Tampere University

June 6, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 4

Author: Niko Kotkavuo, researcher, Tampere University

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Besides residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience. Please find here Part 1 of the series, which explains the nature of this work and describes the Polish experience, here Part 2, which discusses the Estonian experience, and here Part 3, which depicts the Romanian experience. The current post by researcher Niko Kotkavuo from Tampere University describes the Finnish experience and concludes the series, at least for now.

The Finnish experience

In Finland, post-war structural change, rural flight and resulting urban housing shortage led to high-volume industrialised housing construction beginning in the 1950s and culminating in the so-called ‘crazy years’ of the early 1970s. By the mid-1960s, most large construction companies had developed their own closed (company-specific) large-panel construction systems based on examples from abroad. In the late 1960s, to further cut construction time and costs, the concrete industry joined forces to develop an open system that any factory could produce.

The developed system, BES (short for betonielementtisysteemi, or concrete element system in English), was free to use by all operators in Finland. It soon became the new, widely adopted industry standard. In the early 1980s, it was followed by another open system Runko-BES (Frame-BES) for non-residential construction. While the systems have been updated throughout the years and their use has certainly became more versatile, they are still the basis for precast concrete construction in Finland today.

The wide adoption of BES and Runko-BES present a problem for reviewing the systems used in post-war Finland. Material on the BES systems is widely available and easy to access, and it covers a large portion of the precast concrete building stock in Finland. It is notable, however, that based on Mäkiö et al. (1994) and house construction statistics of central statistical office of Finland, the adoption of BES just missed the so-called ‘crazy years’ of housing construction. From the beginning of 1960s to the peak construction year of 1974, a large stock of buildings was constructed using the previous, closed large-panel systems, that are far less well understood.

Material on the previously used systems is significantly harder to come by, and details on the systems are seemingly forgotten in the existing literature. Thus, a more time-consuming approach of identification of specific housing projects, via literature review and by locating relevant construction drawings in municipal archives, has been used in studying the early systems.

Conclusions

Based on the very different experiences in the countries examined here, it is clear that there is no single approach for the review, which would work regardless of country. The work is, as is typical for archival work, quite reactive. In Poland, a large existing body of literature on the building stock made with large-panel systems could be capitalised on. In Estonia and to a lesser extent in Finland, there is a research gap regarding the composition of the housing stock in terms of precast concrete and system usage. In Romania, a lot of archival material has gone missing in the aftermath of the 1989 revolution which presented challenges, but university libraries provided useful catalogues and design manuals, which offer valuable insight into the country’s prefabricated building systems. A common factor for all four countries is that compared to housing, non-residential precast concrete systems and building stocks are a neglected area of study.

With the mapping of Finnish, Polish, Estonian and Romanian systems now complete we have a better picture of the systems used in each country as well as loads of archival material for later analysis, classification and digitisations of the building systems. This kind of work acts as a basis of future knowledge and technology transfer of the ReCreate learnings to new countries and regions.

References:

Mäkiö, E., Malinen, M., Neuvonen, P., Vikström, K., Mäenpää, R., Saarenpää, J. and Tähti, E. (1994). Kerrostalot 1960-1975 [Blocks of Flats 1960–1975]. Helsinki: Rakennustieto.

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1974). Talonrakennustilasto 1971 [House Construction Statistics 1971]. Retrieved from https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-0905-0

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1975). Talonrakennustilasto 1972 [House Construction Statistics 1972]. Retrieved from http://www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-1563-8

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1975). Talonrakennustilasto 1973 [House Construction Statistics 1973]. Retrieved from http://www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-1811-4

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1976). Talonrakennustilasto 1974 [House Construction Statistics 1974]. Retrieved from www.urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2023013118667

by ReCreate project

May 27, 2025

Introduction to the report: Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

The ReCreate report, Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete, provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and technical requirements for reusing precast concrete elements in four European countries: Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany. It examines regulations at the EU, national, and local levels, focusing on deconstruction and reuse processes, and identifies common challenges and country-specific issues. It represents the understanding of the state of the art until the beginning of 2023. This report is based on general knowledge rather than the experiences of the industrial partners, which will be reported in a forthcoming report. Therefore, some aspects discussed in the current report will be out of date already due to developments in policy.

