CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION:

Rapidly moving from science fiction to reality, robots are beginning to enter
construction in a number of areas. From autonomous rovers that can increase the
efficiency and detail of site inspections to mechanical arms that automate highly
repetitive tasks like brick-laying and tying rebar the robotic revolution looks set
to gather significant pace in 2019.

1.2 AIM:

To study about the robotic technology used in the field of construction and to
reduce the time of construction.

1.3 OBJECTIVE:

 To analyze how efficiently the robotic technology is used by the

construction industry.
 To study the process involved in the robotic construction.
 Comparative analysis of human workmanship and robotic technology
 To study How they eliminate the human problems in the construction

1.4 LIMITATION:

 Robotic technology and its impact in the field of construction.

 Cost Analysis and payback scenario involved in the robotic construction.
 Time & quality compared with the conventional method of construction

Page | 1
1.5 THRUST AREA:

 Time, cost & quality of robotic construction compared with the

conventional method.

CHAPTER 2 –BRIEF INTRODUCTION

2 BRIEF INTRODUCTION:

This study explores how robotics is being used, and could be used in the future,
in the field of construction. Robotics as a whole is a synchronous combination of
mechanical, electrical, and software engineering. It is a field that aims to better
the lives of humans in tasks that are dangerous, dirty, or demanding.
Construction is the process of creating or renovating a building or an
infrastructure facility. Due to the evolving field of robotics, the goal of this
project is to find out how robotics can be implemented into construction tasks
and to identify as many robotics technologies as possible that can have some
application in construction, while also determining if any of these potential
technologies can be integrated in the near future. This could potentially facilitate
many construction processes to make them safer for workers, take up less time,
or even to perform simple tedious tasks.

“The robots are coming to take our construction jobs!” There’s been a lot of
media coverage over the past couple of years about how workers in many

Page | 2
industries, construction included, will soon be replaced by robots and artificial
intelligence (AI).A recent learning by the Midwest Economic Policy Institute
(MEPI) estimates that by 2057 robots could replace or displace 2.7 million jobs
in construction.

It’s an alarming number, but one that should be taken in the context of how it
was determined. The MEPI study used employment numbers from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics for a handful of construction trades and then applied a growth
rate of 6.5% each decade to get projected employment numbers by 2057. They
then applied automation potential estimates derived from a report
from McKinsey & Company to determine how jobs in each trade would be
displaced or replaced in the next 40 years.

Some occupations in construction have a higher potential for automation like

operating engineers which has an 88% potential for automation.

The construction industry, as a whole, is also notoriously slow at adopting new

technology, which may impede the advancement of robots making their way to
the construction site. The other thing to keep in mind is that there’s currently a
dearth of commercially available construction robots. This robot revolution is
still in its infancy so it’s going to take some time before we see robots making a
significant impact on the construction industry.

Current robots are good at doing simple, repetitive tasks which is why we are
seeing things like bricklaying robots or rebar tying robots. Once set up, these
robots can work continuously to complete tasks faster than human workers
without needing to take breaks or go home for a good night’s sleep. Robots don’t
get tired from lifting bricks, applying mortar and setting them in place or
constantly bending over to tie rebar.
Page | 3
Automation and robotics is the hot new trend in many different industries.
Businesses are looking for ways of automating repetitive, time-consuming, and
dangerous tasks to enhance efficiency and improve the safety of workers. The
construction industry is no different. In fact, automation is an excellent solution
for builders to increase operational efficiency and to cut down on costs.

The scope of automation in the construction industry is quite broad, extending

from initial planning stages all the way to operating and maintaining the final
structure. Here are five examples of automation being used in the construction
industry.

Whether it be modern times or ancient times, construction starts with an idea for
a structure. Whether it be for a house or a skyscraper, there must be a need for a
structure. Once the idea is formulated, architects are given the task of designing
the structure, fleshing the idea out into specifics such as quality, functionality,
and workmanship. Once specifics are defined in terms of drawings and
specifications a builder is called upon to erect the designed facility. This turns
the design into a finished built product. The entire process is coordinated by a
project manager in charge of securing all required resources to complete the
project on-time, on budget, and according to the designer specific quality. The
project manager is also in charge of finding and enlisting contractors for the
construction project. Once finances and contracts are in order, construction
begins. The project follows a defined timetable and finances are constantly
monitored throughout the duration of the project. The construction process is
sequential and many tasks are done throughout the entirety of the process from
start to finish.

2.1 EVOLUTION OF CONSTRUCTION:

Page | 4
Construction has been prevalent since the dawn of mankind. From the pyramids
of Egypt and the Great wall in China to the latest projects such as modern
bridges and architecture. Construction has been a human endeavor for
generations in all parts of the globe. These projects took extensive amounts of
time to build and demanded large use of resources including labor. Some of this
was slave labor, many of whom died in the course of building the project. The
contemporary construction methods of the modern world have seen a vast
improvement. Today there are machines and tools to assist labor in
accomplishing tasks that would have taken significantly more time in ancient
times. With the introduction of new materials, steel and concrete, the
construction industry has also seen vast improvements. Concrete is a relatively
low cost, structural material. It is strong and durable, and is widely used for
virtually any type of project around the world. Steel provides needed strength for
supporting the loads of large scale buildings in a more efficient way
(“Construction Industry History”, 2010). In addition, there are also regulations
put into place to harbor safer working conditions, thanks in part to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA (“OSHA”, 2015).

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES

Whether it be modern times or ancient times, construction starts with an idea for
a structure. Whether it be for a house or a skyscraper, there must be a need for a
structure. Once the idea is formulated, architects are given the task of designing
the structure, fleshing the idea out into specifics such as quality, functionality,
and workmanship. Once specifics are defined in terms of drawings and
specifications a builder is called upon to erect the designed facility. This turns
the design into a finished built product. The entire process is coordinated by a

Page | 5
project manager in charge of securing all required resources to complete the
project on-time, on budget, and according to the designer specific quality. The
project manager is also in charge of finding and enlisting contractors for the
construction project. Once finances and contracts are in order, construction
begins. The project follows a defined timetable and finances are constantly
monitored throughout the duration of the project. The construction process is
sequential and many tasks are done throughout the entirety of the process from
start to finish (“Construction Process”, 2015).

2.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT

The rate at which construction progresses is subject to variability. Productivity

depends on many variables including the weather and worker productivity which
depends on factors such as overtime, morale and attitude, fatigue, stacking of
trades, mobilizing and demobilizing, general errors, reassignment of manpower,
crew size inefficiency, hazardous work areas, and the list goes on ("Factors
Affecting Construction Labor Productivity", 2012). A common underlying factor
to this variability is natural human imperfection. Another issue seen in the
construction industry is security. Security has been a rising issue at many
construction sites. One primary example is thieves have been stealing copper
pipes during the night. Even the workers themselves may be pilfering materials
from the construction site for their own personal gain ("Why Construction
Surveillance is so Important", 2015). A need for enhanced security is necessary
for construction managers and industries as a whole to operate smoothly without
any hindrance or disappearing materials. Another primary issue seen at
construction sites is the safety of workers. Although OSHA has helped in
keeping the number of injuries and death tolls down, safety is still a large issue

Page | 6
today in construction. Over the past summer, an ironworker working on the new
Logan Airport parking garage was trying to secure a concrete panel when the
panel fell from the crane and caused him to plummet 40 feet. He was sent to the
General Hospital where we succumbed to his injuries (Crimaldi, 2015). Clearly
safety on a construction site is most crucial, and steps should be made to further
increase the safety at the job sites.

2.4 SOCIAL ISSUES

There are many social issues to take into account when discussing robotic
applications in construction. One of these concerns comes in the form of privacy,
both worker and public privacy. Any surveillance technologies are examples of
potential invasions of privacy when using robotic technologies. Another main
issue is the fear of job loss. One big fear for the rise of robotics is that workers
may lose their jobs to a machine. They do not want an automated robot to do the
job they, as a human, are paid to do (Romeo, 2015). The robots make the job
easier and potentially lower costs of production since they are not necessarily
subject to negotiation of hourly wages. A robot is a one-time investment that will
pay for itself over time. With a robot there are no unions to worry about, no
healthcare costs, just maintenance costs. This job substitution could also be seen
as a good thing. Instead of humans being in charge of the simpler jobs that robots
can do, they could potentially be hired to perform maintenance checks on the
robots instead. With the rise of robotics comes the rise of those with knowledge
in robotics to work on them. Another societal issue is the concern of safety.
While we do not have to worry about a science-fiction robot apocalypse scenario
where robots become more intelligent than their creators, there can be a concern

Page | 7
with their programming. For most robots, their program is procedural. If a
random event occurs, such as a worker walking in its path, the robot may not be
prepared for that. In this case, safety protocols would need to be placed to protect
those around the robot’s work envelope (“Industrial Robots and Robot System
Safety”, 2015). Another societal issue is hacking of the robotic systems or
hijacking them. Cybercrimes have evolved along with computer technology.
Robots can be hacked either directly or indirectly. Indirectly, a hacker can
infiltrate a robot similarly to hacking a website. Drones can be hacked on their
Bluetooth communication network (“Burke, 2015). The fear of technology as
well as change are topics that easily tie together with the fear of job loss the
public has with robotics being used in the current job market. A large portion of
robotics movies are also themed around the fear of change and how the world
changes due to the introduction of robots into society. Most are quite negative, as
that makes for more entertaining storyline, taking a movie such as, “I, Robot”, as
an example. The movie is about robots working with humans in society until a
new version of robot comes out that gets a virus and tries to take over the world
(“I, Robot”, 2004). This is a fear many people experience and what they see
about the future of robotics.

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted with a construction industry. The latter is specialized
in building construction and is interested in brick-laying process automation in
Construction. The results shown in this paper concern of the Project. Those
results describe the Robotic mechanical design for bricklaying automation. The
design was co-developed with the construction industry in order to fit the needs
(construction time and cost gain compared to the traditional masonry work). The

Page | 8
general framework of the technical/mechanical solution is developed. The choice
of the materiel (a specific type of bricks) is then justified. Mechanical
considerations are discussed and the robot mobility system described
meticulously. The reason for adopting a mechanical mobility is by large more
economical and feasible. Finally, analysis of the automated solution was
conducted and comparison with the traditional masonry work.

CHAPTER 4 LITERATURE STUDY

4.1 TYPES OF ROBOTS IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY:

4.1.1 DEMOLITION ROBOTS

Demolition robots are primarily used for tearing down building walls and other
various structures. Demolition is an important part of construction, specifically
in the renovation field. In a case where a floor of a building needs to be
redesigned, demolition occurs to topple existing walls in order to give room to
create a new layout. The primary benefits of demolition robots are that they are
much more effective than handheld equipment. They also allow the operator to
stand away from the debris and contaminants, making them safer than handheld
devices. A key note here is that current versions of demolition robots are
primarily designed for small scale demolition, not large scale applications. Some
demolition robots use hydropower to bring down materials such as weak
concrete and can prevent the air from being polluted with material dust. Some of

Page | 9
the negative aspects of demolition robots from the social point of viewis that it
could require less workers for the typical demolition job, leading to job loss
(“Remote Demolition”, 2015). There are three distinct types of demolition robots
that are available or being developed: multi-tooled, hydro-powered, and eco-
friendly. Multi-tooled demolition robots allow for multiple types of tools to be
placed at the end of a robotic arm on the demolition robot. Figure 1 shows a
multi-tooled demolition robot:

Figure 1 – Multi-Tooled Demolition Robot

Page | 10
Hydro-powered demolition robots use high pressured water jets to disintegrate
walls and beams with ease. Figure 2 shows a hydro-powered demolition robot:

Figure 2 – Hydro-Powered Demolition Robot

Eco-friendly demolition robots aim to function similarly as hydro-powered

demolition robots, but also absorb the material they remove and process it to
make the material recyclable. Figure 4 shows an eco-friendly demolition robot:

Page | 11
 Figure 3 – Eco-Friendly Demolition Robot

One key positive aspect is that they only require one operator no matter the type
of demolition robot. They all allow for the safety of demolition workers to be
significantly increased by keeping only one worker at bay behind a controller.
The hydro-powered demolition robots also prevent dust particles from getting
into the local atmosphere. The ecofriendly demolition robots turn the waste
product into recyclable aggregate. All types of demolition robots save money, as
an investment, as they reduce the number of workers required which is discussed
later on in this report. The major negative aspect of demolition robots is that they
all require a significant power source to operate, whether it be a battery or a cord
to an industrial grade outlet or generator.

4.1.2 3D PRINTING AND CONTOUR CRAFTING

Page | 12
3D printing has evolved over the past decade. From rapid prototyping to full
scale working cars, 3D printing has changed the way we think about
manufacturing and will continue to do so for generations to come. Figure 5
shows a 3D printing robot:

Figure 4 – 3D Printing Robot

3D printing is now coming to the construction industry. From building homes in

a day, to building a block of apartments in a week, this technology can
fundamentally change the way we construct buildings. Where normal
construction takes a few months, construction by 3D printing robots can print a
structure in a day or two. There is little to no waste created, as the robot applies
the exact amount of material needed for the structure. One main downside to this
emerging technology is that this kind of robot can replace a large number of
workers, as only a few would be needed to operate the robot, potentially causing
job loss (Khoshnevis, 2014). 3D printing and contour crafting robots require the

Page | 13
placement of a rig which can be very demanding. However, this is already done
similarly when building tall buildings in cities where gantries are used to lift
large beams. The same setup practices can be applied to the setup of a 3D
printing robot. 3D printers aim to be highly mobile when setup is complete.
While it may take some time to set up the apparatus, the 3D printer aims to save
significant time in the build period of the structure. Many of the current 3D
printing technologies are purely academic in nature or experimental, however
there are companies looking to sell these machines in one to two years.

4.1.3 DRONES

Another emerging robotic technology is that of robotic drones. Drones are

unmanned robots that are controlled remotely by human interface and are used to
accomplish various tasks. They are very versatile as these robots can be small or
large, fast or slow. Drone technology has the ability to be applied in just about
any field including construction. There are four main types of drones that are
directly applicable to construction practices: Contour crafting, transportation,
surveying, and monitoring. Contour crafting drones merge drones and 3D
printing technology to create a flying 3D printer.

Page | 14
 Figure 5 – Contour Crafting Drone

These drones are purely in an experimental stage. While the benefits are obvious,
the ability to 3D print anywhere and the verticality prowess, the negatives to this
technology are hefty. There are wind invariances that cause drones to become
unsteady and thus the drone cannot perform outdoors. The motor vibrations from
the drone also make the application of 3D printing almost impossible, at least if
you want it to be precise.

Transportation drones would be used in a formation called swarm robotics.

Figure 6 shows a swarm of drones and figure 7 shows a single transportation
drone:

Page | 15
 Figure 6 – Swarm of drones

Figure 7 – Transportation Drone

Swarm drones would work as a unit to lift heavy payloads and deliver them to a
high location. The benefits of this technology is that they can attain high
locations very easily whereas it could take a human worker a long time to deliver
Page | 16
materials, ones light enough to not require a lift or crane, to the same high
location. The negatives are that wind invariances can cause for the drones to not
work well as a unit. Surveying drones are used to get still images, 360
panoramas, and aerial shots of a construction site. Figure 9 shows a surveying
drone:

Figure 8 – Surveying Drone

The benefits are obvious as the drones can capture multiple angles in a short
amount of time and eliminates the need for multiple cameras to be rigged at
multiple locations surrounding the site. When partnered with advanced imaging
technology, companies can analyze the progress of a site in real time. An
example of this is the application of bridge inspection. A surveying drone is
capable of analyzing weaknesses in a bridge when partnered with software
imaging technology (Drelich, 2015). The negatives of this technology is that the
quality of the images may not be as good as a still frame due to the vibrations

Page | 17
caused by the rotors. Monitoring drones are used to act as security at a
construction site. Figure 9 shows a monitoring drone:

Figure 9 – Monitoring Drone

They can be used as security for the construction site but also can be used to
monitor the site to determine who is there and how long they have been there
using facial recognition. The advantages of this technology are similar to that of
the surveying drones in that they can attain high locations. The disadvantages are
that some workers may feel that it violates their privacy. The counter argument
that has been made about this is that security cameras already exist and that these
monitoring drones would be no different. Some of the major benefits of drones
are that they are usually small, which usually means cheaper, however there are
some exceptions. Ranging from simple to complex, drones are usually capable of
more than just one task and a great many of them could do these tasks
autonomously. Another obvious benefit is that they can attain higher elevations
quickly and without much effort. The downside of using this technology is the
maintenance costs, their ability to get lost, and there are many regulations against
their usage in many locations (“Drones”, 2015). However, recent loopholes in
the rules allow for a licensed operator to use a drone so long that it does not

Page | 18
eliminate the need for workers. Drone use near airports is still tightly enforced as
a no fly zone.

4.1.4 BRICKLAYING ROBOTS

Robots are used to accomplish jobs deemed too tedious for humans. One such
tedious task is bricklaying. Bricklaying robots are being used in the construction
field to perform a task consecutively and efficiently of layering bricks for
buildings, roads, walls, etc. Bricklaying robots come in a few sizes. Industrial
robotics arms are able to do repetitive task efficiently. Figure 11 shows a
bricklaying robot for walls:

Figure 10 – Bricklaying Robot: walls

Many bricklaying robots utilize industrial robotics arms to do repetitive tasks

including bricklaying or stacking. Other bricklaying robots can lay a masonry
pathway using a conveyor belt or a coupled pattern arrangement system. Figure
12 shows a bricklaying robot for roads and pathways:

Page | 19
 Figure 11 – Bricklaying Robot: Roads

Bricklaying robots can assemble the masonry structure of the building, while the
workers operate the robot or perform support task (such as mixing the cement or
bonding agent). They can also make elaborate masonry structures that could not
be created with traditional methods. The major benefit of this technology is that
it can perform the task efficiently and quickly. However, this technology has the
downside of a high cost which will be discussed in the cost benefit section later
in this report. An investment would have to be made that would pay off in the
long term goals of the construction process for the potential of this type of robot
to be used ("Semi-Automated Mason", 2015).

4.1.5 WELDING ROBOTS

Welding robots are used for the construction of ships, and for any application to
joining metal. These robots can be used on steel structures and particularly on
the docking stations of ports. They are able to make precise welds and maneuver
in hard to reach locations. Figure 12 shows a welding robot:

Page | 20
 Figure 12 – Welding Robot

There are two areas where this robot can be used in, one being the construction
of skyscrapers. In Japan, welding robots are used to weld steel beams together.
Another use in construction are concrete slabs. Before the concrete can be
poured, riggings must be placed in and welded. Because of the maze of riggings,
a welder is at a large risk of getting hurt, but a welding robot could take the place
of a worker and prevent injury. Unfortunately, there are very limited
implementations of welding robots for onsite construction. Besides Japan, there
are no other records of welding robots being used in the construction industry.
The closest implementation is in-ship building where a dozen welding robots are
lowered to the hull of a ship to welding the hull together. However, this still
seems impractical in a construction site setting. The benefits of this technology is
that it is safer for workers who don't have to be near sparks flying and intense
heat when using these robots, making them useful for safety. The welding robots
are able to attain a high quality of welding. The disadvantages are that it
currently is a stationary device so a worker needs to place it and situate it. At this

Page | 21
point in time, it may be simpler and less costly to manually weld. The only
determining factor would be the quality of the robot versus that of a human
(“Mini Welding Robot”,2013).

4.1.6 EXOSKELETONS

Another emerging technology is robotic exoskeletal suits working with humans

to enhance a task or ability the human body lacks. Intelligent suits are meant to
increase the strength of the average user, endurance, speed, agility, etc. Figure 14
shows an exoskeleton suit:

Figure 13 – Exoskeleton Suit

A major benefit is it allows for injured or disabled workers to work in

construction. Also it allows workers to lift and transport heavier objects than
ever before. Some of the disadvantages of exoskeletons are that most are quite

Page | 22
bulky, even though they increase abilities mentioned. Some of the suits that
focus on strength or endurance tend to lack speed, or the suits that specialize in
speed or agility tend to lack in durability when trying to lift large payloads. The
cost benefit, which is discussed later in this report, is not good and would not be
practical for construction companies to invest in. Humans must also be willing to
learn to use these suits, as they are a very new technology to get used to (Mane,
2014).

4.1.7 FORKLIFT ROBOTS

Forklift robots have a main goal of transporting heavy or generally large objects
from one point to the next. They aim to alleviate the need for a human to carry
these objects, or have a human control a forklift to transport the goods. They are
able to accomplish this through vision tracking and map localization. Figure 15
shows a forklift robot:

Figure 14 – Forklift Robot

Based off of the work done by the MIT team on forklift robots, if a robot is
preprogrammed a map it can essentially traverse the path generated using
algorithms in a short amount of time, all while delivering heavy payloads
(Gyimah, 2015). This application can be used almost anywhere that a large or
heavy objects need to be transported. In construction, it is very common for
many materials and supplies to be heavy and or burdensome for workers. Having
a forklift robot would alleviate this burden. There are two main foreseen
Page | 23
limitations of forklift robots. With the nature of a forklift robot being a forklift,
the terrain needs to be relatively flat with no harsh gradients or bumps. In a
construction site it may be a common case where the terrain is too harsh for such
a robot to be able to perform. Another limitation, which is not too big of an
issue, is that the map of the job site needs to be pre-planned into the robot. The
main advantages of this technology are or seem to be that there is a low cost of
ownership and it has the ability to lift heavy payloads that humans cannot
feasibly accomplish (4000 lb by the Patriot P325 model). The current drawback
of this technology is that it cannot handle intense terrain and needs to be kept in
a controlled environment. Some of the robots require mapping of the terrain for
them in their current state of development (Teller, 2010).

4.1.8 Roadwork Robots

Roadwork robots are primarily focused upon repainting and repaving roadways.
The primary reason for this is to do small patch jobs to avoid the highway clutter
and traffic jams. Figure 16 shows a repaving robot while figure 17 shows a
repainting robot:

Figure 15 – Repaving Robot

Page | 24
 Figure 16 – Repainting Robot

Currently, large machinery is required to repaint and fix small potholes and other
cracks in roads. This technology is smaller in scale and is able to do smaller
patch jobs on potholes and cracks. The repainting robots allow for the same type
of small job scale fix jobs. Their main abilities are that they alleviate the need for
a large workforce and machinery for jobs that are relatively small in nature. The
only drawback is that this technology is not very precise at the moment and
further technological testing needs to be made to perfect this ("Paint and
Coatings Industry News”, 2013).

4.1.9 FUTURE TECHNOLOGY: HUMANOIDS

Humanoid robots, a self-explanatory concept, is of the most complex types of

robots we can try to create in today’s world. Currently, the robot called Atlas is
the closest robot to a humanoid and with complex abilities like balance and
obstacle avoidance (Boston Dynamics, 2015). Figure 18 shows the humanoid
robot, Atlas:

Page | 25
 Figure 17 – Humanoid Robot

These robots are able to navigate through hazardous areas and accomplish tasks
that humans are unable to do due to the environment. These robots could be also
used to do almost anything a human could do. This technology is very far away
from being a reality at the moment and therefore it has been classified as a future
technology. The downside to these robots are that costs are high and the
development time is extensive. The amount of complexity in a system that has a
lot of kinematic motion and can create safety concerns (“Boston Dynamics:
Atlas”, 2013).

Page | 26
 Figure 18 – Ranklist of construction robots

In terms of productivity, drones scored the highest, meaning that respondents

who were surveyors or similar, felt that drones would allow them to be more
productive at the job site. Humanoids scored lowest in productivity and this can
be most likely attributed to the societal perceptions of humanoids as well as the
general feeling that there is currently no way that a humanoid could work as
productively as a human could at the current technological standpoint humanoids
are in.

Page | 27
Bricklaying robots got the highest score for cooperation with construction
workers meaning that the workers in the corresponding trades such as masonry
would like a partnership with a robot to collaborate and work together on
separate tasks to get a common goal done. Humanoids scored the lowest in this
category, once again, most likely due to the fact that workers do not want to have
to collaborate and partner with robotic versions of humans.

CHAPTER 5-MASONARY ROBOTS

Bryson, Maynard, Castro-Lacouture, and Williams (2005) developed

“RoboPaver”, a 1:20 scale prototype concrete paving robot. The latter contains
sensors and data collection tools in order to work as autonomously as possible
and is designed to operate in difficult environments. Warszawski and Navon
(1991) discussed in details robots intended to perform Interior ‐Finishing
Works. They presented an overview of the interior ‐fiishing robot development
process and proposed a preliminary design for the robot set of activities to
perform the work. In the same context, Spath and Andres (1997) investigated the
use of robots for interior trade works in construction. They proposed a
kinematical concept of a robot for interior building trades and a specific process
automation for the cutting of wall slits in masonry on construction sites.The
present research focuses on the masonry work. The latter has been a fild of
investigation for
a number of research projects (Cavieres, Gentry, & Al-Haddad, 2011; Spath &
Andres, 1997). Masonry work is one of the most arduous jobs in construction

Page | 28
(Hess, Weinstein, & Welch, 2010; Vink, Miedema, Koningsveld, & van der
Molen, 2002) since it includes a mason standing, kneeling and lifting. In
addition, the mason works almost exclusively outside and undergoes the weather
conditions (rain, wind, heat, humidity…). The mason sometimes works in height
scafflding or in trenched soils which may put his life in jeopardy. In the last two
decades, some research projects focused on the development of a bricklaying
robot (Pritschow, Dalacker, Kurz, & Zeiher, 1994). Bricklaying work follows
predefied steps and thus is favorable for automation. However, the process
cannot be fully automated and requires the supervision of a worker nearby to
adjust/control the robot. Tan, Mohan, and Watanabe (2016) stressed the
importance of the environment when designing a robot. They support the idea
that robot level of autonomy should be in line with the environment
(actively/passively/not assisted environment). For
that, the authors proposed a framework to help categorize the robot/environment
interaction.The latest technologies for masonry work automation that came out
recently concern:

The Australian “Hadrian X” ROBOT (Pivac & Pivac, 2016) that closely
resembles to a truck crane, The robot is capable of laying the bricks with a high
accuracy thanks to a laser guidance system. It is also able to work on almost any
block size. The advantage of such a design is the flexibility in mobility: the robot
can work under difficult circumstances linked to the environment.

SAM100 (Semi-Automated Mason) from Construction Robotics (Podkaminer &

Peters, 2015): the robot successfully passed the prototyping phase and is now
commercially available. Figure 3 shows the utilization of SAM100 onsite. This

Page | 29
robot is by far the most complete masonry robot realized until now. It can lays
bricks with precision and includes the binder in the process of laying as well.
SAM100 is capable of laying 800–1.200 bricks a day. The robot performs in
straight line with a limited height capacity. SAM100 costs around 500.000$
(442.030 €).Other research projects focused on a specific design problematic of
the automation process. For instance, (King, Bechthold, Kane and Michalatos
(2014) explored the automation of tile placement using a variety of mathematical
algorithms and image based methods. Their analysis led to the conclusion that
installation costs for both robotic and manual placements are similar, but robotic
methods add customization in the possible patterns. Bock, Stricker, Fliedner, and
Huynh (1996) focused on the “software” part of the brick laying robot design.

Table 1 – framework of the robotic mechanical design for brick laying automation

Those cited research projects focused on the “functional” aspects: placement,

pattern recognition, software, etc… However, the design part of the robot isn’t
provided and detailed in literature. For SAM100, the design is based on an
articulated arm as found in previous research projects (Bock etal., 1996;
Pritschow, Dalacker, Kurz, & Gaenssle, 1996). The “HADRIAN X” is based on
a variant of the articulated arm supported by a truck-crane robot. In this article,

Page | 30
we explore a different design alternative for the brick-laying robot. Design could
greatly impact the efficiency of the robot and its cost. This article provides
insights on the importance of the design phase when building a robot intended
for construction.

The proposed design in the next chapter achieves the following goals:
•An increase in maximum construction height possible by the brick laying
robots.
•An improvement in cost by design

A design of a masonry robot, called “brick-laying robot” is achieved and

explained throughout the next sections of the paper. At first the technical design
is presented. After that, the design of the laying head and its functioning is
discussed. Finally, the analysis of the robot is viewed in comparison with the
traditional masonry construction method in terms of time and cost efficiencies

5.1 OVERALL SYSTEM DESIGN

The system is designed to guide the brick-laying head along the walls and to
supply the head laying with blocks and cement.

Figure 19 – Thin joints masonry vs. classic masonry method.

Page | 31
The construction of a wall with this system is achieved through three steps as
described below:

(1)Stock-processing;
(2)Construction;
(3)Material deposit.

5.2 MATERIAL INPUT FOR THE BRICK-LAYING ROBOT

For this study, standard cinder blocks (50 × 20 × 20 dimensions) were used as an
input material. Accordingly, the brick-laying robot must have an advance of 50
cm to lay the cinder blocks and a vertical movement of 20 cm in order to shift
between the rows of finished blocks. The method of thin joints is preferred for
the bricklayer robot. The method appeared in the 90s and had big advantages
over the classic masonry method. Indeed, it is similar to bonding technique;
instead of having joints with a thickness of ten millimeters, thinner joints are
required thus the use of a particular type of bricks is required. Those bricks are
called rectified bricks due to the mechanical rectification on their upper and
lower sides with dimensional tolerances of one millimeter.

Page | 32
 Figure 20 – 3d modeling of the overall system and stock processing

The advantages of these rectified bricks are:

•Ten times less mortar than normal bricks (so much less water consumed and
less waste).
•Less difficulty in the assembly.
•At least 20% of gain in time.
•Improved thermal performance.
•Clean and steady performance.
•Price: 26€/range of rectified bricks.
•Existing Dimensions (L × W × H): 15/20/30/50 × 20 × 15/20/25 cm.
The success of thin joints assembly technique is not exclusively contingent upon
time saving. Figure reveals the traditional masonry method, requiring 7.5 kg/m²
of cement binder and the thin joints masonry, requiring only 2.5 kg/m².

Page | 33
 Figure 21 – construction process of a wall and material deposit

5.3 TECHNICAL DESIGN

5.3.1 STRUCTURE

The proposed technical design for the basic structure of the brick-laying robot is
a scissor lift. The latter is a folding system which is easy to transport and
requires little labor for installation (compared to other alternatives). This solution
has been inspired from aerial buckets, commonly used in the construction field to
lift people or loads.

Page | 34
The advantages of this system include:

•Intrinsic stability of the equipment -> no need for stabilizers within the range of
normal heights.
•Can lift fairly heavy loads.
•Spacious Platform.
•Certain devices are being designed to enable the extension, deport or orientation
of the platform.
•Use a relatively small surface of the ground to hold.

In contrast, the disadvantages are:

•Requires the use of a tank transporter to carry these devices over long distances;
•Requires clean and hard floors with no slope, gutters (etc.).
•Presents a shearing risk when the platform descends, especially if the scissors
are not well protected. Before using the machine, the stability of the ground must
be ensured (flat ground, no hills…), the soil must be hard enough to withstand
the machine (the lifting platform, scissors, bricks….). The drive controls are
located in the working platform (at the chassis). Hence, once the robot is on site,
it can be programmed for self-movement.

5.3.2 ROBOT MOBILITY

The aerial bucket has a support frame which is movable when the platform is
raised. The robot is not completely autonomous: a skilled worker is needed to
ensure the controls (height, translation, etc.).In the context of this research, the
aerial bucket should be adapted to have the drive controls in the chassis instead
Page | 35
of the cabin. Therefore, the platform commands should be moved to the
platform; an operation that will bring additional costs, which are not accounted
for in the conducted cost study.

5.3.3 STOCK PROCESSING

A stock of bricks and cement (mixed in advance) is put in place at the mobile
platform.For a chosen aerial bucket, the platform maximum capacity is 950 kg
and that of the unit constituted by the laying head and the conveyor system is
100 kg. The stock could therefore contain more than 45 normal blocks of 17 kg.
Thus intermediate stock containing 45 blocks each can be set up in advance on
site and moved to the mobile platform using a forklift. The latter has a maximum
capacity of 900 kg. A small cement mixer will also be assembled on the working
platform and is intended to operate autonomously (using a pump).

5.3.4 HANDLING SYSTEM FOR BRICKS

We found that a conveyor system is a convenient solution to deliver bricks to the

brick-laying head.
5.3.5 ROBOT-ARM MANIPULATOR

A manipulator arm is designed to move building materials (bricks,

plasterboard…) to the conveyor system.
5.3.6 ROBOT-LAYING HEAD

The main design challenge was to imagine a system that can handle smoothly the
large and heavy agglomerated blocks. The system requires devices that are able
to accommodate, move down, and place on average a 20 kg blocks.

Page | 36
 Figure 22 - Manipulator arm.

For example, a clip closing over the block that slides along the vertical axis
would be perfectly suited for the descent of chipboard block but it would face
many problems during the brick- laying phase. Indeed, the ends of the clip would
be trapped between the bloc and the built wall. Furthermore, cement might grip
and harden on the clip thus reducing substantially the accuracy of the laying.
This solution, which seemed at first glance simple and convenient, arises
complex problems. In the next section, we fist present the functioning and the
system modeling (blocks accommodation (onset)). After that, we present the
system that moves down the blocks and place them for the descent (descent).

Page | 37
Figure 23-Zoom of the Bricklaying head.

Figure 24-bricks laying process

Page | 38
5.4 ONSET SYSTEM

5.4.1 FUNCTIONING

The onset system intends to accommodate the blocks so that they are properly
put in place for the descent while ensuring a set of requirements
.Accommodating a new block should be possible as soon as the previous one is
evacuated from the working area. The onset system involves three stages:
•Accommodation and positioning of the block.
•Initiation of the descent.
•A Return to the starting position.
Since the brick-laying head is intended to work in building sites, a special
attention should be paid to avoid using components that are too sensitive to
water, dust, or gravels (we limit the number of actuators and electronic sensors in
favor of simple mechanism and springs)

Table 2 – special requirements for the onset systems

5.4.2MODELLING AND REALISATION

One problem not obvious at first glance is the mounting of the rollers’ shaft. In
addition to being rotated by the belts, those rollers are engaged in a linear motion
during the spring’s compression. This movement is made possible by the

Page | 39
presence of parallelepiped pieces that can be identified. These parts drive the
rollers in rotation and are in a sliding connection with the frame. A bent plate
forms this sliding connection. The springs in turn are to be placed between the
casing and
the parallelepiped pieces. The belt, which is placed on the two rolls, is not a
drive belt. Rather, it helps guide the blocks between the two stages of rollers, and
serves to increase the co-efficient of friction between the block and the rollers.
Indeed the coefficient of friction between the block and the roll is inversely
proportional to the minimum force required to support the block.

5.4.2ROLLERS SHAFTS

Two pads located inside the bores of the parallelepiped bars guide the roller
shafts. A pulley is arranged on the shaft so as to accommodate the belt. The
roller shaft consists of two fretted parts: in order to avoid processing too big
cylinders during the metal turning phase, we simply drill a room and fix an axis
within. As the torque being transmitted here is 20 Nm, the hooping is a sufficient
solution for savings in terms of material and machining.

5.4.3 Rectangular pieces

Rails, manufactured using bent plate screwed to the frame, guide the pieces on
which the axes of the rollers are mounted. A blind hole, which does not pass
through the whole piece, is provided in order to allow room to accommodate the
spring that maintains the block. Reinforcements are provided to connect the top
and the bottom rail of each parallelepiped piece.

5.4.4 Transverse axis

Page | 40
The transverse axis corresponds to the axis 2 in the diagram. It aims to enable
simultaneous motion of the rollers on each side of the block. As we have already
seen, the two conical gears put in place above this axis move the rollers with the
same speed in two different directions. Moreover, since the two pinions are
mounted in opposition, the axial forces are canceled. The use of a pair of spur
gears reduces four times the motor’s speed. Specifically, it can reach an on-load
speed of 40TR/min with a 5 Nm torque. Since the ratio of conical gears’ torque
to drive pulleys’ torque is 1, the block descent velocity is 4.2 cm/s. For a couple
of 20 N.m, we would prefer a higher on-load speed, however, since this speed is
very close to the 5 cm/s velocity initially planned, we accept the current
economical prototype.

5.4.5. Cement deposit

The rectified blocks were chosen mainly because the tolerances related to their
dimensions are much lower than those related to the ordinary blocks. Another
benefits related to the use of rectified blocks is that a thin layer of seal can
substitute the traditional cement binder. Therefore the mass of the binder for
transportation is low. Moreover, the seal can easily grip on the concrete thus
allowing the seal to be directly applied under the block if desired. Rather than
using an articulated arm that removes the seal, we chose to use the block
movement in the conveyor to remove the seal; this operation represents a
significant savings in sensor and actuator.As discussed before, the conveyor
delivers the block to the onset system. However, during the delivery process, the
block travels on a roller that is dipped in a tank containing the seal. The
underside of the block (in touch with the roller) will therefore be covered by the
seal .The roller is not as large as the block, accordingly, the blocks’ edges will

Page | 41
not be soaked by the seal, which otherwise would have impeded the functioning
of the onset system.

Figure 25 Dipping of the block using a tank containing the seal.

Table 3 – walls characteristics

The casing is made of folded sheets on which are fixed the various systems
described above. Sheet metal is being used in order to minimize the mass. For
vertical binding of the blocks, the seal is deposited via a pipe linked to the laying
head as described.

CHAPTER 6- CONSTRUCTION TIME ANALYSIS

From the three stages of construction defied in this study, a building time
analysis
was conducted for various types of aerial buckets. Those different aerial buckets
are characterized by various working heights thus can be adapted to different
projects.

Page | 42
The building time analysis was conducted on four commercially available aerial
buckets:

•ID #1 (working height: 15.30 m).

•ID #2 (working height: 12.00 m).
•ID #3 (working height: 6.35 m).
•ID #4 (working height: 34.00 m).

As mentioned before, the aerial bucket “ID #4” has a good working height to
load capacity ration and therefore allows to build very high buildings. However,
the aerial bucket “ID #3” has other interesting advantages: its height when folded
allows to move through standard doorways; an overall length of 1.88 m and a
width of 0.76 m that accesses congested areas. Thus, such a platform offers the
possibility to construct interior bearing walls.

An example is the construction of a wall that is 2.4 m in height and 3 m in width.

The construction characteristics of the robot are deducted and presented. It was
also defied in the tender specification that the paving speed of the brick-laying
head Vp be equal to one block per minute (Vp= 1 blc/min). The vertical and
horizontal translation speeds of each aerial buckets are provided by the
manufacturers. From these data, we could calculate the building time of the wall
using the Bricklayer Robot (Table 4).The results are very satisfactory for the
Bricklayer Robot although many rooms for improvement are available. For the
traditional construction method, we estimate that one man/women needs 1h of
work to build 1 m² of wall. Hence, in order to build the 7.5 m² wall, we need one
mason as well as7.5 h with the traditional method is needed.

Page | 43
The current study indicates that by automating the processes, it is possible to
reduce this time by more than a half.

Page | 44
 Table 4 – BUILDING TIME ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 7 – CASE STUDIES

7.1 POFF FEDERAL BUILDING

Page | 45
Page | 46
 FIGURE 26 – POFF FEDERAL BUILDING

BRICKS USED IN THIS BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION – 250000+

BY TRADITIONAL METHOD, IT WILL TAKE 500+ DAYS TO COMPLETE

WHERE AS WITH SAM 100 – ONLY 125+ DAYS TO COMPLETE.

Page | 47
The calculation is based on; In general 500 bricks per day can lay according
to the traditional method, whereas SAM100 robot can lay the bricks up to
2000 bricks per day.

7.2 ERLANGER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING

Page | 48
Page | 49
 Figure 27-Erlanger Medical office building

BRICKS USED IN THIS BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION – 25000+

BY TRADITIONAL METHOD, IT WILL TAKE 50+ DAYS TO

COMPLETE WHERE AS WITH SAM 100 – ONLY 13DAYS TO
COMPLETE.

The calculation is based on, In general 500 bricks per day can lay according
to the traditional method, whereas SAM100 robot can lay the bricks up to
2000 bricks per day.

Page | 50
6.3 UMHHC BRIGHTON HEALTH CENTER SOUTH

Page | 51
Page | 52
 Figure 28 – UMHHC BRINGHTON HEALTH CARE CENTRE

BRICKS USED IN THIS BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION – 17000+

BY TRADITIONAL METHOD, IT WILL TAKE 37+ DAYS TO

COMPLETE WHERE AS WITH SAM 100 – ONLY 8+ DAYS TO
COMPLETE.

The calculation is based on, In general 500 bricks per day can lay according
to the traditional method, whereas SAM100 robot can lay the bricks up to
2000 bricks per day.

Page | 53
 CHAPTER 8 LIVE STUDY

8.1 OCEAN DEW APARTMENTS

• Ocean Dew is a ritzy residential community in Greater Velachery on the

200 bypass road. The luxurious and elegant property spans across 2.2679
acres of urban and floral habitat. With two residential blocks of opulent
apartments and a dedicated third block for amenities, Ocean Dew is an
epitome of finesse and exquisiteness.

• Unit Size: 636 to 1686 Sq.ft.

• Floors: 13.

• No. Of Units: 283.

• No.of blocks : 2 apartment block & 1 amenity block.

• ARCHITECT : RAMANIYAM BUILDERS

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 29 – RAMANAIYAM BUILDING
• R.C.C. Framed structure
with non – load bearing , porotherm walls (Hollow block) / brick / Cellular
light weight concrete (CLC) block walls.

• The walls will be Plastered inside and outside.

• Ceiling height will be 10 feet approximately, except in the toilets where it

will be 9 feet.
Page | 54
 • Generally internal partition walls will be 4″ & outer walls will be 6″.

MASONARY WORK

• Per floor – brick area – 1500 sq.ft

• 1500sqt – 140 sq.m

• 1m^3 = 500 bricks

• 140 sq.m *3m height = 420sq.m

• 420 * 500 bricks = 2,10,000 bricks per floor.

Page | 55
BRICKWORK – WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

3 STAGES:

• SILL LEVEL

• LINTEL LEVEL

• ABOVE LINTEL LEVEL

1 mason and 1 helper – 500 bricks lay / per day-REF(:central public work
department 2016 volume 2)

The schedule of this building has been worked out W.R.T to this rule.It took
almost 391 days of bricklaying work

Per day of bricklaying – 11,666 bricks

The total numbers of bricks to be laid is 2,10,000 bricks per floor.

Page | 56
13 floors, 27,30,000 bricks to be laid.

THE TOTAL AREA OF BRICKWORK CONSTRUCTED BY TRADITIONAL

METHOD – 18 DAYS – 23 PPL

12 MASON

6 SKILLED LABOUR (GRADE 1)

5 UNSKILLED LABOUR (GRADE 2).

SAM 100 ROBOT

If we use the aerial bucket which use to carry the load for the height of 34m.

Page | 57
SAM 100 – ROBOT can able to lay 2000 bricks per day W.R.T to the different
characteristics of aerial buckets used. The climb speed may vary among the
different types of buckets used.

Each floor – 2,10,000 bricks

Total 13 floor – 27,30,000 bricks

Per day SAM 100 – 3000 bricks

By using large size aerial bucket – 4000 bricks

W.R.T. These characteristics,

The current study indicates that by automating the processes, it is possible

to reduce this time by more than a half.

Total no.of days will be 50 days

(the ratio will be 1:8 ratio) for large size aerial bucket.

8.2 PRINCE HIGHLAND,PORUR

Page | 58
 FIGURE 30 – PRINCE HIGHLAND PORUR

MASONARY WORK

• Per floor – brick area – 1850 sq.ft

• 1850sqt – 172 sq.m

• 1m^3 = 500 bricks

• 172 sq.m *3m height = 516 sq.m

Page | 59
 • 516 * 500 bricks = 2,58,000 bricks per floor.

• 2,58,000 bricks per floor.

• Total 9 floors

• Total amount of bricks – 2,58,000 * 9

• 23,22000 bricks in total

The schedule of this building has been worked out W.R.T to this rule.It took
almost 159 days of bricklaying work

Per day of bricklaying – 8600 bricks

• The total numbers of bricks to be laid is 2,58,000 bricks per floor.

• 9 floors, 23,22,000 bricks to be laid.

Page | 60
 • THE TOTAL AREA OF BRICKWORK CONSTRUCTED BY
TRADITIONAL METHOD – 18 DAYS – 17 PPL

• 9 MASON

• 5 SKILLED LABOUR (GRADE 1)

• 4 UNSKILLED LABOUR (GRADE 2)

SAM 100 ROBOT

If we use the aerial bucket which use to carry the load for the height of 34m.

• The total numbers of bricks to be laid is 2,58,000 bricks per floor.

• 9 floors, 23,22,000 bricks to be laid.

• Each floor – 2,58,000 bricks

• Total 13 floor – 23,22,000 bricks

• Per day SAM 100 – 3000 bricks

Page | 61
 • By using large size aerial bucket – 4000 bricks

• W.R.T. These characteristics,

• The current study indicates that by automating the processes, it is

possible to reduce this time by more than a half.

• Total no.of days will be 15 days(the ratio will be 1:8 ratio) for large
size aerial bucket.

8.3 RUBY - LANDMARK

Landmark is a residential community in Varadharajapuram.Constructed in the

year 2016

LOCATION: Varadharajapuram, Tamil Nadu 602301.

The whole building is divided into three phases

basement plan

BLOCK 1 : 1360 sq.m

BLOCK 2: 2300 sq.m

BLOCK 3 : 1700 Sq.m

NO.OF.UNITS : 298

• The luxurious and elegant property spans across 2.0179 acres of urban

and floral habitat.

• Unit Size: 660 to 1500 Sq.ft.

Page | 62
• Floors: 13 & 12.

• TOTAL AREA :4,50,000 Sq.ft.

• No. Of Units: 298.

• No.of blocks : 2 apartment block & 1 amenity block.

• ARCHITECT : RUBY BUILDERS

FIGURE 31 – RUBY LANDMARK BUILDING

Page | 63
MASONARY WORK

• Per floor – brick area – 2400 sq.ft

• 1850sqt – 223 sq.m

• 1m^3 = 500 bricks

• 172 sq.m *3m height = 669 sq.m

• 669 * 500 bricks = 3,34,500 bricks per floor.

• 3,34,000 bricks per floor.

• Total 13 floors

• Total amount of bricks – 3,34,000 * 13

• 43,48500 bricks in total

• The schedule of this building has been worked out W.R.T to this rule.It
took almost 387 days of bricklaying work
Page | 64
 • Per day of bricklaying – 21500 bricks

• The total numbers of bricks to be laid is 3,34,000 bricks per floor.

• 13 floors, 43,48,500 bricks to be laid.

• THE TOTAL AREA OF BRICKWORK CONSTRUCTED BY

TRADITIONAL METHOD – 16 DAYS – 42 PPL

• 26 MASON

• 10 SKILLED LABOUR (GRADE 1)

• 6 UNSKILLED LABOUR (GRADE 2)

SAM 100 ROBOT

If we use the aerial bucket which use to carry the load for the height of 34m.

• The total numbers of bricks to be laid is 3,34,000 bricks per floor.

• 13 floors, 43,48,500 bricks to be laid.

Page | 65
 • Each floor – 3,34,000 bricks

• Total 13 floor – 43,48,000 bricks

• Per day SAM 100 – 3000 bricks

• By using large size aerial bucket – 4000 bricks

• W.R.T. These characteristics,

• The current study indicates that by automating the processes, it is possible

to reduce this time by more than a half.Total no.of days will be 48
days(the ratio will be 1:8 ratio) for large size aerial bucket.

CHAPTER 9 – COST ANALYSIS

Labor and the waste costs are estimated using the standard method. Data were
gathered from a French construction company by exploiting the ratios of cost to
time required to build an edifie. The hourly rate for construction corresponds to
36 €/Hour for the Paris region and to € 32/Hour for other regions (Without
Taxes). It is also important to take into account that; in general, builders are
working in teams of two. Managing waste is also resource consuming. The
Bricklayer Robot is fully automatic and is designed to produce 0% waste. As for
the standard methods, there are costs related to waste disposal. By and large, it
takes about 0.80€ to manage 1 m² of waste during the first stages of construction
(excavation and structural work) and about 2.10€ to do so during the secondary
stages (fiishing work, electricity, plumbing…)

Page | 66
 FIGURE 32 – COST ANALAYSIS

In this context, the Masonry Robot reduces the cost and saves time by cutting
waste (no broken bricks for example). Dump trucks are not necessary to evacuate
waste anymore and workers don’t need to allocate time and energy for cleaning
and putting garbage in dumps. For Masonry Robot, costs can be divided into
different parts At this stage of the research project, we still lack information
about the system operation. Improvements are to be made in the future to
increase the accuracy of the estimated costs. Various costs should be covered in
this preliminary analysis. If this list is not exhaustive, it tries, however, to
capture the main costs that will eventually show up during the process. Next is
an estimation of each cost category.

9.1 Fixed cost

Page | 67
The Masonry Robot’s field costs represent the manufacturing costs of the
different components that constitute the robot: aerial buckets, cement mixer,
conveyor system, manipulator arm, brick-laying head, and rails. Those
components have been described in previous sections of this paper. Table 5
expresses the average costs estimated using available data on the current market.
The cost of the mechanical manufacture of the laying head is approximately 600
€. By adding
other costs that cover the automatic parts, labor, and design, a total cost of the
laying head of 5,000 € is reached.

9.2. Electricity cost

The aerial buckets “ID #2” was chosen for electricity costs estimation. The aerial
bucket works using a 24 V-255Amp/h batteries. This cost analysis also accounts
for the functioning of the conveyor system, the manipulator arm, and the brick-
laying head. Table 6 presents the power of each element. Since the cost of one
kWh of electricity in France (in 2015) is € 0.16660, the estimated electricity cost
is 1.13288 €/h.

9.3. Labor cost

For the automated construction using the Masonry Robot, two workers are
needed: one responsible for controlling the machine and the other responsible for
reloading the stock. Here, the same hourly rate for labor was used since this rate
takes into account the different levels of workers’ qualifications. Thus, it was
considered an hourly rate of € 36/H for the Paris region and 32 €/H for the other
regions.

Page | 68
 Table 5- fixed cost of the masonry robot

9.4. Maintenance cost

When building a wall using the standard method, health problems may arise. As
for the discussed automated method, the breakdowns require the allocation of
a maintenance cost. Maintenance includes the costs of the different corrective
and preventive actions necessary to maintain the installation’s availability and
security level. As regard this cost analysis, since the designed robot has not
been used yet, we can only estimate the maintenance costs using the average
costs field in usual maintenance contracts. We thus sought data from the
maintenance contracts available in a regional research mechanical laboratory in
France. In general, this cost represents 3–5% of the total machine cost. To
manage the worst scenario, we considered a maintenance cost of 5% of
maintenance cost is considered.

9.5. Other costs

Other costs are:

•Secondary equipment: electricity, instrumentation, etc. An average of 1,000 €
of secondary equipment to guaranty a good functioning of the robot.

Page | 69
•Carriage of the robot’s components to the construction site: as stated earlier, a
truck will ensure the transport of equipment and materials. Knowing that the cost
for renting a truck is 750 €/day, we have a total cost of 1,500 € per site (if we
consider only one round trip for each site is needed).
•Assembly works of the main and secondary equipment. The assembly and the
disassembly of the main equipment and the secondary equipment each require
two workers for one day (8 h). Considering the hourly rate of € 36 for a worker,
total cost is € 1,152 per site.
•Site Preparation: since the realization of construction projects requires site
preparation even without using a robot, the use the Bricklayer Robot does not
add significant site preparation costs.
•Indirect expenses to cover the contingencies. A 5% allocation is considered for
the Robot’s costs to cover those expenses. In other terms, we put aside 1,166.25
€ to cover the indirect expenses.

9.6 Comparison: Bricklayer Robot vs. traditional masonry method

As noted earlier, it takes less than two hours to build a 7.5 m² wall using the
Masonry Robot. Thus, the assumption is that the robot can build approximately
3.75 m2 of wall per h. To make the comparison between the Bricklayer Robot
method and the traditional method, we consider a typical model site, a square
building of 6 floors (R + 5) 10 × 3 m (height × width). The four facades sum up a
total surface of 720 m2 (windows’ surfaces are neglected).Such a site requires
192 working hours using the automated building method as opposed to 720 h
using the traditional masonry method. The results are summarized.

Page | 70
 TABLE 7: TOTAL FIXED COST FOR THE BRICKS LAYING ROBOT

TABLE 8: TOTAL VARIABLE COST OF BRICKLAYING ROBOT /SITE

TABLE 7: COMPARISION OF TRADITIONAL METHOD VS BRICK LAYING ROBOTS

The overall construction cost of this model site is approximately 19,000 € with
the bricklayer robot. In contrast, the construction cost of the same model site is
estimated at 28,000 € with the traditional masonry method (additional labor and
waste costs).This result demonstrates the profitability of the masonry robot
compared to the traditional method. Table 9 resumes the conducted comparison
between the traditional masonry method and the brick-laying robot.

Page | 71
 CHAPTER 10- INFERENCE

• A bricklaying Robot must be light, mobile, easy to operate, compact,

precise, quick, and commercially viable. Based on the robots presented by
literature, it is possible to conclude that they have many physical features
to improve upon in order to achieve the previously mentioned qualities.

• Although they are mobile and accurate, they require a more robust
structure, which makes them heavy and large.

• The concept based on a long arm produces a considerable distance

between the main load (brick) and base articulation, causing high moment
load.

• It is possible to state that the overload on articulations due high

momentum causes high angular inertia values, which obligates designers
to reinforce the arm structure and limited the speed of operation.

• Due to the extra weight of arm structure, in most of cases, they are
equipped with hydraulic or pneumatic actuators that are characteristically
slow .

• Another disadvantage to these systems is that they require the pump and
valve installation of pumps that take up space and add additional weight to
the robot.

• Fixing of another arm at another edge of the robot for the finishes can
improve the quality of the surface.

• In recent decades, a new trend has led the construction industry towards
automation by integrating new technologies and substituting site

Page | 72
 operations with more secure and efficient ones in terms of cost, time, and
quality. The construction industry has a large number of accidents (about
9% of total work accidents in India and 60% of construction workers who
experience an accident at work are unable to return to work again). The
suggested Robotic Mechanical Design in this paper develops a framework
for automating the laying of bricks. This automation has also a social
dimension since it improves the working conditions of traditional masons
and prevents potential health risks and discomfort. It also reduces waste on
the building site by eliminating the risk of breakage of concrete blocks and
loss of cement during the construction of the walls.

CHAPTER 11- CONCLUSION

Global interest in automating the traditional masonry work is increasing. The

overall system design was presented and explained following in terms of:

•Material input and the stock management.

•The brick-laying process.
•Technical design: the structure, robot mobility, the brick-handling system.
•The brick-laying head functioning and modeling.

Finally, a comparison was performed between the traditional masonry method

and the brick laying robot. The latter can perform in a pace of 3.75 m2/h
compared to 1 m2/h for the traditional method. The results also reveal a
significant gain in construction cost. Indeed, the robot requires about half the
cost of the traditional method. While the economics of such automation is
revealed, future research should focus more on the removal of technical locks of
the brick-laying head in line with on-site work conditions.

Page | 73
REFERENCES:

 Bock, T. (2015). The future of construction automation:

Technological disruption and the upcoming ubiquity of
robotics. Automation in Construction, 59, 113–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.022
 Bock, T., Stricker, D., Fliedner, J., & Huynh, T. (1996). Automatic
generation of the controlling-system for a wall
construction robot. Automation in Construction, 5, 15–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-5805(95)00014-3
 Bryson, L. S., Maynard, C., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Williams, II,
R. L. (2005). Fully autonomous robot for paving
operations. In Construction research congress 2005 (pp.
1–10). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Castro-Lacouture, D. (2009). Construction automation. In S. Y.
Nof (Ed.), Springer handbook of automation (pp. 1063–
1078). Berlin: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78831-7
 Cavieres, A., Gentry, R., & Al-Haddad, T. (2011). Knowledgebased
parametric tools for concrete masonry walls:
Conceptual design and preliminary structural analysis.
Automation in Construction, 20, 716–728.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.01.003
 Fulford, R., & Standing, C. (2014). Construction industry
productivity and the potential for collaborative practice.
International Journal of Project Management, 32, 315–
326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.007
 Hess, J., Weinstein, M., & Welch, L. (2010). Ergonomic best
practices in masonry: Regional diffrences, benefis,
barriers, and recommendations for dissemination. Journal

Page | 74
 of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7, 446–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2010.484795
 Howell, G. A. (1999). What Is Lean Construction – 1999. In 7th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Berkeley, USA. 26–28 July, 1999.
Jensen, P., Olofsson, T., & Johnsson, H. (2012). Confiuration
through the parameterization of building components.
Automation in Construction, 23, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.11.016
 King, N., Bechthold, M., Kane, A., & Michalatos, P. (2014).
Robotic tile placement: Tools, techniques and feasibility.
Automation in Construction, 39, 161–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.08.014
 Koskela, L., & Rooke, J. (2007). The TFV theory of production:
New developments. In For Lean Construction, No. July, pp.
2–12.
Lorenc, S. J., Handlon, B. E., & Bernold, L. E. (2000).
Development of a robotic bridge maintenance system.
 Automation in Construction, 9, 251–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00040-0
 Navon, R., Kelly, P. W., & Johnston, D. W. (1993). Human factors
in introducing on-site construction automation. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 119, 801–812.
 O’Brien, W. J., Formoso, C. T., Ruben, V., & London, K. (2008).
Construction supply chain management handbook.
Retrieved March 6, 2014 from http://books.google.com/
books?hl=fr&lr=&id=XFF75B-vzl4C&pgis=1
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420047462
 Oh, J.-K., Jang, G., Oh, S., Lee, J. H. J. S., Yi, B.-J., Moon, Y. S., …
Choi, Y. (2009). Bridge inspection robot system with
machine vision. Automation in Construction, 18, 929–941.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.04.003

Page | 75
 Pivac, M., & Pivac, M. (2016). Fastbrick robotics. Retrieved from
https://www.fbr.com.au/
PLFSS. (2015). Programme de Qualité et d’Effience “Accidents
Du Travail/Maladies Professionnelles”. Retrieved from
https://www.securite-sociale.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport-pqe_
atmp.pdf
 Podkaminer, N., & Peters, L. S. (2015). Construction robotics.
Retrieved from https://construction-robotics.com/
Pritschow, G., Dalacker, M., Kurz, J., & Gaenssle, M. (1996).
Technological aspects in the development of a mobile
bricklaying robot. Automation in Construction, 5, 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-5805(95)00015-1
 Pritschow, G., Dalacker, M., Kurz, J., & Zeiher, J. (1994). A mobile
robot for on-site construction of masonry. Proceedings of
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems (IROS’94) (Vol. 3, pp. 1701–1707).
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
IROS.1994.407628
 Richard, R.-B. (2005). Industrialised building systems:
Reproduction before automation and robotics.
Automation in Construction, 14, 442–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.09.009
 Shukla, A., & Karki, H. (2015). Application of robotics in onshore
oil and gas industry—A review part I. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 75, 490–507.
 Spath, D., & Andres, J. (1997). Concept of a robot for interior
building trades by the example of wall slits in masonry.
Automation in Construction, 6, 205–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(97)00004-6
 Tan, N., Mohan, R. E., & Watanabe, A. (2016). Toward a
framework for robot-inclusive environments. Automation

Page | 76
 in Construction, 69, 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.06.001
 Vähä, P., Heikkilä, T., Kilpeläinen, P., Järviluoma, M., & Gambao,
E. (2013). Extending automation of building
construction—Survey on potential sensor technologies
and robotic applications. Automation in Construction, 36,
168–178.
 Vink, P., Miedema, M., Koningsveld, E., & van der Molen, H.
(2002). Physical effcts of new devices for bricklayers.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, 8, 71–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2002.11076515
 Warszawski, A., & Navon, R. (1991). Robot for interior-fiishing
works. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, 117,
402–422.
 Warszawski, A., & Navon, R. (1998). Implementation of
robotics in building: Current status and future prospects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 124, 31–41.

Page | 77