ReCreate project - Recreate

by ReCreate project
September 3, 2026
ReCreate-presentations-left-to-right-Antti-Lantta-Tero-Niemela-Inari-Weijo-Juha-Ramo-Eric-Rawlins-Satu-Huuhka-1280x720.jpg
EventsNews

The ReCreate Professional Day brought industry stakeholders together in Finland—the recording is now available

The circular economy in the built environment is taking another important step forward. The professional day organised by ReCreate’s Finnish cluster, which also served as the project’s national final event in Finland, brought together construction industry experts, researchers, and practitioners to discuss the reuse of concrete elements reclaimed from buildings slated for demolition, as well as the related opportunities and challenges. 

The event was opened by two influential speakers – Deputy Mayor Ilkka Porttikivi from the City of Tampere, responsible for the Urban Environment and Infrastructure Services committees, and Finland’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Sari Multala (via video). Both speakers reminded the audience about the importance of circular economy and the construction sector in the face of the environmental challenges of today. 

Throughout the day, participants heard timely presentations and examples from ReCreate’s Finnish members on how concrete elements reclaimed from end-of-life buildings can be reused as part of the low-carbon construction of the future. Discussions particularly emphasised the successful technical implementation of the process, reducing the carbon footprint of construction, and business opportunities in the circular economy. 

The ReCreate project is developing operational models and solutions that enable the reuse of concrete elements safely, efficiently, and economically. The goal is to reduce the use of virgin materials and promote the construction industry’s transition toward operations genuinely based on the circular economy. 

The event concluded with an inspiring panel, hosted by Green Building Council Finland’s Antti Ruuska, where four influential guests discussed how to advance the mainstreaming of circularity in construction. Member of parliament Krista Mikkonen pointed out that better regulation needs to be introduced so that construction sector actors willing to adopt environmentally friendlier solutions are not punished by higher costs. The other panelists – senior architect Harri Hakaste from the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, head of urban development Saara Melama from a major landowner company Hiedanrannan Kehitys Ltd, and sustainability adviser Mirkka Rekola from Senate Properties, also provided various insights into the topic. 

The professional event held in Tampere, Finland on August 24, 2026, provided participants with valuable information on the project’s progress, research findings, and practical experiences from pilot sites. In addition, the event served as an excellent forum for networking and collaboration among various stakeholders. 

Were you unable to attend? Watch the recording 

If you were unable to attend the event in person or would like to revisit the day’s most interesting presentations, you can now watch the recording of the Professionals’ Day at a time that works best for you. 

Through the recording, you’ll gain insight into the latest perspectives and solutions in the industry and learn how the reuse of concrete elements can accelerate the construction industry’s transition to sustainability and open up new opportunities for future projects. 

Watch the recording (Finnish language only) and stay involved in building the future of the circular economy. 

Text: Petri Kähkönen, Consolis Parma & Satu Huuhka, Tampere University 

Event photos: Petri Kähkönen, Consolis Parma. 

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
August 25, 2026
JoseHernandezVargas-1280x670.jpg
Blog postsNews

Designing across lifecycles: 3D concrete printing as a complementary technology for circular construction

José Hernández Vargas  

KTH Royal Institute of Technology 

The extensive use of concrete stands as one of the most pressing environmental challenges in the construction sector. Its combination of mechanical performance, availability, and low cost has made it the most widely used building material worldwide, with no viable substitute available at a comparable scale. This doctoral research examines how digital design and fabrication technologies can reduce this impact, with a focus on extrusion-based 3D concrete printing (3DCP). The work is presented as a compilation of an introductory summary and six appended papers. Although the technology has advanced rapidly over the last decade, methods for fully exploiting its design potential remain largely underdeveloped, since most workflows assume a separation between the design process and the generation of manufacturing instructions. The question guiding this work is therefore which design possibilities the process affords and how they can be directed towards structural and environmental performance.

