Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconres

Additive Manufacturing using mobile robots: Opportunities and challenges

for building construction
Kathrin Dörfler a, *, Gido Dielemans a, Lukas Lachmayer b, Tobias Recker b, Annika Raatz b,
Dirk Lowke c, Markus Gerke d
a
TT Professorship Digital Fabrication, Technical University of Munich, Germany
b
Institute of Assembly Technology, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany
c
Institute of Building Materials, Concrete Construction and Fire Safety, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
d
Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In situ Additive Manufacturing (AM) has developed into an active research and industry-transfer area, mainly
Architecture and digital fabrication due to the increasing need for productive and sustainable methods in the concrete construction industry in
Robotic fabrication combination with novel technological enablers. While current systems for in situ AM are often single large-scale
Additive Manufacturing
stationary facilities, Mobile Additive Manufacturing (MAM) systems are an emerging technology that could
Mobile robotics
Computational design
provide scalability for AM processes on construction sites. This scalability is achievable through cooperability of
multiple mobile robots on individual 3D printing tasks, while their mobility and autonomy enable deployment in
both new and existing contexts, and coordination of operations for the direct and indirect interaction with
humans. To ensure applicability and scalability, MAM closely integrates architectural, mechanical, and materials
design, the manufacturing process, sensing, and control. With this paper, we give a comprehensive review of
research trends, open questions and key performance indicators. We support the discussion with potential
architectural application scenarios. Overall, we aim to indicate why addressing MAM is an inherently multi­
disciplinary challenge.

1. Introduction
Digital systems for Additive Manufacturing (AM) in building con­
struction have seen rapid developments, with transformations from lab
experiments to residential and civil structures [1,2]. Compared to
traditional manual production processes in the concrete construction
industry, the integration of in situ AM processes has proven the potential
to extensively increase productivity and resource efficiency [3,4].
Today, in situ AM is characterized by large-scale stationary systems
allowing for material deposition processes directly on building sites, the
most common of which is the gantry system, which provides high ac­
curacy for end-effector tasks and high payload capacities [5]. However,
these stationary systems also have certain shortcomings; including, but
not limited to, confined workspaces (i.e., the mechanical devices are
significantly larger than the structure they build), limited scalability due
to complex parallelization of processes, long material supply distances,
extensive effort required for the set-up of the system on work sites, and
applications are largely constrained to new constructions on vacant lots.
While some developments have been made to improve the efficiency of
these systems, including efficiency gains through the use of multi-nozzle
3D printing [6], the field could largely benefit from the adoption of
alternative in situ systems accelerating the widespread deployment of
AM technologies in construction today.
In particular, the integration of autonomous mobile robotics in
building construction presents new opportunities for in situ AM; Mobile
Additive Manufacturing (MAM) systems for on-site construction could
provide an unbounded work area through mobility and thus new
possibilities for architecture in terms of manufacturing building com­
ponents larger than the static range of the system. They could provide
scalability through interaction (i.e., collaboration, cooperation,
coordination) within multi-robot systems or with human operators and
site workers present. Furthermore, they could extend the scope of in situ
AM from new construction to constructions in existing contexts for the
purposes of remodeling, repair, and renovation (see Fig. 1).
In this paper, we aim to introduce MAM systems for on-site con­
struction as both a significant challenge and a huge opportunity. The

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: doerfler@tum.de (K. Dörfler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106772
Received 31 October 2021; Received in revised form 6 February 2022; Accepted 8 March 2022
Available online 10 June 2022
0008-8846/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Dörfler et al. Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772

remainder of this paper is therefore organized as follows. Section 2 in­

troduces the background and motivation for mobile robotics applied to
in situ AM processes. Current research trends, approaches, and re­
quirements in MAM are outlined in Section 3. A description of potential
architectural application scenarios is given in Section 4. Section 5 con­
cludes the paper with an outlook and a motivation for future work in
MAM systems for construction. The scope of this paper is limited to
reviews of methods and approaches for continuous material extrusion
deposition techniques as defined for AM, and largely excludes proced­
ures such as bricklaying, discrete assembly processes, drilling, or
painting.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Architectural design space of in situ AM processes

To be able to exploit various positive aspects of 3D printing buildings

by layering strands of materials, including but not limited to construc­
tions without formwork, the efficient use of materials, the production of
force-flow and load-optimized components, the integration of different
functions into individual components (e.g. ventilation and insulation)
and the great design freedom for architects and engineers through
seemingly unlimited customization of building structures, a compre­
hensive understanding of the various dependencies is crucial for archi­
tectural design. In this paper, the architectural design space is
considered to be a result of the interactions between four fundamental
aspects of in situ AM processes, expanding on the aspect classification
proposed by [7] (1) the structural requirements and morphology of the
building, (2) its contextual conditions, (3) the material properties and
processing, and (4) the mechanical system, i.e., the fabricating robot
system(s) (see Fig. 2). While there are many other dependencies char­
acterizing and defining in situ AM design scopes, the primary ones being
logistics (materials and printer transport), materials (sourcing, access),
site conditions, environmental conditions (effect on machines and ma­
terials), these are not the primary focus of this paper [8].
As such, the context defines where construction takes place, whether
it is new construction or refurbishment, as well as the accessibility of the
site. The building structure is the designed and constructed object that
physically exists on the construction site when the AM process is com­
plete. Materials include those that will make up the final structure, as
well as ancillary structures and support materials used as part of the
building process. The mechanical systems are the robotic devices that
transport, process and deposit material in specific locations, creating the
building structure by depositing material. Each of these aspects —
context, structure, material and mechanical systems — affects and is
affected by the properties of the other. When examining the range of
Fig. 2. Four aspects that inform the architectural design space of in situ
AM processes.
new in situ AM systems, it is precisely this interaction between the in­
dividual aspects that leads to a high level of complexity, which this re­
view attempts to take into account; that is, that all aspects are discussed
in context with each other and that only a joint observation encom­
passing several aspects and not individual innovations can ultimately
lead to meaningful conclusions.
A decisive factor during the actual manufacturing process with
concrete is the load-bearing capacity and stability of the structure to be
printed. In situ material deposition is constrained by specific geometric
boundary conditions where the final product is a direct consequence of
the fabrication process, material properties, and contextual parameters,
both from the green to the cured state of the cementitious material. For
on-site processes, the material is typically deposited in-place with the
orientation as given, ideally without the need for auxiliary structures as
support. Hence, there exists a distinct design space, in which potential
failure modes, such as a global instability of the object, a plastic collapse
or a phase change (solid to liquid) and an elastic buckling of the struc­
ture, can be avoided [9]. This is particularly true for a rapid construction
process, where stresses in the component increase disproportionately to

Fig. 1. Visualization of cooperating mobile robots performing extrusion-based 3D printing for curved wall structures on building sites.

2
K. Dörfler et al.
the strength development of the material, or for the printing of canti­
levers and horizontally aligned structures, where tensile stresses in the
material are higher compared to vertically aligned structures.
Furthermore, this design space is also a direct consequence of the
mechanical deposition system used. For example, the degrees of freedom
(DOF) of the system with which the material is deposited determines
whether printing is limited to parallel horizontal planes or if printing
out-of-plane is possible, which can, amongst other factors, influence the
degree of cantilever [9,10] or the possibility of force-flow optimized
material placement [11]. AM structures are thus often a result of
custom-purpose material-robot systems [12], i.e., systems where both
the construction material and mechanical system are designed in coor­
dination with each other. For example, the cylindrical robot reach en­
velope of the Crane WASP, an in situ AM system with 3 DOF, combined
with a soil-based material, defines the design space of printable geom­
etries [13,14] (see Fig. 3).
Another decisive factor for the scope and limitations of possible
geometrical shapes is whether the workspace of the mechanical system
is extended by the structure created, as was illustratively shown in the
Minibuilders project [15] in the form of a climbing system (see Fig. 4).
2.2. The relation between scale and mobility in in situ AM processes
The question of scalability in deployable AM on building sites con­
cerns both the question of the size of the static workspace (volume), as
well as the possibilities for parallelization (speed), while maintaining a
high degree of flexibility in guiding a nozzle through space building up a
structure layer by layer [5,16]. Today, especially in the commercial
field, this is achieved in a variety of ways, including a) increasing the
working area of the 3D printing platform, i.e., using mechanical devices
that are significantly larger than the structure they are building [17], b)
manually relocating the 3D printing platform several times, and c) the
parallel use of several 3D printing platforms.
For example, Cobod [17] and ICON [18] have demonstrated the
construction of whole multi-storey buildings within the workspace of
the 3D-printing systems. US Army Corps of Engineers have developed a
lightweight deployable 3D-printer system through a cooperative
research and development agreement with Caterpillar, which can be
assembled and disassembled within 30 min each, can fit in a shipping
container, is mounted on retractable wheels, has the ability to be easily
moved on-site without disassembly, and has been used to 3D print
separate parts of a building without disassembly [8,19]. APIS Cor [20]
and Cybe [21] have shown projects in which they relocated their
printing arm by a crane to temporary locations in series. Twente AM
[22] have developed and demonstrated a deployable 3D-printing plat­
form that integrates a robotic arm and a linear axis on a trailer. Crane
WASP systems [13] are designed such that they can be assembled on site
into a hexagonal configuration to expand the printing area and to print
with multiple systems in parallel.
Autonomously mobile 3D printing robots could expand manually
Fig. 3. Multiple modular Crane WASP systems can be assembled on site into a hexagonal configuration to expand the printing area and to work together. Their
cylindrical reach envelope in combination with the DOFs and the material in use defines the design space of printable geometries [13,14].
3
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
deployable AM systems in the future (see Fig. 5). However, the robotic
complexity increases significantly with the transition from manual to
autonomous relocation and generally with increasing mobility and au­
tonomy of the systems [23]. Due to the lack of a rigid kinematic chain
connecting a robot’s end effector to the ground, the greater its mobility
and flexibility, the more dependent its precise operation is on advanced
sensor and control solutions [24] (see also Section 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and
3.1.4).
2.3. In situ AM within existing contexts
Renovate, retrofit, repair, and maintain — the construction methods
that are usually associated with “construction in existing contexts” with
the aim of increasing or maintaining value — are still largely ignored
and undervalued in the context of architecture and digital fabrication
[25]. Long-term care of the built environment is a highly important, but
not as often celebrated aspect of contemporary architecture, where
emphasis is typically put on new constructions. In the field of applica­
tions within existing contexts, the level of automation is also still far
below the one for new constructions [26]. While stationary robots are
largely limited to new constructions on vacant lots, mobile robots can
flexibly access enclosed spaces and could thus be a useful future tool for
renovating, retrofitting, repairing and maintaining our buildings and
infrastructure. Since these processes are done directly on the existing
structure, the deployability and mobility of the systems is a mandatory
requirement. Hence, such scenarios encourage the development of novel
platforms, methods, and tools, that are not only context-aware, but can
manufacture site and task-specific structures, on-site and in unstruc­
tured environments.
In general, working in existing contexts relies heavily on evaluation
of the status of the building and additionally requires other processes
besides AM, e.g., removing degraded material, cleaning and preparing
surfaces, applying new material and components. To maintain produc­
tivity, the ability of the mobile robots to perform such varying tasks in
collaboration, as well as the multi-functionality of the systems is of
crucial importance. Key for robot manipulation in existing contexts for
the transformation of existing structures is an extended spatial aware­
ness, i.e., geometrically precise and semantically rich internal repre­
sentation of the surroundings the robot is operating in. While robot
mapping is a well-researched problem, existing research is mostly suited
for robot navigation (see also Section 3.1.4); the actual manipulation of
the physical space, such as the deposition of material with a high degree
of accuracy within found environments, relies on expanding existing
methods. These methods are subject of extensive further research in this
domain, amongst these are object recognition, metrically capturing
spatial relationships (e.g., nearness, above, and below), qualitative and
quantitative estimations of the found built structure, as well as the
sourcing and reuse of found materials.
K. Dörfler et al.
Fig. 4. The mobile manipulator of the Minibuilders projects is climbing along the structure it is extruding [15].
Fig. 5. A single stationary AM system whose working space must be larger than the structure to be erected (left), compared to several cooperating mobile AM systems
for building construction, whose working space is expandable through their mobility and thus larger than their static workspace (right); thanks to their ability to
cooperate, structures can also be manufactured in parallel.
2.4. Towards human-robot teams: robots as co-builders
At the present, robots in building construction are often programmed
to work independently of human-specific interactive activities [27].
Initially however, robotics and automation were invented to assist and
to collaborate with humans in completing tasks, rather than replacing
them [28,29]. Dr. Shneiderman, a pioneer in the field of human-
computer interaction, has argued for decades against system designers
“who believe they are creating something lifelike and smart” — while
often, “users feel anxious and unable to control these systems” [30–32].
In industrial manufacturing contexts, robots have already gained both
cognition and manipulation abilities that allow them to operate in close
proximity to humans and even in direct physical interaction, as stated by
Haddadin et al. [28] in their definition of a robot as a co-worker.
Human presence on building sites, in relation to robots, happens in
various ways; typically, humans on building sites are trained personnel
(e.g., operators and experts), but they can also be untrained (e.g.,
helpers and spectators), which usually differentiates in either supportive
or disruptive interaction. As defined by Schultz [33], humans can
interact with robots in many ways: as supervisor, operator, teammate,
mechanic/programmer, and bystander. As has been pointed out by Beer
et al. [34] in the context of human-robot interaction, the main opinion
suggests that higher autonomy leads to less human-robot interaction,
with research aiming to maximize robotic autonomy with minimal
human intervention, as seen with many research projects related to
autonomous digital fabrication in architecture. However, there exists a
more interesting perspective suggesting that there is a positive
4
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
correlation between autonomy and collaboration: a higher level of au­
tonomy requires higher levels of interaction [34]. Han et al. [35]
therefore imply that a more balanced partnership and collaboration
between humans and robots can only be established with greater au­
tonomy of the machines. The area of applications for highly autonomous
systems could be substantially expanded if they allowed for dedicated
human intervention and interaction and if humans were consciously
kept in the loop [36]. The common understanding could be fundamen­
tally redefined by considering the role of humans as collaborators and
not just robot operators. Depending on the task, different scenarios with
highly autonomous machines would be possible, ranging from highly
autonomous (multi-) robotic task completion with minimal human
intervention to highly collaborative human-robot task completion with
intuitive task distribution [37].
New possibilities for digital fabrication could arise by thinking of
interaction, cooperation, and collaboration, in combination with the
development of highly autonomous machines [38]. As building con­
struction is substantially shaped by and dependent on manual skills,
regional training conditions, local heritage and craft, autonomous MAM
systems should be designed such that they are not only able to coordi­
nate physical actions amongst themselves, but should further be able to
safely share tasks through direct and indirect interaction and collabo­
ration with humans. As such, they could aid in formulating an alterna­
tive vision of a fully automated building design and robotized
construction, proclaiming the idea of a hybrid, mutually augmented
human-robot work team [37].
K. Dörfler et al.
3. Research axes
3.1. MAM challenges, principles, system requirements, and current
approaches
In view of deposition-based MAM on construction sites at full
architectural scale, we outline and review five primary categories, each
with their specific challenges, requirements and principles in Section
3.1. This categorization lays the foundation for the identification of
performance metrics for research trends and directions in Section 3.2.
3.1.1. Mobility
As postulated via the “In situ Fabrication (IF) Challenge” by [16],
robotic mobility should enable the “arbitrary autonomous mechatronics
tooling capability, anywhere in 3D space, in arbitrary environments,
without relying on fixed installations”. MAM systems are required to
perform autonomous navigation and continuous material deposition, in
which a mobile platform carries an end-effector material deposition
system, in some cases fitted to an extended manipulator. These mobile
systems are required to avoid obstacles or other mobile systems, while
preventing compromises on the efficiency of the material deposition
process by utilizing effective, minimal movements of the mobile plat­
form. To ensure the maneuverability of the system inside buildings, the
maximum size is limited to, or should be able to be reduced to, stan­
dardized door openings.
Most existing MAM systems are geared towards ground-based
mobility to expand the workspace of each system while allowing large
payload capacities, and thus the integration of various material pro­
cessing systems. Current mobile robotic platforms can reach intended
locations for material deposition, either by having the mobile platforms
continuously climbing up the structure they create (i.e., shown in the
case of small-scale mechanisms with severely limited robot reach en­
velopes, [15,39–41]), or by reaching from a nearby location on which
the mobile platforms can rest and maneuver during manufacturing (e.g.,
on floor slabs, [42–44]) (see Fig. 6).
3.1.2. Manipulation
The topic of manipulation is directly linked with the topic of
mobility, in which extended manipulation and positioning compliance
of an AM end-effector requires a mechanical system with one or more
DOFs. The smaller the range (static work area) of the robot in relation to
the work object, the greater the mobility of the robot must generally be.
While robots with a small reach envelope must continually move during
manufacturing (print-while-driving approach), such as shown in the
Growing Robot of the Plantoid Project [39] or the FIBERBOTS [40],
robots with an extended reach envelope can also be used in quasi-
stationary modes by being stabilized and not in motion during
manufacturing (print-drive-print approach) (see Fig. 7). The latter
approach has, amongst others, been shown in the Digital Construction
Platform by [45] (see Fig. 7), the CyBe concrete 3D printing platform
Fig. 6. The Minibuilders robots drive directly on the structure to be extruded (left), as an alternative to robots that typically drive next to the structure, on the same
surface from which the 3D printing is started (right).
5
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
[21], the printstones robotic 3D printing technology [46], or the In situ
Fabricator [47] (see Fig. 8).
With multi-DOF manipulators mounted onto mobile bases, such as
an anthropomorphic robotic manipulator with 6-DOF, extended printing
configurations can be considered that allow for a better transfer of forces
and contact area between layers, one of these techniques is the
tangential continuity method [48]. Manipulating and depositing mate­
rial while moving the mobile base (print-while-drive approach) typically
presupposes the ability of performing a coordinated move between the
arm and the base, integrating trajectory planning and whole-body mo­
tion control [49]. Such whole body motion control has for example been
shown by the YouWasp project [43] and by [50], in which an external
motion capture system was used to provide mobile base pose estimation
for closed-loop base control to extrude material in continuous print
paths exceeding the robot’s reach envelope. Without external motion
capturing systems, whole-body motion control has so far only been
shown as point marking on a wall with a mobile construction robot in
[49]. The system performed all state estimations using only on-board
sensing. However, such a highly autonomous system has not yet been
shown for carrying out AM tasks on a building site.
3.1.3. Material supply and deposition
Material supply and deposition options, while posing a challenging
problem in construction overall, have particular implications in the
context of MAM systems carrying out material extrusion or material
jetting (compare also with the classification framework for defining
Digital Fabrication with Concrete in [51]), and have indirect impacts on
their mobility metrics.
The AM process typically consists of the following stages: (a) the
production of the cementitious material by mixing the raw materials -
external or on-board, (b) the delivery of the material to the print head or
the raw materials to the on-board mixer — continuously or batchwise,
(c) the intermediate storage of the mixed or raw materials if required,
and (d), the application of individual material strands. For classifying
the technical design and the mobility of the MAM unit, it is essential
where these individual processes are located. Here, the delivery process
always bridges the boundary between the external environment and the
mobile unit. Depending on the location of the mixing, the type of ma­
terial delivery and any necessary intermediate on-board storage of the
materials, a classification can be made between four variants, shown in
Table 1 and Fig. 9.
How the material is fed to the printhead or the on-board mixer is an
essential aspect of MAM systems, as it influences the mobility of the
system and poses greater challenges compared to stationary ones. An
external material supply will form a tethered connection, where a
batchwise material supply combined with on-board storage requires
high payload capacities for carrying material containers, each affecting
the mobility of the system in their own way.
In external mixed concrete supply systems, i.e., variant 1.1 & 1.2, a
measured flow of material can be provided by using a digital control
K. Dörfler et al. Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772

