Art Meets Automotive: Design of a Curve-Adaptive Origami Gripper for Handling Textiles on Non-Planar Mold Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The handling of flexible components creates a unique problem set for pick and place automation within automotive production processes. Fabrics and woven textiles are examples of flexible components used in car interiors, for air bags, as liners and in carbon-fiber layups. These textiles differ greatly in geometry, featuring complex shapes and internal slits with varying material properties such as drape characteristics, crimp resistance, friction, and fiber weave. Being inherently flexible and deformable makes these materials difficult to handle with traditional rigid grippers. Current solutions employ adhesive, needle-based, and suction strategies, yet these systems prove a higher risk of leaving residue on the material, damaging the weave, or requiring complex assemblies. Pincer-style grippers are suitable for rigid components and offer strong gripping forces, yet inadvertently may damage the fabric, and introduce wrinkles / folded-over edges during the release process. Non-planar surfaces such as the curvature of a mold, introduce additional placement challenges. Thus, a contour-adapting end-effector able to manipulate textiles without damage is desired. This research explores the feasibility of a Miura-Origami fold for material handling. The geometric tessellation is to create a curve-fitting, self-collapsing gripper. Living hinge elements are integrated to achieve controlled compliance. Variants are built using a material extrusion additive manufacturing process. The design parameters are outlined, and a set of origami grippers are built for experimental testing. The compression forces and deflection are measured. These grippers are spring-like but exhibit some unique characteristics. More research needs to be performed to understand the merits and limitations of this gripper strategy.</div></div>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".