Within the ReCreate project, this research has contributed to digital methods for reusing precast concrete elements, including classification taxonomies, structured element databases, and BIM-based workflows. These developments translate the knowledge embedded in historical precast systems into standardised digital formats that can be integrated into contemporary design practice. However, reclaimed elements are found in limited supply, with fixed dimensions, predetermined openings, and properties defined by their first service life. Reuse alone cannot answer every condition of a new project. This gap motivates the consideration of 3DCP as a complementary technology for circularity in the built environment.

Design freedom directed towards performance 

3DCP deposits fresh concrete through layer-by-layer extrusion following a digital model, removing the need for formwork. As a consequence, manufacturing cost is largely decoupled from geometric complexity, and an intricate object can use less material than a solid cast element. This freedom of shape is here directed towards structural performance rather than formal expression. The paper on internal topology optimisation presents a method in which the print path and filament width are dynamically adapted to the expected stress distribution while preserving the external boundaries of the element. The results demonstrate improvements in strength-to-weight ratio ranging from 47 to 63% compared with a conventionally printed beam. These findings indicate that the inherent complexity of the process can translate directly into measurable material savings.

 

Beams with internally optimised print paths sustained substantially higher maximum loads than the control specimens, showing that adapting the infill to the stress distribution converts geometric complexity into structural capacity.

Circular hybrid façades 

The paper on circular hybrid façades applies these capabilities to the reuse of concrete elements directly. It presents 3DCP as a circular retrofit strategy in which thermally optimised outer skins are printed and fitted onto reclaimed load-bearing elements, upgrading their performance. Because each skin is generated from a digital model, its geometry can respond to the specific dimensions of the donor element and to the thermal requirements of its new location. One-off, project-specific components thus become economically plausible. This approach suggests a productive division of labour between the two technologies, in which reuse retains the structural mass already cast while printing supplies the differentiated, performance-critical layer around it.

Internal structure of a variable cross-section façade component, showing alternated printed cavities and limiting the contact area, thus minimising thermal transmittance. 

Reuse and 3DCP therefore address the same problem from opposite ends. The former extends the service life of material that has already been cast, whereas the latter ensures that new material is deposited only where it is structurally required. Both strategies depend on the same digital infrastructure of classification, parametric modelling, and fabrication-aware design. It remains to be seen how far these methods can scale, yet together they point towards a construction culture in which existing and printed concrete are designed as parts of the same circular value chain.

Comparison of continuous and variable printed sections with their corresponding calculated U values. 

The full thesis can be downloaded from DiVA: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-381695
CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
August 17, 2026
Matias-Pajarre-TAU-7.jpg
NewsReports explained

Facets before hierarchies: A classification system for reclaimed precast elements

José Hernández Vargas 

Architect and PhD student at KTH Royal Institute of Technology 

In an essay on the analytical language of John Wilkins, Jorge Luis Borges presents a fictional taxonomy, allegedly taken from an old Chinese encyclopaedia, which divides animals into fourteen categories: those belonging to the Emperor, embalmed ones, trained ones, suckling pigs, mermaids, fabled creatures, stray dogs, those included in this classification, those that shake like mad, uncountable ones, those drawn with a very fine brush made of camel hair, et cetera, those that have just smashed the vase, and those that resemble flies from afar. Besides its evident humour, what unsettles is the fact that the list holds together at all. The eighth category the whole scheme, category twelve abandons it, and no apparent principle joins the rest, despite each entry being intelligible on its own.  

Every classification carries this risk, including the ones the construction sector relies on daily. To classify is to organise objects into classes according to criteria, and the criteria chosen determine what can subsequently be found. For precast elements recovered from buildings due for demolition, the available criteria were established for an entirely different purpose, namely the design and manufacture of new components. Reuse asks a different question of the same objects, and existing taxonomies have no place to record the answer.

From hierarchies to facets 

Most construction classification systems are enumerative, that is, they attempt to list every class within a domain and arrange them in a tree. Such structures are intuitive but rigid. They accommodate objects belonging to several categories poorly, and tend to accumulate residual groups such as ‘et cetera’ in Borges’ classification. Faceted systems take the opposite approach, describing an object through several independent attributes that can be combined as required. The taxonomy proposed here is a hybrid, faceted at the top level, with each facet internally organised as an enumerative hierarchy. 

