it is never
possible to recycle 100% of the recaptured steel, and thus a is always
less than 1.
Energy, wastes, various resources, particulates, greenhouse
gases and water are part of the steel flow systems. Recycling one ton
of steel saves 1100 kg of iron ore, 630 kg of coal, and 55 kg of lime-
stone (MobileOrganics, 2009). Through recycling, the steel industry
has been able to reduce the energy intensity per ton of steel by 29%,
the Green House Gas emissions per ton of steel shipped by nearly
45%, and the air and water emissions by 90% (Woods, 2008; Burgan
and Sansom, 2006).
As shown in Fig. 3, construction steel goes through several
phases during its lifecycle. These phases can be broadly grouped
under five main processes. Raw materials (e.g., ore and coal) are
used to manufacture intermediate, and eventually, construction
products, either through Basic Oxygen Furnace (BF/BOF) steel or
Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel in the first phase (Nijihawan, 1992).
Examples of such products include rebar, wire road, slab, coil, sheet,
structural steel, and stainless steel. Raw steel is manufactured and
customized into various steel products (e.g., I-beam and tube) for
use in construction. The third phase involves the transportation,
installation, and maintenance of the manufactured and customized
steel products. The fourth phase involves the deconstruction or
demolition of steel products for replacement when the products
reach the end of their lives. The final phase begins with the trans-
portation, sorting, disposal and treatment processes for disposal or
recycling. In a C2C model, the final phase is connected to the second
phase, while in a C2G model, the final phase ends with a steel leak
to a landfill or incinerator.
147
Data were collected and divided into these five phases. Mate-
rial and energy are converted into weight (kilogram) and unit
energy (million joule – MJ per kilogram of steel), respectively. Data
collected from non-project sources matches the year where the
projects were completed. Data is categorized into various factors
(weather, distances, facilities etc.), and steel types (structural, cold
rolled, hot rolled, stainless, galvanized etc.). To ease the analysis
process, non-project and project data are treated for alignment
and comparison purposes (e.g., data are averaged). Some assump-
tions were also included to ease the analyses, especially when
exact data were not available (exact locations of recycling facilities
or steel production facilities). While the American Iron and Steel
Institute (2008) stated that most construction steel products con-
tained 19.13% of recycled content, the recycled content was set to
20% for ease of calculation.
The following sections illustrate the application of the RL model
for the case of construction steel in the US. This requires defining
the system boundaries (Silvestre et al., 2014). Material, energy, and
waste data pertaining to each of the five processes that make up
the lifecycle of steel products are presented and analyzed.
3.3.1. Process 1: product manufacturing and transportation
Chemicals, elements and carbons used during the manufactur-
ing process: steel is an alloy composed of iron with a carbon content
of between 0.2 and 2.0% by weight. Carbon is increased or decreased
through two types of reactions: exothermic and endothermic. The
exothermic process produces carbon dioxide as soon as the hot
coal is exposed to oxygen while the process of endothermic con-
verts carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide in the presence of an
excess of coal at high temperature (Fruehan, 1998). Added chemi-
cals and/or elements are then fused with the iron to form an alloy
that has the required property. Additional properties, such as hard-
ness, ductility, tensile strength, and rust resistance, are introduced
into steel by removing or adding chemicals or elements (e.g., sulfur,
nitrogen, phosphorus, manganese, chromium, vanadium, or tung-
sten) (Ashby and David, 1992). The added chemical or element
reacts with the iron during the manufacturing process to acquire
the property.
Raw materials: Many types of raw materials are used in the
making of steel. The production of 1 kg of rebar/wire rod requires
