Article

Function-Oriented Applicability Evaluation of Technical Folding

Based on Expert Knowledge
Franziska Wieja 1, * , Georg Jacobs 1 , Stefan Stürmer 1 , Kathrin Boelsen 1 , Christian Konrad 1 , Judith Merz 2 ,
Kevin Moreno Gata 3 and Alex Seiter 3

1 Institute for Machine Elements and Systems Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Schinkelstr. 10,
52062 Aachen, Germany; [email protected] (G.J.);
[email protected] (C.K.)
2 Institute of Mechanism Theory, Machine Dynamics and Robotics, RWTH Aachen University,
Eilfschornsteinstr. 18, 52062 Aachen, Germany
3 Chair of Structures and Structural Design, RWTH Aachen University, Schinkelstr. 1, 52062 Aachen, Germany;
[email protected] (K.M.G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Technical folding systems are rigid, three-dimensional surface structures that can be folded
at their joints. Due to their foldable structure, technical folding systems can produce lightweight
structures that have a high load-bearing capacity and can also flexibly change their shape. In order
to develop products with technical folding in a function-oriented product development process, a
folding principle must be defined that realises the individual functions. Since there is hardly any
expert knowledge on technical folding, in general, and on the use of the technical folding principle
in particular, technical folding is not very widespread despite its promising properties. Therefore,
there is a need for a software-supported evaluation of whether functions can be realised by the
principle of technical folding. The software-supported applicability evaluation (EvalTech) developed
here is based on case-based reasoning methods, as these can artificially simulate evaluations based
on expert knowledge. The expert knowledge used for the evaluation includes functions, function
structures and properties of known technical folding systems, which are compared with functions
and function structures of the development task. EvalTech was successfully used in the development
Citation: Wieja, F.; Jacobs, G.; Stürmer,
and realisation of a large-scale foldable cover for industrial robots.
S.; Boelsen, K.; Konrad, C.; Merz, J.;
Moreno Gata, K.; Seiter, A. Function-
Keywords: technical folding; technical origami; function structures; software-supported evaluation;
Oriented Applicability Evaluation of
expert knowledge; knowledge retrieval; case-based reasoning
Technical Folding Based on Expert
Knowledge. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
app142311417
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Arkadiusz Gola
In its traditional form, the Japanese art of paper folding enables the creation of various
Received: 7 October 2024 three-dimensional shapes by simply folding two-dimensional sheets of paper. In recent
Revised: 19 November 2024 decades, this so-called origami principle has increasingly become an effective source of
Accepted: 6 December 2024 inspiration for engineering solutions [1]. In engineering solutions, the origami principle
Published: 8 December 2024 is actualised as technical folding. Technical folding systems do not consist of thin paper
like origami folding, but of thick, rigid panels that are additionally connected to each other
by joint elements. Due to their foldable structure, technical folding systems can realise
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
lightweight structures that have a high load-bearing capacity. The application of technical
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
folding according to this definition is the subject of the research paper.
This article is an open access article
Scalability and flexibility of technical folding, its inherent motion, and the possibility
distributed under the terms and of reconfiguration offer high potential and versatile benefits in fields far beyond art and
conditions of the Creative Commons aesthetics. Up to now, technical folding has been applied in the following fields of engi-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// neering application: Industrial Packaging [2–4], Optics [5,6], Biomedical Engineering [7–9],
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Robotics [10–14], Aerospace [15,16], Consumer Products [8,17,18], Electronics [19,20], and
4.0/). Architecture [21,22]. However, these applications represent singular solutions, meaning

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311417 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 2 of 18

that the overall prevalence of technical folding is low. Infrequent application of the solution
principle of technical folding in the context of product development is mainly due to the
following challenge. In early phases of a function-oriented product development pro-
cess, product developers without high expertise in technical folding are not able to decide
whether technical folding is a suitable solution principle for their technical problem because:
• The solution principle of technical folding and its application is largely unknown in
industrial practice.
• No (software-supported) methods exist that adequately support the decision-making
process.
Thus, non-expert product developers can potentially make decisions for or against the
solution principle of technical folding without knowing the advantages or disadvantages
of it compared to other possible solution principles. In order to solve these challenges and
effectively strengthen the application of the solution principle in industrial practice, an
evaluation process should be defined. To address challenge (a), expert knowledge about
technical folding systems must be elaborated and made available for a structured and
effective decision-making process. For example, development data of known technical
folding solutions from the literature can be used to define expert knowledge. This expert
knowledge should then be formalised in such a way that it is comparable with the infor-
mation available for a new technical problem in the early phases of a function-oriented
product development process. Based on the formalised expert knowledge, in order to
address challenge (b), a structured and effective decision-making process must be devel-
oped that adequately evaluates the applicability of technical folding to a new technical
problem. The process enables the reuse of expert knowledge, the continuous expansion
of expert knowledge to include newly developed technical folding solutions, and thus an
increasingly precise evaluation based on expert knowledge. In order to efficiently generate
objective and consistent decision results and to facilitate the decision-making process for
inexperienced product developers, the process developed here should be implemented in
software. The method on which the process is based is referred to below as EvalTech.

Problem Identification and Research Need

The following chapter discusses which data from early phases of the function-oriented
product development process can be considered as a knowledge database for the software-
supported applicability evaluation. It also defines the research questions arising from the
use of these data as a basis for software-supported evaluation of a solution principle.
In function-oriented product development processes, requirements, functions, and
function structures of a product are available as a knowledge database for evaluating the
applicability of solution principles [23–25]. Requirements are regulatory restrictions in prod-
uct development, quantifiable limitations of the product, or describe the desired product
behaviour [23,24]. Requirements can be formalised using standardised, syntactic sentence
structure patterns [24]. As their formalisation is a challenge for a concise and software-
supported evaluation due to the high variability of syntax and semantics, requirements
should not be used as a database for software-supported applicability evaluation.
Based on requirements, functions are derived during the product development process.
Functions describe the desired product behaviour in a solution-neutral manner using the
so-called subject-verb method and the definition of an incoming and outgoing function
flow (e.g., “reduce product size”, “enlarge system”, or “direct force”) [23,24]. The overall
function of a product describes its overall purpose and can be decomposed into sub-
functions down to elementary functions. Elementary functions usually form the deepest
level of the function structure and cannot be subdivided further. The meaningful linking
of subfunctions and elementary functions to the overall function leads to the function
structure [23,24,26]. Based on the functions, suitable principle solutions are sought using
their physical effect [23,24]. While functions describe the changes between incoming
and outgoing function flows, physical effects concretise how this change is physically
actualised [24]. Therefore, elementary functions and physical effects are linked to each other
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 3 of 18

