ReCreate project, Author at Recreate

January 26, 2026

Author: Jakob Fischer, Brandenburg University of Technology

The tender for structural engineering services for the new youth center building is an essential part of the procurement process. Following the award of the building design contract (see also episode 1 and episode 2 of this blog series), applicants were able to bid for the structural engineering services for the new building at the end of 2025. Here, too, there was a 4-week publication phase during which incoming bidder questions were answered by the client (the city of Hohenmölsen).

Procedural conditions (Part A)

Apart from the award procedure, the procedural conditions (Part A of the tender documents) essentially cover the same content as those for the object planning ( Episode 1). In contrast to the award procedure for the object planning, there is no two-stage process for the structural design. This means that the documents to be submitted also include the binding offer prepared by the bidder. A separate invitation to tender and the evaluation by means of so-called selection criteria are therefore not required. Further significant differences can mainly be found in Appendix A01: Suitability criteria. These are described below.

Suitability criteria

Of the nine suitability criteria established and to be fulfilled by the company or the bidding consortium, three criteria have minimum requirements:

Annual turnover

self-declaration of total turnover in the years 2022 to 2024 and separately for services in the field of structural engineering with at least average requirements in accordance with fee zone II (according to Appendix 14 to § 51 (5), 52 (2) HOAI 2021)

Reference services Planning

self-declaration regarding the subject matter of comparable previous contracts
minimum requirements:
- at least one comparable reference service (each completed after January 1, 2022)
- eligible costs of the reference object (cost groups 300 to 400) at least €500,000 (gross)
- at least service phases 1-4 of the service description for structural design ($51 HOAI) must have been completed
- the reference object must have a gross floor area of at least 250 m²
- the references must have used precast reinforced concrete elements as load-bearing components

Reference services for planning and execution

self-declaration regarding the subject matter of comparable previous contracts
minimum requirements:
- the comparable reference services must have been completed after January 1, 2008
- chargeable costs of the reference project (cost groups 300 to 400) at least €500,000 (gross)
- at least service phases 1-6 of the service description for structural design ($51 HOAI) must have been completed
- the reference object must have a gross floor area of at least 250 m²
- the references must include the use of precast reinforced concrete elements as load-bearing components

Staff

specified as the annual average for the years 2022 to 2024
specified according to positions in the company (e.g. owner, architect, technician, etc.)

Project management

information on the project manager and deputy (name, qualifications, and professional experience in years)
minimum requirements:
- proof of professional certification as an architect or engineer in accordance with state law for the project manager and his/her deputy
- the project manager must have at least 10 years of professional experience and be authorized to submit building documents
- the deputy project manager must have at least 5 years of professional experience

Information on the use of subcontractors
Legal grounds for exclusion (within the meaning of Sections 123, 124, and 125 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB))
Self-declaration regarding the lack of Russian connection of the services
Self-declaration regarding collective bargaining agreements, minimum hourly wages, and equal pay (Section 11 TVergG LSA)

Award criteria

The structural engineering services were awarded in a single stage, i.e., after suitability had been determined, the bids were directly subjected to so-called award criteria in order to then determine the most economical bid according to the number of points achieved.

A bid can achieve a maximum total score of 1000 by fulfilling all criteria. Two criteria were used, each with two sub-criteria.

Fee parameters

1.1. Total fee (450 points)

1.2. Hourly rates for additionally commissioned services (150 points)

Concept for project implementation

2.1. Project management (200 points)

2.2. Planning concept (200 points)

To calculate the score for the subcriterion “total fee,” the bid with the lowest bid price automatically receives the highest score. All other/higher bids receive a lower score according to a specific formula. The points for the subcriterion “hourly rates” are awarded according to the same principle.

For the “project implementation concept,” bidders had to use presentation materials to illustrate the approaches and methods they would use to effectively implement the structural engineering requirements. The evaluation was carried out by a committee appointed by the client.

When evaluating project management (criterion 2.1), the employer (the city of Hohenmölsen) attaches particular importance to the structural design being managed by individuals who “[…] personally have comprehensive knowledge and relevant practical experience in the design and construction of buildings using, ideally reusing, precast reinforced concrete elements.” In addition, if the above condition applies, this criterion also evaluates which personal reference project was ideally carried out by the project management in relation to “circular construction.” Furthermore, it is considered particularly positive if the project management already has experience with reused reinforced concrete elements in planning. It is also considered positive if the overall design was planned with load-bearing precast reinforced concrete elements. Relevant additional qualifications are also taken into account in the evaluation.