0.239 kg of coal, 0.023 kg of dolomite, 0.361 of iron, 0.112 of lime-
stone, 0.034 kg of natural gas, 0.044 kg of oil, −0.003 kg of zinc, and
1.057 L of water (IISI, 2008): the negative value of Zinc indicates
that more zinc is recaptured when steel is recycled than used dur-
ing the manufacturing process (zinc as a by-product from other raw
materials used to recycle steel). The production of 1 kg of rebar/rod
or Blast Furnace (BF) steel requires 1.9 kg of raw materials, whereas
1 kg of Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel requires 4.6 kg of raw mate-
rials.
Wastes: Waste and energy data were also obtained from the
American Iron and Steel Institute (Platts McGraw Hill Financial,
2012), and the Steel Recycling Institute (2012) to complete the
lifecycle inventory for construction steel products. Steel man-
ufacturing generates 27 types of wastes. The wastes can be
categorized into two general categories, airborne and waterborne
emissions (Steel Recycling Institute, 2008). Airborne emissions
include 12.223 g of carbon monoxide, 0.907 g of methane (0.907 g),
and 1.842 g of nitrogen oxides for every 1 gram of BF section pro-
duced. Waterborne emissions include 0.043 g of ammonia, −0.001 g
of nitrogenous matter, and 0.0025 g of phosphorous matter for
every 1 g of EAF section produced. Again, the negative number indi-
cates that the manufacturing process absorbed more nitrogenous
matter than what is emitted into the environment. Overall, 1 kg
of BF section generates 0.23 kg of waste, and 1 kg of EAF section
generates 0.45 of waste.
148 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
Table 2
Amounts of recycled steel products in project 1 building 1, visitors center.
Product description Product cost ($US) MR Credit 4: recycled content
Post-consumer
Rebar 1,311,512 80%
Structural steel 1,202,240 80%
– wide flange
Steel stud and track 132,668 64%
. . ... . . ... . . ...
. . ... . . ... . . ...
Metal studs 241,214 20%
Metal lockers 4,547 0%
Total 4,296,218 N/A
Energy: The manufacturing and transportation processes are
energy intensive. 1 kg of rebar/wire rod requires 0.444 MJ of feed-
stock energy and 12.623 MJ of fuel energy; 1 kg of BF section
requires 0.283 MJ of feedstock energy and 16.247 MJ of fuel energy;
and 1 kg of EAF section requires −0.272 MJ of feedstock energy
and 13.808 MJ of fuel energy (Steel Recycling Institute, 2008). On
average, 1 kg of construction steel consumes 14.38 MJ of energy.
Transportation: Transportation energy is calculated by piecing
together information from the data provided by steel manufactur-
ers and contractors, such as locations of facilities, travel distances,
modes of transport, engine efficiencies, AISI (2008), fuel types etc.
The computation method for transportation energy is adopted from
Chong and Hermreck (2010a). Transport energy consumption is
heavily dependent on shipping distances, the type of the fuel,
transportation modes, and the fuel efficiency of the modes. AISI
(2008) provides summary data of steel mill products import and
export information between the US and 17 countries or groups
of countries. The US imports 5400 tons of steel from Canada and
3300 tons from Russia annual, and exports 5530 tons to Canada and
none to Russia. Steel is also shipped between different U.S. States for
recycling even though the quantity is significantly smaller than the
quantities involved in international recycling. As such, this paper
illustrates the RL for the international steel recycling trade and does
not consider recycling trade within the US.
3.3.2. Process 2: construction and installation
Steel is shipped from the production origin to prefabricators to
be fabricated for specific uses. The components are then shipped to
sites or buildings to be installed or used to replace deteriorated
components. Data from the prefabrication, installation, and dis-
posal phases have to be collected from the original sources as these
types of information are not available from various publicly acces-
sible databases. Different companies adopt different practices and
techniques, and thus the ultimate impacts could be different. The
factors that drive the impacts include production methods, produc-
tion quantities, transportation methods, transportation distances,
