PaperBotsEsteban Cambronero Saba Andrew R. Lahrheim

ecambronerosaba19@mhrd.org alahrheim@gmail.com

Mason T. Llewellyn Rohan P. Singhmasontyler747@gmail.com singhr@htps.us

Mandev Singh*ms2313@scarletmail.rutgers.edu

New Jersey’s Governor’s School of Engineering and TechnologyJuly 27, 2018

*Corresponding AuthorAbstract—Paper has been used to create compressible, low cost,

search-and-rescue robots for use in disaster situations. Paperrobots, due to their low weight and compressibility, are easilytransported and stored in large numbers, allowing for efficientresponses in dire circumstances. The inexpensive aspect of therobot allows it to be replaceable in the event that it sustainssubstantial damage or destruction. In addition to paper, materialssuch as MoldStar rubber were used to increase the robots abilityto traverse the environment. The robot also includes an Arduinomicro-controller for motion control and wall sensing. The sensors,which are attached to the front and rear of the robot, allow it tonavigate through rough terrain and unpredictable obstacles. Therobot performed well under test conditions, meeting expectationsto detect obstacles. The tested results indicate that the paperbotscan be used effectively in search-and-rescue operations.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the world today, robots are omnipresent: they exist inindustrial factories, offices, schools, and even households.Recently, there have been extensive efforts to minimize thesize and cost of such technology, in hopes of increasingthe efficiency and applicability of such products in the field.Scientists are now attempting to use commonplace materialsto create feasible alternatives that can function as a robot. Asubsection of these efforts has been focused on introducingpaper as a viable material to create functional sensors. Onefield of research which has developed over the last few yearsis paperbots, an area of study involving the utilization of paperin small robot functions. The goal is to make robots from paperwith the capability of performing small tasks autonomously. In2012, a group of researchers published a paper on capacitivetouch sensors made of paper and their potential uses [1]. Paperbased capacitive touch sensors are made from aluminum, thesame metal commonly used in packaging material, beveragewrappers, and book covers. The sensors function by measuringa change in capacitance similar to the touch screens on manymodern devices. These sensors would allow paper robots tointeract with both people and their environment.Moreover, theability of paper to fold allows it to be adaptable, as it is ableto take on a variety of shapes. As a result of this propertyand its low cost, paper presents a unique opportunity to createrobots that are both cost effective and versatile.

An important consideration when looking at the field ofpaperbots is the utilization of origami in structural compo-

nents of the robot. Origami, the art of folding paper intoshapes and figures, has widely been used for design purposes.Originating in Japan, origami served as a cultural component,often used for decorations and even ceremonies [2]. Theseuses of origami often overlook the durability and strength thatorigami structures offer for other uses. In many instances,origami folds allow for extreme versatility as structures canbecome both rigid and flexible. By combining technologyand origami, a paperbot can be designed that would be ableto become fully collapsible in a matter of seconds, whileretaining robot properties and functions. The low cost andextremely diverse nature of paper also allows for the robot topossess different properties. Furthermore, origami folds can beapplied to thinner paper with greater precision, however thefinal structure will be more fragile. On the contrary, thickerpaper allows for more sturdiness, but decreases the accuracy offolds. Keeping these aspects in mind, origami can be appliedto suit various different functions, performing efficiently inalmost any field.

One application of paper robots would be in search-and-rescue. Paper based electronics can be used to improve theresponse time in times of natural disasters or other typesof collateral damage. The vision is to have large quantitiesof these paper robots sent out to locate civilians, or evento have civilians send out these robots to locate help ina case of disaster. Such products can be mass producedcheaply and are expected to be disposed without large financialrepercussions. Paperbots would be sold to emergency servicesand incorporated in first aid kits. Undoubtedly, the emergenceof soft robotics, specifically paper, presents a means to moreeffective responses in disasters.

