Haptic Programming

  • Sven StummEmail author
  • Sigrid Brell-Çokcan
Conference paper


Current industrial robotics focuses on the utilization within clearly defined and structured production environments. However due to increasing product variety, a paradigm shift away from repetition of static task towards dynamic human-robot collaboration is noticeable. Due to the fact that static automation can only be achieved at a prefabrication level within the construction industry, this shift towards adaptable robotics can be utilized for new concepts for on-site robotic assistance. We extensively illustrate our approach towards robotics that adapts to changing environmental conditions and material features, while retaining a degree of predictability necessary for effective collaboration. Furthermore, by integrating human-robot collaboration with parametric modelling a feedback to design is established. The term haptic programming is coined in order to illustrate the direct interconnection between parametric model and human-robot collaboration. First application examples are shown to illustrate the use of a priori knowledge from the design phase in combination with haptic interaction primitives to enable intuitive human-robot collaboration. Haptic programming allows the exchange of knowledge between the user and a robot on a physical level.


Robot programming Visual programming Haptic programming Construction robotics Human-robot collaboration 


  1. 1.
    Arntz, M., Gregory, T., Zierahn, U.: Digitalisierung und die Zukunft der Arbeit: Makroökonomische Auswirkungen auf Beschäftigung Arbeitslosigkeit und Löhne von morgen, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, Mannheim (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor, M., Wamuziri, S., Smith, I.: Automated construction in Japan. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 34–41 (2003) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saidi, K.S., Bock, T., Georgoulas, C.: Robotics in construction. In: Siciliano, B., Khatib, O. (eds.) Springer Handbook of Robotics, pp. 1493–1520. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eastman, C., et al.: BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becerik-Gerber, B., Kensek, K.: Building information modeling in architecture, engineering, and construction: emerging research directions and trends. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 136, 139–147 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tellex, S., Knepper, R.A., Li, Rus, A.D., Roy, N.: Asking for help using inverse semantics. In: Robotics: Science and Systems X, Berkeley, CA (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S.: Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: a review and case studies in Hong Kong. Autom. Constr. 39, 195–202 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brell-Çokcan, S., Braumann, J.: Robotic production immanent design: creative toolpath design in micro and macro scale. In: Gerber, D., Huang, A., Sanchez, J. (eds.) Acadia 2014: Design Agency, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, Los Angeles, pp. 579–588. Los Angeles, CA (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braumann, J., Brell-Çokcan, S.: Parametric robot control: integrated CAD/CAM for architectural design. In: Taron, J.M. (ed.): Acadia 2011: Integration through Computation, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, pp. 242–251. Calgary/Banff (2011) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Schutter, J., et al.: Constraint-based task specication and estimation for sensor-based robot systems in the presence of geometric uncertainty. Int. J. Robot. Res. 26, 433–455 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayes, B., Scassellati, B.: Discovering task constraints through observation and active learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4442–4449. Chicago, IL (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borghesan, G., et al.: A constraint-based programming approach to physical human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3890–3896. Saint Paul, MN (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Welschehold, T., Dornhege, C., Burgard, W.: Learning mobile manipulation actions from human demonstrations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3196–3201. Vancouver, BC (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutscher, E., et al.: Hierarchical force and positioning task specification for indirect force controlled robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 34(1), 280–286 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruffaldi, E., Di Fava, A., Loconsole, C.: Vibrotactile feedback for aiding robot kinesthetic teaching of manipulation tasks. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 818–823. Lisbon (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, X., Ota, J.: Vision-guided peg-in-hole assembly by Baxter robot. Adv. Mech. Eng. 9(12) (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stumm, S., Braumann, J., Brell-Çokcan, S.: Human-machine interaction for intuitive programming of assembly tasks in construction. In: 6th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems (CATS) Procedia CIRP, vol. 44, pp. 269–274. Gothenburg, Sweden (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stumm, S., von Hilchen, M., Braumann, J., Brell-Çokcan, S.: On-site robotic construction for assembly using a-priori knowledge and human robot collaboration. In: IFToMM/IEEE/euRobotics 25th International Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region, RAAD 2016, Belgrade (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Individualized Production in ArchitectureRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations