Ona Marija Auskelyte-On Site Robotic Construction by Ona Marija Auskelyte

ON SITE ROBOTIC CONSTRUCTION

Robotic construction techniques in the automated planning and construction of temporary structures

Ona Marija Auskelyte 2016

Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Escola Tècnica Superior d’Arquitectura de Barcelona Máster Universitario en Tecnología en la Arquitectura Línea de Construcción Arquitectónica - Innovación Tecnológica

ON SITE ROBOTIC CONSTRUCTION

Robotic construction techniques in the automated planning and construction of temporary structures

Final Master Thesis Author: Ona Marija Auskelyte Tutors: José María González Barroso Ramon Sastre Sastre Barcelona, 28th September 2016

ABSTRACT

The innovation in technology and computation during the last half century is immense and unprecedented in history. New breakthroughs in automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence are presented at an impressive speed and we see their successful applications in consumer products, the financial sector and industries such as the automotive, marine, and aeronautic. The construction sector, on the other hand, has historically been slower in adopting new concepts in its processes. Many construction techniques used today have not changed much for centuries. Though with help of mechanical actuators such as cranes and lifts, building components are still being handled and position manually. Tedious detail work such as structural jointing, membrane installation, insulating and electrical wiring is still being done by manually by human laborers. What is the reason for the technological â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lagâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; within the construction sector? Why is it notoriously slow and passive in the adoption of new workflow concepts and application of automation and robotics? In this text, current available solutions and recent experimental investigations in the field of robotic construction are investigated, aiming to justify the relevance of the topic for the future of the construction industry. Further, possible applications in construction are evaluated by comparing the different techniques in terms of ease of transport, size, flexibility, scalability, speed and more. The analysis includes parametric bricklaying robots, 3D printing techniques experimenting with new construction materials and aerial robots (drones) which hold great potential for data collection, analytics and lately also assembly tasks. This study also takes a deeper look at historical occurrences of robotics and automation in construction, to evaluate their potential in the future of the industry by raising questions like: What are the advantages of robots, when compared to human labor? What are the main challenges when applying autonomous robots for on site construction? How can robots optimize building performance by allowing us to build structures in new ways? Can the dronesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; data collection capabilities and swarm intelligence improve the quality of life in cities? Based on information and results present throughout the work, this study also includes a proposal on how the analytical and agile characteristics of drones could be incorporated in a responsive, autonomous construction system for temporary structures in urban areas.

RESUMEN

La innovación que se ha dado en el campo tecnológico y de la informática durante el ultimo medio siglo es incalculable y sin precedentes en la historia humana. Cada día en el campo de la automatización, de la robótica y de la inteligencia artificial se dan nuevos avances a ritmos antes impensables así como vemos sus fructíferas aplicaciones en la producción de bienes de consumo , en el sector financiero y en industrias cuales la automotor, la marina y la aeronáutica. El sector de la construcción ha sido en cambio un campo donde históricamente la adopción de nuevos modelos es más lenta. Muchas técnicas constructivas que se usan hoy en día no han tenido evoluciones relevantes en siglos. Con el soporte de medios mecánicos cuales grúas y camiones, los componentes de construcción se manejan y posicionan aún manualmente. Laboriosos trabajos cuales juntas estructurales, instalación de membranas, aislamientos y cableado de instalaciones son todavía operados por mano de obra humana. ¿Cual es la razón de este ¨desfase¨ dentro del sector de la construcción? Porque es notoriamente lento y pasivo en la adopción de nuevos modelos de trabajo y en la aplicación de la automatización y la robótica? En este texto se analizan las soluciones en uso así como las más recientes investigaciones experimentales en el campo de la construcción robotizada, con la intención de justificar la relevancia de la cuestión para el futuro de la industria de la construcción. Posteriormente se evalúan las posibles aplicaciones en la construcción, comparando diferentes técnicas bajo parámetros cuales la facilidad de transporte, dimensiones, flexibilidad, adaptabilidad, velocidad y otros. Este análisis incluye robots para la albañilería paramétrica, técnicas de impresión 3D que experimentan con nuevos materiales así como robots aéreos (drones) con un gran potencial en la recopilación de datos, análisis y tareas de ensamblaje. La investigación ofrece además una mirada detallada a sobre las ocurrencias históricas que marcaron el ingreso de la robótica y la automatización en la construcción, para poder así evaluar su potencial futuro bajo preguntas como: ¿Cuales son las ventajas del trabajo robotizado respecto a la mano de obra humana? Cuales son los principales retos en la uso de robots autónomos en la obra? De que forma pueden los robots optimizar los rendimientos de los edificios permitiéndonos construir bajo nuevos paradigmas? La capacidad de recopilación de datos de los drones y su inteligencia colectiva pueden mejorar la calidad de vida de nuestras ciudades? Basándose en la información y los resultados presentados durante el trabajo, este estudio también incluye una propuesta de cómo las capacidades analíticas y de agilidad de los drones podrían ser incorporadas en la elaboración de un sistema constructivo autónomo y receptivo pensado para estructuras temporáneas en áreas urbanas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PRESENTATION

13.

1.1. Introduction 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Methodology

15. 17. 17.

2. ROBOTICS AND CONSTRUCTION AUTOMATION IN 80s

19.

2.1. Robotics timeline (1956-2008) 2.2. Evolution of Industrial Robots 2.3. First Robotics in Construction Industry (1983 Japan) 2.4. First approaches to full Construction Automation (1991 Japan) 2.5. Conclusions

20. 22. 26. 34. 36.

3. ON-SITE LAND-BASED ROBOTS _CURRENT PRACTICE

39.

3.1. Known challenges 3.1.1. Scalability and Mobility 3.1.2. Autonomy and Intelligence 3.1.3. Kinetic motion and versatility

40. 41. 41. 41.

3.2. Bricklaying automation 3.2.1. Traditional brickwork automation 3.2.2. Advanced brickwork automation

42. 44. 48.

3.3. Additive fabrication techniques 3.3.1. Plastics 3.3.2. Stony materials 3.3.3. Metals

54. 59. 62. 72.

3.4. Conclusions

74.

4. ON-SITE AERIAL ROBOTS _CURRENT PRACTICE

77.

4.1. Known challenges 4.1.1. Payload capacity 4.1.2. Precision and stability 4.1.3. Battery capacity

78. 79. 79. 79.

4.2. Site aerial mapping

82.

4.3. Construction by drones 4.3.1. Flight assembled tower 4.3.2. Tensile bridge construction 4.3.3. ARCAS (Aerial Robotics Cooperative Assembly System)

84. 84. 86. 88.

4.4. Conclusions

90.

5. ROBOTS IN TEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE

93.

5.1. Temporary structures and public space 5.2. The robotsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; suitability for temporary structures 5.2.1. Main criteria for the construction of temporary structures 5.2.2. Comparative analysis of different robotic techniques

95. 96. 96. 96.

5.3. Drones and data collection

100.

5.4. Proposal for automated planning and construction system 5.5. Overview of the system 5.6. Robotically assembled temporary structures catalogue 5.7. Alternative applications of the same system

102. 104. 106. 110.

6. CONCLUSIONS

115.

7. SOURCES

121.

7.1. Bibliography 7.2. Pictures and diagrams used

123. 125.

1. PRESENTATION

presentation

1.1. INTRODUCTION Over the course of history, many groundbreaking inventions have served as direct triggers for progress in industry, construction and sometimes architecture. The widespread introduction of the hydro powered sawmill in Europe in the 16th century revolutionized wooden construction, because wooden planks and boards could be serially produced to standardized dimensions. Reinforced concrete and steel structures represented a huge shift in construction and architecture by making possible the construction of high rise buildings. With the introduction of the motorized vehicle came construction machinery which revolutionized the whole construction process, particularly excavation and foundation works. During the last half century we have seen incredible improvements in construction technology. While these improvements generally relate to technological and thermal improvements of building components, few have introduced revolutionary new ways of constructing buildings. The introduction of automated robotic systems and intelligent computational models in the construction sector might represent such a shift. According to Wikipedia, a robot is defined as â&#x20AC;&#x153;a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.â&#x20AC;? Although the construction industry is one of the oldest industries representing a large part of the global economy, it is also among the sectors that are least familiar with the robotics and automation concept. The industry is notoriously slow in adopting new workflow concepts and many current construction practices have changed little since old civilizations. The absence of automated robotic systems in the construction sector is almost a paradox because other major industries such as the automotive, marine and aeronautic have already been using robots for longer periods of time. Part of the reason for this is that differently from the manufacturing sector, each construction site and product (building) is unique, meaning that the assembly line concept does not turn out to be an economically viable solution.

Today, we are experiencing innovation in technology, hardware and computation at an incredible pace. In addition, recent breakthroughs in machine learning and artificial intelligence open up for a whole new level of robotic applications because we can start making robots with intelligence and intuition. Artificial intelligence and embedded sensors represent a huge potential because it can free the robots from the rigid and tedious pre programmed motion sequences. Further, the robots can learn and develop an intuition so that they can improve their skills over time. With this in mind, we are perhaps seeing the beginning of a golden era of robotics, in which it is highly desirable and necessary that the construction sector plays a central role.

introduction

Figure 1 and 2: Robotic actuators used in the automotive and aerospace manufacturing industries. Why has the construction sector been so passive with the application of robots?

Most importantly, intelligent robots and computational models have the potential to create a shift in the very way we build: Apart from increasing construction efficiency and safety when compared with human labor, they have the potential to go bring forward new methods of construction because their abilities exceeds that of humans. As an example, the Gantenbein Winery by Fabio Gramazio and Matthias Kohler – includes brick façades where each brick is rotated at a specific angle to optimize sunlight penetration and airflow through the building. While this type of highprecision masonry work is natural for a CNC robot, it would be unthinkable for a human bricklayer to carry out.

Figure 3: The Gantenbein Winery by Gramazio & Kohler

Figure 4: ‘Structural Oscillations’, created with the R-O-B bricklaying robot by Gramazio & Kohler

The term “robotic construction” is wide, and the author has therefore found it necessary to define certain categories. The robot systems are principally divided in two categories: land based and aerial. The first category includes all fixed or mobile robotic manipulators, autonomous vehicles and 3D printers that operate in contact with the ground. The second category includes all airborne robots. With current available solutions today, this definition is in principal limited to include drones, also referred to as UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

presentation

The last chapter of this work gives special attention to drones, which have certain revolutionary features that distinguishes them from the other evaluated robots. The strength of the drone is that it can fly quickly from one location to another with an increasing complexity and agility in aerial acrobatics. Because they are small and relatively cheap, they can be applied in greater numbers, making them suitable to operate with swarm intelligence. Despite their relatively low payload capacity, the drones can carry various types of sensors, which combined with the factors above, permits to perform advanced analytical tasks.

Figure 5,6: The Skycatch system where drones are used for site aerial mapping during excavation and terrain work. The drones map the movement of the landmass and coordinates the other terrestrial construction machines.

Chapter 5 also includes a schematic proposal on how drones could be implemented in an responsive autonomous construction system for temporary structures. In this system, drones are used not only for assembling the structures. They also take part in a city sensory system in which drones equipped with sensors do flights around urban areas to collect data about urban and social conditions. From the data, maps are created, which can help inform decisions about the distribution of temporary structures that can potentially improve the quality of life in urban areas.

1.2. OBJECTIVES 1. Document historical approaches to robotics and automation in construction. 2. Analyse current available solutions and recent experimental investigations in robotic construction (in terms of transportability, size, flexibility, speed, etc.). 3. Define the advantages of robots in construction, when compared to human labour. 4. Define the main challenges when applying robots in construction. 5. Justify the relevance and importance of the topic for the future of the construction industry.

1.3. METHODOLOGY 1. Historical investigation and documentation. 2. Extensive analysis of current available robotic construction solutions in the market. 3. Analysis of recent experimental investigations done on robotics in construction in various research groups such as: IAAC (Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia), USC (University of Southern California), ETH Zurich - Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control, IRI (Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial) . This includes bricklaying robots, 3D printing techniques, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) for aerial mapping and assembly tasks. 4. Participation in various conferences, such as Shape to Fabrication in London (19-20/04/2016) and IN(3D)USTRY in Barcelona (21-23/06/2016) where the latest innovations within the topic where presented.

6. Comparative evaluation of different robotic construction techniques’ suitability for on-site construction. The different solutions are compared in terms of ease of transport, size, flexibility, scalability, speed and more. 7. Proposal for a fully automated system for temporary structures in public spaces. A proposal for how drones could be implemented in a responsive autonomous construction system for temporary structures in urban areas.

objectives / methodology

5. Visiting IAAC (Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia) and IRI (Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial) to better learn about the investigations and experiments that they are currently working on.

2. ROBOTICS AND CONSTRUCTION AUTOMATION IN 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;S

2.1. ROBOTICS TIMELINE (1956-2008)

STANFORD ARM

UNIMATION

First succesful electrically powered, computercontrolled robotic arm

Worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first robot manufacturing company

1969

robotics and construction automation in 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

1956

First robot with six electromechanically driven axes

1973

1961

1970

UNIMATE

SHAKEY

First ever robotic arm and the first ever industrial robot

FAMULUS (KUKA)

First mobile robot controlled by artificial intelligence

KUKA LWR 4+

First robot to come close to the dexterity of a human arm

Compact and lightweight robot arm imitating the dexterity of human arm

1979

2006

1973

1979

2008

ASEA IRB 6

STANFORD CART Robot capable of making decisions based on analysis of their environment

MOTOMAN SDA10

First serially produced, microcomputer controlled, all-electric industrial robot

First 15-axis dual-arm robot

Figure 7: Timeline presenting the highlights of many years of research and development of industrial robots

robotics timeline (1956-2008)

PUMA

2.2. EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL ROBOTS An industrial robot is defined by ISO 8373 as: “an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications.” [1]

Figure 8: Gargantua robot

Though the earliest example of this type of robot dates back to the 1930s, it was not until the 1970s that the technology really gained traction, particularly across Europe, USA and Japan. This chapter is structured as a timeline, presenting the highlights of many years of research and development and some of the most interesting results.

1937: Gargantua robot (Fig.1) Australian/Canadian civil engineer “Bill” Griffith P. Taylor constructs the earliest known industrial robot conforming to the ISO standard. The crane-like device named Gargantua was built using Meccano parts and was powered by a single electric motor with five possible axes of movement, including grab and grab rotation. The robot was able to build structures from wooden blocks automatically in pre-programmed sequences.[2] Figure 9: ELSIE robot

1948-1949: ELSIE robot (Fig.2) British-American neurophysiologist William Grey Walter, considered a pioneer in the field robotics, constructs one of the first electronic mobile robots in history – the robot ELSIE (Electro-mechanical robot, Light Sensitive with Internal and External stability).

1954: George Devol and Unimation (Fig. 3,4)

robotics and construction automation in 80’s

Figure 10: robot Unimate (1)

Figure 11: robot Unimate (2)

The American inventor George Devol, also called the father of industrial robots, applies for the first robotic patent and in 1956, together with his business associate Joseph Engelberger, founds the world’s first robot manufacturing company called Unimation. In 1961, based on the Devol’s original patent design, the first ever robotic arm and the first ever industrial robot Unimate was patented and put into service at New Jersey General Motors plant. Unimate was made for extracting parts from a die-casting machine, doing a job that was difficult and dangerous for human workers at the plant. Because the robot was performing a rather simple handling task of transferring objects from one point to another, it was consequently called a Programmable Transfer Machine. By creating the Unimate, the first mass-produced industrial robot, George Devol started a revolution in manufacturing. An innovation-driven industry was born and many other companies started the development and manufacture of industrial robots. By 1966, specialized Unimates were designed for welding, spray painting, applying adhesives and other hazardous labor jobs.

1956: APT (Automatically Programmed Tooling) During the same year as the appearance of Unimation, the APT (Automatically Programmed Tooling) language was released, allowing for autonomy of machines. Raynold George is considered to be the father of APT - the high-level computer programming language, which is used to generate instructions for numerically controlled machine tools. At this time the industrial robots started to be more frequently commercialized in the market and in late 60s we find the appearance of the first research laboratories such as MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) or SRI (Stanford Research Institute) dedicated to artificial intelligence. In 1963, we also find the arrival of the Stanford Rancho Arm, the very first robotic arm that could be controlled by a computer.

Figure 12: Stanford Arm

1969: Victor Scheinman and the Stanford Arm (Fig.5) In 1969 Victor Scheinman at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory designed a research prototype called the Stanford Arm, operating with a six-axis all electric mechanical manipulator. Stanford Arm was the first ever successful electrically powered, computer-controlled robotic arm. The Stanford arm was based on previous experience from the Stanford Rancho Arm (a modified prosthetic arm) and the Stanford Hydraulic Arm (a high speed but difficult to control and dangerous manipulator). It was designed to be especially easy to control and compatible with existing computer systems which defined a breakthrough in industrial robotics. Researchers and students used the Stanford Arm prototype for over 20 years for teaching purposes while developing a knowledge base, which has later been applied to the robots of today.

1970: Shakey robot and Artificial Intelligence (Fig.6) In 1970 the Stanford Research Institute releases Shakey - the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first mobile robot controlled by artificial intelligence. The robot was equipped with a camera, several sensor devices and driven by a problem-solving program called STRIPS. It had the ability to move completely without human help with a speed of 2 meters per hour.

Figure 13: Shakey robot

Another leading company within industrial robotics is the German company KUKA- one of the oldest surviving commercial companies in the robotics industry. Originally KUKA was a company working to improve welding applications and provide equipment for professional welders. Years later they decided to take that experience and focus more on robotics. In 1973 KUKA created the robot FAMULUS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a material-handling robot that was the first robot with six electromechanically driven axes.

Figure 14: FAMULUS robot

evolution of industrial robots

1973: KUKA and the FAMULUS robot (Fig.7)

1973-1975: ASEA - robots IRB6 and IRB60 (Fig.8) In 1973, the ASEA Group (AllmĂ¤nna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget or General Swedish Electric Company) released their robot IRB 6, followed by its successor IRB 60 in 1975.

Figure 15: robot IRB6

These were the first serially produced, microcomputer controlled, allelectric industrial robots. They were designed for material handling, packing, transportation, polishing, welding and grading. The IRB 60 allowed movement in 5 axes with a lift capacity of 6kg and with its anthropomorphic design the arm movement mimicked that of a human hand. Today, after many years of development, ABB (ASEA merged with Swiss company Brown, Boweri & Cie) is a leading supplier of industrial robots and it has installed more than 250,000 robots worldwide.

