22.01.2026

XPS in construction: Efficient insulation for professionals and planners

Building design

Modern white-brown concrete building by day, photographed by Kelly Doroteo

Anyone who still thinks of squeaky rock wool and sweating polystyrene boards when it comes to insulation has missed out on progress. XPS – that’s the abbreviation that makes professionals wake up. Rigid foam with system, efficiency, sustainability potential and digital tailwind. Time to dispel the myth of XPS in construction and ask ourselves honestly: how much future is there really in the pink panel?

XPS: What is the technology behind extruded polystyrene and why is it more than just insulation?
Market trends and developments in Germany, Austria and Switzerland – from construction law to the circular economy.
Digital planning, BIM and AI: how XPS is changing the digital construction site and the trade.
Sustainability under pressure: recycling, life cycle assessment, gray energy – how green is XPS really today?
Technical requirements: What do planners and site managers need to pay attention to in order to use XPS professionally?
Debates and controversies: Fire protection, microplastics, life cycle – what remains, what changes?
Global perspective: Where does XPS stand in international comparison and what can we learn from this?
Looking to the future: Visions, innovations and the question of whether XPS will still dominate the building site of the future.

XPS – extruded polystyrene as a construction site champion

Anyone thinking about efficient insulation today will sooner or later end up with XPS. The material, which entered the industry decades ago as an exotic material with a questionable environmental balance, has long since become the standard. The main advantage: its structure. Extruded polystyrene is formed into sheets under high pressure and with the addition of gas. The result is closed cell structures that give water no chance and deliver insulation values that the competition can often only dream of. In terms of compressive strength, XPS is the undisputed top dog and is used wherever mechanical stress and the risk of moisture come together – i.e. in areas in contact with the ground, in inverted roofs or as perimeter insulation. The pink board, as it is commonly known, has long since become synonymous with robust insulation performance. But as simple as the application may seem, the technical world behind it is complex. Professionals know: XPS is not a panacea, but a tool that requires know-how. The interface between planning, material selection and structural implementation is a minefield where mistakes can be costly. Compliance with standards such as DIN 4108-10 or coordination with building physicists are not a luxury, but a duty. Fire protection, moisture protection, installation methods – anyone who relies on product sheets is taking a gamble. And when it comes to details such as thermal bridge-free connections or integration into digital building models, the wheat is separated from the chaff. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, XPS is particularly popular for energy-efficient refurbishment and new builds. Strict energy regulations, rising insulation standards and the demand for durable solutions have boosted the material. But here, too, the regulations are tough, and the tests are even tougher. Anyone who uses XPS incorrectly risks building defects, complaints and, in the worst case, demolition. The myth of the cheap all-rounder persists – until the first water damage occurs or the wrong panel is installed in the event of a fire. The level of innovation in the XPS segment is high. New formulations, improved thermal insulation values, lower CO₂ footprint – manufacturers are outdoing each other with sustainable promises. But what is really a game changer? The truth is: XPS remains a petrochemical product that can be optimized but does not completely shed its downsides. And this is precisely what makes it a permanent construction site for planners who want more than just thermal insulation according to regulations.

Digitalization meets insulation material – why XPS and BIM connect more than they separate

