zipper unfoldings of polyhedral complexeserikdemaine.org/zippers/talk.pdf · 2010. 8. 13. ·...

35
Erik Demaine Martin Demaine Anna Lubiw Arlo Shallit Jonah Shallit Zipper Unfoldings of Polyhedral Complexes 1 Thursday, August 12, 2010

Upload: others

Post on 12-Feb-2021

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • Erik Demaine Martin Demaine Anna Lubiw Arlo Shallit Jonah Shallit

    Zipper Unfoldings of Polyhedral Complexes

    1Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Unfolding Polyhedra—Durer 1400’s

    Durer, 1498snub cube

    2Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Unfolding Polyhedra—Octahedronall unfoldings

    3Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • 4Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Zipper Unfoldings of Polyhedra—Octahedron

    5Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Zippers

    separating zipper

    multiple toggles(cosmetic)

    6Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Zippers

    • 1891 patent by Whitcomb Judson• novel, but not practical (“If skirt is to be washed, remove fastener.”)• named “zipper” by B.F. Goodrich company in 1920’s• ubiquitous but super!uous

    7Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Edge Cuts versus Face Cuts

    edge cuts face cuts

    Zipper edge cuts = Hamiltonian unfolding [Shepherd ’75]

    8Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Zipper Edge Cuts (Hamiltonian Unfolding)

    Nick Chase

    What is a zipper unfolding of a polyhedron?

    on the polyhedronthe cut is a simple path on the polygon

    this is forbidden

    9Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Outline of Talk

    Convex Polyhedra

    Platonic Solids Archimedean Solids

    Polyhedral Manifolds

    Polyhedral Complexes

    10Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Platonic Solids

    12Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Platonic Solids

    "ese are doubly Hamiltonian—the cut is a path and faces are joined in a path.

    13Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Archimedean Solids

    truncatedcube

    truncatedoctahedron

    cubocta-hedron

    snub cube

    icosidodeca-hedron

    truncatedtetrahedron

    truncatedicosa-

    hedron

    greatrhombicub-octahedron

    smallrhombicosi-

    dodecahedron

    smallrhombicub-octahedron

    snubdodeca-hedron

    truncateddodeca-hedron

    greatrhombicosi-

    dodecahedron

    14Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Archimedean Solids

    truncatedcube

    truncatedoctahedron

    cubocta-hedron

    snub cube

    icosidodeca-hedron

    truncatedtetrahedron

    truncatedicosa-

    hedron

    greatrhombicub-octahedron

    smallrhombicosi-

    dodecahedron

    smallrhombicub-octahedron

    snubdodeca-hedron

    truncateddodeca-hedron

    greatrhombicosi-

    dodecahedron

    15Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Archimedean Solidsgreat

    rhombicosi-dodecahedron

    16Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Archimedean Solids

    truncatedcube

    truncatedoctahedron

    cubocta-hedron

    snub cube

    icosidodeca-hedron

    truncatedtetrahedron

    truncatedicosa-

    hedron

    greatrhombicub-octahedron

    smallrhombicosi-

    dodecahedron

    smallrhombicub-octahedron

    snubdodeca-hedron

    truncateddodeca-hedron

    greatrhombicosi-

    dodecahedron

    18Thursday, August 12, 2010

    keynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/snub-dodo-silent.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-tetra.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-tetra.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-cube.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-cube.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-octa.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-octa.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/cuboctahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/cuboctahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/snub-cube.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/snub-cube.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/icosidodecahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/icosidodecahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/great-rho.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/great-rho.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/truc-dodo.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/truc-dodo.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-icosahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/trunc-icosahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/great-rhomicuboctahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/great-rhomicuboctahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/small-rhombicosidodecahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/small-rhombicosidodecahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/small-rhombicuboctahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/small-rhombicuboctahedron.keykeynote:/Users/alubiw/Documents/research/zip/keynote%20files/snub-dodo-silent.key

  • ⎧⎨⎩

    ⎧⎨⎩

    What next?

    these have zipper unfoldings

    Peda Software Polyhedron Poster

    ??

    19Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Not all convex polyhedra have Hamiltonian unfoldings

    rhombic dodecahedron net

    its graph has no Hamiltonian path

    OPEN: #nd a convex polyhedron with no Hamiltonian unfolding but whose graph has a Hamiltonian path.

    20Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Unfolding Convex Polyhedra

    unfolding zipper unfolding

    edgecuts

    OPENDoes every convex polyhedron

    have an edge unfolding?Not every convex polyhedronhas a Hamiltonian unfolding.

    NO

    facecuts

    OPENEvery convex polyhedron

    has an unfolding—star, source unfolding.

    YESDoes every convex polyhedron

    have a zipper unfolding?

    21Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Manifolds

    polyhedral manifold—a #nite union of planar polygons in 3D s.t. every point has a neighbourhood homeomorphic to a disk

    may be non-convex

    may have genus ≠ 0

    Figure 2: An nonorthogonal polyhedron composed of rectangular faces.