1978: SCARA robot (Fig.9)

Figure 16: SCARA robot

In 1978 Hiroshi Makino, at the Yamanashi University in Japan, invented the SCARA robotic arm (Selective Compliance Assembly Robot Arm). The SCARA design was based on a human arm where joints allow the arm to move vertically and horizontally making the robotic arm advantageous for many types of assembly operations. The kinematic configuration of the robot arm allowed for fast and compliant motions making the fouraxis robotic design especially suitable for small parts assembly. Several later flexible assembly systems based on the SCARA robot have contributed significantly to creating a worldwide boom in high-volume electronics production.

robotics and construction automation in 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

1979: Union and the PUMA robot (Fig.10)

Figure 17: PUMA robot

Launched in 1979 by Union, the 6 axis PUMA (programmable universal machine for assembly) was the first robot to come close to the dexterity of a human arm. The robot was used as a reference in robotics research for many years.

1979: The Stanford Cart (Fig.11)

Figure 18: Stanford Cart

In 1979 the development of the robotic cart called Stanford Cart defines the improvement of sensors in robotics, which has been under development for decades. Stanford Cart was one of the first robots capable of making decisions based on analysis of their environment. Equipped with cameras and built in computers analyzing obstacles, the robot was able to cross a room filled with chairs without human assistance.

1980-2005 At this stage of the timeline, the reduction of mass volume, inertia and improvement in the robot’s speed were the primary goals in further evolution. The companies directed their research with the ultimate benchmark of developing a robotic arm design that would be closely replicating a human arm with its flexibility, inertia and mass.

2006: KUKA LWR 4+ (Fig.12)

Figure 19: KUKA LWR 4+

KUKA presents its compact and lightweight robot arm KUKA LWR 4+ imitating the dexterity of a human arm. It is their first arm to operate with 7 degrees of freedom as well as 7kg payload capacity and a reach of 800mm. This was the first industrial robot to reach the common industry benchmark of achieving a 1:1 weight to payload ratio.

2007-2009: Yaskawa Motoman (Fig.13,14,15) In 2007 Yaskawa Motoman, an American subsidiary of the Japanese company Yaskawa Electric Corporation, launches the world’s fastest arc-welding robot, MOTOMAN SSA2000. A year later they introduce their 7-axis single-arm MOTOMAN-SIA20 and the dual-arm, 15-axis MOTOMAN-SDA10 robots resulting in extraordinary human-like flexibility of movement. This is a critical evolution with respect to complex assembly tasks as well as handling and processing of work pieces. The twoarm system also allows for jig-less operation with one arm holding a part while the other performs operations on the held part.

Figure 20: MOTOMAN-SIA20

In 2009 Yaskawa launch the control system DX100, capable of controlling simultaneously up to 72axes of synchronized eight robots.

Figure 21: MOTOMAN-SDA10

Today, many companies around the world are continuously improving the robotic technology, particularly related to the robots’ flexibility of kinetic movements, speed, efficiency, precision, weight reduction and mobility. Extensive research is also being done on robots and computational (artificial) intelligence. Originally, most of the industrial robots were designed for application within the industrial, technological and scientific sectors. However, in recent years, these robots have emerged within other sectors, also making their way into the architecture and construction sector.

evolution of industrial robots

Today

2.3. FIRST ROBOTICS IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (1983 JAPAN)

Although the construction industry is one of the oldest industries representing a large part of the global economy, it is also among the sectors that are least familiar with the robotics and automation concept. The industry is notoriously slow in adopting new workflow concepts and many current construction practices have changed little since old civilizations. An example is the building erection process where the old pulleys are substituted by cranes that are still controlled manually by only replacing the human force with electric or diesel actuators, and steel structures to wooden elements. “These two advances allowed for an increase in erection speed, payload capacity and reachability, but the construction philosophy itself has changed little.” C. Balaguer and M. Abderrahim, Robotics and Automation in Construction. [3] Similar examples confirm that in terms of technological innovation, the construction sector is lagging behind other sectors such as automotive and aerospace manufacturing. What is the reason for this technological lag within the construction sector? First of all, efficiency in construction processes is harder to achieve because differently from the manufacturing industry, each product (building) is unique and therefore the automated mass production concept cannot be adapted. Other difficulties are related to the unstructured and unpredictable working environments that construction sites offer. Each site is unique and the fact that most of the operations have to be done outdoors create an array of variable conditions which are difficult environments for the robots to operate in. In addition to that, a constructor usually prefers the least risky method possible, making traditional construction methods a natural choice.

robotics and construction automation in 80’s

As opposed to the manufacturing industry, the construction industry is being held back by the construction companies’ lack of willingness to invest in research with unpredictable results and whose benefits are set too far in the future. However in Japan, unlike most other countries, some of the biggest contractors annually contribute 1% of their income for research and development and are sponsoring private research institutes undertaking the majority of construction-related research. Consequently, Japanese contractors are among the world leaders in the field of automation and robotics in construction.

The Japanese innovation within automation and robotics gained traction in the 1980’s led by researchers of the JARA (Japan Robot Association). In 1968 Japan was first introduced to robotics by the US and since then it has been playing an important role in the automation of various industries such as the automotive and electronic. JARA, formed in 1971 and formally inaugurated in 1973, is the leading association within research and development of both industrial and non-industrial robotics applications. In 1978 JARA formed a committee to investigate the possibility of using robots in construction. The construction sector is one of the major industries in Japan, where automation and robotic applications represent a great potential for the country’s further development. Japans special interest for robotic development in construction may be rooted in the Japanese general view on the construction profession. The Japanese have a term for construction works: 3K, meaning Kiken (dangerous), Kitanai (dirty) and Kitsui (hard). This is seen upon as a type of work that is unattractive for younger generations and resulting in skilled labour shortage and an aging workforce. As a response, the single-task robots were developed as the most economic way of introducing robotics and automation in the construction industry. They were designed to supplement skilled labour, improve safety, quality and efficiency, reduce costs, and allow architectural design flexibility- consequently attracting more young people into field.

Over the years, development in construction robotics has led to a range of platforms of their application. They cover a wide range of autonomous and remotely operated systems, generally categorised as: 1. Tele-operated human-machine systems: controlled remotely by a human operator interpreting information. 2. Pre-programmed systems: Robots also control by a human operator but with the difference that the system allows for a variety of tasks to be done by the same robot as the operator can choose tasks from a pre programmed menu of functions. In some cases, the operator can introduce the machine to new functions. 3. Intelligent robots: also defined as autonomous, with on-board sensors. Robots can sense, model the world, plan and achieve working goals. Robots in this category complete their tasks without human intervention (fully autonomous mode) or with just a basic level of planning interaction (semi autonomous mode). 4. Integrated construction automation systems.

The first approaches in Japan were related to single-purpose remotely controlled robots mostly designed for building construction and maintenance work. As of today, there is no single scheme for classifying robotic applications in construction. However, they can be classified by type of task performed, industry sector, physical scale of device, degree of technical complexity, etc. By function the early Japanese single-task robots are classified into: [4], [5] - CONSTRUCTION, 71% -Structure (concrete structural erection - 25%, steel structural erection - 15%) -Finish (exterior finish work - 21%, interior finish work - 10%) - MAINTENANCE, 21%, (inspection, cleaning and repair) - DEMOLITION, 3%

Figure 22: Circular diagram presenting the proportion between the quantities of Japanese single task robots designed for distinct functions

first robotics in construction industry (1983 Japan)

- MISCELLANEOUS, 4%, (underground detection, level marker, concrete block installation)

Each construction process consists of a number of activities that define the further classification of robotic systems. Most of these activities can be grouped into three predominant categories: - MATERIAL SHAPING (fabrication, concrete pouring, floor finishing, painting, fireproofing, glazing) - STRUCTURAL JOINING (welding) - MATERIAL HANDLING (panel installation, rebar placing) Following, is an overview of some of the single task purpose robots developed for construction and maintenance works.

CONSTRUCTION ROBOTS - MATERIAL SHAPING Fire-proofing robot, Shimizu and Kobe Steel This prototype of a fire-proofing robot was the world’s first construction robot to be applied in buildings. It was designed in Japan in the early 80’s and its arrival defined the beginning of a new construction era. The robot was designed for spraying fireproofing material onto structural steel girders and beams. The practical purpose of the spray robot where: - To relieve construction workers of poor hazardous work conditions (working environment with high rock wool particles concentration represent a serious health issue) - To increase working speed and efficiency In 1982, the Research Institute and Construction Machinery Division of Shimizu Construction started the first spray robot development program. During years of developing and improving its features, the company released 3 prototypes of the fire-proofing robot.

robotics and construction automation in 80’s

The first prototype was called SSR-1 (Shimizu Spray Robot No.1) and was placed on a wheel base being towed by an induction guided tractor. It was equipped with a hydraulic unit and its fire-proofing was a mixture of rockwool and cement slurry. The travel vehicle was battery powered and cables attached on the floor guided its direction. The SSR-1 prototype demonstrated the feasibility of construction robotics and improved productivity and work conditions by allowing the workers to operate up the machine from up to 3m away from the spray nozzle. However, it never really achieved the same performance as its human counterpart because cables and hydraulic tubes were easily contaminated or damaged, making human supervision a continuous necessity. [5], [6]

Figure 23: fire-proofing robot SSR-1

Figure 24: fire-proofing robot SSR-2

The SSR-2 was an improved version of the SSR-1 prototype with the introduction of a self-mobile wheeled base instead of the traction system used for SSR-1. This facilitated the rotation movement and the travel distance measuring system. Although a number of components did not change from SSR-1 to SSR-2, its new features included: - overall height increased by 1,25m for better reach and wider application; - travel vehicle automation, eliminating the need for guiding cables; - improved pressure delivery machine improving the uniformity of spraying; - An ultrasonic sensor allowing the robot to automatically adjust its location with respect to the beam - The robot’s motion plan was prepared and preprogrammed on a PC prior to operation. The SSR-2 was the first robot to successfully demonstrate the use of positioning sensors by detecting the distance between robot arm and the steel beam during fireproof spraying. Both of the fire-proofing robot prototypes were successful in opening up for to the use of robots in residential building applications. Although the SSR-2 offered improved mobility, it still did not achieve the satisfactory performance. Human supervision was still a central component in the robots operation, particularly for adjusting the robot’s position in relation to differently shaped steel girders and beams. Both prototyped had the following problems: 1. Their size was too big to be transported by a lift so they had to be assembled and disassembled for every new site; 2. The operator had to supervise and monitor the unit continuously because the computer program of the robot was unable to learn and correct previous mistakes; 3. The total cost of the systems was to high. [5][6]

With the SSR-3, a robot programming system called the “Offsite Teaching System” was developed consisting of a PC and a digital cassette recorder. The actions of the fire-proofing robot were simulated on the PC and a code of instruction was created. The use of the digital cassette recorder for memory permitted the easy transfer of the data program between different cassette recorders allowing the errors to be easily corrected without changing the entire program. The main new features of SSR-3 prototype included: - The power source changed from hydraulic to electric; - The cost was reduced by implementing the following simplifications: Reducing the degrees of freedom from 6 to 4 for the manipulator arm and from 3 to 2 for travel vehicle; - Introducing the Off-line teaching capability rather than the direct teaching required in the SSR-2 prototype, allowing to give instructions from a remote computer; - The robot could spray while travelling (SSR-2 sprayed and traveled separately). [6]

Figure 25: fire-proofing robot SSR-3

first robotics in construction industry (1983 Japan)

The third prototype, SSR-3, came with various improvements. It was both lighter and smaller than SSR-2, its weight being reduced from 1345 to 900kg .The control and programming components were reduced in size and cables and tubes on the floor were reduced to two. Omni-directional mobility was possible and the human dependency was reduced by introduction of new analytical software in which a database for differently shaped beams and girders was available.

Concrete floor finishing robot Concrete floor finishing is considered to be one of the most physically demanding tasks in construction, making the introduction of the Concrete Floor Finishing Robot a seemingly viable option. These remotely operated concrete distribution robots significantly improved the quality and efficiency of concrete works by greatly reducing the number of operations required while relieving workers of one of the most physically demanding jobs in construction. The robots were found to be 3 to 8 times faster than skilled labor performing the same task. However, they still required a degree of human supervision for: - Planning the robotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s course in sequence with each concrete pour; - Arranging the power supply; - Inputting data for the work area (width, length, trowel overlap, travel speed); - Working in areas inaccessible by robots (around columns, walls and other edges). Robots for concrete floor finishing are best suited for buildings with large, open floor areas (500-600m2 per operation) and with as few obstacles as possible (columns, walls, openings). These robots have been used in many building construction sites releasing workers from physically demanding operations. [5]

Different concrete floor finishing robot models were developed in Japan, all of them having the same basic features: - Operating on soft concrete; - Operating automatically in any direction without limits; - Using steel trowel end-effectors; - Requiring manual input of work area boundaries.

Their main differences lie in:

robotics and construction automation in 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

- The way the robots travel along a wall (by gondola or a vacuum system); - The way the paint path is programmed (by digital or sequence control); - The type of spray mist used; - The finishing capacity varying from 100 to 200m2 per hour; - The technique to achieve the uniformity of finish â&#x20AC;&#x201C; by rotating guns or by adjusting the speed and width of paint overlap.

Figure 26,27: Concrete floor finishing robots

Spray painting robot Similarly to concrete floor finishing robots, the goals during the development of spray-painting robots were improving efficiency, quality, working conditions and relieving workers from dangerous work. Spray painting robots are most efficient when the working surface area is over 2000m2 (warehouses or power plants) and projections like window frames are limited to 1 or 2cm. The robots require a certain degree of manual work during all phases: preparation, operation and cleaning up. For example determining the robot’s travel course and spray parameters such as subdivision of the work surface, robot path, thickness of paint. In addition, continuous supervision is also necessary for checking cables and paint supply and skilled labor is required for painting areas that are inaccessible by robots – like window frames and around other openings. The spray robots released workers from working in dangerous heights and being exposed to harmful paint fumes. Each of the robots has a spray mist, which is used to eliminate the spread of the paint to pedestrians and neighbors. Depending on the type of paint, the robots were found to complete the job 2 to 8 times faster than manual labor. [5]

Different types of spray robot were developed in Japan, and all of them had the same basic features: - Painting by spraying; - Using multiple airless guns; - Operated remotely by both automatic and manual control; - Spray mist incorporation in order to avoid the unwanted spread of paint.

Their main differences lied in:

CONSTRUCTION ROBOTS - STRUCTURAL JOINING Steel Frame Welding Robot (WR) Figure 28: Steel Frame Welding Robot

The Steel Frame Welding Robot (WR) is a robot equipped for the automatic welding of column-to-column and column-to-beam joints in steel works. The Japanese WR mobile robot performed a variety of column-to- column welding jobs and could operate on columns of up to 100 mm thickness being round, squared or of H-shaped section.

first robotics in construction industry (1983 Japan)

- The way the robots travel along the wall (by gondola or a vacuum system); -The way the paint path is programmed (by digital or sequence control); -The type of spray mist used; - The finishing capacity varying from 100 to 200m2 per hour; - The technique to achieve the uniformity of finish – by rotating guns or by adjusting the spraying speed and width of paint overlap.

CONSTRUCTION ROBOTS - MATERIALS HANDLING Material handling robots were developed as practical solutions for handling heavy oversized components within the construction environment- both in the exterior and interior of the building. Interior lifting work is often physically demanding as the use of cranes for lifting heavy equipment is not practical. The material handling robot requires manual labor for inspecting floor surfaces for obstacles and each board’s surface for irregularities to ensure that the suction cup type robots can perform the task properly. Different models of materials handling robot were developed in Japan during the late 80s, all of them sharing the same basic features: - Lifting and moving one board at a time; - Having five degrees of freedom: rotating, tilting, side shifting, arm lifting and reaching; They main differences lied in: - The way handling tasks were programmed – automatic or manual remote control; - The power supply required; - The end-effector used – a clamp, a vacuum suction cup or interchangeable attachment. Mighty Hand - multi purpose material handling Mighty Hand from Kajima was a robot designed for lifting heavy elements, controlled remotely by directing the robot to travel, lift and place materials. It was manually operated using a remote-control console. The first real application of the Mighty Hand was during the assembly of the glass curtain wall in the Telecom Centre Building in Tokyo. The robotic manipulator installed the building’s facade consisting of different types of glass panels, which were shipped from the factory in ready-to-install units. The installation of the curtain wall was completed in only one and a half months partly attributed to the fact that strong winds and other unpredictable weather conditions are no obstacle to the Mighty Hand. Since the curtain wall was not load-bearing and the panels were fully preassembled in factory, the installation work carried out by the robot was relatively simple. [5]

robotics and construction automation in 80’s

Figures 29: “Boardman-100” plaster board robot

Figures 30: “Mighty Hand” multi-purpose robot

MAINTENANCE ROBOTS Tile Inspection Robots In Japan, many high-rise building facades use ceramic tiles cladding. Traditionally, workers would manually inspect detached or debonded façade tiles by using a hammer to hit the tile. Based on the sound produced the worker had to determine the condition of the tile, whether it is debonded or not. This type of work could quickly become very subjective, labor intensive and time consuming, making the introduction of the automated tile inspection robot a seemingly viable option. [6] The goals for the development of the Tile Inspection Robots (TIR) were related to increasing inspection reliability and relieve construction workers of hard and dangerous work carried out at great heights. The tile inspection robots developed in Japan during the late 80s and early 90s still needed a certain degree of manual labor for completing tasks like judging the unevenness of surfaces and performing detection work in areas around windows and other obstacles that are inaccessible by robots. Though these robots were already reducing and simplifying the necessary manual work associated with the construction process, further technological evolution on the robots behalf was mainly focused on reducing their size and weight and improving their ability to work under windy, rainy or snowy conditions. Different tile inspection robot models were developed in Japan during this time, and all of them had the same basic features: - Traveling directly over the tile’s surface; - Evaluating the bonding condition by the acoustic testing; - The technical composition, consisting of the following components: striking unit, data collecting- and evaluating unit and graphical output unit; - Presence of safety device preventing robots from falling. They differentiated in:

The main advantages that the single-task robots brought to the industry were related to improvements in the working environment: - more predictable scheduling, cleaner, quieter and safer performance of jobs by relieving workers from dirty, difficult and dangerous work and performing jobs not possible for humans. However, it proved impossible for singlepurpose robots to achieve the expected economic gains associated with replacing human labour. The robots did not have the necessary capability to inspect the work in real time and the ability to detect and correct defects were limited. In addition, they did not actually reduce the need for manpower, but instead increased it by generating a need for new types of specialists with the knowledge to set up and operate robots: “For the first time in construction, this new job type opens the industry to more women and elderly, exactly because it is less physically demanding.” “Construction automation systems may soon change the very concept of construction. For the first time in history, construction may transcend physical labour to the art of planning, applying knowledge, and coordinating work, that is, a change from muscle to brain.” [5]

first robotics in construction industry (1983 Japan)

- The connection to the wall (either suspended by cables from the roof or self-mobile, moving along the wall by using suction cups. - The way the detection in programmed – by sequence, digital or remote control; - The type of motor they are driven by; - The manner of detecting bounding condition – by striking hammers or ultrasound.

