Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 43 references

OriStitch: A Machine Embroidery Workflow to Turn Existing Fabrics into Self-Folding 3D Textiles

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Machine-embroidered heat-shrinking hinges can fold a flat sheet of ordinary fabric into a locked 3D textile, and a software tool converts a 3D mesh into stitch patterns automatically.

desk verdict A genuinely useful embroidery-based self-folding workflow with sound geometry, but the headline 'fully close' claim needs real measurements before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02891 v2 pith:OX7H3L2V submitted 2024-12-03 cs.HC

Zekun Chang , Yixuan Gao , Yuta Noma , Shuo Feng , Xinyi Yang , Kazuhiro Shinoda , Tung D. Ta , Koji Yatani
show 6 more authors
Tomoyuki Yokota Takao Someya Yoshihiro Kawahara Koya Narumi Francois Guimbretiere Thijs Roumen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords self-foldingtextilesmachineembroideryheat-shrinkingthreadcomputationalfabricationorigamifoldingmulti-hooping3Dmeshunfoldingshape-changingmaterials
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

OriStitch is a computational fabrication workflow that claims to turn a flat piece of off-the-shelf fabric into a self-folding 3D textile by machine embroidering heat-shrinking thread in a specific hinge pattern, then applying hot water and a heat gun. Its hinges, anchored by lock stitches and pre-creased by fold stitches, are designed to close fully and lock when the thread shrinks, and a software tool converts an OBJ mesh into laser-cutting and embroidery machine instructions, including a greedy multi-hooping layout for small machines. This matters because previous self-folding textiles need manual hinge placement or specialty materials, whereas OriStitch works with ordinary leather, woven fabric, cork, and felt and integrates with existing sewing and embroidery workflows. The full-text evaluation reports converting 26 of 28 benchmark models and fabricating a cap, a handbag, and a vase cover with up to 338 hinges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the embroidered hinge: a pair of heat-shrinking polyester threads stitched between neighboring faces, held at the ends by lock stitches, guided along each face by channel stitches, and pre-creased by a zigzag fold stitch that sets the mountain or valley direction. The geometry is governed by a shrinkage balance, $0.3T=2h$, where $T$ is the total active-thread length and $h$ is the height of material to tuck away; the paper solves this balance into a feasible-height window and selects $h=(273/2720)W_a+(111/680)d_{in}$ with a 2 mm floor for reliable closure. A two-stage classifier assigns each edge a gap type $T(w,L)$ using the thresholds $R_{narrow}=0.25$, $R_{medium}=0.3$, and $G_{close}=2.0$ mm, which selects among four hinge types: a plain crease for zero gap, a narrow hinge, a medium wrap-around hinge, and a wide harmonica-fold hinge. The software side carries the argument by extending a planar-unfolding optimizer with a one-sided quadratic minimum-distance penalty and then tiling the layout into embroidery hoops with a greedy set-cover algorithm.