Fig. 7. As the Mediated Matter Group at MIT has shown, the spectrum of mobile Additive Manufacturing can range from robots with a very limited reach envelope
(FIBERBOTS, left) to robots with a wide-range reach envelope (Digital Construction Platform, right). While the robots with a short reach have to move constantly
when depositing material (print-while-drive approach), those with a long reach can be used in quasi-stationary mode (print-drive-print approach) [45].

Fig. 8. Both the mobile construction platform Cybe (top)

[21] and the In situ Fabricator (IF) (bottom) [47] are
comprised of an industrial robot arm with 6-DOF mounted
on hydraulic crawler tracks. While the Cybe platform has
mostly been moved on-site to prefabricate concrete ele­
ments which are later assembled by crane into their final
location, the IF has also fabricated building elements in-
place. The IF has additionally been shown in autono­
mous driving scenarios, while Cybe has been steered via
remote control. Both are used in quasi-stationary manner,
being stabilized with legs during material deposition tasks.

system operating an external pump. Typically, dry material is mixed to system, however, mobility is significantly reduced.
recipe, and the concrete is pumped through a hose to the deposition Another important aspect results from the reactivity of the cement.
device at the end-effector of the mobile system, as for example shown in As soon as the cement binder is in contact with water, hydration begins,
[21,52]. Due to the permanent connection to the material delivery which leads to the setting and subsequent hardening of the concrete.