2.4. FIRST APPROACHES TO FULL CONSTRUCTION AUTOMATION (1991 JAPAN)

“The SMART system is a self elevating assembly factory for high - rise building construction that demonstrates that automated building assembly using both technical and logistical innovations can streamline the construction process.” L. Cousineau and N. Miura, 1998 [5] Over the years researchers in Japan realized that the use of single-task robots did not deliver on the expected overall economic benefits in the construction process. This led them to focus their attention towards fully automating the whole building process, applying the principle of industrial automation where a building is considered to be one product. With the introduction of the SMART system (Shimizu Manufacturing system by Advanced Robotics Technology) in 1991 the dream of a fully automated construction process was already a reality. SMART was a system that automated a wide range of construction stages including erection and welding of steel frame structure, installation of exterior and interior wall panels and laying of concrete floor panels.

Figure 31: The SMART system: an on-site self-elevating ‘assembly factory’

robotics and construction automation in 80’s

The system included delivery of components, material handling, automated part tracking, assembly, and centralized control in the construction environment. The system reduced the project’s completion time, increased productivity and quality and enabled better working conditions in any kind of weather.

It was first introduced with the construction of the 20-storey Nagoya Juroku Bank office building in Nagoya, Japan which was completed in 1994 and is considered to be the first automatically constructed building. It was constructed inside a movable factory platform that was built on site and lifted up as each floor was completed to begin work on the next level. In this way the building core was assembled floor-by-floor using a self-elevating construction platform, which provided both scaffoldings and weather protection. The goals of the project were related to providing safer working conditions, reducing labour and management hours, shortening construction time, material waste reduction and easier adaption to variable weather conditions. During construction with the SMART system a 50% reduction in labour demand was achieved, which lead to an overall reduction in construction of approximately 30%. In addition to that, the construction waste was reduced by 70% and the number of days for constructing one floor improved from nine to five days. [5]

SYSTEM

COMPANY

YEAR

TYPE

STRUCTURE

STORIES

Push-Up

Takenaka

1989-91

office

steel

experimental

SMART System

Shimizu

1991-94

office

steel

ABC System

Obayashi

1991-94

residential

steel

T-Up

Taisei

1992-94

office

steel

MCCS

Maeda

1992-94

office

steel

Push-Up

Takenaka

1993-95

office

steel

Akatsuki 21

Fujita

1994-96

office

steel

SMART System

Shimizu

1994-97

office

steel

AMURAD

Kajima

1995-96

residential

steel-reinforced precast concrete

Big Canopy

Obayashi

1995-97

residential

precast concrete

MCCS

Maeda

1995-98

office

steel

Figure 32: Comparison of some Japanese Construction Automation Systems

first approaches to full construction automation (1991 Japan)

Figure 33: A view inside the SMART system

robotics and construction automation in 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

2.5. CONCLUSIONS

1. Looking at the historical timeline of industrial robot evolution in this chapter it becomes clear that the same areas of improvement are relevant today. These include improving the robotsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; speed/effectiveness, precision, flexibility, reducing their weight.

2. On the construction site, the robotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weight is very important. Most modern robot actuators have been designed to be use in assembly lines, such as those found in the automotive industry. This means that they are designed to operated from a fixed place in the factory while the object it operates on is the one moving along the assembly line. Therefore, these robots are typically heavy and relatively immobile and thus not very suitable for a construction site environment. They are too heavy and their support consoles to dispersed to be able to move around efficiently on site. Therefore, developing lighter and more mobile robots is key to their application on site.

3. In the 1990s we see the first attempts at construction automation in Japan and the single task actuators, such as the tile inspection robot, had a significant impact on the industry. However, fully automated construction was not achieved for following reasons: - The robots were highly specialized, performing only a single task and relied heavily on human interaction - This created a need for highly specialized laborers to operate the robots, which were more expensive for the construction company to have on their payroll. - In turn, the construction companies realized that the use of single task robots did not improve the overall economy of the construction, which shifted their focus towards fully automating the whole construction process. - At this pointed, they started seeing the building as an industrial product and applied industrial assembly line logics to the construction site.

conclusions

4. Although an ambitious attempt at full automation, it meant erecting something like a customized factory machine on each construction site, which in itself required an enormous amount of planning, installations and additional costs. Neither this strategy increased overall cost efficiency and did therefore not lead to any significant breakthroughs.

3. ON-SITE LAND-BASED ROBOTS CURRENT PRACTICE

on-site land-based robots

3.1. KNOWN CHALLENGES

3.1.1. SCALABILITY AND MOBILITY

Among the main advantages that robotic systems offer contra human labor are efficiency, precision and the possibility to perform complex operations which humans cannot perform. In order to deliver this performance in the manner described, the robots need a preferably indoor setup consisting of several heavy duty controllers and machines as well as a stable surface to work on. A condition for maintaining said conditions is most commonly that the robot units are safely placed inside industrial buildings, either floor mounted or on heavy steel rails. Construction sites rarely offer such conditions and limitations become rapidly evident as robotic arms and other high precision actuators are simply too heavy to move around efficiently within the construction site (a high payload robotic arm can weigh around 1.2 tones, excluding controllers and other necessary, heavy duty equipment.) The scale of the construction is therefore often constrained by the reach of the actuator. However, some of the projects discussed in this chapter offer solutions to this problem by tailoring external motion systems around the robot actuator, in order to extend its reach and facilitate its movement within the site.

3.1.2. AUTONOMY AND INTELLIGENCE

Another limitation in current practice relates to computational (artificial) intelligence. Though a high precision robotic arm might look appealing, it is still just an actuator with little or no intelligence. These systems still largely depend on a human doing time-consuming work to test and program them to perform in a predetermined sequence. The robots are usually not equipped with sensors and a brain, which would allow them to adapt their preprogrammed sequence to unforeseen events, while learning and improving their skills over time- as is the case with humans. These limitations relate to the current state of artificial intelligence and particularly deep learning. Advances in robotic construction are therefore widely limited and dependent upon future advances in this field. Similarly, future advancements in sensory equipment would be a huge contribution to the field. An ideal future scenario would include robots operating with the same or better sensors than humans (eyesight, hearing, smelling and touch) combined with the extremely fast and accurate computational capabilities of a computer.

3.1.3. KINETIC MOTION AND VERSATILITY

There is still a long road ahead for robots to perform tasks such as positioning and fastening one or multiple components at the same time, tightening bolts and accessing narrow in a similar way as humans. Apart from our brain, one of the key features that put humans in a superior position to our animal counterparts is the extremely advanced kinetic flexibility of our hands. Developing similar features in robotic actuators proves particularly difficult, and is limiting the robotsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; capabilities to perform tasks as the ones mentioned above.

known challenges

As of today, robotic actuators are also limited in terms of flexibility of kinetic movements.

on-site land-based robots

3.2. BRICKLAYING AUTOMATION

HADRIAN

ROBOT SAM

year

2005-2016

2007-2013

institution

Fastbrick Robotics

Construction Robotics

project type

comercial

application

automated bricklaying

semi-automated bricklaying

advantages

on-site construction full automation integrated Local Positioning System (LPS) high precision Flexibility of movement (mounted on belt vehicle) Good reach (telescopic boom)

on site construction high precision easy transport between site (compact) moves in Z-axis (lifts from ground)

disadvantages

heavy and bulky difficult transportation between sites centralized system (large, valuable unit)

semi automated low flexibility of movement (moves on tracks) low flexibility of form (works best on large, flat walls)

R-O-B

design of brick facade

Mobile Fabrication Unit

year

2006 (pioneer of construction robots )

2007-2008

institution

Gramazio & Kohler, ETH Zurich

project type

comercial

research

application

automated bricklaying

advantages

high precision full automation advanced parametric design automatic generation of fabrication data integration of custom details

on-site fabrication high precision full automation advanced parametric design automatic generation of fabrication data integration of custom details

disadvantages

scalability off-site fabrication no movement in Z-axis

scalability no movement in Z-axis

bricklaying automation

WINERY GANTENBEIN

3.2.1. TRADITIONAL BRICKWORK AUTOMATION Robotic automation in brickwork has been a subject of research for several decades. Bricklaying is a laborious and repetitious trade highly dependent on manual labour. Bricklaying is also an ancient trade where one has seen little technological advancement throughout the last 1000 years. These prerequisites clearly speak in favour of the implementation of robotic automation.

on-site land-based robots

The following chapter will present some of the major scale inventions in the bricklaying industry during the past decades.

1. cut the bricks

2. transport

3. apply adhesive

4. grab

5. place

6. laser control

Figure 34: Bricklaying process

HADRIAN In 2005, Australian aeronautic and mechanical engineer Mark Pivac from Fastbrick Robotics, started developing a fully automated bricklaying robot named Hadrian. The idea for the research project came as a response to the Perth bricklayer crisis in the same year, where the availability of bricklayers was historically low. Hadrian 105 is an excavator base robot capable of reading CAD drawings, translating them into bricklaying sequences and laying the bricks with very high precision. In addition, it can handle almost any type of brick available on the market today. First, a 3D model of a building structure is created. Second, the location of each brick is calculated, resulting in the creation of a program used to cut bricks to required size and lay them out in a sequence from a fixed location. A precision laser maintains the robotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accuracy and permits Hadrian 105 to lay bricks with a 0,5mm tolerance. Hadrian 105 is composed of a 28m long retractable telescopic boom connecting its main body to the robotic â&#x20AC;&#x153;handâ&#x20AC;? at the other end. In the main body bricks are scanned and cut to required size while the robot hand is designed for grabbing bricks and placing them in sequence, all from a single location without moving around site. The adhesive is delivered under pressure and automatically applied to the bricks by the robotic hand, eliminating the need for human assistance. The articulated telescopic boom is auto-correcting itself 1000 times per second and consequently compensates for vibrations.

Figure 35 and 36: The gripper can handle all standard brick types on the market. Brick adhesive is deposited automatically

Following the impressive results achieved with the prototype Hadrian 105, the company is currently developing the commercial version, Hadrian X, which will be even bigger and faster than the Hadrian 105.

Figure 37: Truck mounted robot Hadrian X

bricklaying automation

Hadrian X is a mobile, truck mounted robot, with 30m long retractable telescopic boom capable of placing around 1000 bricks per hour (Hadrian 105 can lay 225 bricks per hour). As it does not require any breaks, it can work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year which results in a capability to complete an average size suburban house within 2 days, potentially erecting 150 homes a year. It is designed to erect both external and internal walls, leaving room for doors, windows, plumbing and electrical channels. [7], [8], [9]

ROBOT SAM SAM, short for Semi Automated Mason is another brick laying robot designed and engineered by Victor, a New York based construction Robotics Company. The unit is designed to work alongside a human mason and improve the efficiency of the construction process. SAM is based on a robotic arm responsible for picking up bricks, applying mortar and placing them. It builds the wall by advancing along pre-positioned tracks. Because it is performing a repetitive task, it can finish the same job up to four times quicker than a human labourer. The workers perform more nuanced activities that SAM is not capable of handling, such as setting up the worksite, laying corner bricks and handling aesthetic details like tidying up excess mortar. However, even though performing repetitive tasks, the robot still needs to have a certain degree of adaptation and adjustment to the environment, especially when being mounted in scaffoldings that are slightly swaying in the wind. In addition, it has to be able to correct the differences between the theoretical design information and the actual condition on site. “In construction, your design will say that a window is located exactly 30 feet from the corner of a building, and in reality when you get to the building, nothing is ever where it says it’s supposed to be,” says Scott Peters, cofounder of Construction Robotics. “Masons know how to adapt to that, so we had to design a robot that knows how to do that, too.” [10] Human mason can lay about 300-500 bricks an hour, while SAM can lay about 800-1200. It is best suited to work on large surfaces of flat walls. It works based on a set of algorithms, a group of sensors measuring velocity and orientation and a laser acting as an anchor point for the robot. This is rigged up at both sides of robot’s workspace and moves up and down together with the robot. [11], [12] The development of the robot started in 2007 and it was applied in real-world project for the first time in 2013 during the construction of a new building for Progressive Machine and Design at 727 Rowley Road in Victor.

on-site land-based robots

Figure 38: The robotic arm reaches out from the cage and places the bricks in their precise location.

While still in the early stages of robotic applications, Construction Robotics’ Scott Peters envisions a future in which robots can perform other construction tasks as well.

“We think the opportunity is there,” says Peters. “Anywhere you have unsafe, boring, or drudgery work, heavy lifting or other physically demanding tasks, you can have a machine do it. What you have to do is find ways to define the problem and then add sensors and smart technology to do the task.” [13]

Figure 39, 40 and 41: The system is relatively compact, which facilitates transportation between construction sites

Bricks are placed on a conveyor belt feeding the robot while mortar is poured into a hopper. SAM picks up the bricks with its arm, holds it while the proper amount of mortar is applied before it sets the brick in place with the help of a laser and software that follows a CAD design showing the exact location of each brick. Even after a brick is set, a mason must make sure the position is correct, and clean up the excess mortar that’s squeezed out.

bricklaying automation

“It’ll always need that assistance. There’s so much detail that goes into masonry walls that’s just something we’re not even looking to change,” said Podkaminer. [14]

3.2.2. ADVANCED BRICKWORK AUTOMATION While both the Hadrian and SAM robots are making a successful step towards full construction automation they still operate within the limits of a traditional bricklaying process- not maximizing its digital possibilities. The co-founder, design principal and CEO of COOP HIMMELB(L)AU, Wolf D. Prix once said in an interview for ArchDaily, â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is not worth thinking about using robots to build regular buildings. The chance here is to use fantastic new digital, parametric, and aesthetic issues for buildings.â&#x20AC;? [15] This introduces the work of the design team of ETH Zurich led by Fabio Gramazio and Matthias Kohler; both considered pioneers in the use of industrial robots in construction. Figure 42: Facade design concept

Figure 43: The modules were prefabricated and transported to the site.

on-site land-based robots

Figure 45 and 46: The prefab modules are lifted in place

Figure 44: Adhesive automatically applied to each brick

WINERY GANTENBEIN With their projects, they show that besides being able to replace the monotonous human labour tasks, the robotic arms are capable of performing fabrication strategies that are impossible for humans to carry out. In 2005, the duo founded the world’s first architectural robotic laboratory at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). Their project with the parametric brick façade of the Winery Gantenbein extension in 2006 is the first approach to the use of industrial robots in advanced digital construction. The Winery Gantenbein extension project was lead by Bearth & Deplazes Architects, while Gramazio & Kohler were invited to design the façade. The use of brick was a natural choice due to its ability to perform as temperature buffer and direct sunlight filter. The team decided to take a big step forward, leaving the traditional static brick wall construction method behind. The robotic production method they developed permitted creating a brick façade which would optimize the thermal performance of the building, allowing for the desired amount of light and air permeability, while creating its dynamic aesthetics by laying each of the 20 000 bricks precisely at the desired angle according to the programmed parameters. Every brick is angled individually and consequently permits a different degree of light inside the building. This creates a dynamic, plastic, three-dimensional image that characterizes the identity of the vineyard. Each panel’s composition was calculated by a computer and precisely built by a robot. The project is an example of how robotic construction can bring the whole industry to another level, making construction more cost- and time efficient, and at the same time optimizing the building’s performance. [16]

bricklaying automation

Figure 47: The completed project in the surrounding landscape

R-O-B Antoine Picon, professor of History of Architecture and Technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Design said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Gramazio and Kohler put robots and architecture on the map for many architecture faculties.â&#x20AC;? [17] Since the first successful implementation of robots in parametric brickwork design with the Winery Gantenbein project, the duo has made further steps within the field of advanced robotics. They publish, on a continuous basis, new impressive research results where the use of computer methodologies in both the design and fabrication process allows for the manufacturing of a vast variety of building elements with high precision. During 2007-2008 they developed the Mobile Fabrication Unit R-O-B, an industrial robot that leaves the protected workshop environment and moves on to the actual building site. It is housed in a transportable freight container and can easily be transported between construction sites.

on-site land-based robots

Figure 48, 49: The system sits in a container on wheels, whichcan be easily transported between sites.

Figure 50: Plan layout for the Structural Oscillations installation

The first public installation built by the R-O-B was exhibited at the Swiss Pavilion during the 11th International Venice Architecture Biennale, in 2008. The installation, called Structural Oscillations was a 100-meter long brick wall running as a continuous ribbon, consisting of 14961 bricks individually rotated according to the curvature of the wall. The reference curve of the installation functioned as a conceptual interface that once modified permitted the undulating wall to be regenerated automatically. [18], [19]

bricklaying automation

Figure 51: Intriguing, wavy forms made by the R-O-B robot

Figure 52: Pike Loop - the first architectural installation robotically built in situ

Even though the robot was working primarily onsite for the fabrication, it still had a certain degree of prefabrication, as the installation was composed of 26 prefabricated modules. In 2009, Gramazio & Kohler presented the Pike Loop installation in New York, their first installation directly built in situ by the R-O-B unit. Pike Loop is a 22m long brick structure composed of over seven thousand bricks aggregated to form an infinite weaving loop. It was built as an installation for the Storefront Gallery for Art and Architecture and is articulated by compressing and tensioning the brick bond, making it adapt according to the structural changes. It goes from lighter and more stretched in the areas where the loop flies, to jagged, heavier and wider where it brings load to the ground.

on-site land-based robots

For many years the team has been moving forward within the research of on-site robotic construction, working on robotic sensors for positioning, material tolerance recognition and automatic adaption to changing conditions. In between the research experiments they produced works like The Endless Wall installation, or the Stratifications project.

