See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328175851

An Active Strut Stretching Approach for Form Finding of Tensegrity

Membrane Structures

Article · October 2018

DOI: 10.20898/j.iass.2018.197.003

CITATION READS

1 34

3 authors, including:

Ruy Marcelo Pauletti

University of São Paulo
104 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strategic Partnership University of São Paulo - Princeton University View project

Structural systems of gridshells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruy Marcelo Pauletti on 09 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL

Vol. 59 (2018) No. 3
STRUCTURES

Prof. D. h-C Eng. E. TORROJA, founder

September 197

Vol. 59 (2018) No. 3

September n. 197
international association
for shell and spatial structures ISSN: 1028-365X
 Journal
Journal
VOL. 59 (2018) No. 3 contents
n. 197 September

Announcements

IASS Symposium Announcement 2019 167

Upcoming Events 168

Memorial Statements

In Memoriam David P. Billington 169

J. F. Abel and M. E. Moreyra Garlock

Technical Papers

Structural Design of Barrel Vault Shaped Scissor Structures for Disaster Relief 171
A Koumar, T. Tysmans and N. De Temmerman

A New Hybrid Type of Deployable Structure: Origami-Scissor Hinged 183

E. Rivas-Adrover

An Active Strut Stretching Approach for Form Finding of Tensegrity 191

Membrane Structures
V. F. Arcaro, R. M. O. Pauletti and L. R. Talarico

Shape Design of Curved Surface of Membrane Structure Using 199

Developable Surface
J. Cui and M. Ohsaki

Shell Bridges – and a New Specimen Made of Stainless Steel 215

M. Schlaich

Project Descriptions

Glass Covering ‘Glass Bark’ of the Natural Park "Zaryadye" in Moscow 225
D. V. Gerasimov, A. V. Kashin, Y. V. Lunev, A. A. Morozov,
V. S. Shmakova and A.V. Averin

COVER: Figures from paper by M. Schlaich

IASS Secretariat: CEDEX-Laboratorio Central de Estructuras y Materiales

Alfonso XII, 3; 28014 Madrid, Spain
Tel: 34 91 3357491; Fax: 34 91 3357422; iass@cedex.es; http://www.iass-structures.org

Printed by SODEGRAF ISSN:1028-365X Depósito legal: M. 1444-1960

 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS

AN ACTIVE STRUT STRETCHING APPROACH FOR FORM

FINDING OF TENSEGRITY MEMBRANE STRUCTURES
VINICIUS F. ARCARO1, RUY M. O. PAULETTI2 and LARISSA R. TALARICO3
1University of Campinas, College of Civil Engineering, Avenida Albert Einstein 951, Campinas, SP 13083-852, Brazil
vinicius.arcaro@gmail.com
2University of Sao Paulo, Polytechnic School, Av Prof Luciano Gualberto 380, Sao Paulo, SP 05508-010, Brazil

pauletti@usp.br
3University of Campinas, College of Civil Engineering, Avenida Albert Einstein 951, Campinas, SP 13083-852, Brazil

l163455@dac.unicamp.br

Editor’s Note: Manuscript submitted 21 November 2017; revision received 7 May 2018; accepted 7 August. This paper is
open for written discussion, which should be submitted to the IASS Secretariat no later than March 2019.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20898/j.iass.2018.197.003

ABSTRACT

This study presents a new form finding method for tensegrity membrane structures. The form finding problem is
formulated as an unconstrained nonlinear programming problem, where the total potential energy of a structure
composed of strut and membrane elements is minimized. The strut element can function as a truss element or as
an element that shows constant stress irrespectively of its nodal displacements. The active strut stretching
approach can be described as follows: Strut elements are set as constant compression elements, which is
equivalent to stretching its undeformed length. As a consequence, the membrane connected to these strut elements
has to deform such that the forces introduced by the constant compression elements are equilibrated. Several
examples are presented with sufficient information to be reproduced by other authors.