    (and symmetry) of a regular octahedron, with each octahedron vertex replacedby a cluster of five vertices, and each octahedron edge replaced by a triangularprism. Let us fix the squares at each octahedron vertex to be unit squares. Thelength L of the prisms is not significant; in the figure, L = 3, and any lengthlarge enough to keep the interior open would suffice as well. The other sidelengths of the prism are, however, crucially important. The open triangle holeat the end of each prism has side lengths 1 (to mesh with the unit square),

    √3/2

    and√

    3/2; see Fig. 3.This places the fifth vertex in the cluster displaced by 1/2 perpendicularly

    from the center of each square, forming a pyramid, as shown in Fig. 4.

    3/2

    1

    L

    Figure 3: Right triangular prism,used twelve times in Fig. 2.

    3/2

    1

    1/21

    1/2

    2/2

    Figure 4: The cluster of five vertices re-placing each octahedron vertex form apyramid.

    The central isosceles right triangle (shaded in Fig. 4) guarantees that twooppositely oriented incident triangular prisms meet at right angles, just as dothe corresponding edges of an octahedron. The result is a closed polyhedronof V = 6 · 5 = 30 vertices, E = 84 edges, and F = 42 faces. The 42 facesinclude 6 unit squares, 12 L× 1 rectangles, and 24 rectangles of size L×

    √3/2.

    3

    Magnus Wenninger

    22Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Manifolds—Unfolding

    a “nice” non-convex polyhedron with no edge

    unfolding

    version (643K)

    Unfoldings exist for many more polyhedral surfaces. For example, the torus shown below has a planar

    unfolding to a single component such that no two faces overlap. (For experts, this polyhedral torus is the

    Clifford torus obtained from a non!standard parameterization using Hopf fibers in the 3!sphere.)

    The Clifford torus is generated by a family of circles. The torus unfolds nicely

    despite the negative curvature of the inner region ! view the animated version

    (805K)

    It is a challenging task in combinatorial geometry to find polyhedral models of a given topological shape

    which use the minimal number of faces or vertices. The Clifford torus shown above uses about 200 vertices,

    which is surely more than necessary. A torus with the least number of vertices, 7, was found by Császár [6].

    F.H. Lutz [7] produced the model of the unfolding below.

    The Császár torus is an embedded polyhedral torus (i.e. one

    without self!intersection) with the least number of vertices ! view

    the animated version (364K)

    Now we are ready to understand an even more complicated unfolding. The Boy surface mentioned in the

    introduction is a model of the projective plane. One model of the projective plane can be obtained by taking

    the upper hemisphere of a ball and identifying opposite points of the equator. Alternatively, you can take a

    planar disk and pairwise identify opposite points on the boundary circle. Since these are topological

    constructions you can take any piece of the plane which is bounded by a single closed curve ! such as the

    unfolding of the Boy surface.

    The discrete Boy surface unfolds to a simply connected disk. Opposite vertices of

    the boundary are identified during refolding ! see the animated version (565K)

    Imaging maths ! Unfolding polyhedra

    Geometric Origami 4

    Császár torus (net by Lutz, picture by Polthier)

    Figure 6: Adding cubes to Fig. 2.

    Figure 7: An orthogonal polygon that folds to the nonorthogonal polyhedron inFig. 6.

    6

    Figure6:AddingcubestoFig.2.

    Figure7:AnorthogonalpolygonthatfoldstothenonorthogonalpolyhedroninFig.6.

    6

    Donoso & O’Rourke

    some higher genus polyhedral manifolds with edge unfoldings

    OPEN: Does every polyhedral manifold have a [general] unfolding?

    22.4. Unfoldable Polyhedra 317

    using the labeling shown in Figure 22.18, to reach the conclusion that there is a path of T

    in the hat connecting two hat corners {A, B, C}.The hat peak x must connect via T to outside the hat, and so there must be a path

    from x through a hat corner, say B. If this path passes through all three spike base vertices

    {a, b, c}, then any additional edge of T (and there must be at least one to avoid Figure 22.16)will connect two corners. So suppose that the path from x to B passes through just one (b:

    Figure 22.18(a)) or two (a and b: Figure 22.18(b)) base vertices. In the former case, a and cneed to be spanned by T , but neither can be a leaf (because both have negative curvature).

    So there must be a path from A to C as shown. In the latter case, c needs to be spanned

    by T , but again it cannot be a leaf. The path through c could go either to C or to A (or toboth), and in either case, we have a path between two corners.

    Now the hat corners are the four corners of the tetrahedron. So we have these four corners

    connected by four corner-to-corner paths inside the hats. Viewing each of these four pathsas an arc connecting four corner nodes, we can see that it is impossible to avoid a cycle,

    for a tree on n nodes can have only n − 1 arcs. This violates Lemma 22.1.2, and establishesthat the spiked tetrahedron has no edge unfolding to a net.

    One might wonder if the spiked tetrahedron can be unfolded without restricting the cuts

    to edges. Figure 22.19 illustrates a strategy (for a differently parametrized version of thepolyhedron) which throws the four spikes safely out to the boundary of the tetrahedron

    unfolding.

    In fact, no example is known that cannot be unfolded without overlap:

    Figure 22.17. Two views of an ununfoldable triangulated polyhedron.

    A

    B

    C

    a

    bc

    x

    A

    B

    C

    a

    bc

    x

    (a) (b)

    Figure 22.18. Possible restrictions of a cut tree to one hat.

    Bern, Demaine, Eppstein, Kuo, Mantler, Snoeyink, 2003.

    23Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Manifolds—Zipper Unfoldings

    use separating zipper

    24Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Manifolds—Zipper Unfoldings

    "eorem. If P is a polyhedral manifold that has a zipper unfolding to a planar polygonal region F, then either P is a polyhedron and F is a polygon, or—in the case of a separating zipper—P is a torus polyhedron and F is an annulus (with outer perimeter = inner perimeter).

    Nick Chase

    not possible

    25Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Manifolds—Zipper Unfoldings

    "ese have no zipper edge unfoldings.

    Lemma. A zipper edge unfolding of a torus polyhedron is an annulus with faces forming a cycle with trees attached.

    26Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes

    Weaire–Phelan structure

    polyhedral complex—a #nite union of planar polygons in 3D s.t. intersections are edge-to-edge joins

    3 faces meetingat an edge

    only one faceat an edge

    27Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Unfolding

    Liu & Tai, in Computer-Aided Design, 2007

    906 W. Liu, K. Tai / Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 898–913

    (a) Hyper-common edge set with FAG. (b) Invalid spanning tree.

    (c) Valid spanning tree. (d) Detectingtopological validity.

    Fig. 12. Topological validity of spanning tree.

    Fig. 13. Merging of some pairs of coplanar adjacent faces.

    than one hyper-common edge, then both conditions must besatisfied for each and every such edge before a spanning treeis certified as valid.

    4.4. Merging of coplanar adjacent faces

    Fig. 13(a) shows a 3D folded structure and Fig. 13(b)shows one possible way of unfolding it to form its flat pattern.This example illustrates an instance where a pair of coplanaradjacent faces within the 3D folded structure can alternatively

    be made up of one single face. There are in fact three suchpairs in this example (faces 1 and 2, faces 3 and 4, and faces5 and 6). For reasons of structural strength/integrity or easeof folding, it may sometimes be desirable to have any suchpair of faces formed by one single face instead (as indicatedin Fig. 13(b) for face pair 3 and 4, and face pair 5 and 6).However, it is not always desirable to have any such pairsof faces defined as a single face before applying the basicunfolding procedure because this may reduce the number ofresults generated, thereby missing out on some potential flatpattern designs where the two faces are not situated adjacent toeach other but are in fact separated (as in Fig. 13(c) where facepair 3 and 4 and face pair 5 and 6 are separated).

    Therefore, the strategy adopted in this work is to alwaysdefine each and every pair of such faces as two individualfaces in the 3D structure, but with an optional switch for thedesigner to choose whether to merge any such pairs of facesin the results. If the choice is to merge, then for every pair ofsuch faces that happen to be adjacent within the flat pattern, thetwo faces will automatically be merged as one face. For anypair of such faces which are not adjacent within the flat pattern,they will of course have to be kept as separate. In this way, nopotential flat pattern results will be left out.

    5. Optimality criteria for flat patterns

    Depending on the number of faces as well as the connectivityamong them, a 3D folded structure can have thousands ormillions of valid non-overlapping flat patterns. However, thedesigner would usually be trying to select just one that isoptimal according to some criteria. Very often, as the flat patternis a single-piece layout, there is a desire for it to be as compactas possible because compactness makes for easier handlingand folding and also has advantages in terms of storage andtransportation. However, there is no single universal measureof compactness, so three different measures of compactness are

    906 W. Liu, K. Tai / Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 898–913

    (a) Hyper-common edge set with FAG. (b) Invalid spanning tree.

    (c) Valid spanning tree. (d) Detectingtopological validity.

    Fig. 12. Topological validity of spanning tree.

    Fig. 13. Merging of some pairs of coplanar adjacent faces.

    than one hyper-common edge, then both conditions must besatisfied for each and every such edge before a spanning treeis certified as valid.

