Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
subsystems for each system in Chapters 2 and 3). Systems that work besides a main
factory (e.g., sky factory [SF]) with a sub-factory (ground factory) are composed of
up to 12 subsystems. Simpler systems such as, for example, the Bauhelling are com-
posed of only about four subsystems. On average, systems with only one main SF or
ground factory (GF) are composed of about eight subsystems. Subsystems that can
be found in some form in any system are a type of factory cover, a climbing, sliding,
or push-up system, a vertical and/or horizontal delivery systems (HDSs), and an ICT
system for scheduling, monitoring, optimization, or equipment operation. Concern-
ing the end-effectors, two different major strategies can be identified (see analysis
of end-effectors for each system in Chapters 2 and 3). End-effectors are designed
either multipurpose with inbuilt flexibility or exchangeable-modular. In the case of
the modular approach up to eight end-effectors could be identified for an individual
system (ABCS).
Like advanced manufacturing environments in the general manufacturing
industry, automated/robotic on-site factories, generally speaking, were developed as
sets of recombinable subsystems with inbuilt (robotic) flexibility or with modular
flexibility (e.g., end-effector change) that can be fully synchronized with the build-
ing’s modular structure through ROD. Likewise, the analysis of the variability and of
applied ROD methods shows that on-site factories can be adapted within a certain
extent (e.g., within a typology for which they are developed; see analysis of variab-
ility and application of ROD for each system in Chapters 2 and 3) to various build-
ing projects and thus used to automate the subsequent construction of customized,
differently designed and shaped buildings. Although organizationally this capability
was not yet fully used, technically speaking the analysis showed that the capability is
embedded in the basic modular approach most systems built their sub-systems on.
The analysis of the evolution scheme (general approach), section ground plan
(manufacturing layout), and the manufacturing process showed that the factory lay-
outs and the optimization of the material flow from material delivery to the site to the
installation in a just in time and just in sequence–like manner were a recurring theme
(see analysis of factory layout and manufacturing process for each system in Chapters
2 and 3). Although some systems worked with temporary on-site warehouse modules
or ground-based component processing yards (e.g., Akatuki 21, AMURAD, T-Up) a
major focus was on optimizing factory layouts to erase the necessity of storage and
allow a direct pick-up link between pick-up from delivery truck and assembly oper-
ations (e.g., Roof-Robo, BAM, System Skanska) and if possible even parallelized
pick-up–assembly operations (for example SMART). The factory approach and the
networking of subsystems to create a continuous material flow on-site in a structured
environment (SE) were a direct result of the negative evaluation of the approaches
to single-task construction robots (STCRs) in the 1990s (see Volume 3). It can be said
that automated/robotic on-site factories, although they are not yet efficient enough,
have definitely overcome the stand-alone technology phase and showed that the set-
ting up of flow-line–like or production-line–like SEs on-site is possible from a tech-
nical point of view.
The analysis of productivity, efficiency, and economic performance of automated/
robotic on-site factories deployed to the present day have shown that improve-
ments were most obvious in the categories of erection speed, work productivity, and
resource efficiency. Considering the fact that in conventional construction usually
Conclusion: Discrepancy between Technical Capability and Efficiency 301
(of course depending on the individual use case and capabilities) a maximum of two
floors can be erected in a week (not including the installation of the facade, facade
sealing, installation of floor elements, and basic interior finishing, as in case of the
integrated automated sites) the erection speed for standard floors increased two-
fold to fourfold. Work productivity and resource efficiency were improved each by
more than the twofold. Furthermore, automated sites were able to reduce the amount
of construction defects, safety risks, injuries, and unhealthy physical strain to near
zero. The efficiency analysis showed that integrated automated construction sites –
nevertheless all systems were subject to experimentation and development and did
not yet fully exploit the inbuilt potential – are able to achieve in all analysed cat-
egories efficiency improvements that exceed the maximum performance possible by
conventional construction methods and also those achievable by STCRs (Volume
3). Furthermore, automated sites would perfectly complement component manufac-
turing approaches and automated prefabrication (Volume 2). However, compared
to productivity and efficiency improvements that accompanied the introduction of
advanced manufacturing technology in other industries and accounting for a much
more radical performance improvement (e.g., automotive industry or tunnel bor-
ing machine [TBM] tunnelling; for detailed analysis and outline; see Volume 1), the
improvements accomplished by automated/robotic on-site factories so far can still
be considered as marginal. The findings of the efficiency analysis – including cross
references to the technical analysis – can be summarized as follows:
r Erection speed. Prior to the set-up, on-site integrated automated site systems
require – in contrast to conventional sites – a planning phase (3–6 months) where
the configuration of the factory and the equipment is planned and where the fact-
ory and the building kit are (e.g., according to ROD principles) adjusted to each
other. The installation of the on-site site factory usually takes around 1 month.
The first set-up (e.g., FACES) can take longer (2–4 months) because of certific-
ation procedures and necessary test runs. The deconstruction of the site factory
usually also accounts for 1 month. The floor production rate per month (stand-
ard floor) is between a minimum of two floors (e.g., AMURAD) and more than
six floors per month (ABCS, SMART with learning effect). The floor produc-
tion includes the installation of the facade, facade sealing, installation of floor
elements, and basic interior finishing. The floor production rate is, apart from the
speed of the systems, dependent on the size of the standard floors. Most compan-
ies worked with an initial floor erection cycle (FEC) of 6 days. Some companies
(e.g., Obayashi, Shimizu) also experimented with shorter cycles (3 days and less)
after the execution of several projects. An FEC usually covered parallel work on
multiple floors or levels (up to four floors/levels). In general, it can be said that
systems that erected steel based buildings showed a higher erection speed than
systems erecting concrete-based buildings. On high-rise construction sites that
use conventional construction methods, the construction of two floors per week
(not including the installation of the facade, facade sealing, installation of floor
elements, and basic interior finishing as in the case of the integrated automated
sites) can be considered as fast.
r Configuration and adaptability. Companies operated equipment (OMs, HDS,
VDS) used for the installation of elements (columns, beams, floor slabs, facade
302 Conclusion: Discrepancy between Technical Capability and Efficiency
force by special training procedures) and thus exchanged half of the workforce
from project to project with new workers, to train as many workers as fast as pos-
sible in using the new technology. This mitigated the learning effect cross projects
considerably and it can be assumed that the aforementioned floor erection speed
could be much higher when exploiting learning effects across projects.
r Resource efficiency. The positive impact of integrated, automated construction
sites was mentioned by almost all companies. However, only one company
(Shimizu) made a detailed and valid evaluation. It found out that automated
sites reduce the amount of construction waste generated on-site by 70% owing
to the high degree of prefabrication and the on-site material management sys-
tem. This is equal to a reduction of the waste volume by about 700 tons. Of
course, waste was also generated in prefabrication factories; however, controlled
environments and material flows in off-site environments generally make it much
easier to recycle or reuse these wastes. The companies Sekisui Heim and Toyota
Home, for example, which prefabricate houses in large scale in Japan, operate
certified zero-waste factories.
r Quality, health, and safety. All companies used material management and site
control systems that allowed them to monitor construction activity, construction
quality, and the progress of the construction in real time. Also most compan-
ies developed simulators that allowed simulating and optimizing the set-up or
configuration of the system on-site and its operation. Shimizu even developed
a system for simulating and optimizing the disassembly of the factory and the
machine systems on-site. Furthermore, companies analysed – by simulations and
by measurements – the impact of the factory environment on the working con-
ditions (safety physical strain, light conditions, etc.). The working conditions
enhance not only safety and health but also productivity and (as workers can
then better concentrate on their work task) the construction defect rate. The
environment reduced the physical strain (e.g., measured by heart rate) consider-
ably as well as the risk of falls during facade work or the dropping of material/
injury during transport.
r Usability. Usability studies showed that generally the new factory-like environ-
ment was neither evaluated positively nor negatively by workers themselves.
An overall positive evaluation by workers was mainly mitigated by the fact that
the systemized work environment obviously reduced the room for unnecessary
breaks and laid back working attitude, changed the habits of the construction
workers, and thus was not in all aspects evaluated positively. This phenomenon
accompanies many new developments that involve technologies that are able to
systemize, track, or record people and processes. Aspects that are related to the
improvement of the work environment, working conditions, and work flow were
evaluated positively by the workers.
automation do not face. However, it can also be said that once these challenges are
sufficiently addressed, automated/robotic on-site factories would in terms of both
technical and efficiency/economic performance significantly outperform the other
approaches. Automated/robotic on-site factories are a very complex form of innova-
tion that, represented by the S-curve model (see also Volume 1, Section 1.2), probably
will prevail longer in the research and innovation phase than other approaches, but
in the end also will allow for much higher limits in terms of technical and economic
performance.