Gramazio & Kohler are currently working on the research project “Building Strategies for On-site Robotic Construction”, under development at the NCCR (National Competence Centre of Research). Their work include research on a custom computational design and simulation framework, capable of operating robotics in uncertain environments, as well as developing new strategies in the field of on-site robotic construction. [19] During an interview with swissinfo.ch, Thomas Bock, Chairman for Building Realisation and Robotics at the Technical University of Munich stated, “If you use offthe-shelf industrial robots, like the ones used in the car industry, the robot will have a bad payload, be too heavy, and will not be weather, dust and dirt-proof. The design [of the site] should also be robot-orientated,” said Bock [20] According to Antoine Picon, “Gramazio and Kohler’s use of robots has raised a number of interesting questions about design. This includes forcing designers to think differently, which might be the most important consequence of the introduction of robots in architecture, at least for now.” [17]

Figure 53,54: Pike Loop, New York

bricklaying automation

Figure 55,56 and 57 : In Situ Robotic Fabrication, Echord project

on-site land-based robots

3.3. ADDITIVE FABRICATION TECHNIQUES

3D PRINTED CANAL HOUSE

MATAERIAL (MX3D-RESIN)

year

2014-2017

2013

institution

3D Print Canal House

IAAC and Joris Laarman Lab

project type

research

material

thermoplastics

thermosetting polymers MX3D Resin

application

prefabricated construction

anti gravity construction

advantages

on-site reduction of waste (additive manufacturing) educational/PR value free form structures (practically any shape) reduces construction waste (additive)

complex shapes significant reduction in printing time (not contour based) reduces construction waste (additive)

disadvantages

scalability 1:1 mockup of a building (not applicable in construction) efficiency (currently, 3d printing is slow) limited mechanical strength cannot print cantilevers

off-site limited mechanical strength tedious computational process depends on individual site conditions (humidity, temperature, etc)

CONTOUR CRAFTING

year

2006-2016

2003-2016

institution

D-Shape Enrico Dini

Behrokh Khoshnevis University of Southern California

project type

comercial

material

sand

concrete

application

prefabricated construction

on site/prefabricated construction housing

advantages

relatively large size structures no need for structural reinforcement free form structures (practically any shape) reduces construction waste (additive) can print cantilevers and objects-within-objects (powder based)

durability good mechanical strength lighter concrete structures reduced amount of material reduces construction waste (additive)

disadvantages scalability (size limited to size of printer) relies largely on human labor low reusability of structures

disadvantages scalability (size limited to size of printer) cannot print cantilevers steel reinforcements added manually low reusability of structures

additive fabrication techniques

D-SHAPE

on-site land-based robots 56

STONE SPRAY

MINIBUILDERS

year

2011

2014

institution

IAAC

project type

research

material

sand

cultured marble

application

on site construction pedestrian bridge

on site construction housing

advantages

on-site natural material possibilty to use materials found on site variety in form

on-site scalability (builders climb on erecting structure) no support structures (moves on its own print) decentralization (many units working together) robust system (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;cheapâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to replace units)

disadvantages

scalability (has only been tested small scale) low reusability cannot print cantilevers mechanical strength (low resistance to tensile forces)

limited variety in form mechanical strength (low tensile resistance)

MX3D-METAL BRIDGE

year

2016

to be completed in 2017

institution

IAAC

Joris Laarman Lab

project type

research

material

mud

steal

application

shell structures

on site construction pedestrian bridge

advantages

mechanical strength (inc. tensile reinforcements) natural materials possibility to use materials found on site

on-site scalability (builders climb on erecting structure) no support structures (moves on its own print) high mechanical strength (metal) high variety in form

disadvantages

scalability (limited to robotic arm reach) precision (spray-based technique) form limited to support structure

reduced mobility (prints its own rails) slow construction speed economically expensive process and materials

additive fabrication techniques

PHRIENDS _MUDSHELLS

The term 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, refers to the process of creating 3D objects by a successive material deposition in 3D layers. Perhaps the most important feature of additive manufacturing lies in the “additive” component, meaning that the manufacturing process does not directly generate waste, which is the case with subtractive manufacturing. Early Additive Manufacturing technology started being developed during the 1980s and in 1983 American engineer Chuck Hull, also known as the father of 3D printing, invented the first stereolithographic machine (3D printing), the “SLA-1” which was patented in 1986. With the invention, Hull came up with the term “Rapid Prototyping” because it was designed specifically to speed up the process of creating prototypes. The machine works by projection an ultraviolet laser beam on a photosensitive liquid polymer. The polymer hardens when exposed to the laser beam and the desired shape is created by repeating this process layer by layer with small steps and high precision. [21]

Figure 58,59: 3D printed building components

The additive manufacturing technology was an instant success and caught the attention of many important researchers and inventors who saw further development potential, both in small and big scale. During more recent years the technology has made its way into the construction industry and has been an important field of research occupying many research institutions around the world, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Southern California, Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia and many others. In the field of additive manufacturing there have been research projects based on a vast variety of techniques and materials, from traditional 3D printing with thermoplastics to more innovative materials including construction waste, biomaterials, mud and sand. In this research work the techniques are divided into 3 groups – plastics, stony materials and metals.

on-site land-based robots

Figures 60: Artistic impression of completed project

3.3.1. PLASTICS 3D PRINTED CANAL HOUSE

The 3D printed Canal House by Dutch company DUS Architects is a three-year long publically accessible project based around the 3D printing a full-size house in Amsterdam. Apart from the innovation within 3d printing itself, the project performs as an instrument of communication and a media speaker aiming to revolutionize the building industry. The building site was designed as a interactive exhibition space open to the public with the entire construction process chain exposed – design, material, construction, installation, and software. Without a clearly defined initial design, the building is developing at the same time as its construction is progressing. The 3D printed Canal House consists of 13 different rooms composed of various elements. The components in the house were printed with a large scale FDM printer called KamerMaker, developed by DUS Architects themselves.

Figure 61: The different modules that compose the house

The KamerMaker, meaning “room constructor” in Dutch, was located inside a vertically positioned shipping container. The head of the printer was considerably increased in size (with respect to a traditional 3D printers), which allowed for deposition of polymer with layers up to five times thicker. The printer used recycled plastic as material and could print elements with a dimension of 2x2x3.5m in almost any site imaginable.

Figure 62, 63 and 64: The 3D printer used for the project

additive fabrication techniques

The 3D Printed Canal House was not meant as a proposal for a new construction method but rather an installation representing innovation, challenges and the future of construction manifested in a 1:1 scaled model of the typical canal house. [21], [22]

MATAERIAL (MX3D-RESIN) Another innovative technique of additive fabrication using plastic material is presented in the research project “Mataerial”. This 3D printing method was designed as collaboration between Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia (IAAC) students Petr Novikov and Sasa Jokic and Dutch design studio Joris Laarman Studio. The fabrication system called MX3D, unlike normal 3D printers does not require a flat and horizontal base, but prints plastic that sticks to a wide range of surfaces, be it horizontal, vertical, smooth or irregular. This eliminates the need for additional support structures and theoretically allows for creating 3D objects on any given working surface. Consequently the project was referred to with the term “antigravity object modeling”, and its most notable innovation is the use of thermosetting polymers instead of thermoplastics, used in traditional 3D printers. Due to the careful calibration of the chemical reaction between the source components and the extrusion speed, the material dries out immediately once being extruded out of the nozzle.

“In our vision, Mataerial can be applied in different fields, from furniture and architecture manufacturing to desktop and space 3d printing.” Mataerial design team. [23]

on-site land-based robots

Figure 65-68: Printing 3D objects on different working planes (horisontal and vertical)

Figure 69

The desired shape is created by the user in CAD software and then transformed into 3D curves describing the shape, which are then converted into movement paths for the robotic arm. Aside from the ability to build onto vertical surfaces, the robotic arm can move in any direction during the construction process to create more natural curves. The thickness of the printed curve can be scaled down to less than a millimeter and can also be adjusted during the printing process, by changing the speed of the movement. Recently the MX3D have been developing their fabrication system to apply it for 3D printing with metal, attaching to the robot a traditional wire welder. This brought them to the possibility of 3D printing metal structures without the need of scaffoldings. As a demonstration of the systemsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; future potential, Joris Laarman Studio are working on the proposal to print a metal bridge over a canal in Amsterdam, a project that will be further analyse in the end of this chapter. [23], [24]

Figure 70

additive fabrication techniques

Figure 71: Proposal for an outdoor pavilion printed by Mataerial

3.3.2. STONY MATERIALS D-SHAPE

D-Shape is the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first large-scale construction 3D printer developed by Enrico Dini, founder of Monolite UK Ltd. The printer was designed with an ambition to be applied in landscaping, architecture, interior design and sculpturing. It is a 3D printer that uses a contour printing process to bind sand with an inorganic seawater- and magnesium based binder to create stone-like objects. The first model of the D-Shape printer was patented in 2006 and it used epoxy resin as an adhesive. It was not until 2008 that it again patented using the magnesium-based binder. The machine consists of a rigid 4x4m aluminium frame, a square base that moves along the vertical beams and the printer head, which is spanning the horizontal 6m base and is equipped by 300nozzles- each spaced 20mm apart.

printing process A CAD-CAM software drives the printer during the building process, which involves scanning of the surface and applying the binder. A 3D model is sent to the printer head and divided into 2-D slices. A layer of sand with a thickness of 5-10 mm is mixed with the binder and evenly distributed in the area enclosed by the frame. Starting from the bottom slice, the head moves across the base and deposits the liquid binding, which chemically reacts with the sand shaping a sandstone like object which solidifies completely in about 24 hours. Once one layer is finished, the base is moved upwards and a new layer of sand is distributed into the frame area before starting to print the next layer. The excess sand acts as support for the structure while solidifying and can be reused later on for printing. The process continues until the whole structure is completely printed. Following, the completed structure is extracted by removing the excess sand and revealing the final product. Figure 72-74: 3D printer developed by Enrico Dini

deposition of sand and binder Spreading and flattening sand layer Placing binder in 2-4 passes Placing new sand layer (each layer-5mm)

curing and finishing Removal of the supporting powder bed Post-infiltration with extra binder Sanding & polishing

on-site land-based robots

structural behaviour

Due to the performance of the solid magnesium oxide (MgO) binder, the D-Shapeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s structures operate with a relatively high resistance to tensions when comparing to concrete and do not require iron reinforcement. The magnesium binder causes the sand to become an active structural participant by tightly binding it together which consequently differentiates its structural behaviour from that of concrete.

Figure 75 and 76: The contour construction process and finished structure

In terms of construction time this building process is reported to take a quarter of the time and a third to a half of the cost compared to traditional means using Portland cement, the material currently most used in construction. [25], [26]

lunar construction The European Space Agency (ESA) showed interest in using the D-Shape printing technique to build a moon base out of moon dust. The interest was mainly due to the capabilities the system has demonstrated for building on site without human intervention. The D-Shape has made successful experiments of printing components with simulated moon dust and simulations of how the printer would work in the harsh moon environment. [27]

additive fabrication techniques

Figure 77-80: Some of the objects created with the D-Shape printer

CONTOUR CRAFTING Contour Crafting is a fused deposition modeling technique, mostly used for 3D printing (layering) large-scale designs, using materials such as concrete and clay. It was developed by Iranian engineer Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles- one of the pioneer institutions in the field of additive fabrication for construction. Dr. Khoshnevis started development of his first machine with the aim of creating a technology for fast and economic erection of houses after an earthquake in 2003 that brought massive destruction to his hometown Bam in Iran. For this investigation, Dr. Khoshnevis started the Center for Rapid Automated Fabrication Technologies (CRAFT) inside the UCL. The Contour Crafting technology is based on a traditional Iranian construction system based on fabrication in layers, which is brought to the next level by replacing the manpower with CNC robots. The automated construction technology uses pasty materials of high performance, such as concrete, gypsum or mud. The first prototypes were small sized machine, meant for printing small objects and experimenting with different materials. During the years, the machines have grown in scale, which permits them to start printing various architectural elements, such as walls or columns in a 1:1 scale. The technology permits creating not only shapes based on straight lines, but also more complex, curved structures. In the future, the system can be integrated with other robotic systems, giving it good potential for automating the whole construction process, including installation of sub-components such as electrical wiring, plumbing, air-conditioning systems and structural reinforcement. Using a quickly setting material, walls printed layer by layer are topped off by floors and ceilings set in place by the crane and a single house may be automatically constructed in a single run. [28], [29] Figure 81-83

on-site land-based robots

Figure 84: Proposal for the big scale Contour Crafting machine, based on big portico moving along the rails, for printing the whole building directly on site

Figure 85: Proposal for construction of moon bases, using the Contour Crafting technique

Lunar construction with Contour Crafting? Dr. Khoshnevis is currently working with NASA to develop the Contour Crafting technique for the construction of moon bases. In 2013 they funded a small study at the University of Southern California to further develop the 3D printing technique experimenting with on-site materials. Khoshnevis says that CC technology could potentially be constructing lunar structures composed of 90% of lunar material and only 10% of material transported from Earth. [30]

Figure 86-90

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Machine is now capable of printing concrete walls, insulation and even drywall. Widespread usage expected by 2020, and 3D printed high-rises by 2025.â&#x20AC;? [29] additive fabrication techniques

Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis.

STONE SPRAY

-structures hard as rock -works in multiple directions -material flow is controllable Figure 91 and 92

Differently from most other additive fabrication techniques, the Stone Spray project is exploring 3D printing possibilities without material layering. The system works by mixing a granular material (sand) with a high resistance liquid binder, which is applied with a nozzle spray to form the stalactite like structures. Thanks to the use of lightweight sand granules, gravity does not affect the manufacturing process. The use of the 5-axis robotic arm permits the creation of freeform multidirectional structures. The structural performance of the structure depends on the proportional relation between the thickness and length of a single stalactite. In order to understand its potential in the construction industry, a series of structures were manufactured experimenting with different scale and proportions.

material mix Hard mix - 95% sand and 5% cement by volume Liquid mix - water and polypavement in a proportional mix FInal series - 15% Liquid mix + 85% Hard mix

on-site land-based robots

Figure 93-97

material deposition The spraying nozzle is based on an aerograph gun connected to the container filled with sand. The sand container consists of a plastic tube connected to a compressor. Air pressure is used to push the sand through the nozzle. Deposition speed can be adjusted.

Figure 98: nozzle

The liquid binder, pushed out of the needle, mixes with the sprayed sand outside the nozzle. This material binding system helps resolve clogging in the plastic tubes and permits great precision and control over the fabrication process. Figure 99: sand feeder

Figure 100: material deposition system

Figure 101: robotic arm - 5 degrees of freedom

computer simulations Simulating the growth of the materials helps to generate optimized structures and to predict the final fabrication outcome by taking into consideration parameters like external loads, self weight, and environmental conditions. When the basic geometry is generated, it undergoes a series of tests to optimize itself based on load distribution. [31], [32]

additive fabrication techniques

Figure 102: Artistic impression of Stone Spray structures

MINIBUILDERS The Minibuilders project aims proposes a system that is both scalable and capable of fabricating structures using tools that are independent of the final productâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shape or size.

Figure 103-106: Construction sequence

So far we have seen a number of research works based on the development large and heavy robot systems set out to do multiple tasks. However all of them, besides being able to construct even the most complex structures on site, have a common drawback: the scale of the structure they are creating will stay limited by the size of the machine and the height limit it can reach. Some research projects have been looking at this condition, one of them being the Minibuilders project, developed by Sasa Jokic and Petr Noviko, students at the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia (IAAC). The idea of the design team was to develop a system based on a family of small-scale mobile construction robots capable of 3d printing objects far larger than the robots itself. The Minibuilder lineup consists of three different robotic devices, each with dimensions no larger than 42cm. Each of the robots performs different construction tasks and is working together with the rest of the family towards a single structural outcome. -Marble power and thermosetting polymer mix -Swarm concept (family of small scale robots) -Printing objects larger than the robots itself -Each robot perfors different construction task

on-site land-based robots

Figure 107

2.Controller

3.Material supply

1.Positioning device

4.Power source

The different robotic units in the family are listed as follows: Footprint

Figure 108: Footprint

The construction of the object starts with the 3d printed foundation layers, performed by one or more foundation robots, each one measuring only 35x37x26cm.These units print the first 20 layers of the structure and can move according to a preprogrammed path or back and forth. To keep their size small, the units do not physically carry the material they deposit but is being fed from a larger supplier robot moving around with them. The foundation robots use tracks to move around along with a sensor to positioning sensor which enables moving on the right path.

Walls

Figure 109: Walls

After the base structure is finished printed, Grip Robots can be clamped onto the structure, to build further on the structure by depositing new layers of material. They do this by 3d printing while clamping and holding onto to the layers that have already been printed with. These robots are slightly larger than the others, measuring 40x42x30 cm, , in order to give them a wider base and so that they extrusion nozzle can move freely from side to side. The fact that the extrusion nozzle can shift from side to side is whats allowing them to create curved walls. For the robots to be able to firmly clamp onto the structure the curing time of the 3d printed material is a highly relevant parameter. For this reason, the grip robots are equipped with hot air heaters to better control the curing time of the layers.

Ceilings

Figure 110: Ceilings

The grip of these robots is strong and the curing speed of the material is fast enough for them to perform horizontal printing. These robots can print ceilings and window/door lintels.

