Advertisement

Construction Robotics

, Volume 2, Issue 1–4, pp 81–92 | Cite as

Robotic abrasive wire cutting of polymerized styrene formwork systems for cost-effective realization of topology-optimized concrete structures

  • Asbjørn SøndergaardEmail author
  • Jelle Feringa
  • Florin Stan
  • Dana Maier
Original Paper
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a new method for industrial manufacturing of topology-optimized, ultrahigh performance concrete structures using robotic abrasive wire cutting of polymerized styrene formwork systems. Topology optimization is a well-established procedure within disciplines of aeronautic, automotive and naval engineering. However, while recent developments have highlighted a significant potential for structural innovation and reduction of material consumption in topology-optimizing concrete structures, an effective method for large-scale manufacturing of such structures remains to be found. We argue that the prohibitive factor for large-scale adoption is the non-availability of mechanical processes capable of performing high-speed, high-volume manufacturing of advanced non-standard formwork and, consequently that this inhibition can be overcome through integrating ruled surface rationalization and robotically controlled abrasive wire cutting of three-dimensional formwork systems in polymerized styrene foams. The viability of the proposed method is demonstrated through the production of a 21 m spatial concrete structure, using abrasive wire cutting of EPS formwork via a containerized robotic work cell with an ABB IRB 6700 industrial manipulator, extended with external rotary axis.

Keywords

Topology optimization Concrete Robotic abrasive wire cutting Expanded polystyrene Formwork systems 

Notes

Supplementary material

41693_2018_16_MOESM1_ESM.doc (164 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 163 kb)

References

  1. Adriaenssens S, Block P, Veenendaal D, Williams C (eds) (2014) Shell structures for architecture: form finding and optimization. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghaei-Meibodi M, Bernhard M, Jipa A, Dillenburger B (2017) The smart takes from the strong. In: Menges A, Sheil B, Glynn R, Skavara M (eds) Fabricate: rethinking design and construction 2017. UCL Press, London, pp 210–217Google Scholar
  3. Börjesson Pål, Gustavsson Leif (2000) Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy 28(9):575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feiz R, Ammenberg J, Baas L, Eklund M, Helgstrand A, Marshall R (2014) Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part II: framework for assessing CO2 improvement measures in cement industry. Linköping University Post Print, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  5. Galjaard S, Hofman S, Ren S (2015) New opportunities to optimize structural designs in metal by using additive manufacturing. In: Advances in architectural geometry 2014. Springer, Cham, pp 79–93Google Scholar
  6. Hack N, Lauer WV (2014) Mesh-mould: robotically fabricated spatial meshes as reinforced concrete formwork. Archit Des 84(3):44–53Google Scholar
  7. International Civil Aviation Organization, Air Transport Bureau (ATB). Aircraft engine emissions. Accessed on 19 March 2008Google Scholar
  8. Jepsen C, Kristensen M, Kirkegaard P (2011) Dynamic double curvature mould system. In: Gengnagel C, Kilian A, Palz N, Scheurer F (eds) Computational design modeling: proceedings of the design modeling symposium. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–300Google Scholar
  9. Khosnehvis B (2004) Automated construction by contour crafting-related robotic and information technologies. J Autom Constr Spec Issue Best ISARC 2002 13(1):5–19Google Scholar
  10. Kulkarni AR, Bhusare MV (2016) Structural optimization of reinforced concrete structures. Int J Eng Tech Res V5(07):143–151Google Scholar
  11. Lab RH Jr (2007) Think formwork—reduce cost. In: Structure magazine, April 2007. C3 Ink, Wisconsin, pp 14–16Google Scholar
  12. Lim S, Buswell RA, Le TT, Austin SA, Gibb AGF, Thorpe A (2012) Development in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes. Autom Constr 21(1):262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lloret E, Amir R, Shahab AR, Mettler L, Flatt RJ, Gramazio F, Kohler M, Langenberg S (2014) Complex concrete structures: merging existing casting techniques with digital fabrication. Comput Aided Des 60:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, Peters JAHW (2015) Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2015 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  15. Rippmann M, Liew A, Block P (2017) Structural 3D-printed floor. In: Yuan PF, Menges A, Leach N (eds) Digital fabrication. Tongji University Press, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  16. Sarma KC, Adeli H (1998) Cost optimization of concrete structures. J Struct Eng 124(5):570–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Søndergaard A, Dombernowsky P (2012) Design, analysis and realization of topology optimized concrete structures. Int Assoc Shell Spat Struct J 53(4):209–216Google Scholar
  18. Søndergaard A, Feringa J (2017) Scaling Architectural robotics—realization of The Kirk Kapital Headquarters. In: Menges A, Sheil B, Glynn R, Skavara M (eds) Fabricate 2017: rethinking design and construction. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Søndergaard A, Amir O, Eversmann P, Luka P, Stan F, Kohler M, Gramazio F (2016a) Topology optimization and robotic fabrication of advanced timber space-frame structures. In: Reinhardt D, Niemal M (eds) Robotic fabrication in architecture, art and design 2016. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., WienGoogle Scholar
  20. Søndergaard A, Feringa J, Nørgaard T, Steenstrup K, Brander D, Graversen J, Markvorsen S, Bærentzen A, Petkov K, Hattel J et al (2016) Robotic hot-blade cutting. In: Robotic fabrication in architecture, art and design 2016. Springer, Berlin, pp 150–164Google Scholar
  21. Stromberg LL, Beghini A, Baker WF, Paulino GH (2012) Topology optimization for braced frames: combining continuum and beam/column elements. Eng Struct 37:106–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Unikabeton Prototype/Dombernowsky P, Søndergaard A (2011) In: FABRICATE: making digital architecture. red./Ruairi Glynn; Bob Sheil. Riverside Architectural Press, pp 56–61Google Scholar
  23. Vlasopoulos N (2010) Novacem carbon negative cement. In: Low carbon cements: recent research and developments on alternatives to Portland cements, Society of Chemistry and Industry Conference (London, UK)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus School of ArchitectureAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Odico Formwork RoboticsOdense SØDenmark
  3. 3.Zünd ScandinaviaOdderDenmark

Personalised recommendations