Voiceover (00:06):
Standards are everywhere from the floor beneath your feet, to the aircraft above your head. This is standards impact presented by ASTM International.
Dave Walsh (00:20):
Welcome to Standards Impact, the official podcast of ASTM International. I'm Dave Walsh, Editor-in-Chief of ASTMs Flagship publication Standardization News. On today's show, we'll be discussing the amazing world of advanced manufacturing and the critical role of standards in shaping the future. With me today are two guests, which is a first for standards impact, Sam Rubin, co-founder and senior sustainability advisor at Mighty Buildings. And Adam Norton, the associate director of the Nerve Center at the University of Massachusetts. Lowell Sam, I thought I'd start with you. Your organization is truly using cutting edge technology. You're manufacturing homes and other structures using 3D printing, which to the average person probably sounds a little like science fiction. So maybe you could tell us a little about your work and how you got into this specific field.
Sam Ruben (01:11):
I would argue to pretty much anyone, it sounds like science fiction, but that's kind of the fun part about science fiction. Usually there's a hint of truth there and actually I have to credit science fiction with my ending up in 3D printing as well. I fell in love with 3D printers when I realized Thatk Star Trek replicators are just atomic level out of manufacturing with energy modulation. So in my mind, 3D printing can be anything as long as you have the right inputs and the right way to put them together. So when I connected with my co-founders at the time, I was doing sustainability consulting, helping organizations optimize their bottom line through savings and wastewater, energy transportation and so forth. They shared this vision for changing how we build using novel technology, so new materials as well as a new curing system in order to unlock productivity while in construction, while also mitigating the impacts of all that construction in terms of the climate crisis.
(02:08):
And so given that fact that for me we can 3D print anything and just like I'm like, yeah, of course, let's do it. The other key really was understanding the regulatory environment and that was a big part of why we got involved with A STM and the standards making process as well. Because a lot of times when it comes to the built environment, one of the major reasons there's such hesitation to embrace new technology is often around liability. We're able to really approach public sector officials already speaking to their concerns. So understanding that in the public sector generally it's risk mitigation is really the driving factor. And so being able to speak to Title 24 here in California, the energy efficiency standard, how 25, the building code and various aspects of that before they even asked a question and then being like, Hey, what are we missing?
(02:53):
And so really approaching that with that humility really allowed us to really streamline the process for getting to market. And then because of the novel nature of what we were doing, it was really important to us to be involved in the standards making because obviously when you've got something new, it's important to understand how you do it and also in recognition that a lot of the standards and a lot of the building codes only exist because things went wrong, which is a sad reality and one that we wanted to avoid. So that's why we thought it was really critical to engage with factory built housing program here in California, A STM and really figure out what does it look like to create a roadmap to show how to build 3D print housing safely.
Dave Walsh (03:28):
Well, I had one other follow-up question, but you brought up another one while you were talking. When you mentioned that regulatory environment, how has that been to navigate for you in the 3D construction business? It sounds like that that was something of a unicorn to people who write regulations and write building codes. So how has that gone? How have they looked at it? Has it been a case where it's been a tough road or was it easily accepted?
Sam Ruben (03:51):
It's a bit of both. One of the keys is that we chose to do offsite printing, which means that we're able to take advantage of programs like California's factory built housing program, which oversees all offsite construction in California and allows you to get your building permit through a single design approval agency that's certified by the state because, because you can't do onsite inspections, you have to do them in factory, things like that. So it makes a lot, Californias really streamline that process. And so that was one advantage that made it a lot easier than it might've been if we were having to go to every single local jurisdiction to get building and code approval. But obviously, yeah, convincing building officials that no, really we can 3D print and it uses light to cure and safe, we swear is a bit of a challenge at times.
(04:33):
But again, as I mentioned before, a lot of it is really approaching them speaking to their concerns before they ask to make them show you've done your homework, that you understand where they're coming from and that you want to work with them and you want to do it the right way. And so once that's clear, they're generally really excited to work with you. They're like us, these are building nerds. They want to understand, they get really excited about new technology, but they also have that kind of conservative aspect that they have to hold to the public and their commitment to the public in terms of safety, in terms of ensuring anything that's going out really does meet those standards. And so meeting them where they're at. And then also all the testing. I mean the biggest thing we did was from the beginning start building out our certification roadmap and understand what tests are we going to need to be able to do build in different places and for different purposes from the beginning was something that was really critical in gaining their trust and building that relationship to allow us to be able to get to market and me and if we'd tried to sidestep that or cut corners, it just
Dave Walsh (05:30):
Wouldn't have worked. So now my original follow-up question and then we'll get to Adam. I was going to say that it sounds like you mentioned in your original answer that there's basically two aspects that make 3D printing of houses 3D construction so attractive, which and one is sustainability that you talked about. The other seems to be convenience. I mean, I've seen there was a story about almost an entire development that went up in 48 hours or something. So well maybe that's a little exaggerated, but
Sam Ruben (05:57):
I will say some of the marketing around the timelines on 3D printing frustrates me because it might've been 48 hours of printing, but I guarantee you that was at least a couple of weeks. Well, so in 3D printing, construction, most 3D printing construction is concrete and concrete needs to cure and you can't just build up on it or it's going to slump or it's going to collapse and you have to put rebar in and then you have to pour more concrete into the interior of it to solidify. There's all these different steps that they kind of gloss over a lot of times, but that are critical and important and you don't get a safe building otherwise. So yes, probably 48 hours of print time, but yeah, that was probably two to three hours at a time. What we're doing is slightly different. And so we use a UV curable photo set composites with fiber reinforcement.
(06:44):
So our material cures basically instantaneously. But the other major difference is we're not doing onsite printing. We're doing 3D printing panels in a factory and then shipping 'em to site and assembling 'em. So we're able to incorporate MEP channels into our systems. We're able to add installation into the interior cavities to ensure that we're exceeding California stringent energy efficiency standards. And so it opens up a whole host of possibilities. And also with the fiber enforcement, we're able to get not just the compressive strength that you can get with concrete, but also tensile and flexural strength. So we're actually really well suited for areas like Miami-Dade and the Caribbean and other places that are impacted by hurricanes because that resilience is also a big part of what we're doing, but it really is, yeah, one of the major attractions of 3D printing writ large in the construction space is that ability to address the fact that we don't have enough skilled labor to build all the housing we need, and that we have a lot of traditional supply chains around lumber that have been really volatile in recent years. So bringing in alternative supply chains that maybe aren't as attached to that volatility is also critical. And so also seeing a new change in leadership in the construction space that's much more open to embracing technology, which is a really exciting development because you've got a lot of folks who grew up in the space and are younger and are more digital natives but haven't had or just now getting the chance to step into leadership and kind of take what they learn going through and be like, well, I'm going to do things different.
Dave Walsh (08:04):
So this is great. This is the whole point of this podcast because I'm an educated amateur and many of our listeners are too, and you just disabused us of a popular myth.
Sam Ruben (08:12):
Oh, cool. I'm an educated amateur too.
Dave Walsh (08:14):
Well, perfect. So let's just move to Adam for a second because he is been listening patiently. Adam, your work at UMass Lowell is similarly innovative and cutting edge, but it more specifically revolves around the world of robotics. So your work with autonomous unmanned ground vehicles or au GVS as they're called, and our magazine standardization news has covered them several times, this work is having a big impact on the world of manufacturing. So maybe you could just tell us a little about that specific aspect, even though I know your work encompasses a lot more.