Reinforcement

Figure 112: Foundation Robot

Figure 113: Grip Robot

Figure 114: Vacuum Robot

additive fabrication techniques

Figure 111: Reinforcement

In order to reinforce the shell structure, vacuum robots attach onto it and print additional layers over it. The vacuum robots use vacuum suction cups to grip onto the surface, travelling across the structure and printing reinforcement layers where necessary. These support layers do not need to be parallel to the main layers but can be applied in any direction. Vacuum Robots can move over surfaces of any inclination and give additional structural strength for larger object. [33], [34]

PHRIENDS _MUDSHELLS Another interesting application of robotics in construction is the mudshell technique where robots are used not to place components with a millimeter precision but rather a controlled spray application of different natural materials. During the Phriends for Shells robotic fabrication Seminar in 2016, students at the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia (IAAC) in Barcelona fabricated 5 earthen shells with perforations and non uniform thickness. The students first designed and erected temporary formwork consisting of slender bamboo branches and lycra textile mounted on a MDF baseboard. Using a Kuka robotic arm, the formwork was sprayed layer by layer with slightly different mixes of mud, containing a varying degree woodchip residues acting as reinforcement fibers. Intermediate layers of jute fibers were applied manually in between the spray layers as a way to give the shell more resistance against tensile forces. The process was repeated until the shells had reached a thickness of around 3 centimeters. Photogrammetric 3d scanning as a way to evaluate the mechanical deformations acting on the formwork during the process, detecting critical points and do adjustments to the robot strategies accordingly. As a final step, the original formwork was separated and removed from the mudshell. By combining an ancient earth construction technique with cutting edge robotic technology, this project raises discussions on how future construction practice can allow for the erection of buildings using materials sourced from the site itself- bringing a whole new meaning to the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;0km materialâ&#x20AC;?. The direct implementation of materials found on site introduces a whole new range of possibilities with regards to material usage and resource efficiency. A swarm of smaller robots can facilitate laborious and heavy earth construction tasks, allowing the use of more local cultural craft in large structures. [35]

on-site land-based robots

Figure 119: Finished prototype

Figure 115-118: Roobotic construction sequence

Figure 120

Figure 121

Figure 122-129

FABRICATION PROCESS: temporary formwork (erection) Slender bamboo branches and lycra textile mounted on a MDF baseboard

mud application (1) Light mud spray and manual mud application

Robotic light mud spray and Robotic earth/fiber spray

temporary formwork (removal) Manual removal of temporary framework

additive fabrication techniques

mud application (2)

3.3.3. METALS “Lines can be printed that intersect in order to create a self-supporting structure. This method makes it possible to create 3D objects on any given working surface independent of its inclination and smoothness in almost any size and shape.” Joris Laarman [36]

The MX3D-Metal is a continuation of a previously seen MX3D-Resin fabrication technology for “anti-gravity object modeling”, using fast curing resin (see project ‘Mataerial’ on page 20) applied for 3D printing metal structures. Dutch designer Joris Laarman launched a company called MX3D to develop the technology which includes programming the robotic arms with the welding machines. Similarly to the Mataerial project, the new MX3D fabrication technology allows for 3D printing complex multidirectional structures without the need of additional supports, basically on any given working plane. The MX3D-Metal 3D printing technology is based on a multi-axis industrial robot equipped with an advanced welding machine and custom software controlling the production process. It can print with metals such as steel, stainless steel, aluminum, bronze and copper. The robot works both as a printer and a welder. By adding small amounts of molten metal the robot is able to print double curved lines in midair and create 3D objects in almost any size and shape, freeing it from the ‘square box’ limitations of traditional 3D printing.

on-site land-based robots

The developed software and printing parameters allows for the different kinds of 3D printable lines, such as vertical, horizontal or spiraling lines, which can also be intersected in order to create a self- supporting structure.

Figure 130-132: KUKA robotic arm equiped an advanced welding machine

Figure 133 and 134: The Dragon Bench - the first sculptural piece created with the MX3D metal printer.

MX3D-METAL BRIDGE “We can 3D print metals and also resin in mid-air, without the need for support structures. With our MX3D Bridge project we will showcase how digital fabrication is finally entering the world of large scale, functional objects made of durable materials.” MX3D design team [37]

Figure 135 and 136: An illustration for The Canal Bridge project

As a demonstration of the systems’ future potential, Joris Laarman Studio is working on a proposal for printing a metal bridge across one of Amsterdam’s canals. The project is a collaboration between Joris Laarman Studio, the 3D printing R&D firm MX3D, design software company Autodesk and construction firm Heijmans. The canal bridge will be printed in steel, although the technique can also be used to print with other metals such as copper or aluminum. The entire construction process will take place in a former shipbuilding hangar at the NDSM shipyard in Amsterdam. The final product will measure eight meters in length, four meters in width and will be transported to the site.

Figure 137: An ABB robotic arm equiped with an advanced welding machine

“What distinguishes our technology from traditional 3D printing methods is that we work according to the ‘printing outside the box’ principle. By printing with 6-axis industrial robots, we are no longer limited to a square box in which everything happens.” - Tim Geurtjens, CTO of MX3D [39]

additive fabrication techniques

During the fabrication process, the robots will use specially designed arms, which heat up the metal to 15000 °C for welding the structure. According to the design team, the robots will print their own railsupports and gradually move forward on it and create the bridge structure. Its construction is planned to be completed in 2017. [36], [37], [38]

on-site land-based robots

3.4. CONCLUSIONS

1. During this chapter, we have seen the application of bricklaying robots for both traditional and advanced brick constructions. Apart from increasing efficiency and economy, these inventions open up a new range of possibilities in brick construction. 2. This is something we see in the projects by Gramazio & Kohler. They show how using computer calculation and simulation in bricklaying, one can improve not only cost efficiency but also building performance while adding dynamics and plasticity to the architecture. This boils down to the robots’ ability to place each brick precisely at the right position and angle according to the programmes parameters- operations that human labourers typically cannot perform. 3. We also see scenarios where automated robots allow for the revival of traditional and ancient construction techniques. During the different industrial revolutions in the more developed parts of the world, traditional labor, intensive and repetitive construction techniques have been replaced by industrial construction methods based on prefabricated, standardized buildings components. This has led to a great loss in diversity of local and vernacular construction techniques on a global scale. These lost techniques are not only of historical and cultural value but often represent a sustainable option because they have been developed over long periods of time along with climatical and cultural conditions. New autonomous robotic systems offer an invitation to recuperate some of these techniques by solving the problem of the required intensive and repetitive labor that deemed the techniques redundant in the first place. Further, we might see cases where traditional techniques get merged with and enhanced by digital technology to form new, hybrid forms that are superior to the original. 4. Differently from the bricklaying robots, the inventions based on 3D printing introduce a totally new paradigm in construction. 3D printing changes the construction game from being about the assembly of heavy, prefabricated and standardized building components to a process of ‘printing’ or ‘extruding’ a customized design on site. This shift from mass production to ‘mass customization’ not only allows for an incredible increase in construction efficiency but represents another step towards fully automated construction processes. 5. 3D printing is also interesting from a material point of view because it opens up the possibility to use sustainable materials found on site such as mud and clay and materials coming from recycled waste. 6. In addition to creating new possibilities within sustainable construction, 3D printing, being a CNC based technology, allows for a whole new range of digital forms and topological complexity in architecture. 7. That being said, most of the different 3D printing technologies are still at their early development stage and we might have to wait just a little longer before seeing widespread commercial application.

conclusions

8. In general, the main challenges that the land-based robotic construction systems face (apart from individual materiality or technique questions) relate to their mobility on site and their intelligence in adapting and reacting autonomously to their surrounding construction environment.

4. ON-SITE AERIAL ROBOTS CURRENT PRACTICE

4.1. KNOWN CHALLENGES

on-site aerial robots

Though their application is relatively new in the construction industry, drones are getting ever more construction in the field with new applications being seen regularly.

4.1.1. PAYLOAD CAPACITY

Payload capacity is always a more relative issue in the case of aerial units. Because they are aerial, a higher amount of energy is required for them to lift objects off the ground. Modern quadcopters operate with a payload capacity of around 0.5 to 1.5 kg in addition to its own weight. Their application is therefore relatively limited, at least in terms of handling and placing components. However, drones are increasingly being used for other construction tasks that do not require handling high loads, such as site mapping and construction progress inspection. Nonetheless, this does not mean that drones can never be used as actuators. Instead applying drones to conventional construction techniques, several recent research projects are turning the problem around by proposing new lightweight construction systems specially adapted to the nature of the drone. This is illustrated in this thesis by the projects Tower Assembly and Tensile Structures by Gramazio & Kohler.

4.1.2. PRECISION AND STABILITY

The relatively low self weight of drones makes them particularly sensitive to changes in wind and air pressure. As of today, drones cannot offer similar precision as land based robots which is another reason why they are not being used for handling and placing objects but rather analytical and monitoring tasks. Many modern drones are equipped with automatic counterbalance algorithms which use GPS together with air- and wind pressure sensors to keep the drone on its pre programmed track. However this technology is in its early days and, as land based robots, depends largely on future advancements in artificial intelligence.

4.1.3. BATTERY CAPACITY

It is also worth mentioning that there is a relationship between the weight the drone is carrying and how long the battery lasts. The more weight it carries, the faster the battery is drained. So why not increase the battery capacity by installing a larger battery pack? The answer lies in point 4.1.1. : batteries are heavy and installing a larger battery pack without increasing the size of the drone, will drastically decrease its payload capacity.

known challenges

Because of their freedom of movement, drones cannot be hooked up to a power supply, and relies on batteries to power the rotors. The motors driving the rotors require large amounts energy, especially if the unit is carrying an auxiliary load. Therefore, the drones need to be charged with relatively short intervals, offering certain challenges in the construction process.

SKYCATCH

TOWER ASSEMBLY

year

2013-2016

2011

institution

Skycatch

Gramazio & Kohler Research Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control

project type

comercial

research

application

site aerial mapping data collection

construction elements assembly

advantages

on-site aerial robots

real time data update reduces land surveying time and cost swarm system (communicates with other drones and terrestrial construction machines) has been performing outdoors

working in shifts with other swarm members (permiting constant workflow) cooperation between multiple flying robots high-rise construction

disadvantages

battery capacity drones only analytical, not involved in assembly

battery capacity low payload capacity depends on Local Positioning System (LPS) only been tested indoors

ARCAS

year

2015

2011-2015

institution

Gramazio & Kohler Research Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control

Coordinator institution: FADA-CATEC (Center for Advanced Aerospace Technologies)

project type

research

application

tensile bridge construction

construction elements assembly

advantages

performing tasks of high complexity taking advantage of low payload capacity cooperation between multiple flying robots construction technique adapted to drone abilities

aerial perception both indoors and outdoors cooperation between multiple flying robots drones with assembly capabilites (7-axis robotic arms) monitoring drone equipped with camera fast and robust object detection / recognition been tested both indoors and outdoors drones with assembly capabilites

disadvantages

battery capacity depends on Local Positioning System (LPS) only been tested indoors

low payload capacity intensive computational process

current practice-case studies

TENSILE STRUCTURES

4.2. SITE AERIAL MAPPING

Over the last few decades, the application of small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) has started to appear in various fields of the construction industry. Due to the need for greater maneuverability and hovering ability research on UAVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s has been focused on quadcopters- helicopters propelled by four or more rotors, which are used in independent speed variations to achieve optimal control over the unit. Compared to other hover-capable flying robots, quadcopters offer an excellent compromise between payload capabilities, agility, and robustness. Although being relatively simple in their design quadcopters are highly reliable and maneuverable. Continuous research is further improving their abilities including multi-craft communication (also known as swarm intelligence), environment exploration, increased maneuverability and autonomy. In construction applications, because of their special attributes and the relatively low payload capacity, UAVs have been widely used for construction tasks not requiring the handling of high loads such as site mapping and construction progress inspection. With the help of automated drones, a contractor can analyse progress on a construction site far quicker than with other techniques based on human tracking. Furthermore, a swarm of multiple drones permits a full overview of the whole construction site in real time. In the construction site of the today, drones can regularly whirl overhead, constantly taking photos, keeping the construction managers abreast of progress. In addition to that, aerial vehicles are able to easily reach any part of the building, which might even be inaccessible for a human worker. This allows managers to keep track of progress and identify any issues early and consequently improve the quality of the work. By negating the need for expensive and heavy-duty safety equipment the robots are saving time and money, while also delivering precise information more reliably than is otherwise possible.

on-site aerial robots

Aerial data collected by drones can also be combined with image processing software to visualize energy losses throughout entire neighbourhoods. The collected data is presented as thermal maps, which makes it easier to identify which buildings should be renovated to become more energy efficient.

Figure 138-140: Different types of commercially available UAVs

SKYCATCH

Skycatch is a San Francisco based drone service provider and one of the leading companies for industrial UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) performing tasks such as data collection, data imaging and analysis. They have recently started partnering up with Japanese construction equipment firm Komatsu with the aim of automating construction sites worldwide. Facing the shortage of construction labor needed to satisfy the demand related to the upcoming Tokyo 2020 Olympics, Komatsu has moved to the use of automated aerial vehicles to speed the construction process by fully eliminating the need for human surveyors to draw the maps that guide the automated construction vehicles. A fleet of drones are continuously hovering around the construction site, scanning the terrain and tracking the movement of the massive volumes of soil and cement moving around the site. This information is fed in real time to the autonomous, unmanned vehicles on the ground. This model consisting of an interconnected system of autonomous robots is not just changing the construction method but also the business model for the actors involved. Skycatch and Komatsu are now planning to launch a new concept where instead of selling construction equipment to its customers, it is leased for jobs at a time with operators overseeing the job form a remote location. Komatsu had already been experimenting with autonomous construction units for several years but found that they alone lacked, “the ability to see and understand the environment around them with enough precision to be useful on their own”. The inclusion of drones became a game changer as these units can effectively do the job of mapping and analyzing the construction site with speed and precision, a job that being done by a human team was considered as a slow and imprecise method.

Figure 141-144: The Skycatch System site aerial mapping

“With the former, traditional method, it takes about two weeks, on average, to survey a certain piece of land,” says Kenishi Nishihara, a project manager with the Smart Construction division. “Meanwhile with Skycatch it can be completely down within one day, or even 30 minutes.” [40], [41], [42]

4.3. CONSTRUCTION BY DRONES

FLIGHT ASSEMBLED TOWER We have seen that drones are great construction site inspectors, but could swarms of these flying robots also be used to construct buildings? Recently this hypothesis went from being just a utopian concept to the first steps towards reality. This brings us back to the work of Fabio Gramazios and Matthias Kohlers research team, which are also pioneers in the research of flying architecture assembly. Flight Assembled Architecture was a collaboration between the Gramazio & Kohler Research group, engineer Raffaello D’Andrea and ETH Zürich (Institute for Dynamic System and Control) presented at the FRAC Centre in Orléans in 2011 as the first groundbreaking installation autonomously assembled by aerial robots. It was the first collaborative project between Gramazio & Kohler and Raffaelo D’Andrea, a professor of dynamic systems and control at ETH Zurich and since then the teams has been collaborating on many other research projects related to UAVs and construction. The 6 meters high and 3.5 meters wide tower installation consists of over 1500 polystyrene foam bricks assembled by a swarm of UAVs. The construction of the installation is fully operated by the drone swarm that is working according to a mathematical algorithm that translates the digital design into behavior for the drones. modularity and mobility Modularity and mobility were two most important features of the installation. The system had to first be tested in the workshop space and then easily transported and reassembled in the exhibition space. Modularity allowed for easy integration of navigation system ensuring the collision-free trajectories for multiple vehicles and incorporation of charging stations, crucial for UAVs to enable the system to run continuously for many hours. In addition to that, modularity facilitates the network of quadcopters (multirotor helicopters) with incorporation of 3 simple tasks to be performed: gripping, transporting and placing 90-gram polyurethane foam modules to place. safety Another important issue for the installation was safety. During the assembly process the audience was standing close to the structure with no safety nets bounding the space. Bringing quadcopters out from the laboratory to the exhibition space required the system to be designed with a high degree of responsiveness and robustness in order to achieve similar safe and precise navigation patterns as in the laboratory space.

on-site aerial robots

Figure 145: : On of the assembly drones lifting a brick.

Figure 146: The structure close to completion

The autonomous tower assembly system was divided into four subsystems: blueprint

crew

The blueprint being a plain text file containing a list of placement instructions - position and orientation of each element in the tower given in relative coordinates (vertical position relative to the tower floor). Such a system allows each element to be placed at the exact vertical position calculated at runtime based on the current position of the tower, independently of the variable thickness of the adhesive bonding thickness.

The crew system is responsible for executing the build orders, issued by the foreman for structure assembly. It consists of a group of four quadcopters controlled by a central software. Two units are performing the construction task while other two are recharging their batteries. The crew, based on the battery level of each quadcopter and the current placement instructions from the foreman, organizes the tasks of the fleet, sends the commands to the available vehicle and reports it to the foreman. In addition to that, the crew uses a space reservation system to ensure that the quadcopters do not collide with each other or with the structure being built.

foreman

pick up station The pick up station is an intermediate interface where the operators manually provide the robotic crew with construction elements.

Communicates Element Insertion

ate nds din a or mm Co Co ild

Crew

Pickup Station

Ele Loa me d nt s

Module

I s s ue d N e

Foreman

Operators

s lie s pp nt Su eme El

Is s

N ue d

a nd mm Co

Blueprint

Is Loaded by

s la y s sp es Di rogr P

nd Char ging ma Station m

The foreman manages the overall construction process and issues the build orders by abstracting the overall construction process into individual tasks, which permits the quadcopters to focus on execution of a single task at a time and improve the resilience against system failure. It also serves as a graphical interface to the system through which operators can manage the construction process.

ew C omm an d

Placement Pic kup Pic kup Station

Tra

je c to r y G e n e

tio

n To wer

Figure 147 and 148: The subsystems of the tower assembly system

picking up elements

placing elements

The polyurethane foam modules are carried by means of grippers attached to the bottom of quadcopters. Once the vehicle has picked up the module from the pick up station its additional payload is estimated and taken into account during the flight.

High placing velocities and faster landings were chosen in order to avoid the negative effects that turbulence around the structure creates on low impact velocities and gentler landings.

trajectory planning Assembly trajectory planning is crucial during construction tasks with vehicle performance and consists of three subsystems: 1. Space reservation system. 2. Waypoint 3. Trajectory generation

Once again Gramazio & Kohler Research pushed the boundaries and showed the possibilities that drones can offer when collaborating in groups, they also managed in a clever way to overcome their limitations (such as limited battery time) while taking advantage of their strong sides. “It showed that, on the one hand, these machines can collaborate to build structures,” he explains. “On the other hand, it showed that they can actually work on a building scale.” Ammar Mirjan, Garmazio & Kohler Research at ETH Zurich. [43]

construction by drones

The assembly process is composed of three main categories:

TENSILE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION By nature, drones have certain attributes that distinguish them from conventional construction machinery including most of the types presented in the previous chapter. Due to their size and ability to fly, their main advantage is that they can easily and quickly move from one place to another and that they are able to access areas that are inaccessible for other vehicles. This eliminates one of the biggest limitations of robotic construction: the scalability. They can also be equipped with different tools which allow them to transport and manipulate materials in different ways while working in swarms to perform tasks of high complexity, which are otherwise impossible to complete for a single robot.

node The node is defined as a point of intersection of a linear construction element (rope or cable) with another object or with itself.

However, aerial robots have certain limitations, the main one being their relatively low payload capacity. One construction method that fits well with the characteristics and constraints of drones is lightweight tensile structures. This was the basis for another investigation developed by Raffaello D’Andrea’s from Zürich’s Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control and Gramazio Kohler Research presenting how flying machines can be programmed to weave simple tensile structures in the air. A rope bridge able to support the weight of a human was assembled by quadcopters, spanning 7.4 m between two scaffolding structures. The bridge consists of nine rope segments with a total rope length of about 120 m and is composed of different elements, such as knots, links, and braids. Based on the preprogramed flying routes of each quadcopter collaborating to work as a swarm, the flying vehicles construct a set of nodes and links that form the bridge structure. This aerial rope bridge installation shows for the first time that small flying machines are capable of autonomously realizing load-bearing structures at full-scale. And as they are capable of accessing practically any place, they might in the future be applied for constructing bridges over rivers, mountain ranges, between high rise buildings or in emergency environments that are otherwise inaccessible. Below is a review of the project in individual segments and the basic concepts related to the quadcopters during the tensile bridge construction. [44], [45]

on-site aerial robots

Figure 149 - 152: The construction principle and the first human load test

link A rope spanned between two structural support points generates a link Link properties depend on the trajectory flown by the vehicles. Vehicles automatically orient themselves along the cable direction, allowing for a smooth cable deployment. The tension of each link is defined parametrically.