component types and installation techniques etc. Recycled content
in steel is strongly encouraged by most green building rating sys-
tems and codes, and the amount of recycle content influences the
sustainability impact of steel.
The amount of recycled content in steel drives the production
methods and transportation distances of steel. Gomes et al. (2013)
found that BF steel is primarily made of iron ore – only 19% of
recycled steel is introduced as scrap in the basic oxygen furnace.
EAF steel, on the other hand, is typically made out of recycled
steel. The production of steel from raw iron ore is more energy
and resource intensive at the raw material extraction and manufac-
turing phases than the production of steel from recycled iron. The
distribution networks of both types of steel drive the transporta-
tion energy use due to transportation distances and modes (Chong
and Hermreck, 2010b). In addition, there are two iron recycling
processes, recycling of iron that are recaptured during the produc-
Recycled content
Post-industrial Value of recycled
20% 1,180,361 90%
15% 1,051,960 88%
25% 101,491 77%
. . ... . . ... . . ...
. . ... . . ... . . ...
40% 96,486 40%
0% 0% 0%
N/A 3,495,810 81%
tion process, and recycling of iron at the end of its life. There are
significant differences in the energy intensity of both recycling pro-
cesses. Most construction steel sold in the US contains both steel
made from iron ore and recycled iron, and the impacts have to be
combined. The calculation of transportation energy use is divided
into the following components:
a. Recycled contents
Green building rating systems (LEED in this case) provide some
equations pertaining to determining the recycled contents of mate-
rials. For example, LEED provides a worksheet for projects to
document post- industrial and post-consumer recycled content and
it provides good inputs for the RL. Data recorded on the LEED work-
sheet are in percentages and cost, and needed to be adjusted to
weight or volume (see Table 2). The monetary values shown in
Table 2 are obtained by multiplying the total quantity of steel by
the market prices of the types of steel at the point in time. The
quantities for the different types of recycled steel can be worked
out using the information in Table 2 and the detailed calculations
presented in Liu (2009).
b. Transportation
There are five steps to determine the total transportation energy
use: (1) identify the procurement locations of the steel; (2) establish
the transportation procedures: (3) determine the transportation
distances for each procedure; (4) determining the transportation
modes; and (5) put together the numbers to obtain the overall
energy use. To have a common basis for analyzing energy and
material, transportation energy use is converted into cost, and the
equation is shown in the following expression:
(Weight × Distance × FreightRate)
TEC = (4)
TruckCapacity
Where weight is the amount of steel material imported or exported
for construction applications – assumed to be 20% of total steel
material import/export (as discussed before), distance is the aver-
age distance between the US and the country in question, freight
rate is $325.2 per mile assuming international trading using cargo
ships. For example, in 2006, the US imported 148 tons of steel
from Argentina including 29.6 tons for construction (AISI, 2008).
Using the transportation distance between Argentina and the US,
the total import by weight, freight rate, and a standard cargo ship
size,2 the TEC becomes $953.84 per ton of steel. Similar calculations
were done for the embodied energy of steel imports and exports to
and from 15 other countries. The highest cost of embodied energy
was for imports from China followed by the European Union, and
exports to Canada followed by Mexico.
2
55,000 dead weight ton (DWT) assuming Handymax or Surpramax ships
for international trading which represent 71% of all cargo ships that are over
10,000 metric tons of dead weight (The Royal Institute of Naval Architects, 2005).The
average fuel consumption of these ships is 120 gallons per mile (Pubdit, 2008) and
the average cost of diesel fuel for the period of study is $2.71 per gallon (Yahoo
Finance, 2008).
 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152 149