II. PROCEDURE

A. How Paper Based Touch Sensors Work

Capacitive touch sensors detect a change in capacitanceand can be used to trigger a subsequent action through theuse of a micro-controller such as an Arduino Uno. One endof the capacitive sensor is connected to the ground pin ofthe Arduino while the other side is connected to two digitalpins via a resistor. The resulting circuit is a RC (resistorcapacitor) an example of this circuit can be seen in Figure:

1

1. The Arduino measures the time constant τ The equationrepresenting this constant is τ = RC where R and C representresistance and capacitance. The Arduino is not able to measurethe capacitance value by itself, therefore τ is measured. Aone MΩ resistor is used to amplify any changes in the timeconstant, making readings easier. When the sensor is touchedthe capacitor’s C value increases which raises τ .

Fig. 1. RC Circuit

Additionally, the capacitor created by the sensor is ex-tremely weak due to the nature of metallic paper. The metallicpaper is composed of a thin sheet of aluminum placed on a thinsheet of paper. Originally, the metallic paper was meant to actas a switch, in which the Arduino would measure the voltageproduced when the switch was activated. However, given thecapacitance value of the paper, the readings were not accurateresulting in various errors. As a result, the capacitive value ofthe paper was utilized. The capacitive sensors read the timeconstant rather than the voltage. This is more accurate as thechanges in the time constant are much more noticeable thanthose in voltage.

B. Limitations of Paper

Although paper has various advantages such as versatilityand cost, it has a number of limitations as well. The structuralintegrity of folded paper decreases as it is bent repeatedly.The fraying at the creases results in an overall decline inthe model’s functionality. This limitation would become anissue if the robots were designed to be long lasting. However,the search-and-rescue paperbots are designed to be used once.While the electronic components are recycled, the paper com-ponents, which are prone to damage, are replaced. Thus, fixingthe paperbot after it has withstood substantial damage will notbe expensive when compared to the cost of fully replacing allcomponents.

Additionally, a second limitation of paper occurs whenin the presence of water. Fluids have the ability to breakdown the bonds between the cellulose fibers that comprisepaper. Still, certain characteristics of paper can be manipulatedin order to either increase or decrease the aggregate waterconsumption. For instance, both thickness and rigidity can be

varied, resulting in differences in the paper’s water absorptioncapacity. Based upon these observations, the most effectivematerial for a search-and-rescue robot was determined to becard stock. Card stock is a balance between thickness andrigidity. Although card stock is very rigid, it is thin enoughto be creased comfortably, allowing shapes to be maintained.Another viable option to counter the weakness of paper againstliquids is to utilize coated paper or to apply a coating tothe material used. The coating is a nonpolar liquid whichdoes not allow water to be absorbed. Although seeminglybeneficial, coated paper is harder to fold. Applying a coatof nonpolar liquid also softens the creases, weakening thestructural components of the robot. Thus, a thicker paper,which is still foldable, was the most efficient option for thepaperbot.

Another important limitation that paper has is its ability towithstand forces. When a force is applied, the fibers in thepaper tear which weakens the paper. One way in which thiseffect can be minimized is by folding paper in an interlockingmanner that prevents the paper from becoming deformed. Byadding an adhesive between the folds, the paper becomesless prone to the forces as friction and the adhesive holdsit together. By distributing the forces over as much area aspossible, these effects can be mitigated. An example of forcedistribution is to create several points of contact with the forcerather than one. Paper is able to fold into a lattice with manysubsections that distribute the force, reducing any deformation.

C. Experimental Materials

Throughout the experimental process, various materialswere tested to increase the efficiency of the paperbot. Forinstance, during the experimental period, stepper motors weretested and compared with DC motors. Stepper motors drive insteps, allowing them to be easily controlled and accuratelymanipulated to suit the user’s purpose. When tested, thestepper motors were relatively fast, however when attachedto the wheels, the motors did not have enough torque to movethe vehicle. Undoubtedly, the stepper motors needed to bereplaced with greater torque. Initially, DC motors were used,yet the same problem arose. An alternative was finally found ingeared DC motors, which had the torque to move the vehicle ata comparatively fast pace. Although there are stepper motorswith this capability, the geared DC motors provide greatercontrol and stability. Thus, in the final product, the plasticgeared motors were used for smooth function.