Digitalization and insulation materials – two worlds that don’t seem to have much in common at first glance. But anyone planning today knows that nothing works without digital models. Building Information Modeling, or BIM for short, has also turned the construction industry inside out when it comes to insulation. XPS benefits from this on several levels. Firstly, the physical properties of the boards – from lambda value to compressive strength – can be entered directly into the digital building model. This avoids planning errors, reduces interface losses and ensures that the construction site does not become a field for experimentation. Things get particularly exciting when AI comes into play. Algorithms can run simulations in which XPS insulation is tested in different layer structures, climate zones and usage scenarios. The result: optimized insulation concepts that go far beyond what the classic component catalog delivers. In conjunction with digital twins, the life cycle of the insulation can be monitored, maintenance intervals predicted and even recycling prepared. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, digital penetration of construction sites is still lagging behind – but the trend is clear. Public tenders are increasingly demanding BIM-based planning, and manufacturers are supplying their products as digital objects including material parameters. This is not just a nice-to-have, but is becoming mandatory if you want to obtain subsidies or certificates. As a result, anyone who still regards XPS as purely a construction site product has not understood the potential of digitalization. Integration into digital planning processes is not an end in itself. It opens up new avenues for quality assurance, verification and even supply chain optimization. In practice, this means less material waste, better coordinated installation processes and significantly greater planning reliability. But there are pitfalls lurking here too. Anyone who believes that digitalization automatically leads to better insulation will quickly be proven wrong. Errors in the data, inadequate interfaces or incorrectly modeled components can have expensive consequences. Therefore, digitalization does not make XPS easier, but more challenging. Professionals need technical understanding, software expertise and a critical view of the data. This is the only way to turn the pink panel into a genuine high-tech product that can hold its own in the digital construction world.

Sustainability and the circular economy – the inconvenient truths of XPS

It sounds tempting: an insulating material that lasts for decades, withstands water and is ultimately recyclable. But the reality is more complicated. XPS has been in the crossfire of the sustainability debate for years. The main criticism: it is based on crude oil, production is energy-intensive and the recycling path is anything but seamless. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the pressure is high. Legislators and building owners demand sustainable building materials, certificates such as DGNB or Minergie set strict standards. Manufacturers are responding with new formulations, CO₂-reduced production processes and the promise of integrating XPS into the circular economy. But what does it look like in practice? Currently, XPS boards are rarely dismantled by type. Thermal recycling remains the standard, recycling plants are few and far between and often economically questionable. The chemical composition – especially the flame retardants – makes recycling even more difficult. Nevertheless, there are rays of hope. Innovative approaches focus on sorting, mechanical recycling and even upcycling into new construction products. Pilot projects in Switzerland and Austria show that the circular economy for XPS is technically possible – but still far from mainstream. The life cycle assessment of XPS remains controversial. The material scores points for its long service life and excellent insulation performance, which reduces the energy consumption of buildings. But when it comes to gray energy, things look less rosy. Anyone who takes the “sustainable” label seriously must keep the entire life cycle in mind – from raw material extraction to disposal. This requires know-how, transparency and the courage to ask uncomfortable questions. In practice, this means for planners that the choice of XPS is always a compromise. Technical advantages are set against ecological weaknesses. If you are serious about sustainability, you have to justify your choice of material, examine alternatives and think about deconstruction from the outset. The industry is facing a paradigm shift: away from the one-way street of insulation and towards a circular economy. Manufacturers are called upon to deliver real solutions instead of greenwashing. And planners must leave their comfort zone if they want to play on the sustainable playing field.

Technical expertise: what really matters when using XPS

XPS is not rocket science, but it’s not a sure-fire success either. If you want to use the building material professionally, you need technical expertise – on several levels. Choosing the right product starts with knowledge of building physics. Lambda value, compressive strength, water absorption – these parameters are not negotiable, but determine whether the insulation will pass or fail in use. A common mistake: confusing XPS with EPS. While expanded polystyrene is widely used in residential construction, XPS scores highly due to its closed cell structure, especially in the case of moisture and pressure loads. Correct application as perimeter insulation, in inverted roofs or under load-bearing foundation slabs requires precise planning. The building authority approvals are strict and the installation conditions clearly regulated. Errors during installation – whether due to improper processing, incorrect bonding or inadequate sealing – lead to expensive damage. This applies not only to moisture protection, but also to fire protection. Although XPS is flame-retardant, it is not incombustible. The combination with other building materials, the implementation of fire barriers and compliance with the respective state building regulations are mandatory. In practice, this means that planners and site managers must be familiar with standards, technical data sheets and building authority requirements. The days of tradesmen insulating by feel are over. Integration into digital planning – keyword BIM – also requires data expertise. If you don’t model your XPS insulation correctly, you risk making planning errors that only become apparent on the construction site. This costs time, money and nerves. Another issue: interface management. XPS rarely comes alone. The combination with waterproofing, drainage, concrete or plaster systems requires precise planning and coordination. If you get this wrong, you will pay the price in the form of thermal bridges, moisture damage or mold growth. In short: XPS is a high-tech building material that requires high-tech planning. Professionals must be prepared to undergo continuous further training, study standards and keep a critical eye on technical progress. This is the only way to ensure that the insulation remains efficient – and the reputation undamaged.