in order to work out a principle solution. As the assignment between elementary functions
and physical effects of technical folding systems is not known so far, this assignment must
be newly created. Alternatively, the assignment between functions (main or sub-functions)
and solutions can also be derived backwards from the solution knowledge about existing
technical folding systems [26]. Since technical folding systems are solutions in the sense of
product development, the basic applicability of a solution can be identified on the basis of
its functions. However, this raises the following main research question and subordinate
research questions (1)–(3):
How can the applicability of technical folding be assessed on the basis of function struc-
tures?
(1) What known technical folding solutions exist, and what do the associated function
structures look like?
(2) How can functions and function structures of published technical folding solutions
be modelled in a formalised form as a knowledge database?
(3) How can this knowledge database be used in a software-supported method to assess
the applicability of technical folding solutions to the current development task of a
product developer?
To answer these research questions, the EvalTech method based on case-based reason-
ing methods is designed in Section 3. Its central elements are developed in Section 4 and
implemented in a MATLAB® application (The MathWorks Inc., MATLAB version: 9.13.0
(R2022b), Natick, MA, USA) in Section 5. The application is intra-operable with the systems
engineering tool Cameo Systems Modeler® (Dassault Systèmes, Cameo Systems Modeler
version: 19.0, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France).

2. State of the Art

The following chapter describes the state of the art of software-supported methods
that enable evaluations on the basis of expert knowledge and justifies the choice of the
case-based reasoning method. In addition, the expert knowledge on technical folding
systems described in the literature is presented.

2.1. Experience-Based Intelligent Systems

In the software-supported problem-solving process based on expert knowledge, ar-
tificially intelligent (AI) systems built with the help of case-based reasoning (CBR) have
proven their worth [27,28]. CBR is a problem-solving method that focuses on how problems
can be solved with the help of experience-based knowledge. Experience-based knowledge
is formalised in the form of so-called cases, which are stored in a case base as a special form
of knowledge base [29]. According to Aamodt and Plaza [29], the new technical problem is
solved by retrieving one or more previously experienced cases from the case base, reusing the
case with the best match, revising the new solution based on reusing a previous case, and
retaining the new experience by incorporating it into the existing database [29]. The four
processes each involve a number of more specific steps. CBR differs from conventional
problem-solving methods of artificial intelligence, such as natural language processing
(NLP) or deep learning, essentially in the following aspects: The learning process of CBR
is based on analogy, as opposed to learning by induction or deduction. CBR does not work
predominantly with generalised knowledge of a problem domain. It makes no assumptions
about relationships between attributes of a problem description and no inferences that re-
sult from the existence of specific problem attribute values [27,29]. In contrast, CBR usually
uses specific knowledge of already known, concrete problem-solving from the experience
of experts and is not dependent on large amounts of data [27,29,30]. However, the case base
must be sufficiently representative to suggest meaningful solutions. On the other hand, a
case base that is too large can require significant storage resources or slow down the search
for similar cases. Another difference in data-driven AI systems is that solved problems can
be stored as case studies and thus be applicable in new problem situations [29].
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 4 of 18

In this research paper, CBR methods were used to answer the research questions mainly
for the following reasons: CBR systems imitate experience-based decision-making and
can therefore provide inexperienced engineers with adequate support in the applicability
assessment. Furthermore, in contrast to conventional AI systems, CBR systems deliver
good results even with small amounts of data, such as the amount of data from the expert
knowledge of existing technical folding systems (see Section 2.2).

2.2. Expert Knowledge of Technical Folding

Specific knowledge of a total of 21 solutions that have successfully applied the solution
principle of technical folding are known from previous publications described above. From
these publications, the following classifications for the respective technical folding system
can be obtained: Overall Purpose, Origami Discipline, Folding Scheme, Type of Folding
System (rigid/non-rigid system), Type of Movement, and Direction of Movement. The
expression of the classifications is either described textually in previous publications or can
partly be taken from the published illustrations of the manufactured product. Expressions
of the classifications for technical folding systems are given in non-formalised form.
The overall purpose of previous technical folding systems is, for example, to reduce
the overall installation space for transporting the system [7,16] or to change the overall
installation space for discrete-time shielding of solar radiation [21]. Every known technical
folding system from the literature can be assigned to a folding system type (rigid, non-rigid)
and an origami discipline, such as Tessellation Origami, Curved Folding Origami, or Modular
Origami. In addition, the folding scheme on which the movement of the folding system is
based, such as Miura-Ori, Yoshimura, Chickenwire, or Waterbomb, can be clearly identified.
Further classifications are type of movement (planar, cylindrical, helical, spherical) and
direction of movement of the technical folding system. The classification was derived from
the cited sources and discussed with experts in the field.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 1 illustrates the classifications of technical folding using the example 5 of 21
of
three folding systems from the literature.

Figure 1. Classification of technical folding systems using the example of three folding systems from
Figure 1. Classification of technical folding systems using the example of three folding systems from
the literature.
the literature.

3. Concept of the EvalTech Method

Based on the general methods
methods of of CBR,
CBR, the
the CBR
CBR system
system withwith itsits specific
specific elements
elements
case bases
(database, case bases and
andcases)
cases)according
accordingtotoAamodt
Aamodtand andPlaza
Plaza[29]
[29]is is defined
defined in the
in the fol-
following
lowing Section
Section 3.1.Section
3.1. Section3.2
3.2describes
describeshowhowthethe specific
specific elements of the the CBR
CBR system
system
are used
used in
inthe
thetypical
typicalprocesses
processes of of
retrieving andand
retrieving retaining. The The
retaining. retrieving and retaining
retrieving sub-
and retaining
processes according
sub-processes to Aamodt
according to Aamodt andandPlaza [29]
Plaza [29](identify
(identifyfeatures,
features,initially
initiallymatch,
match,specify
specify
features and select) are defined here, which are implemented in MATLAB® for successful
applicability evaluation.

3.1. Elements of the CBR System

According to Aamodt and Plaza [29], a CBR system consists of its typical elements
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 5 of 18

features and select) are defined here, which are implemented in MATLAB® for successful
applicability evaluation.

3.1. Elements of the CBR System

According to Aamodt and Plaza [29], a CBR system consists of its typical elements
database, case base and the new case of the current technical problem.
The database comprises the entire formalised expert knowledge on the basis of which
the applicability assessment is carried out [29]. In this research paper, functions and
function structures of known technical folding systems in connection to solutions form
the initial database of technical folding. Cases bases are part of the database. A case base is
a collection of stored knowledge elements. Functions and function structures of known
technical folding systems form the stored knowledge elements. A case contains a description
of a problem and an associated solution. A case here comprises functions and functional
structures of known folding systems. As functions and function structures are to be used
independently for a two-stage applicability assessment, functions are grouped in case base 1
and function structures in case base 2. A concrete problem situation according to Aamodt
and Plaza [29], for which a decision is to be found, is a new case. Functions and the function
structure of a new technical problem each correspond to a specific new case.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
In Figure 2, the elements of the defined CBR system as the base of the EvalTech method
are illustrated.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Elements
Elements of
of the
the CBR
CBR system.
system.

