Y3 - Dissertation by Luigi

ROBOTIC FABRICATION IN ARCHITECTURE HOW WILL THE USE OF ROBOTS AFFECT THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION? Luigi Di Vito Francesco BA Architecture 2015/2016

This dissertation is to be presented to the School of Architecture and construction of the University of Greenwich.

Except where stated otherwise, this dissertation is based entirely on the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own work.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my dissertation tutor, Doctor Shaun Murray, for his patience and critical opinions which have helped me developing and writing my dissertation. I would also like to express my gratitude to Georgie Herety for her proofreading, which has profoundly improved the composition of this dissertation.

Content page Keywords

Abstract

Introduction

8-9

Chapter 01: Introduction of robotics within architecture and construction - Robotics and architecture: a long-lasting relationship - Prelude to the introduction of robotics within architecture: 20th century robotics - Pioneers in architectural robotics: ETH Zurich - Function and aesthetics in early 21st century architectural robotics

12-13 14-17 18-19 20-25

Chapter 02: Contemporary robotics - Diffusion of industrial robots within architectural education - Architectural robotics outside education - Development of novel fabrication processes - Use of robots in the construction industry: the case of Asia

32-33 34-35 36-39 40-41

Chapter 03: Future robotics - The â&#x20AC;&#x153;robots follow economyâ&#x20AC;? trend - Additive manufacturing and robotic fabrication: a joint future agenda - Future robotics: in-situ fabrication - To standardize or not to standardize?

46-49 50-53 52-53 56-59

Conclusion

62-63

Bibliography

62-65

Keywords

Robotic fabrication - education - experimental research non-stanrdardized components - architectural robotics

Abstract

Architecture and construction are undergoing a major transformation in the discussion between aesthetics and form-making, not least due to the dissolution of the boundaries between materiality and form. In this context, I am interested in the role of education as promoter of the use of innovative technologies within the ongoing dynamic interactions between architectural design, manufacturing techniques and computational logic. More specifically, robotic fabrication within architecture has emerged as new way of architectural production thanks to the adaptation of robotic arms used in car manufacturing industry. Within robotic fabrication there has been huge development towards the use and function of robots, making the technology appealing for experimental research in the sector of architectural education first, and small industry later. By investigating, analysing and reflecting on the history of robotics, this dissertation interrogates the use of robots within architecture in the 21st century, looking closely at how the desire to generate innovative and complex designs could potentially have a negative effect oy ultimately limit the use of robots to banal fabrication tasks such as milling, assembly and cutting. Through the analysis of selected case studies, this dissertation speculates on the future role of robotics in architecture and construction, reflecting on the social, technological and environmental impact on architecture and construction.

The upper half of the timeline above displays the major events that contributed to the diffusion of robotics within architecture and construction. The lower half of the timeline illustrates how robotics was used in architecture and construction since its diffusion in the 1980s.

The first chapter of this dissertation focuses on past robotics and its historical influences: the second chapter on present robotics and its diffusion worldwide; the third chapter speculates on the future of robotics within architecture and construction.

Introduction ‘Despite the technical possibilities and potential of the existing advanced technological infrastructures, schools of architecture use technology mostly at the level of representation or of morphogenesis’ (Voyatzaki, 2008: 10). According to Maria Voyatzaki (2008:11), architectural education has always been rather reticent in teaching construction to its students. However things are changing and architecture and construction are undergoing a major transformation in this sense. Recent development of computational and parametric design imposes new logics in the design process. Technological progress has allowed the possibility to test reality accurately and interacting with it: the possibility to simulate reality has allowed the reconciliation of the design process with construction. Architecture and construction have never been as close since their shift described by Leon Battista Alberti (1988: 3). This shift in the production conditions of architecture has had a significant impact on the practice of architecture itself, from a social, technological and environmental point of view. For example, the introduction of new sophisticated machinery is putting at risk not only the role of construction workers, the role of the architect could be also questioned: the introduction of new technology forces architects to think differently and demands a more versatile and multidisciplinary approach. Traditional construction techniques such as bricklaying or timber cutting and assembly now seem to be out-of-date if compared to contemporary construction robots. With the introduction of computer modelling and digital simulation, architectural production has changed dramatically. The level of complexity that can be achieved in architectural design through computer (or 3D) modelling is impressive and demands new modes of production that are able to provide a structural solution to problems of increased complexity. This demand for new modes of production is at the base of the introduction of new fabrication techniques, which include additive manufacturing – also known as 3D printing – and robotic fabrication techniques. Robots were first used in the

construction of buildings during the 1980s, however it is only in recent times the technology emphatically emerged in architecture and construction. Robotics is not a 21st century invention. One of the first concepts of robot can be attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, who, in 1495, built his Mechanical Knight, a sort of robotic man that was able to move by manually operating a complex pulley and cable system (Da Vinci inventions, 2008). Leonardo’s early concept well represents man’s dream of creating machines that could operate similarly to the human body. With the invention of the first robot, Unimate, in 1961 (Robotics, 2016), this dream was to become reality. Contemporary robots can do as much as man is able to do, if not even more. This has become particularly evident in architecture and construction, where robots are able to build structures too sophisticated to be built by human hands. However robots cannot build everything. Despite the technological progress contemporary robots still have numerous limits: they can work with only one type of material at a time, they are costly and limited in size and robotics fabrication techniques are majorly implemented for the construction of building components only. Although we can predict most limits linked to physicality and performance to be overcome in the foreseeable future as technological development progresses, it is still not clear how robotics will affect future architectural design and construction. By analysing past and present use of robotics within architecture and construction I can begin to speculate on the future role of the technology and its social, technological and environmental impacts on the aforementioned disciplines. This dissertation is structured in three main chapters, each divided in a series of subchapters, which treat the topic of architectural robotics in relation to its past, present and future use within architecture and construction. Word count: 6130

CHAPTER 01 Introduction of robotics within architecture and construction

This chapter investigates the principles behind the introduction of robotics in architecture. The chapter is subdivided in the following subchapters: - Robotics and architecture: a long-lasting relationship - Prelude to the introduction of robotics within architecture: 20th century robotics - Pioneers in architectural robotics: ETH Zurich - Function and aesthetics in early 21st century architectural robotics

Robotics and architecture: a long-lasting relationship

C H A P T E R 0 1

Figure 02: The first robot ever built, “Unimate”, used in the manufacturing sector.

