Warszawski, A and Rosenfeld, Y (1994) Robot for interior-finishing works in building: Feasibility analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1), pp. 132-151. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The paper presents an economic analysis of robotized execution of interior building tasks. Four tasks—painting, plastering, tiling, and masonry—have been examined in full-scale with “TAMIR”—Technion Autonomous Multipurpose Interior Robot. This experimental preprototype building robot has six degrees of freedom, an average reach of 1.70 m, and is mounted on an automatically guided mobile three-wheeled carriage. The robotized mode of execution of these four tasks is described, along with time and cost data, and logistical considerations. The labor input and cost of these activities in robotized versus manual performance are quantitatively analyzed under different site and employment conditions. Suggestions for improvements in the robotized system, give rise to make the robotized option more attractive in the future. Conclusions with respect to managerial and economic implications of robotized construction are also presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | employment, option, cost data, economic analysis |
| Subjects: | design analysis, management, decision analysis, accounting and finance |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Cost Management, Human Resources, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here