Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences andComputers and Information in Engineering Conference
IDETC/CIE 2013
August 4-7, 2013, Portland, Oregon, USA

DETC2013-12326

FREEFORM ORIGAMI TESSELLATIONSBY GENERALIZING RESCH’S PATTERNSTomohiro Tachi
Department of General Systems Studies
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
The University of Tokyo
3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan
Email: tachi@idea.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ABSTRACTof double-curved surfaces. Therefore, by utilizing origami, we
can create a desired surface from a single (or a small number of)developable part(s), instead of using the papercraft approach of
making an approximation of the desired surface by segmenting it
into many single-curved pieces and assembling them again.

In this research, we study a method to produce families oforigami tessellations from given polyhedral surfaces. The resulting tessellated surfaces generalize the patterns proposed by
Ron Resch and allow the construction of an origami tessellation that approximates a given surface. We will achieve thesepatterns by first constructing an initial configuration of the tessellated surfaces by separating each facets and inserting folded
parts between them based on the local configuration. The initialconfiguration is then modified by solving the vertex coordinates
to satisfy geometric constraints of developability, folding angle
limitation, and local non-intersection. We propose a novel robust method for avoiding intersections between facets sharing
vertices. Such generated polyhedral surfaces are not only applied to folding paper but also sheets of metal that does not allow
180◦ folding.

An advantage of folding for use in fabrication is that the resulting 3D form is specified by its 2D crease pattern becauseof the geometric constraints of origami. This helps in obtaining a custom-made 3D form by half-cutting, perforating, or engraving an appropriately designed 2D pattern by a 2- or 3-axis
CNC machine such as a laser cutter, cutting plotter, and millingmachine. Origami fabrication can be a fundamental technology
for do-it-yourself or do-it-with-others types of design and fabrication. Here, computational methods are required for solving
the inverse problem of obtaining a crease pattern from a given
folded form based on the topological and geometric properties
that origami has.
A generalized approach to realize the construction of an arbitrary
3D origami form is to use the Origamizer method [1], which provides a crease pattern that folds the material into a given polyhedron. The method is based on creating flat-folded tucks between
adjacent polygons on the given surface and crimp folding themto adjust the angles such that they fit the 3D shape of the surface.
However, the flat folds, i.e., 180◦ folds, and the crimp folds thatoverlays other flat folds on the folded tucks produce kinematically singular complex interlocking structures. This forbids theorigami model to be made with thick or hard materials, and is asignificant disadvantage in applications to personal or industrial
manufacturing processes. Additionally, even as a folding method

INTRODUCTION
Origami is the art of folding a sheet of paper into various forms
without stretching, cutting, or gluing other pieces of paper to it.
Therefore, the concept of origami can be applied to the manufacturing of various complex 3D forms by out-of-plane deformation, i.e., bending and folding, from a watertight sheet of hardmaterial such as paper, fabric, plastic, and metal. By definition, origami is a developable surface; however, unlike a single
G2 continuous developable surface, i.e., a single-curved surface,origami enables complex 3D shapes including the approximation1c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝for thin sheets of paper, it requires an expert folder to fold suchcomplex origami models.

On the other hand, important designs of 3D origami tessellation
patterns and/or their structural applications have been investigated, e.g., series of 3D origami tessellations by Fujimoto [2],PCCP shells and Miura-ori [3], tessellation models by Huffman(see [4] for the reconstruction work), and Resch’s structural patterns [5, 6]. In this paper, we focus on the series of patterns proposed by Resch in the 1960s and 70s; one of these patterns isshown in Figure 1. If we look at its final 3D form, we can observe that the surface comprises surface polygons and tucks to
be hidden similar to the origamizer method; the difference is thatthe tuck part is much simpler and can exist in a half-folded state
as well (Figure 2). The flexibility of a half-folded tuck not only
avoids interlocking structures but also controls the curvature of
the surface by virtually shrinking the surface to form a doublecurved surface. The pattern in Figure 1 forms a synclastic (positive Gaussian curvature) surface when it is folded halfway. However, possible 3D forms are limited by their 2D patterns, e.g., theaforementioned pattern cannot fold into an anticlastic surface.
In order to obtain a desired freeform double-curved surface, thegeneralization of the 2D patterns from a repetitive regular pattern
to appropriately designed crease patterns is necessary.

FIGURE 1.

Regular triangular tessellation by Resch.

Mountain
ValleyVertex Tuck
Edge Tuck

Origamizer

Resch Pattern

Surface
Polygon

FIGURE 2. Origamizer and Resch’s tessellation. Both are comprisedof surface polygons and tucks that are hidden. Notice that Resch’s pattern can have the tuck folded halfway, whereas origamizer vertex keeps
the tuck closed because of the crimp folds.

The author had previously proposed the system Freeform
Origami for interactively editing a given pattern into a freeformby exploring the solution space or hypersurface formed by thedevelopability constraints [7]. However, the method for generating the initial pattern suited for the target 3D form was not investigated in this approach. Moreover, collisions between facets ateach vertex are not sufficiently taken into account in the existing
method, whereas in complex tessellated origami models, such as
the one we are targeting at in this study, the collision between
facets is fundamental because facets sharing vertices frequently
touch each other.

FIGURE 3.

generate

optimize totessellation

developable

The process for obtaining a freeform origami tessellation.

GENERATING INITIAL CONFIGURATIONIn this paper, we propose a system for generating 3D origami tessellations that generalize Resch’s patterns. This is achieved byinserting a tuck structure in the 3D form and numerically solving
the geometric constraints of the developability and local collision (Figure 3). First, we delineate the method for generating the
topology and initial estimate configuration of the tessellation pattern from a given polyhedral surface. Then, we propose a novel,robust method for numerically solving the developable configuration, taking into account the local collisions between facets
sharing vertices. We illustrate design and fabrication examples
based on this method.

We first generate the families of origami tessellations from apolyhedral tessellation. Since the initial polyhedral mesh corresponds to the patterns that appear on the tessellated surface,
the surface can be re-meshed to have a homogeneous or adaptive
tessellation pattern using established algorithms for triangulatingor quadrangulating meshes. Here, we focus on the topologicalcorrectness and the validity of the mountain and valley assignment of fold lines and ignore the validity of the material being an
origami surface.
2c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝Basic Pattern
The basic Resch-type origami tessellation is generated by the insertion of a star-like folded tuck; here, we call such a structure awaterbomb tuck 1 . First, we assume that every vertex of the planar tessellation has an even number of incident edges, and thus
the facets can be colored with two colors (say, red and blue) similar to a checkerboard pattern. For each vertex with 2n ≥ 6 edges,
we insert a star tuck comprising a corrugated triangular fan with
2n triangles surrounding the pivot vertex created on the backside
offset position of the original vertex. The star tuck structures areinserted by splitting facets, where the split occurs only at one of
the sharing vertices of the adjacent facets. The separating vertex is chosen such that from the viewpoint of the vertex, the left
and right incident facets are colored red and blue, respectively(Figure 4 Top).

FIGURE 4. Top: Insertion of a star tuck. Bottom: Vertex with odd
number of incident edges n can be interpreted as the vertex with 2nedges by the insertions of digons between the facets.

For a general tessellation that is not colored into a checkerboard
pattern with a vertex incident to odd number of edges, we color
every facet red and insert a blue digon between each pair of adjacent facets, so that every vertex with n edges is replaced by a
2n-degree vertex (Figure 4 Bottom). This makes it possible forany mesh connectivity to be used as the initial mesh.
In general, there is no guarantee that a developable mesh canbe constructed with this procedure alone. Special well-known
cases, such as regular triangular, quadranglular, and hexagonaltilings allow the construction of developable meshes as shownin Figure 5, when the depth d of the pivot vertex is adjusted toℓ cot π /n, where ℓ is the length of the edges, and 2n is the numberof boundary edges of the star tuck. For a non-planar generalpolyhedron, we use the value of d above and the normal vector atthe vertex for determining the offset position of the pivot vertex.
Then, we parametrically shrink each facet by scaling with respect
to its center by 0 < s ≤ 1. This builds up gaps between facets tomake the connecting tuck in a halfway-unfolded state.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

FIGURE 5. Example tessellations generated from regular planar
tilings. (a) Triangular pattern with regular 6-degree vertices. (b) (c)(d) Triangular, quadrangular, and hexagonal pattern with the insertionof digons.

increased freedom in the design space to flexibly fit to the desired
3D form in the succeeding numerical phase.
Curly Star By adding extra folds to the star tuck, we can havea curly variation of the star tuck. The surface polygons are pulled
together by twisting the star to fit to a surface with an increased
curvature than the original star tucks. Here, the amount of twist
is an additional controllable parameter.

Variations
Figure 6 shows variations of the parametric tuck structures thatcan be used for the construction of origami tessellations. The
regular versions of original star tuck, the truncated star, and thetwist fold are used in Resch’s original works, while the curly staris not.

Twist Fold By flattening the pivot vertex of the curly star, we
can obtain a truncated n-gonal bottom figure with connecting
triangles. This is a 3D interpretation of planar twist tessellations [8, 9]. The amounts of truncation and twist are the additional controllable parameters.

Truncated Star The star shape can be truncated so that thepivot vertex is replaced by a flat n-gon for an n-degree vertex,
and each valley fold is replaced by a triangle between two valley
folds, splitting the fold angle in halves. The amount of truncation is an additional controllable parameter, which allows for

SOLVING CONSTRAINTS
From the generated approximation of folding, a valid origami
surface, and thus, a developable mesh without intersection, isnumerically computed by solving nonlinear equations. The vari-

1 Waterbomb tuck is thus a generalization of waterbomb base used for origami
tessellation3c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝crease patternfolded surface(front)folded surface(back)(a) star(b) truncated star(c) curly star(d) twist fold

FIGURE 6. Variations of the tuck structures for a regular triangular mesh.

where θv,i is the sector angle of the i-th (mod nv ) facet incident
to v. This condition is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for having a one-to-one isometric mapping; thus, the development of the mesh can overlap itself at the boundary. Althoughboundary overlapping does not frequently occur in our generated pattern, we avoid the boundary collision using the following
sufficient condition, similar to the one used for the post processof angle-based flattening [10]. Denote the loop of n0 boundaryedges in counterclockwise, e1 , . . . , en0 . For any portion of theloop, ei , ei+1 , . . . , e j in modulo n0 , the sum of the outer angles isables in this system are coordinates of n vertices x1 , . . . , xn thatcan be represented as a single 3n vector X = (x1 , . . . , xn )T , andthe equations are the developability conditions as in [7]. When
we apply the developability constraints directly, our generated
origami tessellations produce multiple facets intersecting eachother at their sharing vertices (vertex-adjacent facets). The
method proposed in [7] using the simple penalty function for
fold angles suffers from the instability at the singular configuration where the facets are very thin. Also, the approach was
not capable of dealing with intersections between vertex-adjacent
but not edge-adjacent facets. Here, we introduce a novel robust
technique to avoid local intersections between facets based on
constructing angular constraints for edge-adjacent and vertexadjacent facets.

j−1

j−1

v=i

v=i

bi, j (X) = ∑ ∠(ev , ev+1 ) = ∑

(

nv

)

2π − ∑ θv,ℓ + π ≥ 0. (2)ℓ=1Developability Constraints
The isometric mapping of the entire polyhedral disk to a plane isensured by the angular condition of each interior vertex: for eachinterior vertex v with nv incident facets given byThis condition forbids any pair of edges ei and e j on the boundary to form an angle greater than 180◦ clockwise when the edges
appear in a counterclockwise order. In order to satisfy the condition, we extract pairs of edges that do not follow this constraint
from the candidate edges at the point of inflection of the boundary curve. For such pairs we apply constraints bi, j (X) = 0.

nv −1

gv (X) = 2π − ∑ θv,i = 0,

(1)

i=0

4

c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝hpIntersection Constraints

θp,jPairs of facet that can intersect are classified into the following
three types.

j θ

q,j

p
θp,i

1. Edge-adjacent facets, i.e., facets sharing an edge.

i

2. Vertex-adjacent (but not edge-adjacent) facets, i.e., facets
share a vertex but not an edge.

FIGURE 7.

hq
ρi,jθq,i qPair of edge-adjacent facets p and q.

3. Non-adjacent facets, i.e., none of the above.
The global intersection of type 3 is not specific to origami, andsuch an intersection is less frequent than the other two cases.
Such an intersection is comparatively easier to be observed andavoided through the user manipulation by dragging the surface
using the mouse input. In this paper, we focus on the local intersections types 1 and 2, which are specific to origami.

ρEdge-Adjacent Facets Avoiding the intersections between
edge-adjacent facets is straightforward. This can be done bykeeping the fold angle, i.e., the outer angle of the dihedral angle, between adjacent facets in a valid range of [−π , π ]. Since
the configuration described by vertex coordinates cannot distinguish folding angles ρ and ρ + 2π , and thus −π − δ and π − δ ,we use the mountain and valley assignment of fold lines to crop
the angles to (−π /2, 3π /2] for valley folds and (−3π /2, π /2] for
mountain folds. We force the valley and mountain folds to have
cropped fold angle in [0, π ] and [−π , 0], respectively.