The sub-criterion “project management” is evaluated according to the expected degree of target achievement.

The sub-criterion “planning concept” is evaluated, among other things, on the basis of how convincingly the bidder can present its planning approach in a comprehensible manner and demonstrate how the integration of reusable precast concrete elements is taken into account in the planning and construction, including coordination with the object planner and structural engineer. Potential difficulties and possible solutions should also be presented.

Another key criterion for ReCreate is the integration and presentation of the communication concept with scientific support, represented here by the BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg. The client attaches great importance to effective and targeted information exchange.

The sub-criterion “planning concept” is evaluated according to the expected degree of target achievement.

by ReCreate project

January 19, 2026

For Dutch-speaking audience

As part of the ongoing discussion on circular construction and the reuse of concrete, the ReCreate project highlights two podcast episodes from the Dutch series In groen beton gegoten. These episodes bring together architects, engineers, researchers and industry experts to reflect on how adaptive design, reuse, and chain collaboration can help extend the life of concrete structures and reduce the need for demolition and new construction.

In one episode, architect Bart van Kampen (De Zwarte Hond) and engineer Pim Peters (IMd Raadgevende Ingenieurs) argue that the sustainability of concrete lies in adaptive building and reuse rather than demolition and new construction. By designing buildings to be flexible and by giving existing concrete structures a second life, the value of concrete can be preserved for generations. They emphasize that circular construction is not only a technical challenge, but above all a system change in mindset, calculation methods, and regulations.

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE

Another episode focuses on the question of how to truly close the concrete chain. Experts Simon Wijte (Hageman / TU Eindhoven) and Jan-Pedro Vis (Renewi) discuss different forms of circular concrete, ranging from re-use of entire structures to concrete-to-concrete recycling and the use of residual materials. The discussion highlights that circular concrete starts with careful, selective demolition and depends on strong collaboration across the value chain, clear choices by clients, and new systems to make reusable concrete elements accessible and traceable.

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE

by ReCreate project

January 12, 2026

In the run-up to the construction of Circulair Centrum Nederland, a full-scale mock-up has been built as a practical test setup. This provides the opportunity to test connection details, structural solutions, and dimensions in real conditions on site.

The evaluation highlighted one key point: the precast hollow-core slabs that were cut to size turned out to be slightly wider than the façade elements. Several solutions have been developed to accommodate this, and together with the parties involved it will be decided which option is the most practical.

In addition, the mock-up confirmed the importance of a good connection between the hollow-core slabs. Because they are separate elements, a solid joint is essential so that the floor behaves as one integrated structure.

In this way, the mock up helps to identify such issues early and to further improve the circular construction process step by step toward realization.

by ReCreate project

December 22, 2025

Author: Jakob Fischer, Brandenburg University of Technology

Building on Episode 1 (The tendering procedure for the pilot project in Germany – Part 1: The competition), this blog post explains the Specification for the “Youth Centre at Sternentor” and outlines selected bidder questions that were received during the four-week publication period and answered by the client (the City of Hohenmölsen).

Specification (Part B)

The specification explains to the bidders the construction project on the basis of key information and basic requirements, along with the attached annexes. The annexes include the exposé already prepared by the BTU (Head of German ReCreate Cluster) as well as initial design documents. The approved development plan was provided by the City of Hohenmölsen (ReCreate partner and client for the construction project).

As in the procedural conditions (Part A) – described in the first episode of the blog series – the Specification (Part B) also take into account the necessary reference to the reuse of used concrete components. The specification is divided into 12 chapters (A to L). These are explained below:

Chapter A (background and description of the project) provides bidders with an introduction to the construction project, the background to the need for the new building, and the necessary reference to sustainability. Accordingly, emphasis is to be placed on an “energy-efficient building design, the use of recycled and sustainable building materials, climate friendliness and a low carbon footprint“. In addition, the construction project should “ideally demonstrate the feasibility of climate-friendly and resource-efficient construction in the public sector“.