6
K. Dörfler et al.
Table 1
Material mixing and delivery classification in MAM.
Production Material feed
1.1 Mixing Continuous delivery of mixed material from external to
(external) on-board
1.2 Mixing Batchwise delivery of mixed material to on-board storage
(external)
2.1 Mixing (on- Continuous delivery of raw material from external to on-
board) board
2.2 Mixing (on- Batchwise delivery of raw material to on-board storage
board)
This means that the rheological properties of the concrete change irre­
versibly over time, thus the processing of the material becomes a time-
critical process. The concrete should be sufficiently deformable during
transport as well as at the print head to ensure pumpability and
discharge from the nozzle. In this respect, short delivery distances, e.g.
through intermediate storing of the ready-mixed concrete on the mobile
unit (variant 1.2), or even on-board mixing would be advantageous
(variant 2.2). The storage container or the mixer can be arranged on the
mobile unit itself or on a cooperating mobile unit. On-board interme­
diate storing of the material has been proven in small scale experiments
using FDM or clay extrusion mobile printers [42,43,53] as well as for
cement-based materials, e.g. Baubot X1 beta [46,54]. Current research
for stationary concrete printing systems also shows the possibility of
mixing of the concrete immediately in front of the nozzle to further
reduce the delivery distance of the fresh concrete to the print nozzle
[55–57], with the aim of reducing unintentional variability in the ma­
terial as well as integration of material gradation.
After the concrete has been deposited, it should sufficiently transi­
tion into a setting or hardening state, i.e., macroscopically develop a
green strength, in order to be able to successively support the load of the
subsequent layers and ensure a rapid printing progress. In order to
control the contradicting requirements, i.e., good workability during
delivery and depositing and sufficient structural build-up after depos­
iting, the material development of fresh concrete can be accelerated.
This can be done, for example, by adding an accelerator or a further
binder through an inline mixing process directly at the nozzle. Besides
first applications of inline mixing on mobile printers [46], there are
numerous developments in progress in the field of 3D concrete printing
that transfer well to MAM [58–60].
The main requirement of the material deposition system is the
Fig. 9. Illustration of material mixing and delivery in MAM.
7
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
precise deposition of the concrete, which necessitates the control of
several parameters. These parameters include: the deposition speed,
nozzle size and shape, and the possibility to precisely stop the flow of
material to allow for non-continuous material deposition to enable
transitions between statically fabricated elements and open print-path
configurations.
3.1.4. Localization, positioning and context-awareness
Precise material deposition is critical to the success of AM processes
[61], where marginal deviations in position or orientation will decrease
the stability of the printing process due to one-sided loads, and could
lead to printing failure [42]. Mobile robots especially suffer from posi­
tional inaccuracies [62] and are restricted in terms of localization ca­
pabilities, as a result of the provided sensor systems and the localization
method. However, given the variety of algorithms [63], specific re­
strictions can be derived for particular construction-site developments.
By their very nature, construction sites are constantly and rapidly
changing environments. With direct and indirect human intervention,
varying lighting conditions, and harsh environmental conditions,
localization methods developed are required to be robust and precise for
the application of AM on construction sites [64]. The localization
method applied to ground-based mobile systems needs to take into ac­
count the probable minor ground surface quality of an on-site situation,
compared to a lab or level hall floor [65]. This requires full dynamic 6-
DoF localization, which is not commonly available in commercial sys­
tems. Construction components are subject to tolerances, although these
occur in all manufacturing tasks, traditional construction allows values
in the range of centimeters, at least one order of magnitude above the
recommendations for ordinary metal processing [66,67]. In AM, these
tolerances have to be reduced for the localization task to ensure suc­
cessful printing. This has the particular consequence that the localiza­
tion must take place in relation to the reference or model coordinate
system, though requires adaptivity to the actual, current state of reali­
zation of the object.
In general, localization algorithms can be classified into two cate­
gories: relative and absolute [68]. Relative localization, also called dead
reckoning or inertial localization, is solely based on the temporal inte­
gration of sensor information [63,69,70]. While relative localization
algorithms, e.g., by wheel odometry, IMU, or visual odometry, enable
autonomous operation and provide suitable performance for mobile 3D
printing on a small scale [42], the compounding measurement errors
and noise will lead to an ever-increasing deviation. Limitations of in­
ertial localization are: only the position change relative to the referenced
starting point is measured, whose position must also be referenced [71],
and velocity integration of this form of inertial localization assumes a
level floor, resulting in an additional error for uneven floors on con­
struction sites [72]. Wheel odometry is particularly affected by this
noise.
This leads to the necessity of “enabling a mobile robot to determine
its position and orientation… independent of assumptions about previ­
ous movements” [73]. In this regard, absolute localization is currently
refined to improve the tool center point (TCP) positioning [70]. With an
absolute approach, using a global reference frame, the manufacturing of
a structure according to a planned CAD model is more straightforward
compared to the relative positioning approach. If parts are constructed
in isolated locations or collaboratively with multiple robots, absolute
positioning seems indispensable. External reference devices such as total
stations, laser reflector combinations, or optical markers perform
excellent concerning absolute localization and provide positional in­
formation within an global reference coordinate system (see Fig. 10), as
evidenced by recent mobile 3D printing operations [43,50,61,74].
However, since they require a constant line of sight, the robot workspace
is constricted, and the usability under previously described construction
site influences is limited [16]. Instead, environment-based localization
by on-board sensing and referencing to the local surroundings provides
higher flexibility.
K. Dörfler et al.
Fig. 10. Mobile positioning for 3D printing through external vision-based localization using an externally mounted camera tracking ArUco markers on the base (left),
and using a camera on board of the base tracking Aruco markers on the floor (right). Here, the marker tracking provides sufficient accuracy for demonstrating both
parallel printing and printing-while-moving approach.
For localization within static construction environments and when
using a relative positioning approach, robot sensor point clouds are
iteratively fitted to pre-defined maps, e.g. by Iterative Closest Point ICP
[44]. Due to the variable environment of construction sites however,
pre-defined maps will be rapidly out-dated. More robust and dynamic
algorithms can be implemented by combing a pre-scanned map with
odometry data, resulting in the adaptive Monte Carlo Localization
(AMCL) [75]. Lastly, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) is
most beneficial for fully autonomous operation as it continuously up­
dates the map of the environment [76–78]. Here, it is necessary to
consider that widespread 2D SLAM algorithms based on laser range
measurements do not generally predict moving obstacles or uneven
surfaces due to 2D approaches [78]. Therefore, SLAM algorithms with
the generation of 3D maps are required [79,80]. Handling dense 3D
point clouds requires time-consuming computational effort, which is
why a separation between map construction and real-time localization is
proposed [81].
Out of the available methods, specifically visual SLAM has proven
successful localization at construction sites [82]. When an autonomous
system must operate for an extended period of time, carry out a wide
variety of tasks (not all of which are necessarily known at design time),
and communicate with other entities, including humans, its real-time
visual SLAM system should build a human-understandable, general,
and persistent scene representation, which is close to metric 3D geom­
etry, at least locally. Real-time visual SLAM, as used for localization and
context-awareness, is capable of dealing with changes in the environ­
ment, human interaction, or robot cooperation [83]. Hence, for enabling
Fig. 11. The In situ Fabricator (left) performing autonomous end effector positioning by reference to the workpiece via 3D laser scans (right) for the assembly of a
vertically stacked tower.
8
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
various levels of scene representation, also referred to as spatial AI [84],
visual real-time SLAM has gradually improved in recent years, starting
from sparse features, evolving to dense maps, and recently allowing for
increasingly semantic labels [85]. However, due to the high accuracy
requirements and continuity of deposition-based AM and the necessity
to be able to deal with part tolerances, the accuracy of visual SLAM
algorithms must still be heavily improved. As such, prior knowledge in
the form of CAD or BIM data, which is typically available for digital
building sites, can be utilized to improve the mapping and localization
[86]. Moreover, the combination of referencing the robot in a global
map with referencing the robot relative to the manufacturing part, as for
example demonstrated by the In situ Fabricator for the assembly of
discrete blocks into a tower [86] (see Fig. 11), provides also a promising
solution to be applied for precise and continuous printing operations.
In sum, to attain an accurate enough localization system for addi­
tively manufactured structures and to also allow for cooperative oper­
ation between multiple units, mobile systems require a two-level system.
The first level of the system is the absolute localization of the mobile
platform within the context of the construction environment, finding the
relation between the platform, work site, collaborators, and other ob­
jects. The second level, which is used in combination with the first,
should provide the estimation of the end-effector location relative to the
work piece, with which the required accuracy of continuous layered
material deposition should be attained (see Fig. 12).
3.1.5. Control, coordination and task allocation
Given robust localization, positioning, and context-awareness, the
K. Dörfler et al. Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772

Fig. 12. Two-level localization system as proposed to attain the required accuracy for mobile 3D printing tasks.

Fig. 13. Snapshots of a simulated animation of two AMBOT robots cooperatively 3D printing an airplane model using an FDM process. A chunk-based slicer was used
to discretize an object into parts, amongst other taking into account the ratio of the nozzle height and width, which can then be printed in parallel by the two
participating units.

Fig. 14. The YouWasp system has demonstrated mobile multi-robot material deposition, both in simulation by investigating and evaluating various task decom­
position, sequencing and allocation approaches, and in an experimental test scenario, depositing ceramic material in an tracked arena.

use of multi-robot systems offers increased efficiency through produc­
tion time reduction and collaboration [87]. When considering multi-
agent-printing operations on large-scale components, additional colli­
sion avoidance and task allocation are required at an early stage of
planning. Dividing components into substructures without workspace
overlap is the standard way to make use of multi printer systems [88–90]
(see Figs. 13 and 14).
While slicing and path planning are based on existing algorithms,
additional schedulers must generate a printing scheme and assign sub-
tasks to individual robots [53]. The resulting seams, however, will
have a direct effect on the structural stability. Furthermore, structural
considerations must be taken into account when printing with time-
dependent materials such as concrete. Thus, a flexible control
approach involving robot interaction or collaboration is required [91].
Centralized control methods are generally based on a single
controller and require a holistic a priori planning [92]. These have