Deconstruction Norms

Deconstruction and demolition permits are nationally regulated. In Finland and Sweden, the legislation acknowledges reuse and requires demolition permits to consider reusable components. In the Netherlands, a demolition notification is generally sufficient unless environmental laws apply, which can require more comprehensive permits. Germany follows federal and state building codes with more structured requirements. Waste management is governed by the EU Waste Framework Directive, which sets recycling targets but lacks explicit reuse goals, resulting in ambiguity. Finland and Sweden faced uncertainties about whether deconstructed components are classified as waste (until recently), complicating reuse due to administrative burdens. The Netherlands does not consider deconstructed concrete elements as waste if free from hazardous substances, facilitating reuse. This will be tested in the real-life pilot project in the Netherlands, nonetheless. Germany has legal provisions to avoid waste status, but debates continue on their efficacy. Local environmental protection laws generally do not impose special restrictions on deconstruction for reuse in Finland and the Netherlands. Sweden and Germany have raised concerns regarding specific hazardous substances and water protection laws, with Germany expecting clarification through upcoming ordinances. Occupational safety regulations in all countries align with EU directives, ensuring minimum safety standards. Finland and Sweden emphasize public sector and social partner involvement in occupational safety regulations and workplace rules; Germany relies on sector-based organization; the Netherlands supplements national laws with private certification schemes. Detailed work safety plans and checklists guide safe deconstruction practices in all countries at the project level, which are based on national law or decrees.

Norms on Reuse

Technical requirements for reused concrete elements follow the same standards as new materials, primarily based on Eurocodes and national annexes. However, challenges arise in assessing the material properties of reused components due to lack of original documentation and potential degradation, necessitating improved testing standards. Finland and Sweden apply existing standards designed for new products, which may not adequately address reuse-specific concerns. The Netherlands and Germany have developed additional guidelines and standards to better assess existing structures for reuse.

Product approval is nationally controlled, as the EU Construction Products Regulation currently exempts existing products like reused elements. Finland and Sweden lack clear, consensus-based approval processes, leading to ad hoc practices and uncertainty. Germany and the Netherlands have more institutionalized procedures, including certifications and assessment guidelines, though complexities remain. Designer qualifications for reuse projects are regulated nationally; Finland has specific legal requirements and guidelines, while Sweden and the Netherlands have no special legislation, and Germany regulates via state building codes. Building permits for reuse projects generally require case-by-case collaboration with authorities in all countries, reflecting the novelty and evolving nature of reuse practices. Sustainability policies at international, EU, and national levels provide overarching goals supporting reuse but often lack direct enforceability. Recent initiatives in Finland (e.g., circular construction competitions) and municipal programmes in Sweden demonstrate emerging practical incentives for reuse. The Netherlands and Germany integrate sustainability into building codes and climate laws but tend to focus more on operational energy than embodied emissions, indicating room for policy development.

Discussion

Four key cross-cutting barriers hinder large-scale deployment of reuse: (1) ambiguity in waste status and end-of-waste criteria complicates administrative processes; (2) lack of tailored technical requirements for reused materials leads to conservative and cumbersome testing; (3) product approval pathways are unclear or inconsistent, especially in Nordic countries; and (4) sustainability policies are often too general to drive immediate change. The Netherlands stands out positively in waste classification and product approval, while Finland and Sweden are in earlier stages of regulatory adaptation. Germany offers legal options for reuse but faces challenges in standardizing practices. The report emphasizes the need for clearer interpretations, harmonized technical guidelines, streamlined approval processes, and concrete sustainability incentives to accelerate the adoption of reuse.

Conclusion

While the normative frameworks across the four countries share common elements derived from EU directives, their maturity and practical implementation regarding reuse vary significantly. The primary challenge lies not in creating new regulations but in adapting existing ones to explicitly support reuse of building components. Finland and Sweden are developing foundational practices, particularly in product approval, whereas the Netherlands and Germany have more progressive, institutionalized systems. Cross-country knowledge exchange and stakeholder collaboration are vital for overcoming barriers. The report lays the groundwork for further empirical research and policy development to foster circular economy transitions in construction.

The report, as a general overview of legal and technical requirements in the ReCreate project countries, highlights comparative insights across countries, facilitating understanding of shared challenges and unique national circumstances in promoting the reuse of precast concrete elements.

by ReCreate project

May 23, 2025

Introduction to the report: Guide to Coalition Building for Circular Construction of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Circular construction projects involve many actors, similarly to linear construction projects. At present, when construction consortiums are still finding optimal solutions to organizing a circular project, significant effort is needed to coordinate and structure information flows. This derives from differing information requirements between actors internal or external to these projects, because circular projects are not as standardized as linear construction projects. This means that actors in the project, but also authorities, may have a need for very specific information that is produced by some other actor.