Chapter B (tasks and objectives) deals with the special requirements, local conditions and structural design. From the outset, the conditions for reusing the reinforced concrete components from the demolition project in Höhenmölsen, which are already stored in temporary storage, are clarified. Proof of fire protection and structural stability is still required, as well as compliance with current energy efficiency building guidelines. As the reuse of used concrete components is not yet widely practised, a section of the specification outlines the significance from an ecological and economic perspective. The bidder/bidding consortium is provided with initial basic facts about the circular construction, such as the avoidance of manufacturing energy and CO₂e-emissions by over 90%, the relief of limited landfill capacities, and verifiable cost savings in shell construction.

An essential component is the explicit mentioning of BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg as scientific support within the framework of the European research project ReCreate, as well as other participants explained in Chapter C.

The room layout is specified in Chapter D and supplemented by the attached exposé. The building is to cover a total of 835 m² (according to the draft plans).

The scope of planning services (Chapter E) reveals a significant difference compared to other planning services. As the advanced ReCreate project has already accomplished initial investigations, discussions, agreements and designs, the project is not entirely at the beginning stage but is already in service phase 3 according to HOAI (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure; translation: “Schedule of Services and Fees for Architects and Engineers). This means that the bidder/consortium does not have to offer any fundamental changes or new designs for the cubature, use and room layout.

Chapter F (Cost budget/subsidies) explains the planned use of subsidies from the “New European Bauhaus” (NEB) programme and the planning and time requirements for the approval of subsidies. At the time of the tender, the subsidies have been reserved at the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt and can be released on condition that a complete design plan has been reviewed. Furthermore, in order to receive funding, it must be ensured that all work on the construction project is completed by mid-2027.

Chapter G (Timetable for the provision of planning services) and Chapter H ( Phased commissioning) clarify which service phases are to be performed within which time frame. The services in service phases 3 (design planning) and 4 (approval planning) must be completed by January 2026 at the latest, so that implementation planning (service phase 5), tendering and awarding of construction contracts (service phases 6 and 7) can then begin. The shell construction (part of service phase 8) is therefore scheduled for the third quarter of 2026. The commissioning of the aforementioned service phases is at the discretion of the client and will be carried out in stages, i.e. at different times and, if necessary, with additional/new contractors. At present, the above-mentioned service phases are divided into three service levels, i.e. commissioning in stages.

The framework conditions for the deployment of the project management specified in the tendering procedure are explained in Chapter I and the mandatory liability insurance in Chapter J. The project management may not be replaced without justifiable reasons or without the consent of the client (City of Hohenmölsen). This requirement is intended to ensure continuous communication with the responsible project management. Furthermore, the bidder/consortium must provide proof of liability insurance covering personal injury up to €3 million and property damage and financial loss up to €1 million.

Chapter K (Contract Terms) and Chapter L (Annexes) refer to the attached and additional tender documents.

“The individual chapters of the Specification (Part B) show that the scope and conditions for participation in the present tender process differ only marginally from tenders in which the reuse of used concrete components is not the subject of the planning and contract. The more often this fact and the minor hurdles or differences become apparent, especially to the contracting authorities and clients, the sooner we will see widespread reuse practices.”

Bidder questionnaire

The list of bidder questions is an important component of the public tender as a means of communication between bidders/consortia and the client (the City of Hohenmölsen). A total of 18 questions regarding the tender documents were received during the four-week publication period. Selected questions and answers are outlined below:

There were frequent questions as to whether the restriction on the reuse of used concrete components could be broadened and whether, for example, experience with the reuse of steel components or the preparation of the design of construction projects using reused concrete components would suffice. These requests could not be met by the client. In the course of preparing the tender documents, it became apparent that a high level of qualification/experience on the part of the contractors with regard to the specific requirements of concrete component reuse for a construction project with strict time and monetary constraints is essential.

Another uncertainty/question was whether and to what extent the necessary services for technical building equipment, fire protection tests and further preliminary planning had already been carried out or whether corresponding concepts for processing service phase 3 were available. In response, reference was made to the “Architect and Engineer Contract – Property Planning Services” (Part C) found in the tender documents and to the fact that these services are to be provided in full in the first service stage (compare Chapters G and H).

Other bidder questions dealt with misunderstandings, interpretation issues and technical/planning concerns, all of which were answered by the client. The unresolved issues were discussed in the bidder meetings and will be clarified in a timely manner before approval in January 2026.

by ReCreate project

December 15, 2025

Matias Pajarre, Tampere University

In the ReCreate project, groundbreaking work has been done in researching the technical, societal and economic feasibility of concrete element reuse. But still, it is also good to remember that we are not alone on this mission and there is a lot we can learn and have learned from others, both unconsciously and through intentional imitation. This topic might not seem attractive at first as imitation as a concept is often frowned upon and we tend to have a strong preference towards novelty, but this is exactly the reason why it might be good to stop to think about its importance.

How often is something entirely new in the first place? Innovation and imitation can be seen as two ends of a continuous spectrum where almost everything we do has an innovative element and an imitative element. For example, airfryers are a relatively novel product category that takes an existing technology such as convection ovens but brings novelty with a new form factor. In almost everything “new” we do we can see that we are just adding a varying degree of novelty to an existing product, process, technology or even capabilities.

Because of this, it is interesting to highlight the learnings we have received from others. In the interviews conducted for the WP7 research, many ways can be seen how existing knowledge from other fields and situations has helped us towards our circularity goals in ReCreate and also in a wider context. Here are some of them:

People transferring their previously learned skills to new situations

Even though the demolition workers deconstructing the Finnish pilot building were faced with a new challenge, they had already gained valuable experience from a different situation: disassembling paper machines. Because of this, they had developed important skills needed for the careful disassembly process without breaking the elements and the right attitude for the task.

While this is a relatively simple example, it highlights the way some fundamental skills can be transferred to surprising new contexts also for the benefit of sustainability. Especially in an era where the industry borders are expected to vanish when circular value chains start flowing more and more across companies of different industrial fields, there could also be much wider potential for widely applicable circular economy skills than just deconstruction work.

People carrying ideas across industries

While having widely applicable circular work skills might make work easier in diverse situations, it is also ideas and knowledge that can be useful across various fields. We have talked about how some companies and entire industries have been renewed by people arriving from different fields, sometimes with lots of experience on how things could be done in the ways commonly used in their previous work areas. This, in a way, echoes the long-known facts that more creative outputs are more likely from work teams with diverse backgrounds and individuals with knowledge from multiple fields.

Developing novel technologies and ways to use them

When new technologies arrive to the market, different trajectories and cases of exaptation can be seen where new use cases are found, both close and from the existing ones as the technological development advances. For example, drones are a technology originally developed for military purposes, but they are being adapted for many new tasks in different fields. In ReCreate, their potential for scanning tasks has been discussed.

We have also had talks about the prospects of using robotics and automation for various tasks in deconstruction work. The technology is already being developed for a similar task. Recovering elements from steel buildings has been noted to be much easier due to the connection types and indeed, robots are being developed elsewhere for that purpose. For concrete elements, however, the consensus in our interviews has been mixed so far with a fair amount of skepticism.

Despite the evident challenges in the automation of deconstruction, it is interesting to see what the future holds. A major technological change has already happened globally after these interviews with the way AI technologies have exploded in performance and popularity. I cannot tell if the development of AI will bridge the technological gap here, but we can certainly hope and keep our eyes open in case someone will come up with an innovation that could become a solution to some of our problems.

by ReCreate project

December 11, 2025

Jukka-Lahdensivu-interview-–-kopija-2-1280x670.png

Work package 2 reports explained

Authors: Simon Wijte, TU/e & Marcel Vullings, TNO

Introduction to the reports:

Real-life deconstruction pilots of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.
Best practice guidelines and recommendations for reuse-optimised deconstruction. The full report is available here.
Guidelines for a BIM-aided pre-deconstruction audit. The full report is available here

The Recreate project is about the reuse of reclaimed precast concrete elements in new building structures. Reclaimed elements are derived from a donor building, i.e. a building that is slated for demolition but that will instead be deconstructed in a way that precast concrete elements become available for reuse. In ReCreate, experience has been gained with the application of reuse in four piloting countries: Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. The project’s pilots consist of two phases: deconstruction pilots and reuse pilots. In the project’s Work Package 2, the lessons learned from the deconstruction are presented. The donor buildings and their deconstruction are described in the report “Real-life deconstruction pilots of the ReCreate project”. The structures in all these donor buildings consist of precast concrete elements.

