Dry construction mixtures are among those materials whose scale is easier to grasp through statistics than in a finished building. Industry studies reveal millions of metric tons in production and sales, dozens of manufacturers, hundreds of brands, and production sites. In architecture, this same market takes on a different form: a few millimeters of tile adhesive, a layer of plaster, a floor leveling compound, and masonry mortar. It is precisely this layer that fulfills a very specific function—binding surfaces together, leveling the substrate, shaping the geometry, transferring loads, and preparing the surface for subsequent finishing.
Therefore, dry-mix construction materials are of interest as an intermediate link between the industrial market and the quality of a building. The market determines the product’s availability and the geography of production; the formulation and manufacturing process define the mortar’s properties; technical documentation translates these properties into verifiable parameters; and the construction site transforms the dry powder into an actual layer. The result emerges when all these levels are compatible. In the analytical synthesis of this study, this relationship is formulated as a transition from the industrial scale to the designed functional layer.
For me, this is precisely where the core issue of the dry-mix construction market lies. The bag itself represents a form of delivery. The design value emerges after the material is mixed, applied, and cured—in the layer’s performance within the building. Consequently, the method of evaluation also changes: it is not enough for a professional to know the brand, the cost of the packaging, or the company’s ranking. It is necessary to determine what function the product performs, what properties ensure that function, how those properties are verified, and under what conditions they are maintained on the construction site.
Research into the Russian market, however, revealed several fundamental limitations in the evidence base. An official, rigorous balance of production, imports, exports, and inventories remains unavailable due to the incompatibility and limited availability of certain statistical series; a large-scale sample of current retail prices also resulted in a technical “METHOD HOLD.” These limitations define the scope of this article: it relies on reproducible industry estimates, verified market shares with mandatory dates, technical documentation for specific products, current standards, and environmental declarations where available.
The first question arises even before calculating the market: what exactly constitutes a dry construction mix.
In statistical and industry sources, different product groups are grouped under a single name. Broad estimates include a wide range of construction mixtures; professional industry analysis of modified dry construction mixtures focuses on a narrower group of products containing chemical additives and excludes some of the simplest formulations from the study. Production, sales, and consumption also yield different figures.
Therefore, two 2024 estimates can simultaneously describe the Russian market while still differing significantly. “Tekart” estimates sales of its broad market basket at 16.3 million metric tons. “Construction Information” reports consumption of 11.9 million metric tons for the modified ready-mix concrete market. The difference between the figures does not in itself represent the volume of the “unmodified market”: the sources use different product definitions and measure different flows. The researchers’ own publicly available materials confirm these definitions and figures.
Assessment system | Metric | Value | What is included in the interpretation |
Tekart | DCM sales | 16.3 million tons | Broad commercial basket of DCM |
Construction Information | Consumption of modified DCM | 11.9 million tons | Mixtures with chemical additives; part of the simplest compositions is excluded |
Official statistical system | Production according to statistical classifiers | The series exists, the numerical array remained technically inaccessible in the study | Statistical commodity group, the boundaries of which differ from commercial research |
For a market analysis, this difference may seem like an inconvenience. For materials science and design, however, it proves to be substantive. Any quantitative assessment only becomes meaningful after the object has been defined. An architect uses the same principle when specifying technical requirements: first the function and boundaries of the system, then the measurement.
Once the boundaries have been defined, we can examine market trends.
According to Tekart’s estimates, dry construction mixtures sales in its commodity system rose from 11.4 million metric tons in 2020 to 16.3 million metric tons in 2024. In a closed data set, a series of 11.4; 13.6; 15.5; 15.9; and 16.3 million metric tons has been reconstructed for 2020–2024. This is a secondary industry-specific sales estimate; therefore, its purpose is to illustrate the trends of a specific commercial measurement system, not to replace official production figures. “Tekart” also notes a slowdown in growth by 2024: the market grew by about 2% over the year, following higher average annual growth rates in the previous period.