9
K. Dörfler et al. Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772

proven easy to implement due to entirely preplanned processes, but are
just recommended for few robots with a small number of tasks and
minor complexity [12,93]. In contrast, decentralized architectures
provide individual controllers for each unit, which enables individual
task assignment and independent robot behavior [94]. A major draw­
back of fully decentralized systems is the absence of direct communi­
cation between the units, so all issues have to be solved implicitly by the
individual robot programs [95].
However, the complexity of MAM in construction demands global
process awareness by each robot. Especially during in situ applications,
capabilities of both approaches are needed for compensation of material
application errors, collision avoidance related to printed components by
other robots, and environmental disturbances. Therefore, hybrid control
architectures based on a virtual master, reasonably a virtual robot [96],
a component or a construction site model, and networking robot con­
trollers are recommended for further development.
As proposed in [97,98], a CAD model can perform as such a virtual
master. By decomposing the described building component into com­
parable subtasks with similar processes, finite discretization of the
manufacturing is achieved. This is especially necessary when printing
with time-dependent materials such as concrete and stabilizing rebar
integration or supporting robots [99]. The task assignment itself can be
based on a variety of algorithms, with the simplest being random-choice
[100]. However, since not all robots have to be able to perform the same
tasks, restrictions are necessary according to the capabilities of the in­
dividual unit. In sum, hybrid control architectures with adaptive task
assignment do not only enable scalability and flexibility through the
opportunity of integrating additional functions, but also ensure the
redistribution of tasks in the event of robot failure.
3.2. Summary and performance metric for a classification
A classification of several existing mobile system AM processes both
from academia and industry is made comparing their material, process,
contextual and mechanical aspects (see Table 2).
While the process is characterized by the material used, the method
of deposition can vary, and the review shows that multiple instances of
extrusion can provide differing results based on mechanical components
such as the nozzle, delivery length and pressure, actuated extruders, and
layer compression.
The mobility of the system can be described by the surface traversed,
combined with the definition of the work area. Where a climbing system
is traversing over the area of the printed structure, it is also limited to the
printed structure with marginal expansion of the work area possible
through overhang. The area of movement for a ground-based system can
be seen as its opposite, where movement is only possible where no
printed structure has been constructed, resulting in a much larger area of
mobility, though constrained by the limitations of the static workspace,
most prevalent in the vertical axis.
The context in which the system is able to operate is of high rele­
vance with the transfer of mobile systems to construction sites, where a
direct relation can be made to the localization of the system in un­
structured environments. The methods of localization can be described
as a single localization procedure using environmental mapping, a
localization system which consists of multiple devices providing
different aspects of sensory perception, or localization with a method of
refinement using a leveled system for global and then local position
estimation. Autonomy metrics can be described through the type and
amount of involvement of human operators and collaborators and the
ability to adapt to changes in the environment, a modified ranking
specified for construction was suggested by [101].
4. Architectural application scenarios
Through use of multiple MAM systems, structures of unbounded size
can be made using parallelization of tasks. Through the use of a high
DOF system, a high freedom in deposition is made available through
alternative nozzle orientations and transformations, which leads to
increased freedom of form and structural advantages and a variety of
application scenarios in building construction. In particular, the inter­
action and combined effort of several robots opens up new possibilities
compared to stationary and single-nozzle systems. Therefore, we present
a pair of newly developed collaborative mobile robots aiming to bring
AM to the construction site (see Fig. 15) [103]. They will act as research
platforms to study the proposed architectural application scenarios as
follows below.
4.1. Cooperative MAM for new constructions
The manufacturing of vertical typologies in buildings, in particular of
walls and columns, has a limited complexity in terms of their in-place
printability, both for stationary or mobile AM systems. However, the
integration of static and building physics functions still makes high
demands to production. The integration of functions can be achieved

Table 2
Comparison of existing mobile systems for AM processes.
Name Developer Material and process Mobility Site Autonomy Localization

Growing robot [39] CMBR, IIT Polymer FDM Uniaxial climbing extended through In Conditional Relative
AM situ automation
Fiberbots [40] MIT Mediated Matter Fiber depositions Uniaxial climbing extended through In Conditional Relative: IMU
AM situ automation
Minibuilders [15] IAAC Concrete Extrusion Climbing extended through AM In Partial automation Absolute: external
situ guiding lines
Koala 3D [41] Univ. of Chile Polymer FDM Climbing while AM Off- Partial automation –
site
AMbots [42] AM3 Lab Polymer FDM Mobile platform with vertical axis Off- Conditional Relative: optical sensors
site automation
AGV with industrial LS2N Polyurethane Automated Ground Vehicle with In Conditional Absolute: external laser
robot [61] 6DOF arm situ automation reflectors
YouWasp [43] UCL Clay Extrusion Mobile platform with 6DOF arm Off- Conditional Absolute: external
site automation optical sensors
Baubot [102] Printstones Concrete Extrusion Mobile platform with 6DOF arm In Conditional –
situ automation
Robot Printers [50,52] Singapore Centre for 3D Concrete Extrusion Mobile platform with 6DOF arm Off- Partial automation Absolute: external
Printing site optical sensors
Cybe [21] Concrete Concrete Extrusion Mobile platform with 6DOF arm In Partial automation –
situ
DCP [45] MIT Mediated Matter Polyurethane foam Mobile platform with 6DOF arm In Conditional Absolute: external laser
spraying mounted on boom-arm situ automation sensor