D. Design Process

1) Functional and Nonfunctional Models: The first designresearched was an origami fold consisting of horizontal andvertical creases. Miura-ori folds, a type of Japanese foldingtechnique, were determined to be the best option due totheir substantial collapsibility as well as their rigidity. Afterexperimenting with the Miura-ori folds, it was determined thattwo models had to be made because of the size of the motorsand micro-controllers. One of these models was created asa proof of concept for the functional aspects of the robot,

2

the other a fully collapsible model that resembles the ideacomprehensibly.

2) Wheels: The wheels were another essential aspect ofthe design process. The wheel design was inspired by airlesstires used in certain construction trucks. These tires are able tosupport a major load and traverse over obstacles that are lessthan the spoke length of the wheel. The design that was chosentook into account the limitations of the materials being used tocraft the wheels. Small intricate parts would not have been aseffective because the Dreamer FlashForge 3D printer used toprint the molds for the wheels had a tolerance that altered theprinted dimensions, leading to warped and inaccurate molds.

In the final functional model, two large and two smallwheels were designed and used. Although the sizes of thewheels are different, the ratios are the same as they are scaledmodels of each other. The large wheels are located in themiddle of the robot as seen in Figure 2. The two smallerwheels are positioned inside the robot in the rectangularholes shown in Figure 2. The smaller wheels were designedprimarily to keep the robot balanced; they rest slightly abovethe ground so that they do not interfere with turning.

Fig. 2. Aerial View of Robot

E. Sensors

The sensors had to be placed far enough away from thechassis so that they would be able to detect walls before therobot collided with the walls. Simultaneously they had to beclose enough to use the chassis as a support without bending.Wheel placement also prevented sensors from being attachedto the sides of the robot as the wiring would have interferedwith the wheels. As seen in Figure 3, one sensor was attachedat a forty-five degree angle on each corner of the chassis,while two sensors were attached at the middles of both thefront and rear ends of the vehicle. This allowed the robot tosense obstacles while traveling either forwards or backwardswithout limitation.

F. Electronics and Coding

For locomotion, the functional model employs two drivemotors that are independently controlled by an Arduino microcontroller. To provide locomotion in the functional model, DC

Fig. 3. Front Sensors

motors were used. Though rotating DC motors continuously issimple, achieving the speed and direction control necessary forlocomotion is more complex. When a DC voltage is appliedacross the terminals of a DC motor, it can only rotate inone direction at a fixed speed. Increasing and decreasing thecurrent and switching its direction will change the speed anddirection of rotation respectively. An H-bridge, was used tomanipulate the current to a DC motor and is able to switchits direction based on digital signals from a device such as anArduino micro controller. The functional model uses a L298PH-bridge within the SparkFun Ardumoto motor controller.This shield expansion fits directly into the header pins ofthe Arduino reading the pin outputs and adding functionalitywithout the need for any extra wires. This method conservesspace, which is scarce within the chassis of the model. TheArduino controls the speed of each motor individually throughfour pin outputs, two for each motor. The first motor iscontrolled through pins 3 and 12 and the second is controlledby pins 11 and 13. Pins 3 and 11 control the speed of eachrespective motor through a PWM (Pulse with Modulation)signal to each pin. Pins 12 and 13 control the direction ofeach motor through digital signals.