As a discipline based on creativity and experiment, architecture has always been very sensitive to technological progress. The desire to move forward and explore new frontiers in design and construction has radically changed architectural production over the course of history. In this context, architecture and construction are undergoing a major transformation, which is linked to the introduction of robotics in the construction of buildings. Despite the fact robotics technology emerged emphatically only recently, robotics is not a 21st century technology and has indeed a long-time relationship with architecture. A key date for the development of robotics is 1898, when Nikola Tesla, considered the father of robotics, invented the first radio controlled device in the form of a vessel (Tesla Society, 2016). Tesla robot-is the first of a series of new inventions that will promote the idea of a mechanized society where machines are used to build things and work like man. The turning point for robotics was in 1961, when George Devol and Joseph Engelberger built the first robot, Unimate (Fig. 02), which was soon adopted by the car manufacturing company General Motors where it joined the assembly line ‘to work with heated diecasting machines’ (Robotics, 2016). In relation to architecture, the technological progress and the cult of the machine inspired Le Corbusier’s ‘house as a machine for living in’ (Kroll, 2010), the avant-garde architecture group Archigram to develop the concept of a “Walking City” (Fig. 03) and Warren Brodey “soft architecture” (in 1967), where he proposes an ‘evolutionary, selforganising, complex, purposeful, active environment’ (Menges and Ahlquist, 2011: 154). As these examples demonstrate, the powerful impact of technology on architecture has often led to development of new theories and schools of thought that worship the newly-discovered technology and celebrate its power through architectural design and discourse.

Figure 03: A walking city, by Ron Herron.

C H A P T E R 0 1

Prelude to the introduction of robotics within architecture: 20th century robotics

C H A P T E R

The principles at the base of the introduction of robots within architecture and construction are to be found in the Industrial Revolution, which took place between 18th and 19th century (c. 1760 - c. 1840). The introduction of new machinery, serialproduction and industrially fabricated building components during the Industrial Revolution radically changed the building process (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 90). Serial is the production of goods made in a similar way; after the production of a batch of product, the production is interrupted (Ceopedia, 2015). Serial production of building components was first applied to the construction of large structures. But it is only in the early 1920s that the increased availability of serially-produced building elements ‘made the use of prefabricated elements much more common even in smaller individual buildings’ (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 91). One of the most relevant examples of serial production in architecture is Törten housing estate (1926-1928), designed by Walter Gropius as an affordable living space for the masses.

0 1

Figure 04: Drawing of the Torten Estate by Walter Gropius. Serial production of building components will deeply influence architectural representation in this period.

The high demand of reconstruction tasks that followed the two World Wars revealed being a genuine opportunity for the use of serial production building components and the ‘application of industrial fabrication methods in the building industry’ (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 93). The use of serial production determined a substantial change in the design process: the design of buildings ‘was subordinate to their production and construction principles, indicating a paradigm shift’ (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 94). However in the 1970s the dream of a fully industrialized construction process came to a halt in Europe and in the US, being replaced by more ecological and sustainable strategies. In contrast, Asia ‘did not experience the same turnaround’ as the constant population growth, mixed with the lack of skilled labour, ‘led to the promotion of automation in prefabrication and construction as an alternative to common construction practices’ (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 94).

C H A P T E R 0 1

Figure 05: A Lissmac SLR 600, the successor of one of the first masonry robots used in the construction sector during the 1990s.

Differing from European approaches, where prefabrication was used to achieve a cheap and fast mass-production of standardized building components, Asian prefabrication distinguished itself for its capacity to produce non-standardized components, responding to customers’ demands (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 95). The components that needed to be customized would literally be taken out of the assembly line to be reworked manually, to then be reintroduced into the assembly process once necessary work was carried out. In contrast, today’s robots are able to work on non-standardized components without altering the production’s rhythms. The diffusion of robots in the general manufacturing sector in the 1970s led, in 1980s, to the development of single-task robots to be used directly on construction sites, performing tasks like paving, welding, tunnelling, excavation etc. in a repetitive manner. The use of such robots proved unsuccessful due to high costs and limited productivity (their steering was conducted manually in most cases) and scarce flexibility of a mono-operation construction system. The first attempt to introduce single-task robots within architecture and construction ‘resulted in the conclusion that an off-site approach would be the most suited to the organisation of on-site environments’ (Bock and Langenberg, 2014: 97). This explains why 21st century robotics initially focuses on the development of robotics fabrication techniques mainly off-site, with building components being prefabricated and successively installed directly on-site. Similarly to the robotic technology used in the 1970s, 21st century robotics starts with the development of single-task robots; however it rapidly developed towards multi-tasks robots, able for the first time to produce non-standardized building components within a completely automated fabrication process.

C H A P T E R 0 1

21st century pioneers in architectural robotics: ETH Zurich

C H A P T E R 0 1

Figure 06: ETH Zurich’s is the world first robotics laboratory.

The ability to design and build unique components attracted the attention of architecture schools, which acquired the technology and created a new field of research within which architectural design and construction come together as a result of the use of robots. The race of robots in architectural education starts in 2005 with the creation of the world’s first robotic laboratory (Fig.xx) at the faculty of Architecture and digital fabrication at ETH Zurich (Gramazio Kohler research, 2016). The laboratory initial facilities consisted of one industrial robot which ‘moves on a seven meter linear axis and has a reach of three meters and is thus in a position to fabricate and work with large building parts on a 1:1 scale’ (Gramazio Kohler research, 2016). In 2011 three smaller model-making robots were added (Fig. xx) together with a mobile construction unit able to work directly on building sites (Gramazio Kohler research, 2016), offering new opportunities for students to experiment and pursue research projects of all kinds. Led by Swiss architect-duo Fabio Gramazio and Mathias Kohler, ETH research initially focuses on the physical production of digital architecture through additive manufacturing techniques. The school’s first research projects and prototypes are characterized by the use of common construction materials such as timber or masonry. In terms of robotic technology, the robots used at ETH Zurich were not innovative; they were indeed very similar to robots used for assembly in the late 20th century by Thomas Bock (see Fig. 05, page 16) at Karlsruhe University, Germany. Gramazio and Kohler (2014: 15) claim they are not interested in the ‘technological development of robots itself ’, as they privilege the exploration of ‘robot-induced design’. This is a theme that will recur in all 21st century architectural robotics: the adoption of old technology and the development of software components to make it perform in a very smart manner.

Figure 07: addition of small model-making robots at ETH laboratory.

C H A P T E R 0 1

Function and aesthetics in early 21st century architectural robotics

C H A P T E R 0 1

“Our special interest lies in combining data and material and the resulting implications this has on the architectural design. The possibility of directly fabricating building components described on the computer expands not only the spectrum of possibilities for construction, but, by the direct implementation of material and production logic into the design process, it establishes a unique architectural expression and a new aesthetic” - Gramazio and Kohler.

