So this is their video from 2 years ago : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bW1vuCgEaA and they are a penny stock (3.5 cents to over 20 cents on the news). The video on the web site doesn't work for me but I would be interested in seeing a video of this thing building an actual house.
I think you didn't try yourself to place bricks. That part requires some stamina, after building one home I got a big jump in muscle mass (from super-wimpy to average male). Also your "hard" part is not that hard.
Edit: I misread your message, so you have obviously layed bricks before. I'm now super interested to know how you think it would be helpful to have the machine place the bricks on the wall. I just can't see it myself (yes, I know bricks are heavy, but I can't see how this significantly improves the situation because I don't think it will put the bricks where you want them).
I'm not sure if you've layed bricks before, so you might not be aware of how difficult it is to apply the cement. You have to put on just the right amount. There can't be any air bubbles. You have to level it perfectly (or it can actually cause structural problems). It's a very skilled job.
It's this why I can't quite figure out what this machine is actually useful for. In order to cement the brick, you have to pick it up anyway. You can't just slop on some cement, plop the brick on top, pour cement down the cracks and move on. You have to put the cement down on the lower brick, place the brick on the cement, seat it, measure the level, seat it again (maybe removing some cement), put cement on the side and the adjacent lower brick, slide the next brick into place, seat it in both direction, measure the level, adjust, ensure the gap is correct, adjust, etc, etc.
The machine just doesn't do what you need for laying bricks. It would be better just to pile them up at your feet. It's very cool, but the hard part really is cementing the bricks -- and it's even hard for humans to do correctly. If you are building something large like a house, you can have some pretty bad problems if you get it wrong.
> I'm not sure if you've layed bricks before, so you might not be aware of how difficult it is to apply the cement.
Yep, I have layed some bricks, I know how difficult it is, I've also delivered bricks from stack to bricklayer and I much prefer laying them in destination place. Once you place about two-three rows in a house, it's rather easy (yeah, sometimes you need to reapply cement, but it's not that hard or at least wasn't for me).
> I can't see how this significantly improves the situation because I don't think it will put the bricks where you want them
For a machine, laying right amount of cement is easy especially if it was done by that machine from start. Also there are building systems like ytong (didn't use it yet), where you just place a little glue and just place your bricks. That would be even easier for a machine and I believe this is the system used here. If machine has enough rigitiy, it can lay bricks in exact place so all irregularities in previous layer are removed in next layer. If you have properly leveled surface where you start there is almost no reason to have perfectly placed every brick.
P.S. that building still stands after 10 years and walls don't crack so apparently I didn't bodge it and it was my first time (under supervision of course).
Unfortunately that block wall it built looks quite sloppy if you really inspect the interblock spacing and vertical alignment between layers. And these are dry blocks with no mortar to let them slip and slide. Stand at the corner of a a block wall built by pros and look down the plane of the wall. You're going to see perfection. I do it any time the opportunity strikes and amazed at the consistency.
No doubt a well supported robot with appropriate sensors and placement techniques could exceed the accuracy of a human, but this doesn't appear to be that robot quite yet.
No photos of the house, a broken video, and zero details on things like roofing, plumbing, in-wall wiring, etc. Oh wait, it’s a penny stock? Color me surprised...
Strange, I'm not seeing that in Firefox 63.0.1 on macOS 10.13 once I disable AdBlock Plus. Though to be honest, you're not missing anything, it's clearly a company supplied video.
I think it'd be great to have some sort of automation in place for the simple & repetitive stuff (bricklaying), but it feels like we're a long way off from fully automated on-site house construction.
Possibly solved with prefabs?
> And that the profits on each units are to be maximized.
Wouldn't this benefit the construction company, since it brings costs down? (i.e. wages, insurance etc
Yes, it would, but it will not solve the actual problem of availability and affordability.
The construction company has little incentive to drop costs by much.
As for prefabs, they are already widely used. What do you think those bricks are, or the big chunks of concrete used for roofs?
Or perhaps the components used for balconies?
If you mean to make even more complex patterns, the trouble becomes applicability. Not everyone wants to live in the exactly identical house and most deployments have a quirk or few to adapt.
> Not everyone wants to live in the exactly identical house
Sure, what about when it costs 5-20x less?
At least in boat building you can either have:
A. Boat designed and built by someone random in a shed.
B. Boat mass produced by a company of hundreds of years of tradition and knowledge.
With some rare exceptions, you'll always want the second option. The bugs have been worked out, everything is ergonomic and safe. Easy to find parts even if they are of inferior quality.
I really don't get why houses have such a special attention. It's the most expensive possession people can have and they wanna build in a way that it's even more expensive and prone to error. Imagine if everyone built their own car...
Construction costs are pretty low, it's the land that is expensive. Ao if you reduce the construction cost by 70% it probably reduces the total cost by only 10/20%, and you get something generic instead of something made for you.
Their system uses some custom adhesive as do some of the other systems around.
The catch is how will this adhesive hold up in 30 years and are you brave enough to be that it works well on your house compared to the saving of using conventional systems?
This is why innovation in building is slow.
Fail fast is not possible. And there are often side effects. Just ask people with a metal framed house that creaks when it expands and contracts.
The regulations do not handle reliability, only registration of detected failures.
Most building methods that are not known to fail catastrophically are allowed. (Including among others fires, water handling, short term structural collapse and invalid administration as well as cheating on plan vs implementation.)
There have been 'alternative' adhesives (i.e. not mortar) on the market for decades. Mortar is just hard to beat on price and flexibility. But the question 'are there non-mortar ways to build and are they safe' has been answered.
Brick work and framing are two of the easiest and fastest steps in building a house. They are using an expensive system to do the cheapest steps. Essentially, they are answering a question no one asked.
The expensive and time consuming parts are everything else; something this system does not address.
Actually, I think this may be a real time-saver for quick builds where you need an extra building like a garage or extra storage space.
As others have pointed out there are some flaws in the wall in that article and it might not be optimal for housing, but for quick and dirty jobs it will most likely do fine. Construction as a service! :)
The timber frame itself and the exterior cladding for a traditional garage is extremely easy to build. Two relatively untrained guys with a stack of planks, a mitre saw and a nail gun can build that even quicker than this robot. The expensive and time consuming parts are the foundation work and the roof, which this doesn't address at all.
Also the utility work, no? Unless you're in a pre-planned subdivision or demolishing existing builds (brownfield stuff), water, phone, and power are often non-trivial.
By this sample residential construction schedule for a 6,000 sq-ft custom home[1], it looks like they've theoretically managed to cut a 9-day job down to 3 without addressing the negotiation of foundation imperfections, plumbing, electrical, rebar reinforcement, air gaps, structural arches, and random site obstructions to name a few. Cool tech and surely a step in the right direction, but if we're still talking about affordable (patented, proprietary blocks?), sustainable (mortar substitute reliability?) housing that meets code, color me unconvinced.
Heimo Scheuch, CEO of Wienerberger AG: In times of digitalization, high demand for affordable housing and the prevailing shortage of skilled workers, the construction industry is facing major challenges.[2]
Prevailing shortage of skilled construction workers??
35 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 78.9 ms ] threadCool idea if it works though, especially for disaster events and rapid construction
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfK41aTB7_VI2DHTJy2l-yg
But why would you want a robot like this? Why not prefab the parts of the house and assemble on site?
I'm not sure if you've layed bricks before, so you might not be aware of how difficult it is to apply the cement. You have to put on just the right amount. There can't be any air bubbles. You have to level it perfectly (or it can actually cause structural problems). It's a very skilled job.
It's this why I can't quite figure out what this machine is actually useful for. In order to cement the brick, you have to pick it up anyway. You can't just slop on some cement, plop the brick on top, pour cement down the cracks and move on. You have to put the cement down on the lower brick, place the brick on the cement, seat it, measure the level, seat it again (maybe removing some cement), put cement on the side and the adjacent lower brick, slide the next brick into place, seat it in both direction, measure the level, adjust, ensure the gap is correct, adjust, etc, etc.
