Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Control of Robotic Construction Processes Under Variable Material Conditions

Authors

  • Niclas Said School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. Author

Keywords:

reinforcement learning; adaptive control; robotic construction; material variability; constrained policy optimization; sim-to-real transfer

Abstract

Robotic construction processes operate under material conditions that shift with mixing, curing, moisture, temperature, delivery pressure, and layer geometry. A control policy tuned for a nominal mortar or concrete rheology can lose deposition accuracy or violate process limits when yield stress, stiffness, and flow resistance change during execution. This manuscript develops a methodological framework for adaptive control of robotic construction processes by coupling online material-state estimation with safety-constrained reinforcement learning. The robot is modeled as acting on a belief over latent material and process parameters rather than on a single nominal state. A recursive estimator updates those parameters from force, torque, pressure, vision, and kinematic residuals, while the policy learns continuous tool-motion and deposition commands under reward terms for geometric quality, productivity, actuator effort, and constraint violation. Safety is represented through constrained policy optimization with explicit limits on layer stability, collision margin, motor torque, and surface tolerance. A sim-to-real discrepancy bound is used to structure calibration and domain randomization, and uncertainty-sensitive action selection is formulated to avoid aggressive adaptation when material identification is weak. The framework clarifies how estimator covariance, constraint thresholds, reward weights, and simulation fidelity jointly determine adaptation behavior. Its central contribution is an integrated control logic that treats material variability as a partially observable, safety-relevant state rather than as an exogenous disturbance. The analysis provides design criteria for robotic construction systems that must remain productive without sacrificing process stability.

References

1. Kober, J., Bagnell, J. A., & Peters, J. (2013). Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(11), 1238–1274.

2. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

3. Lillicrap, T. P., Hunt, J. J., Pritzel, A., Heess, N., Erez, T., Tassa, Y., Silver, D., & Wierstra, D. (2016). Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

4. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017). Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv:1707.06347.

5. Levine, S., Finn, C., Darrell, T., & Abbeel, P. (2016). End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(39), 1–40.

6. Bock, T., & Linner, T. (2016). Construction robots: Elementary technologies for automated building construction. Cambridge University Press.

7. Yu, L., Luo, D., & Xu, W. (2018). Dynamic robotic slip-form casting and eco-friendly building façade design. In Robotic fabrication in architecture, Art and Design (pp. 421-433). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

8. Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Cassandra, A. R. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101(1–2), 99–134.

9. Thrun, S., Burgard, W., & Fox, D. (2005). Probabilistic robotics. MIT Press.

10. Khoshnevis, B. (2004). Automated construction by contour crafting—Related robotics and information technologies. Automation in Construction, 13(1), 5–19.

11. Buswell, R. A., Leal de Silva, W. R., Jones, S. Z., & Dirrenberger, J. (2018). 3D printing using concrete extrusion: A roadmap for research. Cement and Concrete Research, 112, 58–69.

12. Perrot, A., Rangeard, D., & Pierre, A. (2016). Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Materials and Structures, 49(4), 1213–1220.

13. Åström, K. J., & Wittenmark, B. (2008). Adaptive control (2nd ed.). Dover Publications.

14. Deisenroth, M. P., & Rasmussen, C. E. (2011). PILCO: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 465–472). Omnipress.

15. Achiam, J., Held, D., Tamar, A., & Abbeel, P. (2017). Constrained policy optimization. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 22–31). PMLR.

16. Altman, E. (1999). Constrained Markov decision processes. Chapman & Hall/CRC.

17. Garcia, J., & Fernández, F. (2015). A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1), 1437–1480.

18. Ibarz, J., Tan, J., Finn, C., Kalakrishnan, M., Pastor, P., & Levine, S. (2021). How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: Lessons we have learned. International Journal of Robotics Research, 40(4–5), 698–721.

19. Tobin, J., Fong, R., Ray, A., Schneider, J., Zaremba, W., & Abbeel, P. (2017). Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 23–30). IEEE.

20. Peng, X. B., Andrychowicz, M., Zaremba, W., & Abbeel, P. (2018). Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 3803–3810). IEEE.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-17