The trajectory for the modified mixtures market looks different. The industry’s consumption estimate stands at approximately 12.1 million metric tons in 2023, 11.9 million metric tons in 2024, and 11.4 million metric tons in 2025. The 2025 figure refers to a narrower “modified market” definition and is subject to specific methodological limitations of the source.
As a result, the market should be described using several time-specific measurements. While this model appears more complex than a single curve, it preserves the meaning of each indicator.
Forecasting discipline is particularly important here. In its 2025 publication, “Tekart” provided forecasts of 15.8, 16.6, 18.9, 19.3, and 20.6 million metric tons for 2025–2029. These figures record the existence of the forecast at the time of its publication. They characterize the model’s expectations and are kept separate from the actual data series.
For professionals, this distinction is of direct importance. Procurement strategy, product mix planning, and production capacity assessment rely on metrics that have a specific date, scope, and methodology. A forecast allows for discussion of a scenario. Actual data allows for discussion of trends that have already occurred. Their functions are different.
The dry construction mixtures market is more fragmented than it might appear given the presence of several well-known brands in national retail chains.
In Stage 2B, a map of the competitive core was created: 25 key companies and manufacturing groups, 29 brands, and 51 manufacturing sites. This represents the competitive core, not a comprehensive census of the entire industry. Industry sources cite a significantly larger number of manufacturers of modified blends.
The most recent publicly available, verifiable nationwide breakdown of individual market shares that could be verified in this study dates to 2023 and pertains to the modified dry construction mixtures market in volume terms. According to E. N. Botka’s chart, Knauf holds 14%, Volma—8%, Unis, Lab Industries, Starateli, and Bergauf—5% each. The “Others” category accounts for 32%. In total, the source lists 19 named participants and an aggregated group of the remainder.
Concentration ratios are calculated from the published, rounded market shares:
Index | Calculation | Value |
CR3 | 14 + 8 + 5 | 27% |
CR5 | 14 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 5 | 37% |
CR6 | 14 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 | 42% |
The sum of all shares in the original chart totals 99% due to rounding; therefore, the study deliberately does not normalize the figures to 100%. The “Others” category is too large and not broken down internally, so an exact HHI calculated on this basis loses its meaning.
Public data from 2024 provides a different level of detail: “Tekart” reports that the six largest companies accounted for more than 30% of sales, while keeping individual values within the paid dataset confidential. This aggregate refers to a different market system and a different year, so it serves as an independent indicator of concentration.
For project practice, another conclusion is more important. A company, a brand, and a plant represent different entities. A single brand can be produced by several legal entities and at multiple sites. Corporate ownership also changes over time: Henkel’s Russian business was transferred to a local owner, while Ceresit continued its presence within a new corporate structure; the status of other international groups’ Russian businesses follows its own timeline and requires separate verification.
Therefore, the geography of production is integrated into the project’s supply chain architecture. This is the author’s interpretation of the industry map. The production network determines possible delivery routes, regional availability of the product range, and backup options. The actual cost of a route, delivery time, and the environmental efficiency of a specific leg require separate calculation. Proximity to a manufacturing facility in and of itself defines the geography, while economic and environmental advantages arise under additional conditions.
This logic shifts our focus from the company to the material itself.
At the packaging level, most dry construction mixes look the same: dry powder, a paper bag, and mixing instructions. From a materials science perspective, the differences begin with the type of binder and extend all the way to the curing process of the hardened layer.
For Stage 3A, a panel of 12 relevant products was assembled: two tile adhesives, gypsum and cement-based plasters, dry fillers, floor mixes, and masonry and installation compounds. The panel covers six brands and serves as a set of technical examples. It illustrates the differences in mechanisms and areas of application, while remaining an illustrative rather than a statistically representative sample of the market.