Adam Norton (08:42):
Sure. Yeah. So I mean the first is to understand even just the term. A UGV was one of the first attempts of the a s TM F 45 committee to kind of bridge the two worlds of the more traditional A GV community, which is automatic guided vehicles, things that have been in warehouses and factories for many years. And then on the other side of the spectrum, the autonomous mobile robots or AMRs that are still fairly prominent within those types of environments, but certainly maybe within the last 10 years where they see more of an adoption. And the biggest difference between the two is that the reason we call them kind of traditional AGVs is that they can automatically drive through spaces, perform tasks, but typically in a more restricted form, meaning maybe the environment needs to be modified with magnetic tape or certain markers around the space, and there's probably a very limited amount of space or types of tasks that they can perform.
(09:41):
Whereas on the A MR side of things, a lot of those operate just using natural features in the environment, meaning you don't need to modify the space. And the way that they perform is more in situ, meaning they are adapting to obstacles in the environment, they are reconfiguring their path as they need to go, et cetera. So when we started F 45 and it was scoped for driverless automatic guided industrial vehicles, which is like, it sounds a mouthful, it's a mouthful, but also it was a description by committee of being like, all right, we got to try to satisfy these two. We realized as we were writing our standards that we're writing about capabilities that both AGVs and AMRs are supposed to possess. So our first attempt was to, alright, let's try to bridge these two by making a term that encompasses both. And the trick with A UGV where UGV for unmanned or crewed ground vehicle, that's easy enough.
(10:32):
The A can stand for automatic automated or autonomous, not really generally agreed upon definitions of what all three of those mean. I think in general we kind of understand the spectrum that they represent, but it's kind of up to interpretation. So we've been using that term as a means to try to unify those two worlds. But your original question was what have we seen them be used for and the impact that they've been making? So particularly on the more autonomous side of the world, you're seeing more advanced systems, say like the Boston Dynamics spot, it's a legged robot that originally we may not have envisioned being operating in the same space as these wheeled systems that move through spaces, do material handling, lift up pallets, deliver parcels, et cetera. But there's a whole space for these new mobility methods in these types of environments where if you have something with legs now you can climb stairs.
(11:28):
Now you can further deviate from maybe the more traditional paths that those ground vehicles would go on. So we're starting to see them open up more and more into more diverse environments, more challenging environments. And the intent with all of these systems, at least from my perspective, has never been to replace people in that automation, but really to enhance what they're able to do. Humans are really good at making decisions, right? And humans are also really good at repeated very laborious, boring tasks, but they're better suited to using their intelligence. So if we can take out those dull, dirty, dangerous, those are the three, those types of tasks out of human performance and automate them so that we can have humans doing more high impact tasks and also just reducing things like some of the physical strain that occurs, fatigue and all those other impacts, that's really where those type augs and other types of robotics and automation are seeing a real impact.
Sam Ruben (12:30):
So Adam, hope you don't mind. Didn't jump in here, Dave. So Adam, have you ever come across the Buckminster Fuller quote from back in the fifties around this? No. What you were saying about the role of robots isn't to replace humans. It's really a lot of them to do more. There is a key role for humans. But back in the fifties, Buckminster Fuller talked about how we have technology such that one person could do the job at 10,000 and that we should be using that technology to free the others up to do the things that further humanity, that's an approach that we really need to be taking because otherwise we're just going to be using robots, but then we're going to still have people doing dull, dirty and dangerous
Adam Norton (13:04):
Jobs. What's interesting though is that the way that, now I'm going to get on my soapbox about robotics versus automation, but this is an important difference that, again, this isn't generally agreed upon, it's just kind of my perspective on it, is that traditional automation has been automation where you're doing the same thing over and over. If there's any sort of variance in there, it's very minor in local of, okay, it's going to move these objects from this plate, but we know they're going to be in a general area, so we build in some kind of margin of error for its performance. The advent of robotics with automation is that robotics involve sensors, they involve autonomy, they can adhere to variance and changes like a human could, not necessarily in the strategic decision-making aspect of it, but they can be more flexible and intelligent than traditional automation.
(13:55):
But what I'm not seeing is enough advances in robotics that's really taking advantage of this fact, but it's something I've been trying to push more and more both in our standards work, the A SCM and otherwise in research, that there's so much more that robotics can be doing in this space to even further free up people to be able to adhere to multiple different types of jobs, to not just use them for this one task and then require hundreds of hours of reconfiguration or whatever it be. And that's where I think we're going to see a lot of this go to even further unlock their potential.
Dave Walsh (14:31):
And that leads in the follow-up question that I had in my mind, which was, because you mentioned autonomous versus unmanned, right? There's a difference, and I think a lot of people picture like an Asimov novel. There's going to be a robot there walking around looking like us and doing tasks in a factory. But that may be the aspiration like you just said, to have a highly intelligent sort of a robot working on an assembly line. But really the reality is sort of these boxy sort of unmanned ground vehicles that are incredibly useful or maybe the traditional arm over the assembly line we've seen when robotics videos and things, but that's more of the reality than the Asimov novel at this point.
Adam Norton (15:10):
So the issue is with the word autonomous in that none of the systems that we are using today and really that I envision for the future are ever going to be truly autonomous, meaning 100% operating on their own. There's always a human in the loop. The question is how frequent the human is in the loop and what level of control or input do they have? When you look at the spectrum from teleoperated systems, say like the robots that are used by first responders where they're controlling in most cases, every single joint being used out in the field for disaster response up to in automatic ground vehicle that is moving throughout an environment, there's still a human somewhere telling that system at one point in time where to go, ultimately probably approving how to get there and the various rules that it's going to abide by for staying this distance away from obstacles for not exceeding this speed for safety regulations, et cetera.
(16:05):
So even as you get into systems that become more and more capable and they can have more autonomy, them being truly autonomous in, I think what Asimov would probably use as the definition of the word is very, very unlikely. And that's because human decision making in the brain, in my opinion, is too complex to really spend the amount of energy it would require to have a system be that autonomous. I don't think it really works out in the long run for cost benefit, but if you can have them performing those other tasks where a human can command them strategically and by whatever other criteria, that's where they really show their value.
Dave Walsh (16:44):
Well, let's get onto the other questions now, and this one we've been asking of all of our guests, why should the average person without a scientific background or knowledge of science care about 3D printed home, someone like, I'm thinking our parents, I live in my home, it's great. I don't need to know about this. And it sounds like a, it'll never catch on, that kind of thing. Why should they care?
Sam Ruben (17:04):
Well, I mean, if one looks out across the housing market, it's becoming harder and harder to be able to afford to buy a house. The amount of people that we need to actually build houses, the available labor pool is rapidly collapsing. I mean, here in California, this number might be a little out of date, and my guess is it's probably gone down during the pandemic, but going into the pandemic, the average age of a contractor in California was 55. For every five contractors that were retiring, only one person was coming into the industry. It took a significant dive in 2008 with the collapse of the housing market. A lot of younger folks left the market and the people stayed tend to be older. They're retiring, they're not being replaced. And so the reality and the impacts of what we're seeing of that is that housing are getting out of control.
(17:50):
I mean, obviously with the interest rates and everything, there's other factors, but that's a big issue. It's not just in places like California anymore. I mean, Nashville, Tennessee saw 600% increase in rent over the last two years I think. So we're starting to see these impacts everywhere, even in middle America and places that historically have been a little more isolated from those impacts. And a lot of that is because we're just not building and we're not building in a cost effective manner. And so the rise of 3D printing along with the rise of other automated construction technologies and other forms of advanced manufacturing and construction are really critical for figuring out how do we maximize value of that labor that we do have? How do we really make sure that even with that limited labor pool, we're still producing as many housing units as we need just to keep up with the growth in population, not to mention all the additional housing to make up for the lack of housing stock over the last 30 years.