10
K. Dörfler et al.
Fig. 15. A pair of collaborative mobile robot research platforms for in situ AM,
consisting of a wheeled mobile base, an integrated linear axis, and a collabo­
rative 6-axis robot arm, here one of the systems equipped with a clay 3D
printing system.
though geometrical design, e.g., the integration of voids or gradation in
the density of the print paths, or the integration of additional mechan­
ical systems through the placing or co-extrusion of secondary materials
for reinforcement. This approach can be extended by materials design,
which allows for further grading of the component by using a selection
of mixtures, in the case of a composite material, which can be applied in
specific locations within the building component optimized for the
function required. Examples for this are the use of a high strength ma­
terial used in parts where the building component is highly stressed, or a
lightweight, insulating material used as part of a façade to allow for a
varying thermal mass and insulation value. Cooperating mobile systems
could extend the existing possibilities already provided by stationary
AM systems, e.g., by distributing tasks between different units, and thus
enabling selective grading through delivering multiple tailor-made
material mixtures in building components.
While we see multiple instances of vertical components being pro­
duced with in situ AM techniques, the inclusion of horizontal compo­
nents is still mostly omitted. With vertical components, the structure
that is printed is supported and stabilized by the previous layers, as the
structure is not defined by the area it occupies but the height it attains.
Conversely, in horizontal components, the ideal is to cover large areas
while the height is aimed to be minimized to reduce unneccesary weight.
The aim of spanning large areas requires the filament to be deposited
eccentricly, creating overhangs and thus the introduction of concen­
trated stresses and possible structural instability. Horizontal typologies,
such as floors and ceilings, are thus often prefabricated for installation
on-site. Alternatively, tensile stresses could be avoided for in situ AM, for
which the geometrical design could be optimized to ensure a
compression-dominant structure with the introduction of curvature.
Here, cooperative abilities of MAM could be leveraged, e.g., by intro­
ducing temporary support by one robot stabilizing a structure and
enabling the material deposition by another. Other options could
include the material deposition of a secondary material to create
removable support structures where necessary. These support structures
would allow for an extended form-freedom by removing some con­
straints on the process, including structural or process-related
limitations.
Cooperation with humans on-site could additionally include a com­
bination of processes, where the robotic system manufactures a building
component through additive means, and the human places an element as
part of a prescribed or interactive process, whereafter the MAM system
perceives the object placed and adapts its process to include it. A prac­
tical example of this process is the inclusion of lintels to create regular
11
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
rectangular door and window openings, or the integration of other
standardized components.
4.2. Cooperative MAM in existing contexts
MAM systems are of particular importance for building in existing
contexts, reaching places that gantry robots cannot. As existing com­
ponents need to be selectively removed, treated, exchanged or
augmented from a structural, aesthetic or functional point of view, the
use of mobile robots could enable a combination of subtractive and
additive processes, which could be carried out through cooperative skills
of multiple actors. Attaining or adapting digital models through reality
capturing by the mobile systems is thus of high importance for site-
specific work, where the replacement of components is required to fit
seamlessly with the existing construction. An example of this is reno­
vation or retrofitting of a space where interior walls are removed, and a
new layout is designed and manufactured in place, taking into account
inaccuracies in the building, e.g. inclination and skew. While replacing
existing components are often required in maintaining the building’s
aesthetics and function, integrating additional functions such as heating,
ventilation, electronics or passive insulation could be beneficial for
component enhancement. With MAM systems, these functions could be
integrated by extending the structure through addition of a secondary
layer, manufactured on-site, against the existent structure.
5. Conclusion
This paper has examined mobile autonomous systems for AM in
research and industry, which encompass a wide range of solutions but
share the same goal of increasing efficiencies in the architecture, engi­
neering, and construction (AEC) sector. This efficiency manifests as a
reduction of time required to fabricating structures, a decrease in ma­
terial used, and an increase in accuracy through improvement building
resolution as a result of decreasing margins of tolerance, without the
worry of fitment.
A large challenge for MAM systems remains the material delivery,
that is, with increasing scale, more material is required, thus either
limiting the mobility through a tethered connection or requiring mobile
systems to resupply onboard material containers.
While mobility and material deposition are required, the critical
component in MAM systems is the context-awareness, allowing fabri­
cation of building components in the correct location and with the
required relation between them. The absolute localization within the
environment using global landmarks through marker or marker-less
tracking, combined with a relative localization to the workpiece, has the
potential to allow for accurate continuation and collaboration on
building components with one or multiple mobile systems.
With the introduction of multiple MAM systems, building tasks can
be distributed amongst actors, often through discretization of building
components. A deep understanding of movement of the mobile systems
is required, while a flexible control layer should be considered that can
redistribute tasks based on unforeseen circumstances. In extension to
large scale stationary systems, the increased contextual awareness
combined with mobility provides new opportunities for use of the
technology in existing contexts. The autonomy of the MAM system could
also enable collaboration with humans on site, which would allow for
more freedom in the design of AM buildings. Highly complex and
cognitively challenging tasks involving skills and craft could be carried
out by humans, which could ideally be complemented by robots per­
forming tasks that require, for example, high geometric precision, high
force-adaptivity, or require a high payload capacity.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kathrin Dörfler: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review and editing.
K. Dörfler et al.
Gido Dielemans: Writing - original draft, Writing - review and
editing.
Lukas Lachmayer: Writing - original draft, Writing - review and
editing.
Tobias Recker: Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing.
Annika Raatz: Writing - review and editing.
Dirk Lowke: Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing.
Markus Gerke: Writing - review and editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement
in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as hono­
raria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; member­
ship, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity
interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or
non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships,
affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials
discussed in this manuscript.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Deutsche For­
schungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Pro­
jektnummer 414265976 – TRR 277 Additive Manufacturing in
Construction.
References
[1] F. Bos, R. Wolfs, Z. Ahmed, T. Salet, Additive manufacturing of concrete in
construction: potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing, Virtual Phys.
Prototyp. 11 (3) (2016) 209–225, https://doi.org/10.1080/
17452759.2016.1209867.
[2] A. Paolini, S. Kollmannsberger, E. Rank, Additive manufacturing in construction:
a review on processes, applications, and digital planning methods, Addit. Manuf.
30 (2019), 100894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894.
[3] T. Wangler, et al., Digital concrete: opportunities and challenges, RILEM Tech.
Lett. 1 (Oct. 2016) 67, https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.16.
[4] A.U. Rehman, J. Caron, Cement and Concrete Research The Realities of
Additively Manufactured Concrete Structures in Practice, 2022.
[5] B. Khoshnevis, Automated construction by contour crafting – related robotics and
information technologies, Autom. Constr 13 (1) (2004) 5–19, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2003.08.012 [Online]. Available.
[6] “Autodesk Project Escher Finds First Commercial Release in Cronus |
Engineering.com.” n.d.
[7] L. Cai, On-Site Autonomous Fabrication at Architectural Scales, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2018. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/119078.
[8] E. Kreiger, B. Diggs-McGee, T. Wood, B. MacAllister, M. Kreiger, Field
Considerations for Deploying Additive Construction, vol. 28, Springer
International Publishing, 2020.
[9] P. Carneau, R. Mesnil, N. Roussel, O. Baverel, Additive manufacturing of
cantilever - from masonry to concrete 3D printing, Autom. Constr. 116 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103184.
