Brosque, C; Skeie, G and Fischer, M (2021) Comparative analysis of manual and robotic concrete drilling for installation hangers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(3): 05021001, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Robots have increased the safety, productivity, and quality of manufacturing. Recently, sensing, computing, and mapping technologies have started to enable the use of robots in unstructured environments like construction. As robotic construction methods are being prototyped and adopted on site, innovation leaders in construction must analyze the safety, productivity, quality, and cost impacts of the deployment of robots. The researchers gained access to engineering, planning, and production data for the first use of a concrete drilling robot on site. This paper compares the traditional way of drilling holes with the robotic way. Compared to manual drilling for installation hangers, the robot achieved a 10% time reduction, increased task ergonomics by cutting 98% of muscle strain work hours, and reduced rework from 5% to 3%. Our comparison pays particular attention to the three levers a project team has to influence project outcomes - the product, the organization, and the process - and found that decisions like implementing a building information model (BIM) at Level of Development (LOD) 400 facilitated the robot use. This study makes two contributions to the fields of construction robotics and project management: First, this research shares a careful analysis of the application of a drilling robot to offer insights into the applicability of robots on site. Second, this analysis suggests key elements and procedures of a framework to compare robotic and traditional construction methods. Future research should establish the generality of this analysis framework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | robotic construction, advanced construction robotics, project team, project management, traditional construction, project outcome, productivity, computing, drilling, ergonomics, time reduction, mapping, level of development, comparative analysis, rework |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, automation and robotics, spatial and geospatial analysis, management, design practice, heritage and conservation, building construction, occupational health and safety management, computing systems, project completion, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, operations management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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