Two naming conventions 

For individual elements, the facets are element type, country, manufacturer and factory, production year, and a local code. The resulting string SH_SE_ABTG-STRN_1973C_ASYS-B39 reads as a hollow-core slab produced in Sweden by A-Betong at its Strängnäs factory, in a building completed in 1973, listed as B39 in the A-System catalogue. The final facet is deliberate, as it preserves the original terminology of the archives instead of overwriting it.

Naming convention for element taxonomies. Each facet is separated by an underscore, with the hyphen reserved for compound facets such as manufacturer and factory.  

Systems are named through a parallel string covering structural principle, building typology, country, manufacturer, system name, and year. The Råslätt neighbourhood in Jönköping thus becomes CW_RE2_SE_ABTG-VIS_ASYS_1968C, a cross-wall system for multi-family housing.

Naming convention for system taxonomies. The facets follow the same syntax as the element codes, with structural principle and building typology replacing element type. 

Both conventions distinguish the ‘blank element’ defined in a catalogue from the physical instance surveyed in a donor building, which inherits the metadata of its class and accumulates its own record of tests, defects, and interventions as it moves towards reuse. 

Workflow for the classification of elements. The blank element is the type defined in a catalogue, whereas the donor building element is a surveyed instance that inherits the properties of its class and accumulates its own record of tests, defects, and interventions. 

Tested against five systems   

The taxonomy was applied to the Swedish A-system, the Finnish BES and LBU, the Dutch VAM, and the East German WBS-70. Reconciling them proved the most demanding part of the work. Distinctions that are unambiguous in one national context become blurred in another, and each facet had to be negotiated as a compromise between precision and usability. 

Alignment with ISO 12006-2, ISO 19650, and ISO 22274 keeps the scheme compatible with existing taxonomies such as CoClass. The remaining obstacle is archival rather than conceptual. The documentation is dispersed and incomplete, and most of the manufacturers that produced these elements no longer exist. Even so, these codes now provide the indexing layer for the project’s database of reclaimed elements, the point at which a naming convention may become a searchable stock. 

The full report is publicly available in the reports section.

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
July 29, 2026
11-1280x853.jpg
Meetings, pilot visitsNews

Congress Participants Visit ReCreate Pilot Project at Circulair Centrum Nederland

During the ‘Circularity in Social Housing’ congress, more than eighty professionals from housing associations, government, academia, research institutions and the construction industry visited the construction site of Circulair Centrum Nederland in Heerde. The site visit offered participants a unique insight into one of the Dutch pilot projects within ReCreate.

During the tour, Lagemaat explained how the precast concrete elements from the donor building Prinsenhof A in Arnhem were carefully dismantled, documented and assessed. Following extensive structural analyses and, where necessary, refurbishment, the elements have been prepared for a second life in the construction of Circulair Centrum Nederland.

A key part of the tour focused on the refurbished façade elements and hollow-core slabs. Participants learned about the steps required to safely reuse existing precast concrete elements. The visit demonstrated that circular construction is not only about harvesting materials, but also about close collaboration between demolition specialists, structural engineers, researchers and contractors.

The tour also highlighted the full-scale mock-up developed as part of ReCreate. This prototype was used to evaluate how the refurbished façade elements and hollow-core slabs come together in practice and to identify any challenges during assembly. The knowledge gained forms an important foundation for the successful application of these elements in the new building.

The visit clearly demonstrated how research and practice come together within ReCreate. By guiding professionals through the entire process—from careful dismantling to real-world reuse—the project helps build confidence in the reuse of precast concrete elements and supports the wider adoption of circular construction practices.

 

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
July 13, 2026
Arianna-Fonsati-Arlind-Dervishaj-Kjartan-Gudmundsson.jpg
Blog postsNews

Leveraging OpenBIM standards and information delivery specification (IDS) for digital validation in circular construction: reusing hollow core slabs

Authors: Arianna Fonsati, Arlind Dervishaj and Kjartan Gudmundsson

Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

The transition toward a circular economy in the construction sector requires reliable methods for documenting, verifying, and exchanging information about reusable building components. While the reuse of structural elements, such as precast concrete slabs, can significantly reduce embodied carbon emissions and construction waste, its large-scale adoption is often hindered by insufficient and inconsistent information on component quality, performance, and compliance.