Table 3
Embodied (transport) energy of steel products in project 1 building 1.

Product description MR Credit 5: local/regional materials

Distance in miles Distance in miles Transport energy ($)

between between harvesting
manufacturing location location and project Manufacturing location Harvesting location to Total cost per product
and project to project project

Rebar 10 N/A 248 N/A 248

Structural steel 417 1,408 9,481 32,014 41,495
- wide flange
Steel stud and track 270 N/A 677 N/A 677
. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..
. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..
Metal studs 290 N/A 1,323 N/A 1,323
Metal lockers 380 N/A 33 N/A 33
Total N/A N/A 29,707 66,824 96,531

Table 4
US Imports and exports of steel scraps and transport energy for scrap used in construction.

Country Distance in miles total quantity of steel scrap (in Transport energy of steel scraps used
thousands of tons) in construction (in thousands of $US)

Imports Exports Imports Exports

Canada 1,523 3,140 1,500 5,655 2,702

China 7,215 4 3,420 34 29,180
Netherlands 4,676 243 12 1,344 66
... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ...
United Kingdom 4,348 650 23 3,342 118
Total N/A 4,820 14,900 13,848 107,874

As illustrated in Table 3, some materials such as structural steel
required shipping from both a manufacturing site and a harvest-
ing site. Other materials such as rebar required only shipping from
a manufacturing site. The total amount of material shipped from
manufacturing sites was 4484 tons, whereas the total amount of
material shipped from both manufacturing and harvesting sites
was 2604 tons. The overall cost of transport energy for steel prod-
ucts used on project 1, building 1, was $96,531 or $0.014/kg.
Similar tables were generated for construction steel products
used in project 1 (building 2), project 2, and project 3. Overall, the
amounts of recycled steel were 80%, 65%, and 73%, respectively.
The average recycling rates across projects 1 (buildings 1 and 2),
project 2, and project 3 was 74%. In other words, out each 1 kg of
steel, 0.74 kg are ultimately recycled.
The transport energy costs for project 1 (building 2) was $31,696
whereas the energy cost for project 2 was $48,030. This energy is
used to transport 2439 tons of steel from manufacturing sites and
2278 tons from both manufacturing and harvesting sites for project
1 (building 2), and 5536 tons of steel from manufacturing sites for
project 2. The average transport energy cost for project 1 (build-
ing 2) is $0.007/kg and the transport energy cost for project 2 is
$0.009/kg. The documentation for project 3 did not include infor-
mation on sources of steel products, which prevented the research
team from estimating the transportation energy costs.
3.3.3. Process 3: maintenance
The third process in the lifecycle of construction steel prod-
ucts coincides with the operation phase of the built facility. During
this period, losses or leaks occur due to corrosion, abrasion, and
other types of damage. Meanwhile, maintenance, replacement, and
repair take place indicating that new steel material is fed into the
built structure. Sansom and Meijer (2001) documented the life
span, feeds, and leaks for 16 types of construction steel products.
The life spans of steel products fall in the range of 15–75 years. On
average, 1 kg of steel product loses 2.3 g and is fed 114 g during its
life span.
3.3.4. Process 4: deconstruction
Deconstruction is the fourth process in the lifecycle of construc-
tion steel products. It is a process of selectively and systematically
disassembling buildings to collect materials that are valuable for
reusing or recycling in new construction or rehabilitation efforts.
Most of the energy is consumed during the shipping process from
the building site to the recycling/reuse facility and to the landfills.
Data obtained from project 4 helped determine the transport
energy cost associated with deconstruction. The shared waste
reduction progress report lists the various trips made to the
recycling/reuse facility and to the landfill to dispose of the metal
waste. The vast majority of this waste – approximately 90% –
consisted of steel products. Aluminum and copper made up the
remaining amount. Overall, project 4 generated 66.6 tons of steels,
out of which 63 tons – 95% of the original amount - were sent to the
recycling/reuse plant. This required 12 trips to the recycling/reuse
facility, which is 14.9 miles away from the project site, and one
trip to the landfill, which is 30 miles away from the site. Given this
information, and using a freight rate of $0.45, the transport energy
cost to deconstruct steel products becomes $95 or $1.4 × 10−3 /kg.
3.3.5. Process 5: recycling and reuse
After building deconstruction, steel enters the recycling/reuse
process or alternatively goes to landfills. As shown by the Steel
Recycling Institute (2008), most steel takes the recycling route. In
2006, the recycling rates for structural steel and reinforcement steel
were 97.5% and 65%, respectively, yielding an average of 81%. As
mentioned earlier in this paper, the practice of recycling steel into
the manufacturing process has been the norm for several decades,
as it helps reduce the demand for raw materials and conserve
energy.
To estimate the amount of transport energy consumption to
complete this process, data were obtained from the American Iron
and Steel Institute (2008). These include the amounts of steel scrap
imported from, or exported to, 45 countries. Overall, in 2006, the
US imported 4820 k tons with a value of $1,250,000 k, and exported
150 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152

Table 5
Material flow for steel resource loop.

Process Leak/Feed Material Energy

Amount Category Amount Category

Manufacture Leak 0.36 kg Chemicals 14.38 MJ Manufacturing

1,481 MJ Transportation
Feed 2.8 kg Chemicals
Construction Leak N/A N/A 0.54 MJ Transportation
Maintenance Leak 2.3 g Steel products N/A N/A
Feed 114 g Steel products
Deconstruction Leak 0.05 kg Steel products 0.08 MJ Transportation
Recycling/reuse Leak 0.07 kg Steel scrap 1,682 MJ Transportation
Feed 0.67 kg Steel scrap

Fig. 4. RL for steel construction products.