These twelve products alone demonstrate just how broad the range of engineering systems is that fall under the term “dry mix.” Gypsum plaster for manual application and material for machine application require different rheological profiles. A thin floor leveling compound and a mixture applied in layers several centimeters thick involve different application processes. Gypsum construction adhesive and cement mortar are both supplied in dry form but differ in their setting mechanisms and intended applications.
Here, the bag serves as the unit of delivery for the construction material.
Manufacturers disclose the composition with varying degrees of detail. For some products, gypsum binder and modifying additives are specified; for others—Portland cement, lightweight aggregates, polymeric and mineral components, and fibers. The exact mass fractions of the formulation remain proprietary information; therefore, the general mechanism of how an additive works should be distinguished from the proven composition of a specific SKU.
This distinction is fundamental. The scientific literature describes in detail the role of cellulose esters in the water retention of cement mortars, redispersible polymers in the structure and adhesive properties of modified systems, and particle size distribution in particle packing and porosity. This mechanism helps us understand the class of material. It does not yet reveal the exact formula of a specific bag.
The material begins to function after being mixed with water. At this stage, the dry mix transforms into a dispersed system, and several parameters simultaneously determine the ability to form the desired layer.
| Factor | What happens after mixing | Fresh mortar | Hardened layer | Practical consequence |
| Granulometry | Particle packing and intergranular voids are formed | Rheology, water demand, and maximum grain size change | Density and porosity change | Possible thickness and surface quality are defined |
| Water amount | Solid phase concentration changes | Spreadability, plasticity, and mix stability change | Capillary porosity, shrinkage, and mechanical properties change | Manufacturer’s water dosage becomes a technical parameter |
| Water retention | Water migration into porous substrate is slowed | Cohesion and working time are preserved | Contact zone formation conditions are maintained | Especially critical for thin layers and absorbent substrates |
| Polymer modification | Polymer phase is formed in the mineral system | Wetting and rheology change | Adhesion and deformability may change | Application area is confirmed by class and tests |
| Rheology | Yield stress and viscosity are set | Thixotropy, sag resistance, and machine applicability are formed | Contact structure and pore structure are affected | Vertical application and machine plastering require different profiles |
| Setting regulators | Hardening kinetics change | Pot life and setting onset change | Early structure formation changes | Working time is linked to construction operation organization |
| Binder type | Cement hydration or gypsum system crystallization is initiated | Its own structure gain regime is formed | Different mineral matrix arises | Choice is linked to operating conditions |
| Lightweight aggregate | Mix bulk density is reduced | Applicability and yield change | Layer mass is reduced | Consumption is correctly compared only together with thickness and function |
These relationships are confirmed by the technical and scientific sources used in Stage 3A; the specific effect remains dependent on the formulation.
For the designer, a simple principle follows from this: technical specifications should be interpreted as an interconnected system. High compressive strength answers one question. Adhesion answers another. Open time characterizes the working process of tile adhesive; slip resistance characterizes the vertical position of the tile; and deformability characterizes the adhesive layer’s response to stress. Ease of application, by itself, does not characterize the durability of the finished layer.
Industrial production of dry construction mixes is built around the reproducibility of the formulation: receiving and storing raw materials, preparing aggregates, dosing main components, micro-dosing functional additives, dry mixing, quality control, packaging, and protecting the product from moisture.
The moisture content of raw materials, particle size distribution, dosing accuracy, and uniformity play a particularly important role. Functional additives are used in small quantities, so dosing stability affects the repeatability of working time, water retention, rheology, and other parameters. Protection after packaging continues the production chain: moistening the dry mix alters its state even before it is mixed on site. Specific factory tolerances for Russian manufacturers are not available in the public database; therefore, a comparison of plants based on the accuracy of their production processes would be unsubstantiated here.
Once the material properties are established, the following question arises: How does a professional determine that a specific product delivered actually matches the design selection?
There is no single answer to this question. Standards, technical data sheets, declarations, laboratory testing, and digital marking all confirm different elements of the system.