The machine just doesn't do what you need for laying bricks. It would be better just to pile them up at your feet. It's very cool, but the hard part really is cementing the bricks -- and it's even hard for humans to do correctly. If you are building something large like a house, you can have some pretty bad problems if you get it wrong.
Yep, I have layed some bricks, I know how difficult it is, I've also delivered bricks from stack to bricklayer and I much prefer laying them in destination place. Once you place about two-three rows in a house, it's rather easy (yeah, sometimes you need to reapply cement, but it's not that hard or at least wasn't for me).
> I can't see how this significantly improves the situation because I don't think it will put the bricks where you want them
For a machine, laying right amount of cement is easy especially if it was done by that machine from start. Also there are building systems like ytong (didn't use it yet), where you just place a little glue and just place your bricks. That would be even easier for a machine and I believe this is the system used here. If machine has enough rigitiy, it can lay bricks in exact place so all irregularities in previous layer are removed in next layer. If you have properly leveled surface where you start there is almost no reason to have perfectly placed every brick.
P.S. that building still stands after 10 years and walls don't crack so apparently I didn't bodge it and it was my first time (under supervision of course).
No doubt a well supported robot with appropriate sensors and placement techniques could exceed the accuracy of a human, but this doesn't appear to be that robot quite yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YcrO8ONcfY
It seems like a cool concept. The real example is slightly different to the CGI mockup, so I think they still have a bit of work to do.
Best of luck to them! This could potentially bring down huge construction costs. Keen to see more automation in the construction industry.
I also wonder about reliability of such houses - that remains to be seen.
I think it'd be great to have some sort of automation in place for the simple & repetitive stuff (bricklaying), but it feels like we're a long way off from fully automated on-site house construction.
Possibly solved with prefabs?
> And that the profits on each units are to be maximized.
Wouldn't this benefit the construction company, since it brings costs down? (i.e. wages, insurance etc
The construction company has little incentive to drop costs by much.
As for prefabs, they are already widely used. What do you think those bricks are, or the big chunks of concrete used for roofs? Or perhaps the components used for balconies?
If you mean to make even more complex patterns, the trouble becomes applicability. Not everyone wants to live in the exactly identical house and most deployments have a quirk or few to adapt.
Sure, what about when it costs 5-20x less?
At least in boat building you can either have:
A. Boat designed and built by someone random in a shed.
B. Boat mass produced by a company of hundreds of years of tradition and knowledge.
With some rare exceptions, you'll always want the second option. The bugs have been worked out, everything is ergonomic and safe. Easy to find parts even if they are of inferior quality.
I really don't get why houses have such a special attention. It's the most expensive possession people can have and they wanna build in a way that it's even more expensive and prone to error. Imagine if everyone built their own car...
The catch is how will this adhesive hold up in 30 years and are you brave enough to be that it works well on your house compared to the saving of using conventional systems?
This is why innovation in building is slow.
Fail fast is not possible. And there are often side effects. Just ask people with a metal framed house that creaks when it expands and contracts.
I feel extremely confident this has been tested thoroughly, and it would not be allowed if it has not passed all tests.
Most building methods that are not known to fail catastrophically are allowed. (Including among others fires, water handling, short term structural collapse and invalid administration as well as cheating on plan vs implementation.)
So it is mostly bureaucracy.
The expensive and time consuming parts are everything else; something this system does not address.
As others have pointed out there are some flaws in the wall in that article and it might not be optimal for housing, but for quick and dirty jobs it will most likely do fine. Construction as a service! :)
Concrete has the huge advantage of not growing mould if you screw up building envelope.
At least, that's my justification for simply liking the aesthetics of masonry over wood construction.
Plus for some reason most people want a double brick home.
This makes a lot of sense in those contexts.
Heimo Scheuch, CEO of Wienerberger AG: In times of digitalization, high demand for affordable housing and the prevailing shortage of skilled workers, the construction industry is facing major challenges.[2]
Prevailing shortage of skilled construction workers??
[1] https://www.b4ubuild.com/resources/schedule/6kproj.shtml
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qcyvoCtZB0
Nobody wants to actually invest in work.