14,900 k tons with a value of $4,230,000 k. To estimate the trans-
port energy between the US and each of these countries, 20% of
the imported or exported amount of scrap (Following the assump-
tion made earlier than construction steel makes up 20% of the total
amount of steel) is multiplied by the distance and the freight rate of
$325.2 for cargo ships, and divided by the cargo ship size of 55,000
DWT. Table 4 shows the energy costs associated with transporting
steel scrap (used in construction) between the US and a sample of
countries in 2006. The overall amount of energy spent to transport
3944k tons of steel scraps that are used in construction is equal to
$121,722 k. This yields an average energy cost of $31/kg.
4. Summary
Table 5 summarizes the material flow and energy consumed
during the various processes of the construction steel RL. Feeds
and leaks occur during these various processes. Feed during the
first process is the average amount of raw materials consumed to
manufacture 1 kg of construction steel products (1 kg of rebar/wire
rod or BF steel requires 1.9 kg of raw materials, whereas 1 kg of
EAF requires 4.6 kg). Three types of leaks occur during this process:
material waste, manufacturing energy, and transport energy.3
The second process of construction does not include any feeds
and has a leak which accounts for transporting the manufactured
steel products to construction sites. This is the average trans-
port cost for the considered buildings converted to MJ/kg. During
the maintenance process, as mentioned earlier in the paper, 1 kg
of construction steel product loses 2.3 g and is fed 114 g. During
deconstruction, 95% of steel is recycled; and therefore, the process
yields a small amount of material losses. Finally, according to the
Steel Recycling Institute (2008), on average, 81% of steel is recycled
or reused in the last process of the RL. In other words, out of each
1 kg of steel processed in the RL, 0.81 kg enters a recycling facil-
ity. This is the result of steel shipped from construction sites post
deconstruction and scrap collected at earlier processes – referred
to as feed. As illustrated by project 4, the rate of recycled steel post
3
Using an embodied energy value of 147 MJ per gallon of diesel fuel (Saunders
et al., 2006), and an assumed price of $2.71 per gallon, the value of transport energy
of $27.3/kg becomes 1,481 MJ/kg.
 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
deconstruction is 0.95 kg/kg, which implies that the feed rate is
equal to 0.67 kg/kg.4 An examination of the case study projects
revealed that, out of each 1 kg of steel, 0.74 kg are ultimately
recycled at a recycling/reuse facility. Therefore, a leak of 0.07 kg
occurs during this final process of the RL.5
5. Conclusion
This paper illustrates the use of the RL to track the lifecycle iron
and energy use of construction steel. Industrial products have, each,
their own loop. Nonetheless, the approach for building the RLs is
the same across all industrial products. The RL for any industrial
product has two components: materials and energy. Material can
be represented as either feed or leak to particular processes in the
product lifecycle, whereas energy is typically leaked (i.e., consumed
in either manufacturing or shipping activities).
Defining the system boundaries is an essential step in the devel-
opment of a RL model. Using the information gathered from various
sources, a preliminary RL is developed and shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4,
the RL has five processes or main stages: product manufacturing,
construction, maintenance, deconstruction, and recycling/reuse.
The dashed arrow lines represent the flow of construction steel
material across the five processes. For example, the output of the
first process of manufacturing is 1 kg and the output of the decon-
struction process is 0.95 kg. The two other types of lines – solid
single line and solid double line - represent feeds and leaks in the
RL. The line thickness is an indication of the relative amount of feed
or leak, whereas the boxes show the actual amounts of feeds and
leaks. For example, during construction, Leak 2, which this study
does not quantify, occurs through non- used scrap and other metal
waste. However, only a few scraps are recovered and sent to the
fifth process, hence the line connecting Leak 2 and Feed 5 is single
whereas the line entering Leak 2 is double. Similarly, the lines con-
necting Leaks 3 and 4 with Feed 5 are single. Given the numerous
input arrows to Feed 5, the line connecting it with the fifth process
of recycling is double. Finally, transport energy, a major leak in the
process, is highlighted through dashed boxes.
As illustrated by Fig. 4, the current state of practice in terms
of construction steel products is nowhere close to the C2C model.
A close examination of the construction steel industry in the US
indicates that several material and energy leaks take place at var-
ious stages of the steel lifecycle. Some of the leaks are collected,
processed, and fed back into the cycle. For example, out of each 1 kg
of construction steel products, 0.74 kg remains in the loop, yield-
ing an efficiency factor a of 0.74. Other leaks, such as energy, leave
the product lifecycle permanently and become waste. As shown in
Fig. 4, transport energy leaks are significant, and should therefore be
addressed if the industry is to ever implement the Cradle-to-Cradle
policy. Improving energy efficiency, using renewable energy, and
reducing transport distances could fulfill this objective. Such efforts
can build on the LEED NC M&R Credit 5, which advocates the use
of local materials, thereby reducing transport distances.
More efforts are needed to complete the RL. In particular, sys-
tem boundaries should be expanded so that scraps generated from
the fabrication process are taken into account in the various stages
of the RL model. Reliable and comprehensive accounting methods
are needed to document all the leaks and feeds that occur dur-
ing the various phases of the steel products’ lifecycle. For example,
as mentioned earlier, Leak 2 (e.g., energy to operate equipment)
and Feed 2 (e.g., paint and adhesives to fix or assemble steel prod-
4
0.67 kg/kg and 0.95 kg/kg yield an average of 0.81 kg/kg,whichisthe amount of
steel entering recycling/reuse facilities.
5
This is the difference between 0.81 kg/kg (rate of materials entering there cycling
facility) and 0.74 kg/kg (rate of materials that are actually recycled).
151
ucts) take place during construction. However, estimating these
amounts requires an in-depth study of projects during the con-
struction period. Again, the LEED rating systems offers a potential
starting point. The LEED spreadsheets provide data on material
flow and energy consumption in both construction and deconstruc-
tion processes. However, the LEED spreadsheets do not document
other types of embodied energy such as electricity or fuel cost for
operating equipment.
Finally, future work in this area should also develop similar RLs
for all major industrial products. Examples in construction include
concrete, brick, wood, glass, and utility fixtures. The next step is
to integrate the develop loops into one comprehensive network
where leaks from one loop can become nutrients either in the same
loop or in another one. A practical example of this practice is the
recent use of building demolition materials in other applications
such as roadways.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the International Iron and Steel
Institute and the Steel Recycling Institute for providing the research
team with extensive amount of data, JE Dunn Construction for
allowing access to their projects, and financial support from some
of the industry partners.
References
Adams, W.M., 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and
Development in the Twenty-first Century. Paper present at the IUCN
Renowned Thinkers Meeting, January 29th–31st, 2006. Available at: <http://
cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn future of sustanability.pdf./> (accessed
02.23.15.).
AISI (2008): American Iron and Steel Institute (2008). “Steel Works.” Retrieved on
October 09, 2008, from American Iron and Steel Institute. Website: http://
www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
AISE, 1998. Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel: Steelmaking and Refining
Volume. Association for Iron and Steel Technology, Warrendale, PA.
Altman, P.L., Dittmer, D.S., 1968. Metabolism (Biological handbooks). In: Bethesda,
M.D. (Ed.). Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
American Iron and Steel Institute, 2008. Steel Works. From American Iron and
Steel Institute. Website: <http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.
cfm?Section=Home/>. (retrieved 10.09.08.).
Ammouri, A., Srour, I., Hamade, R.F., 2011. Carbon footprint calculator for
construction projects (CFCCP). In: Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing.
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 327–331.
Ayres, R.U., Simonis, U.E., 1994. Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for
Sustainable Development. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
Ashby, M.F., David, R.H.J., 1992. Engineering Materials 2 (with) corrections edition.
Pergamum Press, Oxford.
Australia State of the Environment Committee, 2001. Australia: State of the
Environment. CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, AU.
Azhar, S., Carlton, W.A., Olsen, D., Ahmad, I., 2011. Building information modeling
for sustainable design and LEED rating analysis. Autom. Constr. 20, 217–224.
Baird, G., Chan, S.A., 1983. Energy Cost of Houses and Lighting Construction
Buildings and Remodeling of Existing Houses, Report No.76. New Zealand
Energy Research and Development Committee, Auckland, N.Z.
BEES, 2008. Building for Economic and Environmental Sustainability, From Whole
Building Design Guide. Website: <2015://www.wbdg.org/tools/bees.php3./>.
(accessed 02.08.).
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2006. —Cradle to cradle design.
Creating healthy emissions—a strategy for eco-effective product and system
design. J. Cleaner Prod. 15 (13), 1337–1348.
Burgan, B.A., Sansom, M.R., 2006. Sustainable steel construction. J. Constr. Steel
Res. 62 (11), 1178–1183.
Cameron, R., 2003. Registering recycling as a new reality. Eng. Sustain. 156 (1),
9–10.
Chong, W.K., Hermreck, C., 2010a. Modeling transportation energy use for
construction steel recycling. J. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13 (2), 317–330.
Chong, W.K., Hermreck, C., 2010b. Understanding transportation energy and
technical metabolism of construction waste recycling. Int. J. Sustain. Resour.