The report provides an elaborated description of each donor building, its structure, and the methods used in the deconstruction, as well as an inventory of the precast concrete elements that were successfully reclaimed. The precast structures in the donor buildings were not originally designed for disassembly. Therefore, deconstruction is done by sawing or drilling the elements in or close to original connections or joints between the elements. Another method applied, is removing the concrete in joints and cutting welded rebar connections, for instance, with torches.

Lessons learned from the execution of the deconstruction pilots have been laid down in the report “Best practice guidelines and recommendations for reuse-optimised deconstruction”. The deconstruction process can be separated into four main phases: (1) pre-planning, (2) structural deconstruction planning, (3) deconstruction work planning, and (4) implementing the deconstruction. Pre-planning includes a pre-deconstruction auditing, in which it is determined which precast concrete elements have a sufficient quality and make them suitable for reuse. A structural deconstruction plan sets the foundations for a safe and efficient deconstruction process. It defines the deconstruction sequence based on structural stability and determines the need for temporary support, among other tasks. A deconstruction work plan, devised by experts of the deconstruction company, translates the structural deconstruction plan into the work processes: both the overall deconstruction process as well as element type specific processes. The work processes include aspects like workforce, equipment, work safety, site planning, and scheduling.

Several findings gained during the deconstruction of the pilots are reported. They consist of methods of deconstructing different types of precast elements; avoidable mistakes that were made during the deconstruction and may influence the reusability (or at least the effort and cost of reuse) of the reclaimed elements; the types of damage that is not easily preventable but an inherent part of deconstruction; and the influence of weather conditions on the deconstruction work. The deconstruction methods not only include typical construction methods but also newly developed methods and tools, specifically tools for removing and lifting the reclaimed elements.

The ReCreate project teaches that information is an important key for success. A lack of information will make a structurally reliable reuse very difficult. Collecting information from different locations and sources already starts during the pre-deconstruction audit. The report “Guidelines for a BIM-aided pre-deconstruction audit” gives instructions how to conduct the pre-deconstruction audit, and how the acquired information can be stored and reliably linked to each physical element in a way that it remains linked after the deconstruction. One proposed way of achieving this is the use of a BIM model, which references an element database. The report also touches upon in-situ inspections and tests, as well as digital scanning of the building or the structure.

Together, the three reports describe all the experience and insight gained from the preparation and execution of deconstruction activities for the several pilot projects with the ReCreate project. They are useful resources for deconstruction companies, structural designers, and clients interested to reclaim precast concrete elements for reuse from end-of-life buildings.

by ReCreate project

December 5, 2025

Dizajn-bez-naslova-2025-12-05T163411.918.png

The ReCreate project held its Reporting Period 3 (RP3) Review Meeting on 1 December 2025 in Tampere, Finland, bringing together project partners, the EU project officer Susana Xará, and external expert Helena Granados Menéndez for a full-day assessment of progress toward scaling the reuse of precast concrete across Europe. The meeting took place at the historic Lielahti Manor and combined both onsite and online participation.

Comprehensive review of all active work packages

The agenda guided participants through a structured review of each work package, enabling an open discussion on achievements, challenges, and next steps. According to the official meeting programme, the following WPs were presented:

WP10 – Project management, technical coordination and ethics
Presented by Satu Huuhka & Soili Pakarinen (TAU)
WP1 – Analysis of precast concrete systems
Presented by Erik Stenberg (KTH)
WP3 – Logistics and processing
Presented by Kjartan Gudmundsson (KTH)
WP4 – Quality management
Presented by Jukka Lahdensivu (TAU)
WP5 – Redesign and reassembly
Presented by Patrick Teuffel (TU/e), via Teams
WP6 – Potential to reach energy and climate targets
Presented by Jakob Fischer (BTU)
WP7 – Exploitation, business model development and business case
Presented by Lauri Alkki (TAU)
WP8 – Policy support and social acceptability
Presented by Paul Jonker-Hoffrén (TAU)
WP9 – Communication and Dissemination
Presented by Ana Smola (CGBC), via Teams

Each session included presentations followed by dedicated discussion time, allowing reviewers and partners to examine progress milestones, clarify technical aspects, and align on the direction for the final phases of the project.