FIGURE 8. Left: Fold angle ρ (x) of the vertex between two fixed
points. Note the singularity at the end points. Right: Modified angular
evaluation f p,q (x).

A straightforward representation of the aforementioned condition is to directly use the fold angle as the constraint equation
as in [7]: for any foldline with fold angle ρ exceeding the limit
fold angle ρlimit , ρi, j − ρlimit = 0. However, this can make thecalculation unstable since ρ is undefined at degenerated configurations in which one of the facets is too thin to have a reliablenormal vector. In order to avoid such an instability, we modify
the constraint as( ρρlimit )i, j− sin
h p hq = 0,
f p,q (X) = 2 sin
22Vertex-Adjacent Facets The constraints mentioned above
cannot deal with the local collision between facets sharing a vertex if a vertex is shared by more than four facets (Figure 9 Left).
The intersection problem at a single vertex is essentially equivalent to that of a 2D closed chain, e.g., an unfolding algorithm of a
2D chain can be applied in the unfolding of a single vertex [11].
An unfolding algorithm of a 2D chain uses a barrier function to
avoid self intersection [12]. Our approach is similarly based on
the energy-driven approach, however, we use a penalty function
instead of a barrier function that would make the solution uniqueand forbid searching of the entire solution space; the forbidden
configuration includes an interesting boundary case in which afoldline touches a facet. Our approach is to construct an appropriate penalty function whose value stays zero when the configuration is valid and continuously increases when a foldline sinks
into a facet. Note that the method we propose only applies tointerior vertices and provides only a necessary condition. The
limitation comes from that a penalty function temporarily allows(3)

where h p and hq are the relative heights of triangles p and q,
respectively, measured from the sharing base edge ei, j (Figure7). This can be written as

f p,q =)(
ρ
2 sin 2i, j − sin ρlimit2
cot θ p,i cot θ p, j cot θq,i cot θq, j

.

h1

h2
ρ

(4)

Figure 8 illustrates ρ (x) and f p,q (x) when the axis projected to x
can freely move between fixed edges drawn as fixed points.
5

c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝

vi+1

vi+2

αο,i,i+1

vo

vi

vi−1
FIGURE 11. View angle αo,i,i+1 and the vectors.
FIGURE 9. Left: Local collision between vertex-adjacent facets.
Right: Mesh after the penalty function is applied to avoid the intersection.

(Figure 11).

αo,i,i+1 = arctanInterior

Exterior

Valley Fold (ρ>0)

Mountain Fold (ρ<0)

FIGURE 10.

∥(vo × vi ) × (vo × vi+1 )∥(vo × vi ) · (vo × vi+1 )(5)This per-edge method successfully detects the cases when theconfiguration is close to valid, whereas two pairs of facets intersecting each other simultaneously could fail to be detected as aninvalid case using the method (Figure 10 Right).

Detection Failed

The configuration can be modified using a penalty function foreach invalid foldline to pull back to a position on the closest
boundary. We form such a function using an angular measurement similar to Equation 3 to represent the distance between vo
and the facet spanning vi and vi+1 .

Detection of invalid vertices.

for the intersection and there is no obvious way to unfold it if theintersection is too far to be fixed.

do,i,i+1 = (1 + cos αo,i,i+1 ) ∥vo × vi ∥ ∥vo × vi+1 ∥= cos ∠(vi , vi+1 ) − cos(∠(vo , vi ) + ∠(vo , vi+1 )) (6)First, the intersection of facets sharing a vertex v can be detectedby finding an “invalid foldline” as follows. We first cut a unit
sphere with the facet fan and call the portion of the sphere witharea smaller than 2π the “interior.” Without the loss of generality,
we assume that the front side of the surface is in this direction.
Since the vertex is developable, the interior portion stays withina hemisphere and thus remains to be interior throughout the folding motion.