Manage. Environ. Effic.: Conser. Resour. Recycl. 54 (9), 579–590.
Chong, W., Pokharel, K., Leyden, S.K.C., Bai, Y., 2007. A Study on LCCA Application on
Measuring the Cost of Sustainable Design. In: Proceedings of the Construction
Management and Economics, Cambridge, UK: Routledge, Pgs. 125–134.
EPA, 2015. Wastes – Non-Hazardous Waste – Municipal Solid Waste. from United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Website: <http://www.epa.gov/
epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/>. (accessed 02.19.15.).
152 L. Lanfang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 143–152
Fruehan, R.J. (1998). The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, Vol. 2: Steelmaking
and Refining (Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: The AISE Steel Foundation.
Gomes, F., Briere, R., Feraille, A., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., Tessier, C., 2013. Adaptation
of environmental data to national and sectorial context: application for
reinforcing steel sold on the French market. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,
926–938.
Graedel, T.E., 1998. Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River. NJ.
Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., 2000. Resource use and environmental emissions of
U. S. construction sectors. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 126 (1), 38–44.
Hermreck, C., Chong, W.K., 2009. Embodied energy of CDW recycling and technical
metabolism due to regional differences and building designs. Seattle, WA:
American Society of Civil Engineers In: Proceedings of the 2009 Construction
Research Congress, 339, p. 54.
IISI, 2008. International Iron and Steel Institute. From International Iron and Steel
Institute. Website: <http://www.worldsteel.org/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
Jones, L., 2008. Environmentally Responsible Design: Green and Sustainable Design
for Interior Designers. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Kibert, C.J., 2008. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Lachimpadi, S.K., Pereira, J.J., Tana, M.R., Mokhtar, M., 2012. Construction waste
minimization comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed
System and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings: A Malaysia case study. Resour.
Conser. Recycl. 68, 96–103.
Liu, L., 2009. Tracking the life cycle of construction steel: the development of a
resource loop. In: Master’s thesis. The University of Kansas.
Matsuno, Y., Daigo, I., Adachi, Y., 2007. Application of Markov Chain Model to
calculate the average number of times of use of a material in society an
allocation methodology for open-loop recycling, part 2: case study of steel. Int.
J. Lifecycle Assess. 12 (1), 34–39.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remarking the Way We
Make Things. North Point Press, New York. NY.
MEPS (International) LTD. (2008). Global Iron and Steel Production to 2008. MEPS,
England.
Michelson, B., 2007. Closed Loop Lifecycle Planning: a Complete Guide to
Managing Your Pc Fleet. Addison-Wesley Professional, Indianapolis, IN.
Miyatake, Y., 1996. Technology development and sustainable construction. J.
Manage. Eng. 12 (4), 23–27.
MobileOrganics, 2009. Sustainable and the Environment Recycling one ton of steel
saves 1100 kilograms of iron ore, 630 kilograms of coal, and 55 kilograms of
limestone. From MobileOrganics. Website: <http://mobileorganicgardens.com/
environment%20and%20sustainability.html/>. (accessed 04.21.09.).
Nijihawan, B.R., 1992. Production of iron, steel, and high quality product mix:
latest technological innovations and processes. In: Proceedings of the
Applications of the Latest Technological Innovations and Processes for the
Production of Iron and Steel and High Quality Product-Mix Conference, 2–5.
Chicago, Illinois: ASM International.
Park, J.A., Hong, S.J., Kim, I., Lee, J.Y., Hur, T., 2011. Dynamic material flow analysis
of steel resources in Kora. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (4), 456–462.
Platts McGraw Hill Financial (2012), Platts Steel Data and Statistics, A Report
Published by Platts McGraw Hiil Financial.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Jaillon, L., 2004. Reducing building waste at construction
sites in Hong Kong. Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (5), 461–470.
Pubdit, T., 2008. Solar Powered System Helps Reduce Ship’s Emissions-Innovation
on the High Seas, From Environmental News Network. Website: <http://www.
enn.com/top stories/article/38113/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
Rosenbaum, M., 1993. Sustainable Design Strategies, Solar Today, March/April
1993.
Rosenbaum, K.L., 1993. Sustainable Environmental Law: Integrating Natural
Resource and Pollution Abatement Law from Resources to Recovery. In: C.
Campbell-Mohn (Ed.), Environmental Law Institute, West Publishing Co, St.
Paul, MN, USA. 575–674.
Sansom, M., Meijer, J., 2001. Life-Cycle Assessment for Steel Construction: Final
Report. European Commission, Luxembourg.
Savitz, A.W., 2006. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are
Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success – and How You Can
Too. Jossey- Bass, Hoboken, NJ.
Shrestha, S.S., Biswas, K., Desjarlais, A.O., 2014. A protocol for lifetime energy and
environmental impact assessment of building insulation materials. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 46, 25–31.