Initially, the capacitive sensors were tested using a bread-board and jumper wires which allowed the circuit design tobe quickly adjusted and improved upon. Each capacitive touchsensor is wired as shown in Figure: 4

G. Robot Behavior

The functional model will navigate using only the paper-based capacitive touch sensors. The behavior of the modelis relatively basic but allows it to move into disaster areasand function autonomously navigating around walls, rubble,and other static obstacles. The robot moves forward until itdetects a wall with one of its three front-mounted capacitivesensors. Each sensor triggers a different maneuver from therobot. If the front left sensor is pressed, the robot will stop,reverse for 2 seconds, turn right by 45 degrees, and continueforward. The front right sensor triggers a similar behavior butturns left rather than right. These behaviors are intended toallow the robot to handle collisions with corners where only

3

Fig. 4. Sensor Circuit

part of the chassis collides with the wall. When the robot hits awall while driving forward the front sensor is activated whichcauses the robot to move backwards and make a 90 degreeturn to the right. While reversing, the robot uses its three rearsensors for the same purpose as the front ones. The programfor this behavior can be seen in appendix A.

H. Resolving Errors

Various complications arose at each step of the constructionprocess. The first problem was introduced in concern to thesize of the chassis. When prototypes were made, an ArduinoUno was used for measurements. However, after the finaldesign was decided upon, it was determined that an ArduinoMega had to be used due to the digital ports needed toprocess the robots movement. The difference in size of thetwo Arduino microprocessors was approximately one inch,meaning that the chassis needed to be larger than originallypredicted. This error was resolved by cutting the card stockrather than folding it. Folding the paper into a box reduced theamount of paper that was available for use. Cutting allowedfor the full size of the card stock to be utilized. Another erroremerged in regards to wheel number and placement. In theoriginal design four large wheels were thought to be necessaryfor stabilization. However, only two large wheels were able tofit in the chassis without interfering with the sensor placement.Thus, two smaller wheels were added to the bottom to resolvethe issue of an unbalanced robot. The two smaller wheelsadded support while allowing the robot to retain its turningcapabilities.

There were also several issues with the electronic compo-nents of the robot that had to be resolved. The first issue wasthe capacitive sensors not being detected by the Arduino whentriggered. It was later realized that the resistors being usedwere too low to produce meaningful readings in the Arduino.Initially, ten-thousand Ω resistors were being used which werenot nearly as powerful as needed. When a MΩ resistor wasused, the readings were read by the Arduino and an accuratethreshold was able to be set. Moreover, when running theArduino in the beginning, only the USB power supply wasused. This led to inconsistencies in power output and sensor

readings. By attaching a nine volt battery permanently to therobot, the results were guaranteed to be more consistent. Afinal error with the electronics was that the electric paint forthe capacitive sensors peeled with one layer of paint whichmeant multiple coatings were necessary to fully attach thewires to the capacitive sensors. Overall, the errors allowed forimprovements to the structure and circuitry of the robot.

III. RESULTS AND ANALYSISA. Construction

The construction process began with the development ofmultiple prototypes. Materials including printer paper, origamipaper, cardboard, and card stock were initially used for thechassis. Ultimately, the final functional prototype was a rigidcard stock chassis with foldable sections. To prevent extremetorsion on the structure, triangular prism support beams wereadded to the diagonals of the box, shown in Figure 2. Both ofthe large prism support structures had smaller prism structureslocated at their midpoint for increased support. The smallerprism structures were bonded using Polyvinyl Acetate, anadhesive used in common craft projects. In order to bear theweight of both the motors and the wheels, the left and rightwalls of the vehicle were reinforced with six layers of cardstock. Additionally, springs were added to support the paper-based capacitive touch sensors at the aforementioned locations.Once the chassis was finalized, the motors were mounted.However, when rotation was attempted, the vehicle experi-enced evident instability. In response, two smaller wheels wereadded to the center of the vehicle. The wheel supports werecreated through the use of five-sided rectangular prisms whichwere attached to the bottom of the robot. The prisms formedan array with four sets of five triangular prisms alternating inorientation. These arrays were adhered to the bottom of therobot using PVA and a hole was run through them to supportthe wheels.

