Wu, K (2019) Robotic assembly: A generative architectural design strategy through component arrangements in highly-constrained design spaces. PhD thesis, Princeton University, USA.
Abstract
Architectural assembly has been a neglected research topic within the field of computational design. Instead, manual assembly and passive fabrication processes directed by top-down controlled geometric models have attracted more attentions. Such design-to-production model is problematic because it is difficult for designers to overcome the constraints of their empirical knowledge. Moreover, an extensive amount of resources can be wasted when architectural components are manually assembled. However, what has yet to be determined is whether the applications of advanced assembly machines, especially architectural robots, can reduce resource use and create new design principles. How can robotic assembly become a generative strategy to design architectural forms through component arrangements? Three design models were developed to study the sequence, fitting, and configuration of robotic assembly. In relation to the model of Robotic Equilibrium Assembly, scaffold-free constructions were examined through tooling innovations to recreate the design of compression-only arch structures. For the model of Material Outline Assembly, a scanning procedure was carried out to fit foam fragments into a shell by flexibly approximating a human-designed surface geometry. For the model of Stochastic Assembly, deep learning was applied to autonomously achieve higher assembly goals of natural wood log structures. These models were implemented using various computational and robotic approaches and tested in small-scale experiments. This research contributes to architectural design by redefining the role of assembly machines as generators that can free design space from the constraints of existing knowledge regarding geometries, fabrications, and structures. The experiment results indicate that, even with unfamiliar design problems, potential solutions can be identified using robotic assembly to arrange architectural components. The design control shifts from top-down, human-centered geometric modeling to bottom-up, machine-centered component assembly. This can stimulate human designers to recognize and overcome their cognitive barriers, challenge existing architectural design criteria, and discover unknown design principles. Future work can be done to develop autonomous assembly of raw materials, connect the learning processes of virtual and physical assembly machines, and apply large-scale robotic assembly in built environments.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Kilian, A and Meggers, F |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; architectural design; fabrication; innovation; learning; designer; experiment |
| Index terms: | built environment, modelling, fabrication, geometry, wood, deep learning, designer, configuration, architectural design, design model, compression, strategy, experiment, design principle |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, design process, analytical methods, systems engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, traditional and composite building materials, management, design practice, material properties and characteristics, artificial intelligence, mathematical modelling, data collection methods, profession, design methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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