Silvestre, J.D., de Brito, J., Pinheiro, M.D., 2014. Environmental Impacts and benefits
of the end-of-life of building materials-calculation rules, results and
contribution to a cradle to cradle life cycle. J. Cleaner Prod. 66, 37–45.
Steffen, A., 2006. Worldchanging: A Users Guide for the 21st Century is a
Groundbreaking Compendium of the Most Innovative Solutions, Ideas and
Inventions Emerging Today for Building a Sustainable, Livable, Prosperous
Future. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, NY.
Steel Recycling Institute (2012): Steel Recycling Institute (2007). “Steel Recycling
Rates.” Retrieved on August 17, 2012, from Steel Recycling Institute. Website:
http://www.recycle-steel.org/Recycling%20Resources/
Steel%20Recycling%20Rates.aspx
Steel Recycling Institute, 2013. Steel is the World’s Most Recycled Material.
Website: <http://www.steel.org/Sustainability/Steel%20Recycling.aspx/>.
(retrieved 02.19.15.).
The Carpet and Rug Institute, 2009. Green Label/Green Label Plus. From The Carpet
and Rug Institute. Website: <http://www.carpet-rug.org/commercial-
customers/green-building-and-the-environment/green-label-plus/>. (accessed
02.23.15.).
The Royal Institute of Naval Architects, 2005. —Bulk carrier focus—technical news
and information on bulk carries. Naval Archit. 4 (October), 2–12.
Van der Velden, N.M., Patel, M.K., Vogtlander, J.G., 2014. LCA benchmarking study
on textiles made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 19 (2), 331–356.
van Dijk, S., Tenpierik, M., van den Dobbelsteen, A., 2014. Continuing the building’s
cycles: a literature review and analysis of current systems theories in
comparison with the theory of Cradle to Cradle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 82,
21–34.
Vieira, P.F., 1993. As ciencia sociais e a questao ambiental: Rumo a
Interdisciplinaridade. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: APED/NAEA/UFPA.
Wang, P., Jiang, Z., Geng, X., Hao, S., Zhang, X., 2014. Quantification of Chinese steel
cycle flow: Historical status and future options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 87,
191–199.
Woods, J., 2008. The EnviroMetal. from Steel Recycling Institute. Website: <http://
www.sustainable-steel.org/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. —Our common
future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
From Center for a World in Balance. Website: <http://www.worldinbalance.
net/agreements/1987-brundtland.php/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
Worldsteel Association, 2015. World Steel in Figures: 2014. Website: <http://
www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/bookshop/World-Steel-in-
Figures-2014/document/World%20Steel%20in%20Figures%202014%20Final.
pdf/>. (retrieved 02.19.05.).
Yahoo Finance, 2008. From 10-Q for KIRBY CORP—average cost per gallon of diesel
fuel in the US for the first quarter of 2008 was $2.71/gallon, from YAHOO!
FINANCE. Website <http://biz.yahoo.com/e/090507/kex10-q.html/>. (retrieved
08.23.08.).
Further reading
BREEAM, 2008. The Environmental Assessment Method for
Buildings around the World. From BREEAM Center. Website:
<http://www.breeam.org/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
CASBEE, 2008. Comprehensive Assessment System for
Building Environment Efficiency. From Japan Sustainable
Building Consortium. Website: <http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/
english/overviewE.htm/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
GBCA, 2008. Green Star, From the Green Building Coun-
cil of Australia. Website: <http://www.gbca.org.au/>. (accessed
02.23.15).
Kim, J.J., Ridgon, B., 1998. Sustainable Architecture Module:
Introduction to Sustainable Design, National Pollution Prevention
Center for Higher Education, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rendall, J., Chong, W.K., 2009. A proposed eco-labeling method
for building design Seattle, WA: American Society of Civil Engineers
Proceeding of the 2009 Construction Research Congress 339, 55.
Sansom, M., 2003. Sustainable steel construction: building a bet-
ter future. Eng. Sustain. 156 (2), 81.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2008. Energy Star. From EnergyStar.
Website: <http://www.energystar.gov/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).
U. S. Green Building Council, 2005. LEED New Construction Ver-
sion 2.2 Reference Guide, Green Building Council Washington D.C.:
U.S.
U.S. Green Building Council, 2007. Building construction indus-
try consumes 40% of energy and accounts for 39% of carbon
dioxide emissions. From U.S. Green Building Council. Website:
<http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=3206/>.
(accessed 09.03.09.).
U.S. Green Building Council, 2008. Green Building by
the Numbers. From U.S. Green Building Council. Website:
<http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3340/>.
(accessed 12.01.08.).
U.S. Green Building Council, 2009. Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design. From U.S. Green Building Council. Website:
<http://www.usgbc.org/>. (01.09.09.).
WBCSD, 2000. Eco-Efficiency. Creating more value with less
impact. From World Business Council for Sustainable Devel-
opment. Website: <http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/
eco efficiency creating more value.pdf/>. (accessed 02.23.15.).