3.2. Concept of Using the CBR System for the Applicability Evaluation
In this paper, the applicability evaluation of technical folding is carried out by im-
3.2. Concept the
plementing of Using the CBR
processes System for
according tothe Applicability
Aamodt Evaluation
and Plaza [29] in a software application:
retrieving process
In this andthe
paper, its specific subprocesses:
applicability evaluationidentify features, initially
of technical foldingmatch, specifyout
is carried features
by
and select. The the
implementing reusing and revising
processes processes
according haveand
to Aamodt notPlaza
been[29]
implemented
in a software in application:
this research
paper. EvalTech
retrieving processends
andwithits the visualisation
specific of thoseidentify
subprocesses: technical folding
features, systems
initially whose
match, func-
specify
tions and
features function
and structures
select. The reusingare
andmost similar
revising to the functions
processes and function
have not been implementedstructures
in thisof
the new product
research development
paper. EvalTech endstask.
withFigure 3 below illustrates
the visualisation of thosethe elaborated
technical process
folding steps
systems
of the EvalTech method.
whose functions and function structures are most similar to the functions and function
structures of the new product development task. Figure 3 below illustrates the elaborated
process steps of the EvalTech method.
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2024,14,
Sci.2024, 14,11417
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of
6 of2118

Figure 3. Elaborated process steps of the EvalTech method.

Figure 3. Elaborated process steps of the EvalTech method.

The software-supported
The software-supported applicability applicability evaluation
evaluationstarts startswith
withthe thesubprocess
subprocessidentify
identify
features. In this step, the functions of the new technical problem (new case1)1)can
features. In this step, the functions of the new technical problem (new case canbe bedefined
defined
withthe
with thesupport
supportofofthe thesoftware
softwareapplication.
application.The Thefunctions
functionsofof the
the new
new technical
technical problem
problem are
are evaluated in the subsequent step, initially match. The functions
evaluated in the subsequent step, initially match. The functions are compared with functions are compared with
functions
of of known
known technical technical
folding systemsfolding
(casesystems
base 1). If (case base 1). If to
no similarity notechnical
similarity to technical
folding systems
isfolding systems
calculated, is calculated,
a folding systemaisfolding system
most likely notisanmost likely not solution
appropriate an appropriate
for the solution
technical
for the technical
problem. problem.
In this case, In this case,
consideration mustconsideration
be given to must usingbe given to principle
a different using a different
solution
principle solution for the technical problem. If there is an
for the technical problem. If there is an initial fit between the designed functions initial fit between the designed
and the
functionsofand
functions knownthe technical
functionsfoldingof known technical
systems, folding
the specify systems,
features the specify
subprocess step isfeatures
carried
subprocess
out. step is carried
In the subsequent out. In
process thespecify
step, subsequent
features,process step, specify
relationships features,
between therelationships
functions are
between thebased
determined functions
on theare determined
defined functions, based andon the hierarchical
so the defined functions,
functionand so theof
structure
hierarchical
the function
new technical structure
problem of the new
is designed. Thistechnical
is followedproblemby the is designed.
calculationThis is followed
of the similarity
by the calculation
between the designed of the similarityfunction
hierarchical betweenstructure
the designed(case 2) hierarchical
and the functionfunction structureof
structures
(case 2) and
technical the function
folding (case base structures
2) in theofsub-process
technical folding select.(case basecalculation
For the 2) in the sub-process select.
of the similarity,
For the calculation of the similarity, algorithms are elaborated
algorithms are elaborated in Section 4.2 to answer research question 2, which finds the in Section 4.2 to answer
research
most question
similar case based 2, which finds theand
on attributes most
the similar
organisationcase based
of the on attributes
database. and theof
The results
organisation of the database. The results of the similarity calculations
the similarity calculations are values between 0 and 1. The value 0 describes those cases are values between 0
and 1. The value 0 describes those cases from the database
from the database that have no similarity to the new technical problem and 1 those cases that have no similarity to the
new the
with technical
highestproblem and 1Based
similarity. those on cases
thewith
resultthe ofhighest similarity.
the similarity Based on the
calculation result of
of functions
the function
and similaritystructures,
calculation the of functions
software and function
can recommend structures,
to the product the software
developer can
whether
recommend to the product developer whether technical folding
technical folding can be applied to the new technical problem. If there is a low degree of can be applied to the new
similarity, a different solution should be selected for realisation.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 7 of 18

The developed EvalTech method is implemented in a MATLAB® application to ef-

ficiently support the product developer. The method is initially tested using a concept
development of one new product, cf. Section 6.

4. Developing the Central Elements of the EvalTech Method

In order to realise the concept of the EvalTech method described above, the initial
solution database and the similarity equations between functions and functional structures
are developed below as central elements of the CBR method.

4.1. Setting Up the Initial Database

In order to create the initial database, functions of known, successfully implemented
technical folding systems (cf. Section 2.2) are derived from the identified overall purpose
and stored in a list. These functions are consolidated in a next step, and their duplicates
removed. In this way, a total of 110 different functions could be identified. The functions
identified include main functions, sub-functions, and elementary functions of technical
folding systems. The main functions of technical folding systems are, for example, “protect
system”, “transport system” or “replicate structure”. The main functions are divided
into its sub-functions, such as “reduce overall installation space”, “establish connection”
or “guide system”. Examples of identified elementary functions in folding systems are
“directing force”, “collecting liquid” or “directing material” clearly assigned to the elemen-
tary functions. These examples clearly show that main and sub-functions describe the
specific product behaviour of technical folding systems, while elementary functions must
be fulfilled in most mechanical and mechatronic systems and are therefore not specific
to the technical folding solution principle. For this reason, elementary functions are not
suitable for evaluating the applicability of the solution to the new technical problem and are
deleted from the list. Subsequently, the frequency distribution of all functions remaining in
the list was evaluated, and the ten most frequent functions were defined as characteristic
functions of technical folding, cf. Figure 4. For example, the function “reduce total installation
space” was identified in 17 out of a total of 21 technical folding systems, “enlarge total
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
installation space” in 16 cases and “establish connection” in 14 cases. Functions that have
been identified in more than 1/3 of the cases count as characteristic functions in the context
of this research paper.

Figure
Figure 4. Frequencydistribution
4. Frequency distributionof of characteristic
characteristic functions
functions for technical
for technical folding
folding systems
systems with
with finite
finite thickness.
thickness.

The following Figure 5 shows the hierarchical functional structure using the example
of a self-deployable stent [7]. The model of each functional structure is created as a block
definition diagram using the software Cameo Systems Modeler® (Dassault Systèmes,
France). For the formation and further use of the respective adjacency matrix, the block
definition diagram is exported as a CSV file, and the adjacency matrix is derived.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 8 of 18

The naming of these functions has been worked out specifically for technical folding
systems in the context of the DFG-funded project E2 F, cf. Section 6.1.
The characteristic functions are stored as a part of case base 1 of the CBR system, cf.
Section 3.1.
Case base 2 of the general concept is created by forming the hierarchical function
structures of 21 known technical folding systems on the basis of derived functions. The
function structures are each stored in standardised adjacency matrices. Consequently, the
case base 2 database consists of 21 cases. Folding-specific information about the technical
folding system, such as the folding discipline, the folding scheme or the type of movement,
cf. Section
Figure 2.2, aredistribution
4. Frequency assigned as of characteristic each case.
metadata tofunctions Each casefolding
for technical thus corresponds to a
systems with finite
function structure and metadata of a solution that has been successfully realised with
thickness.
technical folding.
shows the
The following Figure 5 shows the hierarchical
hierarchical functional
functional structure
structure using the example
example
self-deployable stent
of a self-deployable stent [7].
[7]. The
The model
model ofof each
each functional
functional structure
structure is
is created
created as
as a block
definition diagram
definition using the software Cameo Systems Modeler®® (Dassault
diagram using (Dassault Systèmes,
Systèmes,
France). For
France). For the
the formation
formation andand further
further use
use ofof the respective
respective adjacency
adjacency matrix,
matrix, the
the block
definition diagram is exported as a CSV file, and the adjacency matrix is derived.

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Functional
Functionalstructure
structureofofaa successful
successful technical
technical folding
folding using
using the
the example
example of
of aa self-
self-
deployable stent.
deployable stent.

4.2. Definition
Definition of
of Equations
Equations for Similarity Analysis
Analysis
Based on the database, in order to find
Based on the database, in order to find functions andand
functions function structures
function that are
structures thatmost
are
similar to those
most similar of theofnew
to those development
the new developmenttask,task,
functions for calculating
functions similarity
for calculating are
similarity
developed
are developed below. Depending
below. Depending on on
thethe
size ofofthe
size thedatabase,
database,different
different machine
machine learning
analyse similarity.
methods can be used to analyse similarity. The most commonly used methods are nearest
neighbour, induction, knowledge guided induction, and template retrieval [30]. The time to find
the most similar case increases in proportion to the size of the database. Since the nearest
neighbour method predominantly delivers efficient results for small databases such as the
one in this research paper, it is used in this research. In machine learning, it was developed
to recognise data patterns without requiring an exact match with stored cases. Similar
cases are close to each other, and cases with low similarity are far away from each other.
Therefore, the distance between a function or function structure from the database with
the new function or function structure can be used as a measure of its similarity [30]. The
attributes of functions defined for similarity analysis are their literal naming according to
Lindemann’s subject-verb method and the graph-based relationship between functions in
the hierarchical levels. The similarities are usually at a value between 0 and 1. A value
of 0 means that the two cases are absolutely not similar; in contrast to the value of 1, the
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 9 of 18

case is absolutely similar. The general similarity equation according to Watson and Marir is
formulated as follows [30]:

∑ni=1 f(T, Si ) × wi
sim (T, Si ) = , (1)
∑ni=1 wi

where T = new case; S = existing case in solution database; n = number of attributes;

i = number of attributes each case; f = similarity equation of T and S attribute; wi = attribute
weighting to i.
The general Equation (1) forms the basis for developing the following specific similarity
equations for analysing the similarity of functions and function structures.

4.2.1. Calculating the Similarity Between Functions

For determining the similarity between functions of the new technical problem and
characteristic functions from the solution database, the similarity equation simcase1 is
defined. This equation basically determines whether a characteristic function i is used
in the new, technical problem or not. The weighting wi also considers the importance of
the respective function in the context of technical folding. The weighting wi corresponds
to the absolute frequency of a used function in relation to the absolute frequency of all
other used characteristic functions. For example, one function of the use case used here is
“shield material flow”. According to Case Base 1, this function is a characteristic function of
technical folding. It occurs a total of 9 times in 21 cases, cf. Figure 3. Within these cases, the
total number of different functions is 110. For example, in the comparison of the functions
of the use case with the characteristic function “shield material flow”, the parameter oi
is equal to 1 and the weighting wi is equal to 9/110. To calculate, the parameters oi and
wi must then be determined for the comparison with each of the other nine characteristic
functions, and the multiplication of the respective parameters is added.
The similarity equation, simcase1 , is calculated by the equation below, where SuD
stands for System under Development:

 oi = 1, if the function occurs in the SuD
10
simcase 1 = ∑ o
i=1 i
× wi , (2)
oi = 0, if the function does not occur SuD


The equation simcase1 always calculates the parameters oi and wi on the basis of the
current case 1 and determines the characteristic functions using the latest data. This makes
the equation flexible with regard to extensions of case 1.

4.2.2. Calculating the Similarity Between Function Structures

For detailed determination of the similarity between the hierarchical function structure
of the new technical problem and the function structures from the case base 2, two inde-
pendent similarity equations were defined: The equation of general functional similarity of
functions simcase2.1 without considering the hierarchical structure and the function of struc-
tural similarity of functions considering the hierarchical levels of the functional structure
simcase2.2 .
The equation of general functional similarity of functions simcase2.1 is calculated as
shown below, where FS stands for one Function Structure of case base 2. For each of the
n functions of the function structure of the current development task, it is checked to
what extent a function used matches functions of the function structures from case 1 of
the database.

n  oi = 1, if the function is part of the compared FS
∑ o
simcase 2.1 = i=1 i , (3)
n
oi = 0, if the function is not part of the compared FS

 functions of the function structure of the current development task, it is checked to what
extent a function used matches functions of the function structures from case 1 of the
database.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 oi = 1, if the function is part of the compared FS 10 of 18
∑ni=1 oi
simcase 2.1 = , (3)
n
oi = 0, if the function is not part of the compared FS
In order to
In order to consider
considerthethehierarchical
hierarchicalstructure
structureofofthe
the functional
functional architecture
architecture as as well
well as
as the importance of the functions for the fulfilment of the overall function of
the importance of the functions for the fulfilment of the overall function of the product the product
within
within the
the framework
framework of of the
the similarity
similarityanalysis,
analysis,the
thesimilarity
similarityequation
equationsim
simcase2.2 is defined.
case2.2 is defined.
The equation is calculated as follows:
The equation is calculated as follows:
n
2.22.2==∑i∑ 1 oi i ×
sim n o ×
sim
case
case =i=1
 oi o=i =