Another essential component of construction were thewheels. The wheels were created by casting different types ofrubber, specifically Moldstar 20T, Moldstar 30, and SORTA-Clear 37, in a three-dimensional mold. The mold was gener-ated using AutoCAD and printed with a Dreamer FlashForge3D printer using Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plas-tic. This plastic does not adhere to silicon well which madeit easier to remove the silicon from the mold. The mold wasalso sprayed with Ease Mold Release 200 to prevent the siliconfrom binding with the mold. Using the printed mold differentcombinations of rubber were cast.

1) Motor Attachment: The motors were attached to therobot through the use of screws going through the motorsupports. A hole was cut to allow the axle to turn. The motorswere then attached to the wheel through the use of a 3Dprinted axle and connector combination that can be seen inFigure 5. The connectors were designed using Fusion 360so that the three dimensional model could be visualized. Theaxle attachments are 1.2 inches in height and 2.85 inches indiameter which is the size of the DC motor. The axle thatgoes through the wheel is a circle of .25 inches which then

4

Fig. 5. Motor Attachment

extends into a square which is inscribed inside the .25 inchcircle. A cap is then attached to the square which compressesthe wheel and secures it in place. The connector was printedin PLA (Polyactic Acid) plastic which has a higher tensilestrength than ABS. The connectors were also printed with a 15percent fill to avoid loss of material and to prevent unnecessaryweight from being added to the robot.

Fig. 6. Wheel Mold

Shore hardness is a measure of a material’s ability to keepits shape. The shore hardness of the rubbers in Table 1 aremeasured on the Shore A hardness scale and lie in a rangebetween rubber bands and pencil erasers. A rubber band hasa Shore hardness of 20A while a pencil eraser has a Shore

Fig. 7. Wheels in Comparison to Quarter

TABLE IHARDNESS AND FLEXIBILITY OF RUBBER

Type of Rubber Mold Star 30 Mold Star 20T SORTA-Clear 37Shore Hardness 30A 20A 37A

Elongation at Break 339% 470% 400%

hardness of 40A.The elongation at break value gives insight into how much

a material will have stretched before breaking. It is derivedby stretching a material until it breaks and recording thefinal length achieved. The elongation at break value describesthe final length as a percentage of the original length usingthe percent change formula. This is an important factor toconsider because it is inversely proportional to the rigidity ofthe material and directly proportional to the flexibility of thematerial. This number was primarily used to determine whichrubber should be used in the middle of the wheel.

The rubbers were mixed prior to being cast in the mold.They were then poured into the mold and separated by a sheetof paper which was removed at the end of the casting process.For the search-and-rescue robot, the ideal wheels need a rigidouter tire and flexible interior to allow the robot to roll oversmaller pieces of rubble. The Mold Star 20T is more flexiblethan the Mold Star 30, leading it to be used for the interiorspokes. The Mold Star 30 was chosen for the exterior due toits relatively high shore hardness level. The SORTA-Clear 37should have ideally been the better exterior material, howeverthe Mold Star 20T did not bond well with this rubber, leadingto defects in the wheels structure. Thus, the combination ofMold Star 20T and 30 were determined to be the best withrespect to rigidity, flexibility, and bonding.

B. Paper Analysis

To determine the efficiency of different kinds of paper,several experiments were conducted regarding both compress-ibility and rigidity. The data derived from the two tests can beanalyzed in Figures 8 and 10. To obtain accurate results stripsof similar length paper were cut and then weaved together tocreate a spring; this procedure was replicated for all three typesof paper. Then, utilizing a millimeter caliper, the completelyfolded model was measured and compared against the fullyelongated model. The percent change formula was used

PC =M1 +M2

M1

(where M1 and M2 represent the measurements of the foldedand unfolded paper respectively) to determine which type of

5

paper could elongate the most in relation to itself. Figure 8measures the percent compressibility of origami paper, cardstock paper, and regular printer paper. The results of thisanalysis indicate that printer paper is able to compress themost.