This study investigates how openBIM standards can support digital validation processes for reusable building components. Specifically, it explores the use of the Information Delivery Specification (IDS), a buildingSMART standard, to automate validation of Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) models representing precast hollow-core slabs intended for reuse. The methodology is tested against the Norwegian standard NS 3682:2022, which defines quality assurance requirements for the reuse of hollow core slabs.

Figure 1: Approach involving three main steps

The proposed approach consists of three main steps (Figure 1). First, information requirements for reusable slabs are identified from NS 3682:2022 and complementary research. These requirements include geometric characteristics, structural properties, durability indicators, manufacturer information, and verification records. Second, the requirements are translated into machine-readable IDS specifications linked to IFC entities and standardised through a dedicated buildingSMART Data Dictionary (bsDD). Finally, the resulting IDS is applied to an IFC model of a hollow core slab to automatically assess compliance. A case study was developed in Autodesk Revit to create an IFC4x3 model of a hollow-core slab. Validation was carried out using the open-source Bonsai add-on for Blender. The results demonstrate that IDS effectively verifies the presence and structure of required information within IFC models. The validation process successfully identified missing or incorrectly mapped properties, enabling users to quickly detect data quality issues and improve model consistency.

Figure 2: Conceptual workflow connecting bsDD, IDS and IFC validation for reuse

Figure 2 shows the proposed digital workflow for validating reusable building components through openBIM standards, connecting bsDD, IDS, and IFC standards. The bsDD provides semantically consistent property definitions, IDS translates these requirements into validation rules, and IFC serves as the container for the digital representation of the building component. Together, these standards create a transparent and interoperable workflow that can support digital inventories and online marketplaces for reclaimed construction products.

The study also highlights several limitations. IDS can verify whether required information is present but cannot assess the accuracy or reliability of the underlying data. Physical inspections, testing procedures, and expert judgment therefore remain essential components of reuse assessment. Furthermore, the successful implementation of IDS depends on stakeholders’ digital capabilities and the quality of IFC models, which may present challenges for smaller organisations.

Despite these limitations, the research demonstrates that IDS is a promising tool for advancing digital validation in circular construction. By translating human-readable reuse requirements into machine-readable rules, the approach improves transparency, interoperability, and trust in reuse processes. Beyond hollow core slabs, the methodology could be extended to other building components and integrated into digital marketplaces, material passports, and regulatory compliance systems. Ultimately, the framework contributes to a more data-driven and sustainable management of building materials, supporting the broader transition toward a circular built environment.

 

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
July 2, 2026
ReCreate_Gruppe17RS_m-1280x930.jpg
Meetings, pilot visitsNews

ReCreate partners gather in Cottbus for final annual meeting

Author: Ena Luketić, GBC Croatia

The ReCreate project held its final Annual Meeting on 24–25 June 2026 at BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany, bringing together project partners for a two-day review of pilot progress, a strategic workshop on mainstreaming reuse, and site visits to real-world examples of precast concrete reuse in the region.

 

Day one: project status and country cluster pilots

The meeting opened with welcome remarks from Angelika Mettke (BTU), followed by a coordinator’s update on project status and finances from Satu Huuhka and Soili Pakarinen (TAU).

The core of the day was dedicated to Country Cluster pilot presentations, with partners from the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and Germany each presenting progress, results, and open discussion on their respective pilot cases.

In the afternoon, Leena Aarikka-Stenroos and Eetu Lehmusvaara led a dedicated workshop on roadmapping for mainstreamed reuse, focused on charting the path toward scaling precast concrete reuse beyond the project’s timeframe. The day concluded with instructions on remaining project tasks and closing remarks from Satu Huuhka and Angelika Mettke, followed by a working dinner at Cavalierhaus im Branitzer Park for informal discussion on the project’s status.