The constraints for the total facet fan can be represented using
the harmonic mean of the distance functions.
fo (X) =For each foldline, we derive another facet fan by removing thetwo incident facets and capping the gap by a new triangular facet.
We can similarly construct the portion by intersecting the derived
facet fan with a unit sphere, which also stays within the hemisphere. The foldline is detected as invalid when either (1) the
foldline has a positive fold angle ρ > 0 (valley fold) and is located in the interior of the derived facet fan, or (2) the foldline
has a negative fold angle ρ < 0 (mountain fold) and is locatedon the exterior of the derived facet fan (Figure 10). An edge is
detected to be interior of a facet fan if the sum of the view angle ∑ni v −1 αo,i,i+1 of each facet around the edge equals 2π andexterior if they sum up to 0. The view angle from an edge represented by a vector vo to the facet spanning two vectors vi andvi+1 , where the vectors are normalized, is calculated as follows

nv − 1nv −1
1∑ido,i,i+1(7)

Figure 12 illustrates an example of the resulting penalty function.

Numerical Solution
We solve the nonlinear constraints and penalty function given
by equations g, b, and f in an iterative manner. The equations
are given as a vector g(X) = 0 . We solve the geometric constraints based on the generalized Newton-Raphson method using the search direction of −C(Xi )+ g(Xi ) for each step, where
C(X)+ is the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of the Jacobianmatrix C(X). Since the constraints are the function of angles θ6c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝

v4

v2
v3
v1
v5
v7

v6

v8

FIGURE 12. Penalty function given from a star-like facet fan. Illustrated on a plane by the Gnomonic projection of the spherical surface.

and ρ between edges and facets, this is calculated by
C(X) =∂ g(X) ∂ g(θ , ρ ) ∂ θ ∂ g(θ , ρ ) ∂ ρ
=
+
.
∂X
∂θ
∂X
∂ρ
∂X

(8)

We use the conjugate gradient method for each step to calculate
the least norm search direction.

Fitting
The geometric constraints are generally less than the variables
and the system constructs a multi-dimensional solution spacewithin which we can search for the solutions that look attractive
and are desirable. This can be done in an interactive manner asin [7], using the initial deformation mode ∆X0 arbitrarily givenby the user through a 2D input device.
[]∆X = I − C(X)+ C(X) ∆X0

FIGURE 13. Example designs of bell shape, hyperbolic surface (anticlastic), and spherical surface (synclastic) from star-tuck origami tessellations.

(9)Here, ∆X is the modified deformation mode projected to the constructed solution space.

DESIGN

In order to obtain a surface closest to the original polyhedral surface, we can set the fitness function and use its gradient as theinitial deformation mode. An example fitness function is givenby the distance of vertices on the outer positions to that of theoriginal polyhedral surface. For each vertex of the upper facets
whose coordinate is x, we set the target position xtarg by referringto the initial positions of the generated surface. We set the fitness
function

Figures 13 and 14 show example designs of freeform origami
tessellations approximating double-curved surfaces in a halfwayfolded state, which are made possible for the first time with theproposed method. The results demonstrate the flexibility in thedesign of the origami tessellations.
There is a drawback that the optimization process does not guarantee the convergence to a valid solution; it fails to obtain avalid configuration without intersection when the initial polyhedral surface is “far” from a developable surface.. Figure 15
shows an example that fails to yield a valid origami tessellation.
Here, the tuck structures are too large at the boundary, and the intersections between facets are no longer avoidable. This implies
that the problem is not specific to our proposed method, but isgenerally attributed to the fact that a non-developable surface is()
targ Td = ∑ (1 − w)n + w(xv − xtarg(xv − xtargv )/ xv − xv
v ),
v

(10)
where n is the normal vector at the original vertex position and
0 ≤ w ≤ 1 is the weight for the distance measured perpendicular
to the normal vector.
7

c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝FIGURE 14. Blobby surface realized from a single developable surface.

FIGURE 17. Tessellated origami bunny using the initial cut of themesh.

terial does not allow for a π folding, we can design the origami
tessellations by modifying the intersection avoidance condition
for edge-adjacent facets by using the limit of π − δ instead of π .

FIGURE 15.
tion

The developability condition does not generally ensure the existence of a continuous folding motion from a planar sheet toa folded 3D form without the stretch of the material or the relocation of the creases; such a folding mechanism without the
deformation of each facet is termed rigid origami. The resulting
origami tessellation forms a rigid origami with multiple degrees
of freedom when non-triangular facet is triangulated because thenumber of degrees of freedom of generic triangular mesh homeomorphic to a disk is calculated as Eo − 3, where Eo is the numberof edges on the boundary of the mesh [13], whereas the configuration space is potentially disconnected because of the local andglobal collisions between facets, in which case, the folding froma planar state to the 3D form does not exist.