(18:44):
And so that's a critical area that impacts everyone. You don't need to know anything about science, you don't need to know anything about technology. It's really, that's reality. These are the roofs over our heads. And so that to me is why it's so critical is that we need a better way to build. Because the fact is, in a lot of build sites, you can take somewhere from the 19 hundreds, drop 'em on a site today, maybe take an hour or two to figure out what they're doing, but they're going to figure it out pretty quick because more or less doing the exact same thing, they just might be using a nail gun instead of a hammer or nails or the tool. But the overall kind of how we build is more or less the same and has been for hundreds if not thousands of years.
(19:21):
And so there's real opportunity to bring these new technologies in to really figure out how do we do it better? And also to really make sure that we're looking to the future of what is the right, how do we build the best way that's not just going to be cost effective, but also resilient? The reality is we need homes that are going to be able to deal with wildfires. We need homes that are going to be able to deal with hurricanes with flooding. And so that's a big factor that 3D printing can bring in as well because of the types of materials that we're utilizing that are resistant to things like mold, they're resistant to impacts, they're resistant to fire. And so that's why I think it's really critical and science secondary, it's really about how do we just be better?
Adam Norton (19:57):
It's Sam curious. This is an issue we see in robotics too, particularly for robotic systems being used on warehouse and factory lines, is there's an aging workforce. It's dwindling. So there's a lot of efforts into re-skilling, and how do you train those more traditionally trained manufacture laborers to use robot systems or how do you incorporate robotics education into modern day curriculum? Is there similar considerations for how the construction industry would adopt those techniques or how the workers would better utilize them?
Sam Ruben (20:31):
Yeah, definitely. I mean, there's a lot of really exciting efforts going on in the workforce development side of things. Like you say, how do we incorporate robotics operations into different training programs, apprenticeship programs? So that's definitely a big factor. It's also one where it's about how do we make it easy? And so that's where the control systems come in. And then it's also a tool to attract the new generational workers because all of a sudden construction isn't where you go to swing a hammer construction is where you go to work with the latest in robotics with the latest in material technology where you go in order to get upskilled into a higher paying job and maybe even different field because of the robotics training that you get that you're getting in the construction sector now. So yeah, I think that workforce development is critical, but it's also an opportunity to really grow the entire construction force as well as to seed other robotic based industries.
Adam Norton (21:20):
There are a good amount of robotics in your field. I imagine there are
Sam Ruben (21:23):
More and more than a lot of, I mean certainly over the last 10 years, I mean we're even seeing the advent of some lights out attempts at lights out factories. And for listeners who don't know, a lights out factory is essentially a hundred percent automated factory where it can literally operate with the lights out.
Dave Walsh (21:38):
Now that's right out of iRobot, right? The robots in the dark in the warehouse.
Sam Ruben (21:43):
It may be, but I first heard about it referring to a factory. Someone's trying to spin up an Idaho
Adam Norton (21:47):
No, it's funny is they do use that term lights out. But what's interesting to me is that more and more, at least these are more field robot systems I'm referring to at this comment, but more and more systems are relying purely on camera data to do a lot of their sensing. So I'm more like, well, light's on, but people out there lighting is a big issue, but it is funny that is the term that they use.
Sam Ruben (22:07):
But it's interesting because one of the big issues is that construction is really the last major industry to embrace manufacturing technology in order to unlock productivity within the construction space. There is a famous or infamous, depending, I look at it, McKinsey study from 2017 that talked about how something like $1.7 trillion was being left on the table every single year globally from a lack of productivity in construction and that it really was the last industry to embrace efficiency and manufacturing. So there's been ever since then, and even before that, that just helped jumpstart this effort to really figure out, well, what does it look like to really have this offsite manufacturing sector where we can leverage all this amazing robotic technology and all this amazing manufacturing know-how that we've developed in all these industries and apply it to construction and really leverage that in a way where instead of taking weeks or months to build a house, you're generating the parts for multiple houses in a day and then those get stood up in a week. So there's some really interesting, exciting things happening in that space. One of the things that we're doing right now is that we're actually doing a roadmap because there's a lot of stuff that would technically fall into 3D printing construction that's already being handled. And so one of the things that we're developing is a guide for general principles around development and roadmapping of the construction standards. There's certain places where it makes sense for us to step up and create something. And there's others where it's like, okay, cool, you're doing that
Adam Norton (23:30):
Same thing in robotics, but A STM is very good at playing nice with other standards organizations and working complimentarily, if that's how you say that word, in that there are antsy I-T-S-D-F standards for safety that we developed a test to help support. And it's like a perfect example of how we're actually doing things with F 45 to support these other standards as opposed to competing with them.
Sam Ruben (23:54):
And then similarly, my vice chair chairs, the IO A STM, joint group 80 that's doing the joint standards around construction. So yeah, a lot of great work happening across organizations and a lot of cross-pollination of those groups to make sure everything's kind of moving in alignment.
Dave Walsh (24:10):
Alright, so our next question was going to be on A STM and the standards development process. So let's just get one more question for Adam before we get to that, which was going to be the why should anyone care question, which is with regard to augs legged robots in general, your whole field of work, maybe specifically as it relates to manufacturing, but in general, someone again, like our parents might say, I don't care about that. It's going to take jobs away. Like you mentioned, that's a popular myth. So what would you say about that? Why should people care and why is it meaningful?
Adam Norton (24:40):
I it's first really worthwhile to acknowledge that whether we're aware of it or not, robotics are, they're everywhere. People have their roombas, which you might not see as a robot, but it is, they see their Alexa and Siri, which is not a robot, but it is embedded AI that is into your everyday life that actually has quite a bit of intelligence built into it. And all of these elements are pervading everywhere in culture and in manufacturing. And I think it's important to note to my comment earlier about AGVs versus AMRs. Automation and manufacturing is not new. This is just we're advancing on it further and further. And in some cases that advancement is taking an existing process and optimizing it further, making it more flexible, adding these new capabilities, but also the use of these systems can unlock new capabilities that you could not otherwise do.
(25:35):
You might have a sensor package for detecting heat or chemical or doing metrology on the dimensions of a measured part, something that we may not otherwise be able to do without a robotic sensor system in the loop. So this is why I always try to steer the conversation away from replacing people. It's really enhancing what we're able to do, not just from a process perspective, but also just the value of their work. And I think that's really important to note. And seeing things like legged robots, flying robots, all these other types of systems that admittedly I did not initially see as entering the manufacturing space, they're starting to show their value in those spaces. Drones and UAVs you typically consider as purely outside operations. There's been a lot of first kind of starting in the military space for doing subterranean constrained indoor inspections, things like that.
(26:32):
But there are manufacturing applications now that are looking at use of drone systems for doing inspection that uses that third dimension for moving agilely around a warehouse with a high ceiling checking SKU numbers, whatever it is, or if it's last mile delivery and Amazon and whoever else looking to deliver packages on people's doorsteps. So it's something that is coming out and we need to embrace it. This is where A STM comes in where we've been developing test methods so that you can actually in a standard way, evaluate the performance of these systems. And it's good for the people developing the systems so that they have a benchmark to aspire to and have a way to understand where they're going, but also for the people procuring them to actually be able to make a more informed decision over why I would choose one system or another. Or if you're choosing just which one to deploy for a particular operation. So there's a really incredible utility to standard performance evaluation test methods that I think it really takes all of the nuance between the different types of systems that are available and trying to make decisions and puts them under a common standard framework so that you can make more informed decisions.