What would settle it

Embroider the widest type-3 hinge on a 2 mm Neoprene sheet with the specified heat-shrinking thread, actuate it in boiling water, and photograph the hinge from the side: if the faces visibly buckle or the final angle deviates from the intended closed position by more than about 5 degrees, the rigid-face premise on which full closure rests is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an embroidered hinge made from a polyester thread that shrinks about 30% under heat, with lock stitches anchoring the thread on adjacent faces and fold stitches pre-creasing the edge, will close fully and stay locked, so the faces meet at the intended dihedral angle. By classifying each hinge edge by its width relative to the available shrinking path using thresholds $R_{narrow}=0.25$, $R_{medium}=0.3$, and $G_{close}=2.0$ mm, the tool selects among four hinge types, from a plain crease to a harmonica-fold hinge for wide gaps, and derives a feasible hinge height from the shrinkage balance $0.3T=2h$. The accompanying software extends the planar unfolding of a 3D mesh with a tunable minimum-distance penalty and a greedy set-cover multi-hooping algorithm, exporting files that drive a laser cutter and an embroidery machine. As evidence, the paper reports fabricating a cap with 303 hinges, a handbag with 338 hinges, and a vase cover with 140 hinges, and converting 26 of 28 models from related work into machine instructions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method assumes the embroidered faces stay rigid like panels while the shrinking threads pull them together; the paper calls this a fair assumption and never measures how stiff a stitched face actually is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A flat sheet of ordinary fabric becomes a self-folding 3D object after embroidery, hot-water pre-creasing, and optional heat-gun finishing, with no manual hinge placement required.
  • Small embroidery machines can handle large patterns because the tool subdivides the stitch pattern into hoops while preserving the hinge fabrication sequence.
  • Shapes that are not topological disks can still be produced by cutting the mesh and sewing the seams afterward, as demonstrated with a torus in the evaluation.
  • The same hinge recipe works across suede leather, cork, Neoprene, and felt, with thicker materials needing a thicker active thread and softer materials approaching the failure limit.
  • The conversion pipeline fails cleanly on models whose edge lengths fall below the 8.4 mm resolution, warning the user instead of producing a broken fabrication file.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the hinge geometry is derived purely from the 30% shrinkage factor, the same constraint equations could be reused with any active thread whose shrinkage is measured, though the paper only notes this in passing.
  • The boundary-softness problem that forced a sewn-on 3D printed rim suggests a testable all-fabric extension: stitch a channel along the boundary and insert a stiff filament after actuation to replace the printed rim.
  • The two conversion failures are attributed to re-triangulation at the minimum resolution, which implies that models with very small features could become convertible by refining machine-specific safety margins rather than changing the folding physics.
  • The four hinge types and the conversion benchmark could be reused by future self-folding textile work as a standard test: a new actuator or thread can be validated by whether it closes the same hinge taxonomy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. OriStitch is a computational fabrication workflow that converts a 3D OBJ mesh into a flat 2D embroidery pattern on an existing fabric, using machine-embroidered heat-shrinking threads as hinges. When the sheet is heated, the hinges are claimed to fully close, folding the fabric into the target 3D shape. The paper contributes a four-type hinge design, a software tool based on Origamizer with a distance penalty and a multi-hooping layout algorithm, and demonstrations on a cap (303 hinges), a handbag (338 hinges), and a vase cover (140 hinges). Technical evaluation reports a 26/28 conversion rate on models from related work and qualitative folding tests on suede leather, cork, Neoprene, and felt.