Figure 154 and 155: The heading of the vehicle plays an important role for the correct deployment of the rope

Figure 153: Braids in relation to the minimum amount of vehicles needed for their realization.

control points

multivehicle cooperation-swarm concept

The quadcopters must fly through the control points (red) at the same time. The red arrows indicate the desired velocity at the control points.

Digital control of the robots enables the vehicles to communicate and synchronize their actions among themselves. -The machines can collaborate to lift particularly heavy loads. -Perform building tasks an individual machine could not accomplish alone, independently of the payload capacity. The flying robots can have complementary abilities with different skills

static and dynamic supports 1. Already existing structural elements are static supports. 2.The flying vehicles guiding the rope from one static support to another are dynamic supports.

-Working with multiple vehicles creates additional challenges. Despite the difficulties, the cooperative performance of multiple flying machines widens the spectrum of possibilities in architectural production.

construction by drones

Figure 156: Construction process

ARCAS (AERIAL ROBOTICS COOPERATIVE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM) In previous research projects, such as the ones done by Gramazio & Kohler, drones are given relatively simple task such as, grab and drop. The main groundbreaking feature of ARCAS research project (?) is the combination of drones and 7 degrees of freedom robotic arms or “manipulators”.

Figure 157: ARCAS outdoor aerial robot

This is interesting because it can allow the drones to not only pick and drop objects in the vertical z-axis, but also performing operations parallel to the horizontal XY-plane. This drastically enhances the capability of the drones and opens up for a new range of possible applications in construction.

Over several years the ARCAS team has done an extensive research on control algorithms and mechanical control for the use of robotic arms of drones. Experiments have been done both on indoor and outdoor test fields and with a variety of different drones and robotic arms. In typical ARCAS experiments, the drones have to work alone or together to assemble simple structures made of lightweight plastic components. The main challenge lies in the computational aspect when calibrating, controlling and coordinating all the different mechanical components that a drone with a robotic manipulator relies on to perform assembly tasks. The ARCAS project also focuses on what they call the “integrated planning approach”, being scenarios where one or several robots are needed to monitor the assembly task that is being performed. In focusing on this approach they align themselves with the “swarm mentality” (a family of multiple collaborating robots), a popular topic in many current academic settings. In the ARCAS project they have been doing tests where a small drone, equipped with a camera monitors, gives feedback to another assembly robot during the insertion of a bar in a structure. Another ambitious achievement set out by the ARCAS project is the research on cooperative transport, where two or more drones lift and handle the same object. They did experiments where two aerial manipulators cooperated to perform the complex task of grasping, transporting and releasing a 4.2m long horizontal plastic bar. To simulate more realistic construction site environments, the research team placed a series of obstacles on the test site, further complicating the trajectories of the So far, they have published an impressive amount of technical documentation and achieved important results, which is highly relevant for the continuous research on robotic construction. [46], [47]

on-site aerial robots

Figure 158: Monitoring task, executed by a small robot equipped with a camera, during the insertion of a bar in the structure by an aerial manipulator

Figure 159: Multicopter with a 7 joints arm performing grasping and transportation tasks

Figure 160: ARCAS indoor aerial robot

Figure 161: Cooperative vehicle-manipulator system

indoor scenario composed of: 1. ARCAS indoor aerial robots 2. A long bar to be transported cooperatively by two aerial robots 2. Two 3D structures to be placed in different locations and later on connected by a bar that 2 drones transport cooperatively

Figure 162: Final scenario for coordinated control for cooperative transportation

3. Obstacles to demonstrate multivehicle planning

Figure 163: Final demo of outdoor helicopterperforming grasping and transportation tasks

outdoor scenario composed of:

2. Metal object to be picked up 2. Markers for tracking and visual servoing to locate the object and grab it 3. A pickup magnet attached to the end effector

construction by drones

1. ARCAS double rotor helicopter with a comercial 7 joints arm

on-site aerial robots

4.4. CONCLUSIONS

1. Drones, because of their limitations in payload capacity and aerial stability when handling objects, are best suited for monitoring and analytical applications such as site aerial mapping, data imaging and analysis. Moreover, drones can play an important role in integrated construction schemes where they can be used to monitor and coordinate other (land-based) autonomous construction machines that have better payload and handling capabilities. 2. Extensive research is being done to try to overcome the drone’s limitations in payload capacity, aerial stability, precision and ‘assembly skills’. When these problems get solved, we might see drones taking on more tasks related to assembly and handling components. This, however, calls for new lightweight construction methods tailored around the capabilities of UAVs, instead of the other way around. 3. The fact that drones run on battery packs offer certain challenges relating to efficiency and continuous workflow. In addition, the battery life is relative to the load the drone carries: the heavier the payload, the shorter the battery lasts. Unless we see a revolutionary shift in battery technology, this has to be taken into consideration. In the Flight Assembled Tower project by Gramazio & Kohler, the battery charging strategy is a crucial part of the overall assembly strategy. They deal with the problem by having multiple drones working in shifts, so that some drones are always in the air while others charge their batteries. 4. Drones, because they are small and relatively cheap, are particularly interesting in terms of “swarm intelligence”. Similarly to ants, each drone is part of a larger, coherent system where each unit performs only one single task. If properly coordinated, the swarm approach offers increased efficiency, economy and a reduction in errors. In such a decentralized system where each unit has a low value, it is also cheaper to replace the individual units, offering increased flexibility.

conclusions

5. The research on pairing drones with robotic arms, such as in the ARCAS project, might lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in construction with UAV’s. In this project they do research on UAV’s that combine the better of two worlds: the agility and mobility of the drone and the precision and assembly skills of a robotic arm.

5. ROBOTS IN TEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE

robots in temporary architecture

5.1. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND PUBLIC SPACE

From the previous analysis of different robotic construction techniques we can conclude that, as of today, their capacity to construct is still somehow limited to more simple forms of construction. Some of them are still in an early experimental stage, while some have already been successfully applied in different types of construction. However, a scenario where robots autonomously complete fully operational buildings with structure, cladding, insulation and HVAC systems still proves difficult due to limitations in technology and precision. So far, Contour Crafting is the only robotic construction technique under development with the potential to support a fully automated construction process where all construction components are handled and assembled by robots. According to their website, “Contour Crafting technology has great potential for automating the construction of whole structures as well as sub-components. Using this process, a single house or a colony of houses, each with possibly a different design, may be automatically constructed in a single run, embedded in each house all the conduits for electrical, plumbing and airconditioning.” But even though the machine is successfully tested for with additive fabrication with concrete, it might take decades before it is ready to integrate other materials such as steel reinforcements in the printing process.

PUBLIC SPACES There are some types of construction where the application of robots is more practical and realistic, even in the near future. Temporary structures are one of these, as they are more flexible and don’t need to meet the strict requirements of the fully functioning buildings. These structures correspond well with the capabilities of robots because they are designed to be assembled and disassembled rapidly and often in a repetitive way. Examples are pop-up markets, small retail units, shading structures, seating areas, stages, etc.

With these criteria in mind, one can question why so many public spaces are characterized by rigidity and lack of flexibility in design and physical elements found in the site. Why should benches and seating areas be fixed elements if the use of a square suddenly changes from a leisure space to a concert area? Why should shading devices in a public space be permanent when they are only needed during a few summer months? In many cases the answer lies in the lack of funding for the maintenance and operation of these spaces as well as feasibility and political issues. One of the aims of this work is to address these planning and operational limitations by looking at how autonomous robots could be applied as new actors in the public space. Can the erection of temporary structures such as pop-up stores and restaurants be fully automated by robots in order to allow a higher degree of feasibility, cost- efficiency and flexibility?

temporary structures and public space

These are examples of structures commonly found in public spaces in which time and temporality are fundamental aspects. A square or park is subject to big changes in terms of use throughout a day or week. In planning public space there is always a presence of uncertainty and complexity in terms of use and volume of users. Said in other words, the design has to accommodate many different and often contrasting activities at different points in time and it is often not clear at the design stage how many people and actors are going to intervene in the space.

5.2. THE ROBOTS’ SUITABILITY FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES 5.2.1. MAIN CRITERIA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURES Not all robotic construction systems are equally flexible and capable of migrating within the city. Therefore, transportability between sites, as well as movability within the actual construction site are important factors to be taken into consideration when evaluating a robotic system’s suitability for temporary architecture. The adequate transportation method is chosen according to the robots weight, size and self-mobility, some examples of transportation methods are truck, trailer, shipping container and self-transporting which might be the case with drones. Another important criterion concerning temporary structures is the ability of the robot to move easily and quickly within the site. This ability also largely determines the size and complexity of the structure that the robot can build. Other factors included in the evaluation for suitability for temporary structures are: the robot’s ability to build diverse structures in terms of size and shape, construction speed, ease of assembly and disassembly, the structure’s degree of reusability and the footprint left behind on site when disassembled. Taking these factors into consideration, the following evaluation presents a comparison between each robots’ suitability for constructing temporary structures. The robotic construction techniques are evaluated as they are today. As a primary filter for the evaluation the techniques included are limited to those that have already successfully constructed something in human size or larger, excluding the techniques that are still in their early experimental stage. The reason for this is that many of the smaller and more experimental techniques are still far away from commercial standards and therefore lacks proper testing and technical information- making any comparison with other techniques difficult.

5.2.2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT ROBOTIC TECHNIQUES TRANSPORTABILITY (How

MOVABILITY ON SITE

easy it is to transport the

(How easy a robot can

whole system from one site

move on site?)

to another?) HADRIAN X SAM R-O-B

robots in temporary architecture

KAMER MAKER (CANAL HOUSE)

D-SHAPE CONTOUR CRAFTING MX3D-METAL UAVs - TOWER ASSEMBLY UAVs - TENSILE STRUCTURES

ROBOTS ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION Hadrian X SAM R-O-B Kamer Maker D-Shape Contour Crafting MX3D-Metal UAVs – tower assembly UAVs – tensile structures

ROBOTS IN THE EARLY EXPERIMENTAL STAGE Mataerial (MX3D-Resin) StoneSpray Minibuilders Phriends_Mudshells UAVs – ARCAS

REUSABILITY (how easy

robots build structures

it is to disassemble the

bigger than themselves?)

construction and reuse the

(yes - 10, no - 0)

original components?)

FINAL SCORE

yes

29/40

yes

27/40

yes

27/40

12/40

2/40

yes

19/40

yes

32/40

yes

36/40

the robots’ suitability for temporary structures

SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Can

HADRIAN X The Hadrian X is a mobile, road-capable robot, which permits easy transport from site to site as it can drive autonomously on any roads without the need for additional transportation machinery. Due to the robots’ relatively large size it is more suitable for construction in spacious areas and maneuverability within narrow streets seems difficult. In terms of maneuverability within the construction site, Hadrian X operates with a large working range due to its 30m long retractable telescopic boom connecting its main body to the robotic “hand”. This boom permits it to handle structures of any scale from a single position.

SAM AND R-O-B The robot SAM from Construction Robotics and the robot R-O-B from Gramazio & Kohler Architects share similar features and have therefore been given similar evaluation results. Both techniques are based around an industrial robotic arm housed in a transportable freight container. For transportation between locations the container needs to be mounted on a transportation truck, as it is not designed to drive long distances by itself. Referring to their maneuverability on site, they offer a relatively good flexibility. They can move around on site autonomously both on a horizontal axis (using their wheels) and a vertical axis (if mounted on scaffoldings). The SAM, the R-O-B and the Hadrian X are all robots mainly used for construction with bricks. Traditionally, brick constructions are not particularly easy to disassemble, but the use more easily dissolvable adhesives could facilitate the structures’ disassembly process. Apart from the adhesive, bricks are easy to be reused in many different compositions, because of their modularity.

KAMER MAKER The Kamer Maker robot is a 3D printing machine, also housed in a transportable freight container, which can be directly placed on a transportation truck when moving from site to site. Differently from the robot SAM and the robot R-O-B, the container is placed in a fixed vertical position and cannot move around by itself on site. The machine was designed to fabricate limited size construction modules on site, which are then assembled into the final structure. In this sense, there is with this system a need for additional mobile robots for the assembly of the 3d printed components. The reusability of the structure depends on the homogeneity of the modules, which could be applied in many different combinations. In order to dissolve the fabricated modules back into their raw material and be reused for 3D printing the new components, the use of biodegradable (engineered to break down more quickly) plastic is required.

robots in temporary architecture

D-SHAPE AND CONTOUR CRAFTING

Among the analysed case studies, the D-Shape and the Contour Crafting robots are the least suitable for temporary architecture. First of all, due to their big size and complexity in assembling and disassembling the machine itself, the robots are not suitable for quick transportation between sites. Moreover, these robots are not mobile but fixed in a single spot on site. Consequently, the structures that the D-Shape and the Contour Crafting robots fabricate are strictly limited in their dimensions, because they cannot exceed the size of the machine itself. In addition to that, the 3D printed structures are not fabricated for disassembly and they cannot be dissolved back to their raw material. Due to the monolithic character of the fabricated structure, this system is neither particularly good for reuse in another site.

MX3D-METAL MX3D-Metal is a fabrication technique based on an industrial robotic arm designed for 3D printing bridge-like structures without the need for scaffoldings. However its mobility on site is very limited because the robot itself depends on 3D printing its own rails, permitting it to move forward. Regarding the robots transportation from site to site, similarly to the other techniques that are based on the industrial robotic arm design, it needs to be placed in a transportable freight container. When referring to the disassembly and reusability factor, the MX3D Metal fabrication technique doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the flexibility that temporary architecture requires and is better suited for permanent constructions.

UAVS Small-scale Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or drones) are among the most suitable robots for use with temporary structures. Due to their small size, the can be easily transported from site to site even by public transportation. In some cases the units can fly themselves from site to site, eliminating the need for any other additional transportation unit and hence increasing efficiency during the process. The advantage of the UAVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s is their ability to access almost any place. They can work at large heights or narrow spaces between buildings, which are hardly accessible by other robots. However, the reusability factor depends on the construction system and materials used. In the case of the tensile bridge installation, its disassembly and reusability factor is very high, because no adhesives are used during the construction process and the same rope can be used to create various temporary structures. In the tower assembly installation glue was used to bond the polyurethane foam modules, which, depending on the adhesive used, might complicate the disassembly. Apart from the adhesive question, the polyurethane foam bricks, because of their modularity and lightness (90 grams each), can be easily reused in wide range of designs. One of the main drawbacks with drones is their low payload capacity. Modern quadcopters operate with a payload capacity of around 0.5 to 1.5 kg in addition to its own weight. Therefore the weight of the construction elements have to be reduced to a minimum. Current research is focusing on how to overcome this issue by looking at how robots can work collectively in swarms, allowing them to handle bigger loads and perform more complex tasks. This might be possible in near future, with more advanced sensor and positioning systems and algorithms.

Overall, in this evaluation of suitability for construction of temporary structures, the bricklaying robots and the drones score highest. The most suitable specific application for each system is listed below:

HADRIAN X: most suitable for larger scaled and higher structures in spacious, unobstructed public spaces (with easy access and where the advantages of the 30m telescopic boom can be fully exploited).

SAM AND R-O-B: most suitable for smaller structures in most type of public spaces. Is marketed for use with bricks but can possibly be modified to work with other materials such as wood, plastic, stone, etc.

UAVS: for lightweight modular or tensile structures in spaces where construction speed is important and accessibility might be limited.

the robotsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; suitability for temporary structures

RESULTS

5.3. DRONES AND DATA COLLECTION The nature of drones differs largely from other robots presented in this text. As mentioned in previous chapters, their weakness lies in their relative instability, low payload capacity and precision when handling physical objects in a construction process. Therefore, one can say that they are not optimal for performing complex assembly tasks. However, drones are still a quite revolutionary addition to construction because of their unique features and capabilities. Their strength is that they can fly quickly from one location to another with an increasing complexity and agility in aerial acrobatics. Because they are small and relatively cheap, they can be applied in greater numbers, making them suitable to operate with swarm intelligence. This means that a larger group of units work together in a collective, decentralized system where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Despite their relatively low payload capacity, the drones can carry various types of sensors, which combined with the factors above, permits to perform advanced analytical tasks. These advantages have been exploited for a longer period of time in agriculture where drones, GPS technology and various data sensors come together to form the term “precision agriculture”. Drones equipped with sensors (thermal, NDVI, humidity, etc) have become the cheapest and quickest way to get pictures and data maps that can inform farmers on planting decisions. Building on the potential of drones, a new industry is emerging, with companies such as Skycatch, Landpoint and Sensefly, offering end-to-end solutions for aerial data collection. The same technology can be released in the city, to create real time datasets that can better inform decision makers facing contemporary urban challenges. The perhaps more versatile example of drones and data collection is the use of drones and 3d scanning technology where drones can make relatively accurate 3d CAD representations of any environment. Other options include heat maps, sound maps, traffic maps, geological surveys and chlorophyll maps which use NDVI technology to map the “health” of the vegetation in an area. We can already see new ways of reading the city, based not only on the physical reality but on real time data collected by drones. Companies such as Siemens or Skycatch are using data collecting drones to make thermal maps visualizing energy losses across entire neighborhoods, which help identify buildings in need of improving insulation and thermal performance. (Figure 164) This could represent a paradigm change because it allows us to define urban challenges in a new way, giving us a far better overview than previously possible. We can map the city based not on the physical dimensions, but on the size of its problems and their importance for improving the quality of life.

robots in temporary architecture

Figure 164: Thermal ‘heatmaps’ of buildings

100

Figure 165: A Situationist map of Paris

Figure 166: The new Babylon, Constant Nieuwenhuys, 1956

To better understand this way of recording the city, it is worth mentioning the Situationist time-space maps, which are based on the importance of the situational factors, moments and psychology. (Figures 165-167) In this theory, the image of the city does not build on cartographical maps, but on the emotions that it gives to people, the fulfillment of their needs and their level of comfort. In other words, the Situationistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; maps are based on the behavior of humans, their needs and their psychological perception. Data collecting drones, with their sensing and analytical capabilities can be used as a tool to create similar maps. By defining a certain problem, for example distribution of public services, lack of green areas, traffic congestion or noise in different parts of the city, the drones can map the problem and define in which areas the problem is biggest. The maps generated from the recorded information can help to inform decision makers and improve quality of life in the cities.

drones and data collection

Figure 167: Guy Debordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s - The Naked City (1957)

101

5.4. PROPOSAL FOR AUTOMATED PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM

Taking another step within the concept of temporary structures construction, swarms of autonomous robots could be continuously hovering around the city, monitoring the needs of different public spaces and communicating with other robots that can rapidly transport, assemble and disassemble temporary structures across the city. The actual construction method could vary in types, from assembling prefabricated modular components to 3D printing structure on site, which could be dissolved back to its raw material when the structure in no longer needed and be reused later on. This type of design process could be fully automated, by drones collecting data around the city, analyzing it and making decisions that serve human needs: which kind of temporary structures are needed and where to put them, etc. The swarm of robots could instantly send information to each other and perform their tasks.