[10] H. K., N.H.Hendrik Lindemann [Online]. Available, in: “Gradual Transition
Shotcrete 3D Printing,” Poster August, 2018, p. 1, https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Norman_Hack/publication/326735829_Gradual_Transition_Shotcrete_3
D_Printing/links/5b6189970f7e9bc79a731ea6/Gradual-Transition-Shotcrete-3
D-Printing.pdf.
[11] H. Kloft, M. Empelmann, N. Hack, E. Herrmann, D. Lowke, Reinforcement
strategies for 3D-concrete-printing, Civ. Eng. Des. 2 (4) (2020) 131–139, https://
doi.org/10.1002/cend.202000022.
[12] B. Jenett, A. Abdel-Rahman, K. Cheung, N. Gershenfeld, Material–Robot system
for assembly of discrete cellular structures, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 4 (4) (2019)
4019–4026, https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2019.2930486.
[13] M. Lombarda I. C. Wasp A. S. Project M. C. Architects I. Calvinon.d.“TECLA –
Technology and Clay The First Eco-sustainable House 3D Printed From Raw Earth
is Now a Reality.”.
[14] “ 3D Printer House | Crane WASP - 3D Printers | WASP.”n.d. https://
www.3dwasp.com/en/3d-printer-house-crane-wasp/ (accessed Sep. 26, 2021).
[15] “Minibuilders.” n.d. http://robots.iaac.net/ (accessed Aug. 02, 2017).
[16] J. Buchli, et al., Digital in situ fabrication - challenges and opportunities for
robotic in situ fabrication in architecture, construction, and beyond, Cem. Concr.
Res. 112 (2018) 66–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.013.
[17] COBOD, 2021 [Online]. Available, https://cobod.com/. (Accessed 9 January
2021).
[18] “Home | ICON.” n.d. https://www.iconbuild.com/ (accessed Feb. 05, 2022).
12
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
[19] E.L. Kreiger, M.A. Kreiger, M.P. Case, Development of the construction processes
for reinforced additively constructed concrete, Addit. Manuf. 28 (Aug. 2019)
39–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2019.02.015.
[20] Apis Cor Construction, 2021. http://apis-cor.com/en/. (Accessed 29 November
2017).
[21] “CyBe Construction.” n.d. https://www.cybe.eu/cyberc3dp/ (accessed Nov. 29,
2017).
[22] “Project gallery : Twente Additive Manufacturing.” n.d. https://www.twente-am.
com/projects/ (accessed Feb. 05, 2022).
[23] R. Duballet, O. Baverel, J. Dirrenberger, Classification of building systems for
concrete 3D printing, Autom. Constr. 83 (2017) 247–258, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.018.
[24] K. Dörfler, et al., Architectural-scale mobile robotic fabrication beyond structured
factory conditions: case study mesh mould wall of the DFAB HOUSE, Constr.
Robot. 2 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41693-019-00020-w.
[25] S. Çetin, C.De Wolf, N. Bocken, Circular digital built environment: An emerging
framework, Sustainability 13 (11) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348.
[26] Y. Huang, L. Alkhayat, C.De Wolf, C. Mueller, Algorithmic Circular Design With
Reused Structural Elements: Method and Tool, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3929/
ethz-a-010025751.
[27] T. Salmi, J.M. Ahola, T. Heikkilä, P. Kilpeläinen, T. Malm, in: Human-Robot
Collaboration and Sensor-Based Robots in Industrial Applications and
Construction, 2018, pp. 25–52, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70866-9_2.
[28] S. Haddadin, M. Suppa, S. Fuchs, T. Bodenmüller, A. Albu-Schäffer, G. Hirzinger,
in: Towards the Robotic Co-worker, 2011, pp. 261–282, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-19457-3_16.
[29] L. Wang, S. Liu, H. Liu, X.V. Wang, Overview of Human-robot Collaboration in
Manufacturing May, Springer International Publishing, 2020.
[30] “A Case for Cooperation Between Machines and Humans - The New York Times.”
n.d. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/technology/ben-shneiderman-
automation-humans.html (accessed Oct. 31, 2021).
[31] B. Shneiderman, Human-centered artificial intelligence: reliable, safe &
trustworthy 36 (6) (Apr. 2020) 495–504, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10447318.2020.1741118.
[32] P. Maes, B. Shneiderman, J. Miller, Intelligent Software Agents vs. User-
Controlled Direct Manipulation: A Debate, 1997.
[33] M.A. Goodrich, A.C. Schultz, Human-robot interaction: a survey, Found. Trends
Human-Computer Interact. 1 (3) (2007) 203–275, https://doi.org/10.1561/
1100000005.
[34] J.M. Beer, A.D. Fisk, W.A. Rogers, Toward a framework for levels of robot
autonomy in human-robot interaction, J. Human-Robot Interact. 3 (2) (2014) 74,
https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.3.2.beer.
[35] I.X. Han, F. Meggers, S. Parascho, Bridging the collectives: a review of collective
human–robot construction, Int. J. Archit. Comput. 19 (4) (2021) 512–531,
https://doi.org/10.1177/14780771211025153.
[36] M. Johnson, J.M. Bradshaw, P.J. Feltovich, Tomorrow’s human-machine design
tools: from levels of automation to interdependencies, J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak.
12 (1) (2018) 77–82, https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343417736462.
[37] L. Atanasova, D. Mitterberger, T. Sandy, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, K. Dörfler, in:
Prototype as Artefact - Design Tool for Open-ended Collaborative Assembly
Processes, ACADIA, 2020, pp. 1–11.
[38] N. Mavridis, T. Bourlai, D. Ognibene, The human-robot cloud: situated collective
intelligence on demand, in: Proc. - 2012 IEEE Int. Conf. Cyber Technol. Autom.
Control. Intell. Syst. CYBER 2012 May, 2012, pp. 360–365, https://doi.org/
10.1109/CYBER.2012.6392580.
[39] A. Sadeghi, A. Mondini, B. Mazzolai, Toward self-growing soft robots inspired by
plant roots and based on additive manufacturing technologies, Soft Robot. 4 (3)
(2017) 211–223, https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2016.0080.
[40] M. Kayser, et al., FIBERBOTS: an autonomous swarm-based robotic system for
digital fabrication of fiber-based composites, no. 1, in: Constr. Robot. 2018 21 2,
2018, pp. 67–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/S41693-018-0013-Y. Dec.
[41] M. Vélez, E. Toala, J.C. Zagal, Koala 3D: A continuous climbing 3D printer, in:
Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 64, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rcim.2020.101950. January.
[42] L.G. Marques, R.A. Williams, W. Zho, A mobile 3D printer for cooperative 3D
printing 2. Mobile printer design, in: Solid Free. Fabr. Symp., 2017,
pp. 1645–1660.
[43] J. Sustarevas, K.X. Benjamin Tan, D. Gerber, R. Stuart-Smith, V.M. Pawar,
YouWasps: towards autonomous multi-robot Mobile deposition for construction,
IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (2019) 2320–2327, https://doi.org/10.1109/
IROS40897.2019.8967766.
[44] K. Dörfler, T. Sandy, M. Giftthaler, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, J. Buchli, Mobile
robotic brickwork: automation of a discrete robotic fabrication process using an
autonomous mobile robot, in: Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design
2016, 2016, pp. 204–2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04663-1.
[45] S.J. Keating, J.C. Leland, L. Cai, N. Oxman, Toward site-specific and self-sufficient
robotic fabrication on architectural scales, Sci. Robot. 2 (5) (2017) 15, https://
doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aam8986.
[46] “Home | Printstones.”n.d. https://www.printstones.eu/ (accessed Sep. 30, 2021).
[47] A. Thoma, A. Mirjan, V. Helm, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, Rock print: an
architectural installation of granular matter, Act. Matter (2019), https://doi.org/
10.7551/mitpress/11236.003.0045.
[48] C. Gosselin, R. Duballet, P. Roux, N. Gaudillière, J. Dirrenberger, P. Morel, Large-
scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete – a new processing route for
architects and builders, Mater. Des. 100 (Jun. 2016) 102–109, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MATDES.2016.03.097.
K. Dörfler et al.
[49] A. Gawel, et al., A fully-integrated sensing and control system for high-accuracy
mobile robotic building construction, IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (2019)
2300–2307, https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8967733.
[50] M.E. Tiryaki, X. Zhang, Q.-C. Pham, Printing-while-moving: a new paradigm for
large-scale robotic 3D Printing [Online]. Available, 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1
809.07940.
[51] R.A. Buswell, et al., A process classification framework for defining and
describing digital fabrication with concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 134 (March)
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106068.
[52] X. Zhang, et al., Large-scale 3D printing by a team of mobile robots, Autom.
Constr. 95 (August) (2018) 98–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.08.004.
[53] L. Poudel, et al., Architecting the cooperative 3d printing system, Proc. ASME
Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. 9 (Nov. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22711.
[54] “Printstones Mobile Concrete 3D Printing - YouTube.” n.d.https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=CZZVvtAjjmM (accessed Oct. 28, 2021).
[55] TRR 277 AMC A03. https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/trr277/projects/amc-struc
ture/a-projects/a03. (Accessed 28 October 2021).
[56] Y. Tan, M. Dahlenburg, S. Kessler, J. Fottner, Virtual Prototyping mit DEM zur
Entwicklung eines Near-Nozzle-Mixing Verfahrens für den additiven 3D
Betondruck für den Roboter Einsatz, in: 25. Fachtagung Schüttgutfördertechnik
2021, OVGU, Magdeburg, 2021.
[57] N. Zhang, M. Xia, J. Sanjayan, Short-duration near-nozzle mixing for 3D concrete
printing, Cem. Concr. Res. 151 (Jan. 2022), 106616, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CEMCONRES.2021.106616.