1, 1,if ifthe
thefunction
functionisispart
partofofthe compared
the comparedFS
FS
(4)
fi f i ,,
oi o=i =
0, 0,if ifthe function is not part of the compared FS

the function is not part of the compared FS
The similarity
The similarity equation
equationsim simcase2.2
case2.2 depends
depends on on the the percentage
percentage ffii.. ffii is
is the
the product
product of of the
the
percentages of
percentages of functions
functions of of aa hierarchical
hierarchical level.
level. ForFor example,
example, if if the
the main
main function consists
function consists
functions, ffii of
of 3 functions, of the
the 1st
1st hierarchy
hierarchylevel levelis:
is:fifi == 11×× 1/3
1/3 == 0.33.
0.33. IfIf aa function
function of of the 1st
hierarchy level
hierarchy levelconsists
consistsofof22sub-functions,
sub-functions,then thenfi f=i =1 1××1/3
1/3 ×
× 1/2
1/2==0.1667.
0.1667.To To calculate
calculate the
equation, the functions of the function structure of the current development task
similarity equation,
are each compared with functions of the function structures from case base 2. If a function
matches thethe function
functionof ofaasuccessful
successfulfolding foldingsystem,
system, thethe
percentage
percentage fi offi the function
of the of the
function of
successful
the successfulfolding
foldingsolution
solution is is
determined
determined andandadded addedtotothethe similarity
similarity equation. All
subsequent functions of lower hierarchical levels are then not considered considered further.further.
For example,
example,the theoverall
overallfunction
function of of
thethe
self-deployable
self-deployable stentstent
is decomposed
is decomposed into three
into
main
three functions, and each
main functions, main
and function
each main isfunction
decomposed into two or three
is decomposed into two sub-functions.
or three sub-The
function “protect product interior” is then decomposed into three
functions. The function “protect product interior” is then decomposed into three more more sub-subfunctions.
For example, the function
sub-subfunctions. For example,“shield thematerial
functionflow”
“shield of material
the use caseflow” usedof the here
useis case
also used
in theisfunction
here also usedstructure
in the of the self-deployable
function structure of stent, at the fourth hierarchical
the self-deployable stent, at thelevel, cf.
fourth
Figure 6. Therefore,
hierarchical level, cf.inFigure
this case, fi = 0.0556inwould
6. Therefore, this case, be added.
fi = 0.0556 would be added.

𝑓 = 0.33 𝑓 = 0.33

… … 𝑓 = 0.1667 𝑓 = 0.1667

… 𝑓 = 0.0556 𝑓 = 0.0556

𝑓 = 0.33

… … …

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Hierarchical function structure
Hierarchical function structure of
of the
the self-deployable
self-deployable stent
stent with
with fulfilment
fulfilment scores.
scores.

5. Implementation of
5. Implementation of the
the EvalTech
EvalTech Method
Method in in aa Software Application
Software Application
The database and the process steps identify features, initially match, specify features, select,
and visualisation of the general concept of the EvalTech method (cf. Section 3.2), which is
implemented in a software application. The three-part software application is implemented
to evaluate the general technological fit (EvalTech Questionnaire), design a machine-readable
function structure of the new technical problem (Hierarchical Function Structure Builder), and
perform the similarity calculations (Function Structure Analysis). Each algorithm as well as
the GUI of the software application has been implemented in MATLAB® (The MathWorks
Inc., USA). The entire software application supports the inexperienced product developer
 and visualisation of the general concept of the EvalTech method (cf. Section 3.2), which is
implemented in a software application. The three-part software application is
implemented to evaluate the general technological fit (EvalTech Questionnaire), design a
machine-readable function structure of the new technical problem (Hierarchical Function
Structure Builder), and perform the similarity calculations (Function Structure Analysis).
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 11 of 18
Each algorithm as well as the GUI of the software application has been implemented in
MATLAB® (The MathWorks Inc., USA). The entire software application supports the
inexperienced product developer from the subprocess initially match, after the functions
from
of thethe
newsubprocess initially match,
technical problem have been afterdesigned
the functions
within of the
the process
new technical
identifyproblem
features. have
been Todesigned within the process identify features.
digitally support the process initially match, the MATLAB® function
initially match, ® function questionnaire.m
questionnaire.m issupport
To digitally developedthe process
and implemented forthe
theMATLAB
partial automation of the initial
isevaluation
developedofand theimplemented
technological forfit
theofpartial automationinitially
the subprocess of the initial
match. evaluation of the
The EvalTech
technological fit of the subprocess initially match. The EvalTech Questionnaire
Questionnaire automatically determines the characteristic functions of technical folding automatically
determines
systems based the on
characteristic functions
case base 1, saves themofintechnical
an Excel folding
list and systems
uses them based case base 1,
on similarity
for the
saves them in
calculation 𝑠𝑖𝑚an Excel . list and uses them for the similarity calculation simcase 1 .
The
The inexperienced product
inexperienced developer uses
product developer uses the EvalTechQuestionnaire
theEvalTech Questionnaireduring
duringconcept
concept
development before deciding on a solution principle. He answers
development before deciding on a solution principle. He answers the EvalTech the EvalTech Questionnaire
by comparing the
Questionnaire listed characteristic
by comparing the listedfunctions with functions
characteristic functionsofwiththe new technical
functions problem.
of the new
For each characteristic function listed, the user can select whether this function
technical problem. For each characteristic function listed, the user can select whether this corresponds
exactly
function (match), corresponds
corresponds exactlyanalogously (possible match),
(match), corresponds or does(possible
analogously not correspond at all
match), or does(no
match) to a function of his technical problem, cf. Figure 7.
not correspond at all (no match) to a function of his technical problem, cf. Figure 7.

Figure 7. Answering the EvalTech Questionnaire using the example of three characteristic functions.
Figure 7. Answering the EvalTech Questionnaire using the example of three characteristic functions.

Subsequently,the
Subsequently, thesimilarity
similarity equation
equation 𝑠𝑖𝑚1 is calculated
simcase is calculated
and its and
resultitsis visualised
result is
visualised as overall score, cf. Figure 8. In addition, all matching functions are displayed
as overall score, cf. Figure 8. In addition, all matching functions are displayed in a pie chart. in
a pie chart. Selecting a specific function from the pie chart also shows the significance
Selecting a specific function from the pie chart also shows the significance of the respective of
the respective
function and the function
user’s and the user’s response.
response.
For the subsequent process, specify features, the user designs a machine-readable,
hierarchical function structure of the new technical problem with the help of the Hierarchical
Function Structure Builder (HFSB). The HFSB is implemented as the MATLAB® function
fsb.m, cf. Figure 9. The HFSB supports the user by providing the functions derived from
technical folding systems (function catalogue) for selection and the option of designing
new functions. These functionalities, as well as a general consistency check (test) of the
function architecture (including unique relationships, use of the subject–verb method),
help standardise the designed function structure and ensure high-quality input for the
sub-process step select.
In the subsequent process, select, the calculation of similarity between the designed
function structure and function structures of case base 2 is carried out automatically by the
further execution of the MATLAB® function fsa.m. For this purpose, the similarity equations
simcase 2.1 and simcase 2.2 are calculated for each successfully applied product from case base
2. Within the user interface, the similarity equation simcase 2.1 is listed for each case from case
base 2 as “functional fulfilment in use case”. For a detailed view of the result of simcase 2.2
for a case of interest, this case can be selected and the result of the comparison visualised.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 12 of 18

For this purpose, the function structure of the new technical problem task is visualised
centrally. The function structure of the selected case is shown in a right window of the
user interface. Identical functions are marked in red. The result of the respective similarity
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
analysis of main functions with the function structure of the case under consideration13 of 21is
listed in detail, cf. Figure 10.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Figure8.8. Initial
Figure Initial applicability
applicability test
test based
based on
on Case
Case Base
Base 11 using
using the
the questionnaire.
questionnaire.