This kind of fully automated city management and pop-up construction could consist of:

1. Sensory data collection unit (UAV) Aerial sensory unit that moves across the area of intervention. Collects and stores relevant data and communicates it to other instances.

2. Strategic Center (Central Station) Processes the data collected by sensory system, analyzes it and proposes the optimal architectural solution for the public space in question. The strategic center acts as a coordinator for the whole system.

3. Module transport system Self-driving trucks transporting modules, construction material and additional equipment between sites.

4. Robotic construction system

robots in temporary architecture

The robotic units in charge of constructing and assembling the structures. The actuators can be land-based robotic arms and/or UAVs.

102

proposal for automated planning and construction system

A conceptual map based on the volume of pedestrian occupation in public squares in Barcelona

103

5.5. OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM To demonstrate the potential of fully automated planning and construction processes for temporary structures in the public space, an example system has been developed for this research paper. Autonomous aerial robots hover around the city and use sensors to collect information about unexpected activities in public spaces. The information is analyzed and interpreted and passed on to the systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Central Station (CST) that makes decisions regarding the type of structure that are necessary for the exact occasion in the exact location. Further, the CST sends a signal to the self-driving transportation trucks, which carry the modules, while the adequate construction robots are being notified and start moving towards the site. The construction robots are responsible for assembling the temporary urban furniture such as benches, stages, etc., for various unexpected events. Similar systems could be applied for planned temporary pavilions or pop-up shops construction, bike parking places, occasional city decorations, alternative lightening systems, as well as seasonal sun shading systems or even rain protection.

SELECTED CASE STUDY AREA: GRACIA DISTRICT, BARCELONA

Swarms of autonomous aerial robots hovering around the city. Collecting data and monitoring the human needs in public spaces

robots in temporary architecture

Unpredicted event attracting visitors to the square. Event was noticed by inspection robot

104

CST

Inspection robot communicating with the Central Station (CST)

CST

SDTT

Central Station communicating with Self Driving Transportation Truck (SDTT)

CST

SDTT transporting prefabricated modules for temporary structuresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; assembly

CST

Arrival of Construction Robots (CR) (communicating with Central Station)

Assembly of temporary urban furniture

Robots moving to perform next tasks

Fully automated management between different public spaces

overview of the system

SDTT

105

5.6. ROBOTICALLY ASSEMBLED TEMPORARY STRUCTURES CATALOGUE

robots in temporary architecture

The following modular temporary structures can be constructed either by swarm of drones or a robotic arm:

106

2. stage

robotically assembled temporary structures catalogue

1. benches

107

robots in temporary architecture

3. pavillion

108

4. bike parking

robotically assembled temporary structures catalogue

5. sun shading

109

Figure 168 and 169: Maps showing the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;healthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of crops in an agricultural context. Made with drones equipped with NDVI cameras.

robots in temporary architecture

Figure 170: Drone used for aerial irrigation in agriculture

110

5.7. ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS OF THE SYSTEM The system presented in this chapter can also be adopted for other purposes, where the objective of the intervention does not relate to temporary structures but to other topics. The flying sensory units, instead of being directed at monitoring public gatherings and human activity, can collect data related to vegetation, sound, temperature, traffic, etc. Corresponding physical interventions can be implemented based on the objectives and desired results.

SOME EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS:

1. Vegetation system: Drones collecting data about the state and health of plants in green areas around the city and, together with other types of robots, acting as autonomous â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;gardenersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, nurturing and watering the vegetation.

2. Temporary sound barrier: Drones can also be equipped with sensors that can register the sound levels in the city and intervene to reduce noise pollution where needed.

3. Emergency system: A system that, based on data collected, can deploy sheltering and equipment in emergency situations.

alternative applications of the system

Figure 171: Deployable emergency shelters

111

robots in temporary architecture 112

Figure 172 - 176: More deployable emergency shelter concepts

Figure 177: Train noise map of the German Eisenbahn-Bundesamt

alternative applications of the system

Figure 178: Sound segmentation, Jerusalem, Israel

113

6. CONCLUSIONS

116

conclusions

1. New breakthroughs in automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence in construction are presented at an impressive rate. Although some of the analyzed robotic construction techniques are still in an early experimental stage, the documented successful applications prove that robotics have a strong potential for bringing forth revolutionary changes in the construction process and building performance optimization. 2. Due to limitations in current technology, a scenario where robots autonomously complete fully operational buildings with structure, cladding, insulation and HVAC systems still proves difficult. 3. The main challenges that land based robots face today relate to their scalability and mobility. Most modern robotic actuator systems have been designed to operate from a fixed place in a factory and are therefore typically heavy and bulky, relatively immobile and thus not very suitable for a construction site environment. Another limitation in current practice relates to computational intelligence. Advances in robotic construction are widely limited and dependent upon future advances in sensory systems and artificial intelligence. The robots need to be equipped with sensors and a brain, allowing them to autonomously adapt their preprogrammed sequence to unforeseen events while learning and improving their skills over time. 4. Starting from the Japanese highly specialized single-task robots in the 1980’s and the first approaches to full construction automation in the 90’s, we see today the first fully autonomous on-site construction robots, such as the bricklaying robot Hadrian X. In addition, the UAVs and their advanced data collection techniques are taking their first steps in to the construction industry (example- thermal maps of buildings). 5. When compared to human labor, robots have great potential for improving construction efficiency. First of all, robots do not require breaks and can work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year- resulting in a significantly shorter construction time and improved cost efficiency. Bricklaying and other modular construction techniques are the most suited construction methods for robots because they take good advantage of the robots’ capabilities to quickly perform repetitive assembly tasks. In addition to improving construction efficiency, the robots, because they exceed humans with their mechanical precision and stamina, have the potential to bring forth new methods of construction. As an example, the bricklaying robots are able to construct advanced parametric forms where each brick is rotated at a specific angle. These forms may be designed for architectural, aesthetic or building performance reasons. In any case, a CNC robot can quickly and precisely read detailed information generated from any CAD program and precisely repeat each step in an actual construction scenario. 6. Differently from the bricklaying robots, which are advancing an already existing construction method, the inventions based on 3D printing introduce a totally new paradigm in construction. 3D printing changes the construction game from the assembly of heavy, prefabricated and standardized building components to a process of ‘printing’ or ‘extruding’ a customized design on site. Therefore there is no need to transport heavy prefabricated modules from the factory to the site. Currently, different 3D printing techniques are being investigated using different types and compositions of materials such as bio plastics, metals, concrete. Some research projects focus on using natural materials such as sand, mud and clay.

conclusions

This introduces the possibility to build houses directly from the materials found on site (0km materials) or materials coming from locally recycled waste (avoiding the unsustainable transportation of heavy construction materials). In addition to that, 3D printing introduces a new range of digital forms and topological complexity in architecture. So far, Contour Crafting is the only 3D printing construction technique under development with the potential to support a fully automated construction process where all construction components are handled and assembled by robots. The advantages of this concrete 3D printing technique are: reduction of material usage, reduced construction waste, lighter concrete constructions and durability. However, limitations in structural scalability and geometric possibilities still exist.

117

7. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones, because of their unique features, have the potential to become a revolutionary addition to construction. Drones have the ability to fly, and thus quickly reach high and narrow places inaccessible for other robots. In addition, they can be equipped with various sensors that allow them to perform advanced analytical tasks. The main drawbacks are their low payload capacity, relatively low stability and precision. As a result, they are not optimal for performing complex assembly tasks as of today. However, research focusing on these issues is currently under development. The ARCAS project, under development at the Universitat PolitĂ¨cnica de Catalunya (UPC), experiments with drones carrying robotic actuator arms. So far, their results are impressive and further experimentation with drones carrying out assembly tasks might lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in construction with UAVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. In theory, drones do not need special transportation because they can move easily within and between construction sites themselves. Due to their small size and relatively low price, UAVs are highly suitable for operating with swarm intelligence. This means that a larger group of drones would work together collectively as a decentralized system where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Similarly to the way that an ant colony works, each drone is performing its own task but all together they work for same goal. This can also include performing collective assembly tasks (multiple drones lifting the same piece), increasing the payload capacity of the overall system. However, as of today, drones are best suited for monitoring and analytical applications such as site aerial mapping, data imaging and analysis. 8. Based on the evaluation of the limitations and advantages of currently commercially available robotic systems, this study concludes that temporary structures are the type of construction where the application of robots is more practical and realistic, even in the near future. Temporary structures are more flexible and do not need to meet the strict requirements of the fully functioning buildings. In addition to that, they correspond well with the capabilities of robots because they are designed to be assembled and disassembled rapidly and often in a repetitive way.

conclusions

In the comparative evaluation, the robotic construction techniques were evaluated as they are today, including only the techniques that have already successfully constructed something in human size or larger and excluding the techniques that are still in their early experimental stage. The evaluation included factors such as transportability, movability on site, size of structures and reusability.

118

119

conclusions

7. SOURCES

122

sources

[1]“Definition of a robot.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dira.dk/media/9379/def._af_robottyper.pdf. [Accessed: 12-Mar-2016]. [2]“Meccano Magazine March 1938, physical page 54,” March, 1938. [Online]. Available: http://www.nzmeccano.com/MMviewer. php. [Accessed: 12-Mar-2016]. [3]C. Balaguer and M. Abderrahim, Robotics and Automation in Construction, InTech, 2008. [4]B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Springer handbook of robotics. Berlin : Springer, 2008. [5]L. Cousineau and N. Miura, Construction robots : the search for new building technology in Japan. Reston : ASCE Press, 1998. [6]Autonomous Robots Research Advances. Nova Publishers, 2008. [7]“Fastbrick Robotics commences construction of Hadrian X | Australian Manufacturing.” [Online]. Available: http://www.australianmanufacturing.com.au/39159/fastbrick-robotics-commences-construction-of-hadrian-x. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [8]“Brick-laying robot stacks 1,000 bricks an hour to build a house in 2 days | Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building.” [Online]. Available: http://inhabitat.com/brick-laying-robot-stacks-1000-bricks-an-hour-to-build-a-house-in-2-days/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [9]“Hadrian the automated bricklaying machine can create an entire house in 2 days | Daily Mail Online.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3140546/Meet-robot-BUILDER-Fully-automated-bricklaying-machine-create-entirehouse-just-two-days.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [10]“New Construction Robot Lays Bricks 3 Times as Fast as Human Workers | ArchDaily.” [Online]. Available: http://www. archdaily.com/779906/new-construction-robot-lays-bricks-3-times-as-fast-as-human-workers. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [11]“Construction Robotics – Advancing Construction.” [Online]. Available: http://www.construction-robotics.com/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [12] “Human Vs. Robot: Bricklaying Robot Can Place 1,000 Bricks an Hour.” [Online]. Available: http://singularityhub. com/2015/06/29/human-vs-robot-bricklaying-robot-can-place-1000-bricks-an-hour/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [13]“Lay It Again, SAM: Could Robots Build Your Next House?, The Housing Scene | uexpress.” [Online]. Available: http:// www.uexpress.com/housing-scene/2016/7/8/lay-it-again-sam-could-robots. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [14]“Brick-laying robot on the job in Victor.” [Online]. Available: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2013/11/07/brick-laying-robot-on-the-job-in-victor/3469565/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [15]“The Robot Revolution: Coop Himmelb(l)au Founder Wolf D. Prix on the Future of Construction | ArchDaily.” [Online]. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/604422/the-robot-revolution-coop-himmelb-l-au-founder-wolf-d-prix-on-the-future-of-construction. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [16]“Gramazio Kohler Architects ETH SIA BSA.” [Online]. Available: http://www.gramaziokohler.com/web/e/projekte/52.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [17]“The Robotic Touch – How Robots Change Architecture | Robotics.” [Online]. Available: https://walterfarah.wordpress.com/tag/ the-robotic-touch-how-robots-change-architecture/. [18]“Pike Loop by Gramazio &amp; Kohler | Dezeen.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2009/09/16/pike-loop-bygramazio-kohler/. [19]“Gramazio Kohler Research.” [Online]. Available: http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/forschung/142.html. [20]“ROB|ARCH | Robotics.” [Online]. Available: https://walterfarah.wordpress.com/tag/robarch/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [21]“DUS Architects Amsterdam.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dusarchitects.com/projects.php?categorieid=housing. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [22]“3D Printed House In Amsterdam - Business Insider.” [Online]. Available: http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-house-inamsterdam-2014-4. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [23]“Mataerial 3D printer by Petr Novikov, Saša Jokic, Joris Laarman Lab and IAAC.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dezeen. com/2013/05/17/mataerial-3d-printer-by-petr-novikov-sasa-jokic-and-joris-laarman-studio/.[Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [24]“Mataerial.” [Online]. Available: http://www.mataerial.com/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [25]“D-Shape 3D printer can print full-sized houses.” [Online]. Available: http://newatlas.com/d-shape-3d-printer/21594/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [26] “what is it | D-shape.” [Online]. Available: http://d-shape.com/what-is-it/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [27] “Building a lunar base with 3D printing / Space Engineering &amp; Technology / Our Activities / ESA.” [Online]. Available:http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Building_a_lunar_base_with_3D_printing. [Accessed: 26-September-2016].

bibliography

7.1. BIBLIOGRAPHY

123

sources

[27] “Building a lunar base with 3D printing / Space Engineering &amp; Technology / Our Activities / ESA.” [Online]. Available:http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Building_a_lunar_base_with_3D_printing. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [28] “Contour Crafting - CC.” [Online]. Available: http://www.contourcrafting.org/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [29] “Contour Crafting Inventor Dr. Khoshnevis: Widespread 3D Printed Homes in 5 Years, High-Rises in 10 Years | 3DPrint.com.” [Online]. Available: https://3dprint.com/53437/contour-crafting-dr-khoshnevis/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [30] “Contour Crafting 3D Prints 2500 Square Foot Home in 20 Hours.” [Online]. Available: http://wondergressive.com/contourcrafting-3d-prints-home-20-hours/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [31] “Stone Spray Project by Stone Spray - issuu.” [Online]. Available: https://issuu.com/stonespray/docs/stone_spray_project. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [32] “Stone Spray Robot by Anna Kulik, Inder Shergill and Petr Novikov.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dezeen. com/2012/08/22/stone-spray-robot-by-anna-kulik-inder-shergill-and-petr-novikov/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [33] “Minibuilders.” [Online]. Available: http://archive.monograph.io/iaac/minibuilders. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [34] “Little Robots, Big Structures: Minibuilder 3D Printing Robots.” [Online]. Available: https://herox.com/news/197-little-robotsbig-structures-minibuilder-3d-printi. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [35] “Robotic fabrication: mudshell prototype - IAAC Blog.” [Online]. Available: http://www.iaacblog.com/programs/mudshellprototype/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [36] “3D-printing robot creates freestanding metal structures.” [Online]. Available: http://newatlas.com/3d-metal-printingrobot/30938/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [37] “About - MX3D.” [Online]. Available: http://mx3d.com/about/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [38] “Joris Laarman’s canal bridge in Amsterdam could take 3D printing &quot;to a higher level&quot; | Notey.” [Online]. Available: http://www.notey.com/@dezeen_unofficial/external/6374528/joris-laarman-s-canal-bridge-in-amsterdam-could-take-3dprinting-to-a-higher-level.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [39] “Autonomous robot arms are going to 3D-print a bridge in Amsterdam - ScienceAlert.” [Online]. Available: http://www. sciencealert.com/autonomous-robot-arms-are-going-to-3d-print-a-bridge-in-amsterdam. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [40] “Skycatch/Drone data software platform.” [Online]. Available: https://www.skycatch.com/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [41] “Introduction to smart construction/ strategies/ Komatsu Report 2015.” [Online]. Available: http://www.komatsu.com/ CompanyInfo/ir/annual/html/2015/strategies/smart_construction/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [42] “Japan’s Komatsu uses robot bulldozers, drones for construction due to labor shortage - Tech Insider.” [Online]. Available: http://www.techinsider.io/japans-komatsu-uses-robot-bulldozers-drones-for-construction-due-to-labor-shortage-2015-10. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [43] F. Augugliaro, S. Lupashin, M. Hamer, C. Male, M. Hehn, M.W. Muller, J.S. Willmann, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler and R. D’andrea, “The Flight Assembled Architecture Installation. Cooperative construction with flying machines”, no. August, 2014. [44] A. Mirjan, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, F. Augugliaro, and R. D’andrea, “Architectural fabrication of tensile structures with flying machines”, BT - Green Design, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, pp. 513–518, 2013. [45] F. Augugliaro, A. Mirjan, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, and R. D’Andrea, “Building tensile structures with flying machines”, IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., pp. 3487–3492, 2013. [46] “D8.3 Final Experiments.” [Online]. Available: http://www.arcas-project.eu/publishable-resources. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. [47] “Publishable Summary Period 3.” [Online]. Available: http://www.arcas-project.eu/publishable-resources. [Accessed: 26-September-2016].

124

7.1. PICTURES AND DIAGRAMS USED

Figure 1: “Assembly Automation Takes Off in Aerospace Industry | 2015-04-02 | Assembly Magazine.” [Online]. Available: http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/92790-assembly-automation-takes-off-in-aerospace-industry. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 2: “US$154 billion rise of the robots planned for Pearl River Delta manufacturing | South China Morning Post.” [Online]. Available: http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/science-research/article/1754165/robotics-industry-booming-guangdong-insiders. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 3: “004.jpg 1 420×740 pixels.” [Online]. Available: https://unmaterialstudio.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/wall-study-01/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 4: “Robotic Brickwork Structural Oscillations, Venedig — ROB Technologies.” [Online]. Available: http://rob-technologies. com/structural-oscillations/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 5: “Workmode: Start-up creates Uber-like drone service – Aerial Sky Works.” [Online]. Available: https://volaveruntgroup. wordpress.com/2015/06/08/workmode-start-up-creates-uber-like-drone-service/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 6: “In Japan, Drones Guide Robot Trucks At Construction Sites | Popular Science.” [Online]. Available: http://www.popsci. com/in-japan-drones-guide-robot-trucks-at-construction-sites. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 7: Timeline presenting the highlights of many years of research and development of industrial robots. Figure 8: “1937 - The Robot Gargantua - &quot;Bill&quot; Griffith P. Taylor - (Australian/Canadian) - cyberneticzoo.com.” [Online]. Available: http://cyberneticzoo.com/robots/1937-the-robot-gargantua-bill-griffith-p-taylor-australiancanadian/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 9: “1948 - ELSIE (Electro-mechanical robot, Light Sensitive with Internal and External stability ) - W. Grey Walter - cyberneticzoo.com.” [Online]. Available: http://cyberneticzoo.com/cyberneticanimals/elsie-cyberneticanimals/elsie/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 10: “George Devol: A Life Devoted to Invention, and Robots - IEEE Spectrum.” [Online]. Available: http://spectrum.ieee. org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/george-devol-a-life-devoted-to-invention-and-robots. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 11: “AI &amp; Robotics | Timeline of Computer History | Computer History Museum.” [Online]. Available: http://www. computerhistory.org/timeline/ai-robotics/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 12: “AI &amp; Robotics | Timeline of Computer History | Computer History Museum.” [Online]. Available: http://www. computerhistory.org/timeline/ai-robotics/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 13: “AI &amp; Robotics | Timeline of Computer History | Computer History Museum.” [Online]. Available: http://www. computerhistory.org/timeline/ai-robotics/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 14: “KUKA Roboter.” [Online]. Available: https://www.kuka.com/de-de/über-kuka/unternehmensstruktur/kuka-roboter. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 15: “ABB Robotics” [Online]. Available: https://es.pinterest.com/pin/12103492723890460/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 16: “Mecademic” [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/mecademic/status/530464424705159169. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 17: “Robotics: Facilities.” [Online]. Available: http://www.robotics.tu-berlin.de/menue/facilities/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 18: “AI &amp; Robotics | Timeline of Computer History | Computer History Museum.” [Online]. Available: http://www. computerhistory.org/timeline/ai-robotics/. Figure 19: “kukalwr4.orig.jpg 1 242×828 pixels.” [Online]. Available: http://autsys.aalto.fi/en/attach/IntelligentRobotics/ kukalwr4.orig.jpg. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 20: “industrial robot motoman sia 3d model.” [Online]. Available: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/industrial-robotmotoman-sia-3d-model/972809. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 21: B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Springer handbook of robotics. Berlin : Springer, 2008. Figure 22: Circular diagram presenting the proportion between the quantities of Japanese single task robots designed for distinct functions. Figure 23-25: L. Cousineau and N. Miura, Construction robots : the search for new building technology in Japan. Reston : ASCE Press, 1998. Figure 26: “The Robotic Revolution in the Construction Industry? - Nordic Construction Innovations.” [Online]. Available: http:// www.nci.fi/robotic-revolution-construction-industry-v2/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 27: L. Cousineau and N. Miura, Construction robots : the search for new building technology in Japan. Reston : ASCE Press, 1998.

pictures and diagrams used

Unless otherwise specified, the graphic content is produced by and belongs to the author

125

sources

Figure 28: “Newport Partners: Technologies.” [Online]. Available: http://newportpartnersllc.com/technologies/miscellaneous/ construction_robotics.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 29-33: L. Cousineau and N. Miura, Construction robots : the search for new building technology in Japan. Reston : ASCE Press, 1998. Figure 34: “Fastbrick Robotics Animation - YouTube.” [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rebqcsb61gY. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 35: “Hadrian the automated bricklaying machine can create an entire house in 2 days | Daily Mail Online.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3140546/Meet-robot-BUILDER-Fully-automated-bricklaying-machinecreate-entire-house-just-two-days.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 36: “Incredible bricklaying robot can build a house in just two days | Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building.” [Online]. Available: http://inhabitat.com/incredible-bricklaying-robot-can-build-a-house-in-just-two-days/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 37: “Fastbrick Robotics.” [Online]. Available: http://www.fbr.com.au/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 38: “Brick Building Robots: Construction Automation -.” [Online]. Available: http://zbrella.com/brick-building-robotsconstruction-automation/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 39: “GCR - News - SAM the bricklaying robot could be yours for $500,000.” [Online]. Available: http://www. globalconstructionreview.com/news/sam-bricklaying-r7o7b7ot-could-be-yours-500000/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 40: “Hanley Wood announces 2015 Most Innovative Concrete &amp; Masonry Products.” [Online]. Available: http:// www.masoncontractors.org/2015/04/11/hanley-wood-announces-2015-most-innovative-concrete-masonry-products/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 41: “Construction Robotics taught SAM how to lay brick | Washington DC Just Good News.” [Online]. Available: http:// districtofcolumbia.justgoodnews.biz/2015/08/31/construction-robotics-taught-sam-how-to-lay-brick/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 42: “Gramazio Kohler Architects ETH SIA BSA.” [Online]. Available: http://www.gramaziokohler.com/web/e/ projekte/52.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 43: “Gramazio &amp; Kohler, Ralph Feiner · Gantenbein Vineyard Facade · Divisare.” [Online]. Available: https://divisare. com/projects/260919-gramazio-kohler-ralph-feiner-gantenbein-vineyard-facade. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 44: “Gramazio &amp; Kohler, Ralph Feiner · Gantenbein Vineyard Facade · Divisare.” [Online]. Available: https://divisare. com/projects/260919-gramazio-kohler-ralph-feiner-gantenbein-vineyard-facade. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 45: ““Gramazio &amp; Kohler, Ralph Feiner · Gantenbein Vineyard Facade · Divisare.” [Online]. Available: https:// divisare.com/projects/260919-gramazio-kohler-ralph-feiner-gantenbein-vineyard-facade. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 46: “Winery Gantenbein / Gramazio &amp; Kohler + Bearth &amp; Deplazes Architekten | ArchDaily.” [Online]. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/260612/winery-gantenbein-gramazio-kohler-bearth-deplazes-architekten. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 47: “Winery Gantenbein / Gramazio &amp; Kohler + Bearth &amp; Deplazes Architekten | ArchDaily.” [Online]. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/260612/winery-gantenbein-gramazio-kohler-bearth-deplazes-architekten. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 48: “Pike Loop by Gramazio &amp; Kohler | Dezeen.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2009/09/16/pikeloop-by-gramazio-kohler/. Figure 49: “Gramazio Kohler Research.” [Online]. Available: http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/forschung/142.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 50: “Gramazio Kohler Research.” [Online]. Available: http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/forschung/142.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 51: “boiteaoutils: # R-O-B by Gramazio &amp; Kohler in Venice’s biennal.” [Online]. Available: http://boiteaoutils.blogspot. com.es/2008/09/r-o-b-by-gramazio-kohler-in-venices.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 52: “Profile: Gramazio &amp; Kohler - Icon Magazine.” [Online]. Available: http://www.iconeye.com/design/features/ item/4478-profile-gramazio-kohler. Figure 53: “A Robot-Built Installation in NYC by Gramazio & Kohler, ETH Zurich” [Online]. Available: https://www.flickr.com/ photos/dickblick187/4248558802/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 54: “Pike Loop installation in Manhattan (BS File Photo) — Broken Sidewalk.” [Online]. Available: http://brokensidewalk. com/2010/bridging-public-art-and-architecture-with-robots/pike_loop_09/.

126

pictures and diagrams used

Figure 55-57: “Gramazio Kohler Research.” [Online]. Available: http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/forschung/198.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 58-61: “3D Printed House In Amsterdam - Business Insider.” [Online]. Available: http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printedhouse-in-amsterdam-2014-4. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 62: “3ders.org - U.S. President Obama viewed world’s first 3D Print Canal House | 3D Printer News &amp; 3D Printing News.” [Online]. Available: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20140324-us-president-obama-viewed-3d-print-canal-house.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 63: “Printable futures.” [Online]. Available: http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2013/05/21/printable_futures.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 64: “Printable futures.” [Online]. Available: http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2013/05/21/printable_futures.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 65: “Mataerial 3D printer by Petr Novikov, Sasa Jokic, Joris Laarman Lab and IAAC.” [Online]. Available: http://www. dezeen.com/2013/05/17/mataerial-3d-printer-by-petr-novikov-sasa-jokic-and-joris-laarman-studio/.[Accessed: 26-September-2016] Figure 66-71: “cma - edu - 2013: Jokic-Novikov.” [Online]. Available: http://cma-edu-2013.blogspot.com.es/2013/08/jokic-novikov. html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 72-74: “Boskalis Horizons: 3D Printed Reefs — an Amazing Pilot in Monaco.” [Online]. Available: http://magazine. boskalis.com/issue03/3d-printed-reefs. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 75: “D-Shape 3D printer can print full-sized houses.” [Online]. Available: http://newatlas.com/d-shape-3d-printer/21594/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 75: “76ffb02ed0ef3f0369b5a25d90adff52.jpg 604×451 pixels.” [Online]. Available: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/ originals/76/ff/b0/76ffb02ed0ef3f0369b5a25d90adff52.jpg. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 77: “British company uses 3D printing to make stone buildings out of sand - The Verge.” [Online]. Available: http://www. theverge.com/2012/2/21/2811146/3d-printing-d-shape-monolite-enrico-dini. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 78: “British company uses 3D printing to make stone buildings out of sand - The Verge.” [Online]. Available: http://www. theverge.com/2012/2/21/2811146/3d-printing-d-shape-monolite-enrico-dini. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 79: “esa-plans-3d-print-village-on-moon-2030-4.jpg 600×402 pixels.” [Online]. Available: http://www.3ders.org/images2016/ esa-plans-3d-print-village-on-moon-2030-4.jpg. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 80: “Odd 3D Printing Materials that Make You.” [Online]. Available: http://www.solidsmack.com/fabrication/odd-3dprinting-materials/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 81-85: “High Resolution Photographs | Contour Crafting.” [Online]. Available: http://www.contourcrafting.org/highresolution-photographs/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 86: “Contour Crafting 3D Prints 2500 Square Foot Home in 20 Hours.” [Online]. Available: http://wondergressive.com/ contour-crafting-3d-prints-home-20-hours/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 87: “win sun 3D printing - Google Search.” [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/search?q=win+sun+3D+prin ting&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO8Z-v-rHPAhVMNxQKHWl1CPkQ_ AUICSgC&biw=1200&bih=811#imgdii=m1bq6Ph. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 88: “Contour Crafting 3D Prints 2500 Square Foot Home in 20 Hours.” [Online]. Available: http://wondergressive.com/ contour-crafting-3d-prints-home-20-hours/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 89: “High Resolution Photographs | Contour Crafting.” [Online]. Available: http://www.contourcrafting.org/high-resolutionphotographs/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 90: “win sun 3D printing - Google Search.” [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/search?q=win+sun+3D+prin ting&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO8Z-v-rHPAhVMNxQKHWl1CPkQ_ AUICSgC&biw=1200&bih=811#imgdii=m1bq6Ph. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 91: “Solar-Powered ‘Stone Spray’ 3D Printer Robot Creates Entire Buildings From Sand! | Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building.” [Online]. Available: http://inhabitat.com/solar-powered-stone-spray-3d-printer-robot-createsentire-buildings-from-sand/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 91: “Stone Spray - YouTube.” [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgyj1-DvjY. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 93-102: “Stone Spray Project by Stone Spray - issuu.” [Online]. Available: https://issuu.com/stonespray/docs/stone_spray_ project. [Accessed: 26-September-2016].

127

sources

Figure 103: “Little Robots, Big Structures: Minibuilder 3D Printing Robots.” [Online]. Available: https://herox.com/news/197-littlerobots-big-structures-minibuilder-3d-printi. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 104: “Researchers Develop Minibuilders, Tiny Robots Capable of 3D Printing Large Buildings | 3DPrint.com.” [Online]. Available: https://3dprint.com/6340/minibuilders-3d-print-robots/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 105: “Researchers Develop Minibuilders, Tiny Robots Capable of 3D Printing Large Buildings | 3DPrint.com.” [Online]. Available: https://3dprint.com/6340/minibuilders-3d-print-robots/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 106: “Minibuilders.” [Online]. Available: http://robots.iaac.net/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 107: “Minibuilders - How to 3d print big structures with small robots - do it yourself.” [Online]. Available: http://www. diyourself.ru/technology/minibuilders-how-to-3d-print-big-structures-with.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 108-114 “Minibuilders.” [Online]. Available: http://archive.monograph.io/iaac/minibuilders. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 115-120: “Robotic fabrication: mudshell prototype - IAAC Blog.” [Online]. Available: http://www.iaacblog.com/programs/ mudshell-prototype/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 121: “ESR15 - Small scale robotic manufacturing for the large scale buildings - Innochain.” [Online]. Available: http:// innochain.net/esr15-small-scale-robotic-manufacturing-for-the-large-scale-buildings/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 122-129: “Robotic fabrication: mudshell prototype - IAAC Blog.” [Online]. Available: http://www.iaacblog.com/programs/ mudshell-prototype/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 130-132: “3D-printing robot creates freestanding metal structures.” [Online]. Available: http://newatlas.com/3d-metal-printingrobot/30938/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 133-135: “Joris Laarman’s canal bridge in Amsterdam could take 3D printing &quot;to a higher level&quot; | Notey.” [Online]. Available: http://www.notey.com/@dezeen_unofficial/external/6374528/joris-laarman-s-canal-bridge-in-amsterdam-couldtake-3d-printing-to-a-higher-level.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 136-137: “3ders.org - MX3D teams with Heijmans to build world’s first 3D printed steel bridge in central Amsterdam | 3D Printer News &amp; 3D Printing News.” [Online]. Available: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20150612-mx3d-teams-with-heijmansto-build-world-first-3d-printed-steel-bridge-in-central-amsterdam.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 138-140: “Redstack Store &gt; Store &gt; Search Results.” [Online]. Available: http://store.redstack.com.au/Store/SearchResults?search=drones. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 141: “Skycatch/Drone data software platform.” [Online]. Available: https://www.skycatch.com/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 142: “In Japan, Drones Guide Robot Trucks At Construction Sites | Popular Science.” [Online]. Available: http://www. popsci.com/in-japan-drones-guide-robot-trucks-at-construction-sites. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 143: “How drones are poised to help build the cities of tomorrow.” [Online]. Available: http://newatlas.com/drones-buildingconstruction-industry/36306/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 144: “Workmode: Start-up creates Uber-like drone service – Aerial Sky Works.” [Online]. Available: https://volaveruntgroup. wordpress.com/2015/06/08/workmode-start-up-creates-uber-like-drone-service/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 145: “Raffaello.name | Flight Assembled Architecture.” [Online]. Available: http://raffaello.name/projects/flight-assembledarchitecture/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 146-148: F. Augugliaro, S. Lupashin, M. Hamer, C. Male, M. Hehn, M.W. Muller, J.S. Willmann, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler and R. D’andrea, “The Flight Assembled Architecture Installation. Cooperative construction with flying machines”, no. August, 2014. Figure 149: “Watch flying machines weave a rope bridge you can walk on | Robohub.” [Online]. Available: http://robohub.org/watchflying-machines-weave-a-rope-bridge-you-can-walk-on/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 150: F. Augugliaro, A. Mirjan, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, and R. D’Andrea, “Building tensile structures with flying machines”, IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., pp. 3487–3492, 2013. Figure 151-152: “Gramazio Kohler Research.” [Online]. Available: http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/forschung/240.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 153-155: F. Augugliaro, A. Mirjan, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, and R. D’Andrea, “Building tensile structures with flying machines”, IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., pp. 3487–3492, 2013. Figure 156: “Gramazio Kohler Research.” [Online]. Available: http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/forschung/240.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016].

128

pictures and diagrams used

Figure 157: “ARCAS-Project” [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/DSMeu/status/704989019348869120. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 157-160: “D8.3 Final Experiments”, [Online]. Available: http://www.arcas-project.eu/publishable-resources. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 161: “Publishable Summary Period 3.” [Online]. Available: http://www.arcas-project.eu/publishable-resources. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 162-163: “D8.3 Final Experiments”, [Online]. Available: http://www.arcas-project.eu/publishable-resources. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 164: “Council uses spy plane with thermal imaging cameras to catch immigrants living illegally in garden sheds | Daily Mail Online.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346759/Council-uses-spy-plane-thermal-imaging-camerascatch-immigrants-living-illegally-garden-sheds.html. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 165: “A Situationist map of Paris” [Online]. Available: https://es.pinterest.com/pin/190417890465260145/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 166-167: “2. Los mapas como experiencia | cartografia de Russafa.” [Online]. Available: https://cartografiarussafa.wordpress. com/2-los-mapas-como-experiencia/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 168-169: “What can NDVI drones do for my business? Part 2.” [Online]. Available: https://blog.dronedeploy.com/what-canndvi-drones-do-for-my-business-part-2-1d7cb5ee8a5b#.szd9q5jye. Figure 170: “Ajay Shah’s blog: India needs drones.” [Online]. Available: https://ajayshahblog.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/india-needsdrones.html. Figure 171: “Cardborigami Unfolds Into a Portable Housing Shelter Cardborigami – Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building.” [Online]. Available: http://inhabitat.com/a-kamp47-vertical-urban-campground-provides-subversiveshelter-for-the-homeless-in-france/akamp47-stephane-malka-12-2/. Figure 172: “Emergency Shelter” [Online]. Available: https://es.pinterest.com/pin/390054017699255073/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 173: “deployable emergency module resolves protection needs.” [Online]. Available: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/ deployable-emergency-module-peruvian-coast-11-10-2015/. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 174: “30 Different Ways to Put A Roof Over Your Head In These Tents Times : TreeHugger.” [Online]. Available: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/30-different-ways-to-put-a-roof-over-your-head-in-these-tents-times. html#14746252325261&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 175-176: “Temporary shelters encourage socially responsible design | DesignFaves.” [Online]. Available: http://www.designfaves. com/2014/02/temporary-shelters-encourage-socially-responsible-design. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 177: “SoundPLAN Grid Noise Map.” [Online]. Available: http://www.soundplan.com/grid_noise_map.htm. [Accessed: 26-September-2016]. Figure 178: “jerusalem-sound-map_50291a16ca727.jpg 1 400×985 pixels.” [Online]. Available: http://thumbnails.visually.netdnacdn.com/jerusalem-sound-map_50291a16ca727.jpg. [Accessed: 26-September-2016].

129