Keywords: Formfinding, Membrane, Nonlinear, Optimization, Tensegrity

1. INTRODUCTION There are few studies related to the tensegrity

Tensegrity structures constitute a spatial structural
system where disconnected compressed struts are
connected by tensioned cables. A more general
definition includes groups of connected compressed
struts connected by tensioned cables [1]. Although
the invention of tensegrity structures has been
usually attributed to architects and artists, notably
Buckminster Fuller, David Georges Emmerich and
Kenneth Snelson, it has been suggested that the
Latvian sculptor Karl Iogansons (1892-1929),
created what nowadays is called a tensegrity module
for the Obmokhu Exhibition 1921 in Moscow [2]. As
suggested by [9], an extension of the tensegrity
structure concept can be achieved by replacing
tensioned cables by tensioned membranes.
The expression active strut stretching results from an
analogy with active bending, which is understood as
a design and construction approach for structures
that actively use bending in their formation process.
A recent review of active bending can be found in
[3].
membrane structures that tackle its simulation
problem. A notable study is presented in [4], where
compression struts are modelled as rigid elements
and the total potential energy of the structure
composed of only membrane elements is minimized
subject to the constraints of constant lengths for the
strut elements. The mathematical formulation uses
the tangent stiffness matrix and the equilibrium is
found using the incremental Newton-Raphson
method. More recently [5] presents an energy based
method is used to determine the equations for static
configurations of general tensegrity membrane
structures, where the total potential energy of the
structure is minimized considering struts as rigid
bodies and tendons or membrane as elastic bodies.
In this study, the strut element can function either as
a truss element or as an element that shows constant
stress irrespectively of its nodal displacements. This
allows the mathematical problem to be formulated as
an unconstrained nonlinear programming problem.
A quasi-Newton method is used, which avoids the
use of stiffness matrix. The mathematical

Copyright © 2018 by the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS). 191
 Vol. 59 (2018) No. 3 September n. 197

formulation and its solution is greatly simplified, 1

which allows the proposed approach to tackle large (1 2u z + z z ) − 1

ε =+ T T 2 (3)
scale problems.
Considering α as the undeformed area of the strut
2. STRUT ELEMENT element, ξ as the modulus of elasticity, the potential
According to [6], a strut element for large strain energy can be expressed as:
displacements that can function either as a truss
element or as an element that maintains a constant
λξα
φ= ε2 (4)
stress irrespectively of its nodal displacements, can 2
be defined as follows.
The derivatives of the potential strain energy with
respect to the nodal displacements can be expressed
as:

∂φ
= −ξαε ui (5)
∂xi1

∂φ
= +ξαε ui (6)
∂xi2

2.2. Potential Strain Energy of a Strut Element

with Constant Stress

The potential strain energy can be expressed as:

1
φ = ασλ (1 + 2u T z + z T z ) 2 (7)
Figure 1: Strut Element
The derivatives of the potential strain energy with
In Figure 1, u is a unit vector parallel to the respect to the nodal displacements can be expressed
undeformed element, λ is the undeformed length, u as:
is the unit vector parallel to the deformed element,
λ is the deformed length, x1 and x 2 are the nodal ∂φ
displacements. Letting,
= −ασ ui (8)
∂xi1
x 2 − x1 ∂φ
z= (1) = +ασ ui (9)
λ ∂xi2
The unit vector parallel to the deformed element can
be expressed as: The internal forces acting on nodes of the element
have constant modulus for any displacement of the
element’s nodes.
u=
(u + z ) (2)
1
2.3. Strain-Free Length Equivalent to Constant
(1 + 2u T
z + z z)
T 2
Stress

2.1. Potential Strain Energy of a Strut Element
Strain is calculated as the difference in deformed and
undeformed lengths divided by the undeformed
length as follows:
A strain-free length that produces the same internal
forces as the strut element with constant stress can be
found as follows. Consider an element with strain-
free length different than the initial distance of its
nodes. The element shows stress with zero nodal

192
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS

displacements. The strain-free length λ0 of the The cosines of the internal angles can be expressed
as:
element can be written as:

cos α1 = − ( u 2 ) u 3
T
λ − λ0 λ
ε
= λ0
⇒= (10)
λ0 σ
cos α 2 = − ( u1 ) u 3
T
1+ (12)
ξ
cos α 3 = − ( u1 ) u 2
T