If we take a look back at 20th century robotics and its use in the construction sector (see page x), we observe how robotics was used to speed up repetitive and tedious construction processes; however the same type of task could have been performed by non-specialized human workers; it would have only required longer construction times. Like past robotics, early 21st century robotics applies the computational logic of robots to construction processes. However it distinguishes itself by extending the range of design possibilities to include architectural prototypes which, for different reasons, cannot be built by man. The architect is put in a position from which he/she is able to inform the design of robotically-built architecture and not only its final realization or construction. This is the result of the development of new robotic manufacturing techniques such as additive manufacturing. Additive manufacturing can be described as a ‘three-dimensional printing process’ (Gramazio Kohler research, 2016). ‘By positioning material where it is needed’, the architect is able to ‘interweave functional and aesthetical qualities into a structure’, thus informing architecture ‘through to the level of the material’ (Gramazio Kohler research, 2016). ETH aims to ‘develop criteria for a new system of structural logic which can be applied to architecture and that is intrinsic to digital fabrication’. (ETH Zurich, 2015) Compared to past robotics, 21st century architectural robotics steps forward by applying the computational logic of robots into architectural design, resulting in the possibility to fabricate non-standardized building components.

C H A P T E R 0 1

C H A P T E R

In 2006 ETH Zurich completed the design of the façade of the Gantenbein Winery, in Switzerland. The project is considered a milestone in terms of showcasing the robot’s ability to create very complex structures. The façade of the winery is made of non-standard brick walls, which were assembled by the robot within ETH workshop. Each of the 20,000 bricks used for the construction of the walls was laid by the robot ‘according to programmed parameters - at the desired angle and at the exact prescribed intervals’ (Gramazio Kohler research, 2016).

0 1

Figure 08: the exterior of the Gantenbein Winery.

“This allowed us to design and construct each wall to possess the desired light and air permeability, while creating a pattern that covers the entire building façades. According to the angle at which they are set, the individual bricks each reflect light differently and thus take on different degrees of lightness. Similarly to pixels on a computer screen they add up to a distinctive image and thus communicate the identity of the vineyard. In contrast to a two-dimensional screen, however, there is a dramatic play between plasticity, depth and colour, dependent on the viewer’s position and the angle of the sun” - Gramazio and Kohler. The construction of the Gantenbein Winery testify the high level of complexity robots are able to fabricate. However I do think the early 21st century robotically-built architecture is a mere display of the robot’s ability to build incredibly complex geometrical structures. It is clear that structures like the brick walls of the Gantenbein Winery could never be built by human hands with such millimetric precision. Architecture schools like ETH demonstrate their ability to “play” with the robot and obtain complex structures through parametric design, without however exploring new ways of architectural production. In this first phase of diffusion of robots, rather than privileging the exploration of innovative modes of architectural production, robots are used to perform banal tasks like assembly, welding, milling and cutting.

Figure 09: a robot constructing one of the Winery’s brick walls in ETH workshop.

C H A P T E R 0 1

C H A P T E R

0 1

Figure 10: the interior of the Gantenbein Winery

C H A P T E R 0 1

Chapter 01: Reference list

Chapter 01: List of figures

- Bock, T. and Langenberg, S. (2014). Changing Building Sites: Industrialisation and Automation of the Building Process. In Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M., ed. (2014). Made by Robots. Wiley, London. pp.88-99.

- Fig. 02: The first robot ever built, “Unimate”, used in the manufacturing sector. [photo] Available at: <> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- ETH Zurich, (2015?). Architecture and digital fabrication. [online] Available at: <http://www.ita.arch.ethz.ch/index.php/en/chairs/architecture-and-digitalfabrication> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. - Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M. eds. (2014). Made by robots: challenging architecture at a larger scale. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London. p.15 - Gramazio Kohler Research, (2016). Research. [online] Available at: <http:// www.gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/about/aboutForschung.html> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. - Kroll, A., 2010. AD Classics: Villa Savoye / Le Corbusier. ArchDaily. [online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/84524/ad-classics-villa-savoye-lecorbusier/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Menges, A. and Ahlquist, S., (2011). Computational Design Thinking. Wiley, London. p.154 - Robotics, (2016). UNIMATE, The First Industrial Robot. [online] Available at: <http://www.robotics.org/joseph-engelberger/unimate.cfm> [Accessed 13 Jan. 2016]. - Tesla Society, n.d. Nikola Tesla: Father of Robotics. [online] Available at: <http://www.teslasociety.com/robotics.htm> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].

- FIg. 03: A walking city, by Ron Herron. [drawing] Available at: <> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - FIg. 04: [drawing] Available at: <http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/surveys/ modarch/bytype/display00184.html> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 05: a Lissmac SLR 600, the successor of one of the first masonry robots used in the construction sector during the 1990s. [photo] Available at: <http://www. anzeve.com/data/cat_lissmac_general_en.pdf> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 06: ETH Zurich’s is the world first robotics laboratory. [photo] Available at: <http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/about/aboutInfrastructure.html> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 05: addition of small model-making robots at ETH laboratory. [photo]Available at: <http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/about/ aboutInfrastructure.html> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - FIg. 06: The exterior of the Gantenbein Winery. [photo] Available at: <http:// openbuildings.com/buildings/vineyard-estate-gatenbein-profile-41989> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 07: A robot constructing one of the Winery’s brick walls in ETH workshop. [photo] Available at: <http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/nov2014/new-robots-will-revolutionise-built-environment> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - FIg. 08: The interior of the Gantenbein Winery. [photo] Available at: <http:// www.talkitect.com/2010_05_01_archive.html> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

C H A P T E R 0 1

CHAPTER 02 Contemporary robots in architecture and construction

This chapter discusses the problems related to the diffusion of robotics within and outside architectural education and the contemporary use of robotic fabrication in archtiecture and construction. The chapter is subdivided in the following subchapters: - Diffusion of industrial robots within architectural education - Architectural robotics outside education - Development of novel fabrication processes - Use of robots in the construction industry: the case of Asia

C H A P T E R

0 2

Figure 11: the map above illlustrates the distribution of architectural robotics in architecture firms (in light blue), start-ups (in yellow) and in the sector of education (in red). Each line correspond to a different institute, start-up or architecture firm currently owning robotic technology.

Diffusion of industrial robots within architectural education

C H A P T E R 0 2

Figure 12: differing from most of the industrial robots present in architecture schools worldwide, UCLA robots are painted in blue, demonstrating the school’s will to stand out from the crowd.