Significance. Assuming the physical hinge claim holds, OriStitch is a significant and timely contribution: it extends Origamizer to embroidery, supports off-the-shelf fabrics, and produces fabrication-ready SVG files, meaningfully lowering the barrier to creating self-folding 3D textiles. The geometric derivation in Section 4.1.3 (Eqs. 1-12) is internally consistent and parameter-free given the vendor's 30% shrinkage specification, and the O(N^4) bound for the greedy multi-hooping algorithm is correct. The three application artifacts are large-scale demonstrations that go beyond prior work. The principal weakness is that the central 'fully close and lock in place' claim is supported only by qualitative, single-sample observations, and the paper itself documents exceptions (cork gap, Neoprene buckling, boundary rim). The contribution is therefore promising but not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.2.3; 6; 7.1] The central assertion of Section 1 that 'the specific design of OriStitch hinges allows them to fully close and lock in place' is not established by the evaluation. Section 5.2.3 reports only qualitative outcomes ('managed to close') for one sample per material (Table 2) and immediately notes a 'slight gap' for cork and 'inward buckling' for Neoprene. Section 6 reports that the boundary edge 'is not as tightly folded as the other hinges' and needed a sewn 3D-printed rim; Section 7.1 repeats that boundary faces remain as flexible as the underlying fabric. The paper reports no fold-angle measurements, no repeated trials, and no statistical summary. Because the 3D-printed rim is an external support, the demonstrated artifacts are not pure confirmations of the self-folding hinge claim. This gap is load-bearing for contribution (2), the hinge design.
  2. [5.1.2; 5.1.3; Table 1] The headline conversion rate '26/28 of the models will correctly fabricate' (Section 5.1.3) conflates software conversion with physical fabricability. The evaluation reports only that OriStitch generated stitch patterns for the models in Figure 14; most of those models were not fabricated, and the success criterion 'correctly fabricate' is never defined. Section 5.1.2 also states that 14/28 models were remeshed and 6/28 were scaled because their original scale was not evident, but no objective criteria are given for these pre-processing choices. As a result, the 26/28 number is difficult to interpret or reproduce.
  3. [4.1.2] The hinge-type classification thresholds R_narrow=0.25, R_medium=0.3, and G_close=2.0 in the definition of T(w,L) are presented as 'predefined design thresholds' without derivation or sensitivity analysis. The mapping from gap-type pairs to hinge types (for example, (1,2) maps to type 1, (2,2) maps to type 2) is justified only by 'practical manufacturing constraints' and the claimed rarity of error cases. Since this classification determines every hinge in the output, and since Section 5.2 documents material-dependent folding failures (buckling and gaps), the paper should provide a mechanical rationale or at least a sensitivity study for these thresholds.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5.1.3] The abstract reports a conversion rate of 23/28, while the body text and Section 5 report 26/28; these numbers must be reconciled.
  2. [Section 8] The conclusion says '26/28 models ... are supported' and then refers to 'the remaining five models'; with 28 models, only two remain.
  3. [Section 4.4.2] The text says OriStitch 'computes the minimal number of vertical or horizontal hoop placements' but then correctly notes the set-covering problem is NP-hard and uses a greedy heuristic; the wording should say 'approximates the minimal number'.
  4. [Figure 9] The caption contains a leftover placeholder 'update with new picture' and should be replaced.
  5. [Figure 11] The caption uses 'hoping' instead of 'hooping'.
  6. [References] References [26] and [27] are the same publication; one should be removed and the in-text citations updated.
  7. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'heat gut treatment' should read 'heat gun treatment'.
  8. [Section 4.4.1] The distance penalty weight lambda in Eq. (13) is user-defined, but no default value or guidance for setting it is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivations: hinge geometry follows from vendor-specified shrinkage and geometric constraints, mesh conversion rests on an external origami algorithm, and folding is externally verified.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain and found no step that reduces to its own input by construction. The hinge-height derivation (Section 4.1.3, Eqs. 1-12) starts from the vendor-specified 30% shrinkage of the Chizimi thread and solves for the hinge height from geometric constraints; no parameter is fitted to make the hinges fold, and the actual closure is tested on physical samples rather than derived from the model. The mesh-to-stitch-pattern conversion is built on Tachi's Origamizer algorithm [36], an external and previously published geometric construction, and the paper augments it with an explicit distance penalty (Eq. 13); the 26/28 conversion benchmark draws on models from four related papers, including some from the authors' earlier Inkjet 4D Print work [29], but the benchmark also includes three external sources, and two models failed, so the success rate is not forced by the tool's own definitions or by self-citation. The physical claims about hinge closure are limited and qualitative -- Section 5.2.3 reports a slight gap for cork and inward buckling for Neoprene, and Section 6 requires a sewn 3D-printed rim because boundary edges do not fold as tightly -- but these are empirical limitations and evidence-quality concerns, not circularity. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not import a load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz result from its own prior work. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of stated assumptions: the vendor-specified 30% thread shrinkage (which sizes every hinge via Eq. 1), the rigidity of stitched fabric faces (Section 7.1), the inherited foldability guarantee of Tachi's Origamizer, and the fabric's tolerance of water and 350+ degree heat. The hinge-type thresholds G_close, R_narrow, R_medium and the user weight lambda are hand-chosen design heuristics, not fitted values. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • G_close = 2.0 mm
    Hinge width threshold below which a side is classified as no-gap in the two-stage hinge type classifier (Section 4.1.2). Hand-chosen design threshold.
  • R_narrow = 0.25
    Width-to-length ratio threshold separating narrow from medium hinge sides (Section 4.1.2). Hand-chosen design threshold.
  • R_medium = 0.3
    Width-to-length ratio threshold above which a hinge side is classified as wide (Section 4.1.2). Hand-chosen design threshold.
  • lambda (distance penalty weight) = user-defined
    Weight of the minimum-distance penalty in the flattened-layout objective (Eq. 13, Section 4.4.1). User-tuned; no default value or sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Chizimi polyester thread shrinks by 30% of its length when heated to about 350 degrees Fahrenheit.
    Sizes all hinge geometry through 0.3T = 2h (Section 4.1.3, Eq. 1); sourced from the vendor product page, not measured by the authors.
  • domain assumption Faces of the stitched fabric remain rigid while the hinges fold.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 7.1; the authors acknowledge boundary faces stay flexible and had to add a 3D printed rim to the application models (Section 6).
  • standard math Tachi's Origamizer mapping produces a valid, non-overlapping, foldable flat layout for disk-equivalent meshes.
    The OriStitch converter extends Origamizer's two-phase mapping and inherits its foldability properties (Section 4.4.1); the added distance penalty is asserted to preserve solver convergence.
  • domain assumption The fabric survives boiling water and temperatures above 350 degrees Fahrenheit during actuation.
    Actuation is by hot water bath and heat gun (Sections 4.2.1, 4.3); this restricts compatible materials, a limitation acknowledged in Section 2.
  • domain assumption A continuous folding motion exists for the generated crease patterns.
    Section 7.3 notes it is 'a typical problem in Origami' to know whether valid folding motions exist, yet the sequential heat-gun actuation assumes the hinges can be closed into the target shape.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OriStitch: A Machine Embroidery Workflow to Turn Existing Fabrics into Self-Folding 3D Textiles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OX7H3L2V

@misc{pith2026241202891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OriStitch: A Machine Embroidery Workflow to Turn Existing Fabrics into Self-Folding 3D Textiles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OX7H3L2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02891}
}
read the original abstract

OriStitch is a computational fabrication workflow to turn existing flat fabrics into self-folding 3D structures. Users turn fabrics into self-folding sheets by machine embroidering functional threads in specific patterns on fabrics, and then apply heat to deform the structure into a target 3D structure. OriStitch is compatible with a range of existing materials (e.g., leather, woven fabric, and denim). We present the design of specific embroidered hinges that fully close under exposure to heat. We discuss the stitch pattern design, thread and fabric selection, and heating conditions. To allow users to create 3D textiles using our hinges, we create a tool to convert 3D meshes to 2D stitch patterns automatically, as well as an end-to-end fabrication and actuation workflow. To validate this workflow, we designed and fabricated a cap (303 hinges), a handbag (338 hinges), and a cover for an organically shaped vase (140 hinges). In technical evaluation, we found that our tool successfully converted 23/28 models (textures and volumetric objects) found in related papers. We also demonstrate the folding performance across different materials (suede leather, cork, Neoprene, and felt).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02891 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. OriStitch turns existing fabrics into self-folding structures using machine embroidery. It consists of a software tool and a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the OriStitch workflow. heat-shrinking thread are fixed on a pair of adjacent faces by so-called lock stitches. So that under heat treatment, as the active thread shrinks, the two faces will join. Each edge contains two parallel shrinking threads to uniformly close hinges. The so-called channel stitches guide the shrinking thread on the faces. The fold stitches are zigzag patterns with non-shrinking t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The basic hinge principle, (a) from above, (b) from the side, and (c) when actuated. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hinge types of increasing width (a) no hinge, just a fold between faces (b) simple hinge (c) extended by sharing lock stitches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a)The shrinking thread of neighboring faces (here red, green, and blue) overlaps on each face to share channel and lock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A simplified hinge pair with all technical dimensions labeled. Variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The minimum size of a face to convert to OriStitch hinges is 8.4mm, constrained by the (machine-specific) size of the needle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fabrication workflow involves (a) laser cutting to score hinges and cut away excess material (b) and then embroidery. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: update with new picture: The last steps of the workflow, (a) dissolving the soluble thread, (b) pre-creasing the hinges in boiled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The calibration gauge is a minimal hinge; we recommend increasing the actuation temperature from 300 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Users load the OBJ model (left), which produces the stitch pattern on the right. Users see these at the same time, and can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: OriStitch supports multi-hooping to make the design work reliably on user’s specific machines. (b) It takes care of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Hierarchical structure of the exported SVG file: top-level hoop layers, stitch-type subgroups, and path ordering.(b) zoomed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The results of our evaluation. The colors refer to the different origins of the papers: orange [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The stitch pattern to evaluate the different materials. The different hinge types are labeled in the figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evaluated hinges and materials. 5.2.4 Discussion. OriStitch hinges worked reliably across material samples. For thicker materials, we do recommend using a thicker heat-actuated thread as the tension in the thread appeared to be the limiting factor for the thicker, les…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Conversion of application models: (a) cap, (b) bag, (c) vase cover, and (d) the final fabricated artifacts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Muhammad Abdullah, Martin Taraz, Yannis Kommana, Shohei Katakura, Robert Kovacs, Jotaro Shigeyama, Thijs Roumen, and Patrick Baudisch

    work page

  2. [2]

    Byoungkwon An, Ye Tao, Jianzhe Gu, Tingyu Cheng, Xiang’Anthony’ Chen, Xiaoxiao Zhang, Wei Zhao, Youngwook Do, Shigeo Takahashi, Hsiang-Yun Wu, et al. 2018. Thermorph: Democratizing 4D printing of self-folding materials and interfaces. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Alexandre Binninger, Floor Verhoeven, Philipp Herholz, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. 2021. Developable Approximation via Gauss Image Thinning. Computer Graphics Forum40, 5 (2021), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14374 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.14374

    doi:10.1111/cgf.14374 2021

  4. [4]

    Samira Boon. 2015. Super Folds. https://samplestudio.textiellab.nl/samples/samira-boon-super-folds-a19-a60-n29

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Bastian Brenken, Eduardo Barocio, Anthony Favaloro, Vlastimil Kunc, and R Byron Pipes. 2018. Fused filament fabrication of fiber-reinforced polymers: A review.Additive Manufacturing21 (2018), 1–16

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Cane and J

    O. Cane and J. Hodges. 1985.Smocking, Traditional and Modern Approach(first ed.). B T Batsford Ltd

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    Himani Deshpande, Haruki Takahashi, and Jeeeun Kim. 2021. EscapeLoom: Fabricating New Affordances for Hand Weaving. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445600

    arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    Gostelow

    M. Gostelow. 2003.The Complete Guide to Needlework, Technique and Materials. QUANTUM PUBLISHING. 1st edition

    work page 2003

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    Ruslan Guseinov, Eder Miguel, and Bernd Bickel. 2017. CurveUps: shaping objects from flat plates with tension-actuated curvature.ACM Trans. Graph.36, 4, Article 64 (jul 2017), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073709

    2017

  2. [11]

    M. Hall. 2008.Smocks (Shire Library). Shire. 4th edition

    2008

  3. [12]

    Claire Harvey, Emily Holtzman, Joy Ko, Brooks Hagan, Rundong Wu, Steve Marschner, and David Kessler. 2019. Weaving objects: spatial design and functionality of 3D-woven textiles. InACM SIGGRAPH 2019 Art Gallery. ACM, Los Angeles California, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306211.3320137

    2019

  4. [13]

    2022.Handbook of embroidery

    Louis Higgin. 2022.Handbook of embroidery. DigiCat

    2022

  5. [14]

    Megan Hofmann, Lea Albaugh, Tongyan Wang, Jennifer Mankoff, and Scott E Hudson. 2023. KnitScript: A Domain-Specific Scripting Language for Advanced Machine Knitting. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, San Francisco CA...