3. MEMBRANE ELEMENT

According to [7], a membrane element for large 3.1. Directional Strains

displacements and small strains that can be defined
as follows. The directional strains for each side of the membrane
element can be expressed as follows. Letting,

x3 − x 2
z1 =
λ1
2 x − x3
1
z = (13)
λ2
3 x 2 − x1
z =
λ3

Remembering that, for small strains, the Green

Strain can approximate the Engineering strain, the
directional Green strain for each side of the
membrane element can be expressed as:

εi =
( z ) ( 2u
i T i
+ zi )
(14)
2
Figure 2: Membrane Element
3.2. Potential Strain Energy of a Membrane
1 2 3
In Figure 2, u , u and u are a unit vectors parallel Element
to the sides of the undeformed element, λ1 , λ2 and Considering δ as the undeformed thickness of the
λ3 are the undeformed lengths of the sides, x1 , x 2 membrane element, ξ as the modulus of elasticity, ν
and x 3 are the nodal displacements. as the Poisson’s ratio, the potential strain energy can
be expressed as:
3.1. Geometry

The Heron's formula expresses the undeformed area αδ

φ= ε T Hε (15)
α of a membrane element from the lengths of its 2
sides as:
Where,
1
α
= ( λ1 + λ2 + λ3 )( −λ1 + λ2 + λ3 ) ξ
4 (11) =H A−1 ( I +ν BA−1 ) (16)
( λ1 − λ2 + λ3 )( λ1 + λ2 − λ3 ) (1 −ν )
2

193
 Vol. 59 (2018) No. 3 September n. 197

 1 cos 2 α 3 cos 2 α 2  ∂φ ∂φ ∂ε1 ∂φ ∂ε 2 ∂φ ∂ε 3

  = + + (23)
A =  cos 2 α 3 1 cos 2 α1  (17) ∂xik ∂ε1 ∂xik ∂ε 2 ∂xik ∂ε 3 ∂xik
cos 2 α 2 cos 2 α1 1 
  1 2 3

λ i ( u + zi
2
) ∑ h2 j ε j 
∂φ
sin 2 α 3 sin 2 α 2  = αδ  
j =1
 0 2
(24)
  1
∂xi  1 3 3 3 
B =  sin 2 α 3 0 sin 2 α1  (18)  − ( ui + zi ) ∑ h3 j ε j 
sin 2 α 2 sin 2 α1 0   λ3 j =1 

1 3 3 3 
 λ ( ui + zi ) ∑ h3 j ε j 
Remembering that H is a symmetric matrix, the
derivatives of the potential strain energy with respect ∂φ
= αδ  
3 j =1
to the directional strains can be expressed as: (25)
2
∂xi  1 1 1 3 
 − ( ui + zi ) ∑ h1 j ε j 
αδ ∂φ 3
 λ1 j =1 
=φ ε T H ε ⇒= αδ ∑ hij ε j (19)
2 ∂ε i j =1
1 1 1 3 
The derivatives of the directional strains with respect  λ ( ui + zi ) ∑ h1 j ε j 
∂φ
= αδ  
1 j =1
to the nodal displacements can be expressed as: (26)
3
∂xi  1 2 3 
 − ( ui + zi ) ∑ h2 j ε j 
2

∂ε1  λ2 
=0 j =1

xi1
∂ε1 1
− ( ui1 + zi1 )
= (20)
xi2
λ1 4. TOTAL POTENTIAL ENERGY
∂ε1 1
+ ( ui1 + zi1 )
= Considering x as the vector of unknown
3
xi λ1 displacements, f as the vector of applied nodal
forces, the total potential energy for the structure can
∂ε 2 1 be written as:
+ ( ui2 + zi2 )
=
1
xi λ2
∂ε 2
=π ( x) ∑
line elements
φ ( x) +
=0 (21) (27)
xi2 ∑
triangle elements
φ ( x) − f T x
∂ε 2 1
− ( ui2 + zi2 )
=
3
xi λ2 The derivatives with respect to the unknown
displacements can be written as:
∂ε 3 1
− ( ui3 + zi3 )
=
1
xi λ3 ∇π ( x=
) ∑
line elements
∇φ ( x ) +
∂ε 3 1 (28)
+ ( ui3 + zi3 )
= (22) ∑ ∇φ ( x ) − f
2
xi λ3 triangle elements