In the last decade robots have become common tools in architectural education. More than 20 institutions across the world (Abrahamson, 2014) armed themselves with experimental laboratories set up with one or more industrial robots. The map at pages 30-31 illustrates the distribution of architectural robotics worldwide. As shown in the map the greatest part of architectural robotics is concentrated in the sector of education, mainly in Europe and the U.S. The number of institutions with a teaching program in robotic fabrication is constantly growing. Following in the footsteps of ETH Zurich, an increasing number of architectural institutes started introducing teaching programs - mainly at Masters level - centred on advanced architectural design and novel construction techniques, including robotic fabrication, with the aim to explore the next generation of manufacturing in architecture and design (ICD, 2016). Leader institutes in this sector are ETH Zurich, ICD/ITKE of University of Stuttgart, UCLA Los Angeles and MIT. Particularly relevant is the Master’s degree program known as “Suprastudio” at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). At UCLA ‘students commit to a year-long research project led by a world-renowned architect in close collaboration with an industrial or institutional partner’ (Abrahamson, 2014). Current architects involved in UCLA’s program include big names as Frank Gehry and Greg Lynn. To facilitate their student’s work, UCLA has provided a plug-in for Autodesk Maya, one of the many animation programs used in architectural education, which allows them to program robot movements since their second week of study (Abrahamson, 2014). In other terms, this means it is much easier for students to control a robot now, and part of the time that was once spent in programming a robot and in coordinating its movements is now used in design and fabrication.

C H A P T E R 0 2

Architectural robotics outside education

C H A P T E R 0 2 Figure 13: MX3D laboratory for robotic fabrication.

Figure 14: new Google Highquarters designed by Heatherwich and BIG to be built with new robots called crabots. The crabots will be able to create a ‘hackable’ interior by moving and lifting prefabricated componentes. (Frearson, 2015)

Does education currently have the monopoly of architectural robotics? In the last few years the technology started spreading outside the world of architectural education, with the creation of small businesses targeting the sector of robotic fabrication. Since 2008 numerous start-up companies have emerged, ‘leveraging architectural robotics beyond mere conceptual merit and stepping into the industrial arena’ (Gramazio and Kohler, 2014: 62). Start-ups are newly-born companies with a limited number of employees that target a specific sector with the aim of rapid growth (Forbes, 2013). Notable start-ups in the sector of robotic fabrication are RoboFold, Machineous, GREYSHED, Odico Formwork Robotics and MX3D (Gramazio and Kohler, 2014: 63). While robotics is still too expensive from an industry point of view, start-ups require little investment and are not exposed to high risk as industry in relation to potential return for investments made. In the development and diffusion of robotics, start-ups occupy a very important role, creating a bridge for architectural robotics between education and industry. It is important to distinguish the type of architectural industry in which robotic fabrication may be adopted from the industrial automated processes where robots are programmed to perform a specific operation multiple times. Robots in architecture are used to carry out a number of highly-differentiated tasks, where every operation is different from each other and is associated with a different movement of robot, requiring weeks of programming before testing the fabrication process on a 1:1 scale. The high level of expertise required to operate robots is one of the reasons why robotics is still struggling to find its way into architecture firms. Not to be underestimated are also factors of economic nature and the state of experiment architectural robotics lies within. If we exclude Gramazio and Kohler own practice (Gramazio Kohler architects) outside ETH research, no other architecture firms (even though some possess the technology) have used robots in the construction of complete buildings so far.

C H A P T E R 0 2

Development of novel fabrication processes Up until this point, robotic fabrication was limited to assembly, milling and cutting of non-standardized building prototypes, lacking, however, that innovation which was expected of it in terms of development of new fabrication techniques. In this context, the recent work of the institute of Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural design (ITKE) of University of Stuttgart stands out from the crowd. Under the guide of Achim Menges (ICD) and Jan Knippers (ITKE) the institutes focused their joint research on biological loadbearing structures, like fibrous composites, and their possible use in architecture. The collaboration between ICD and ITKE produced a series of research projects that culminates with the realization of robotically fabricated pavilions, with the aim to transfer principles of biological load-bearing structures into architecture (Menges, 2015: 42). Novel fabrication processes had to be tested and implemented for the construction of these temporary pavilions.

C H A P T E R 0 2

For the ICD/ITKE 2013/2014 pavilion (Fig.xx), the research team focused on biological lightweight construction principles, extending their precedent use of ‘coreless filaments winding processes to the construction of modular and robust double-layered shells’ (Menges, 2015: 56). The team’s research studied the lightweight characteristics of a beetle elytra - hardened forewing in specific insect species - and worked in collaboration with biologists, researchers and experts in advanced imaging technology. The research team was able to elaborate a coreless winding filament technique which was then used for the construction of a lightweight shell structure. The realization of the 2013/2014 is the proof that when an interdisciplinary approach is used for the production of architecture, surprising results can be achieved.

Figure 15: ICD/ITKE 2013/2014 research pavilion.

C H A P T E R 0 2

C H A P T E R 0 2 Figure 16: one of the unique sheel components of the 2013/2014 pavilion.

The ICD/ITKE 2013/2014 pavilion was made of 36 unique shell components (Fig. 16), all different in size, weight and shape. The robotic fabrication technique developed at the institute consisted in a collaborative dual-robot setup where two moving robots, equipped with specific end-effectors, pick up a fibre filament from a static source located in the void between the two (Fig. 17) (Menges, 2015: 57). Each end-effector holds a shell component, onto which the fibre filament is woven. The filament winding process is computationally generated and the fibre layout of each single components responds to load-bearing requirements of the entire structure. As figure 16 shows, the individual shell components can be easily lifted by hand, demonstrating the incredible lightweight capacity of the components. The complex weight of the pavilion was 593 kilograms, with the largest shell components having a weight of 24 kilograms, still very light consider its 2.6 meters in diameter (Menges, 2015: 59). Thanks to the use of computation and simulation the structural integrity of the pavilion is not compromised and a unique material expression can be observed. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The project demonstrates that the synthesis of biological design, novel modes of computational design and robotic fabrication enable both the development of extremely lightweight and materially efficient structures and the exploration of a new repertoire of architectural tectonicsâ&#x20AC;? - Achim Menges.

Figure 17: the dual robot set-up used for the construction of the pavilion.

C H A P T E R 0 2

Use of robots in the construction industry: the case of Asia

C H A P T E R 0 2 Figure 18: a gigantic 3D-printed used for the construction of houses by WinSun.

A market like Asia, based on high productivity and economic performance, offers fertile ground for the use and development of alternative construction techniques. Differing from the European approach, in Asia robotics is already being used in large-scale construction. Asian construction firms are using gigantic robots for the construction of entire buildings. This shift in the use of robots is mainly due to issues of rapid population growth which results in an increasing demand for housing. The need for faster and cheaper construction techniques for the manufacturing of houses has led to the unprecedented use of 3D-printing technology on large-scale. Asian construction firm called ‘WinSun Decoration Design Engineering Co’ makes use of extremely large 3D-printers (Fig.18) that are able to construct walls as a series of layers, using a mixture of glass fibres and cement. The building components are fabricated off-site by a gigantic 3D-printer developed by the firm itself. The printer is 6.6 meters tall, 10 meter wide and 150 meters long (Fung, 2014) and has been able to 3D-print 10 houses in only 24 hours (Fig.19). WinSun claims that the process of 3d-printing houses is ‘half as costly as traditional construction methods’ (Walker, 2014), and it could soon be using ‘scrap materials left over from construction and mining sites to make its 3-D buildings’ (Walker, 2014). However, despite the fact 3D-printing seems to be an efficient and sustainable technique, its diffusion on largescale construction is being delayed by difficulties linked to building regulations; it is unclear whether new regulations for 3D-printing will be introduced anytime soon. However using 3D-printing for the construction of houses may have a tremendous impact on architectural design. Especially in Asia, if approved, we could assist to the diffusion of fast-assembled architecture, which, due to its intrinsic nature, will be characterized by a complete or partial lack of architectural design in favour of anonymous industriallyfabricated buildings.

Figure 19: one of the first 3D-printed in China, built by WinSun.

C H A P T E R 0 2

Chapter 02: Reference list

Chapter 02: List of figures

- Fig. 12: Differing from most of the industrial robots present in architecture schools worldwide, UCLA robots are blue, demonstrating the school’s will to stand out from the crowd.. [photo] Available at: <http://archinect.com/news/ article/87928096/on-the-ground-ucla-s-new-ideas-campus> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- Frearson, A., 2015. “Robotic construction and 3D printing are the future” says Wolf D Prix. Dezeen, [online] Available at: <http://www.dezeen. com/2015/10/23/robotic-construction-3d-printing-future-wolf-d-prixinterview/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Fung, E. (2014). How a Chinese Company Built 10 Homes in 24 Hours. Wall Street Journal blog, [blog] 15 April. Available at: <http://blogs.wsj.com/ chinarealtime/2014/04/15/how-a-chinese-company-built-10-homes-in-24hours/> [Accessed 13 Jan. 2016].

- Fig. 13: MX3D laboratory for robotic fabrication. [photo] Available at: <http:// www.rtoz.org/2015/06/15/mx3d-plans-to-3d-print-a-steel-bridge-in-amsterdamusing-robots/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 14: MX3D’s robot 3D-printing metal without any auxiliary structure. [photo] Available at: <http://www.rtoz.org/2015/06/15/mx3d-plans-to-3d-printa-steel-bridge-in-amsterdam-using-robots/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

0 2

- Fig. 15: ICD/ITKE 2013/2014 research pavilion. [photo] Available at: <http:// icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M. eds. (2014). Made by robots: challenging architecture at a larger scale. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London.

- Fig. 16: One of the unique sheel components of the 2013/2014 pavilion. [photo] Available at: <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- Gramazio Kohler Research, (2016). Research. [online] Available at: <http:// www.gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/about/aboutForschung.html> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].

- Fig. 17: The dual robot set-up used for the construction of the pavilion. [drawing] Available at: <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- Menges, A. ed. (2015). Material synthesis: fusing the Physical and the Computational. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London.

- Fig. 18: A gigantic 3D-printed used for the construction of houses by WinSun. [photo] Available at: <https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/296393219198331700/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- Walker, C., 2014. Chinese Firm 3D Prints 10 Homes in 24 Hours. ArchDaily. [online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/497836/chinese-firm-3dprints-10-homes-in-24-hours/> [Accessed 14 Jan 2016].

- Fig. 19: One of the first 3D-printed in China, built by WinSun. [photo] Available at: <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2917025/The-villascreated-using-3D-printers-100-000-five-storey-homes-using-constructionwaste-China.html> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

C H A P T E R

CHAPTER 03 Future robotics

Figure 20: serial production vs mass customization in architecture.

This chapter speculates on the future role of robotics within architecture and construction. The chapter is subdivided in the following subchapters: - The â&#x20AC;&#x153;robots follow economyâ&#x20AC;? trend - Additive manufacturing and robotic fabrication: a joint future agenda - Future robotics: in-situ fabrication - To standardize or not to standardize?

The “robots follow economy” trend

Figure 21: the stainless steel core of the MOCAPE to be built by robots

C H A P T E R

Architect Wold D. Prix, founder of renowned architecture firm Coop Himmelb(l)au, affirms that ‘the combination of robotic construction and 3D printing is the future of the building industry’ (Frearson, 2015). Coop Himmelb(l)au have made plans to use robots in one of their latest projects, the Museum of Contemporary Art and Planning Exhibition in Shenzhen (Rawn, 2015). Led by a BIM system, the robots will assemble the building’s curved stainless-steel core (Fig. 21), taking care of the entire construction process from moulding to polishing the single metal plates which compose the building’s core (Fig.22) (Rawn, 2015). In an interview with online architecture magazine Dezeen (Frearson, 2015), Wolf D. Prix explains the use of robots in architecture and construction would allow great savings of money and time. The construction of the building core would normally take eight months, with 160 workers employed on site over construction phases. The architect claims the use of robots would reduce the number of workers on site to just eight, with estimated construction times reduced to 12 weeks (Frearson, 2015). “Using robots, we can construct buildings in a very short time and very economically. So that opens up a really great possibility for investigating a new aesthetic” - Wolf D. Prix.

0 3

Interpreting the architect’s words, the amount of time gained by the reduction of construction times, through the employment of robots, should be spent in designing buildings with more complex shapes. As we live in a society ruled by economics, considerations like Wolf D. Prix’s can easily be understood. The use or robots is purely bound to economical diktats that clearly reflect the will of an industrialized society to invest in new and more productive methods of serial production. The use of robots for this purpose will undoubtedly repromote that serial production architectural robotics is trying to stay away from. Figure 22: robots will be responsible for assembly, welding, grinding and polishing the metal of the building’s core.

C H A P T E R 0 3

Figure 23: robotic labour in car manufacturing industry. Is this the future scenario of architectural production?

Wold D. Prix raises an interesting question on the effects of the use of robots on construction workers (Frearson, 2015). With costs of robotic labour being considerably lower compared to those of human workers and construction times greatly reduced, we can predict that robotic fabrication will eventually replace completely or at least in part human labour. The use of robots will lead to a paradigm shift in the construction industry. But the consequences of this shift will extend outside architecture and construction. People will lose their jobs and this will cause social problem which could potentially have a great impact on a country’s economy and stability. Then how can we avoid the inevitable loss of jobs and prepare ourselves for a robotic revolution? According to Wolf D. Prix the solution is to train workers, involving them in research programs and ‘teaching them to understand and handle complex solutions’ (Frearson, 2015). We should ‘solve problems before problems become problems’. Although these statements may be a bit too vague, Wolf D. Prix is right in saying that we should solve the problem of construction workers’ employment before we actually face the problem itself. In this context it becomes clear architectural education will play a major role in creating teaching programs where students learn how to use robots, ultimately generating employment. The diffusion of robots will generate an increasing demand for experts in robotics, which will be coming out from the sector of education. Realistically we cannot think these new forms of employment will counter-balance the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector, however we will not be able to stop the diffusion of robotics once this becomes a valid alternative to common construction methods.