The ReCreate report Guide to Coalition Building for Circular Construction is aimed to be a tool to structure information flows for a circular project, to raise awareness for the efforts needed and the role actors play in producing information for other actors. Furthermore, the Guide to Coalition Building also provides a lens to observe what policy aspects may be relevant in a particular project. Current policy is mostly built for the linear construction, so in circular economy projects there is a special need to assess how certain policies apply. These are discussed more fully in another ReCreate report. However, the policies that are relevant include environmental policies, certification and quality assurance policies or norms and environmental impact assessments. In addition, there are local building permit policies. After the publication of the Guide to Coalition Building, it emerged that in many cases waste regulation (with its base in EU law) is also highly relevant. Compliance with all these norms means the partners in a construction partnership need to be aware of what kind of information regulatory actors can or will require.

A core recommendation of the Guide to Coalition Building is that project actors should be in timely, active contact with local authorities about potentially complicated issues. These issues may relate to clarifications to local zoning provisions, but also to the required quality assurance information when applying for permits. As local authorities are usually the issuers of permits, it can be of value to explicitly connect a construction plan to local climate or circular strategies. In some cases, the local authorities may need to request interpretation of provision of norms from other authorities, which will take time. Therefore, it is advised to engage with local authorities pro-actively.

Figure 1. Two coalitions in circular construction.

In the Guide to Coalition Building, it is argued that in an abstract sense, there are two coalitions which have to interact to get to a result: a building permit, and ultimately a circular construction (Figure 1). The first coalition is the construction project coalition, which consists of the actors involved in all phases from (planning) deconstruction to new construction, such as structural engineering firms, architects and the deconstruction firm. The function of this coalition is to produce the information necessary for a construction permit. The phases in the circular value chain (Figure 1, left side) will provide this information, but some actors will have to produce information for other actors, at a cost to them. This information feeds into the processes of the second coalition, the policy coalition, which usually is represented at the practical level by local authorities. The information requirements of this coalition are shaped by EU-level-, national and local policymaking and norms (Figure 1, right side).

Beyond the technical aspects of circular construction processes, actors in the construction sector should be prepared to interact with the policy coalition to find pragmatic solutions and policy innovations to the challenges that arise from policy designed to the linear construction economy. In various stages of the project there are potential challenges, which involve other actors and information requirements. A goal of ReCreate Work Package 8 is to understand and solve these challenges in the real-life pilot projects.

by ReCreate project

May 16, 2025

Introduction to the report Business model canvases for precast concrete element reuse of the ReCreate project. Full report is available here.

Mikko Sairanen, Tampere University

For companies to adopt the novel practice of reusing precast concrete elements, it is essential that they understand what this entails regarding the value that their customers perceive, dynamics of creating and delivering such value, and, of course, turning a profit in the process. In other words, they need to form an understanding of what is the business model for precast concrete element reuse.

To aid the industry in this challenging task, in ReCreate project, WP7 has examined the issue and put together business model canvases (BMCs) for the different types of companies and processes that are needed to realize precast concrete element reuse. The BMC is a popular tool that can quickly communicate the essential elements of a business model, such as the required key activities and resources, customer-related information, and cost and revenue streams.

Three key insights from the BMC analysis are discussed here. First, precast concrete element reuse holds significant business potential, but issues of economic feasibility remain. We found that labour costs are the biggest barrier to address in order to build competitive business cases out of concrete element reuse. While savings can be attained in material and waste management costs, time-consuming deconstruction and element refurbishment processes challenge profitability. This issue can, however, be greatly alleviated through learning and gradual scaling of reuse processes. In addition, appropriate policy mixes are needed to economically incentivize reuse compared to virgin concrete element production.

Second, the business models of the value chain are heavily affected by value chain organization, particularly regarding vertical integration. Within the ReCreate pilot projects, we have observed both so-called decentralized and centralized organization models. A decentralized model means that the companies of the value chain adopt rather well-defined tasks such as deconstruction or element refurbishment and that the value chain is built on collaborations rather than coordination from a single company. In a centralized model, however, one company vertically integrates various value chain functions and thus designs a new overarching business model for concrete element reuse. The optimal way to organize the value chain depends on the regional business environment and markets, but we found that the focal company in the centralized model can often execute several reuse subprocesses very efficiently, ensure smooth data management, and, crucially, match emerging demand with specific deconstruction projects early on. These attributes of vertical integration can support building attractive business models in the emerging markets of reclaimed concrete elements.

Lastly, we highlight that the business models need to not only work at the level of identified company types within the ReCreate pilot projects, but also at the level of any subprocess that could be considered a standalone business process in the future, as well as at the level of the whole value chain. Therefore, we also analysed BMCs for the key supporting processes of quality management, storage, and logistics, as well as for the system level (picture below).