Dave Walsh (27:45):
Well, you both touched on standards and you were getting into even the advanced part of A SCM standards development process, which is those partnerships with ISO and other organizations. So since this podcast is called Standards Impact, we should discuss the impact of standards at some point. So my question to each of you, and take it in turn, whoever wants to go first, how did you become involved with A STM? What brought you to A STM? And I think we know the answer. How important are standards and standards development to these fields?
Sam Ruben (28:14):
I mean, honestly, I just started showing up literally given the work we were doing, given the novel nature of the materials we're utilizing the processes we first got involved with the work with UL and in evaluating what we're doing and from that then we're identifying, well, what are the different tests we're going to need to be doing and well do these really fit with what we're trying to do? And so it made a lot of sense to actively engage with astm. So showed up at, I think it was the Center of Excellence in Auburn back in 19 or 18, and we're one of the only 3D printing companies in construction there. Then showed up in France for the next one. And well at that point they're like, well, hey, do you want a chair since you're one of the ones actually doing this? And for us, it really comes down to what I was saying before about the realities of the safety.
(29:01):
I mean, when we're doing 3D brain construction, these are roofs over people's heads. These are the homes we live in. And so it's critical that we are doing it safely and that we know what that even means and that there's a pathway for others to understand what that means. And also critically, if something goes wrong with a 3D printed house, we need to be able to point to the standards that weren't followed and what was or wasn't done. So that single failure doesn't end up setting back the entire industry by decades. And that's really, I think where standards are so critical is they create trust. They create a way for us to be like, Hey, was this done right? Or is this something that's endemic? And really be able to look at that and understand if this isn't right, well what is right, and bring together some of the arguably best minds in the world to figure out what that looks like. And that's, to me is what's so powerful about the standards making process is that a lot of the times it's in the background. It's stuff a lot of people think is boring, it's not. It's really fascinating, I swear. But it's things that impact people's day-to-Day lives in ways they never could even imagine.
Adam Norton (30:04):
And for me, the involvement with A STM was kind of passed down from my director, Holly. So she got involved with the National Institute Standards and Technology 20 some odd years ago when she was kind of early in her robotics career, and specifically their involvement with the Response Robots program, which is all the systems that are used by Urban Search and Rescue, by explosive ordinance disposal teams that's supported by a S TM E 54 Homeland Security Applications subcommittee oh nine on response robots. So that was kind of early in her career. And then as I came on about 10 or 11 years ago, she had this concept for a test and evaluation research center for robotics that I kind of took on as my main responsibility. And with that came, all right, you need to get familiar with the types of standards that we're going to be working on.
(30:58):
And that was E 54 that then evolved into F 45, which I think F 45 only got started about eight or nine years ago, so it was kind of right at the inception of it. And then that turned into F 48, which is on exoskeletons and exosuits. So those three areas, response, robots, robotics, and automation and exoskeletons kind of covers a good swath of almost all the robotics that we are involved in. And specifically, again, from the test and evaluation side. And I echo a lot of the same sentiment. Sam is mentioning that as you start to look for standards, they are more in play everywhere than you might ever think. When you look at all of the standard test methods we have for mobility, for dexterity, for sensors, it starts to actually paint a picture of like, okay, if I'm someone working in this industry or who's going to be, what are the things that my systems are going to be expected to perform? And this starts to paint a really nice characterization of the types of capabilities you're going to be asked about. And the same thing goes for F 45 where we're doing ground robots and manipulators for F 48 as you go into exoskeletons. And it's really good at kind of unifying all the stakeholders into this is all of the elements that we know we need to care about. And you all now have a voice to help influence how the rest of the world will care about them as well.
Sam Ruben (32:14):
And building off of that, one of the key factors for us as a startup, as a company doing innovation and getting involved with standards was to make sure that there's room for that innovation in the standards as they're being developed. If you're doing something really unique and no one knows about it, probably not going to make it into the standard unless you're involved. But if it's not in the standard, it could be really, really hard to show that you meet all the requirements for our use case for any startups or innovators out there listening, get involved, it's really worth it. Otherwise, you might find yourself on the outside looking in for no good reason other than you just didn't show up.
Adam Norton (32:48):
And then we even see things on the opposite side of that, which is like, why are we writing a standard for Capability X? No systems have this yet. And it's like, well, they're going to rights. It's like we have our finger on the pulse of the research world where this is coming, and by the time that it's deployed, people are not going to either understand it or they're going to have no way to prove that they can do what they say they can do because we don't have a standard test method to support it. So I'll echo that sentiment as well. We need not just the, here's the technology as it exists now, let's write standards that support it. We want to be supporting the future innovation.
Dave Walsh (33:23):
This conversation has been so effortless and so easygoing and informative, fortunately at this point. We're at the end of our time, but I thank you both. We could do another one. I think so maybe we'll invite you back. You never know. Be careful. Like you said, Sam, once you show up at a STM, they ask you to become a chair and a podcast.
Sam Ruben (33:42):
I know, I know. Well, hey, I would be happy to come back. This has been a
Dave Walsh (33:46):
Lot of fun. Thank you both, and we really appreciate you being here today. Now it's time for our regular standard spotlight segment with Essence content editor, JP Urban.
JP Ervin (33:56):
The turns exo suit or exoskeleton might inspire you to think about science fiction from comic book movies and video games to animated series and model figurines SCI-Fi is full of examples of powerful wearable equipment that gives the wear almost superhuman strength and abilities. While we've yet to see heroes battling vicious aliens in power loaders or flying metal armor, exo technology is a very real part of our modern world. Exoskeletons are wearable devices that augment or otherwise aid human physical activity by mechanical means. These devices are widely researched and it today, and they have a wide range of applications, including medical aiding and rehabilitation processes, or supporting mobility for people with disabilities industry to boost strength and reduce fatigue of workers in sectors such as manufacturing and warehousing, military or users off and carry heavy loads and working dangerous situations, and public safety where first responders may need to move large objects and carry additional safety equipment.
(34:56):
Ultimately, EXO technologies have the potential to transform how we live and work. As A STM explained it, the organization has a vision of people of all ages free to pursue high quality life and participate fully in work and society. Thanks to safe and reliable EXO Technologies, A STM and its members are working hard to support the development and adoption of exotech. In 2017, the organization established the committee on exoskeletons in Exosuits At 48, 2 years later, A STM added the EXO Technology Center of Excellence with the goal of accelerating EXO technology research standards, testing and training. In addition to the valuable work the COE does to promote the growth of EXO technology, they even host their own podcast, the A STM. Excellent Exo Chat. F 48 has developed a number of standards related to exotech. One of their foundational standards is the practice for training exoskeleton users F 3 4, 4 4. This practice addresses training so users can operate exoskeletons in Exosuits in a safe and effective manner. F 3 4, 4 4 establishes training to provide materials for a student to learn about and demonstrate their understanding and abilities with exoskeletons. The standard covers many topics including how to put on and remove an exoskeleton, soup, maintenance, and inspection, and training for safe operation F 3 4, 4 4 also offers ideas about how non-users, such as doctors or emergency medical service providers will be trained to aid exoskeleton wearers in the course of therapy or in an emergency.
Dave Walsh (36:31):
Well, thanks to everyone for joining us for this episode of Standards Impact. If you want to learn more about any of the standards discussed today, visit astm.org for all the latest. And if you enjoyed the show today, remember to like and subscribe so you never miss another episode. I'm Dave Walsh, and this has been Standards Impact presented by A STM International.