Day two: site visits across the Cottbus region

The second day took partners on a series of site visits showcasing precast concrete reuse in practice: townhouses at Theodor-Storm-Straße, the Kolkwitz pilot site and an associated donor building in Großräschen, and a sports club and leisure park in Gröditz. Partners then reconvened for a closing working dinner at Stadtwächter to reflect on the day’s activities.

Looking ahead to the project’s final chapter

As the project’s last annual meeting, the Cottbus gathering marked a shift in focus — from ongoing implementation toward consolidating results and preparing for mainstreamed adoption of precast concrete reuse after the project concludes. Discussions throughout the two days underlined the consortium’s progress across all pilot countries and the shared commitment to ensuring the project’s outcomes translate into lasting practice.

A big thank you to our hosts at BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg and to all partners for the inspiring discussions, positive energy, and commitment throughout these final stages of ReCreate.

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
June 23, 2026
Satu-Huuhka-Tampere.jpg
Blog postsNews

In July and August, the Finnish cluster welcomes visitors to its last reuse pilot, exhibition pavilions in Tampere

Author: Satu Huuhka, Tampere University 

The Finnish cluster’s last pilot entails temporary exhibition pavilions, where anyone can learn about the circular building decommissioning and construction practices developed in the ReCreate project. The exhibition is open between July 1 and August 31, Monday to Friday, 9.30–16.30, at the address Sammonkatu 42, Tampere (Finland). The admissions are free. Larger groups can also request visits outside the normal opening hours up until mid-September.

    

In its last pilot, ReCreate’s Finnish cluster got to test in practice the cooperation between architects and structural engineers when designing with reclaimed elements. These experiences reinforced the finding emerged earlier in the project: the dialogue between the architectural and structural design is different from linear construction and more intimate in nature. 

The pilot also contributed to finalising the collection of research materials on the techniques for refurbishing and reconnecting the elements. Valuable final missing puzzle pieces of research data were also gathered for life cycle assessment of reused elements. The learnings from analysing these materials will be distributed in full after the end of the project in September 2026. 

Whether you are a demolition or construction sector professional or an intrigued member of the public, the Finnish partners are excited to give everyone the rare chance to see precast element reuse in action in the pavilions. In the exhibition, the visitor also gets to learn about the approaches, findings and lessons of the ReCreate project, as seen from the Finnish cluster’s perspective, though various illustrative materials, from posters to 3D models, videos and physical objects. Please note that the exhibition is open for a limited time – by the end of September, the pavilions will have been deconstructed again.

 

 

The pilot was commissioned by Tampere University and designed by LIIKE Architects and Ramboll Finland as structural designers. The reclaimed elements reused in the pavilions originate from the Finnish cluster’s deconstruction pilot – an office building dismantled by Umacon and Skanska in 2023 – and they were refurbished at the factories of Consolis Parma according to the designers’ specifications. 

Anyone visiting Tampere in July or August is warmly welcome to visit the pavilions and the exhibition!  

ReCreate’s circular construction exhibition 

Address: Sammonkatu 42, Tampere, Finland (Google maps) 

Tram: Line 3, stop ’Uintikeskus’ (Google maps) 

Opening hours: Mon-Fri, 9.30–16.30 

Free admissions 

To book group visits (e.g. company excursions) outside the normal opening hours, please contact: professor Satu Huuhka, satu.huuhka@tuni.fi, +358503009263 

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
June 15, 2026
Matias-Pajarre-TAU-6.jpg
NewsReports explained

Towards work in a circular economy

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Introduction to the reports: “Work Processes Practice Change Checklist” and “Roadmap for Educational Needs”. The full reports are available here and here. These two documents deal with the near future of work in the circular construction economy. 
How circular construction work restructures actor relations

At its core, the report “Work Processes Practice Change Checklist” is a practice–oriented document that is intended to be used by project planners. It is based on the work processes research in ReCreate, and it follows the general structure of phases in circular construction projects as identified in ReCreate. In each phase, there is a checklist, with a number of work processes and the actors involved. The purpose of structuring the document this way is that the project planner can easily see which actors should co-operate with each other, organised by work process. Below, an example checklist is shown, which covers the deconstruction phase 

The idea is that by having a single document with all phases and the major work processes, the project planner also easily can manage information needs between actors that occur at different times. For example, labelling the deconstructed materials is a work process that connects to logistics, quality assurance and refurbishment. The labelling should be planned between the deconstruction firm and the refurbishment company, so that information needed for logistics and quality assurance can be easily added to a digital content management system (i.e. a common data environment). This is also why documenting data needs is a separate work process for all actors and all phases. 


