Can a wheeled quadruped collect useful construction-site evidence for a quality workflow? We tested that question with xTerra Robotics’ DHAV platform at Tru Aquapolis, with Contineu processing the scans. The first test focused on the feasibility of this form factor on a live site.
Test the capture, then inspect the output
A robot moving around a floor is an interesting demonstration. The more useful question is what the resulting record allows a quality team to do. Can reviewers understand the captured surfaces, locate observations and turn those observations into work for the site team?
In my 20 October update, I reported roughly 300 defects across the scanned floor from a capture that took about 15 minutes. Those were results from this POC, with its particular floor and conditions. They are not a standard scan duration or an expected defect count for every project.
The workflow continues after detection
The follow-up showed the wider chain: capture, alignment to BIM, defect detection, assignment, tracking, rectification and closure. The detected observations included cracks, chipping, slurry leakage and exposed reinforcement. The purpose of locating those observations is to help the team find the work again.
A capture method is useful when it feeds that chain. The device collects the evidence; the quality process still needs owners, repair actions and a checker who can review the result. Removing the manual capture walk does not remove the need for accountable decisions.
A field trial is a starting point
Sahil Sudhakar and Anirudh Bhakar led the deployment from Contineu. Aditya Pratap Singh Rajawat and the xTerra team brought the robotic platform, while the Tru Group team made the site trial possible.
For teams considering a similar POC, start with an agreed floor and capture scope. Record where access is possible, inspect the outputs and assess whether a reviewer can act on them. Keep capture quality, detection review and closure as separate checks.
This trial gave us a practical way to evaluate robotic capture as an input to QC. The next question is where that input fits the site’s recurring work and what it takes to make each capture useful to the people responsible for quality.