Standards are everywhere from the floor beneath your feet, to the aircraft above your head. This is standards impact presented by ASTM International.
Dave Walsh (00:20):
Welcome to Standards Impact, the official podcast of ASTM International. I'm Dave Walsh, Editor-in-Chief of ASTMs Flagship publication Standardization News. On today's show, we'll be discussing the amazing world of advanced manufacturing and the critical role of standards in shaping the future. With me today are two guests, which is a first for standards impact, Sam Rubin, co-founder and senior sustainability advisor at Mighty Buildings. And Adam Norton, the associate director of the Nerve Center at the University of Massachusetts. Lowell Sam, I thought I'd start with you. Your organization is truly using cutting edge technology. You're manufacturing homes and other structures using 3D printing, which to the average person probably sounds a little like science fiction. So maybe you could tell us a little about your work and how you got into this specific field.
Sam Ruben (01:11):
I would argue to pretty much anyone, it sounds like science fiction, but that's kind of the fun part about science fiction. Usually there's a hint of truth there and actually I have to credit science fiction with my ending up in 3D printing as well. I fell in love with 3D printers when I realized Thatk Star Trek replicators are just atomic level out of manufacturing with energy modulation. So in my mind, 3D printing can be anything as long as you have the right inputs and the right way to put them together. So when I connected with my co-founders at the time, I was doing sustainability consulting, helping organizations optimize their bottom line through savings and wastewater, energy transportation and so forth. They shared this vision for changing how we build using novel technology, so new materials as well as a new curing system in order to unlock productivity while in construction, while also mitigating the impacts of all that construction in terms of the climate crisis.
(02:08):
And so given that fact that for me we can 3D print anything and just like I'm like, yeah, of course, let's do it. The other key really was understanding the regulatory environment and that was a big part of why we got involved with A STM and the standards making process as well. Because a lot of times when it comes to the built environment, one of the major reasons there's such hesitation to embrace new technology is often around liability. We're able to really approach public sector officials already speaking to their concerns. So understanding that in the public sector generally it's risk mitigation is really the driving factor. And so being able to speak to Title 24 here in California, the energy efficiency standard, how 25, the building code and various aspects of that before they even asked a question and then being like, Hey, what are we missing?
(02:53):
And so really approaching that with that humility really allowed us to really streamline the process for getting to market. And then because of the novel nature of what we were doing, it was really important to us to be involved in the standards making because obviously when you've got something new, it's important to understand how you do it and also in recognition that a lot of the standards and a lot of the building codes only exist because things went wrong, which is a sad reality and one that we wanted to avoid. So that's why we thought it was really critical to engage with factory built housing program here in California, A STM and really figure out what does it look like to create a roadmap to show how to build 3D print housing safely.
Dave Walsh (03:28):
Well, I had one other follow-up question, but you brought up another one while you were talking. When you mentioned that regulatory environment, how has that been to navigate for you in the 3D construction business? It sounds like that that was something of a unicorn to people who write regulations and write building codes. So how has that gone? How have they looked at it? Has it been a case where it's been a tough road or was it easily accepted?
Sam Ruben (03:51):
It's a bit of both. One of the keys is that we chose to do offsite printing, which means that we're able to take advantage of programs like California's factory built housing program, which oversees all offsite construction in California and allows you to get your building permit through a single design approval agency that's certified by the state because, because you can't do onsite inspections, you have to do them in factory, things like that. So it makes a lot, Californias really streamline that process. And so that was one advantage that made it a lot easier than it might've been if we were having to go to every single local jurisdiction to get building and code approval. But obviously, yeah, convincing building officials that no, really we can 3D print and it uses light to cure and safe, we swear is a bit of a challenge at times.
(04:33):
But again, as I mentioned before, a lot of it is really approaching them speaking to their concerns before they ask to make them show you've done your homework, that you understand where they're coming from and that you want to work with them and you want to do it the right way. And so once that's clear, they're generally really excited to work with you. They're like us, these are building nerds. They want to understand, they get really excited about new technology, but they also have that kind of conservative aspect that they have to hold to the public and their commitment to the public in terms of safety, in terms of ensuring anything that's going out really does meet those standards. And so meeting them where they're at. And then also all the testing. I mean the biggest thing we did was from the beginning start building out our certification roadmap and understand what tests are we going to need to be able to do build in different places and for different purposes from the beginning was something that was really critical in gaining their trust and building that relationship to allow us to be able to get to market and me and if we'd tried to sidestep that or cut corners, it just
Dave Walsh (05:30):
Wouldn't have worked. So now my original follow-up question and then we'll get to Adam. I was going to say that it sounds like you mentioned in your original answer that there's basically two aspects that make 3D printing of houses 3D construction so attractive, which and one is sustainability that you talked about. The other seems to be convenience. I mean, I've seen there was a story about almost an entire development that went up in 48 hours or something. So well maybe that's a little exaggerated, but
Sam Ruben (05:57):
I will say some of the marketing around the timelines on 3D printing frustrates me because it might've been 48 hours of printing, but I guarantee you that was at least a couple of weeks. Well, so in 3D printing, construction, most 3D printing construction is concrete and concrete needs to cure and you can't just build up on it or it's going to slump or it's going to collapse and you have to put rebar in and then you have to pour more concrete into the interior of it to solidify. There's all these different steps that they kind of gloss over a lot of times, but that are critical and important and you don't get a safe building otherwise. So yes, probably 48 hours of print time, but yeah, that was probably two to three hours at a time. What we're doing is slightly different. And so we use a UV curable photo set composites with fiber reinforcement.
(06:44):
So our material cures basically instantaneously. But the other major difference is we're not doing onsite printing. We're doing 3D printing panels in a factory and then shipping 'em to site and assembling 'em. So we're able to incorporate MEP channels into our systems. We're able to add installation into the interior cavities to ensure that we're exceeding California stringent energy efficiency standards. And so it opens up a whole host of possibilities. And also with the fiber enforcement, we're able to get not just the compressive strength that you can get with concrete, but also tensile and flexural strength. So we're actually really well suited for areas like Miami-Dade and the Caribbean and other places that are impacted by hurricanes because that resilience is also a big part of what we're doing, but it really is, yeah, one of the major attractions of 3D printing writ large in the construction space is that ability to address the fact that we don't have enough skilled labor to build all the housing we need, and that we have a lot of traditional supply chains around lumber that have been really volatile in recent years. So bringing in alternative supply chains that maybe aren't as attached to that volatility is also critical. And so also seeing a new change in leadership in the construction space that's much more open to embracing technology, which is a really exciting development because you've got a lot of folks who grew up in the space and are younger and are more digital natives but haven't had or just now getting the chance to step into leadership and kind of take what they learn going through and be like, well, I'm going to do things different.
Dave Walsh (08:04):
So this is great. This is the whole point of this podcast because I'm an educated amateur and many of our listeners are too, and you just disabused us of a popular myth.
Sam Ruben (08:12):
Oh, cool. I'm an educated amateur too.
Dave Walsh (08:14):
Well, perfect. So let's just move to Adam for a second because he is been listening patiently. Adam, your work at UMass Lowell is similarly innovative and cutting edge, but it more specifically revolves around the world of robotics. So your work with autonomous unmanned ground vehicles or au GVS as they're called, and our magazine standardization news has covered them several times, this work is having a big impact on the world of manufacturing. So maybe you could just tell us a little about that specific aspect, even though I know your work encompasses a lot more.