All the BMCs are published in the ReCreate project as Business model canvases for precast concrete element reuse and can be found through the project webpage.

by ReCreate project

March 5, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 3

Author: Filip-Lucian Neagu, researcher, Tampere University

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Beside residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience. Please find here Part 1 of the series, which explains the nature of this work and describes the Polish experience, and here Part 2, which discusses the Estonian experience. The current blog will depict the Romanian experience, and the series will continue one more post on Finland.

The Romanian experience

Graduate of master’s in architecture Filip Neagu joined the ReCreate research team at Tampere University as a research assistant for a ten-week sprint in the autumn of 2024, with guidance provided by project researcher Niko Kotkavuo, to collect material on the precast building systems of Romania. This blog gives the personal account of his involvement and the challenges he encountered while studying the systems:

Similarly to other former Soviet dominated nations in Eastern Europe, the ‘large panels’ (ro. ‘panouri mari’) apartment buildings in Romania have been wearing a heavy cloak sown with the dark thread of a traumatic past communist regime.

However, several contextual differences ensured an especially unique path for the prefabricated panels’ development within the Romanian bubble. On one hand, their sudden appearance was backed by an unforgiving totalitarian urbanism that had previously wiped up entire settlements to force new space for the ‘large panels’ residential neighborhoods, as well as other representative megalomaniac structures. On the other hand, the high seismic activity in the south-eastern area of the country has imposed, at a structural level, certain reinforcement and binding particularities exclusive to the Romanian ‘large panels’ model. The latter aspect would turn up being shook by the devastating 1977 earthquake that measured 7.4 on the Richter scale, an event that hurried the introduction of even stricter building limitations and regulations.

The national revolution in 1989 against the communist party and the execution of its leader Nicolae Ceaușescu marked a clear ending to the dictatorial chapter and everything it entailed. Eventually, this liberation would also induce a massive drop of any interest in communist-related matters. Unfortunately, this phenomenon highly affected any regard in the handling and caring for the archives of the former institutions, including design institutions like e.g. The Design Institute for Standardized Buildings (IPCT) or The Project-Bucharest Institute (IPB). As a result, tracking the traces left by the archives proved as difficult as expected.

For example, for the last few years, a private operator for archival services in the city of Braila has been meaning to sell the former archives of IPB to Bucharest’s City Hall (PMB), a resource of valuable knowledge that should have normally been sought and reprised long ago by the municipal institution. An equally good source of materials from the IPCT era proved to be the university libraries at UAUIM in Bucharest, as well as UTCN in Cluj-Napoca. Dr. arch. Maria Alexandra Sas, a fellow Romanian researcher, has kindly offered to help with consulting some materials found at the library in Cluj-Napoca.

Some catalogs and dossiers, as well as instructive guides for assembling ‘large panel’ buildings published under the tutelage of the standardized buildings design institutions, have been successfully preserved in the university libraries. Even though the materials found at the libraries were in generally good condition, the IPB archives did not experience the same fate. Before recently settling in Braila, they have been dragged around during the last 34 years, some even developing mold overtime or disintegrating into solitary pages.

‘Large panels’ buildings might presently be one of the most valuable and widespread construction resources in Romania. While researching, I found mine and many of my close friend’s childhood homes’ floor plans, listed as sections or series of IPCT type projects. Since such a large portion of the built environment was constructed in a vigorously short period, more than half a century ago, a new era for intervention is right around the corner. Without a plan B of renovating or reusing this resource, or several back-up plans, millions of people could face a sudden housing crisis. The ‘large panels’ construction had almost unintentionally foretold a future in which reuse can be a sustainable option for architectural longevity.

by ReCreate project

February 13, 2025

The Finnish cluster has completed its first mini pilot in the autumn of 2024. The first batch of reclaimed elements – 25 hollow-core slabs – were reused in a block of flats in Tampere.

The building was built by Skanska for the client, affordable rental housing company A-Kruunu. The elements originate from the Finnish cluster’s deconstruction pilot, in which an office building from the 1980s was deconstructed in Tampere city center during the autumn of 2023. The new building with the reused elements stands in Härmälänranta district, Potkurinkatu street, about 6 km to the South-West from the donor building’s location.

Finnish mini pilot building

’It’s great to take part in a pilot that develops circular construction. The project corresponds to our aim to develop housing construction in Finland. The location in Härmälänranta is also attractive’, explains A-Kruunu’s development manager, Ms. Leena Oiva.

The reclaimed hollow-core slabs were reused as floors above an air-raid shelter, which was most suitable for the elements in this building considering the dimensions of the elements.