    4.4. Merging of coplanar adjacent faces

    Fig. 13(a) shows a 3D folded structure and Fig. 13(b)shows one possible way of unfolding it to form its flat pattern.This example illustrates an instance where a pair of coplanaradjacent faces within the 3D folded structure can alternatively

    be made up of one single face. There are in fact three suchpairs in this example (faces 1 and 2, faces 3 and 4, and faces5 and 6). For reasons of structural strength/integrity or easeof folding, it may sometimes be desirable to have any suchpair of faces formed by one single face instead (as indicatedin Fig. 13(b) for face pair 3 and 4, and face pair 5 and 6).However, it is not always desirable to have any such pairsof faces defined as a single face before applying the basicunfolding procedure because this may reduce the number ofresults generated, thereby missing out on some potential flatpattern designs where the two faces are not situated adjacent toeach other but are in fact separated (as in Fig. 13(c) where facepair 3 and 4 and face pair 5 and 6 are separated).

    Therefore, the strategy adopted in this work is to alwaysdefine each and every pair of such faces as two individualfaces in the 3D structure, but with an optional switch for thedesigner to choose whether to merge any such pairs of facesin the results. If the choice is to merge, then for every pair ofsuch faces that happen to be adjacent within the flat pattern, thetwo faces will automatically be merged as one face. For anypair of such faces which are not adjacent within the flat pattern,they will of course have to be kept as separate. In this way, nopotential flat pattern results will be left out.

    5. Optimality criteria for flat patterns

    Depending on the number of faces as well as the connectivityamong them, a 3D folded structure can have thousands ormillions of valid non-overlapping flat patterns. However, thedesigner would usually be trying to select just one that isoptimal according to some criteria. Very often, as the flat patternis a single-piece layout, there is a desire for it to be as compactas possible because compactness makes for easier handlingand folding and also has advantages in terms of storage andtransportation. However, there is no single universal measureof compactness, so three different measures of compactness are

    906 W. Liu, K. Tai / Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 898–913

    (a) Hyper-common edge set with FAG. (b) Invalid spanning tree.

    (c) Valid spanning tree. (d) Detectingtopological validity.

    Fig. 12. Topological validity of spanning tree.

    Fig. 13. Merging of some pairs of coplanar adjacent faces.

    than one hyper-common edge, then both conditions must besatisfied for each and every such edge before a spanning treeis certified as valid.

    4.4. Merging of coplanar adjacent faces

    Fig. 13(a) shows a 3D folded structure and Fig. 13(b)shows one possible way of unfolding it to form its flat pattern.This example illustrates an instance where a pair of coplanaradjacent faces within the 3D folded structure can alternatively

    be made up of one single face. There are in fact three suchpairs in this example (faces 1 and 2, faces 3 and 4, and faces5 and 6). For reasons of structural strength/integrity or easeof folding, it may sometimes be desirable to have any suchpair of faces formed by one single face instead (as indicatedin Fig. 13(b) for face pair 3 and 4, and face pair 5 and 6).However, it is not always desirable to have any such pairsof faces defined as a single face before applying the basicunfolding procedure because this may reduce the number ofresults generated, thereby missing out on some potential flatpattern designs where the two faces are not situated adjacent toeach other but are in fact separated (as in Fig. 13(c) where facepair 3 and 4 and face pair 5 and 6 are separated).

    Therefore, the strategy adopted in this work is to alwaysdefine each and every pair of such faces as two individualfaces in the 3D structure, but with an optional switch for thedesigner to choose whether to merge any such pairs of facesin the results. If the choice is to merge, then for every pair ofsuch faces that happen to be adjacent within the flat pattern, thetwo faces will automatically be merged as one face. For anypair of such faces which are not adjacent within the flat pattern,they will of course have to be kept as separate. In this way, nopotential flat pattern results will be left out.

    5. Optimality criteria for flat patterns

    Depending on the number of faces as well as the connectivityamong them, a 3D folded structure can have thousands ormillions of valid non-overlapping flat patterns. However, thedesigner would usually be trying to select just one that isoptimal according to some criteria. Very often, as the flat patternis a single-piece layout, there is a desire for it to be as compactas possible because compactness makes for easier handlingand folding and also has advantages in terms of storage andtransportation. However, there is no single universal measureof compactness, so three different measures of compactness are

    cannot be unfolded

    318 Chapter 22. Edge Unfolding of Polyhedra

    Figure 22.19. A general unfolding of a spiked tetrahedron.

    v

    Figure 22.20. An open surface that has no general unfolding to a net.

    Open Problem 22.14: General Nonoverlapping Unfolding of Polyhedra. a Does everyclosed polyhedron have a general unfolding to a nonoverlapping polygon?

    a Bern et al. (2003).

    However, it is easy to construct open polyhedral surfaces that have no net. Figure 22.20

    is a simple example. Its one interior vertex v has negative curvature and so cannot be a leafof a cut tree. So the leaves of the cut tree must lie on the boundary. Because a tree has at

    least two leaves, the surface must be disconnected by the cuts.