Adam Norton (08:42):
Sure. Yeah. So I mean the first is to understand even just the term. A UGV was one of the first attempts of the a s TM F 45 committee to kind of bridge the two worlds of the more traditional A GV community, which is automatic guided vehicles, things that have been in warehouses and factories for many years. And then on the other side of the spectrum, the autonomous mobile robots or AMRs that are still fairly prominent within those types of environments, but certainly maybe within the last 10 years where they see more of an adoption. And the biggest difference between the two is that the reason we call them kind of traditional AGVs is that they can automatically drive through spaces, perform tasks, but typically in a more restricted form, meaning maybe the environment needs to be modified with magnetic tape or certain markers around the space, and there's probably a very limited amount of space or types of tasks that they can perform.
(09:41):
Whereas on the A MR side of things, a lot of those operate just using natural features in the environment, meaning you don't need to modify the space. And the way that they perform is more in situ, meaning they are adapting to obstacles in the environment, they are reconfiguring their path as they need to go, et cetera. So when we started F 45 and it was scoped for driverless automatic guided industrial vehicles, which is like, it sounds a mouthful, it's a mouthful, but also it was a description by committee of being like, all right, we got to try to satisfy these two. We realized as we were writing our standards that we're writing about capabilities that both AGVs and AMRs are supposed to possess. So our first attempt was to, alright, let's try to bridge these two by making a term that encompasses both. And the trick with A UGV where UGV for unmanned or crewed ground vehicle, that's easy enough.
(10:32):
The A can stand for automatic automated or autonomous, not really generally agreed upon definitions of what all three of those mean. I think in general we kind of understand the spectrum that they represent, but it's kind of up to interpretation. So we've been using that term as a means to try to unify those two worlds. But your original question was what have we seen them be used for and the impact that they've been making? So particularly on the more autonomous side of the world, you're seeing more advanced systems, say like the Boston Dynamics spot, it's a legged robot that originally we may not have envisioned being operating in the same space as these wheeled systems that move through spaces, do material handling, lift up pallets, deliver parcels, et cetera. But there's a whole space for these new mobility methods in these types of environments where if you have something with legs now you can climb stairs.
(11:28):
Now you can further deviate from maybe the more traditional paths that those ground vehicles would go on. So we're starting to see them open up more and more into more diverse environments, more challenging environments. And the intent with all of these systems, at least from my perspective, has never been to replace people in that automation, but really to enhance what they're able to do. Humans are really good at making decisions, right? And humans are also really good at repeated very laborious, boring tasks, but they're better suited to using their intelligence. So if we can take out those dull, dirty, dangerous, those are the three, those types of tasks out of human performance and automate them so that we can have humans doing more high impact tasks and also just reducing things like some of the physical strain that occurs, fatigue and all those other impacts, that's really where those type augs and other types of robotics and automation are seeing a real impact.
Sam Ruben (12:30):
So Adam, hope you don't mind. Didn't jump in here, Dave. So Adam, have you ever come across the Buckminster Fuller quote from back in the fifties around this? No. What you were saying about the role of robots isn't to replace humans. It's really a lot of them to do more. There is a key role for humans. But back in the fifties, Buckminster Fuller talked about how we have technology such that one person could do the job at 10,000 and that we should be using that technology to free the others up to do the things that further humanity, that's an approach that we really need to be taking because otherwise we're just going to be using robots, but then we're going to still have people doing dull, dirty and dangerous
Adam Norton (13:04):
Jobs. What's interesting though is that the way that, now I'm going to get on my soapbox about robotics versus automation, but this is an important difference that, again, this isn't generally agreed upon, it's just kind of my perspective on it, is that traditional automation has been automation where you're doing the same thing over and over. If there's any sort of variance in there, it's very minor in local of, okay, it's going to move these objects from this plate, but we know they're going to be in a general area, so we build in some kind of margin of error for its performance. The advent of robotics with automation is that robotics involve sensors, they involve autonomy, they can adhere to variance and changes like a human could, not necessarily in the strategic decision-making aspect of it, but they can be more flexible and intelligent than traditional automation.
(13:55):
But what I'm not seeing is enough advances in robotics that's really taking advantage of this fact, but it's something I've been trying to push more and more both in our standards work, the A SCM and otherwise in research, that there's so much more that robotics can be doing in this space to even further free up people to be able to adhere to multiple different types of jobs, to not just use them for this one task and then require hundreds of hours of reconfiguration or whatever it be. And that's where I think we're going to see a lot of this go to even further unlock their potential.
Dave Walsh (14:31):
And that leads in the follow-up question that I had in my mind, which was, because you mentioned autonomous versus unmanned, right? There's a difference, and I think a lot of people picture like an Asimov novel. There's going to be a robot there walking around looking like us and doing tasks in a factory. But that may be the aspiration like you just said, to have a highly intelligent sort of a robot working on an assembly line. But really the reality is sort of these boxy sort of unmanned ground vehicles that are incredibly useful or maybe the traditional arm over the assembly line we've seen when robotics videos and things, but that's more of the reality than the Asimov novel at this point.
Adam Norton (15:10):
So the issue is with the word autonomous in that none of the systems that we are using today and really that I envision for the future are ever going to be truly autonomous, meaning 100% operating on their own. There's always a human in the loop. The question is how frequent the human is in the loop and what level of control or input do they have? When you look at the spectrum from teleoperated systems, say like the robots that are used by first responders where they're controlling in most cases, every single joint being used out in the field for disaster response up to in automatic ground vehicle that is moving throughout an environment, there's still a human somewhere telling that system at one point in time where to go, ultimately probably approving how to get there and the various rules that it's going to abide by for staying this distance away from obstacles for not exceeding this speed for safety regulations, et cetera.
(16:05):
So even as you get into systems that become more and more capable and they can have more autonomy, them being truly autonomous in, I think what Asimov would probably use as the definition of the word is very, very unlikely. And that's because human decision making in the brain, in my opinion, is too complex to really spend the amount of energy it would require to have a system be that autonomous. I don't think it really works out in the long run for cost benefit, but if you can have them performing those other tasks where a human can command them strategically and by whatever other criteria, that's where they really show their value.
Dave Walsh (16:44):
Well, let's get onto the other questions now, and this one we've been asking of all of our guests, why should the average person without a scientific background or knowledge of science care about 3D printed home, someone like, I'm thinking our parents, I live in my home, it's great. I don't need to know about this. And it sounds like a, it'll never catch on, that kind of thing. Why should they care?
Sam Ruben (17:04):
Well, I mean, if one looks out across the housing market, it's becoming harder and harder to be able to afford to buy a house. The amount of people that we need to actually build houses, the available labor pool is rapidly collapsing. I mean, here in California, this number might be a little out of date, and my guess is it's probably gone down during the pandemic, but going into the pandemic, the average age of a contractor in California was 55. For every five contractors that were retiring, only one person was coming into the industry. It took a significant dive in 2008 with the collapse of the housing market. A lot of younger folks left the market and the people stayed tend to be older. They're retiring, they're not being replaced. And so the reality and the impacts of what we're seeing of that is that housing are getting out of control.
(17:50):
I mean, obviously with the interest rates and everything, there's other factors, but that's a big issue. It's not just in places like California anymore. I mean, Nashville, Tennessee saw 600% increase in rent over the last two years I think. So we're starting to see these impacts everywhere, even in middle America and places that historically have been a little more isolated from those impacts. And a lot of that is because we're just not building and we're not building in a cost effective manner. And so the rise of 3D printing along with the rise of other automated construction technologies and other forms of advanced manufacturing and construction are really critical for figuring out how do we maximize value of that labor that we do have? How do we really make sure that even with that limited labor pool, we're still producing as many housing units as we need just to keep up with the growth in population, not to mention all the additional housing to make up for the lack of housing stock over the last 30 years.