’Assembly of the reused elements was easy. It did not differ from using virgin elements. The frame of the building is fully precast, so there is further potential for reuse at the end of life.’ says Mr. Toni Tuomola, regional manager for Skanska, and continues:

’Skanska is committed to a green deal for circular economy. We will focus on reusing construction products by exploiting the learnings from ReCreate. The practical experience acquired from the pilot is therefore highly valuable.’

Reused elements were meticulously quality controlled and factory refurbished

Mini pilot installation

The elements reused in the pilot were quality controlled and factory refurbished in Consolis Parma’s factory in Kangasala, a municipality neighbouring Tampere. The first pilot produced invaluable learnings about the need for environmental permits when refurbishing and reusing elements, as well as quality control and product approval of reclaimed elements.

‘Climate change mitigation is at the heart of our strategy. Our aim is to halve our emissions by 2035. In ReCreate, we are looking into the business possibilities of reused elements and how it could contribute to our portfolio of low-carbon products’, shares Mr. Juha Rämö, technology director for Consolis Parma.

‘In addition to the factory refurbishment, we can contribute such core competencies to reuse projects as product design, storage, inspection, testing, and traceability’, Rämö continues.

Business development manager (refurbishment), Ms. Inari Weijo explains the role of Ramboll Finland:

‘In this mini pilot, we at Ramboll developed designing the refurbishment of the reclaimed elements in collaboration with the factory. We also took care of the site-specific product approval of reused elements towards the authorities.’

She elaborates:

‘We acquired useful learnings how to manage the process. This will come in handy in the next pilots and in expanding Ramboll’s service offerings in the field of reuse.’

Mini pilot floor

New pilots are being negotiated

The Finnish cluster aims to pilot reuse of reclaimed precast concrete in more than one building project. Different kinds of buildings and projects will contribute versatile understanding about the requirements for reuse in different contexts. Real-life pilots help to identify barriers to reuse that must be removed in order for reuse to become mainstream.

‘This mini pilot was a valuable first step towards more widespread reuse’, says ReCreate’s coordinator and the Finnish cluster’s leader, Prof. Satu Huuhka from Tampere University.

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

by ReCreate project

February 5, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 2

Author: Arvi Rahtola, research assistant, Tampere University

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Beside residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience. Please find here Part 1 of the series, which explains the nature of this work and describes the Polish experience. The current blog will discuss the Estonian experience, while the series will continue with Romania and Finland later on.

The Estonian experience

Master’s student of architecture Arvi Rahtola joined the ReCreate research team at Tampere University as a research assistant for a ten-week sprint in the summer of 2024, with guidance provided by project researcher Niko Kotkavuo, to collect material on the precast building systems of Estonia. This blog gives the personal account of his involvement and the challenges he encountered while studying the systems:

Challenges with mapping Estonian Soviet concrete construction systems were mainly related to the country’s rather small size. When country is so small that in most fields everybody knows everybody by name, very few things are written down. As a starting point, the available Estonian sources were mainly blogposts, old news articles, or commercial publications on insulating existing residential buildings. Even though the initial material was narrow, it led me to archives, which turned out to be well organized and easy to access.

Finding enough material didn’t turn out to be a problem. The design bureau responsible for designing most Soviet prefabricated housing left behind a large amount of records. Some type building series had over 200 folders of material to go through. The information I was looking for was hiding in four or five of them. Additionally, some of the archived material had unfortunately deteriorated to the point of uselessness. The main challenge turned out to be locating the relevant files while hoping they were in a usable condition.

Processing the found material ended up being a challenge. Having been part of the Soviet Union, where the main language of state and business was Russian, the found archival material was also written in Russian. During the process of finding material and interpreting the blueprints, I got to extend my vocabulary related to precast concrete construction.

Residential buildings in Soviet Estonia were built by the Union wide ‘type project’ system. This means that the same building could be found in Estonia or Kazakhstan. During all the Soviet period, Estonian prefabricated concrete housing was compiled of only few different Union-wide systems and two ‘homegrown’ ones. Compared to many other nations, everything in these buildings was strictly standardized, which made the review work easier.

An interesting aspect of Estonian elements is the use of ‘silicalcite’ concrete and the use of shale oil ash to replace cement. This was mostly because the concrete industry was already struggling to produce enough cement during the years of reconstruction after the Second World War. By using unorthodox materials, building capacity was increased, when ordinary materials were in short supply.

