Blog - Recreate

June 15, 2026

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.

by ReCreate project

May 27, 2026

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:

Quality management is probably the single most important issue for reuse regarding building permits.
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.
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.

by ReCreate project

May 12, 2026

Aapo-Rasanen-and-Jukka-Lahdensivu-Tampere-University.jpg

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:

Knowledge Level 1 (KL1): No information is available regarding the concrete quality, reinforcement properties, or the manufacturer of the elements.

Knowledge Level 2 (KL2): No information regarding the material qualities is available, but the manufacturer is known.

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.

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.

by ReCreate project

April 28, 2026

Author: Jakob Fischer

The crane-assisted, element-oriented dismantling of buildings is far more than just the controlled demolition of structures; it also involves planning new buildings using the dismantled and recovered concrete elements. Particularly in the context of the ReCreate project, it becomes clear that well-planned dismantling processes are a key prerequisite for the reuse of building components. The manner in which a building is dismantled plays a decisive role in determining whether materials are merely recycled or can actually be preserved as building components and reused. This requires precisely coordinated collaboration between all parties involved: the client, planners, demolition contractors, authorities and recycling companies.

The client (building owner) plays a key role in this, bearing overall responsibility for the demolition project. Their decisions in the early project phase directly influence whether the reuse of building components is even possible. Comprehensive information on the building must therefore be compiled as early as the preliminary planning stage, including existing documentation, details of the building’s history of use, and information on the materials and structures used. This data is essential for identifying potential for selective dismantling and component recovery. In the deconstruction projects of the ReCreate project, this has worked smoothly thanks to early consultations. New insights have also been gained, which have already been documented in detail and published.

Furthermore, the client is responsible for commissioning suitable specialist planners who possess the necessary expertise to view demolition not merely as a demolition process, but as a recovery process. In the case of the pilot project in Hohenmölsen, for example, the law firm Dageförde was consulted to ensure legal certainty during the tendering process and subsequent contract award. For most local authorities and private clients, this type of demolition and reuse of building components remains a novelty. Despite this delegation, responsibility remains with the client. Likewise, they must ensure that a waste management plan is drawn up which not only regulates the treatment of waste but, ideally, also takes into account the separation and potential reuse of materials. In parallel, they bear responsibility for health and safety measures, the organisation of the construction site, and compliance with legal requirements, including permits and notification procedures.

Planners play a central role in translating these objectives into concrete technical concepts. Whilst in most demolition and reuse projects already implemented in Germany, an external scientific body – such as the Structural Recycling Research Group led by Prof. Angelika Mettke – has taken on these tasks, it is necessary for the stakeholders to assume the pre-planning tasks and coordination independently. Based on the inventory, planners develop a demolition plan that not only ensures safe dismantling but also creates the conditions for the highest possible quality reuse of the resulting materials. In this context, the detailed recording of building components, building materials and potential pollutants is of particular importance, as these factors significantly determine the possibilities for recycling and reuse.

A crucial aspect is determining the sequence of demolition and the degree of material separation. Whilst conventional demolition processes are often optimised for efficiency and speed, reuse requires a more nuanced approach. Building components must be removed as undamaged as possible, which in turn places specific demands on planning, logistics and scheduling. In addition, structural analyses for intermediate stages are required, particularly when load-bearing elements are selectively removed.

Practical implementation lies with the demolition contractor, who plays a central role in determining the quality of the material streams. Through the selection of suitable methods and careful organisation of the site, it determines whether materials can be cleanly separated and components recovered intact. Particularly with regard to reuse, dismantling must be as selective as possible, ensuring that materials are not mixed but specifically separated. This applies both to the separation of mineral and non-mineral materials and to differentiation within individual material groups.

At the same time, the demolition contractor is responsible for compliance with comprehensive occupational health and safety requirements. These include risk assessments, safety plans and the training of employees. Coordinating all parties involved during the execution of the work is just as much a part of their remit as ensuring that the work is carried out in accordance with the plans and applicable regulations. Against the backdrop of rising demands for quality and resource efficiency, the selection of qualified and specialised companies is becoming increasingly important. Both ReCreate’s industrial partners, who are already familiar with deconstruction projects, such as Ecosoil, and traditional demolition contractors who have acquired new skills and capabilities during the project’s duration, are well prepared for the future of circular construction.