Skills, material knowledge and digital proficiency 

The “Roadmap for Educational Needs” is also based on the empirical material. In this document, I discuss skills needs, again distinguishing the circular construction process by phase. The intention is to show that in circular work, there are many aspects that remain similar to existing construction work, although there are definitely features that are unique to circular work. The aim of the document is to provide content for the EU’s transition policies, as circular construction work relates to both the green and digital transitions. 
 
In the report, I show that many work processes feature mostly a reconfiguration of skills towards a new goal, rather that fully new skills. This should be interpreted as good news, as the construction sector does not necessarily need a full overhaul of its curriculum in education. However, there should be sufficient attention to BIM-modelling, data processing and near-future developments like materials passports. In other words: digital skills and digital infrastructure will be more important in the future. This could also entail the use of AI to aid supply and demand matching in architectural or structural design. Moreover, in line with the findings behind the other report, “Work Processes Practice Change Checklist”, there is great need for transversal skills, i.e. communication and knowledge sharing. This includes also knowledge of materials and how they behave – this may greatly reduce damage to recoverable materials and products.  
 
The report also shows that the values inherent in circular construction may have an impact on making the sector more attractive to young people, as circular economy imbues construction with a different meaning that traditional linear construction. This may be a pull factor. The report concludes with a few recommendations to current educational institutions in construction. Beyond the need for transversal skills, the report also calls for multidisciplinarity, e.g. structural engineers study more public policy and vice versa, or architects acquaint themselves to a greater extent with the work at construction sites. The overarching message is that in circular work, it is important to know what other actors do, and why they need information of a certain kind. 
 

CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
May 27, 2026
Matias-Pajarre-TAU-5.jpg
NewsReports explained

Navigating Europe’s regulatory maze for concrete reuse

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Introduction to the report: Guide to national implementation differences of norms applicable to reuse. The full report is available here. 

Transitioning the construction sector from a linear “take-make-waste” model to a circular one is a monumental task. The ReCreate project is researching how to reuse precast concrete elements—originally never meant for disassembly—across four European countries. However, as the project has progressed, actors on the ground have found that the biggest barriers aren’t always technical; they are often found in the fine print of national regulations. 

“Guide to national implementation differences of norms applicable to reuse” looks at the practical aspects of translating existing regulation for reuse of reclaimed precast concrete elements. It is based on the experiences gained from interactions with regulations and policies in ReCreate’s pilots. 

Finland: reclaimed precast concrete elements are not waste

In Finland, the ReCreate pilot faced a difficult question in conjunction with the temporary storage of the reclaimed elements: Are deconstructed concrete elements “products” or are they “waste”? If labelled as waste, the elements would be subject to expensive, time-consuming administrative processes like the “End-of-Waste” (EoW) process. In addition, such labelling also would possible have required different environmental permits. 

However, the Finnish ReCreate cluster was convinced reclaimed elements could not be waste. After intensive negotiations and dialogues with the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry published a landmark policy clarification: reclaimed elements do not automatically become waste if they are kept in a usable state throughout the process. 

This general statement was coupled with further criteria. The Ministry established that “certainty of further use” could be proven without a specific building address. Instead, actors must show that the reclamation is systematic and there is demand for the products. The municipality of Kangasala then formally decided, using the clarification, that the reclaimed elements stored at the Consolis Parma plant do not constitute waste.  

Beyond removing hurdles, the City of Tampere successfully tested a “land allocation competition” model, which ReCreate helped develop. In this system, developers who commit to circular methods (like reuse) are given preference in securing valuable land, providing a powerful financial incentive to innovate.