[58] L. Reiter, T. Wangler, A. Anton, R.J. Flatt, Setting on demand for digital
concrete–Principles, measurements, chemistry, validation, Cem. Concr. Res. 132
(2020), 106047.
[59] S. Muthukrishnan, S. Ramakrishnan, J. Sanjayan, Technologies for improving
buildability in 3D concrete printing, Cem. Concr. Compos. 122 (Sep. 2021),
104144, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONCOMP.2021.104144.
[60] Y. Tao, A.V. Rahul, K. Lesage, Y. Yuan, K. Van Tittelboom, G. De Schutter,
Stiffening control of cement-based materials using accelerators in inline mixing
processes: possibilities and challenges, Cem. Concr. Compos. 119 (May 2021),
103972, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONCOMP.2021.103972.
[61] K. Subrin, T. Bressac, S. Garnier, A. Ambiehl, E. Paquet, B. Furet, Improvement of
the mobile robot location dedicated for habitable house construction by 3D
printing 51 (11) (2018) 716–721, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.403.
[62] H. Blum, J. Stiefel, C. Cadena, R. Siegwart, A. Gawel, Precise Robot Localization
in Architectural 3D Plans [Online]. Available, 2020, http://arxiv.org/abs/2
006.05137.
[63] S.G. Tzafestas, Mobile robot control and navigation: a global overview, J. Intell.
Robot. Syst. 91 (1) (2018) 35–58, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-018-0805-9.
[64] K. Asadi, et al., An integrated UGV-UAV system for construction site data
collection, Autom. Constr. 112 (Apr. 2020), 103068, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2019.103068.
[65] G. Pritschow, M. Dalacker, J. Kurz, Configurable Control System of a Mobile
Robot for On-Site Construction of Masonry May, 1993, https://doi.org/
10.22260/ISARC1993/0012.
[66] D.K. Ballast, Handbook of Construction Tolerances, Wiley, 2007.
[67] S. Szyminski, Allgemeintoleranzen, in: Toler. und Passungen, 1993, pp. 111–116,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-05801-4_9.
[68] S.G. Tzafestas, Introduction to Mobile robot control, Introd. to Mob. Robot
Control (2013) 1–691.
[69] N.L. Doh, H. Choset, W.K. Chung, Relative localization using path odometry
information, Auton. Robots 21 (2) (2006) 143–154, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10514-006-6474-8.
[70] M.B. Alatise, G.P. Hancke, A review on challenges of autonomous Mobile robot
and sensor fusion methods, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 39830–39846, https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2975643.
[71] S.M. Malagon-Soldara, M. Toledano-Ayala, G. Soto-Zarazua, R.V. Carrillo-
Serrano, E.A. Rivas-Araiza, Mobile robot localization: a review of probabilistic
map- based techniques [Online]. Available, in: IAES Int. J. Robot. Autom 4, 2015,
pp. 73–81, http://www.iaescore.com/journals/index.php/IJRA/article/view
/968/pdf.
[72] Z. Wang, H. Li, X. Yang, Vision-based robotic system for on-site construction and
demolition waste sorting and recycling, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020), 101769, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101769.
[73] M. Drumheller, Mobile robot localization using sonar, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mach. Intell. vol. PAMI-9, no. 2 (1987) 325–332, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPAMI.1987.4767907.
[74] S. Ercan, S. Meier, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, Automated localization of a mobile
construction robot with an external measurement device, in: Proc. 36th Int.
Symp. Autom. Robot. Constr. ISARC 2019, Isarc, 2019, pp. 929–936, https://doi.
org/10.22260/isarc2019/0124.
[75] V. Rosas-Cervantes, S.-G. Lee, 3D localization of a mobile robot by using Monte
Carlo algorithm and 2D features of 3D point cloud, Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst.
18 (11) (2020) 2955–2965, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-019-0313-0.
[76] P. Kim, J. Chen, J. Kim, Y.K. Cho, SLAM-driven intelligent autonomous mobile
robot navigation for construction applications, in: Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.
(including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) 10863,
13
Cement and Concrete Research 158 (2022) 106772
LNCS, 2018, pp. 254–269, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91635-4_14.
January.
[77] C. Feng, Y. Xiao, A. Willette, W. McGee, V.R. Kamat, Vision guided autonomous
robotic assembly and as-built scanning on unstructured construction sites, Autom.
Constr. 59 (2015) 128–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.06.002.
[78] J. Leonard, H. Durrant-Whyte, Simultaneous Map Building and Localization for
an Autonomous Mobile Robot, 1991, https://doi.org/10.1109/
IROS.1991.174711.
[79] S. Leutenegger, S. Lynen, M. Bosse, R. Siegwart, P. Furgale, Keyframe-based
visual–inertial odometry using nonlinear optimization, Int. J. Robot. Res. 34 (3)
(2015) 314–334.
[80] C. Houseago, M. Bloesch, S. Leutenegger, KO-fusion: dense visual SLAM with
tightly-coupled kinematic and odometric tracking, in: International Conference
on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) 2019, 2019, pp. 4054–4060.
[81] A. Nüchter, K. Lingemann, J. Hertzberg, H. Surmann, 6D SLAM-3D Mapping
Outdoor Environments, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20209.
[82] R. Bao, R. Komatsu, R. Miyagusuku, M. Chino, A. Yamashita, H. Asama, Cost-
effective and robust visual based localization with consumer-level cameras at
construction sites, in: 2019 IEEE 8th Glob. Conf. Consum. Electron. GCCE 2019
Oct, 2019, pp. 983–985, https://doi.org/10.1109/GCCE46687.2019.9015417.
[83] C. Ntanos, C. Botsikas, G. Rovis, P. Kakavas, D. Askounis, A context awareness
framework for cross-platform distributed applications, J. Syst. Softw. 88 (1)
(2014) 138–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.018.
[84] A.J. Davison, FutureMapping: The Computational Structure of Spatial AI Systems,
arXiv, 2018.
[85] J. McCormac, A. Handa, A. Davison, S. Leutenegger, SemanticFusion: dense 3D
semantic mapping with convolutional neural networks, Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf.
Robot. Autom. (2017) 4628–4635, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICRA.2017.7989538.
[86] T. Sandy, M. Giftthaler, K. Dörfler, M. Kohler, J. Buchli, Autonomous
repositioning and localization of an in situ fabricator, in: Proceedings - IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2016), 2016,
pp. 2852–2858, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487449.
[87] Z. Feng, G. Hu, Y. Sun, J. Soon, An overview of collaborative robotic
manipulation in multi-robot systems, Annu. Rev. Control. 49 (Jan. 2020)
113–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARCONTROL.2020.02.002.
[88] J. McPherson, W. Zhou, A chunk-based slicer for cooperative 3D printing, Rapid
Prototyp. J. 24 (9) (2018) 1436–1446, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2017-
0150.
[89] H. Shen, L. Pan, J. Qian, Research on large-scale additive manufacturing based on
multi-robot collaboration technology, Addit. Manuf. 30 (Dec. 2019), 100906,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2019.100906.
[90] S. Elagandula, L. Poudel, Z. Sha, W. Zhou, Multi-robot path planning for
cooperative 3D printing, in: ASME 2020 15th Int. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Conf. MSEC
2020 1, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2020-8390.
[91] H. Bui, Toolpath planning methodology for multi-gantry fused filament
fabrication 3D printing, Aug. 2019. Grad. Theses Diss.
[92] L.E. Parker, Multiple mobile robot systems, in: Springer Handb. Robot., 2008,
pp. 921–941, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_41.
[93] A. Costa, B. Jenett, I. Kostitsyna, A. Abdel-Rahman, N. Gershenfeld, K. Cheung,
Algorithmic approaches to reconfigurable assembly systems, in: IEEE Aerosp.
Conf. Proc 2019-March, Aug. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1109/
aero.2019.8741572.
[94] A. Stroupe, T. Huntsberger, A. Okon, H. Aghazarian, M. Robinson, Behavior-
based multi-robot collaboration for autonomous construction tasks, in: 2005
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst, IROS, 2005, pp. 1495–1500, https://doi.
org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545269.
[95] C.A.C. Parker, H. Zhang, Collective robotic site preparation, Adapt. Behav. 14 (1)
(2006) 5–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/105971230601400101.
[96] T. Recker, M. Heinrich, A. Raatz, A comparison of different approaches for
formation control of nonholonomic mobile robots regarding object transport,
Procedia CIRP 96 (Jan. 2021) 248–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROCIR.2021.01.082.
[97] S. Parascho, I. Han, S. Walker, A. Beghini, E. Bruun, S. Adriaenssens, Robotic
vault: a cooperative robotic assembly method for brick vault construction, Constr.
Robot. 4 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41693-020-00041-w.
[98] “OATD: Parascho, Stefana - Cooperative Robotic Assembly: Computational
Design and Robotic Fabrication of Spatial Metal Structures.” n.d.
[99] S. Neudecker, et al., A new robotic spray Technology for Generative
Manufacturing of complex concrete structures without formwork, Procedia CIRP
43 (Jan. 2016) 333–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2016.02.107.
[100] J. Mclurkin D. Yamins n.d. “Dynamic Task Assignment in Robot Swarms.”.
[101] N. Melenbrink, J. Werfel, A. Menges, On-site autonomous construction robots:
towards unsupervised building, Autom. Constr. 119 (2020), 103312, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103312.
[102] “ Baubot | Mobile Construction Robots.” n.d. https://www.baubot.com/
(accessed Aug. 24, 2021).
[103] G. Dielemans, K. Dörfler, Mobile additive manufacturing: a robotic system for
cooperative on-site construction, in: IROS 2021 Workshop - Robotic Fabrication:
Sensing in Additive Construction, 2021.