4.8 Article

Leveraging Building Material as Part of the In-Plane Robotic Kinematic System for Collective Construction

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202201524

关键词

architecture; co-design strategy; collective construction; construction robotics; task and motion planning

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC 2120/1-390831618]
  2. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a modular collective robotic construction system utilizing timber struts and robotic actuators, and demonstrates its capabilities through experiments, laying the groundwork for future autonomous collective robotic construction systems.
Although collective robotic construction systems are beginning to showcase how multi-robot systems can contribute to building construction by efficiently building low-cost, sustainable structures, the majority of research utilizes non-structural or highly customized materials. A modular collective robotic construction system based on a robotic actuator, which leverages timber struts for the assembly of architectural artifacts as well as part of the robot body for locomotion is presented. The system is co-designed for in-plane assembly from an architectural, robotic, and computer science perspective in order to integrate the various hardware and software constraints into a single workflow. The system is tested using five representative physical scenarios. These proof-of-concept demonstrations showcase three tasks required for construction assembly: the ability of the system to locomote, dynamically change the topology of connecting robotic actuators and timber struts, and collaborate to transport timber struts. As such, the groundwork for a future autonomous collective robotic construction system that could address collective construction assembly and even further increase the flexibility of on-site construction robots through its modularity is laid.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据