Stage 3B has categorized these levels as follows. A standard defines requirements and test methods. The manufacturer’s documentation describes the specific product and its claimed performance characteristics. A declaration confirms compliance within its scope and validity period. Independent testing applies to an identified sample and a specific test method. DataMatrix supports product identification and traceability within the supply chain.
Source | Main question | Professional application |
Standard | What properties and methods are provided for this type of material | Define class, verifiable indicator, method |
Technical Data Sheet / manufacturer card | What the manufacturer declares for a specific SKU | Verify water, layer, time, application area and other parameters |
Declaration of Conformity | Which product, manufacturer and regulatory framework are included in the confirmed scope | Verify identity, validity period, applicant, site and test documents where disclosed |
Independent test report | What result a specific sample obtained according to a given methodology | Confirm a design-significant property |
DataMatrix and labeling system | Code identity and movement of a product unit within the system | Link supply with identified product and labeling status |
This system is particularly important now, as the regulatory framework is being updated. GOST R 58279-2024 applies to gypsum plasters, and GOST R 58278-2024 applies to gypsum fillers; testing methods for gypsum mixtures will transition to the new edition of GOST R 58276-2025 effective October 1, 2026. GOST 31358-2019 applies to floor mixtures. Cement-based adhesive mixtures fall under GOST R 56387-2018 and the corresponding test methods.
KNAUF-Fliesen provided an illustrative case study in its research. In one of the earlier working datasets, the product was listed as C1 T. The current KNAUF product data sheet specifies C0 T according to GOST R 56387-2018; information sheet 04/2025 specifies C0, and the archived declaration also refers to class C0. The reason for this historical discrepancy has not been officially established; therefore, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the formulation was changed or that the “class was downgraded.” The manufacturer’s current data sheet, as of the preparation of Draft 0.8, also indicates class C0 T.
For design practice, this case is more important than the cause itself. The material’s technical specification is a version-controlled document. The class and properties should be verified against the current documentation immediately before approving a replacement and making a purchase. An archived record in the database, an old catalog, or a specification from a previous project may refer to a different version of the product.
The mandatory digital labeling system adds another layer of traceability. As of September 16, 2026, an updated schedule is in effect: for relevant construction materials, labeling has already been phased in, and the mandatory reporting of information on circulation and withdrawal from circulation on a per-item basis is scheduled to begin on June 1, 2027. Current materials from “Chestny Znak” confirm this deadline.
DataMatrix enables identification and traceability. The technical quality of the layer is verified by another set of criteria: material class, testing, substrate condition, water content, adherence to curing times, and application technology. These two levels complement each other.
As part of the study, a search was also conducted for modern, publicly available comparative tests of several Russian brands of dry construction mixes using a single, reproducible methodology. No such data set was found in accessible sources. This result reflects the transparency of the evidence base, not a lack of laboratory control on the part of manufacturers, regulatory agencies, or customers.
The price of building materials is typically expressed per package. For dry construction mixes, this unit is convenient in stores but does little to reflect the project’s economics.
A 20-kg bag and a 25-kg bag already require standardization. Different materials have different consumption rates. One product is designed for a thin layer, while another is intended for a significantly greater thickness. Even within a single product group, the technical class and area of application can differ so much that a direct price comparison becomes meaningless.
Therefore, the basic calculation is done in two steps:
Price per 1 kg = Price per Package / Weight of the Package
and, assuming comparable functionality,
Cost of Material per 1 m² = Price per 1 kg × Material Consumption per 1 m².
These formulas are simple. The complexity lies in the initial conditions. Consumption depends on the substrate, thickness, surface geometry, trowel tooth size, or other technical parameters. Labor, delivery, priming, reinforcement, and substrate preparation constitute separate components.
Mass retail-capture in the study remained technically blocked; therefore, current average retail prices in Russia, medians, and predefined price segments are not included here. This limitation also helps to frame the professional question more precisely.
