circle:

“pie”

single cup fold:

multiple cupping folds:

circle control:

“spork”

lined spoon:

short spoon control:

winged spoon:

control winged spoon:

spoon:

control spoon:

rectangles:

Factors affecting repeatability:

Corners: I noticed that the cuts at the intersection of the oval and the rectangle sometimes had slits just by error of hand-cutting. This is likely what created inconsistencies in the folding of these pieces. In the spoon attempt above, the rectangular section folded similarly each time.

initial curvature of pieces: when the sheets come out of the printer, some pieces are slightly warped (from heat) to begin with. When put on the hot plate, this caused some parts of the shape to not be touching the hot plate at all, which affects how it is heated.

imperfections in line thickness/weight: most consistent results came from samples that went through the printer. this ink was the most opaque and was uniform in thickness all the way through, unlike hand-drawn lines. Thicker lines responded faster and more prominently than thin lines.

Takeaways

• Lined samples act as an expedited method of folding which allows for more direction/control vs. the randomized creasing seen in control groups
• Material should be placed where the heat lamp is centered due to weaker light distribution as it radiates outwards
• If the plate is too hot, the material will instantly melt and morph with bubbles
• Other pieces can’t attach together without external pressure

Replicable Hinge Fold

Circular Cup Fold

Final Spoon Folds and Forms

This week we finalized the folds we are including in our final report and are doing one more lab with the printed shrinky dink paper to make sure the folds are replicable. We plan on finishing up photos and design language system graphics for the final this week. Below are the final forms.

01 Pinch Fold | Trapezoidal

02 Cupping fold | Perimeter

03 Spork Attempt | Defined Edge and Crinkle Folds

This shape was pretty consistent among the 3 attempts.

4/29 Pinch and Crinkle Folds

Why: Taking one look at this project, one might immediately think “more plastic utensils?” but the reason we decided to focus on utensils isn’t because of the materiality of polystyrene rather for the unique forms it can morph into under heat. We find potential in the application of low-touch, heat-activated morphing in the medical field where many tools are single-use for sanitary purposes. Because our knowledge base isn’t in medicine, we chose to explore the system of kitchen tools due to their universality and their uniqueness in shape and bends. We see this as a starting point to discover more accurate and technical patterns that can evolve with the shrinky dink polymer.

Weekend Update: We continue creating a system of folds for our final set of utensils

New Research:

Precedent of organizing/naming curved origami from “British Origami Society”

Iterating on the spoon design:

Ray used some thick tin foil to test the fold design. Thick tin foil bends more similarly to the shink paper compared to paper. This makes it a better tool for prototyping curving designs.

This week we finalized the folds we are including in our final report and are doing one more lab with the printed shrinky dink paper to make sure the folds are replicable. We plan on finishing up photos and design language system graphics for the final this week. Below are the final forms.

01 Pinch Fold | Trapezoidal

02 Cupping fold | Perimeter

03 Spork Attempt | Defined Edge and Crinkle Folds

4/29 Pinch and Crinkle Folds

Why: Taking one look at this project, one might immediately think “more plastic utensils?” but the reason we decided to focus on utensils isn’t because of the materiality of polystyrene rather for the unique forms it can morph into under heat. We find potential in the application of low-touch, heat-activated morphing in the medical field where many tools are single-use for sanitary purposes. Because our knowledge base isn’t in medicine, we chose to explore the system of kitchen tools due to their universality and their uniqueness in shape and bends. We see this as a starting point to discover more accurate and technical patterns that can evolve with the shrinky dink polymer.

Weekend Update: We continue creating a system of folds for our final set of utensils

New Research:

Precedent of organizing/naming curved origami from “British Origami Society”

Iterating on the spoon design:

Ray used some thick tin foil to test the fold design. Thick tin foil bends more similarly to the shink paper compared to paper. This makes it a better tool for prototyping curving designs.

Weekend Update: We continue creating a system of folds for our final set of utensils

New Research:

Precedent of organizing/naming curved origami from “British Origami Society”

Iterating on the spoon design:

Ray used some thick tin foil to test the fold design. Thick tin foil bends more similarly to the shink paper compared to paper. This makes it a better tool for prototyping curving designs.

New Research:

Precedent of organizing/naming curved origami from “British Origami Society”

Iterating on the spoon design:

Ray used some thick tin foil to test the fold design. Thick tin foil bends more similarly to the shink paper compared to paper. This makes it a better tool for prototyping curving designs.

Zijun Wang, Qiguang He, Shengqiang Cai, Artificial Muscles for Underwater Soft Robotic System, Bioinspired Sensing, Actuation, and Control in Underwater Soft Robotic Systems, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-50476-2, (71-97), (2021).

A past research paper that explored this idea was “Put that there” a gestural/voice based concept to manipulate visual information. The limitation to this concept was that it needed to be done in a space with built-in sensors. I’m curious to see if this could be worn on our bodies instead.

1. https://www.instagram.com/p/CF2KMa5pVu2/

2. https://dam-prod.media.mit.edu/uuid/8e6d934b-6c6f-48e4-b0a1-270e0dae745f

Blooms are animated sculptures by Stanford professor John Edmark. They are 3D printed pieces that are animated when they are illuminated by strobe lights. This makes these solid sculptures appear soft and alive. The pieces explore growth in nature using progressive rotations of ϕ and Fibonacci. John Edmark’s work explores growth in nature, from pinecones to flowers, and attempts to portray them through artificial materials.

The piece does not incorporate any soft robotics, although it expresses a similar motion to those found in many soft robots. I think there would be unique challenges to making a soft robot that with tentacles that bend with a greater degree of curvature. One possibility is to create a soft robot with tentacles, similar to an octopus.

One technical paper that addresses the concept of curving soft arms is “The Tentacle Bot”: a soft robot engineered and designed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in 2020. The team found that tuning the angle of taper in the soft actuators allowed for a greater range of bending curvatures for the soft robots. In artistic application, this would allow for moving sculptures that can replicate the bending of tentacles more accurately that preexisting soft actuators.

1. John Edmark. BLOOMS. California, United States. 2014. url: http://www.johnedmark.com/#/phi/

2. Zhexin Xie, August G. Domel, Ning An, Connor Green, Zheyuan Gong, Tianmiao Wang, Elias M. Knubben, James C. Weaver, Katia Bertoldi, and Li Wen.Soft Robotics.Oct 2020.639-648.http://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2019.0082

1. Root Paper.

Colombo, S., Garzotto, F., Gelsomini, M., Melli, M., & Clasadonte, F. (2016). Dolphin Sam: A Smart Pet for Children with Intellectual Disability. Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. 10.1145/2909132.2926090

2. Paper on wireless sensing soft robot.

Oh, B., Park, Y., Jung, H., Ji, S., Cheong, W.H., Cheon, J., Lee, W., & Park, J. (2020). Untethered Soft Robotics with Fully Integrated Wireless Sensing and Actuating Systems for Somatosensory and Respiratory Functions. Soft robotics. 10.1089/soro.2019.0066

3. Paper on using current measurements to measure stiffness, which could reduce the amount of sensors the soft robot would need.

Rizzello, G., Serafino, P., Naso, D., & Seelecke, S. (2020). Towards Sensorless Soft Robotics: Self-Sensing Stiffness Control of Dielectric Elastomer Actuators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 36, 174-188. 10.1007/978-3-030-29381-9_9

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3313831.3376470

The device uses a wearable, modular spring loaded cable system that can control the force upon individual joints in the hand and arm. They can programmatically control the joints based on the virtual objects that the users are seeing in the headset. The headset must communicate with the cable device to adjust the cables depending on the form of the object. They have successfully simulated the sensation of touching planes, poles, and a few irregular objects using Wireality.

This project refers to past research on modular motors, measuring 3D positioning, and even a 1997 research paper called “WireMan” which worked on a portable cable system that could also “render” the sensation of touching 3D objects.

Cathy Fang, Yang Zhang, Matthew Dworman, and Chris Harrison. 2020. Wireality: Enabling Complex Tangible Geometries in Virtual Reality with Worn Multi-String Haptics. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376470

Do you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this paper? A “conflict of interest” is defined as follows:

No.

Expertise. Provide your expertise in the topic area of this paper.

2 – Passing Knowledge

Summary. Please summarize what you believe are the paper’s main contributions to the field of soft robotics.

This paper presents wearable modules that help massage swelling in lymphedema patients. It builds upon soft robotics that are foldable and lightweight.

Strengths and Weaknesses. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this work? Does the paper have strengths in originality and novelty?

The paper’s strength can be found in the focus on the use of soft robots to solve a very specific problem. They approach their work with tests that present the directions of force that their robots push upon the patient’s nodes. The paper also helpfully explains their problem space before diving into the details of the research. The weakness is that at some points the paper repeats the same points which makes some parts feel redundant. 

Soundness. Are the ideas, algorithms, results or studies technologically/methodologically sound?

This research uses origami soft fabrics, which have been presented in previous research. Although I don’t understand how technologically sound their prototypes are, their methodology shows data that convinces me that their claims are sound. The research shows many diagrams that consider important factors such as temperature, folds, and pushing force.

Related Work. Does the paper adequately describe related and prior work?

The paper connects to many other approaches to soft robotics on wearable medical devices. It mentions soft robotics that have been used to support heart function as well as movement for physically disabled patients. However, besides these, the paper does not reference other papers often nor does it describe them in detail.

Presentation. Is the paper well organized, well written and clearly presented?

The paper paces its figures well and is very concise. The text is well formatted and there are no concerns for readability.

Suggestions. Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?

This research paper could be improved if it further elaborated on where their project lies in context to other medical wearable soft robotics. Without these clear references, it’s hard for me as a reader to understand the extent to which the researchers are creating something novel.

Does the paper have enough originality and importance to merit publication? Is the paper relevant to the field? 

The folding explores how folds can create force, which is an interesting approach that is original. It presents relevant exploration to new ways that soft robotics can engage with other objects, which is more original than soft robotics that explore new ways to maneuver.

Overall Rating: 4 – I would support this paper, as they made it clear the value of their robotics to lymphedema patients. However, at a robotics conference, it would be difficult to argue that it contributes a lot to existing robotics research.