    2023

  6. [15]

    Yuki Igarashi, Takeo Igarashi, and Hiromasa Suzuki. 2008. Knitting a 3D Model.Computer Graphics Forum27, 7 (2008), 1737–1743. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2008.01318.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2008.01318.x

    2008

  7. [16]

    W. O. W. inc. 2014. ISSEY MIYAKE “Steam Stretch” Concept Movie. https://vimeo.com/108092253

    2014

  8. [17]

    David Jourdan, Pierre-Alexandre Hugron, Camille Schreck, Jonàs Martínez, and Sylvain Lefebvre. 2023. Shrink & Morph: 3D-Printed Self-Shaping Shells Actuated by a Shape Memory Effect.ACM Trans. Graph.42, 6, Article 187 (dec 2023), 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3618386

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Edmund M Keefe, Jack A Thomas, Gary A Buller, and Craig E Banks. 2022. Textile additive manufacturing: An overview.Cogent Engineering9, 1 (2022), 2048439

    2022

  10. [19]

    Hannah Carlotta Koch, David Schmelzeisen, and Thomas Gries. 2021. 4D textiles made by additive manufacturing on pre-stressed textiles—An overview. InActuators, Vol. 10. MDPI, 31

    2021

  11. [20]

    Rosalie Hsin-Ju Lin, Jack Forman, and Ishii Hiroshi. 2021. RandomPuff: 4D Embroidered Puffer. https://ifdesign.com/en/winner-ranking/project/ randompuff/579812

    2021

  12. [21]

    Malin Lind. 2019. Smocked patterns: An exploration of jacquard woven patterns and smocking techniques for a spatial textile design context

    2019

  13. [22]

    Zijian Luo, Zixiang Hong, Xiaoyu Ge, Junling Zhuang, Xin Tang, Zhehan Du, Yue Tao, Yuyang Zhang, Chuyi Zhou, Cheng Yang, and Ye Tao. 2023. Embroiderer: Do-It-Yourself Embroidery Aided with Digital Tools. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Chinese CHI. ACM...

    2023

  14. [23]

    Ella Moore, Michael Porter, Ioannis Karamouzas, and Victor Zordan. 2018. Precision control of tensile properties in fabric for computational fabrication. InSCF ’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3213512.3213514

    2018

  15. [24]

    Stefanie Mueller, Anna Seufert, Huaishu Peng, Robert Kovacs, Kevin Reuss, François Guimbretière, and Patrick Baudisch. 2019. FormFab: Continuous Interactive Fabrication. InProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. A...

    2019

  16. [25]

    Kirk, and Peter Wright

    Sara Nabil, Jan Kučera, Nikoletta Karastathi, David S. Kirk, and Peter Wright. 2019. Seamless Seams: Crafting Techniques for Embedding Fabrics with Interactive Actuation. InProceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference(San Diego, CA, USA)(DIS ’19). Associ...

    2019

  17. [27]

    Ayesha Nabila, Hua Ma, and Junichi Yamaoka. 2023. 4D Embroidery: Implementing Parametric Structures in Textiles for Sculptural Embroidery. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2022 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and the 2022 ACM International ...

    2023

  18. [28]

    Vidya Narayanan, Lea Albaugh, Jessica Hodgins, Stelian Coros, and James Mccann. 2018. Automatic Machine Knitting of 3D Meshes.ACM Trans. Graph.37, 3, Article 35 (aug 2018), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3186265

    2018 doi

  19. [29]

    Koya Narumi, Kazuki Koyama, Kai Suto, Yuta Noma, Hiroki Sato, Tomohiro Tachi, Masaaki Sugimoto, Takeo Igarashi, and Yoshihiro Kawahara

  20. [30]

    Julian Panetta, Florin Isvoranu, Tian Chen, Emmanuel Siéfert, Benoît Roman, and Mark Pauly. 2021. Computational inverse design of surface-based inflatables.ACM Trans. Graph.40, 4, Article 40 (jul 2021), 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450626.3459789

