-
The Otherness
of the MachineJan Willmann, Senior Research Assistant at the Chair of Architecture and Digital Fabrication at ETH Zurich, explains the current status of robotics in architecture and pinpoints the most promising paths for the future of constructive systems.
-
Dr Willmann, you trained as an architect but now primarily work on mapping the connections between architectural theory and computer aided design. Can you explain a little about how these interests converged and how your interest in robots in architecture arose?
In my opinion, today’s very specific implementation of robotic fabrication processes – in comparison to the lack of material substance in the early days of architecture’s digitalisation during the 1990s – is practically forcing architecture’s arrival in the digital age. Particularly from a theoretical/historical perspective this is very interesting since we are no longer witnessing the delayed modernisation of the discipline, but rather the advent of a uniform technological basis for architecture, which since the onset of building industrialisation in the early 20th century has remained more vision than reality. Clearly, this has a number of substantial implications; for instance, with this shift in the production conditions, the Albertian division which has determined architectural practice for the past 500 years, between intellectual work and manual production – between design and realisation – is now being rendered obsolete.
At the same time, in this “Second Digital Age” a wide range of inherently architectural topics are finding their way back onto the agenda, such as, for example, questions of standardisation and authorship. So, what still remains vague are the ties to architectural history, the theoretical implications and future prospects of all this. I always felt that explorations into our current digital age must therefore broaden to include both practical and theoretical perspectives. This requires that robotic technology be regarded not only as a medium of production, but also as an epistemological approach and cultural interface.To me the question is whether digital technologies can impact and even change architectural thinking, and to critically explore what happens if architecture absorbs this new connection between computational logics and material realisation. Only then will it be possible to stimulate relevant and rigorous exploration, discussion, principles, and realities, and ultimately to open up new ways to understand and perceive architecture in the digital age.
What about the specific integration of tangible robotic and mechanised hardware into the building process, as against less-tangible design or system-control software. What is the current status with robots in architecture? Where and how are they being implemented and what kinds of robots?
That’s a very important question, since a very wide range of robotic technology is currently used in architecture, such as robotic systems for adaptive façades, or aerial drones for spatial printing processes.
Previous page: Spatial Wire Cutting project, producing geometrically complex architectural elements using hot wire cutting. Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich, 2015. (All images: © Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich unless otherwise stated)
-
Remote Material Deposition, in which an industrial robot throws material (in this case wet clay) over distance in an attempt to move beyond the creation of static forms. Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich, 2014.
-
Overall, I think this shift towards a new interpretation of the automatic is enthralling. The current status of robots in architecture can be seen in manifold research explorations, with a seeming new “intimacy” between the designer and his/her tools. That said, one should not forget that this whole development started only 10 years ago. What we are currently missing – despite all these exciting projects – are concrete industrial and large-scale applications in the construction sector, as well as a more elaborated vision of the overall cultural impact this might have.
Apart from this is the importance of specific experiments – since robotic research in architecture is not a good topic to speculate about. So, a very reasonable – and pragmatic – approach is the use of industrial robots, as pursued at ETH Zurich. This is because of the robot’s ability to perform an unlimited variety of non-repetitive assembly tasks at full/architectural scale and also because six-axis robotic arms are conventional off-the-shelf products, they are cost-efficient and fairly robust and flexible. The designer does not therefore need to concentrate on the technological development of a robot, but can concentrate on the design of the robot’s toolhead and, most importantly, on robot-induced designs and construction processes.What is the current global state of robotic research in architecture?
There are currently over 35 architectural research and teaching institutions using industrial robots for their explorations. Following ETH Zurich, where the first robotic laboratory for architectural non-standard assembly processes was installed in 2005, a number of promising architectural case studies and prototypical structures have been realised worldwide, elevating bespoke automated manufacturing to the role of a constitutive design and construction tool. The range of materials used is quite broad, for instance, robotic brickwork, robotic timber construction, robotic concrete manipulation, robotic 3D printing and carbon weaving, robotic wire cutting, etc.
Besides this wide range of material experimentation, and upcoming trends, such as structurally-driven robotic fabrication or research into particularly material-efficient digital fabrication processes, another major direction of this whole research is “upscaling”; this includes not only physical upscaling to 1:1 building processes, but also a functional (e.g. multi-material systems and multi-functional construction components) and disciplinary upscaling (e.g. architects working directly together with structural designers, material scientists, robotic and electrical engineers). This seems not only to be the next logical step but also one of the most promising ones in terms of more refined, holistic and applicable design solutions and constructive systems. -
First we had the singular “robotic arm”, now we have tangible examples of structures built by swarms of flying drones – what are the implications for architecture and engineering?
As well as “upscaling” there is also the expansion of these technologies. Key to this are multi-robotic processes, such as two to three industrial robots collaborating during assembly or a fleet of drones building up a structure in airspace. The technical and material implications are manifold, since these processes are not only much faster than conventional single-robotic assemblies, but enable a complete new landscape of complexity. For instance, imagine a geometrically-complex truss structure, which is assembled from simple generic elements. Here, one robotic arm is holding an element in space, whilst the second one brings in another and a third connects the two. Such complex spatial assemblies would not be possible with only one robotic arm.
Mesh-Mould, Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich, 2013.
-
Overall, the conceptual possibilities are almost unlimited. However, from a technological perspective this is still very demanding, since there are no enhanced control systems/routines for these custom cooperative construction processes yet.
From a conceptual point of view, multi-robotic processes are particularly interesting since they allow not just the realisation of more complex and physically larger design propositions but also force designers to think in truly three-dimensional logistical space in which they have to orchestrate a range of different (co-)operations, just like on a construction site. It’s the whole organisation that counts.What about the move towards robots that are “situationally aware” – that is, adaptable to changing surroundings and conditions?
The range of robotic processes is gradually expanding, particularly towards the direct use of robots on the construction site. On one hand, for instance, the small size of robots is a limitation; on the other, it holds a significant potential.
Their payload limitation does not allow for the handling of materials in the sizes and weights they are commonly used in construction. However, their small dimensions and low mass do make them suitable for application directly within the building site. Mounted on a mobile platform and equipped with sensors, for example, multiple robots can navigate the site, react dynamically to tolerances and changing conditions of such an uncertain environment and fabricate architectural structures directly in situ. As a consequence, the application of such situationally aware mobile robotic systems allows for the continuous production and erection of large-format or even complex construction systems over the course of an open-ended, on-site building process.
The Sequential Roof Production Facility ERNE AG Holzbau, Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich, 2015. -
A critical necessity for this is the ability of the robot to orient and position itself autonomously. A closed-loop system and corresponding sensor-driven cognitive skills, using 3D-cameras and laser scanners and the like, ensure the direct integration of incoming information into the logic and articulation of the building components as well as real-time input that enhances the interlinking of digital data and the concrete material.
Overall, this closed “digital chain”, from the computational design to its realisation directly on the construction site, seems to be indeed one of the most promising avenues for future robotic construction, leading to smart, mobile and versatile construction robots, which are able to co-operate and navigate directly on the construction site and which are able to adapt their construction operations.Building Strategies for On-site Robotic Construction, Gramazio Kohler Research and Agile & Dextrous Robotics Lab, NCCR Digital Fabrication, ETH Zurich, 2015.
-
Jan Willmann is Senior Research Assistant at the Chair of Architecture and Digital Fabrication at ETH Zurich. He studied architecture in Liechtenstein, Oxford and Innsbruck where he received his PhD degree in 2010. He was previously a research assistant and lecturer at the Chair of Architectural Theory of Professor Ir. Bart Lootsma and gained professional experience in numerous architectural offices. His research focuses on digital architecture and its theoretical implications as a composed computational and material score. He has lectured and exhibited internationally, and published extensively, including The Robotic Touch: How Robots Change Architecture (Park Books, 2014) together with Fabio Gramazio and Matthias Kohler.
gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch
Where does, or will, AI come into the equation? Do we need construction robots to have intelligence and decision-making capabilities? Why and in what way?
This is a critical question because in this context the terminology “intelligence” could be misleading. According to the computational scientist Rolf Pfeifer, an intelligent robotic system has much to do with its general (mechanic/systemic) morphology and the context it is used in. A very simple and “low-tech” robotic system can act very intelligently if it is well constructed for the purpose it is used for.
On the other hand, quite frankly, the robot itself has no intelligence at all. It is a pretty stupid machine, unless you equip it with enough sensors and control devices and programme it to react in a certain way in certain scenarios and then the machine can only follow instructions that a human has programmed. So, no magic, unfortunately. Sure, machine learning algorithms and dynamic control are important topics in robotic in general, but in the field of digital fabrication this might take another decade to be operative.
Therefore, I would put this AI-discourse in a different way and introduce instead the concept of “otherness”, suggested by Antoine Picon. Today, everything in architectural robotics is happening as if robots are going to forever remain machines for execution. But if you overcome this strange shortsightedness and consider their true machinic potential at the very early stages of architectural conception, it could well represent the next step in exploring the use of robots in architecture. Why not imagine a unified design and fabrication process, in which this “otherness” of the machine corresponds across to the designers as well as the workers in the process? p
Flight Assembled Architecture, Gramazio & Kohler and Raffaello D'Andrea in cooperation with ETH Zurich, FRAC Centre Orléans, 2011/12. (Photo: © François Lauginie)
In Situ Robotic Fabrication/The Fragile Wall, Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich, 2012.
-
Search
-
FIND PRODUCTS
PRODUCT GROUP
- Building Materials
- Building Panels
- Building technology
- Façade
- Fittings
- Heating, Cooling, Ventilation
- Interior
- Roof
- Sanitary facilities
MANUFACTURER
- 3A Composites
- Alape
- Armstrong
- Caparol
- Eternit
- FSB
- Gira
- Hagemeister
- JUNG
- Kaldewei
- Lamberts
- Leicht
- Solarlux
- Steininger Designers
- Stiebel Eltron
- Velux
- Warema
- Wilkhahn
FEATURED
-
Follow Us
Tumblr
New and existing Tumblr users can connect with uncube and share our visual diary.
»What the map cuts up, the story cuts across.«
Michel de Certeau: Spatial Stories
Keyboard Shortcuts
- Skip Articles
- Turn Pages
- Contents