C H A P T E R 0 3

Additive manufacturing and robotic fabrication: a joint future agenda

Figure 24: MX3D’s robot 3D-printing metal without any auxiliary structure.

C H A P T E R

Figure 25: detail of 3D-printed metal filament.

0 3

In terms of innovation, the idea of the Dutch designer Joris Laarman, founder of the start-up MX3D, to combine robotic fabrication with additive manufacturing is not revolutionary. However the designer has developed a technique that allows a robotic arm to 3D-print metal in mid-air, without the need for any auxiliary structure (Hussey, 2014). The robot used by Laarman is a combination of an industrial robotic arm and a welding machine that melts and deposit metal (Fig.24), drawing lines in mid-air (Fairs, 2015). The robot is able to work on separated lines at once by adding material to each one in turn. The 3D-printed lines can intersect with each other, to form self-supporting structure. Stainless steel, aluminium, bronze and many other metal can be used in this 3D-printing process (Fig.25). Figure 26 shows an example of the type of structures which can be built using this 3D-printing technique. The “Dragon bench” is made out of steel filaments that intersect with each other, creating a structure that is able to support the weight of more than one person at a time. The robots used by MX3D are six-axis industrial robot, nothing new. However, thanks to a collaboration with software company Autodesk, MX3D has been able to create an innovative software component that allows the robot to do really complex movements, communicating ‘in real time with the welding machine’ (Fairs, 2005).

0 3

Figure 26: the 3D-printed “Dragon bench”.

C H A P T E R

MX3D has made plans to demonstrate the innate potential of the technique they developed. The original plans were to deposit a series of robots on the banks of Oudezijds Achterburgwal canal in Amsterdam, come back on site two months later and find a 24-foot 3D-printed bridge over the canal’s waters. MX3D plan had to be re-thought due to safety concerns (the area where the bridge is to be printed is very busy); according to current plans the bridge will be printed in a former shipbuilding hangar and successively transported on site. The ambitious plan is to use never-before-seen robots that move along the steel frame just printed using it as auxiliary structure (Fig. 27) (Fairs, 2015). The major advantage of 3D-printing with robots is designers are not limited anymore by the extents of the printer, and Laarman suggests that ‘theoretically you can print infinitely large structures’ (Fairs, 2015). Despite the revised decision not to print the bridge in-situ, MX3D’s project is set to have an enormous impact on the future of digital manufacturing and robotic fabrication. Salomé Galjaard, project leader at Arup, stated that the project represents ‘a “really big step” for 3D printing of structures at an architectural scale’ (Fairs, 2015). Not only does it open a whole new range of possibilities in design, but it is the first step towards in-situ fabrication.

C H A P T E R 0 3

Figure 27: a graphical representation of MX3D 3D-printed bridge. In order to 3D-print the bridge MX3D will use specific robots that are able to move along the structure they print.

Future robotics: in-situ fabrication

C H A P T E R

Figure 28: ETH mobile construction robot, a robotic arm mounted on a compact mobile track system.

0 3

How can a robot work directly on a construction site and what are the advantages of in-situ fabrication compared to the fabrication of building components in workshops? Most contemporary robots are equipped with a multitude of sensors and real-time feedback system, allowing the communication between robot and man in real time, as the robot performs a given task. The use of real-time feedback system and virtual simulation allows to predict the difference between the desired motion and the predicted actual motion, dramatically reducing errors and miscalculations. Thanks to sensors and real-time feedback systems robots are able to adapt to the dynamic conditions of construction sites, recalculating movement and solving fabrication-related issues in real time. A first attempt to enable the robotic fabrication of building elements directly on-site has been made at ETH Zurich. In 2011 a mobile robotic unit was built, capable of moving on a dynamic construction site, ‘continually detecting and adapting to the surrounding building equipment and components, as well as any material tolerances, imprecisions or deviations’ (Gramazio and Kohler, 2014: 103). The robot is sized to fit through a standard door and consists of an industrial robotic arm mounted on a compact mobile track system (Fig. 28). A series of research projects have been carried out at ETH to test in-situ robotic fabrication, one of which sees a robot assembling a modular wall into ETH Zurich garage (Fig. 29), repositioning itself around the site multiple times. As ETH research proves, the use of robots on-site is already possible and we can expect a further development of the technology in the foreseeable future. Using robots in construction sites will result in a diminished use of off-site prefabrication of building components, allowing great savings in the transportation of components that were prefabricated in workshops before, and will be instead fabricated in-situ later.

Figure 29: the project “Fragile structure”, which tested in-situ robotic fabrication.

C H A P T E R 0 3

To standardize or not to standardize?

Figure 30: standardized housing estate in Xinyang, China

C H A P T E R 0 3

Figure 31: design of non-standardized structures through computer modelling and robotic fabricaton. Part of ‘Design of Robotic Fabricated High Rises’ project.

Housing for the masses. Population growth in Asia, and in China in particular, is having a tremendous impact on architectural design and construction. China responds to the need for creating accommodation for more than 10 million new citizens each year ‘by rolling out highrise residential blocks with standardized serial production techniques’ (Verebes, 2015: 126). Residential blocks like the one in the Chinese city of Xinyang (Fig. 30) are Asia’s response to population growth. This phenomenon of erecting generic anonymous structures does not affect only Asia, as residential blocks like Xinyang’s can be found anywhere in the world. The design of such structures is typical of Modernism and can be identified as Fordism, a system based on standardized mass production to achieve rapid economic growth. Does the development of monotonous high-rise towers respond to the need of the single individual? No, it responds purely to factors of economic nature. Is there a future role for robotics in the design of high-rises that respond to the needs of the individual? According to Gramazio and Kohler (2014: 24) future robotics could ‘provide a unique opportunity to introduce bespoke design elements and liberate the high-rise from serial production and standardisation’. At the Future Cities Laboratory of the Singapore ETH Centre research project ‘Design of Robotic Fabricated High Rises’ (2012-2013) explored the design of future high-rise typologies through robotic fabrication (Gramazio and Kohler, 2014: 24). The project consisted in the creation a series of architectural models (Fig. 32 on the next page) in 1:50 scale, where each model is built by robots through the development of new custom fabrication techniques. Projects of this kind are very provocative I think, since the fabrication of towers entirely through robots is not even remotely possible. However the project brings the attention to a problem of architectural nature which deeply affects the urban space we live in, remarking how unsustainable the worldwide construction of anonymous architecture is.