Most of the reuse knowledge about the pan-Soviet systems like the 1-464, or the 111-121, are also hopefully more widely useful. The former was in use everywhere in the Soviet Union, and the latter was also used in many areas; for one in Kyiv, Ukraine.

by ReCreate project

February 4, 2025

Leena-Aarikka-Stenroos-Mikko-Sairanen-Linnea-Harala-Lauri-Alkki_ReCreate-project_Horizon-2020-1.png

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 1

Authors: Niko Kotkavuo, researcher & Maria Lomiak, research assistant, Tampere University

In the decades following the Second World War, many countries in Europe faced severe housing shortages. This lead to great efforts to industrialise building construction to reduce the cost and increase the speed of construction. The industrialisation effort manifested in many precast concrete building systems being developed, with various levels of standardisation. They became widely-used especially in multi-family housing construction in the second half of the 20th century.

Many of the systems follow national or regional borders while others have crossed borders. Border crossing has taken place e.g. via licence agreements or more unofficially, when features and details of existing exemplars have been borrowed in newly developed systems. Thus, the systems form an interrelated familial network. However, the fact that existing literature on the history of post-war construction has mostly been written in the local languages and for the audiences of the specific countries, is a challenge for the comparative study of precast systems.

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Beside residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience, starting from Poland in the current post, and continuing with Estonia, Romania, and Finland in the next postings of the series.

The Polish experience

Master’s student of architecture Maria Lomiak joined the ReCreate research team at Tampere University as a research assistants for a ten-week sprint in the summer of 2024, with guidance provided by project researcher Niko Kotkavuo, to collect material on the precast building systems of Poland. This blog gives the personal account of her involvement and the challenges she encountered while studying the systems:

In my hometown, Warsaw, large-panel construction is omnipresent in the cityscape. As a matter of fact, across the whole country, large-panel housing is becoming sort of an icon of the past. Though precast structures in Poland tend to be associated with poor technical performance and imperfections, they continue to serve their purpose, providing housing for almost 12 million people (approx. 1/3 of the population).

The findings on Polish industrialised building systems reveal a complex family tree of systems, with few central systems applied nationwide, and multiple regional systems. After the Second World War, the establishment of the communist regime in Poland led to the strengthening of individual cities and regions. Autonomous research centres and local manufacturers emerged, which resulted in unsuccessful attempts to centralise housing systems (Wojtkun, 2012). Aiming at socio-economic growth, the development of industrial technology focused on efficiency through limiting the number of building systems, but the realities of local conditions necessitated continuous modifications, leading to an increasing number of variations for each of the so-called central systems.

Therefore, the preserved material on Polish industrialised systems is extensive, though scattered across various libraries and archives. These prerequisites and limited time for fieldwork meant that when cataloguing and reviewing the Polish systems, a certain degree of prioritisation had to be done. Nevertheless, tracking down reliable sources was the most rewarding part of the job. Then, organising and translating the collected material was more tedious than I initially thought. Incomplete sets of technical drawings or intricate descriptions were some of the difficulties I encountered. However, a handful of industry-specific manuscripts and articles related to the subject allowed me to create a comprehensive dataset on central systems, which were prioritised during the research work. Archival journal articles provided general parameters of systems, but the differences between systems’ variations were documented poorly.

With that in mind, the potential reuse of prefabricated elements of large-panel Polish housing poses a serious yet achievable challenge. Pre-deconstruction auditing would probably require a better understanding of individual variations of the systems.

Reference:

Wojtkun, G. (2012). ‘Standardy współczesnego mieszkalnictwa’. Przestrzeń i Forma, nr 17, pp. 301–322.

by ReCreate project

December 10, 2024

Leena-Aarikka-Stenroos-Mikko-Sairanen-Linnea-Harala-Lauri-Alkki_ReCreate-project_Horizon-2020-1280x670.png

As part of the ReCreate project, WP7 plays a pivotal role in developing circular business models for concrete reuse, contributing to the overall goal of establishing sustainable and economically viable practices in the construction industry. In this interview, key team members from Tampere University—Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, Mikko Sairanen, Linnea Harala, and Lauri Alkki—share updates on their progress, insights into co-creating business models, and the value propositions they’ve explored for expanding the reuse business across Europe.

Can you share some updates on what WP7 has achieved so far within the ReCreate project?

LEENA: Absolutely! We’ve hit two important milestones. First, we’ve mapped out how different countries approach the reuse of building materials, focusing on three specific cases. This has helped us understand how actors in the construction industry are involved in reusing concrete elements. Second, we’ve started developing business models that show how companies can profit from reusing concrete. Moving forward, we aim to keep refining our understanding of how these processes work across different countries to ensure the project’s success.