    2021

  21. [31]

    Alenka Pavko-Čuden, Darja Rant, Alenka Pavko-Čuden, and Darja Rant. 2017. Multifunctional Foldable Knitted Structures: Fundamentals, Advances and Applications. InTextiles for Advanced Applications. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69292

    2017 doi

  22. [32]

    Jing Ren, Aviv Segall, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. 2024. Digital Three-dimensional Smocking Design.ACM Trans. Graph.43, 2, Article 14 (jan 2024), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3631945

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    Aviv Segall, Jing Ren, Amir Vaxman, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. 2024. Fabric Tessellation: Realizing Freeform Surfaces by Smocking.ACM Trans. Graph.43, 4, Article 89 (jul 2024), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3658151

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    Anna Sitnikova, Bernard Foing, Anastasia Izotova, Alexander Zaklynsky, Samira Boon, Matthew James, Germaine Sanden, Elise Clavé, and Louis Dubois. 2018. Self Deployable Origami for MoonMars Architecture. (Sept. 2018), EPSC2018–905. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EPSC......

    2018

  25. [35]

    Georgi Stoychev, Mir Jalil Razavi, Xianqiao Wang, and Leonid Ionov. 2017. 4D origami by smart embroidery.Macromolecular rapid communications 38, 18 (2017), 1700213

    2017

  26. [36]

    Tomohiro Tachi. 2010. Origamizing Polyhedral Surfaces.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics16, 2 (2010), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2009.67

    2010 doi

  27. [37]

    Ye Tao, Yi-Chin Lee, Haolin Liu, Xiaoxiao Zhang, Jianxun Cui, Catherine Mondoa, Mahnoush Babaei, Jasio Santillan, Guanyun Wang, Danli Luo, et al. 2021. Morphing pasta and beyond.Science Advances7, 19 (2021), eabf4098

    2021

  28. [38]

    Guanyun Wang, Fang Qin, Haolin Liu, Ye Tao, Yang Zhang, Yongjie Jessica Zhang, and Lining Yao. 2020. MorphingCircuit: An integrated design, simulation, and fabrication workflow for self-morphing electronics.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous...

    2020

  29. [39]

    Kui Wu, Hannah Swan, and Cem Yuksel. 2019. Knittable Stitch Meshes.ACM Trans. Graph.38, 1, Article 10 (jan 2019), 13 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3292481

    2019 doi

  30. [40]

    Rundong Wu, Claire Harvey, Joy Xiaoji Zhang, Sean Kroszner, Brooks Hagan, and Steve Marschner. 2020. Automatic structure synthesis for 3D woven relief.ACM Transactions on Graphics39, 4 (Aug. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3386569.3392449

    2020

  31. [41]

    Rundong Wu, Joy Xiaoji Zhang, Jonathan Leaf, Xinru Hua, Ante Qu, Claire Harvey, Emily Holtzman, Joy Ko, Brooks Hagan, Doug James, François Guimbretière, and Steve Marschner. 2020. Weavecraft: an interactive design and simulation tool for 3D weaving.ACM Transactions on Graphics...

    2020

  32. [42]

    Lining Yao, Jifei Ou, Chin-Yi Cheng, Helene Steiner, Wen Wang, Guanyun Wang, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2015. BioLogic: natto cells as nanoactuators for shape changing interfaces. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10

    2015

  33. [43]

    Terese Zaki, Ahmed Negm Eldin, and Ghada Alkholy. 2021. Innovation of Women Garment Designs through Employing Geometrical Pleats Fixed by Heat Setting.Journal of Architecture, Arts and Humanistic Sciences0, 0 (July 2021), 0–0. https://doi.org/10.21608/mjaf.2021.82564.2385

    2021

  34. [2021]

    InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    FastForce: Real-Time Reinforcement of Laser-Cut Structures. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445466

    2021

  35. [2023]

    Inkjet 4D Print: Self-folding Tessellated Origami Objects by Inkjet UV Printing.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)42, 4 (2023), 1–13

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.