The authorities play a dual role. On the one hand, they act as clients, particularly in public construction projects, and are thereby bound by public procurement regulations. On the other hand, they monitor compliance with legal requirements. In the spirit of the circular economy, they also have a role to play as role models. This involves, in particular, promoting measures that prevent waste, separate material streams and enable high-quality recovery or reuse.

Finally, the recycling contractor is responsible for processing the remaining material streams. Even though, ideally, as many components as possible are reused directly, a significant proportion of materials remains that must be recycled. A prerequisite for high-quality processing is the separation of materials by type as thoroughly as possible, already on the construction site. The quality of the recycled products depends largely on the level of contamination and the purity of the raw materials. Dilution of pollutants through mixing is not permitted, making careful separation all the more important.
In the context of ReCreate, it becomes clear that demolition cannot be viewed in isolation but is an integral part of a circular construction process. The reuse of building components does not begin with new construction, but already during the selective demolition of existing buildings. Only if all stakeholders fulfil their respective roles and align them with this objective can the full potential of reuse be realised.

In the following blog posts, some of the stakeholders from the German Cluster mentioned above will be interviewed about the challenges and opportunities that the pilot project participants see in this ‘new way’ of building.

by ReCreate project

April 20, 2026

Author: Satu Huuhka, Tampere University

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster announces the completion of its third mini-pilot! You can read about the first one here and the second one here.

The third Finnish mini-pilot was built during autumn-winter 2025, with the last reused elements installed in December. Like the first mini-pilot, this building is also a block of flats. It was built by Skanska in the new Tampere district Hiedanranta, with the housing provider ‘TA’ as the client. It involves 55 reused elements originating from the project’s donor building: 35 hollow-core slabs, 13 columns and 7 beams. As was for the second mini-pilot, Ramboll Finland acted as the responsible structural designer, and the elements were refurbished by Consolis Parma.

For hollow-core slabs, the reuse application was slightly different from previous. Whereas the first mini-pilot reused these types of elements as floors for residential spaces, this time they were mainly employed in the ceilings. Despite the distinct conditions, the mini-pilot provided no new major observations regarding reuse of hollow-core slabs vis-à-vis to the learnings acquired already in the previous pilots. The replication nevertheless served the important purpose of routine creation for the involved ReCreate companies, which is a prerequisite for mainstreaming reuse as a part of regular business operations.

This mini-pilot was, however, the first time that columns and beams reclaimed from ReCreate’s Finnish donor building were reused, even if in small numbers. Some learnings were acquired, but the practical conditions of the housing project also limited what could be achieved. Because there was no aim in the project for an open or adaptable floor plan, there was no architectural benefit to using columns instead of load-bearing walls. However, it still was an opportunity to test the columns and beams in a multi-storey building from a structural perspective.

Regarding hollow-core slabs, all the mini-pilots together validated the fact that at the construction site, their reuse is no different from using virgin elements. This is great news business-wise, as this kind of observation can lower the adoption threshold for construction companies, and hollow-core slabs could be a ‘low-hanging fruit’ of precast concrete reuse. Nevertheless, it should be noted that despite their seeming simplicity, hollow-core slabs are highly optimised engineering products, with little structural margin. Thus, their reclamation and quality management call for in-depth expertise about their structural behaviour.

Moreover, both the first and the third mini-pilots demonstrated the economic viability of reusing precast concrete elements in the context of affordable housing projects, which come with tight budgetary conditions.

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster is formed by Tampere University, Skanska, Consolis Parma, Ramboll Finland, Umacon, LIIKE architects, and the City of Tampere.

Video & photo credit:

Creamframe / Mikko Laaksonen

Tampere University / Eetu Lehmusvaara

by ReCreate project

April 14, 2026

Introduction to the report: Building, component, and connector typologies of precast concrete building systems of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Erik Stenberg, KTH

What kinds of different precast concrete elements (PCE) are there out there and what do we call them?

The Recreate report D1.2 Building, component, and connector typologies of precast concrete building systems explores how precast concrete elements (PCEs) can be organized and named more effectively. To support reuse, it proposes a simple way of organizing knowledge about these elements at three different scales: 1. the building scale, 2. the component scale, and 3. the connector scale. Looking at PCEs across these scales helps describe how they relate to one another and how their physical characteristics influence reuse.

The report introduces an ordering system and naming convention for PCEs. Diagrams and short explanations show how elements behave and interact at each scale. Key diagrams summarize the main findings at three scales separately and then combined into one shared system for naming and understanding reused precast elements.

A key step in enabling reuse is understanding the material and functional characteristics of PCEs. This step is often overlooked. In this report, both quantitative data (such as dimensions and structural capacity) and qualitative aspects (such as typology or function) are analyzed at the three scales to show how they influence reuse.

At 1. The building scale, precast elements are part of a larger structural and functional system. The way elements are combined affects what kinds of buildings they can form. In turn, building types also influence which element types are suitable. For example, certain structural systems or building layouts work better with specific precast elements.

At 2. The component scale, the report examines the properties of individual precast elements. These include their form, dimensions, and historical use. Information from past building practices and Building Information Modeling (BIM) is compared to better understand typical element types and how they might be reused.

At 3. The connector scale, the focus is on how elements are joined together. The type of connection affects how easily elements can be assembled, disassembled, and reused. Some elements are more compatible with certain connectors than others.

Together, these three scales show how elements, connections, and building systems are closely linked.

The report also proposes a common nomenclature for describing PCEs across the three scales. This naming system provides basic categories for identifying and classifying elements. The typological names used in the diagrams and charts act as references that help interpret and categorize elements.

Overall, this work is an early step toward creating a taxonomy of precast building systems. This taxonomy provides a framework for classifying precast systems, elements, and structural details. In the future, it will serve as a shared knowledge base that supports the reuse of precast concrete elements and the development of digital databases of reusable building components.

by ReCreate project

March 31, 2026

Author: Juha Rämö, technology director Consolis Parma

Load-bearing frame structures account for the largest part of the carbon footprint of new buildings. Emissions can be significantly reduced by using low-carbon products and replacing new products with reused building components. Consolis Parma’s new circular economy solution, PARMA ReUse(TM), introduces reclaimed concrete elements to new construction alongside new products.

PARMA ReUse™ is Parma’s factory refurbishment solution for bringing reclaimed concrete elements to new construction. Reclaimed products refurbished using PARMA ReUse technology belong to the PARMA Green™ product family and can be used as part of the delivery package in the same way as new products.

The built environment plays a major role in combating climate change, as buildings and construction account for about one-third of Finland’s total emissions. Low-carbon building materials and products play a crucial role in reducing embodied emissions of buildings.

Parma’s strategy and development work focus on climate-smart low-carbon products, energy efficiency, and promoting the circular economy. In new construction, reuse of factory-refurbished reclaimed concrete elements can replace some of the new products.

The first binding national requirements for the carbon footprint of buildings came into force in Finland in the beginning of 2026. Achieving the limit values depends on many different factors. Reuse of reclaimed concrete elements is one solution that can help to meet the new requirements for low-carbon construction and achieving a carbon-neutral society.

Turning research of the ReCreate project into a commercially available service

Launching PARMA ReUse™ has drawn from the lessons learned in the ReCreate project, which have also been used in pilot projects and initial customer projects.

In circular economy projects like this, Consolis Parma’s core expertise lies in factory refurbishment, product design, storage, inspection, quality control and testing, and ensuring traceability. We have successfully tested our role in practice in pilot and customer projects.

End-of-life buildings form a huge material bank that can be capitalized for the reuse of reclaimed concrete elements. Necessary dimensional changes can be made during factory refurbishment, and the use of reclaimed elements does not limit the architecture compared to the use of new products.

Reuse of concrete elements is a relatively complex process that is influenced by many factors. Cooperation that begins as early as possible helps to ensure a successful delivery.

Read more about the PARMA ReUse solution in Finnish here.