WP7 focuses on developing circular business models at both company and value chain levels. Can you explain how these business models are being co-created and how they contribute to the project’s goals?

MIKKO: We’ve created business model canvases to map out how companies can profitably reuse concrete. These canvases cover three levels: the overall system, individual company profiles, and specific process stages like quality control or storage. Different countries have slightly different setups. For instance, in Germany and the Netherlands, some companies manage most process stages from deconstruction to reconstruction, while in other countries, multiple companies handle different parts of the process. By analyzing and mapping these models, we help companies figure out how to make this approach profitable, both in the short and long term.

LEENA: I’d like to add that we’ve noticed a lot of variation in how these models work across different countries. Some companies only handle deconstruction, while others do both deconstruction and reconstruction, which affects their business approach. This diversity helps us understand how different roles and processes can be profitable.

Could you share some insights into the value propositions, value creation, and value capture strategies explored within WP7 for concrete reuse?

LINNEA: We found several ways that reusing building components can create value, either through cost savings or new revenue. Key factors include the design and condition of the donor building, location, logistics, and efficient project management. Regulations and industry acceptance of circular practices also play a big role in creating value.

LAURI: In the Netherlands, we saw that “one-on-one” reuse, where components are taken from one building and directly used in another, is the most profitable approach at the moment, but of course it requires a key actor who can take responsibility along the process from deconstruction to construction. Overall, in all pilot projects companies also gained new skills, especially in deconstruction and design, which are critical to enabling component reuse.

MIKKO: In Finland, making concrete reuse profitable is a challenge, especially due to high deconstruction labour costs. Success depends on strong regulations, efficient demand management, and clear strategies for reuse. The Netherlands and Germany are good examples of how to do this effectively.

LEENA: Learning is key. Companies may face higher costs at first, but as they gain experience in deconstruction and reuse, they become faster and more efficient, lowering costs in the long run.

One of WP7’s objectives is to identify strategies to expand the reuse business across Europe. Can you explain these strategies and how they deal with the local nature of the building industry?

LINNEA: We’ve considered the idea of creating a marketplace for concrete elements, which could help expand reuse. However, there are challenges in making this work locally and deciding who would manage and profit from it.

LEENA: Construction companies often work in different countries, and they can apply what they learn in one place to another. For example, a Finnish company in our project wants to use its new practices across all the countries they operate in. However, different countries interpret regulations differently, which can be a challenge.

LAURI: That’s a great point, especially since we have large companies like Skanska and Ramboll in the project. Sharing knowledge between countries is key, and some countries offer great examples for others to learn from.

How does the analysis of safety and health aspects translate into economic value within the concrete reuse ecosystem, and what measures are being considered to enhance safety and health in this context?

LEENA: Safety and health analysis is crucial but incurs costs, such as for quality checks and safe practices. We need efficient ways to integrate these assessments, potentially using digital technologies, to minimize expenses while ensuring safety, which is vital for economic value in concrete reuse.

LAURI: In our discussions with Skanska, safety concerns about reused concrete elements were prominent. It’s essential to communicate to customers that these elements are thoroughly tested and safe to build trust in the market.MIKKO: Brand reputation in construction hinges on safety and quality. Companies must meet these expectations to protect their image, making quality a critical aspect of our analysis.

LINNEA: Work safety regulations can vary, affecting project costs and feasibility. For instance, Germany has stricter safety standards compared to Finland, impacting deconstruction costs.

Can you elaborate on the connections between social and legal barriers and economic value within the concrete reuse business models?

MIKKO: Social challenges, like public trust in reused concrete, can influence demand and economic value. Legal barriers, such as product compliance and market access issues, also affect economic viability. Balancing these factors is essential for successful business models.

LEENA: The Finnish Ministry of Environment values expertise in creating supportive regulations for circular processes, aligning with our project’s goals to shape favourable EU and national legislation for component reuse.

LAURI: In Finland, there’s confusion over classifying deconstructed elements as waste or not, which complicates handling and permits. This uncertainty has caused delays in the pilot project.

LINNEA: Ownership of elements is vital; in Finland, construction companies retain ownership from harvesting to sale, simplifying the process.

How do you envision the role of technology, societal acceptance, and regulatory factors in shaping the economic aspects of concrete reuse, as discussed in Task 7.4?

LEENA: Technology, societal acceptance, and regulatory factors are interconnected in influencing concrete reuse economics. Advancements like automation and digital modelling enhance feasibility and efficiency. Societal trust in reused materials boosts demand, while balanced regulations are needed to support innovation without hindering business. Effective communication and marketing can foster societal acceptance, helping to increase demand for reused concrete elements.