I propose comparing the cost of the completed function after technical approval.
First, the material must be suitable for the substrate, load, thickness, operating conditions, and the required class. After that, two acceptable solutions can be compared based on cost per kilogram, standard consumption rate, price per layer, and associated technological operations.
This approach protects the specification from false economies. The lowest price per bag does not necessarily indicate the cheapest layer. Likewise, a higher product price does not, in and of itself, imply lower total costs. For a specific pair of options, this conclusion requires calculation.
Project Comparison Worksheet
Metric | Option A | Option B |
Technical Function | ||
Class / Key Properties | ||
Working Thickness | ||
Package Weight | ||
Package Price (as of [date]), rubles | ||
Price, rubles/kg | ||
Consumption under specified conditions, kg/m² | ||
Material, rubles/m² | ||
Additional processing steps | ||
Logistics | ||
Application restrictions |
This same logic is also key to the environmental assessment.
The environmental sustainability of dry construction mixes is often described in terms of raw materials or general brand characteristics. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) defines the scope more precisely: which function is being considered, where the life cycle boundary lies, and how much material is required to fulfill that function.
Stage 3D compiled eight valid EPDs across three categories: tile adhesives, plaster/facade compounds, and floor mixes. For twelve Russian SKUs from the materials science panel, it was not possible to verify publicly available product-specific EPDs for Russian-manufactured products. Therefore, foreign documents are used here to describe the methodology and as category-level benchmarks; their coefficients are not applied to Russian products.
EPDs themselves also require careful reading. For comparison, the following must be compatible: function, technical specifications, PCR, and version of the rules; declared or functional unit; set of life cycle modules; and impact assessment method. Product-specific documents and family EPDs represent different levels of precision. EN 15804+A1 and EN 15804+A2 also require methodological differentiation.
The most telling result of the environmental study relates to the functional unit.
For the Swedish tile adhesive weber classic fix, the EPD specifies 0.191 kg CO₂e per 1 kg of product for A1–A3. This coefficient alone says little about the function. At a stated application rate of 2.0 kg/m², the environmental impact of the A1–A3 material is 0.382 kg CO₂e/m²; at 3.0 kg/m²—0.573; at 5.6 kg/m²—about 1.070 kg CO₂e/m². The EPD itself pertains to production by Saint-Gobain Sweden AB in Sweden and is valid until February 2030.
This is the same product. As the application rate changes, the material’s environmental impact per square meter changes by nearly a factor of three.
This leads to an important design conclusion: comparing the environmental performance of materials requires considering the thickness of the layer. A value per kilogram is useful for environmental inventorying of production. A value per square meter under specified conditions is more relevant to architectural design.
At the same time, this sets strict limits on comparability. Tile adhesive and facade plaster serve different functions and operate at different layer thicknesses. Ranking them by kg CO₂e/kg would create a formally identical unit for different architectural tasks. Stage 3D explicitly excludes such cross-category ranking.
A map of Russian production facilities shows the industry’s decentralized nature. This creates a potential opportunity to reduce transportation distances while simultaneously increasing supply chain resilience. The environmental impact of locality depends on the actual route, cargo weight, vehicle load factor, fuel, and the production profile of a specific plant.
In international EPDs, the A4 transport module proved to be significant but variable: in the scenarios studied, its ratio to A1–A3 ranged from approximately 3 to 10.6%. These values pertain to specific products and logistics scenarios and serve to illustrate sensitivity rather than representing a coefficient for the Russian market.
Consequently, “produced closer” represents a useful input parameter. The environmental benefit becomes apparent after verifying the route and production data.
The bag’s life cycle continues beyond the factory. The EPD accounts for paper packaging, polymer layers, and pallets, depending on the document’s methodology. For the twelve Russian SKUs, the study does not provide exact weights for the packaging components. Storage conditions, however, have direct material significance: a mixture damaged by moisture and rendered unusable turns the already manufactured product into waste even before it fulfills its intended function. The public database did not provide quantitative statistics on such write-offs for the Russian market.