(18:44):
And so that's a critical area that impacts everyone. You don't need to know anything about science, you don't need to know anything about technology. It's really, that's reality. These are the roofs over our heads. And so that to me is why it's so critical is that we need a better way to build. Because the fact is, in a lot of build sites, you can take somewhere from the 19 hundreds, drop 'em on a site today, maybe take an hour or two to figure out what they're doing, but they're going to figure it out pretty quick because more or less doing the exact same thing, they just might be using a nail gun instead of a hammer or nails or the tool. But the overall kind of how we build is more or less the same and has been for hundreds if not thousands of years.
(19:21):
And so there's real opportunity to bring these new technologies in to really figure out how do we do it better? And also to really make sure that we're looking to the future of what is the right, how do we build the best way that's not just going to be cost effective, but also resilient? The reality is we need homes that are going to be able to deal with wildfires. We need homes that are going to be able to deal with hurricanes with flooding. And so that's a big factor that 3D printing can bring in as well because of the types of materials that we're utilizing that are resistant to things like mold, they're resistant to impacts, they're resistant to fire. And so that's why I think it's really critical and science secondary, it's really about how do we just be better?
Adam Norton (19:57):
It's Sam curious. This is an issue we see in robotics too, particularly for robotic systems being used on warehouse and factory lines, is there's an aging workforce. It's dwindling. So there's a lot of efforts into re-skilling, and how do you train those more traditionally trained manufacture laborers to use robot systems or how do you incorporate robotics education into modern day curriculum? Is there similar considerations for how the construction industry would adopt those techniques or how the workers would better utilize them?
Sam Ruben (20:31):
Yeah, definitely. I mean, there's a lot of really exciting efforts going on in the workforce development side of things. Like you say, how do we incorporate robotics operations into different training programs, apprenticeship programs? So that's definitely a big factor. It's also one where it's about how do we make it easy? And so that's where the control systems come in. And then it's also a tool to attract the new generational workers because all of a sudden construction isn't where you go to swing a hammer construction is where you go to work with the latest in robotics with the latest in material technology where you go in order to get upskilled into a higher paying job and maybe even different field because of the robotics training that you get that you're getting in the construction sector now. So yeah, I think that workforce development is critical, but it's also an opportunity to really grow the entire construction force as well as to seed other robotic based industries.
Adam Norton (21:20):
There are a good amount of robotics in your field. I imagine there are
Sam Ruben (21:23):
More and more than a lot of, I mean certainly over the last 10 years, I mean we're even seeing the advent of some lights out attempts at lights out factories. And for listeners who don't know, a lights out factory is essentially a hundred percent automated factory where it can literally operate with the lights out.
Dave Walsh (21:38):
Now that's right out of iRobot, right? The robots in the dark in the warehouse.
Sam Ruben (21:43):
It may be, but I first heard about it referring to a factory. Someone's trying to spin up an Idaho
Adam Norton (21:47):
No, it's funny is they do use that term lights out. But what's interesting to me is that more and more, at least these are more field robot systems I'm referring to at this comment, but more and more systems are relying purely on camera data to do a lot of their sensing. So I'm more like, well, light's on, but people out there lighting is a big issue, but it is funny that is the term that they use.
Sam Ruben (22:07):
But it's interesting because one of the big issues is that construction is really the last major industry to embrace manufacturing technology in order to unlock productivity within the construction space. There is a famous or infamous, depending, I look at it, McKinsey study from 2017 that talked about how something like $1.7 trillion was being left on the table every single year globally from a lack of productivity in construction and that it really was the last industry to embrace efficiency and manufacturing. So there's been ever since then, and even before that, that just helped jumpstart this effort to really figure out, well, what does it look like to really have this offsite manufacturing sector where we can leverage all this amazing robotic technology and all this amazing manufacturing know-how that we've developed in all these industries and apply it to construction and really leverage that in a way where instead of taking weeks or months to build a house, you're generating the parts for multiple houses in a day and then those get stood up in a week. So there's some really interesting, exciting things happening in that space. One of the things that we're doing right now is that we're actually doing a roadmap because there's a lot of stuff that would technically fall into 3D printing construction that's already being handled. And so one of the things that we're developing is a guide for general principles around development and roadmapping of the construction standards. There's certain places where it makes sense for us to step up and create something. And there's others where it's like, okay, cool, you're doing that
Adam Norton (23:30):
Same thing in robotics, but A STM is very good at playing nice with other standards organizations and working complimentarily, if that's how you say that word, in that there are antsy I-T-S-D-F standards for safety that we developed a test to help support. And it's like a perfect example of how we're actually doing things with F 45 to support these other standards as opposed to competing with them.
Sam Ruben (23:54):
And then similarly, my vice chair chairs, the IO A STM, joint group 80 that's doing the joint standards around construction. So yeah, a lot of great work happening across organizations and a lot of cross-pollination of those groups to make sure everything's kind of moving in alignment.
Dave Walsh (24:10):
Alright, so our next question was going to be on A STM and the standards development process. So let's just get one more question for Adam before we get to that, which was going to be the why should anyone care question, which is with regard to augs legged robots in general, your whole field of work, maybe specifically as it relates to manufacturing, but in general, someone again, like our parents might say, I don't care about that. It's going to take jobs away. Like you mentioned, that's a popular myth. So what would you say about that? Why should people care and why is it meaningful?
Adam Norton (24:40):
I it's first really worthwhile to acknowledge that whether we're aware of it or not, robotics are, they're everywhere. People have their roombas, which you might not see as a robot, but it is, they see their Alexa and Siri, which is not a robot, but it is embedded AI that is into your everyday life that actually has quite a bit of intelligence built into it. And all of these elements are pervading everywhere in culture and in manufacturing. And I think it's important to note to my comment earlier about AGVs versus AMRs. Automation and manufacturing is not new. This is just we're advancing on it further and further. And in some cases that advancement is taking an existing process and optimizing it further, making it more flexible, adding these new capabilities, but also the use of these systems can unlock new capabilities that you could not otherwise do.
(25:35):
You might have a sensor package for detecting heat or chemical or doing metrology on the dimensions of a measured part, something that we may not otherwise be able to do without a robotic sensor system in the loop. So this is why I always try to steer the conversation away from replacing people. It's really enhancing what we're able to do, not just from a process perspective, but also just the value of their work. And I think that's really important to note. And seeing things like legged robots, flying robots, all these other types of systems that admittedly I did not initially see as entering the manufacturing space, they're starting to show their value in those spaces. Drones and UAVs you typically consider as purely outside operations. There's been a lot of first kind of starting in the military space for doing subterranean constrained indoor inspections, things like that.
(26:32):
But there are manufacturing applications now that are looking at use of drone systems for doing inspection that uses that third dimension for moving agilely around a warehouse with a high ceiling checking SKU numbers, whatever it is, or if it's last mile delivery and Amazon and whoever else looking to deliver packages on people's doorsteps. So it's something that is coming out and we need to embrace it. This is where A STM comes in where we've been developing test methods so that you can actually in a standard way, evaluate the performance of these systems. And it's good for the people developing the systems so that they have a benchmark to aspire to and have a way to understand where they're going, but also for the people procuring them to actually be able to make a more informed decision over why I would choose one system or another. Or if you're choosing just which one to deploy for a particular operation. So there's a really incredible utility to standard performance evaluation test methods that I think it really takes all of the nuance between the different types of systems that are available and trying to make decisions and puts them under a common standard framework so that you can make more informed decisions.
Dave Walsh (27:45):
Well, you both touched on standards and you were getting into even the advanced part of A SCM standards development process, which is those partnerships with ISO and other organizations. So since this podcast is called Standards Impact, we should discuss the impact of standards at some point. So my question to each of you, and take it in turn, whoever wants to go first, how did you become involved with A STM? What brought you to A STM? And I think we know the answer. How important are standards and standards development to these fields?
Sam Ruben (28:14):
I mean, honestly, I just started showing up literally given the work we were doing, given the novel nature of the materials we're utilizing the processes we first got involved with the work with UL and in evaluating what we're doing and from that then we're identifying, well, what are the different tests we're going to need to be doing and well do these really fit with what we're trying to do? And so it made a lot of sense to actively engage with astm. So showed up at, I think it was the Center of Excellence in Auburn back in 19 or 18, and we're one of the only 3D printing companies in construction there. Then showed up in France for the next one. And well at that point they're like, well, hey, do you want a chair since you're one of the ones actually doing this? And for us, it really comes down to what I was saying before about the realities of the safety.
(29:01):
I mean, when we're doing 3D brain construction, these are roofs over people's heads. These are the homes we live in. And so it's critical that we are doing it safely and that we know what that even means and that there's a pathway for others to understand what that means. And also critically, if something goes wrong with a 3D printed house, we need to be able to point to the standards that weren't followed and what was or wasn't done. So that single failure doesn't end up setting back the entire industry by decades. And that's really, I think where standards are so critical is they create trust. They create a way for us to be like, Hey, was this done right? Or is this something that's endemic? And really be able to look at that and understand if this isn't right, well what is right, and bring together some of the arguably best minds in the world to figure out what that looks like. And that's, to me is what's so powerful about the standards making process is that a lot of the times it's in the background. It's stuff a lot of people think is boring, it's not. It's really fascinating, I swear. But it's things that impact people's day-to-Day lives in ways they never could even imagine.
Adam Norton (30:04):
And for me, the involvement with A STM was kind of passed down from my director, Holly. So she got involved with the National Institute Standards and Technology 20 some odd years ago when she was kind of early in her robotics career, and specifically their involvement with the Response Robots program, which is all the systems that are used by Urban Search and Rescue, by explosive ordinance disposal teams that's supported by a S TM E 54 Homeland Security Applications subcommittee oh nine on response robots. So that was kind of early in her career. And then as I came on about 10 or 11 years ago, she had this concept for a test and evaluation research center for robotics that I kind of took on as my main responsibility. And with that came, all right, you need to get familiar with the types of standards that we're going to be working on.
(30:58):
And that was E 54 that then evolved into F 45, which I think F 45 only got started about eight or nine years ago, so it was kind of right at the inception of it. And then that turned into F 48, which is on exoskeletons and exosuits. So those three areas, response, robots, robotics, and automation and exoskeletons kind of covers a good swath of almost all the robotics that we are involved in. And specifically, again, from the test and evaluation side. And I echo a lot of the same sentiment. Sam is mentioning that as you start to look for standards, they are more in play everywhere than you might ever think. When you look at all of the standard test methods we have for mobility, for dexterity, for sensors, it starts to actually paint a picture of like, okay, if I'm someone working in this industry or who's going to be, what are the things that my systems are going to be expected to perform? And this starts to paint a really nice characterization of the types of capabilities you're going to be asked about. And the same thing goes for F 45 where we're doing ground robots and manipulators for F 48 as you go into exoskeletons. And it's really good at kind of unifying all the stakeholders into this is all of the elements that we know we need to care about. And you all now have a voice to help influence how the rest of the world will care about them as well.
Sam Ruben (32:14):
And building off of that, one of the key factors for us as a startup, as a company doing innovation and getting involved with standards was to make sure that there's room for that innovation in the standards as they're being developed. If you're doing something really unique and no one knows about it, probably not going to make it into the standard unless you're involved. But if it's not in the standard, it could be really, really hard to show that you meet all the requirements for our use case for any startups or innovators out there listening, get involved, it's really worth it. Otherwise, you might find yourself on the outside looking in for no good reason other than you just didn't show up.
Adam Norton (32:48):
And then we even see things on the opposite side of that, which is like, why are we writing a standard for Capability X? No systems have this yet. And it's like, well, they're going to rights. It's like we have our finger on the pulse of the research world where this is coming, and by the time that it's deployed, people are not going to either understand it or they're going to have no way to prove that they can do what they say they can do because we don't have a standard test method to support it. So I'll echo that sentiment as well. We need not just the, here's the technology as it exists now, let's write standards that support it. We want to be supporting the future innovation.
Dave Walsh (33:23):
This conversation has been so effortless and so easygoing and informative, fortunately at this point. We're at the end of our time, but I thank you both. We could do another one. I think so maybe we'll invite you back. You never know. Be careful. Like you said, Sam, once you show up at a STM, they ask you to become a chair and a podcast.
Sam Ruben (33:42):
I know, I know. Well, hey, I would be happy to come back. This has been a
Dave Walsh (33:46):
Lot of fun. Thank you both, and we really appreciate you being here today. Now it's time for our regular standard spotlight segment with Essence content editor, JP Urban.
JP Ervin (33:56):
The turns exo suit or exoskeleton might inspire you to think about science fiction from comic book movies and video games to animated series and model figurines SCI-Fi is full of examples of powerful wearable equipment that gives the wear almost superhuman strength and abilities. While we've yet to see heroes battling vicious aliens in power loaders or flying metal armor, exo technology is a very real part of our modern world. Exoskeletons are wearable devices that augment or otherwise aid human physical activity by mechanical means. These devices are widely researched and it today, and they have a wide range of applications, including medical aiding and rehabilitation processes, or supporting mobility for people with disabilities industry to boost strength and reduce fatigue of workers in sectors such as manufacturing and warehousing, military or users off and carry heavy loads and working dangerous situations, and public safety where first responders may need to move large objects and carry additional safety equipment.
(34:56):
Ultimately, EXO technologies have the potential to transform how we live and work. As A STM explained it, the organization has a vision of people of all ages free to pursue high quality life and participate fully in work and society. Thanks to safe and reliable EXO Technologies, A STM and its members are working hard to support the development and adoption of exotech. In 2017, the organization established the committee on exoskeletons in Exosuits At 48, 2 years later, A STM added the EXO Technology Center of Excellence with the goal of accelerating EXO technology research standards, testing and training. In addition to the valuable work the COE does to promote the growth of EXO technology, they even host their own podcast, the A STM. Excellent Exo Chat. F 48 has developed a number of standards related to exotech. One of their foundational standards is the practice for training exoskeleton users F 3 4, 4 4. This practice addresses training so users can operate exoskeletons in Exosuits in a safe and effective manner. F 3 4, 4 4 establishes training to provide materials for a student to learn about and demonstrate their understanding and abilities with exoskeletons. The standard covers many topics including how to put on and remove an exoskeleton, soup, maintenance, and inspection, and training for safe operation F 3 4, 4 4 also offers ideas about how non-users, such as doctors or emergency medical service providers will be trained to aid exoskeleton wearers in the course of therapy or in an emergency.
Dave Walsh (36:31):
Well, thanks to everyone for joining us for this episode of Standards Impact. If you want to learn more about any of the standards discussed today, visit astm.org for all the latest. And if you enjoyed the show today, remember to like and subscribe so you never miss another episode. I'm Dave Walsh, and this has been Standards Impact presented by A STM International.