Debates, visions and thinking outside the box

Even though XPS is being sold as a success story in Central Europe, the debate about its future is anything but over. Critics criticize its petrochemical origins, warn of microplastics in the soil and question its recyclability. The discussion is no longer just about insulation values, but also about system issues: How much plastic can the building revolution tolerate? What alternatives are there – and are they really better? In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the mood is divided. While some are focusing on innovation and optimization, others are calling for a radical restructuring of the world of materials. The construction industry faces the challenge of reconciling comfort, efficiency and sustainability. Visionaries dream of bio-based alternatives that could steal a march on XPS. But the reality is tough. Technical hurdles, approval procedures and market inertia are slowing down the revolution. A global comparison reveals a differentiated picture. In the USA and Asia, XPS remains a mass product, driven by low energy prices and less restrictive building regulations. Scandinavia, on the other hand, is focusing on recycling and innovative insulation materials, while Central Europe is oscillating between innovation and regulation. The role of digitalization is also becoming increasingly important in the debate surrounding XPS. Digital twins, AI-supported material analyses and smart construction site logistics could help to compensate for the material’s weaknesses. However, they do not solve the fundamental problem: the question of the long-term material strategy remains unanswered. For planners, builders and manufacturers, this means that the comfort zone is over. Those who continue to rely on XPS must face up to criticism, communicate transparently and be prepared to think along new lines. The future of insulation is open – and that’s a good thing. After all, real progress can only be made when ideas clash.

Conclusion: XPS – insulation material with a future or a discontinued model?

XPS remains a building material with rough edges. It impresses with top technical values, robustness and versatility, but is under pressure from sustainability and criticism from material purists. Digitalization opens up new opportunities, but also makes planning more challenging. Anyone using XPS today as a planner or site manager must be able to do more than just install insulation. Technical know-how, digital expertise and a keen eye for sustainability are mandatory. The debate about the future of insulation has begun – and XPS remains right in the middle of it. One thing is certain: if you don’t move, you will be overtaken. The construction site of the future is digital, sustainable and uncompromisingly efficient. Whether XPS continues to set the tone or becomes an exotic material will not be decided on the drawing board, but in practice. It’s time to rethink the material – and our own standards at the same time.

21.02.2025

Society

Shared mobility: how digital platforms are redefining public transport

Building design

Traffic

Shared mobility is becoming increasingly important in the modern city: digital platforms enable residents to use vehicles such as car-sharing cars, e-scooters and bicycles quickly and flexibly. These solutions relieve the burden on cities and contribute to sustainable urban mobility. Matthew Archuleta | Unsplash

Cities today face major challenges when it comes to mobility. Private transport leads to traffic jams, air pollution and land consumption. Shared mobility offers a solution that relies on the shared use of vehicles and thus relieves both the environment and the roads. Digital platforms and apps allow people to use vehicles flexibly without having to own a car. These new mobility models are not only an environmentally friendly alternative, but also an important step towards a more sustainable and liveable city. […]

Fun fact: According to a study by McKinsey, shared mobility solutions could reduce the need for private cars in cities by up to 30% by 2030.

Shared mobility is based on a combination of several technologies that work together seamlessly to provide users with a simple and convenient experience.

Digital platforms

Digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Free Now and Share Now connect users and vehicles in real time. These platforms offer features such as booking, payment and route optimization that allow users to use a vehicle immediately and without much effort.