Remodeling illustrates this principle even more clearly. In the illustrative Stage 3D scenario, the same layer of weber classic fix, applied at a rate of 3 kg/m², generates 0.573 kg CO₂e/m² for A1–A3. Completely redoing the same material component increases this figure to 1.146 kg CO₂e/m². The calculation covers only the material; demolition, labor, waste transportation, substrate restoration, and other products are excluded from the model.
This example allows us to formulate the author’s interpretation: renovation is both an economic and a material-ecological event. It involves reusing a resource for a function that was already intended to be fulfilled.
The reason for a specific renovation requires a separate analysis. A high-quality material alone does not guarantee that renovation will be avoided. A durable layer is formed by a system of factors: correct design tolerances, a suitable substrate, a compatible product, the condition of the batch, and proper installation.
After considering the market, materials science, documentation, economics, and the life cycle, the selection of dry construction mixes can be organized into a single professional sequence.
It begins with function. This sequence is important because the market offers products in the form of brands and packaging, whereas the project requires specific layer properties.
Stage | Checkpoint | Professional action |
1 | Function and conditions | Define the layer’s function, substrate, moisture regime, loads and junctions |
2 | Class and properties | Specify required verifiable properties, thickness and applicable methods |
3 | Current technical documentation | Verify exact SKU name, TDS version, water, layer, working times and application area |
4 | Manufacturer and site | Link the brand with the legal manufacturer and specific production site where possible |
5 | Compliance and labeling | Verify declaration status, regulatory basis and labeling applicability |
6 | Functional cost | Align function and consumption; separately account for labor, logistics and auxiliary materials |
7 | Environmental data | Where EPD is available, verify product, plant, PCR, DU/FU, modules and scenarios |
8 | Acceptance and storage | Verify mass, batch, production date, shelf life, packaging condition and warehouse conditions |
9 | Trial area and execution | Where necessary, test the material on-site; control water, thickness, time and environment |
10 | Layer acceptance and changes | Verify the required result; when replacing the product, return to the technical tolerance |
This system distributes responsibility among project participants. The architect and designer define the function and acceptance criteria. The technical client establishes the approval and acceptance process. The purchaser links the specification to a specific delivery and batch. The contractor verifies the condition of the substrate and follows the specified application procedure.
In this model, replacing a product means returning to the beginning of the technical approval process, rather than simply changing a name in the bill of materials. The new SKU must once again undergo verification of its function, properties, current documentation, and conditions of use.
This is precisely where market research comes back into play in the architectural process.
The Russian market for dry construction mixes can be described in terms of millions of metric tons. Such figures are necessary: they illustrate the scale of the industry, the dynamics of demand, the concentration of manufacturers, and the distribution of the production network. At the same time, these indicators remain abstract until the material takes on a specific function.
That function emerges in the application layer.
The composition and manufacturing process determine the material’s potential. Standards establish the language of verifiable characteristics. The technical data sheet links this language to a specific product. Declarations and labeling help establish the origin and scope of verification. Delivery either preserves or compromises the condition of the material. Implementation either realizes or loses the properties that were inherent in the product.
Therefore, I view a dry construction mix as a designed functional layer, delivered in the form of an industrial product. This framing changes the very logic of selection.
Price becomes the value of the function after technical approval.
An environmental indicator becomes a characteristic of the function within a given system boundary.
The brand becomes one of the levels of identity alongside the product, the manufacturer, and the site.
Documentation becomes part of the material’s suitability.
Logistics becomes part of supply reliability.
Installation becomes the final stage of materials science.
The main practical conclusion of the study lies precisely in the connection between these levels. The quality of a building emerges where the design solution remains traceable all the way down to a specific product, a specific batch, and the actual layer that has been applied.
In this sense, the construction mix is significantly larger than its bag.