    22.5 Special Classes of Edge-Unfoldable Polyhedra

    One might think that, although no one has been able to prove that every convex polyhe-

    dron is edge-unfoldable to a net, surely many special infinite classes of polyhedra have been

    established as edge-unfoldable. Such is not the case. Results here are sparse. An under-graduate thesis (DiBiase 1990) established that all polyhedra of 4, 5, or 6 vertices may be

    edge-unfolded to a net, but, as mentioned earlier, the proof does not seem to give insight forlarger n. For some classes of polyhedra, a nonoverlapping unfolding is obvious and therefore

    uninteresting. For example, all prisms—formed by two con- gruent, parallel convex poly-

    gons (the base and top) and rectangle side faces (see Figure 22.21)—can be unfolded by

    Bern, Demaine, Eppstein, Kuo, Mantler, Snoeyink, 2003.

    28Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Unfolding

    906 W. Liu, K. Tai / Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 898–913

    (a) Hyper-common edge set with FAG. (b) Invalid spanning tree.

    (c) Valid spanning tree. (d) Detectingtopological validity.

    Fig. 12. Topological validity of spanning tree.

    Fig. 13. Merging of some pairs of coplanar adjacent faces.

    than one hyper-common edge, then both conditions must besatisfied for each and every such edge before a spanning treeis certified as valid.

    4.4. Merging of coplanar adjacent faces

    Fig. 13(a) shows a 3D folded structure and Fig. 13(b)shows one possible way of unfolding it to form its flat pattern.This example illustrates an instance where a pair of coplanaradjacent faces within the 3D folded structure can alternatively

    be made up of one single face. There are in fact three suchpairs in this example (faces 1 and 2, faces 3 and 4, and faces5 and 6). For reasons of structural strength/integrity or easeof folding, it may sometimes be desirable to have any suchpair of faces formed by one single face instead (as indicatedin Fig. 13(b) for face pair 3 and 4, and face pair 5 and 6).However, it is not always desirable to have any such pairsof faces defined as a single face before applying the basicunfolding procedure because this may reduce the number ofresults generated, thereby missing out on some potential flatpattern designs where the two faces are not situated adjacent toeach other but are in fact separated (as in Fig. 13(c) where facepair 3 and 4 and face pair 5 and 6 are separated).

    Therefore, the strategy adopted in this work is to alwaysdefine each and every pair of such faces as two individualfaces in the 3D structure, but with an optional switch for thedesigner to choose whether to merge any such pairs of facesin the results. If the choice is to merge, then for every pair ofsuch faces that happen to be adjacent within the flat pattern, thetwo faces will automatically be merged as one face. For anypair of such faces which are not adjacent within the flat pattern,they will of course have to be kept as separate. In this way, nopotential flat pattern results will be left out.

    5. Optimality criteria for flat patterns

    Depending on the number of faces as well as the connectivityamong them, a 3D folded structure can have thousands ormillions of valid non-overlapping flat patterns. However, thedesigner would usually be trying to select just one that isoptimal according to some criteria. Very often, as the flat patternis a single-piece layout, there is a desire for it to be as compactas possible because compactness makes for easier handlingand folding and also has advantages in terms of storage andtransportation. However, there is no single universal measureof compactness, so three different measures of compactness are

    906 W. Liu, K. Tai / Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 898–913

    (a) Hyper-common edge set with FAG. (b) Invalid spanning tree.

    (c) Valid spanning tree. (d) Detectingtopological validity.

    Fig. 12. Topological validity of spanning tree.

    Fig. 13. Merging of some pairs of coplanar adjacent faces.

    than one hyper-common edge, then both conditions must besatisfied for each and every such edge before a spanning treeis certified as valid.

    4.4. Merging of coplanar adjacent faces

    Fig. 13(a) shows a 3D folded structure and Fig. 13(b)shows one possible way of unfolding it to form its flat pattern.This example illustrates an instance where a pair of coplanaradjacent faces within the 3D folded structure can alternatively

    be made up of one single face. There are in fact three suchpairs in this example (faces 1 and 2, faces 3 and 4, and faces5 and 6). For reasons of structural strength/integrity or easeof folding, it may sometimes be desirable to have any suchpair of faces formed by one single face instead (as indicatedin Fig. 13(b) for face pair 3 and 4, and face pair 5 and 6).However, it is not always desirable to have any such pairsof faces defined as a single face before applying the basicunfolding procedure because this may reduce the number ofresults generated, thereby missing out on some potential flatpattern designs where the two faces are not situated adjacent toeach other but are in fact separated (as in Fig. 13(c) where facepair 3 and 4 and face pair 5 and 6 are separated).

    Therefore, the strategy adopted in this work is to alwaysdefine each and every pair of such faces as two individualfaces in the 3D structure, but with an optional switch for thedesigner to choose whether to merge any such pairs of facesin the results. If the choice is to merge, then for every pair ofsuch faces that happen to be adjacent within the flat pattern, thetwo faces will automatically be merged as one face. For anypair of such faces which are not adjacent within the flat pattern,they will of course have to be kept as separate. In this way, nopotential flat pattern results will be left out.