WP7 focuses on identifying easily achievable improvements and economic benefits in concrete reuse. What are some of the “low-hanging fruits” that have been identified, and how can they accelerate the transition toward more sustainable building construction?

LEENA: We’re identifying simple improvements, or “low-hanging fruits”, that can promote concrete reuse. While still gathering data, we see that small changes can encourage companies to embrace reuse without a complete overhaul.

LAURI: A key improvement involves rethinking collaboration roles in construction. Embracing broader collaboration beyond traditional roles can significantly enhance concrete reuse efforts.

MIKKO: Effective data management and communication among all parties are crucial. Knowing where deconstructed elements will be reused and planning accordingly can optimize the entire process.

In your journey with the ReCreate project, could you share a memorable experience or moment that has had a significant impact on your perspective or approach to sustainable construction and circular economy initiatives?

LINNEA: As a doctoral researcher, my most impactful experience was visiting the German cluster, where I saw how cost-effective building component reuse transformed old elements into new spaces. It was enlightening.

LEENA: A key moment for me was realizing the potential of concrete reuse in reducing emissions and seeing the project’s problem-solving spirit that drives sustainable improvements.

MIKKO: Visiting Lagemaat in the Netherlands was eye-opening; seeing their profitable concrete reuse operations changed my perspective on feasibility in this area.

LAURI: My memorable moments include witnessing the Lagemaat operations and the progress of our Finnish pilot project, both highlighting the project’s impact.

In summary, WP7’s efforts within the ReCreate project are forging a path toward a more sustainable and economically viable construction industry through the development of circular business models for concrete reuse. The insights gained from diverse country analyses, coupled with innovative strategies for collaboration and technology integration, underscore the potential for significant advancements in this field. By addressing safety, social acceptance, and regulatory challenges, the team is not only enhancing the viability of reused concrete but also building a robust framework for future circular practices. As these initiatives continue to evolve, they hold the promise of transforming the construction landscape across Europe, making it more resilient and environmentally responsible.

by ReCreate project

September 27, 2024

Written by Linnea Harala & Lauri Alkki

The ReCreate pilot projects in Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands highlight diverse approaches to implementing concrete element reuse, each influenced by unique building types, contexts and organizational structures. An initial analysis by ReCreate’s business research work package (WP7) has revealed distinct patterns in these approaches, primarily categorized into centralized and decentralized models. During the ReCreate annual meeting in Zagreb, WP7 also organized a workshop to present the identified approaches to other project partners and to get feedback on the initial analysis.

Figure 1 & 2. Workshop between ReCreate partners at the annual meeting in Zagreb on the preliminary results of the two different approaches.

The identified approaches – A) centralized & B) decentralized

The centralized approach is characterized by a single key actor managing multiple phases of deconstruction and reuse. This model is most prominent in the Netherlands. There, the same actor is responsible for deconstructing a building and reusing most of its elements in a new structure, a process referred to as 1-on-1 reuse. The ecosystem in a centralized model is simple, with a central hub managing all operations. The key actor controls the flow of information and data mostly internally, ensuring streamlined communication and decision-making. In addition, the key actor’s business model extends to both deconstruction and reuse, highlighting its capabilities and resources. A strong single actor can oversee the entire project, facilitating optimized and controlled execution. With one key actor at the helm, there is a clearer distribution of tasks and responsibilities. On the other hand, success depends heavily on the performance and capabilities of the key actor.

Conversely, the decentralized approach involves multiple specialized actors managing different phases of deconstruction and reuse. This model is evident in Finland and Sweden, where elements are harvested and reused in various buildings. The ecosystem in the decentralized approach consists of several specialized, complementary companies and organizations. Therefore, effective communication and data sharing between these actors has been identified as a critical factor for success. In the decentralized approach, each actor operates based on its expertise and specialization, contributing to a more diversified and flexible business landscape. The feasibility of the decentralized model depends on how well the project organization coordinates multiple companies. This complexity requires robust inter-organizational collaboration to ensure smooth transitions between phases, as multiple actors require more discussion to define responsibilities at different stages, at least initially.

Overall, it can be seen that in the centralized approach, the control of the dominant key actor can streamline operations, but it relies heavily on this actor’s capabilities. On the other hand, the decentralized approach, while more complex, offers flexibility and the potential to leverage a wider range of expertise. In both approaches, the work phases and tasks are largely the same, but their overlap and sequence may vary. Ultimately, understanding these approaches allows for better strategic decisions throughout the concrete element reuse process, promoting more sustainable and efficient construction practices.

Older Posts