C H A P T E R 0 3

C H A P T E R

0 3

Figure 32: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Design of Robotic Fabricated High Risesâ&#x20AC;? project at Future Cities Laboratory in Singapore

Chapter 03: Reference list

Chapter 03: List of figures

- Fairs, M., 2015. Joris Laarman designs steel canal bridge that will be 3D printed by robots. Dezeen, [online] Available at: <http://www.dezeen. com/2015/06/13/joris-laarman-3d-printed-bridge-amsterdam-canal-six-axisrobots/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016].

- Fig. 21: The stainless steel core of the MOCAPE to be built by robots. [photo] Available at: <http://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/23/robotic-construction-3dprinting-future-wolf-d-prix-interview/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- Frearson, A., 2015. “Robotic construction and 3D printing are the future” says Wolf D Prix. Dezeen, [online] Available at: <http://www.dezeen. com/2015/10/23/robotic-construction-3d-printing-future-wolf-d-prixinterview/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M. eds. (2014). Made by robots: challenging architecture at a larger scale. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London. - Hussey, M., 2014. 3D-printing robot by Joris Laarman draws freeform metal lines. Dezeen, [online] Available at: < http://www.dezeen. com/2014/02/21/3d-printing-robot-by-joris-laarman-draws-freeform-metallines/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

C H A P T E R

- Rawn, E., 2015. The Robot Revolution: Coop Himmelb(l)au Founder Wolf D. Prix on the Future of Construction. ArchDaily, [online] Available at: <http:// www.archdaily.com/604422/the-robot-revolution-coop-himmelb-l-au-founderwolf-d-prix-on-the-future-of-construction/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Verebes, T., (2014) Crisis! What Crisis? Retooling for Mass Markets in the 21st Century. In Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M., ed. (2014). Made by Robots. Wiley, London. pp.126-133.

0 3

- Fig. 22: Robots will be responsible for assembly, welding, grinding and polishing the metal of the building’s core. [photo] Available at: <http://www. dezeen.com/2015/10/23/robotic-construction-3d-printing-future-wolf-d-prixinterview/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 24: MX3D’s robot 3D-printing metal without any auxiliary structure. [photo] Available at: <http://www.rtoz.org/2015/06/15/mx3d-plans-to-3d-printa-steel-bridge-in-amsterdam-using-robots/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 25: Detail of 3D-printed metal filament. [photo] Available at: <http://mx3d. com/projects/metal/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 26: The 3D-printed “Dragon bench”. [photo] Available at: <http://www. fastcodesign.com/3030593/the-first-3-d-printed-metal-furniture-is-here> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 27: A graphical representation of MX3D 3D-printed bridge. In order to 3D-print the bridge MX3D will use specific robots that are able to move along the structure they print. [image] Available at: <http://maker.baidu.com/ translate/21160/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

C H A P T E R

- Fig. 28: ETH mobile construction robot, a robotic arm mounted on a compact mobile track system. [photo] Available at: <https://uk.pinterest.com/ pin/296393219198331700/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 29: The project “Fragile structure”, which tested in-situ robotic fabrication. [photo] Available at: < http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/lehre/225. html> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 30: Standardized housing estate in Xinyang, China. [photo] Available at: <http://thequietus.com/articles/17799-ghost-cities-of-china-wade-shepardpsychogeography-economics> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 31: design of non-standardized structures through computer modelling and robotic fabricaton. Part of ‘Design of Robotic Fabricated High Rises’ project. [Accessed 13 Jan 2016]. - Fig. 32: “Design of Robotic Fabricated High Rises” project at Future Cities Laboratory in Singapore. [photo] Available at: <http://www.sutd.edu.sg/ eventdetails.aspx?evt_sid=20140115jIqfel9J9RLf> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

0 3

Conclusion The application of robotics fabrication techniques can potentially transform architecture and construction through an inventive approach towards materiality and aesthetics. In an era where serial production of architecture is putting at risk the spatial qualities of the built environment, the fabrication of bespoke components through robotic fabrication constitutes a real opportunity for architecture to embrace technological progress, challenging common construction methods and imposing new logic in architectural design. Throughout my investigation of architectural robotics I have learnt that the application of robotic fabrication within architecture and construction has both advantages and disadvantages. Using the technology as means of building geometrically complex structures draws critiques which could potentially affect the use of robotic technology further afield. The definitive application of robotics within architecture and construction will have a significant impact on society and culture at large. The value or robots lies not in the architectural complexity they are able to manufacture, but in the use we make of them. In order to fully explore the architectural potential of this technology architects should be educated towards a sensible but ambitious approach that seeks to expand the boundaries of architectural production through the implementation of novel fabrication techniques. As robotics establishes itself as new mode of architectural production, architects will need to be trained in robotics in schools, in order to be able to interact with the machines and use them as new tools for architectural design. Rather than being passively affected by it, architects should embrace the use of such technology and, by testing it, determine whether its application within architecture should affect the future of the discipline first and society later.

As an architecture student I am excited at the prospect of taking part in what I think will be one of the major technological evolutions mankind has ever assisted to in the fields of architecture and construction. In this sense I would have very much liked to have had the opportunity to be involved in research projects on robotic fabrication during my architecture degree at the University of Greenwich. Although this was not possible due to a lack of robotic technology at my university, and knowledge of programming from my side, I am interested in exploring new ways of architectural production through the use of innovative technologies. Projecting myself in future, my own practice is one that challenges traditional ways of designing architecture and is interested in the exploration of future architectural production, through the use robots in design and construction processes. From my gained knowledge of robotics I am able to say architecture will keep â&#x20AC;&#x153;playingâ&#x20AC;? with the technology to verify the feasibility of its application as new construction method: the definitive integration of robotics into architecture and construction will only occur when the technology is proved to be more efficient and economically attractive than current construction methods rather than for its architectural potential. In the coming years we will assist to an increase of tests and experimentations within robotics which will determine the future of the technology itself. In this sense a key date for the development of robotics could be 2017, when MX3D will produce the first entire robotically-fabricated infrastructure usable by man. If the project proves to be successful we will assist to the rapid diffusion and commercialization of 3D-printed infrastructures first and buildings later at a global scale.

Bibliography Books and articles - Alberti, L. B. (1452). On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Translated from Latin by Rykwert, J., Leach, N. and Tavernor R. (1988). MIT Press, Cambridge (USA). - Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution. Crown publishing group. New York. - Bock, T. and Langenberg, S. (2014). Changing Building Sites: Industrialisation and Automation of the Building Process. In Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M., ed. (2014). Made by Robots. Wiley, London. pp.88-99. - Borden, I. and Ruedi, K., (2014). The Dissertation: A Guide for Architectural Students. Routledge, London.

- Mc Gee, W. and Ponce de Leon, M. eds. (2014). Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design 2014. Springer, New York. - Menges, A. and Ahlquist, S., (2011). Computational Design Thinking. Wiley, London. - Menges, A. ed. (2012). Material computation. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London. - Menges, A. ed. (2015). Material synthesis: fusing the Physical and the Computational. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London. - Morris, M. (2006). Models, architecture and the miniature. Wiley-academy, Chichester.

- Brell-Ă&#x2021;okcan, S. and Braumann, J. eds. (2012). Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design. Springer, New York.

- Murray, S. (2012). Design ecologies. Intellect, Bristol.

- Butler, S. (1915). Book of the machines. A.C. Fifiled, London.

- Schropfer, T. (2010). Material design: informing architecture by materiality. Birkhauser, Basel.

- Dourish, P. and Bell, G. (2011). Divining a digital future: Mess and mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge. - Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings: a vocabulary of modern architecture. Thames and Hudson, London.

- Smith, A. (2004). Architectural model as machine: a new view of models from antiquity to the present day. Architectural press, Oxford. - Terzidis, K., (2006). Algorithmic Architecture. Architectural press, Burlington (USA).

- Gramazio, F., Kohler, M. and Bontwetsch T. (2012). R-O-B Towards a Bespoke Building Process. In Sheil, B., ed. (2012). Manufacturing the bespoke : making and prototyping architecture. Wiley, Hoboken. pp78-87.

- Thomas, K.L. (2006). Material matters: architecture and material practice. Routledge, Abingdon.

- Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M. eds. (2014). Made by robots: challenging architecture at a larger scale. Architectural design (AD). Wiley, London.

- Verebes, T., (2014) Crisis! What Crisis? Retooling for Mass Markets in the 21st Century. In Gramazio, F. and Kohler, M., ed. (2014). Made by Robots. Wiley, London. pp.126-133.

- Gramazio, F., Kohler, M. and Willmann, J. (2014). The robotic touch: how robots change architecture. Park books, Zurich. - Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. Spon, New York. - Kolarevic, B. (2008). Manufacturing material effects: rethinking design and making in architecture. Routledge, Abingdon.

- Vitruvius, M. P. (15 BC?). The ten books on architecture. Translated from Latin by Morgan, M. H. (1960) Dover Publications Inc., New York. - Voyatzaki, M. ed. (2008). Emerging Possibilities of Testing and Simulation Methods and Techniques in Contemporary Construction Teaching. Charis Ltd, Thessaloniki. - Wang, D. and Groat L. (2001). Architectural research methods. Wiley, Chichester.

Online magazines

Websites and other electronic sources

- Abrahamson, M., 2014. Robotic Arms Race in Architectural Education. The architectural review, [online] Available at: <http://www.architectural-review. com/rethink/robotic-arms-race-in-architectural-education/8658701.fullarticle> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].

- Bauhaus Dessau, (2015). Törten Estate by Walter Gropius. [online] Available at: <http://www.bauhaus-dessau.de/toerten-estate.html> [Accessed 10 Jan. 2016].

- Basulto, D., 2013. AD Interviews: Wolf D. Prix / Coop Himmelb(l)au. ArchDaily, [online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/393227/adinterviews-wolf-d-prix-coop-himmelb-l-au/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Fairs, M., 2015. Joris Laarman designs steel canal bridge that will be 3D printed by robots. Dezeen, [online] Available at: <http://www.dezeen. com/2015/06/13/joris-laarman-3d-printed-bridge-amsterdam-canal-six-axisrobots/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Frearson, A., 2015. “Robotic construction and 3D printing are the future” says Wolf D Prix. Dezeen, [online] Available at: <http://www.dezeen. com/2015/10/23/robotic-construction-3d-printing-future-wolf-d-prixinterview/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016].

- Cooper, K., (2015). New robot technology by Dutch designer can 3d-print a steel bridge in mid-air over a canal. Archpaper, [Blog] 8 July. Available at: <http:// blog.archpaper.com/2015/07/new-robot-technology-dutch-designer-can-3dprint-steel-bridge-mid-air-canal/#.VpN67fmLSUn> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. - Da Vinci inventions, (2008). Robotic knight. [online] Available at: <http://www. da-vinci-inventions.com/robotic-knight.aspx> [Accessed 11 Jan. 2016]. - ETH Zurich, (2015?). Architecture and digital fabrication. [online] Available at: <http://www.ita.arch.ethz.ch/index.php/en/chairs/architecture-and-digitalfabrication> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. - Fung, E. (2014). How a Chinese Company Built 10 Homes in 24 Hours. Wall Street Journal blog, [blog] 15 April. Available at: <http://blogs.wsj.com/ chinarealtime/2014/04/15/how-a-chinese-company-built-10-homes-in-24hours/> [Accessed 13 Jan. 2016].

- Hussey, M., 2014. 3D-printing robot by Joris Laarman draws freeform metal lines. Dezeen, [online] Available at: < http://www.dezeen. com/2014/02/21/3d-printing-robot-by-joris-laarman-draws-freeform-metallines/> [Accessed 13 Jan 2016].

- Gramazio Kohler Research, (2016). Research. [online] Available at: <http:// www.gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/about/aboutForschung.html> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].

- Kroll, A., 2010. AD Classics: Villa Savoye / Le Corbusier. ArchDaily. [online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/84524/ad-classics-villa-savoye-lecorbusier/> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016].

- Orcutt, M., (2014). Robots Rising. MIT Technology review, [blog] n.d. Available at: <http://www.technologyreview.com/graphiti/529971/robotsrising/> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].

- Robotics, (2016). UNIMATE, The First Industrial Robot. [online] Available at: <http://www.robotics.org/joseph-engelberger/unimate.cfm> [Accessed 13 Jan. 2016].

- Santon, S., 2015. MX3D to 3D Print a Bridge in Mid-Air over Amsterdam Canal. ArchDaily, [online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/642329/ mx3d-to-3d-print-a-bridge-in-mid-air-over-amsterdam-canal> [Accessed 11 Jan 2016]. - Walker, C., 2014. Chinese Firm 3D Prints 10 Homes in 24 Hours. ArchDaily. [online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/497836/chinese-firm-3dprints-10-homes-in-24-hours/> [Accessed 14 Jan 2016].

- Robots in architecture, (2015). International map of robots in the creative industry. [online] Available at: <http://www.robotsinarchitecture.org/map-ofcreative-robots> [Accessed 11 Jan. 2016]. - Shaw, M., (2014). Are Robots The Future Of Architecture? UCLA’s Architecture Studio Thinks So. Architizer [Blog] 17 Jan. Available at: <http://architizer.com/ blog/robots/> [Accessed 10 Jan. 2016]. - Tesla Society, n.d. Nikola Tesla: Father of Robotics. [online] Available at: <http://www.teslasociety.com/robotics.htm> [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].