Rigid folding

Panels instead of paper

Flat-foldability asks whether a pattern can reach a flat state. Rigid-foldability asks whether it can get there without any face bending on the way. The second is much stronger, and everything that gets manufactured lives inside it.

What the vertex does on the way

A four-crease vertex is a linkage on a sphere. Solving its closure gives the fold angles at every moment, and two theorems that are usually proved about the flat state turn up in the answer without being put there.

The sheet has a thickness

Every crease pattern describes a surface with no thickness. Everything anybody builds has some, and getting it around a corner is the central problem of turning origami into hardware.

Getting thickness round a corner

There are half a dozen ways to build a fold in a panel that has depth, and the useful way to arrange them is not by what the cross-section looks like. It is by what each one gives away.

Paper that folds itself

A self-folding sheet has to supply the fold and then choose what to fold into. The second half is where these things fail, and no amount of torque helps, because the two outcomes are equally downhill.

Folding that gets built

Solar arrays, airbags, stents and starshades. The requirement is always the same — large in use, small in transit, along a path nobody has to trust to chance — and folding is what answers it.

A state no motion reaches

Flat-foldability asks whether a folded state exists. Rigid-foldability asks whether there is a path to it. The two sets are different, and the difference can be counted on a single vertex.

Panels with somewhere to go

Every way of giving a folded panel real thickness costs something. Tachi's offset-panel technique costs the least interesting thing there is — it stops the panels being a surface, and leaves the hinges exactly where the zero-thickness pattern put them.

Error is folded too

A folded position is a composition of reflections, and a reflection in a line that is slightly off turns everything beyond it by twice as much. So an error does not stay where it was made — and whether it grows with the crease count or with its square root depends on whether it is the same error every time.

Paper through paper

Every test the subject has for rigid folding is a statement about a neighbourhood, and a neighbourhood cannot see the far side of the sheet. So a pattern can satisfy all of them while driving one panel straight through another, and the sharpest witness has no interior vertex in it at all.

Nowhere to put the error

Paper takes a misplaced crease and spreads it along its whole length as a curvature nobody notices. A panel is flat by definition and cannot, so the error arrives at the hinge — and the room to receive it is a length that has to be drawn, is paid for in fold angle, and has to grow with the crease count.

The only pattern that moves

A rigid motion is not a generic property of a folded pattern. Move one vertex of a Miura by a thousandth of a panel and the sheet has no isometric folded position of that kind at all — and the amount by which it fails is first order in the displacement, so no move is small enough to be free.

The vertex is geared

A rigid four-crease vertex has one degree of freedom, which says that one number decides everything and not how. The how is a fixed ratio: the tangents of the half fold angles at two creases stay in constant proportion for the whole of the motion, and the proportion is a function of the sector angles and nothing else.

The family the Miura belongs to

Move one vertex of a Miura and the sheet has no rigid folded position at all — which leaves the obvious question unanswered. What else moves? A row of paper reflected in each of a fan of lines is flat-foldable for nothing at all, and whether it also folds rigidly turns out to be a condition on a table of cosines: it has to be a column of numbers times a row of numbers.

Where an error goes

A misplaced crease in a folded sheet has to be paid for somewhere, and this subject has two answers already — the error is folded too, and the hinge is where it ends up. There is a third. In a quadrilateral mesh a mistake in one row has no consequence in that row at all: it is felt by the columns, which is to say by every other row on the sheet.

The condition that is not flat-foldability

Take away the assumption that one crease family runs straight through every vertex and ask what makes a quadrilateral mesh move. It is not flat-foldability. There is a one-parameter family of meshes, every one of them developable and flat-foldable at every vertex to machine precision, and exactly one member of it folds — the Miura. Slide a single vertex along the ray that keeps every condition exact and the sheet stops moving, first order in the displacement.

One crease decides the sheet

Fix one crease of a flat-folding problem, propagate every condition the subject has, and three creases out of a hundred and fifty-eight follow. Fix one fold angle of a rigid one and every crease on the sheet follows, with a single consistent answer. The same experiment, two questions, opposite answers — and it is why a self-folding sheet needs one biased vertex rather than one per vertex.

Thickness has a sign

Swap every mountain for a valley and back again. Kawasaki does not notice, Maekawa gets the same condition the other way round, the lemma still asks the two creases to differ, and the layers come out mirrored. Every theorem on this site is blind to which side of the paper it is looking at — and a hinge in a panel with depth is not. The fold closes one way and jams at nothing at all the other.

