Main and sub questions

The main question of the this research was: ”How will mathematical dry test software impact the setup time in 3D printing with concrete? ”. The main question can be solved by answering the sub questions stated in chapter1, these were:

1. Which inverse kinematic model will be used to develop the checking tool? The tool is based upon the simplified 4 DOF inverse model of the robotic arm from section2.3.

2. In what way will the checking tool use the kinematic model to check the given objects? The tool use both the inverse and the forward kinematic model. To simplify the input of the inverse kinematic model, the forward kinematic tool is used. The tool checks which pixels are not located around the edge of the reach, these pixels are revised by the inverse kinematic model.

3. How will the tool interact with the robotic arm software to be fully integrated?

The software communicates through socket messaging. In this way it provides the software details of the robot and the parameters of the origin. It is more efficient to provide the parameters via the software than manually.

4. Which stages in the setup of a print are improved? Only the dry testing phase is improved by using the software. The speed of the dry test phase is improved substantially and errors are less common to occur.

5. How much faster will the new setup time be compared with the previous method?

The dry test with the software compared to a fully done dry test is 4979% faster on average. The dry test with the software compared to a critical point¹ dry test is 1167% faster on average.

How will mathematical dry test software impact the setup time in 3D printing with concrete? The mathematical dry test improves the working method of the robot. The software - CyBe’s print director - improves the dry testing phase only, where both speed and the amount of errors are improved. This results in less resetting and down time, which causes more time available for printing.

5.3 Improvements

The improvements or extensions that could be made on the subjects within this thesis are:

Self levelling The levelling phase within the preparation phase can be automated by using the kinematic model of the crawler from subsection2.4.4. The crawler model is able to measure the orientation of the printer to the ground and gives the exact height of each leg to position the crawler on the provided height H. In order to make this viable, the hydraulic legs have to be automated, to receive information from the crawler and level the printer.

Solutions for failed checks The software will notify the user if a checked object is printable or not. If an object is not printable the operator has to reposition the printer and redo the check.

This process has to be repeated until the printer is positioned on the correct spot. An improvement of the software would be that the tool is able to give reposition coordinates. The operator can reposition the printer to this position and perform the check again.

Autonomous driving and printing The next step of automation will be autonomous driving where the printer is able to reposition itself according to the adjusted solution of the failed dry test. In order to achieve a safe machine and environment, sensors are needed to be be placed to keep the machine from damaging anything.

FTP client Transferring the model files from the computer to the robot is done by a separate program at this moment. An extension of the CyBe print director would a built-in FTP-client²so the software is able to transfer the model files to the robot without the use of a different program.

5.4 Recommendations

Based upon this thesis it is recommended to use the CyBe print director during the preparation phase. This will improve the setup time and decrease the number errors. This results in more uptime for printing. The improvements stated in section 5.3 are recommended to add to the

1An efficient dry test done by the operators.

2File Transfer Protocol.

software and to be developed to decrease the time spent on levelling and positioning the printer which results in a further increase in efficiency.

[1] ABB Automation Technologies AB. Product specification, 3HAC 023933-001. ABB, rev.1 edition, 2004. ix, ix,ix,5,6,12

[2] F. Bos, R. Wolfs, Z. Ahmed, and T. Salet. Additive manufacturing of concrete in construction:

potentials and challenges of 3d concrete printing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 11(3):209 – 225, July 2016. 7

[3] R.A. Buswell. 3d printing using concrete extrusion: A roadmap for research. Cement and Concrete Research, 112. 7

[4] S. Cubero. Industrial Robotics: Theory, Modelling and Control. IntechOpen, Januari 2007.

9,10

[5] M. de Beer. Developing software for mathematical dry test for 3d concrete printing. Phase 1 report, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, October 2018. 7

[6] N. de Wouw. Lecture Notes and Exercises for the part on Multibody Dynamics 2017. Tech-nische Universiteit Eindhoven. 7

[7] A.A. Hayat, R.G. Chittawadigi, A.D. Udia, and S.K. Saha. Identification of denavit-hartenberg parameters of an industrial robot. AIR ’13 Proceedings of Conference on Advances In Robotics. 10

[8] B.A. Jones and I.D. Walker. Kinematics for multisection continuum robots. IEEE Transac-tions on Robotics, 22(1):43 – 55, Febuary 2006. 7

[9] Jack B. Kuipers. Quaternions and rotation sequences. Coral press, pages 127–143, 2000. 9 [10] V.N. Nerella, S. Hempel, and V. Mechtcherine. Effects of layer-interface properties on

mechan-ical performance of concrete elements produced by extrusion-based 3d-printing. Construction and Building Materials, 205. 7

[11] G. Schutter and K. Lesage. Vision of 3d printing with concrete technical, economic and environmental potentials. Cement and Concrete Research, 112. 7

[12] T. Wangler, E. Lloret, L. Reiter, N. Hack, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, M. Bernhard, B. Dillen-burger, J. Buchli, N. Roussel, and R. Flatt. Digital concrete: opportunities and challenges.

RILEM Tech, 1. 7