ReCreate Laboratory testing at Consolis Parma/photo by Satu Huuhka

by ReCreate project

March 23, 2026

Authors:
Agnese Scalbi, Eindhoven University of Technology
Marcel Vullings, TNO

ReCreate’s Dutch cluster reflects on the need for quality assurance and supportive regulation from a business point of view.

Reusing precast concrete structural elements can substantially reduce environmental impacts and resource consumption in the built environment. For precast concrete, however, reuse only becomes viable at scale when quality can be demonstrated as clearly as it is for new products.

Why quality assurance is a bottleneck

Reusing structural components requires attention to structural safety, durability, and compliance with design requirements. Reclaimed elements may show material degradation, unknown loading history, and variable exposure conditions, and they often come with incomplete documentation. In many cases, key material properties such as the compressive strength of concrete are also unknown and must be determined to enable proper re-engineering of the reclaimed structures. Because most building codes and standards are written for new components, they presently offer limited practical guidance on how to qualify reclaimed precast elements. The lack of harmonised frameworks and industry-wide protocols remains a major barrier. Bridging this gap means developing a reuse-oriented verification workflow that extends current established certification approach for new elements into a clear, robust and repeatable procedure for reclaimed precast elements.

Research confirms that current quality assessment practices for reclaimed elements are still fragmented. Many projects rely on case-by-case evaluations, tailored to local expertise and constraints. ReCreate pilot projects have highlighted the recurring challenges observed during deconstruction, transport, and storage. Typical uncertainties include incomplete original specifications, potential damage accumulated in service, and the influence of storage conditions, all of which could affect reuse feasibility. The pilots make it clear that scalable reuse needs consistent procedures covering the whole value chain: from inspection and testing to classification and integration into new designs.

What needs to be checked (and why it is not straightforward)

Technically, reclaimed precast elements must be checked for geometry and tolerances, material properties, reinforcement or prestressing conditions, and cracks or other defects. This typically requires a staged combination of non-destructive, semi-destructive, and destructive tests.

A key challenge is choosing the right level of testing when the original documentation and use history are incomplete. Without clear decision rules, projects risk either over-testing (higher cost and waste) or under-testing (reduced confidence and safety). An additional challenge is determining at which points testing should occur, since reuse spans several phases, from dismantling and transport to storage, refurbishment, subsequent transport, and reassembly. During these phases, the condition of elements can change. While certain properties, such as concrete compressive strength, are unlikely to change during this process, damage-related indicators like cracking, can evolve with each handling step. This makes it essential to align testing and inspection moments with critical points along the value chain.

Digital tools: high potential still developing

Digital tools could help close these gaps. Digital product passports and shared databases can support traceability, standardised data exchange, and faster decision-making across the value chain. However, robust processes for creating, populating, and maintaining reliable data for reclaimed elements are still developing.

TU/e quality assurance framework

Within ReCreate’s procedure for quality management of reclaimed concrete elements, TU/e research focuses on damage and quality assurance investigations in the Netherlands and the development of an assessment framework that specifically addresses the requirements of the Dutch pilot project. The framework moves on in line with ReCreate’s overall recommendations for quality management, maintaining the link between the knowledge levels and the required checks and tests, while remaining coherent with regulatory expectations. Due to the element stock available from the selected donor building in the Netherlands, the approach was initially developed for hollow core slabs (HCS), and it was streamlined as follows:

Knowledge assessment: collect available documentation and data (from producers, design documents, and/or previous testing).

Damage evaluation: identify and classify damage from use, dismantling, transport, and storage through inspection.

Structural reliability: determine material properties of elements and evaluate load-bearing capacity for the intended new application, supported by analysis and targeted testing.

Aesthetic checks: screen and assess visual acceptability.

To support consistent implementation, TU/e has developed an HCS damage catalogue and an inspection checklist for operators and engineers, respectively, inspecting elements on site and during refurbishment, together with a classification system that groups elements by required intervention (installation-ready, maintenance/repair needed, or further testing). A second classification describes reuse potential (full-capacity or an easier application, e.g. reuse is allowed with revised design performance related to capacity, span, exposure class or reliability level). Finally, quality records (e.g. tests, certificates, documentation) linked to elements’ digital identification will complete the Element Database System (e.g. ReCreate Studio Database), where assessed data should be accessible to different stakeholders, such as manufacturers, designers, and builders, who can find, compare, and specify reclaimed elements with confidence.

Figure 1. Quality check framework for evaluating the reuse of reclaimed elements. Figure by Agnese Scalbi.

by ReCreate project

March 11, 2026

Ensuring the service life of reused concrete components is a critical requirement for safe reuse, but it is also the key to accurately evaluating the true reuse potential of existing elements. Currently, the construction industry faces a major regulatory roadblock: standards typically limit service life strictly to carbonation (corrosion initiation phase: when carbonation reaches the reinforcement). In practice, this approach is conservative and can prematurely disqualify otherwise viable elements. Meanwhile, most durability research focuses on the corrosion propagation phase of new low-carbon cements, leaving a massive blind spot that completely overlooks the service life for the reuse of existing concrete.

To overcome this barrier, our latest study establishes a probabilistic performance-based framework for reliably predicting the remaining service life of concrete [1]. Rather than relying on rigid, deterministic calculations of expiration dates, this framework integrates both the initiation and propagation phases of corrosion. It relies on a Monte Carlo simulation method to estimate the probabilistic distribution of a component’s lifespan, effectively accounting for the spatial and temporal variability of concrete carbonation and corrosion in the real world.

For industry practitioners, the study provides a practical decision-making flowchart to ensure service life and safe reuse based on specific exposure classes for carbonation-induced corrosion. Service life verification can be aligned with the exposure conditions of the second life. For example, if an element is fully carbonated and deemed insufficient for outdoor reuse due to a high risk of corrosion, it does not have to be crushed into waste. Because corrosion levels are negligible in dry environments, elements that are carbonated but in good structural condition can be safely reused indoors in dry environments (e.g., XC1 exposure).

This research has profound relevance for future policy and standardization. There is an urgent need to update standards to consider the propagation phase and acknowledge that early micro-cracking from onset of corrosion does not necessarily lower structural capacity, allowing elements to safely meet service life targets for new structures. Incorporating the propagation phase into service life assessment would allow standards to move beyond overly conservative initiation-based limits, accounting also for proactive repair and refurbishment methods for reuse [2]. Driving this change, authors Arlind Dervishaj and Kjartan Gudmundsson are active members of the Swedish standardization committee SIS TK 191 AG2. This committee is working to expand standardized reuse guidance to all precast concrete products—moving beyond Norway’s NS 3682:2022, which currently only addresses hollow core slabs. This work is paving the way for a comprehensive pan-European standard.

Finally, this durability assessment method does not exist in isolation. It can be directly implemented into the digital workflows proposed in our previous work. This includes:

Tracking and tracing workflows using digital tags, ensuring we know exactly which element is which across the entire reuse process, from deconstruction to reuse [3–7].

Integrated digital tools to estimate the remaining service life of donor buildings for safe integration into new structures [1,8–10].

Digital workflows for estimating CO₂ uptake and embodied carbon emissions, where accurate carbonation depth is a crucial parameter for lifecycle calculations [8,9].

By bridging durability modelling, digital workflows, and circular construction strategies, this research helps move concrete reuse from experimental pilots toward a reliable and scalable practice, enabling the built environment to transition confidently from a linear economy toward a fully circular one.

References

[1] Dervishaj A, Räsänen A, Gudmundsson K, Lahdensivu J. From durability to circularity: ensuring service life and enabling reuse of concrete in circular construction. Mater Struct 2026;59:28.

[2] Dervishaj A, Gudmundsson K. From Precast Structures to reusable components: Processing and reconditioning of reclaimed precast concrete elements. In: Huuhka S, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Circularity in the Built Environment (CiBEn2025), Tampere: Tampere Univeristy; 2025, p. 179–179.

[3] Dervishaj A, Gudmundsson K. Common Data Environment development for reuse. Stockholm: 2023.

[4] Dervishaj A, Gudmundsson K. Smart Logistics for Reuse: Tracking precast concrete in Circular Construction. In: Huuhka S, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Circularity in the Built Environment (CiBEn2025), Tampere: Tampere University; 2025, p. 92–92.

[5] Dervishaj A, Hernández Vargas J, Gudmundsson K. Enabling reuse of prefabricated concrete components through multiple tracking technologies and digital twins. European Conference on Computing in Construction and the 40th International CIB W78 Conference, vol. 4, Heraklion: European Council on Computing in Construction; 2023, p. 1–8.

[6] Dervishaj A, Fonsati A, Hernández Vargas J, Gudmundsson K. Modelling Precast Concrete for a Circular Economy in the Built Environment: Level of Information Need guidelines for digital design and collaboration. In: Dokonal W, Hirschberg U, Wurzer G, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, vol. 2, Graz: Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe; 2023, p. 177–86.

[7] Elshani D, Dervishaj A, Hernández D, Gudmundsson K, Staab S, Wortmann T. An Ontology for the Reuse and Tracking of Prefabricated Building Components. Extended Semantic Web Conference: The second international Workshop on Knowledge Graphs for Sustainability – KG4S, 2024.

[8] Dervishaj A, Gudmundsson K, Malmqvist T. Digital workflow to support the reuse of precast concrete and estimate the climate benefit. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2024;1402:012026.

[9] Dervishaj A, Malmqvist T, Silfwerbrand J, Gudmundsson K. A digital workflow for assessing lifespan, carbonation, and embodied carbon of reusing concrete in buildings. Journal of Building Engineering 2024;96:110536.

[10] Dervishaj A, Gudmundsson K. From LCA to circular design: A comparative study of digital tools for the built environment. Resour Conserv Recycl 2024;200:107291.

by ReCreate project

February 24, 2026

Author: Satu Huuhka, Tampere University

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster shares news about its new mini-pilots. This is the second of them. You can read about the first one here. Stay tuned for more info on the third mini-pilot, which will follow shortly!

The second Finnish mini-pilot was implemented in summer 2025 in conjunction with the construction of the industrial production complex ‘Lokomotion Technology Centre’, which Skanska is building for the client Metso in the Lahdesjärvi district of Tampere. It involved reusing 27 hollow-core slabs in two buildings: a small self-standing building with technical spaces, and staff facilities located as ‘space within a space’ inside a larger industrial hall.

As opposed to the first mini-pilot where the elements were reused in intermediate floors, here the hollow-core slabs were employed in roofs. A different application of the same type of elements contributed to new learnings, as different requirements can posed on elements depending on where and how they are used, for example with regard to surface smoothness or outwardly appearance. In addition, different construction projects can have individual processual requirements for how the reuse is integrated as a part of the whole with elements made of virgin materials, regarding e.g. the assembly order and suitable assembly equipment. Organising logistics is another consideration when reused and virgin elements come from different suppliers, though this is not essentially different from regular building projects, which can also have a large number of suppliers for various construction products.

Like all elements in ReCreate’s Finnish reuse pilots, also the ones used in the second mini-pilot originated from the same donor building in Tampere city centre, originally built in the early 1980s and deconstructed by the ReCreate partners in autumn 2023. The distance between the original donor building site and the reuse site in Lahdesjärvi is 7 km.

Before reuse, the elements were refurbished by Consolis Parma. The ‘economy of scale’ of the second and third mini-pilots, together with the commercial reuse project that occurred in parallel, enabled Parma to temporarily dedicate a factory line in Nummela for the refurbishment of reclaimed hollow-core slabs. This helped to improve the efficiency of the refurbishment process, as opposed to the more customised approach of the first mini-pilot.

Ramboll Finland acted as the structural designer, responsible for all structural engineering aspects of the reuse in this pilot, including all the documentation for a site-specific approval process. The first mini-pilot set the foundations for how to conduct the approval process with the local building inspection authorities, and it was replicated in this pilot.

The mini-pilot successfully showcased the viability of reused elements in industrial buildings and as a part of a particularly complex and extensive construction project.

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster is formed by Tampere University, Skanska, Consolis Parma, Ramboll Finland, Umacon, LIIKE architects, and the City of Tampere.

Video & photo credit: Creamframe / Mikko Laaksonen

Older Posts

Blog - Recreate

Towards work in a circular economy

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

Skills, material knowledge and digital proficiency