Keyword Suggestions

Results
 
 
Account Login
 
 
 
 
 

Library Navigation

 
 

Browse Meetings

 
 
 
XX9.02 - Exploiting the Rigid-Compliant Origami Transition to Design Adaptive Actuators 
Date/Time:
April 24, 2014   8:30am - 8:45am
 
Taxonomy
 
 
 
 
 
Share:
 

Engineering structures with adaptive geometry require an optimized integration of actuation, sensing, and packaging. Origami structures, by definition, can “shape-shift” between multiple geometric configurations that are predefined by a pattern of folds. However, most origami models assume ‘rigid origami’, meaning that the facets between fold lines cannot deform. Although a useful, simplifying assumption, in reality no origami pattern is completely rigid. Furthermore, facet compliance could broaden the design space of origami devices. Together, these motivate our investigation of the transition from rigid to compliant origami for a given fold pattern. We approximate the fold pattern as a truss and incorporate relative stiffness magnitudes associated with bar elongation (10^8), folding (10^2), and facet bending (10^1 -10^12). Following Schenk et al’s formalism (PNAS 2012) to relate nodal forces to the nodal displacement, we determine the eigenvalues and eigenmodes of the stiffness matrix, which correspond to the natural modes of the structure. Due to the significant difference in stiffness values, we are able to separate the eigenmodes associated only with folding from those with bar elongation and/or facet bending. As expected, rigid origami modes appear as “fold-only” modes when facet stiffness is much greater than fold stiffness. However, as facet stiffness approaches fold stiffness, these mode shapes adopt a combination of fold and facet deformations. By identifying these fold/facet bending modes we can determine how to redistribute bar, fold or facet stiffness in the surrounding structure in order to mitigate or amplify their effect. These results have important implications for not only origami topology design, but also for optimal placement of local material properties.
 


 
 
Average Rating: (No Ratings)
  Was great, surpassed expectations, and I would recommend this
  Was good, met expectations, and I would recommend this
  Was okay, met most expectations
  Was okay but did not meet expectations
  Was bad and I would not recommend this
 



Submit
 
Keynote Address
Panel Discussion - Different Approaches to Commercializing Materials Research
Business Challenges to Starting a Materials-Based Company
Fred Kavli Distinguished Lectureship in Nanoscience
Application of In-situ X-ray Absorption, Emission and Powder Diffraction Studies in Nanomaterials Research - From the Design of an In-situ Experiment to Data Analysis