For the subsequent process, specify features, the user designs a machine-readable,
hierarchical function structure of the new technical problem with the help of the
Hierarchical Function Structure Builder (HFSB). The HFSB is implemented as the MATLAB®
function fsb.m, cf. Figure 9. The HFSB supports the user by providing the functions derived
from technical folding systems (function catalogue) for selection and the option of
designing new functions. These functionalities, as well as a general consistency check (test)
of the function architecture (including unique relationships, use of the subject–verb
method), help standardise the designed function structure and ensure high-quality input
for the sub-process step select.

Figure9.9.Hierarchical
Figure Hierarchical Function
Function Architecture
Architecture Builder
Builder for
forsupporting
supportingthe
theanalysis.
analysis.

In the subsequent process, select, the calculation of similarity between the designed
function structure and function structures of case base 2 is carried out automatically by the
further execution of the MATLAB® function fsa.m. For this purpose, the similarity
equations 𝑠𝑖𝑚 . and 𝑠𝑖𝑚 . are calculated for each successfully applied product
from case base 2. Within the user interface, the similarity equation 𝑠𝑖𝑚 . is listed for
 x FOR PEER REVIEW
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 1513of
of 21
18

Figure 10. Visualisation

Figure 10. of the
Visualisation of the similarity
similarity calculation.
calculation.

In addition to the function structure and the calculated

calculated similarity equations, the
classification of the folding system
system is
is listed,
listed, cf.
cf. Section 2.2:
2.2: Origami discipline, folding
scheme, changeability, type of
changeability, type of movement,
movement, and main direction
direction of
of movement. Based on the
result of the function structure analysis and additional information, solution concepts for
the current development task can be developed analogy-based.

6. Testing
6. Testing of
of the
the EvalTech
EvalTech Method
Method
The EvalTech method was
The EvalTech method was initially
initially tested
tested using
using the
the following
following use
use case.
case.
6.1. Use Case for Testing
6.1. Use Case for Testing
As part of the DFG-funded research project “Design and Development of Convertible
As part of the DFG-funded research project “Design and Development of Convertible
Folding Systems” (E22F, project number 289387994), the EvalTech method developed here is
Folding Systems” (E F, project number 289387994), the EvalTech method developed here
being applied and tested to the concept development of a large-scale covering for industrial
is being applied and tested to the concept development of a large-scale covering for
welding robots.
industrial welding robots.
The overall purpose of the covering to be developed for industrial robots is to provide
The overall purpose of the covering to be developed for industrial robots is to provide
protection of the environment from, for example, flying sparks during welding, thermal
protection of the environment from, for example, flying sparks during welding, thermal
hazards, or optical radiation emitted by the robot during the welding process. Other
hazards, or optical radiation emitted by the robot during the welding process. Other
essential requirements placed on the cover are, for example, opening and closing the cover
essential requirements placed on the cover are, for example, opening and closing the cover
in order to exchange the components to be welded or enabling flexible positioning of the
in order to exchange the components to be welded or enabling flexible positioning of the
cover in the working environment of the welding robot.
coverThe
in the working
essential environment
functions that theof the welding
covering robot. robots to be developed must fulfil
for welding
are, for example, “protect product interior”, “changewelding
The essential functions that the covering for robots “protect
total volume”, to be developed must
environment”,
fulfil are,
“shield for example,
material flow”, or “protect product interior”, “change total volume”, “protect
“change position”.
environment”,
The identified functions form the or
“shield material flow,” “change
starting position”.
point of the initial testing of the EvalTech
The identified functions
method by product developers. form the starting point of the initial testing of the EvalTech
method by product developers.
6.2. Initial Testing of the EvalTech Method
6.2. Initial Testing
The main of the EvalTech
functions Method
and their sub-functions of the large-scale covering for industrial
The form
welding mainthe
functions
startingand their
point forsub-functions of the large-scale
testing the applicability covering
of technical for industrial
folding using the
welding form the starting point for testing the applicability of technical folding using the
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 14 of 18

EvalTech method implemented in the software application. The EvalTech Questionnaire is

qualitatively validated by the product developers by applying it to the concept development
of the covering and three successfully realised technical folding systems: the modular
origami robot [12], the stent [7], and the origami folding for 3D optics [6].
Answering the EvalTech Questionnaire is user-friendly, and the subsequent automated
calculation of the initial match simcase 1 can be calculated successfully: the comparison of
the main functions and sub-functions with the functions of case base 1 yields a fit of 0.7026
(=70.26%) for the concept of the covering. The comparison of the functions of the three
successfully realised technical folding systems yields a high fit as expected: 0.635 for the
robot, 0.693 for the stent, and 0.755 for the origami folding for 3D optics.
The EvalTech Questionnaire provides the best results if the functions match literally.
Functions that are described with synonymous words or contain grammatical errors or
errors in their spelling cannot be considered in the similarity calculation. Functions that
correspond in meaning to the functions of the EvalTech Questionnaire can also be selected,
but this choice depends on the user’s subjective interpretation of the functions of the new
technical problem.
In the subsequent process step, specify features, the specific function structure is effi-
ciently worked out with the help of the HFSB. The function catalogue stored here facilitates
the development of the function structure and recommends useful functions for the func-
tion structure. Own functions can be added as desired and used for the development of the
function structure.
For better visualisation, the designed function structure of the covering is shown as a
block definition diagram in the following Figure 11.
Using a deliberate development of non-standardised function structures, it was also
possible to validate that the integrated test for checking the quality of the function structure
(adherence to the subject-verb method, use of only one main function, connection of at least
two sub-functions to a superordinate function) works.
In the subsequent process select, the automatic calculation of the similarity equations
simcase 2.1 and simcase 2.2 can be performed successfully with the help of the MATLAB®
function, Function Structure Analysis. The function structure of the covering most closely
matches the function structure of the self-deployable stent. The higher the result of the
similarity analysis 2.1 and 2.2, the more similar the functions or function structures of
the application are to those of an already successfully used folding mechanism. With
high values, the application is promising for technical folding. The general functional
similarity simcase 2.1 is 0.2571 (=25.71%) and the structural similarity simcase 2.2 is 0.5556
(=55.56%). The solution concept of the self-deployable stent is based on the folding scheme
Chickenwire and allows a cylindrical movement in radial and axial directions. In addition
to the matching with this solution concept, the matches with other solution concepts can
be visualised.
Based on the result of the calculated match and the visualisation of further solution
concepts, the hurdle for the development of a covering based on the solution principle of
technical folding has been taken. The solution concept for a foldable covering successfully
developed within the research project E2 F is based on a folding scheme similar to the
self-deployable stent, the so-called Chickenwire folding scheme, which enables a cylindrical
opening and closing of the covering.
The solution concept has been successfully implemented and manufactured within
the research project E2 F, cf. Figure 12 [31].
Appl. Sci.Appl.
2024,Sci.14, 11417
2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21 15 of 18

Figure 11. Function Structure of the large-scale covering for industrial robots, designed with the
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 11. Function Structure of the large-scale covering for industrial robots, designed18with
help of the HFSB and stored as csv file.
of 21the help
of the HFSB and stored as csv file.

(a) (b)
Figure 12. Successfully developed and manufactured solution based on technical folding [31]. (a)
Figure
view ofSuccessfully
12. developed
the solution from and (b)
the outside; manufactured solutionfrom
view of the solution based
theon technical folding [31]. (a) view
inside.
of the solution from the outside; (b) view of the solution from the inside.
7. Discussion and Conclusions
Despite its promising potential, technical folding has rarely been implemented in
technical systems so far. This is often due to a lack of expertise and experience on the part
of engineers, who are unable to apply the solution principle to their current task during
concept development. Inexperienced product developers tend to choose known solution
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 16 of 18

7. Discussion and Conclusions

Despite its promising potential, technical folding has rarely been implemented in
technical systems so far. This is often due to a lack of expertise and experience on the
part of engineers, who are unable to apply the solution principle to their current task
during concept development. Inexperienced product developers tend to choose known
solution principles instead of utilising the potential of technical folding. To overcome
these challenges, the research paper developed the EvalTech method and implemented
it in a software application for efficient utilisation. EvalTech helps inexperienced prod-
uct developers to decide whether the solution principle of technical folding and which
classification of technical folding systems can be used in concept development. This ap-
plicability evaluation was performed on the basis of functions and function structures
of successfully developed folding systems from the literature. The research focused on
answering the research question of how function structures can be used as databases for
applicability evaluation.
To answer the research question, first functions of existing technical folding systems
were derived from literature. Then, functions were formalised using the subject-verb
method and stored in a database (case base 1). The machine-readable subject and verb
of a function were used as attributes for the similarity calculations between functions of
the new technical problem and characteristic functions of technical folding. Hierarchical
function structures were formalised using functions of case base 1 and directed graphs be-
tween functions and stored in another database (case base 2). The graph-based relationship
between functions in the hierarchical levels was used as an attribute for the similarity cal-
culation between function structures of the new technical problem and function structures
of technical folding.
The equations for the similarity calculations were each defined using the machine-
learning method nearest neighbour. The result of the similarity calculation between functions
depends strongly on the selected words. Functions that are described with synonymous
words or contain grammatical errors or errors in their spelling cannot be considered in the
similarity calculation. In contrast, the similarity calculation between function structures is
more precise. The results of both similarity calculations are values between 0 (=not similar)
and 1 (=identical). So far, however, the software application does not provide a purely
objective recommendation as to which similarity value makes an application successful.
Instead, in addition to the similarity value, the software application presents the assigned
technical folding system with its properties, such as the overall purpose or the direction
of movement. The final decision is therefore not made by the computer alone, but also
by humans.
The developed similarity calculations and case bases are used as part of the CBR
process, retrieving, and its specific subprocesses according to Aamodt and Plaza [29]. The
subprocesses of retrieving are implemented in a software application for the efficient support
of inexperienced developers. The implementation of the further reusing and revising based
on the result of the applicability evaluation is not covered by the software application.
Nevertheless, based on the visualised concepts of known folding systems, it is possible to
design your own development task by analogy.
The EvalTech method developed was initially tested using the concept development
of a covering for industrial robots. The result of the initial evaluation of technological fit
was also tested using the successfully realised concepts of known technical folding systems.
The EvalTech method and its implementation in software is limited to the evaluation of
only one solution principle, namely the technical folding.

8. Outlook
Although CBR methods are less prominent compared to other machine learning
approaches (e.g., deep learning or artificial neural networks), this research was able to show
that in areas with standardised structures, such as product development with standardised
function structures, CBR systems are a viable method for decision-making. Nevertheless,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 17 of 18

the improvements described below should be researched and developed in order to make
the applicability evaluation more precise but also generally usable.
In order to use the EvalTech method to accurately identify features of the new system
and to compare them well with the experiences of experts, features should be described
clearly and precisely, and not just by a subject–verb method. Unambiguous and precise
functions can be functions that are defined using the so-called input–output method
according to Lindemann et al. [26]. These functions thus describe the functionality of the
system in a solution-neutral manner by clearly defining the translation of an input into
an output.
For the future, more precise decisions that can be validly made by the computer, the
similarity calculations must be extended for the comparison between functions with identi-
cal meanings or functions that contain grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Further
possibility for a more precise similarity calculation is the formalisation of functions through
additional attributes, such as function flows, which clearly describe the behaviour of the
product via inputs and outputs. In further developments, functional structures should be
built up from functions with function flows and by an input–output method in order to
describe the system’s functionality precisely and to specify the similarity calculations.
In addition, for a meaningful validation, the method must be applied and evaluated
not only on the basis of one concept development but on several future developments. For
the simultaneous evaluation of the applicability of other innovative solution principles,
the CBR system must be expanded to include solutions and thus functions and function
structures of other innovative solution principles. This extension could, for example, create
a general database for searching and finding suitable solution principles on the basis of
functions and function structures. Specific methods and tools for realising the missing CBR
processes, reusing and revising, according to Aamodt and Plaza [29] must be researched and
developed in future studies in order to detail these process steps for the realisation of the
entire CBR process.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.W. and S.S.; Supervision, G.J.; Writing—review and
editing, K.B., C.K., J.M., K.M.G. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, engl.
German Research Foundation) as part of the project “Entwurf und Entwicklung von wandel-
baren Faltwerken” (engl. Design and Development of Convertible Folding Systems, project num-
ber 289387994).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Avila, A.; Magleby, S.P.; Lang, R.J.; Howell, L.L. Origami fold states: Concept and design tool. Mech. Sci. 2019, 10, 91–105.
[CrossRef]
2. Turner, N.; Goodwine, B.; Sen, M. A review of origami applications in mechanical engineering. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J.
Mech. Eng. Sci. 2015, 230, 2345–2362. [CrossRef]
3. Cannella, F.; Dai, J.S. Origami-carton tuck-in with a reconfigurable linkage. In Proceedings of the 2009 ASME/IFToMM
International Conference on Reconfigurable Mechanisms and Robots, London, UK, 22–24 June 2009; pp. 512–520.
4. Konings, R.; Thijs, R. Foldable Containers: A New Perspective on Reducing Container-Repositioning Costs. Eur. J. Transp.
Infrastruct. Res. 2001, 1. [CrossRef]
5. Tremblay, E.J.; Stack, R.A.; Morrison, R.L.; Ford, J.E. Ultrathin cameras using annular folded optics. Appl. Opt. 2007, 46, 463–471.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Cho, J.-H.; Keung, M.D.; Verellen, N.; Lagae, L.; Moshchalkov, V.V.; van Dorpe, P.; Gracias, D.H. Nanoscale origami for 3D optics.
Small 2011, 7, 1943–1948. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11417 18 of 18