Internet of Things (IoT)

The IoT is an integral part of shared mobility. Vehicles are often equipped with GPS and sensors that report their location and status in real time. This data helps to optimize operations by providing information on availability, maintenance and routes.

Mobile apps

Mobile apps are the main tool through which users access shared mobility services. They enable the booking of rides, payment and provide access to information such as the location of the next available vehicle and estimated arrival times.

Practical example: In Amsterdam, the car-sharing company Share Now uses a platform that provides real-time information on available vehicles and allows users to unlock the cars via an app.

Shared mobility comprises various models that are tailored to the different needs of users.

Car sharing

Car sharing enables users to rent a car for short periods of time. Models such as station-based car sharing (e.g. Zipcar) and free-floating car sharing (e.g. Share Now) offer flexibility and reduce the need for private car ownership.

Bike sharing

Bike sharing systems offer an environmentally friendly alternative for short distances. Users can find and use bikes at special stations or via GPS using an app. This promotes healthy, emission-free mobility.

Ridesharing and ride-hailing

Ridesharing (e.g. BlaBlaCar) and ride-hailing (e.g. Uber) offer users the opportunity to share journeys or order a vehicle with a driver. This optimizes traffic flow and reduces environmental pollution.

Scooter sharing

Electric scooters, which can be rented via an app, have established themselves as a popular option for short journeys. They are space-saving and emission-free and complement other means of transportation in the urban environment.

Practical example: Lime offers scooter sharing in many cities around the world and is a practical solution for the so-called “last mile”, which is often difficult to cover with public transport.

Shared mobility offers numerous advantages that have a positive impact on cities, the environment and users.

Reduction of emissions

As fewer people own their own car, the number of vehicles on the roads is reduced. Shared mobility promotes the use of electric and low-emission vehicles and thus helps to reduce CO₂ emissions.

Less traffic and congestion

When people share vehicles, traffic is reduced. Fewer vehicles on the roads means less congestion, better air quality and an overall more pleasant urban environment.

Lower costs for users

Shared mobility is often cheaper than owning a car, as users only pay for what they actually use. Maintenance, insurance and other fixed costs are eliminated.

Flexible mobility

Shared mobility models offer users a flexible and convenient way to get around without having to worry about finding a parking space or vehicle maintenance.

Expert opinion: According to a study by Deloitte, 55% of millennials prefer shared mobility solutions to owning their own car as they offer flexibility and cost efficiency.

Despite its advantages, shared mobility faces various challenges that need to be overcome.

Infrastructure and space requirements

Shared mobility requires special parking spaces and parking areas for bicycles and scooters, which can lead to conflicts in public spaces. Cities need to provide space for these vehicles without interfering with pedestrian traffic.

Safety concerns

Scooters and bikes can pose a safety risk, especially in busy areas. Accidents and lack of helmet use are common problems that jeopardize the safety of users.

Legal and regulatory issues

The regulation of shared mobility services is complex and varies from city to city. Providers must adhere to local regulations, which can increase operating costs and limit availability.

User acceptance and habits

Although shared mobility offers many advantages, some people still prefer to own their own car. It takes time and education to increase the acceptance of shared mobility solutions.

Example: In San Francisco, the rapid growth of scooter sharing has led to problems with poorly parked scooters on sidewalks, resulting in complaints from citizens and the need for stricter regulations.

Amsterdam: Car sharing integration with public transport

In Amsterdam, car sharing providers work closely with public transport to offer integrated mobility solutions. Users can use car-sharing vehicles as a supplement to public transport and thus increase flexibility.

San Francisco: Scooter sharing

San Francisco has successfully integrated scooter sharing and introduced strict regulations to ensure that the vehicles are parked properly and the safety of users is guaranteed.

Copenhagen: Bikesharing

Copenhagen, known as a bike-friendly city, has developed a comprehensive bike-sharing program that is used by locals and tourists alike. This has reduced the use of cars in the city center.

The future of shared mobility will be shaped by the integration of new technologies and business models.