    5. Optimality criteria for flat patterns

    Depending on the number of faces as well as the connectivityamong them, a 3D folded structure can have thousands ormillions of valid non-overlapping flat patterns. However, thedesigner would usually be trying to select just one that isoptimal according to some criteria. Very often, as the flat patternis a single-piece layout, there is a desire for it to be as compactas possible because compactness makes for easier handlingand folding and also has advantages in terms of storage andtransportation. However, there is no single universal measureof compactness, so three different measures of compactness are

    906 W. Liu, K. Tai / Computer-Aided Design 39 (2007) 898–913

    (a) Hyper-common edge set with FAG. (b) Invalid spanning tree.

    (c) Valid spanning tree. (d) Detectingtopological validity.

    Fig. 12. Topological validity of spanning tree.

    Fig. 13. Merging of some pairs of coplanar adjacent faces.

    than one hyper-common edge, then both conditions must besatisfied for each and every such edge before a spanning treeis certified as valid.

    4.4. Merging of coplanar adjacent faces

    Fig. 13(a) shows a 3D folded structure and Fig. 13(b)shows one possible way of unfolding it to form its flat pattern.This example illustrates an instance where a pair of coplanaradjacent faces within the 3D folded structure can alternatively

    be made up of one single face. There are in fact three suchpairs in this example (faces 1 and 2, faces 3 and 4, and faces5 and 6). For reasons of structural strength/integrity or easeof folding, it may sometimes be desirable to have any suchpair of faces formed by one single face instead (as indicatedin Fig. 13(b) for face pair 3 and 4, and face pair 5 and 6).However, it is not always desirable to have any such pairsof faces defined as a single face before applying the basicunfolding procedure because this may reduce the number ofresults generated, thereby missing out on some potential flatpattern designs where the two faces are not situated adjacent toeach other but are in fact separated (as in Fig. 13(c) where facepair 3 and 4 and face pair 5 and 6 are separated).

    Therefore, the strategy adopted in this work is to alwaysdefine each and every pair of such faces as two individualfaces in the 3D structure, but with an optional switch for thedesigner to choose whether to merge any such pairs of facesin the results. If the choice is to merge, then for every pair ofsuch faces that happen to be adjacent within the flat pattern, thetwo faces will automatically be merged as one face. For anypair of such faces which are not adjacent within the flat pattern,they will of course have to be kept as separate. In this way, nopotential flat pattern results will be left out.

    5. Optimality criteria for flat patterns

    Depending on the number of faces as well as the connectivityamong them, a 3D folded structure can have thousands ormillions of valid non-overlapping flat patterns. However, thedesigner would usually be trying to select just one that isoptimal according to some criteria. Very often, as the flat patternis a single-piece layout, there is a desire for it to be as compactas possible because compactness makes for easier handlingand folding and also has advantages in terms of storage andtransportation. However, there is no single universal measureof compactness, so three different measures of compactness are

    What does unfolding mean when multiple faces meet at an edge?

    valid

    invalid1

    4

    3

    5

    2

    6

    Liu & Tai, in Computer-Aided Design, 2007

    29Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Zipper Unfolding

    on the polygon

    1

    3

    2

    4

    not allowed

    30Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Zipper Unfolding

    31Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Zipper Unfolding

    Polyhedra Sharing Faces

    2 tetrahedra

    what will this zip into?

    32Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Zipper Unfolding

    Polyhedra Sharing Faces

    2 cubes—seems impossible

    2 squashed cubes

    CCCG

    2010

    ,Winnipeg

    MB,Aug

    ust9–

    11,20

    10

    Zipper

    UnfoldingsofPolyhed

    ralComplexe

    s

    ErikD.Dem

    aine∗

    MartinL.Dem

    aine†

    AnnaLubiw

    ‡ArloShallit§

    Jonah

    L.Shallit¶

    Abstract

    Weexplore

    whichpolyh

    edra

    andpolyh

    edralcomplexes

    canbeform

    edbyfoldingupaplanar

    polyg

    onal

    region

    andfasten

    ingit

    withon

    ezipper.

    Wecallthereverse

    process

    azipper

    unfolding.

    Azipper

    unfolding

    ofa

    polyh

    edronis

    apathcu

    tthat

    unfoldsthepolyh

    edron

    toaplanar

    polyg

    on;in

    thecase

    ofed

    gecu

    ts,theseare

    Ham

    iltonian

    unfoldings

    asintrod

    ucedbyShep

    hardin

    1975

    .Weshow

    that

    allP

    latonican

    dArchim

    edeansolids

    haveHam

    iltonianunfoldings.

    Wegive

    exam

    plesof

    polyh

    edralcomplexesthat

    are,

    andarenot,zipper

    [edge]unfoldab

    le.Thepositiveex-

    amplesincludeapolyh

    edraltorus,

    andtw

    otetrah

    edra

    joined

    atan

    edge

    orat

    aface.

    1Introduction

    Acommon

    way

    tobuild

    apap

    ermod

    elof

    apolyh

    e-dronisto

    fold

    andglueaplanar

    polyg

    onal

    shap

    e,called

    anet

    ofthepolyh

    edron.

    Netsof

    Platonic

    solidsan

    dother

    polyh

    edra

    withregu

    larfaceswerefirstpublished

    byDürerin

    1525

    ,an

    dhavebeenasourceof

    fascination

    ever

    since—

    seetheboo

    kbyDem

    ainean

    dO’R

    ourke[2].

    Thereverseprocess

    invo

    lves

    slicingthesurfaceof

    apoly-

    hed

    ronto

    unfold

    itto

    aplanar

    shap

    e.W

    hen

    cuts

    are

    limited

    totheed

    gesof

    thepolyh

    edrontheseareedge

    unfoldings.It

    isan

    open

    problem

    whether

    everyconvex

    polyh

    edronhas

    aned

    geunfolding[4,2].

    Inthispap

    erwereplace

    gluebyazipper,i.e.,welimit

    theslicingof

    thepolyh

    edron’s

    surfaceto

    asinglecu

    tpaththat

    doesnot

    self-intersect.

    Wecallthesezipper

    unfoldings.W

    hen

    cuts

    arerestricted

    tothepolyh

    edron

    edges,thecu

    tpathmust

    form

    aHam

    iltonianpathin

    the

    grap

    hof

    thepolyh

    edron.Such

    Ham

    iton

    ianunfoldings

    werestudied

    byShep

    hard

    [4].

    Figures1an

    d2show

    Ham

    iltonianunfoldings

    ofthePlatonic

    solids.

    Figure

    1:AllHam

    iltonianunfoldings

    ofthecu

    be.

    ∗Massach

    usettsInstitute

    ofTechnology,

    [email protected]

    † Massach

    usettsInstitute

    ofTechnology,

    [email protected]

    ‡ University

    ofW

    aterloo,[email protected]

    § [email protected]

    [email protected]

    tetrah

    edron

    icosah

    edron

    octahed

    ron

    dod

    ecah

    edron

    Figure

    2:Dou

    bly

    Ham

    iltonianunfoldings

    oftheother

    Platonic

    solids.

    Thephysical

    mod

    elof

    azipper

    provides

    anatural

    extension

    ofzipper

    unfoldingto

    polyhedral

    complexes

    whichgeneralizepolyh

    edra,either

    byallowingpositive

    genus(thesearepolyhedral

    man

    ifolds),

    orbyallowing

    aned

    geto

    beincidentto

    morethan

    twofaces,or

    allow-

    ingabou

    ndaryed

    gethat

    isincidentto

    only

    oneface.

    Weelab

    orateon

    themod

    elof

    zipper

    unfoldingin

    Sec-

    tion

    1.1.

    Figure

    3show

    sazipper

    edge

    unfoldingof

    two

    tetrah

    edra

    joined

    ataface.

    Figure

    3:Zipper

    edge

    unfoldingof

    twotetrah

    edra

    shar-

    ing

    aface.

    Thezipper

    starts

    atthecircle.

    Lightly

    shad

    edpathslieon

    thebackof

    thesurface.

    Section

    2containsou

    rresultson

    Ham

    iltonianunfold-

    ings

    ofpolyh

    edra:weshow

    that

    alltheArchim

    edean

    solidshaveHam

    iltonian

    unfoldings.

    InSection

    3we

    prove

    that

    polyh

    edralman

    ifoldsthat

    havezipper

    un-

    foldings

    havegenus0or

    1,an

    dthat

    thelatter

    arequ

    ite

    specialized.In

    Section

    4wegive

    someexam

    plesof

    zip-

    per

    edge

    unfoldings

    ofpolyh

    edralcomplexes.

    CCCG

    2010

    ,Winnipeg

    MB,Aug

    ust9–

    11,20

    10

    Zipper

    UnfoldingsofPolyhed

    ralComplexe

    s

    ErikD.Dem

    aine∗

    MartinL.Dem

    aine†

    AnnaLubiw

    ‡ArloShallit§

    Jonah

    L.Shallit¶

    Abstract

    Weexplore

    whichpolyh

    edra

    andpolyh

    edralcomplexes

    canbeform

    edbyfoldingupaplanar

    polyg

    onal

    region

    andfasten

    ingit

    withon

    ezipper.

    Wecallthereverse

    process

    azipper

    unfolding.

    Azipper

    unfolding

    ofa

    polyh

    edronis

    apathcu

    tthat

    unfoldsthepolyh

    edron

    toaplanar

    polyg

    on;in

    thecase

    ofed

    gecu

    ts,theseare

    Ham

    iltonian

    unfoldings

    asintrod

    ucedbyShephardin

    1975

    .Weshow

    that

    allP

    latonican

    dArchim

    edeansolids

    haveHam

    iltonianunfoldings.

    Wegive

    exam

    plesof

    polyh

    edralcomplexesthat

    are,

    andarenot,zipper

    [edge]unfoldab

    le.Thepositiveex-

    amplesincludeapolyh

    edraltorus,

    andtw

    otetrah

    edra

    joined

    atan

    edge

    orat

    aface.

    1Introduction

    Acommon

    way

    tobuild

    apap

    ermod

    elof

    apolyh

    e-dronisto

    fold

    andglueaplanar

    polyg

    onal

    shap

    e,called

    anet

    ofthepolyh

    edron.

    Netsof

    Platonic

    solidsan

    dother

    polyh

    edra

    withregu

    larfaceswerefirstpublished

    byDürerin

    1525

    ,an

    dhavebeenasourceof

    fascination

    ever

    since—

    seetheboo

    kbyDem

    ainean

    dO’R

    ourke[2].

    Thereverseprocess

    invo

    lves

    slicingthesurfaceof

    apoly-

    hed

    ronto

    unfold

    itto

    aplanar

    shap

    e.W

    hen

    cuts

    are

    limited

    totheed

    gesof

    thepolyh

    edrontheseareedge

    unfoldings.It

    isan

    open

    problem

    whether

    everyconvex

    polyh

    edronhas

    aned

    geunfolding[4,2].

    Inthispap

    erwereplace

    gluebyazipper,i.e.,welimit

    theslicingof

    thepolyh

    edron’s

    surfaceto

    asinglecu

    tpaththat

    doesnot

    self-intersect.

    Wecallthesezipper

    unfoldings.W

    hen

    cuts

    arerestricted

    tothepolyh

    edron

    edges,thecu

    tpathmust

    form

    aHam

    iltonianpathin

    the

    grap

    hof

    thepolyh

    edron.Such

    Ham

    iton

    ianunfoldings

    werestudied

    byShep

    hard

    [4].

    Figures1an

    d2show

    Ham

    iltonianunfoldings

    ofthePlatonic

    solids.

    Figure

    1:AllHam

    iltonianunfoldings

    ofthecube.

    ∗Massach

    usettsInstitute

    ofTechnology,

    [email protected]

    † Massach

    usettsInstitute

    ofTechnology,

    [email protected]

    ‡ University

    ofW

    aterloo,[email protected]

    § [email protected]

    [email protected]

    tetrah

    edron

    icosah

    edron

    octahedron

    dod

    ecah

    edron

    Figure

    2:Dou

    bly

    Ham

    iltonianunfoldings

    oftheother

    Platonic

    solids.

    Thephysical

    mod

    elof

    azipper

    provides

    anatural

    extension

    ofzipper

    unfoldingto

    polyhedral

    complexes

    whichgeneralizepolyh

    edra,either

    byallowingpositive

    genus(thesearepolyhedral

    man

    ifolds),

    orbyallowing

    anedge

    tobeincidentto

    morethan

    twofaces,or

    allow-

    ingabou

    ndaryedge

    that

    isincidentto

    only

    oneface.

    Weelab

    orateon

    themod

    elof

    zipper

    unfoldingin

    Sec-

    tion

    1.1.

    Figure

    3show

    sazipper

    edge

    unfoldingof

    two

    tetrah

    edra

    joined

    ataface.

    Figure

    3:Zipper

    edge

    unfoldingof

    twotetrah

    edra

    shar-

    ing

    aface.

    Thezipper

    starts

    atthecircle.

    Lightly

    shad

    edpathslieon

    thebackof

    thesurface.

    Section

    2containsou

    rresultson

    Ham

    iltonianunfold-

    ings

    ofpolyh

    edra:weshow

    that

    alltheArchim

    edean

    solidshaveHam

    iltonian

    unfoldings.

    InSection

    3we

    prove

    that

    polyh

    edralman

    ifoldsthat

    havezipper

    un-

    foldings

    havegenus0or

    1,an

    dthat

    thelatter

    arequ

    ite

    specialized.In

    Section

    4wegive

    someexam

    plesof

    zip-

    per

    edge

    unfoldings

    ofpolyh

    edralcomplexes.

    33Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Zipper Unfolding

    chain of tetrahedra sharing adjacent edges

    Polyhedra Sharing Edges

    can extend to n tetrahedra

    34Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Polyhedral Complexes—Zipper Unfolding

    35Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Open Problems

    • Does every convex polyhedron have an edge unfolding?

    • Does every polyhedron have a [general] unfolding? Every polyhedral manifold?

    New:

    • Does every convex polyhedron have a zipper unfolding?

    • Show it’s NP-hard to recognize torus polyhedra with zipper edge unfoldings.

    • Which polyhedral complexes have [zipper/edge] unfoldings?

    36Thursday, August 12, 2010

  • Erik Demaine Martin Demaine Anna Lubiw Arlo Shallit Jonah Shallit

    Zipper Unfoldings of Polyhedral Complexes

    37Thursday, August 12, 2010