Additionally, on-site participants took part in a site visit to explore possibilities for structural precast reuse – one of the core ambitions of ReCreate.

Closing reflections and continued collaboration

The EU project officer and external expert concluded the meeting with feedback acknowledging the consortium’s strong progress and encouraging continued integration across technical, environmental, and business-oriented WPs.

A joint working dinner rounded off the day, allowing partners to continue discussions in an informal setting and further strengthen cross-country collaboration.

The RP3 review marks another significant step for ReCreate as the project moves toward delivering scalable, evidence-based solutions that enable circularity in the built environment.

by ReCreate project

November 27, 2025

Kjartan Gudmundsson, KTH

In the ReCreate project, we are working towards circular construction with a focus on the deconstruction and reuse of precast concrete elements. This is a striving for more sustainable practices with reduced carbon emissions and energy use while minimizing waste and preserving value. One challenge is to determine the condition and properties of prefabricated concrete elements, especially when we do not have the full history of the elements and sometimes even lack documentation. Standardized quality-assurance methods are therefore valuable to ensure that every reused component is evaluated for aspects such as structural integrity, durability, and safety, and in a manner that provides consistency across projects. Standardized methods also help engineers compare results, make it clearer how to meet regulatory requirements, and help us build confidence in reuse as a sustainable and technically sound practice.

Arlind and I have had the pleasure of participating in the development of a standard for the reuse of precast concrete elements with emphasis on methods for quality assurance and service-life calculations. This work, led by Jan Suchorzewski from RISE, is concerned with requirements regarding function, load-bearing capacity and durability. One of the main motivations is that we do not currently have a European standard for the reuse of prefabricated concrete elements since existing standards are only applicable for new prefabricated elements. While the new standard will draw on the Norwegian standard “Hollow Core Slabs for reuse”, it can also be used for other types of prefabricated concrete elements. The standard will provide requirements for the testing of material properties and assessment of the condition of prefabricated concrete elements. It will also provide requirements for the analysis of the remaining service life of concrete elements.

Measurement of carbonation depth of a concrete core

The element types include HDF floor slabs and massive slabs, beams and columns, TT slabs, walls, stairs and massive slab elements. In this upcoming standard, the evaluation process will include strength, load carrying capacity, durability and service life and applicability. In short, the quality assurance process consists of four steps: the analysis of technical documentation, ocular inspection and non-destructive testing, destructive testing of drill cores and service life analysis. The standard will also refer to test methods as well as the sample sizes for testing. Altogether, making reuse more manageable and thereby contributing to sustainable construction.

Concrete elements reused in the H22 pilot project

by ReCreate project

November 26, 2025

In this interview, we are speaking to Jukka Lahdensivu from Tampere University, whose work lies in WP4 in the ReCreate project. WP4 is focusing on new safety standards for reusing precast concrete components to promote sustainable construction practices. It captures the technical challenges and the practical goals of balancing safety, regulatory standards, and sustainability in the reuse of materials.

Can you explain the primary motivation behind creating a new quality management process for deconstructed precast concrete components?

Jukka: The primary motivation, in my view, is to demonstrate to customers and authorities that reclaimed components can be safely repurposed. It’s essential to ensure these elements meet safety standards when reused, and that’s why we’ve developed this process to verify their viability. We’re actively studying various aspects of these materials to ensure reliability.

How does this process differ from existing practices for virgin materials?

Jukka: There are quite a few similarities. In a factory setting, you test the raw materials, like cement and aggregates, before creating concrete and verifying it meets quality standards. However, for deconstructed materials, we’re testing the structure itself, often on-site, which is a big departure from standard practice with new materials. New components are generally tested during manufacturing, but here, the focus is on validating reclaimed components in their current state.

How challenging was it to integrate the investigation of harmful substances into the pre-deconstruction audit? What obstacles did you encounter in developing a standardized procedure for this?

Jukka: It wasn’t particularly difficult, especially since building renovations often require these studies before demolition. Finland, in particular, has a heightened awareness of harmful substances, likely because of extensive media coverage and prior issues with building materials. We’ve taken a thorough approach here, often exceeding regulatory requirements to ensure safety.

So, you would say people in Finland are more aware of these substances?