Solving every face at once

A quadrilateral mesh that folds rigidly has to close round every one of its faces, and the rung that built the general mesh could close one. Four of them at once resisted a descent that drove each free length to its own root, because closing a loop is a condition on several lengths together — and solving them jointly finds a sheet with no two vertices alike that folds, and a surface of them sixteen dimensions wide.

Solved is not built

A mesh that folds because an equation holds and a mesh that folds because one crease family runs straight through every vertex are not two examples of the same thing. Cut a Miura's every dimension five per cent wrong and it still folds exactly. Cut a solved general mesh a fifth of a millimetre wrong on a 150 mm sheet and the closure is gone.

Which crease to push

Deciding one fold angle settles every other one on a quadrilateral mesh, which is what makes a self-folding sheet buildable with a single actuator. It leaves a question that sounds like an afterthought: which crease. Driving each of a mesh's twenty-four in turn gives twenty-four different answers to how far an error in it travels — and on the sheet that repeats one vertex, it gives several answers to what shape the sheet takes.

Closing is not building

A quadrilateral mesh solved so that every loop closes to within a millionth of a radian is a mesh whose fold angles are consistent. It is not necessarily an object. One of the six solved here drives a panel through another at every angle of its motion — there is no part of the fold at which it could be made of solid panels — and the pair that crosses is two steps apart in the sheet, where nothing evaluated at a vertex could see it.

A tolerance is a direction

Cut a solved mesh a fifth of a millimetre wrong and its closure is gone. That is true of the errors it was tried with and false of errors in general: the solutions form a surface sixteen directions wide, an error along it costs five thousand times less than the same error across it, and the fifth of a millimetre is the allowance in one direction out of twenty.

The pile, not the panel

Every technique for building a fold out of panels with depth is drawn, described and priced at one crease between two panels. A folded model has two layers nowhere except at its last fold: the printed patterns here reach eight, sixteen, thirty-two and sixty, and the length a thick panel has to find at those creases is not the published allowance but fifty-nine times it.

The allowance is spent at the end

A tolerance on a solved mesh was priced at one fold angle, because that is where a tolerance is priced. The surface of solutions turns out not to move as the sheet folds — the free directions at a third of a radian are the free directions at two and a half, to twelve figures — and the price of leaving it rises by a factor of thirteen along the way.

The hardest instant

Driving one crease of a quadrilateral mesh settles every other one, and an error in the driven crease arrives elsewhere multiplied. That multiplier was measured once, at one fold angle. Followed along the whole motion it is worst at the flat sheet on twenty of twenty-four creases — and on the Miura the measurement has to refuse to answer.

A collision is an order

Paper passing through paper is treated here as a thing that happens during a motion and is caught by watching for it. At the flat state it is not an event at all: it is the absence of an ordering, and it can be proved rather than observed. Four of the six quadrilateral meshes this site solves for rigid folding place perfectly and admit no ordering of their nine panels — so every one of them must pass through itself, and none of them was ever driven to find out.

Fourth of eight, and still not chosen for it

A deployable is sold on compaction: large in use, small in transit. Measured, the pattern that actually gets built converts folding into compaction at 0.67 sheet-widths of crease per layer, which is fourth of the eight printed patterns — nearly three times worse than the Yoshimura, which nobody deploys, and nearly three times better than the hexagon twist, which nobody deploys either. The ranking does not pick out the pattern that flew from anywhere on the shelf, and that is the finding.

Two mechanisms at one point

Two creases drawn across each other cannot fold flat — Maekawa's count refuses them at every angle. They move perfectly well as rigid panels, and they move in two ways: bend along one line while the other stays flat, or the reverse. Every other developable vertex of degree four has two ways too, and in both of them all four creases move together at a fixed ratio. The crossing is the case where the two motions have nothing to do with each other.

How deep is a crossing

A crossing is a verdict with no middle: two creases either pass through one another or they do not, and the first makes a pattern unfoldable while the second leaves it untouched. Measured on the patches where they occur, the shallowest crossing runs 0.16 mm past the end of the crease it meets, on a sheet 150 mm across. Five of the forty-seven are under half a millimetre, which is thinner than the line a pencil draws.

Two refusals that refuse differently

Four of the six developable quadrilateral meshes this collection solves have no ordering of their nine panels — they must pass through themselves, and a search over every ordering proves it. On all four, the letters agree with themselves perfectly. The linear proof and the exponential search are not a fast test and a slow one: they answer different questions, and neither contains the other.

Refused at one lettering

Four of six quadrilateral meshes here have no arrangement of their nine panels — established by searching every ordering, at the labelling each mesh arrived with. Enumerate every labelling instead and two of the four fold perfectly well at a different one. What was reported as a fact about four meshes is a fact about two meshes and two labellings.

A search with nothing to reorder

One search on a crease pattern costs eighty steps or fifteen thousand depending on the order it takes its decisions in. The other search on the same crease pattern costs 1,188,571 steps whatever order it is given — twelve permutations of the panels, twelve identical counts. The difference between them is one line of code that neither has and one has.

The motion has no letters to choose

A flat-folding search picks a letter for every crease and can pick badly. A rigid folding does not pick anything: the fold angles are real numbers, determined by the panels through equations that have a solution or do not. Replacing a discrete choice with a continuous solve removes every ordering question at once, and introduces a failure of its own.

An order with no least element

Enumerating every way a folded pattern can be stacked works by building upward from a panel with nothing below it. The smallest square twist patch has exactly one such stacking and takes eleven thousand steps to find it. The pattern that patch was cut from has no panel with nothing below it at all, so the enumeration has nothing to start from — and the sheet is perfectly well stacked anyway.

Two panels that are one panel

Paper cannot pass through paper, and every test for it compares pairs of panels. On a glued sheet two pieces of the drawing can be the same piece of paper — so a test that does not know the identification either reports a collision between a panel and itself, or misses one where the sheet meets itself round the loop.

A mechanism that closes on itself

A rigid-foldable pattern is a mechanism: panels as rigid plates, creases as hinges, and a motion counted by degrees of freedom at each vertex. Close the sheet into a tube and the mechanism has to come back to itself after a circuit — a constraint that is not at any vertex and that the degree-of-freedom count does not see.

The tube that gets built

Every folded structure that leaves a laboratory is a sheet joined to itself — a boom, a stent, a bellows, an airbag, a packed antenna. The mathematics has been done on flat rectangles for the whole history of the subject, and the object is a cylinder, which is a different sheet with different counts and a condition the rectangle does not have.

Thickness round a closed loop

Real panels have thickness, and every technique for accommodating it works by shifting a hinge off the ideal crease by a small amount. On a flat sheet the shifts accumulate outward and end at the edge. On a closed sheet they accumulate round a loop and have to come back to where they started, which is a condition none of the techniques was designed to satisfy.

Three kinds of pile

A thick-panel technique is priced at the deepest pile a pattern has, and the depth of that pile says nothing about where it is. Mapped over the folded footprint, the printed patterns fall into three kinds. On a uniform pile the deepest count is the whole footprint — sixty layers everywhere on the Yoshimura. On an island it is a patch and the rest is shallow. On a graded pile it is a sliver — under one per cent of the tapered corrugation — while nearly nine tenths is at least half as deep, and the Miura, the pattern that gets built, is graded.

A panel is not the unit of depth

A thick-panel design gives each panel a thickness, an offset or a taper, so a graded pile could be met panel by panel only if every panel's folded image lay over one depth. On the Miura none does. Every one of its twenty-four panels lies over three or four of the four depths its pile takes, and on the tapered corrugation every panel lies over all four. The uniform piles are the opposite — every panel of the Yoshimura, the waterbomb and the preliminary base lies over exactly one depth — which is why panel-by-panel techniques look adequate on the patterns they are drawn for. On the Miura the steps between depths cross the middle of panels, and they run parallel to the panels' own sides.

Only four creases decide a Miura

Driving one crease of a rigid quadrilateral mesh settles every other one — except that on the pattern everybody builds it often does not. Enumerated properly, four of a four-by-four Miura's twenty-four creases leave exactly one folded state and the other twenty leave two, four or eight. A mesh whose vertices all differ leaves one from every crease. The ambiguity is not a property of quadrilateral meshes; it belongs to the symmetry.

Two drivers and one freedom

Two actuators on a sheet with one degree of freedom are two commands for one number, and if they disagree by a hundredth of a radian the sheet cannot satisfy both. Where it settles is decided by the gearing between the two creases: a strongly geared pair absorbs the disagreement and leaves a quarter of it standing, while a weakly geared pair keeps ninety per cent. The loosest coupling is the expensive one, which is the opposite of what coupling usually means.

What a second deployment costs

Every folded structure this field builds deploys once. The reason is a power law: a hinge asked to survive more cycles cannot be as sharp, a blunter hinge takes more surface out of the sheet, and the fold count that packs best falls as the cycle count to a fatigue exponent. A structure required to work a thousand times packs thirty times worse than one required to work once, and the exponent decides how fast rather than whether.

The crease count is a reliability budget

A deployment that needs every hinge to work is the hinge reliability raised to the crease count, so the fineness that buys compaction spends the probability of getting it. At a thousandth of a chance of a hinge failing, sixty hinges give a 94 per cent deployment and three hundred give 74. The fold count that maximises expected compaction is well below the one that maximises compaction — and demonstrating the result takes tens of thousands of successful tests on an article that itself deploys once.

A gearing reflects stiffness squared

Two actuators on a sheet with one freedom disagree, and the sheet settles where their stored energy is least. With unequal stiffnesses the answer depends on them only through k₂g² ⁄ k₁ — the second actuator, seen from the first crease, is a spring of stiffness k₂g², the gearing entering squared as a gear train reflects any stiffness. That settles which actuator to make compliant. On a rigid mesh's loosest pair a second actuator ten times stiffer than the first stores fifty times the fighting energy of one ten times softer, and softening it gives up only 8 per cent of how firmly that crease is held, because the first actuator already holds it ten times over through the gearing. On the tightest pair softening saves four times the energy and gives up 68 per cent of the hold. Compliance is cheap exactly where the fight is expensive.

The deciding set does not move

A driven Miura leaves several folded states from most of its creases and exactly one from a few, and those few are where an actuator belongs. It was reported that the few change along the motion — four of twenty-four at 0.6 radians, fourteen at 0.8 — and that a five-by-five sheet had a crease leaving fifteen states where every other count was a power of two. Mapped at twenty angles from 0.1 to 3.0 radians on three sizes of sheet, neither survives. Every crease leaves the same number of states at every angle, every number is a power of two, and the same creases decide the sheet throughout. The changes were the vertex solver losing one of a vertex's two configurations on 138 of 8,640 solves, and the configurations it lost can be carried exactly from an angle where it finds both.

Splitting a sheet buys area, not certainty

A folded deployable with one freedom needs every hinge and its one actuator, and three hundred hinges at 0.999 each open all the way 73 per cent of the time. Split the same hinges among ten separately driven modules and a stuck hinge costs only its own module: the share of the area expected to open rises to 96 per cent, and the chance of at least nine tenths of it rises to 94. The chance of all of it falls, to 67 per cent, because every freedom added is an actuator added. So freedoms, actuators and reliability trade in a definite way: one freedom is the best design only for a mission that is worthless without its whole area, and for any mission that can live with less, several freedoms win by a margin that no improvement in the hinges matches.

The pattern cheapest to trust

Demonstrating that a one-shot deployment will open takes a number of successful tests proportional to its hinge count, so the pattern that needs fewest tests for what it delivers is the one with fewest hinges per layer of compaction. That criterion is a count nobody computes, and computed on the printed shelf it ranks the patterns differently from crease length per layer: the preliminary base is first, at exactly one hinge per layer, and the square twist rises from seventh to fourth. As patterns are refined the difference sharpens. The waterbomb settles at 2.47 hinges a layer and the Yoshimura at 1.47, but the Miura climbs without levelling — 1.32 at two cells a side, 5.69 at eight — so every finer Miura costs more tests for each layer it adds, and the pattern that gets built is the only one of the three that gets dearer to trust as it gets finer.

A stub is never alone

A crossing is a crease running past another and it has a depth. A stub is a crease that simply stops, and it has one too — how far from the rim it stopped, which is also how much shorter than a crease it is. Measured across a hundred and twenty drawings: sixty-six stubs, from 0.27 mm to 35 mm at printed size, every one of them paired with another at exactly the same distance, and not one on a drawing that did not already have a crossing.

Two faults, not four

A drawing departs from its crease list in four named ways — a crossing, a stub, a junction and a fragment — and a checker tests for all four. Counted side by side on two hundred and forty drawings, two of the tests find nothing the others do not. No crease anywhere ends on another crease: every junction the reading finds is a crease meeting the rim, which is where creases are meant to end. Every stub is on a drawing that already has a crossing. What is left is two independent faults, and the clipped construction, which makes no crossings, still makes the second — creases a thousandth of a millimetre long, in pairs.