Sweden: temporary storage and chemicals

In Sweden, a similar interpretation of the waste status has not been reached as in Finland. Under the Swedish Environmental Code, reclaimed materials and products can only be stored for up to three years before the site is legally reclassified as a landfill. At the time of the report’s research, this issue was not resolved, and temporary storage remains a risk for the owner of the reclaimed elements. 

In Sweden, much attention is paid to adherence to REACH legislation, because the developer bears legal responsibility for this issue. However, the Swedish country cluster received a clarification from the Swedish Chemical Agency that the limit values according to REACH restriction rules only apply to chemical products, such as cement. In this legislation, reused concrete elements are rather defined as goods. 

The Netherlands: self-assessment of the waste status 

In the Netherlands, the waste status of recovered elements has not formally been discussed in ReCreate’s pilot project. However, in the context of environmental permits, the project partner Lagemaat was obliged to use a self-assessment tool, to determine whether the recovered materials constituted waste. This tool followed similar logic as the Finnish authorities, and the outcome indeed was the elements would not constitute waste. The tool only offers guidance, however. 

Germany: A case-by-case bureaucratic battle

The German regulatory situation is complicated because each state has differing regulations. The report therefore only deals with the states the pilot projects have been active in.  
To some extent, the complicated issue in Germany revolved around quality assurance rather than the acceptance of reclaimed elements as building materials. The latter, through the site-specific permits, is possible according to existing German law. Regarding quality assurance, the issue was mostly which authority would be responsible for acknowledging the adherence to standards. At the time of research for this report, the issue was not fully clear. One further issue that is a potential challenge to the scalability of the reuse of reclaimed elements is the liability of owners for the materials. On the other hand, this could spur innovations in insurance products. 

Common Themes: The Need for an “EU Umbrella”

All countries had very specific regulatory issues, but the ReCreate report identifies several common threads that affect everyone: 

  1. Quality management is probably the single most important issue for reuse regarding building permits. 
  2. Reusing materials currently requires significantly more negotiation and consensus-building than standard construction. This “interaction tax” is a hidden cost that currently burdens circular pioneers. 
  3. There is a unanimous call for the EU to provide a single, unambiguous definition of when reclaimed products become waste. Relying on 27 different national interpretations prevents the creation of a true cross-border market for reused materials. 
In conclusion, the message to companies is clear: start early, negotiate and communicate often, and document everything. The path to a circular future is currently being paved—reused element by reused element—through these difficult but necessary regulatory conversations.
CONTINUE READING
by ReCreate project
May 12, 2026
Aapo-Rasanen-and-Jukka-Lahdensivu-Tampere-University.jpg
NewsReports explained

How to ensure the quality of salvaged concrete elements?

Authors: Aapo Räsänen and Jukka Lahdensivu, Tampere University 

Introduction to the reports: Procedure for quality management of reclaimed concrete elements, Properties and quality of precast concrete elements deconstructed in ReCreate’s pilots and Quality management best practices in reuse of precast concrete elements of the ReCreate project. The full reports are available on the website.  

The ReCreate report Procedure for quality management of reclaimed concrete elements presents the six stages process for safe reuse of reclaimed concrete elements as a part of bearing structures in new buildings. The key process stages are: 

  • Pre-deconstruction audit, where the main actions are finding out the type and number of elements, assessing their reuse potential, and gathering information for the next stages. 
  • Structural investigation, where the main actions are ensuring material properties of elements primarily with non-destructive (ND) or semi-destructive (SD) methods, determining the condition of the elements, and finding out the existence of possible hazardous substances. 
  • Deconstruction design and execution, where the determination of safe deconstruction and lifting methods is the main action, together with transportation and storage of deconstructed elements. 
  • Full-scale testing is carried out if the structural capacity of reclaimed elements cannot be uncovered through other means or if there is doubt about safety factors. Also newly developed retrofit connections need testing if original connections cannot be reused. 
  • Redesign and reassembly, where the main actions are designing the reclaimed elements according to Eurocodes and standards in force. Also, the refurbishment of the reclaimed elements must be designed and carried out before delivering elements to new construction site. 
  • Product approval and authorisation is the final stage, where documents from the previous stages, together with technical drawings and calculations, will be presented to authorities to obtain official permits for reuse. 