Jukka: Probably. It’s discussed frequently in the media, and we’ve faced issues in some newer buildings due to materials being enclosed prematurely. These problems have led to a deeper understanding and greater caution regarding harmful substances.

Work Package 4 focuses on ensuring reusable elements meet material and structural standards. Can you describe the testing process for these elements and their role in maintaining safety?

Jukka: We conduct tests on material properties before deconstruction to confirm the elements can be reused safely in new projects. This includes taking core samples for compression strength testing, measuring concrete cover depth over reinforcement, and conducting full-scale tests on beams and hollow-core slabs in the lab. These tests align with existing standards, ensuring consistency.

What are the key differences between assessing deconstructed versus newly manufactured components?

Jukka: With new concrete structures, we know the exact composition of materials. We need to analyse the concrete strength, reinforcement type, and other specifics for existing buildings. This lack of prior knowledge is the main difference when evaluating reused materials.

In this work package, you mention variability in material properties due to inhomogeneity. How do you manage these variations during testing?

Jukka: We conduct multiple parallel tests to gather a distribution of results. This approach is similar to testing new materials, but in a factory setting, components are consistently produced. With reclaimed materials, we often have only a few components to test, which means sample sizes differ from typical factory conditions.

Could you elaborate on potential challenges, such as deterioration, during deconstruction, transportation, or storage?

Jukka: We detected most deterioration, like cracking, in hollow-core slabs after deconstruction. These cracks weren’t visible in the building but appeared after detachment, likely due to the removal process. In Finland, we’ve also had cases where water entered hollow-core slabs, froze, and caused cracking. We had about six slabs damaged this way. When we removed the levelling on top of these slabs, accidental holes were created in the slab decks, though this was rare. In storage, however, we didn’t encounter any issues.

How do you decide on the reuse of these cracked components?

Jukka: It depends on the severity of the cracks. Small cracks with a width of 0.1-0.2 mm are often acceptable for reuse. Larger cracks, 0.3-0.5 mm or wider, need further assessment. We’ve created guidelines for visual assessment in the factory, and if significant cracking is found, a construction designer reviews it to decide on further action.

What are the most significant technical or regulatory hurdles in obtaining approval from authorities for reused components, and how might these be addressed in the future?

Jukka: The main hurdle is that authorities aren’t yet familiar with the requirements for approving reused components. We’re the first to bring this approach forward, so they’re unsure what documentation and standards to ask for. We’ve been holding meetings with local authorities in Tampere to explain our processes and the documentation we provide. This helps reassure them that we’re following a rigorous process to ensure the safety and usability of these reused components.

Best of luck with your upcoming meetings. Now, as we wrap up, what impact do you hope this work package will have on the construction industry’s approach to reuse and sustainability?

Jukka: Our goal is to develop a process that’s robust but not overly burdensome. Striking this balance is crucial to encourage widespread adoption of reused materials in construction.

Lastly, what inspired you personally to focus on sustainable construction and the reuse of materials?

Jukka: My research career has centered on the durability of structures—how they degrade and what measures can prevent damage. At our university, we’re also focused on adapting construction practices to climate change. While some researchers study climate change directly, we’re more interested in its impact on the built environment. Reusing materials is an important part of this, as it allows us to avoid new resource extraction and reduce environmental impacts, contributing to a more sustainable future.

by ReCreate project

November 25, 2025

Inari Weijo, Competence Lead, Transformation, Ramboll Finland Oy; Antti Lantta, Production Manager, Umacon Oy; Juha Rämö, Technology director, Consolis Parma

In the ReCreate project’s Finnish cluster, the first steps towards commercial projects have been taken. The research project has thus achieved the goal set for it to make the reuse of precast concrete elements possible on market terms. The partnerships formed in the ReCreate project enabled the first commercial reuse of hollow-core slabs in Finland in the spring of 2025.

The first significant factor has been the creation of a reliable and appropriate quality assurance process for the industry. The process developed in the ReCreate project and piloted in practice has removed concern from the industry about whether the reuse of concrete elements is even possible. After that, the doubt has focused more on the economic conditions.

Another significant factor was the publication of the first mini-pilot of the research project in Härmälänranta, Tampere, where 24 hollow-core slabs were reused in the intermediate floor of a residential building. The project was successfully reported, and the message was important to the contractors, as the construction crew felt that the installation was ‘similar to that of new elements’. Uncertainty about delivery times and abnormalities in installation are the things that make contractors concerned. The successful pilot caused strong interest and buzz in the market. Within about a month of the first pilot, ReCreate’s project partner, Consolis Parma, a supplier of precast concrete elements, received an inquiry about reclaimed hollow-core slabs. At the same time, another project partner, Umacon, acting as a demolition contractor, had a new demolition site, from which they identified potential hollow-core slabs for deconstruction and reuse. Umacon asked the cluster partner Ramboll, who acted as a structural engineering expert, for help to survey suitable slabs for deconstruction. Discussion was started in this network to investigate the potential for reuse from economic, technical and scheduling perspectives.

The donor building for the project was the Suutarila community centre in Helsinki. The building had been built in 1981 and was slated for demolition, as a significantly larger school building was built in its place. Ramboll provided expert services for Umacon during the preparation of the deconstruction. Consolis Parma was also monitoring the dismantling process to ensure the quality of process. The progress of the project was agreed on with a low threshold and on a fast schedule among the close-knit networks. In this project, it was decided to detach the hollow-core slabs from the roof structure to avoid the costs of possible screed removal. Ramboll made structural deconstruction design for the site in March 2025. The demolition of the roof structures began in April, and detachment of hollow core slabs started in early May, according to the original schedule.

The hollow-core slabs, a total of 64 pieces, were transported to Consolis Parma’s Nummela factory, where the refurbishment of the elements could begin. At this point, Consolis Parma used Ramboll’s help determine suitable refurbishment measures and to evidence the technical reusability of the hollow-core slabs for building authorities. Based on the tests done in the factory, the hollow-core slabs fulfilled the requirements clearly. The slabs were cleaned, cut to a suitable length, and necessary holes and fittings were made. Also, thermal insulation was added. The refurbishment was completed during May and June. Slabs were installed at the end of June in the Melkinlaituri comprehensive school and daycare centre building under construction in Jätkäsaari neighbourhood, Helsinki.

The commercial project validated how the process for determining reusability in accordance with the ReCreate project works in a real-life project with a tight schedule. The experiences were very encouraging and strengthened the perceptions formed in the research project about the most important steps that should be invested in. These include:

In addition to technical matters, the pre-deconstruction audit should focus on streamlining the deconstruction work and the operation of the deconstruction site.
Planning the testing during the process so that sufficient information is obtained already in the pre-deconstruction audit phase. It is essential to know the quality of components in advance so that the investment into deconstruction will not be wasted.
Logistics and refurbishment in the factory are prepared so that the factory workflow is continuous and resembles manufacturing processes. Planning the logistics of hollow-core slabs and planning their tagging so that information about the origin of the slabs is maintained throughout the process.

Umacon’s deconstruction workers detaching a hollow-core slab in May. (Photo Inari Weijo, Ramboll Finland Oy)

Left: detached hollow-core slabs in the factory (Photo: Juha Rämö, Consolis Parma). Right: refurbished, insulated hollow-core slabs ready to be transported to the new construction site (Photo: Inari Weijo, Ramboll Finland Oy)

Installation of reused hollow-core slabs in Jätkäsaari, Helsinki. (Photo: Inari Weijo, Ramboll Finland Oy)

Older Posts

ReCreate project - Recreate

The tendering procedure for the pilot project in Germany – Episode 3: Structural planning

Circular concrete podcast (Dutch): Design, reuse, and sustainability

Conclusions from the mock-up practical test

The tendering procedure for the pilot project in Germany – Episode 2: The Specification and bidder questions

Lessons from other fields for circularity

ReCreate’s learnings on deconstruction

ReCreate representatives gathers in Tampere for RP3 review meeting

Comprehensive review of all active work packages

Closing reflections and continued collaboration

Developing a Swedish Standard for the Reuse of Precast Concrete Elements

Ensuring Safety and Sustainability in Concrete Component Reuse: Jukka Lahdensivu on developing new quality management standards

First commercial replication of the ReCreate solution in Finland

The tendering procedure for the pilot project in Germany – Episode 3: Structural planning

Circular concrete podcast (Dutch): Design, reuse, and sustainability

Conclusions from the mock-up practical test

EU FUNDING

Follow us: