China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Future of robotics and automation in construction
Published in Anil Sawhney, Mike Riley, Javier Irizarry, Construction 4.0, 2020
Borja Garcia de Soto, Miroslaw J. Skibniewski
On-site construction automation aims to bring fabrication processes on construction sites. Sousa et al. (2016) classified on-site technologies in three main categories: large-scale robotic structures, mobile robotic arms, and flying robotic vehicles. A well-known example from the first category is Contour Crafting, a robotic structure for 3D printing large-scale construction, developed at the University of Southern California (Khoshnevis, 2004). An example of a mobile robot for on-site construction is the semi-automated mason (SAM) developed by construction Robotics (Sklar, 2015), or the “In situ Fabricator” (IF), developed at ETH Zurich (Giftthaler et al., 2017). Finally, the use of flying robots in construction is a novel technique developed to avoid mobility constraints and the need for cranes on construction sites. Imperial College London developed an application of these technologies for polyurethane foam deposition (Hunt et al., 2014).
Additive, Subtractive, and Hybrid Manufacturing Processes
Published in Yoseph Bar-Cohen, Advances in Manufacturing and Processing of Materials and Structures, 2018
This methodology makes use of a heated extrusion nozzle to soften a filament of plastic material (usually polylactic acid or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene [ABS]). After melting, the molten layer of plastic is deposited onto a build platform for the production of a part, as shown in Figure 9.4. The layers of plastic adhere to each other due to the heat, but that does not help when it comes to the quality of the products as they tend to be quite porous and the surface finish is not of very good quality (Pandey et al., 2003). These systems have been gradually gaining popularity due to their ease of operation among the DIY (do it yourself) enthusiasts who have done some remarkable things at a fraction of a cost compared to their industrial counterparts that have better surface quality but are quite expensive. In addition to thermoplastics, other materials have been utilized with moderate success, including ceramics and metal pastes (Morissette et al., 2000; Smay and Lewis, 2012). The process of contour crafting works in a similar manner and has demonstrated the ability to build large structures (using quick-setting concrete-like material) with the potential for being less expensive and more portable than existing robotic concepts (Bosscher et al., 2007).
Top challenges to widespread 3D concrete printing (3DCP) adoption – A review
Published in European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2023
P.S. Ambily, Senthil Kumar Kaliyavaradhan, Neeraja Rajendran
In recent years, 3DCP processes have been developed to improve automation in construction. Most of these processes are based on two principles: extrusion or powder. Layer-by-layer deposition of the printable mix is used in extrusion-based printing; whereas powder-based printing involves spreading dry base materials first and selectively binding them with cementitious material. In the early 1990s, Pegna was the first to suggest employing 3D printing in construction (Ning et al., 2021). Later, contour crafting technology was developed at the University of Southern California in the United States (Camacho et al., 2018; El-Sayegh et al., 2020). This approach uses an extrusion-based process to extrude two layers of a cementitious mixture to create a vertical concrete formwork. In contour crafting, the concrete is extruded using a gantry system. Trowels affixed to the nozzle help smooth the concrete’s surface once it has been extruded (El-Sayegh et al., 2020; Ghaffar et al., 2018). In 2005, D-shape printing was developed by Enrico Dini. It is another type of 3D printing in which the powder is utilized as the material and bonded with a binder (Lim et al., 2012; Shakor et al., 2017). The binder to the regions will be cemented after the chosen powder has been layered to the necessary thickness, and the powder or sand base is removed from the 3D-printed material (Lim et al., 2012; Shakor et al., 2017). A team from Loughborough University in the United Kingdom created concrete printing technology. This technology is similar to contour crafting technology because it uses an extrusion-based approach. Concrete printing has better printing control in different object geometrical shapes than the contour crafting method (Ghaffar et al., 2018; Shakor et al., 2017) (Figure 3). CONCPrint3D is one of the latest extrusion-based printing processes for large-scale monolithic construction currently being investigated as part of Professor Gunter Kunze’s project at Dresden Technical University, Germany (Mechtcherine et al., 2019).
Robotic additive manufacturing (RAM) with clay using topology optimization principles for toolpath planning: the example of a building element
Published in Architectural Science Review, 2020
Odysseas Kontovourkis, George Tryfonos, Christos Georgiou
Contour Crafting is a technique pioneered by (Khoshnevis and Dutton 1998), based on the deposition of ready-made concrete in layers. Other techniques like Concrete Printing (Lim et al. 2012) and Additive Manufacturing of concrete (Bos et al. 2016) are based on the same principles and apply similar technologies of implementation and materials based on cements. In contrast to D-shape, technologies based on Contour Crafting open more opportunities for implementation, due to their ability to extend their working area. Specifically, they can produce large structures based on different approaches. In the example of 3DP Office in Dubai7 and 10x 3DP House in Shanghai,8 prefabricated parts of buildings were produced by robots and assembled on-site, allowing the unlimited size of structures to be constructed. In the first case, with an area of 250 m2, the construction cost amounted to 140,000 USD and the time duration to 17 days for printing and 2 days for installation, while in the second case the total cost amounted to 2,000,000 USD and the construction time was 24 h. In the examples of Stupino House in Moscow,9 with an area of 38 m2, the cost was less than 10,000 USD while the construction time was less than a day, and in the 3DP House in Milan10 with an area of 100 m2, the construction cost was 100,000 USD and the time 35 h. In both cases, the on-site application of the technology was tested, again by using robots. In this case, limits in terms of size can be observed, leading to the production of medium size structures, due to the constraints of the robotic mechanism’s working area. Also, in the examples of Vulcan House in Austin11 and 3DP House in Valencia,12 crane technology was applied for on-site fabrication. In these cases, constraints can also be observed, mostly related to the working area of technology. In both cases, with an area of 60 m2, the construction time was 12 to 24 h, while in the second case there was a cost reduction of up to 35%.