Autonomous driving: Autonomous vehicles could make shared mobility even more efficient and safer as they are continuously available and can move autonomously.
Artificial intelligence (AI): AI can help to better manage traffic flows and vehicle availability in order to maximize efficiency and adapt the service to the needs of users.
Mobility as a Service (MaaS): MaaS platforms combine different modes of transportation in a single app that integrates all mobility services from public transport to car sharing and offers a seamless user experience.
Sustainability and electric drives: The introduction of electric shared mobility vehicles will help reduce emissions and improve air quality in cities.

Future outlook: A pilot project in Helsinki is testing autonomous, electric car sharing vehicles that can be booked via a MaaS app and offer users a complete, sustainable mobility solution.

Shared mobility is fundamentally changing the way people travel in cities. Through the use of digital platforms and innovative business models, it offers a sustainable alternative to private car ownership and contributes to solving urban challenges. Despite the challenges, particularly in terms of infrastructure and user acceptance, it is clear that shared mobility has the potential to make urban mobility more efficient, environmentally friendly and flexible.

Concluding thought: Shared mobility is more than just a technology – it is a vision for sustainable mobility that conserves resources and creates quality of life. If cities and providers work together, shared mobility could become an essential part of urban life in the future.

22.11.2024

National Arena Bucharest – Stadiums of the European Championship 2021

Building design

If you take a closer look at the national arena in the Romanian capital Bucharest, you are instinctively reminded of a Bundesliga stadium. This is no coincidence, as the roots of the arena lie in Germany. The Romanian national arena in Bucharest has German genes: the 55,000-seat soccer stadium was designed by Hamburg architects Gerkan, Marg […]

The Romanian national arena in Bucharest has German genes: the 55,000-seat soccer stadium was designed by Hamburg architects Gerkan, Marg & Partner (gmp), the structural design was carried out by the engineering firms Schlaich Bergermann & Partner from Stuttgart and Krebs und Kiefer from Karlsruhe, and the general contractor was the construction company Max Bögl from Sengenthal in the Upper Palatinate.

Although it is a soccer stadium, the building is named after a female discus thrower: Lia Manoliu won the gold medal at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. However, the stadium is now known exclusively as the “Arena Națională”, i.e. the “National Arena”. The new building was named after Lia Manoliu after its predecessor, the “Stadionul Național Lia Manoliu”, the old national stadium. It previously stood on the same site and was demolished in 2008.

Unlike the arena, it was a multi-purpose stadium. Its stands were not covered and the athletics facilities were located between the pitch and the stands. This meant that at the beginning of the millennium it no longer met the requirements for a venue for international soccer matches. In 2006, Max Bögl won the tender for the construction of the new national arena – which, however, had been planned quite differently at the time. However, the German company submitted an alternative project to the client, the city of Bucharest, which was much simpler and cheaper to build.

The National Arena bears unmistakable similarities to Frankfurt’s Waldstadion. This is no coincidence: the same team of general contractors, architects and engineers built the stadium on the Main between 2002 and 2005. The closable membrane roof in particular is almost a one-to-one replica of the construction in Frankfurt. As there, the roof is located in the large video cube above the pitch when folded up. It extends within 15 minutes when required. It then spans the area between the grandstand roofs. The stand roofs themselves are supported by a so-called pressure ring, which towers over the stadium like a crown. The ring rests on 40 steel pillars, which sit on the concrete construction of the grandstand ring.

The stands have two tiers. The architects designed the spectator area with seating shells in different shades of red, blue and yellow, the national colors of Romania. On the outside of the stadium, the verticality of the concrete columns supporting the stands defines the appearance of the building. The grassy embankment on which the arena stands is still a relic of the old national stadium. It mediates between the new building and the historic sports park that surrounds it. Large steps lead up the rampart. They make a visit to the National Arena a bit of a pilgrimage.

Find out more about the National Stadium Budapest. Here you can find an overview of the EURO 2021 stadiums.