Spherical origami tessellation failing to avoid intersec-

We checked this continuity of folding using Rigid Origami Simulator by unfolding the resulting 3D form to a planar sheet; someresulting patterns were successfully unfolded to a planar sheet
without local and global collision (Figure 19), whereas otherpatterns encountered a global collision of facets. Even though
we were not able to characterize the continuity of rigid origami
folding motion, the patterns from our method have far better
manufacturability than the ones from Origamizer method, whichis completely locked and cannot even fold infinitesimally in afolded state. The results suggest that the method is potentiallyapplicable to the manufacturing of an arbitrary 3D form from ahard metal sheet or panels.

FIGURE 16. Spherical origami with cuts.

realized by virtually shrinking the surface with the cost of accumulating the size of the tuck. Such an accumulated error can be
reduced by appropriately adding cuts to the initial polyhedron,and thus by locating the position of the boundary of the paper(Figures 16 and 17).

FABRICATIONThe resulting origami tessellations can be physically fabricatedby first grooving or perforating a sheet of material along thecrease pattern generated as a vector data using 2-axis CNC machines such as a cutting plotter and laser cutter, and then folding
the sheet along the marked foldlines (Figure 18). When the ma-

CONCLUSION
We presented an approach for the design of freeform variationsof Resch-like origami tessellations from a given polyhedral sur8

c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝FIGURE 19.

Continuous unfolding motion from a 3D form to a planar sheet.

[3] Miura, K., 1970. “Proposition of pseudo-cylindrical concave polyhedral shells”. In Proceedings of IASS Symposium on Folded Plates and Prismatic Structures.
[4] Davis, E., Demaine, E. D., Demaine, M. L., and Ramseyer,J., 2013. “Reconstructing david huffman’s origami tessellations”. In Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International
Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers
and Information in Engineering Conference.
[5] Resch, R. D., 1968. Self-supporting structural unit having
a series of repetitious geometrical modules. United States
Patent No. 3,407,558.

FIGURE 18. Example folding of a perforated steel sheet.

[6] Resch, R. D., and Christiansen, H., 1970. “The design andanalysis of kinematic folded plate systems”. In Proceedings of IASS Symposium on Folded Plates and Prismatic
Structures.

face. We presented the concept of star tucks and the variational
tuck structures to be inserted between polygonal facets to construct a variation of tessellated surfaces. Such a generated surface is then optimized to make the surface developable and also
non-intersecting at the vertices. We showed a penalty function
for robustly calculating the intersections between vertex-adjacentfacets. The method results in novel designs of freeform origami
tessellations that neither Origamizer nor Freeform Origami could
achieve.

[7] Tachi, T., 2010. “Freeform variations of origami”. Journalfor Geometry and Graphics, 14(2), pp. 203–215.
[8] Bateman, A., 2002. “Computer tools and algorithms fororigami tessellation design”. In Origami3: Proceedings ofthe 3rd International Meeting of Origami Mathematics, Science, and Education, pp. 121–127.
[9] Lang, R. J., and Bateman, A., 2011. “Every spider web
has a simple flat twist tessellation”. In Origami5 , P. WangIverson, R. J. Lang, and M. Yim, eds., CRC Press, pp. 455–
473.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the JST Presto program.

[10] Sheffer, A., and de Sturler, E., 2001. “Parameterization of
faceted surfaces for meshing using angle-based flattening”.
Engineering with Computers, 17(3), pp. 326–337.

REFERENCES[1] Tachi, T., 2010. “Origamizing polyhedral surfaces”. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
16(2), march, pp. 298–311.

[11] Streinu, I., and Whiteley, W., 2005. “Single-vertex origami
and spherical expansive motions”. In Lecture Notes in
Computer Science 3742, pp. 161–173.

[2] Fujimoto, S., 1976. “Souzousei wo kaihatsu suru rittai
origami” (in Japanese). Hyougo-ken Gakkou Kouseikai
Tamba Shibu.

[12] Cantarella, J. H., Demaine, E. D., Iben, H. N., and O’Brien,
J. F., 2004. “An energy-driven approach to linkage unfold9

c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝ing”. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium on
Computational Geometry, pp. 134–143.
[13] Tachi, T., 2009. “Simulation of rigid origami”. In Origami4 :The Fourth International Conference on Origami in Science, Mathematics, and Education, R. Lang, ed., A K Peters, pp. 175–187.

10

c 2013 by ASME
Copyright ⃝