Fig. 8. Percent Compression

Another factor of paper that was tested was its ability tosupport weight. The data can be seen in Figure 10. Once againthe percent change formula was used (with weight rather thanlength) to calculate how much load the different papers couldhandle respective to their own weight. This experiment wasconducted by measuring the mass of the paper on a gramscale, recording it, and then adding incremental amounts ofmass to the top of the folded model until it collapsed. Thisprocess can be seen in Figure 9 when testing the card stock.According to this test, card stock was experimentally recordedto be the strongest.

Fig. 9. Compression Test

By consulting the data acquired from the tests it wasdetermined that it would be best to construct the functionalmodel mostly from card stock. This was because of thestark difference in load bearing capabilities which allowedfor the motors and Arduino to sit comfortably on the chassis.Meanwhile, origami paper was chosen for the foldable modelbecause it had the best combination of both strength andcompressibility. Additionally, origami paper is designed to

maintain creases and properties of folding which allowed thefoldable model to compress as much as possible.

Fig. 10. Weight Analysis

C. Folding Analysis

1) Springs: Paper springs were an important aspect of therobot that had to be incorporated as a result of the utilization ofpaper-based capacitive touch sensors, as can be seen in Figure11. The two options for the spring mechanisms were origaminuts or overlapping spring folds. The benefits of the origaminuts are that they are more durable and able to fold severaltimes without deterioration. On the contrary, benefits of theoverlapping spring folds are that they are smaller and theirstructure is more rigid. The smaller overlapping spring foldswere determined to be the most useful as the nuts could not beminimized enough without destroying the structural integrity.

Fig. 11. Overlapping Spring Folds

D. Run Results

To test the functionality of the robot a course was con-structed using couches and chairs to imitate a disaster area.The paper was able to successfully reach its destination in atimely manner. In this course the robot was able to avoid allthe obstacles successfully. The sensors were able to run intoall the obstacles before the chassis. Based on the run test,the motor speeds were lowered and the turning radius wasincreased so that the robot would be able to avoid larger sizedobjects and the robot would not collide with the obstacles athigh speeds.

E. Model Constraints

Several tests were conducted to determine the ideal robotdimensions, the first of determined the design of the robot Thesize measurements were dictated by the size of the Arduinomicro-controller and were determined to be ideal at a width

6

of four and five-eighth inches, a length of seven and a quarterinches and a height of one and five-eighth inches. Thesemeasurements allowed for the axis fold of the wheels to beone inch. The quadrilateral shape was eventually decided on asit produced the least torsion while providing a stable surfacearea. Furthermore, the size of the wheels determined the heightof the robot as the axle had to be above the foldable axis ofthe chassis.

F. Future Improvements

Given the eventual purpose for the paperbot, many improve-ments can be made to increase viability in the future. To begin,the weight and size of the vehicle can both be minimized.Currently, due to the microcontroller being used, the vehicleneeds to have a large chassis, in turn leading to bulkier wheelsand slower movement. Technological advancements in recentyears indicate that it is probable that electrical circuts printedon paper will become widespread. With paper-based circutboards, incompressible components such as microcontrollersand motor controllers can be replaced with integrated circutsmounted directly to the paper chassis. This would lower thecost of future paperbots, decrease their size, and increasetheir overall compressibility. The motors occupy a significantportion of the internal volume of the chassis and are rigid,limiting the compressibility of the paperbot. Innovations inmotor technology that reduce motor size would significantlybenefit the paperbot by allowing the chassis to fold intosmaller shapes. The rubber used for the tires was rigid andcould not be folded. In the future, if paper was used forthe wheels, the wheels could be folded, decreasing size,and consequently decreasing weight as well. This would notonly utilize the properties of paper to the fullest extent, butwould also aid the product in becoming widespread and cost-efficient. Research into nitinol, a nickel-titanium alloy withshape retaining properties, can also be done in order to find aviable option for shape maintenance. Primarily nitinol can beconsidered for the chassis of the vehicle. Nitinol samples havea memory characteristic; they can be pre-heated in a certainshape, and will return to that shape whenever an electriccurrent is passed through the material[4]. If the paperbot wasdisfigured, an electrical current could pass through the nitinol,reverting the vehicle to its initial shape. This would lengthenthe lifespan for each robot, increasing the cost effectiveness.Finally, the utilization of the Miura Ori technique could lead toefficient collapsibility in the future. The crease patterns of theMiura fold form a tessellation of the surface through the use ofparallelograms, as can be seen in Figure 12. In the horizontaldirection, the creases lie along straight lines. In the verticaldirection, the creases zigzag. The alternating diagonal pathsof creases consists solely of mountain folds or valley folds,with mountains alternating with valleys from one diagonalpath to the next. This allows for the fold to be compressiblein two directions. With this property, the Miura Ori fold isable to compress or expand by only actuating two corners.This property was determined to be extremely beneficial forfuture models where the robot can be unfolded through the

use of Nitinol. Another possibility that can be consideredfor a future model is an accordion fold which only consistsof mountain and valley folds. The accordion fold, however,requires actuation at every fold and is not able to compressboth horizontally and vertically, causing it to be less efficientthan the Miura Ori.

Fig. 12. Miura-ori Fold

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The development of search-and-rescue robots made from apaper material introduces a cost-effective and efficient wayof providing aid during times of disastrous circumstances.Specifically, research done in regards to the strength of paperand rubber allowed for a functional robot to be created. Thelow cost of paper allows the robots to be disposable andreplaceable, while the folding properties of paper allow therobots to be collapsible and stored without occupying muchspace. Although the paperbot is reasonably efficient at themoment, future improvements specifically in size, weight,and material can be made to effectively mass produce andutilize these vehicles in the field. If utilized, this productwould be instrumental in more efficient search-and-rescuemissions, indirectly leading to decreased mortality rates insuch situations.

APPENDIX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors of this paper gratefully acknowledge thefollowing: project mentor Mandev Singh, for his valuableknowledge of engineering and hands-on involvement; projectliaison Melissa Tu, for her invaluable assistance; the labs ofprofessor Aaron Mazzeo for their assets and support, DeanIlene Rosen, the Director of GSET and Dean Jean PatrickAntoine, the Associate Director of GSET for their managementand guidance; research coordinator Brian Lai for his assistance

7

in conducting proper research; Rutgers University, RutgersSchool of Engineering, and the State of New Jersey for thechance to advance knowledge, explore engineering, and openup new opportunities; Lockheed Martin, Silverline Windows,Rubik’s and other corporate sponsors for funding our scientificendeavors; and lastly NJ GSET Alumni, for their continuedparticipation and support.

REFERENCES

[1] A. Mazzeo, W. Kalb, L. Chan, M. Killian, J. Bloch, B. Mazzeo, and G.Whitesides, ”Paper-Based, Capacitive Touch Pads”, Advanced Materials,vol. 24, pp. 2850-2856, 2012.

[2] N. Robinson, Origami, Encyclopedia Britannica, 03-Dec-2014. [Online].Available: https://www.britannica.com/art/origami. [Accessed: 21-Jul-2018].

[3] S. S. Hoque, Paper-Based Robotics: Efficient Application of ShapeMemory Alloys

[4] J. Matthey, How Does Nitinol Work? All About Nitinol ShapeMemory and Superelasticity, Setting Shapes in Nitinol: NitiSuperelasticity and Shape Memory Properties. [Online]. Available:http://jmmedical.com/resources/122/How-Does-Nitinol-Work?-All-About-Nitinol-Shape-Memory-and-Superelasticity.html. [Accessed:22-Jul-2018].

8