Visual investigation and thorough documentation are an essential part of each stage. Information must be carried through from stage to stage. 

Properties and quality of reclaimed elements 

Properties and quality of reclaimed elements were determined in four piloting countries: Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. The report provides description of used test methods number of samples and measurements, and all test results carried out in laboratories of each donor buildings. In short, concrete grade used in reclaimed elements was higher than original design value, the elements were in good condition in general, and all found harmful substances could be removed before detaching of elements. 

Knowledge Level 

The ReCreate report Quality management best practices in reuse of precast concrete elements focuses on test methods and sufficient number of tests/samples needed for determining the material properties of concrete and the bearing capacity of elements. The actual condition, material properties, remaining service life, and probable repair needs of elements intended for reuse can be assessed through a systematic investigation. The need of testing depends strongly on the extent of available information. Therefore, four Knowledge Levels (KLs) are introduced: 

  1. Knowledge Level 1 (KL1): No information is available regarding the concrete quality, reinforcement properties, or the manufacturer of the elements.  
  1. Knowledge Level 2 (KL2): No information regarding the material qualities is available, but the manufacturer is known. 
  1. Knowledge Level 3 (KL3): Some specifications describing the concrete and reinforcement properties of the elements exist, but no further information about the manufacturer or quality control applied during production is available.  
  1. Knowledge Level 4 (KL4): Detailed archives of specifications describing the used concrete quality and reinforcement steel design are available, and both the manufacturer and its quality control system are well-documented. 

The first two knowledge levels (KL1 and KL2) describe situations where no design specifications are available on the donor building. In these cases, extensive non-destructive testing (NDT) and destructive testing (DT) is required. For KL3 and KL4, partial or complete archives of original documents are accessible, and the specified properties only need to be verified through selective testing, reducing the workload. 

Parallel test methods 

Many different test methods are available for determining properties of concrete elements. Some methods are simple, while others are more complex, potentially causing more damage and costs. Additionally, the reliability of the tests varies depending on the method used. The testing methods used should always selected to suit each specific situation, based on the project’s criteria. The criteria may include, e.g. the type of element, required level of reliability, requirements of the new building, or the test methods available. 

Ideally, the test methods should be selected to maximise the amount of knowledge gained while minimising costs and time. By using parallel test methods, reliability can often be improved by complementing each method’s shortcomings to create a more reliable aggregated method. In the report different test methods are presented for: 

  • compressive strength evaluation of concrete 
  • cover depth and diameter measurements of reinforcement 
  • carbonation measurements of concrete 
  • chloride content of concrete 
  • corrosion of reinforcement 
  • freeze-thaw resistance of concrete 
  • deteriorated concrete. 

The methods are presented in tables containing information on suitable standards, representativity, reliability, workload and number of needed tests of each presented test methods when the information is available. 

Number of samples 

Number of samples needed for each test are mentioned in standards in the first place. Several tests presented in report have no standard, e.g., cover depth measurements reinforcement. Sufficient number of test specimen or full-scale tests for high reliable results is based on scientific research on the results from the pilot projects. High deviation of test results gives a recommendation of higher number of samples/tests than the minimum number in standards. The recommended number of samples are presented in the report. 

Conclusion 

Quality assurance measures carried out in the ReCreate project varied somewhat across different pilots. The best practices presented in the report are based on the necessary actions taken at each pilot. In particular, damage and deficiencies in structural elements required significant interventions. These defects were discovered at different stages of the pilots, leading to immediate responses each time, which resulted in multiple actions being taken. 

Overall, the quality assurance measures are especially useful in validating the reusability of elements. These measures will also benefit the structural designers by helping anticipate potential deficiencies and necessary modifications during refurbishment. Well-documented processes will provide evidence of reusability to authorities and other stakeholders involved in the reuse process. In Finnish pilots the developed quality management process was used successfully. The building inspection authorities in Tampere and Helsinki accepted the developed quality management process for reused concrete elements as a part of the site-specific authorisation. 

CONTINUE READING

Older Posts

EU FUNDING

“This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 958200”.

Follow us: