Response to 6 Changing building sites

Response to 6 Changing building sites 

According to the essay automated construction in Japan, the application of robotic construction could be subdivided into four categories: tele operated humanmachine system, pre programmed system, autonomous with on board sensor and integrated construction automation systems. The latter two category are less distinct without appropriate separation. The third category universally describes ongoing construction mechatronics research and the fourth category describes the amalgamation of existing capability and their application with in a reengineered construction site. From my understanding, manipulation of machines are based on the calculation of routes which might contain deviation in simulation. The sensor might serve to inspect the completion circumstance and transmit the feedback to the central control for further decision of processing. a in emergency to speculate the quality. One value of on board sensor might be its simultaneously response. The typical usage of this technique is underwater vehicles which allows self- navigation and selection of cables when similar features appears. 

Integrated construction automated system consist of four fundamental elements: a temporary covered working platform and jacking system, just in time delivery of structural members and subassembled components, an automated material handing system and a centralized on site integrated control center. One of the most successful automation system is ABCS. Parallel delivery system allows horizontal and vertical transport and framework supports the cranes and material hoists,weighting 2200t. Climbing system rested on structure columns equipped with locking hydraulic jack system. The ABCS is constructed in the 7th level and jack up after completing two structural floors and cladding. 

Catenaries Testing_Part II

Strips are split to have "legs" which can play with elements of gravity during the drying process. While the robot controls the height the strips are hung and the successive degrees of rotation, we can control the length of strips and the length of the "legs". 

Option one: varying height of robot

Simple commands for varying height of curing plane, manual jogging of degrees of rotation, and distance the robots are from each other

16 options for combined variations of robot actions and material changes

Option two: varying leg length

Option three: varying material length, same leg length

Option four: varying distance between robots and length of strips

Option five: twenty degree rotation of one end of strip

A Controlled Loss of Control (part 1)

A Controlled Loss of Control (part 1)

In the next few posts, I want to talk about a few related topics that have been rattling around my brain for the past few years. I do this in hopes of putting down some bread crumbs for me to follow (or dismiss) as we get into the design project side of the semester for RoboFab.

My Building Material is White ≠ My Building Material is Colored White

The promise of the introduction of digital technologies in architecture, according to the voice inside my head, was to deliver Total Architecture. But every step of the way, I have been thwarted by reality.

Migrating from hand drafting, with its graphite limitations, to the Ideal space of AutoCAD, was exhilarating. Then came Rhino, where I could leave representation behind and design things like God meant them to be designed; by endlessly zooming in and out. This launched my Obsessive Compulsive tendencies into the third dimension but like any thrill-seeker, I needed more.

That's where Robots made their entrance. With robots, I could finally complete my digital digestive system. I could start with an idea, break it down with Rhino, process it with Grasshopper and "make it real" with the Robots. Lets just take this ridiculous analogy to its absurd end: the new problem became that this six-million-dollar digestive system was a little sensitive to non-homogenized materials.

I have always loved working with irregular things, but the new digital me wanted smooth homogenous materials to match my smooth homogenous renderings. The advantage of such a material, when in pursuit of Total Precision, is that they behave in a predictable manner in all (or most) directions. In contrast, a hunk of pine reacts more to moisture and temperature changes and in non-uniform ways. Here, I finally hit a fork in the road, I could go down the road of precision and strive for full fluency or I could do what I did in Spanish 101 and just focus on being able to roll my R's. By this I don't mean be happy with sloppy work; rather I want to allow some space for the material to act within parameters that I have set.

For example, I could coat areas of the hunk of pine with a fire retardant material and let it burn for a specific amount of time. By adding two "control points" to a rapid and unpredictable process, I can get dramatically different results than total control or the complete lack of it. This approach is exciting because I can only vaguely predict the outcome. Thus the end result has the capacity to surprise me and take me down paths I didn't foresee. The advantage of Robots in this sort of process is that they allow for the control of all other variables besides the one being examined.

A potential problem with this approach could be that it results in something that is uninteresting or take many iterations before satisfiable results start happening with frequency.

I don't have the energy for a soft landing, so I'll just end this post with a thud.

Project008_Catenaries_prototypes

Porcupine

Porcupine Progress Work

Changing building site response

It surprised me that Japan used assembly line to produce houses as manufactory product at such an early time. But when I think about Japan has always been the pioneer of robots, meanwhile that Japan has small house conventions, this makes a lot more sense.

I have seen a house manufacture cooperation in the United States. The firm provides floor plan layouts, material options, family preference etc. Customers make decisions and buy a house from this firm nothing different than shopping in Target. After the customers place the order, the firm sends a special truck with a couple of assemble operator, and they are able to assemble this house on a open site in one day. Basically they fold the house and load on the truck, after unfolding, the house is finished, has ventilation system, electrical system and ready to use.

This is quite amazing, but I start to think about to have a robot making a house, the level of design must be missing somehow. Not to say that customers have limited options to “personalize” their house, in terms of manufacture, the houses produced has to designed to match the way their robots work. Skyscrapers may need tracks that allow the robots to move, cabinets may have to be in a specific location, otherwise the robot cant install them. I still prefer a scenario that people “design” their own houses. Not everyone is architect, but everyone can be the architect of their own houses.

I am also fascinated by the fact that robots can produce living units on flow lines. When I prefer houses to be really personalized, me, as a student, on the other hand agree apartments being massively produced has a lot of advantages, and I would like to live in one of those.

Porcupine

Sketch of Porcupine Canopy

The belly of the Porcupine

Defensive Posture

Porcupine Primitive made by a Grasshopper (I've been looking at Ed Ruscha)

Finger Attachment for Gripper Tool

Simulation of Mitey Stacking the Pieces

 Wall Surface Generation

 Brick Generation

RoboMoves

Response to R05

The paean for robotic fabrication. This is the introduction for the AD Journal Made by Robots. It covers several aspects of the development of robotic fabrication. I cannot wait to read the whole journal to get a total understanding of robotic fabrication. As for the introduction, I am interested in the saying, “We now have access to enormous knowhow and different forms of knowledge – anyone can become an expert in digital fabrication these days.” It makes a manifesto that architecture is entering its Second Digital Age. The robotic fabrication presents the openness of the information age. Will it be a revolution? Like someone predicts that 3D printing will bring in the Third Industry Revolution. Surely, “The robotic fabrication of tomorrow will no longer be bound to constricting standards, constraints or ideologies, but will allow each architectural experiment with robots the freedom to follow its own agenda.” The robotic fabrication definitely will generate dramatic transformation of architecture by connecting technology and knowhow. The most importantly, it will change the way of thinking about and materializing architecture, like automobiles labeled as horseless carriages at first. Robotic processes may be the standard building processes for architecture as car taking the place of horse wagon.

Responses to R02 & R03

02. Manufacturing Systems and Strategies

 

I saw a bigger picture of the whole industry of manufacturing systems in this essay. I have been thinking about the connection and distinction between robotic technologies in architecture and manufacturing systems (industrial robots). Before I read this essay, I bluntly concerned that the robotic technology we are currently using is just a borrowing from industrial robots 10 years ago. Now, I figured out that the difference between these two. They are focusing on different levels and for distinguish purpose. The CNC universal machine responds more flexibly to the need to produce many different types of products due to the computer control. And it is generally targeted for low-volume production. Though we get a great deal of variations, the cost is really high for project-based manufacture. Also, the quality of the product may be an issue due to the lack of money to refine the adequacies and accuracies of every process.

For another thing, the work envelope of the KUKA robot that we are using is not well defined. The essay says “Many production process simulation software packages provide geometric models that not only simulate the actions of a robot but clearly define the associated work envelope as well. More advanced packages extend this capability to geometric modeling of the actual work operation on a part or component.” While, in KUKA, the simulation in grasshopper does not offer the crucial working envelop, which, combined with the unpredictability of the gestures, causes problems and inefficiency of actual work.

03. Models, Prototypes and Archetypes

Model: a representation, generally in miniature, to show the construction or appearance of something. Prototype: original or model on which something is based or formed. The author brings up an intricate comparison between this two. Due to the specific design and construction of Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia Church, this problem became extremely complex. For today, complex architecture requires prototype as a researching and designing tools instead of just presenting the construction and appearance. So, the definitions of model and prototype are blurred. However, he points out that, model, as opposed to assist judgment, when acts as the prototype for potential outcomes, will complicated the design process. He presents a new paradigm, a 1:1 model becoming first a prototype and subsequently the archetype for the whole designing process. It is an interesting way of design. But I don’t think it will become a new epoch.

Inspiration of effectors -- Response to R04 INTEGRATING ROBOTIC FABRICATION IN THE DESIGN PROCESS

                                                           All images, courtesy of AD

I am totally fascinated by various utilization of robot in different projects. Since my studio work is a skyscraper with intricate forms, I have been thinking about the possibility of utilizing robot to build the final physical model. And the projects in the essay offers valuable insights of effectors that I can use. For the Mesh Towers, the idea of cutting foams by heat-wires with accurate operation of robot is awesome. Probably, the physical model can barely be built totally by hands, whose high requirements of accuracy and building logic can be easily seen from the photos of physical models. And it displays a decent method to generate curvilinear surface with reasonable time and cost. Besides, the Bent Stratifications presents the accuracy that the robot can offer given proper effectors and computing logic, which reminds me the awkwardness in our teamwork projects and possible ways to improve the efficiency and accuracy. First, the feeder must be robots not hands, or, at least, manipulated by robots to ensure the accuracy. No matter what, the material of model must be placed in a space, then picked up by the robot. So, it is quite clever for the designers to generate a linear tail as a tool to ensure the accuracy, which is crucial for the bending process. Then, the robot can do its best to iterate the identical components.

Response to 5 Authoring robotic processes AND Response to 4 Integrating robotic fabrication in the design process

Response to 5 Authoring robotic processes

Modern division between intellectual work and manual production is obsolete. However, whether the dominating architectural narrative in past decades are also outdated under today’s context? It assumes that the understanding of material’s constructive capabilities and unlimited construction forms emancipate people to more flexible even deeper architectural products. It is even more persuasive by looking Gaudi’s prototype linked so smoothly with digital fabrication. However, the author says this transformation of computer logic and material realization must lead to new aesthetic and functional potentials. The increasing complexity of forms might naturally weaken the functions of other elements, including material, color and block combination, the complexity of which could do disservice to the “pure” form and disturb the immanent proportion. Whether the exploration of those elements will be stagnant accompanying more floating and twisted forms? Though all those established principles of architecture could be settled down and redefined in epistemology under the new context, there will be some aspects well developed and some subordinate or even discarded. It reminds me of transformation form Greek to Rome architecture. The Arches incredibly enrich Rome architecture but also “retard” Greeks extremely exploration of columns. 

The different between architecture and technology is its multiple requirements which determine its value even being rendered obsolete. Therefore, it’s inappropriate to state modern architecture is clutching at straws rather than contributing to greater clarity. It will continuing investigate its established principles  but confined to specific areas which manifest its identity mostly, such as regulative geometric blocks. The same thing existing in biological evolvement process. Since the swimming creatures have evolved flapping tails and fins to stabilize themselves and create power, this revolutionary strategy becomes the following main trend. However, long, thin body with segments swishing like snakes and body with small arms gyrating like millipede are still not eliminated but refining themselves generation by generation. For me, versatile digital fabrication is nothing more then a series of principles representing its own time which will be finally evolved into some unrecognizable form like fish crawls out of water evolving to amphibian. However, the fabrication forms well equipped to represent its ideology will be further explored while shrink and coexisting with the new dominating principles. 

Response to 4 Integrating robotic fabrication in the design process

The purpose of this highrises building task is utilizing robotic technologies and computer design to avoid repetitive distribution of identical building elements. The precondition of an existing railway station in the site creates fundamental basis for creating void by manipulation of a cluster of interacting towers. It requires the designer coordinate the programming skills as well as robotic concepts. The sensual feedback fulfilled by assembling process allows immediately readjustment of the concepts and understanding the limitations in real construction. The functions of tools (page 7 8 )are not easy to image for me since they are selfdesigned and do not resemble the common ones in reality. Besides, I also wonder how the robotic arm control the strength of sticking and drilling since the the paper walls are fragile and less balanced than concrete. And what’s the functions of “feedback sensor”? Whether it means the robot could “sensor” the obstacle to finish its next step and stop the potential destruction? For me, one problem they might confront is the requirement of a prior calculated construction sequence. For example, add handrails between two finished storeys. After all, it requires more virtual tests to assemble in a constrained space as the robotic itself does not contain the ability to avoid obstacles. In a nutshell, what is described in the article is the ting I want to practice that accomplish some real project rather than a part of a building. 

Authoring Robotic Processes : Reading Response

"The employment of robotics in architecture is opening up the prospect of entirely new aesthetic and functional potentials that could fundamentally alter architectural design and the building culture at large."

Industrial robots can be freely designed and programmed and are not limited to a specialized task. With this we are able to test various modes of assembly along with a range of different materials. Having that versatility enables the designer to solve construction problem in various ways. Industrial robots are taking away the abstract digital designs in architecture and are forcing us to think in a new way of thinking about and materializing architecture. Learning from the abilities of the robot and the materials it can use will inform the new age and atheistic of architecture. 

Integrating Robotic Fabrication Into the Design Process : Reading Response

Design of Robotic Fabricated High Rises investigates the potentials of robotic building processes for the construction of this typology. The role of the physical model in computational design is to give the designer the direct sensual and haptic feedback that is still completely missing in a digital environment. Using a robot vs. a 3D printer to fabricate a 10 ft tower allows designers to learn the tectonics of assembling a 1:50 scale model. With a 3D printer you are able to print all the details and intricacies of your 3D digital model. With a robotically fabricated scale model you need learn about the structural methods and construction techniques and processes that go into building. 

Having the ability to go between the digital and physical world of models empowers the designer to take a more active role in the materialization and construction process. Learning the robotic processes in Intro to Robotics empowers us students the ability to pursue these active roles in materialization and construction. 

Models, Prototypes and Archetypes : Reading Response

"File to factory" an appropriation from the aeronautical design industry that is used to describe the direct transfer of CAD file data to CNC manufacturing. Do we need to redefine the role of 'model','prototype', and 'archetype' if we use machines to create these working objects? What is the long term impact of 3D printing? (Mark Burry)

Señor Mallo saw the 1:10 wax prototypes to only be useful in seeing the geometry but making 1:1 pro types would allow him to accurately engage and learn from the geometry's he would have to cut. Señor Mallo used a wire cutter to rough cut the stone with a centimeter of the finished ruled surface which then allowed him to finish the stone to perfection by hand.

File-to-factory modes of operation are becoming more readily available to designers alike. Allowing the production of many scaled models and prototypes gives the designer the ability to quickly make design decisions based on a variety of feedbacks. Scale models and prototypes are quickly blurring into the same, allowing the model to serve two purposes. Mark Burry see's this as the mergence of an entirely new archetype for new architectural responses that fit our time.

Manufacturing Systems : Reading Response

In Intro to Robotics, our manufacturing approach would most likely fall under the "made-to-order" business model. Model variations are easier to obtain with high quality and accuracy while using a robot. Currently industrial robots are used where tasks are dangerous, tedious, highly repetitive or where there is a need of high precision. Learning how to incorporate sensor systems and machine vision into our robots would be an interesting path to pursue. Material handling and assembly is something we can look into. For architectural models and rapid prototyping maybe the material handling process isn't as advanced as the assembly process. CIM system manufacturing could be incorporated into large scale architectural construction, allowing most of the process to be automated at the job site while using the full integration of all technologies and informational flows. 

authoring robotic processes response

Finally this article shows some example of building architecture in real scale and real building material with robots. Granted, using small flying robots and simply stacking bricks is a tricky way, since the same way would not work if the building is taller or need further fabrication. But this is still a very example, works could hardly get 20,000 bricks exactly the way they are supposed to be stacked.

Before the robots were being used in architecture, there are not a lot of repetitive forms because they are labor intensive/ tedious etc. But now because there is the existence of digital technology, it seems to me many architects are lost. They are not doing what is necessary, instead, they are doing what their tools do best. Like everyone get a fascinating new toy, and they just want to play with this toy until everyone get bored. I agree every geometry repeat 1000 times looks pretty and I agree that having a robot finish a tedious task very fast 10000 times is cool. But when I really think about it, I don’t get why everyone is doing this. If I accept the preset that you can only use stacking, and the material must be bricks, using robots is the best way. But if I ask is the porous wall really necessary? No replacement? There is probably other alternatives. I think trying to use robots do what they are good at and identify them just as tools rather than guides is key to us.