7. Kuribayashi, K.; Tsuchiya, K.; You, Z.; Tomus, D.; Umemoto, M.; Ito, T.; Sasaki, M. Self-deployable origami stent grafts as a
biomedical application of Ni-rich TiNi shape memory alloy foil. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2006, 419, 131–137. [CrossRef]
8. Francis, K.C.; Rupert, L.T.; Lang, R.J.; Morgan, D.C.; Magleby, S.P.; Howell, L.L. From Crease Pattern to Product: Considerations to
Engineering Origami-Adapted Designs. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Buffalo, NY, USA, 17–20 August 2014.
9. Sargent, B.; Butler, J.; Seymour, K.; Bailey, D.; Jensen, B.; Magleby, S.; Howell, L. An Origami-Based Medical Support System to
Mitigate Flexible Shaft Buckling. J. Mech. Robot. 2020, 12, 041005. [CrossRef]
10. Onal, C.D.; Wood, R.J.; Rus, D. An Origami-Inspired Approach to Worm Robots. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2013, 18, 430–438.
[CrossRef]
11. Onal, C.D.; Tolley, M.T.; Wood, R.J.; Rus, D. Origami-Inspired Printed Robots. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2015, 20, 2214–2221.
[CrossRef]
12. Belke, C.H.; Paik, J. Mori: A Modular Origami Robot. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2017, 22, 2153–2164. [CrossRef]
13. Hawkes, E.; An, B.; Benbernou, N.M.; Tanaka, H.; Kim, S.; Demaine, E.D.; Rus, D.; Wood, R.J. Programmable matter by folding.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12441. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Pooya, S.; Chermprayong, P.; Emmanuelli, M.; Nadeem, H.; Kovac, M. Rotorigami: A rotary origami protective system for robotic
rotorcraft. Sci. Robot. 2018, 3, eaah5228. [CrossRef]
15. Butler, J.; Morgan, J.; Pehrson, N.; Tolman, K.; Bateman, T.; Magleby, S.P.; Howell, L.L. Highly Compressible Origami Bellows for
Harsh Environments. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers
and Information in Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC, USA, 21–24 August 2016.
16. Natori, M.C.; Sakamoto, H.; Katsumata, N.; Yamakawa, H.; Kishimoto, N. Conceptual model study using origami for membrane
space structures—A perspective of origami-based engineering. Mech. Eng. Rev. 2015, 2, 14-00368. [CrossRef]
17. Oru Kayak Inc. The Original Origami Kayak. Available online: https://www.orukayak.com/ (accessed on 16 December 2021).
18. N. N. Consumer Product Design—Foldable Footwear—Ideal Travel Footwear Offering Ultimate Portability. Available online:
https://www.tataelxsi.com/services/industrial-design-innovation/product-design-cs/foldablefootware.html (accessed on
25 August 2020).
19. Sterman, Y.; Demaine, E.D.; Oxman, N. PCB Origami: A Material-Based Design Approach to Computer-Aided Foldable Electronic
Devices. J. Mech. Des. 2013, 135, 114502. [CrossRef]
20. Hester, J.G.; Kim, S.; Bito, J.; Le, T.; Kimionis, J.; Revier, D.; Saintsing, C.; Su, W.; Tehrani, B.; Traille, A.; et al. Additively
Manufactured Nanotechnology and Origami-Enabled Flexible Microwave Electronics. Proc. IEEE 2015, 103, 583–606. [CrossRef]
21. Macri, S. Practical Applications of Rigid Thick Origami in Kinetic Architecture; University of Hawaii at Manoa: Honolulu, HI,
USA, 2015.
22. N. N. Al Bahr Towers. Available online: https://www.ahr.co.uk/projects/al-bahr-towers (accessed on 16 December 2021).
23. Feldhusen, J. (Ed.) Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre: Methoden und Anwendung erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung; 8., vollst. überarb.
Aufl.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; ISBN 3642295681.
24. Jacobs, G.; Konrad, C.; Berroth, J.; Zerwas, T.; Höpfner, G.; Spütz, K. Function-Oriented Model-Based Product Development. In
Design Methodology for Future Products; Krause, D., Heyden, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022;
pp. 243–263, ISBN 978-3-030-78367-9.
25. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e. V. VDI 2221. 2019. Available online: https://www.vdi.de/en/home/vdi-standards/details/vdi-
2221-blatt-1-design-of-technical-products-and-systems-model-of-product-design (accessed on 25 August 2020).
26. Handbuch Produktentwicklung; Lindemann, U., Ed.; Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG: München, Germany, 2016;
ISBN 9783446450929.
27. Bergmann, R.; Minor, M.; Bach, K.; Althoff, K.-D.; Munoz-Avila, H. 9 Fallbasiertes Schließen. In Handbuch der Künstlichen
Intelligenz; Görz, G., Schmid, U., Braun, T., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 343–394, ISBN 9783110659948.
28. Krampe, D. Fallbasiertes Schließen. In Wiederverwendung von Informationssystementwürfen; Krampe, D., Ed.; Deutscher Univer-
sitätsverlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 1999; pp. 45–53, ISBN 978-3-8244-2121-3.
29. Aamodt, A.; Plaza, E. Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. AI
Commun. 1994, 7, 39–59. [CrossRef]
30. Watson, I.; Marir, F. Case-based reasoning: A review. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 1994, 9, 327–354. [CrossRef]
31. Moreno Gata, K.; Seiter, A.; Musto, J.; Merz, J.; Wieja, F.; Jacobs, G.; Corves, B. Design and Development of a Foldable and
Transformable Hemispherical Enclosure for Robotic Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 8th International Meeting on Origami
in Science, Mathematics and Education (8OSME), Melbourne, Australia, 15–18 July 2024.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.