∂ε 3 By using a quasi-Newton method for unconstrained

=0
xi3 nonlinear programming, the equilibrium of the
structure can be found by minimizing its total
The derivatives of the potential strain energy with potential energy, avoiding the use of the stiffness
respect to the nodal displacements can be expressed matrix. This approach has the advantages of tackling
as: under constrained structures, which is frequently the

194
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
case of tension structures, and does not require
constraints to prevent rigid body motion. The
computer code uses the limited memory BFGS to
tackle large scale problems as described by [8]. It
also employs a line search procedure through
safeguarded cubic interpolation. The source and
executable computer codes are available for
download from www.arcaro.org. The computer code
generates a script file for AutoCAD, which allows
the visualization of the undeformed and deformed
configurations.
5. EXAMPLES
In the following examples, the membrane was fully
tensioned. The strut elements have area equal to 1
and modulus of elasticity equal to 1000. For the
formfinding, the selected strut elements were set to a
compression equal to 0.0225. The membrane
elements have stiffness (modulus of elasticity times
the thickness) equal to 0.01 and Poisson’s ratio equal
to 0.21. For the convergence criteria, the allowable
maximum infinite norm of the gradient was set equal
to 0.000001.
Example 1: Figure 3 shows that the geometry is
based on a hexagonal straight prism inscribed in a
circumference of radius equal to 1 and height equal
to 1.75. The bottom nodes are fixed. The radius of
the hexagonal membrane placed on the top nodes
was divided into 8 equal parts.
Figure 3: Hexagonal Straight Prism as Basis for the
Geometry
Figure 4 shows the initial configuration on the left
and the prestressed configuration on the right. The
structure has 223 nodes, 12 strut elements and 384
membrane elements. Only the diagonal strut
elements were set to compression. For the
membrane, the major principal stress range from
6.425641 * 10-3 to 2.866297 * 10-2 and the minor
principal stress range from 7.776278 * 10-4 to
6.431885 * 10-3. The number of iterations was 3465.
Figure 4: Initial and Prestressed Configurations
Example 2: Figure 5 shows that the geometry is
based on square frustum. On four sides of the square
frustum there is a trapezoid membrane. The edges of
the membrane have a circular curvature with a sag
equal to 0.1 of its length. On each side of the square
frustum there is a diagonal strut element.
Figure 5: Square Frustum as Basis for the Geometry
The top square is inscribed in a circumference of
radius equal to 1. The bottom square is inscribed in
a circumference of radius equal to 1.5. The height is
equal to 3. The structure has 436 nodes, 4 strut
elements and 768 membrane elements. There are no
constraints to prevent rigid body motion. Figure 6
shows the initial configuration on the left and the
prestressed configuration on the right. For the
membrane, the major principal stress range from
4.451364 * 10-3 to 3.701279 * 10-2 and the minor
principal stress range from 1.200304 * 10-5 to
6.123463 * 10-3. The number of iterations was 155.
195
 Vol. 59 (2018) No. 3 September n. 197
Figure 6: Initial and Prestressed Configurations
Example 3: This example is inspired by [9], where
the application of tensegrity to tensile-textile
formfinding was described in a constructive way.
Figure 7 shows that the geometry is based on a
polyhedral cylinder inscribed in a circumference of
radius equal to 1 with 64 sides and height equal to
1.5 divided into 12 equal parts.
Figure 7: Polyhedral Cylinder as Basis for the Geometry
The structure has 832 nodes, 16 strut elements and
1536 membrane elements. There are no constraints
to prevent rigid body motion. Figure 8 shows the
initial configuration on the left and the prestressed
configuration on the right. For the membrane, the
major principal stress range from 9.120776 * 10-3 to
196
4.397720 * 10-2 and the minor principal stress range
from 2.011013 * 10-3 to 8.211346 * 10-3. The number
of iterations was 165.
Figure 8: Initial and Prestressed Configurations
Example 4: Figure 9 shows that the geometry is
based on a polyhedral cone. The top edge is inscribed
in a circumference of radius equal to 0.5 with 48
sides, the bottom edge is inscribed in a
circumference of radius equal to 1 with 96 sides and
the height equal to 1 divided into 8 equal parts.
Figure 9: Polyhedral Cone as Basis for the Geometry
The structure has 648 nodes, 12 strut elements and
1152 membrane elements. There are no constraints
to prevent rigid body motion. Figure 10 shows the
initial configuration on the left and the prestressed
configuration on the right. For the membrane, the
major principal stress range from 7.492385 * 10-3 to
5.859345 * 10-2 and the minor principal stress range
from 2.089642 * 10-3 to 1.590038 * 10-2. The number
of iterations was 159.
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS

Figure 12: Initial and Prestressed Configurations

Example 6: Figure 13 shows that the geometry is

based on a icosahedron. The icosahedron is inscribed
in a sphere of radius equal to 1.

Figure 10: Initial and Prestressed Configurations

Example 5: This example is inspired by the works

of Marcelo Pars who maintains a comprehensive
website on tensegrity and builds many tensegrity
models [10]. Figure 11 shows that the geometry is
based on a dodecahedron, with 5 strut elements
shown on the left and 5 strut elements shown on the
right. The dodecahedron is inscribed in a sphere of
radius equal to 1.
Figure 13: Icosahedron as Basis for the Geometry
The structure has 752 nodes, 6 strut elements and
1500 membrane elements. There are no constraints
to prevent rigid body motion. Figure 14 shows the
initial configuration on the left and the prestressed
configuration on the right. For the membrane, the
major principal stress range from 5.580540 * 10-3 to
2.646314 * 10-2 and the minor principal stress range
from 1.815955 * 10-3 to 8.584702 * 10-3. The number
of iterations was 89.

Figure 11: Dodecahedron as Basis for the Geometry

The structure has 752 nodes, 10 strut elements and

1500 membrane elements. There are no constraints
to prevent rigid body motion. Figure 12 shows the
initial configuration on the left and the prestressed
configuration on the right. For the membrane, the
major principal stress range from 5.676310 * 10-3 to
3.774726 * 10-2 and the minor principal stress range
from 4.008267 * 10-3 to 1.351181 * 10-2. The number Figure 14: Initial and Prestressed Configurations
of iterations was 110.

197
 Vol. 59 (2018) No. 3 September n. 197
Example 7: Figure 15 shows that the geometry is
based on a stella octangula. The stella octangula is
inscribed in a sphere of radius equal to 1.
Figure 15: Stella Octangula as Basis for the Geometry
The structure has 902 nodes, 4 strut elements and
1800 membrane elements. There are no constraints
to prevent rigid body motion. Figure 16 shows the
initial configuration on the left and the prestressed
configuration on the right. For the membrane, the
major principal stress range from 6.195898 * 10-3 to
3.683530 * 10-2 and the minor principal stress range
from 1.043187 * 10-4 to 8.234530 * 10-3. The number
of iterations was 256.
Figure 16: Initial and Prestressed Configurations
CONCLUSION
The active strut stretching approach is a new form
finding method for tensegrity membrane structures.
The form finding problem is formulated as an
unconstrained nonlinear programming problem. The
limited memory BFGS quasi-Newton method used
to solve the mathematical programming problem
proved to be very efficient and also able to tackle
large scale problems.
198
View publication stats
REFERENCES
[1] Hanaor, A., An Anthology of Structural
Morphology, World Scientific, 2009.
[2] Gough, M., The Artist as Producer: Russian
Constructivism in Revolution, UC Press, 2005.
[3] Lienhard, J., Alpermann, H., Gengnagel, C.
and Knippers, J., Active Bending, A Review
on Structures where Bending is used as a Self-
Formation Process, International Journal of
Space Structures, 28, 187-196, 2013.
(DOI: 10.1260/0266-3511.28.3-4.187)
[4] Shigematsu, M., Tanaka, M. and Noguchi,
H., Form Finding Analysis of Tensegrity
Membrane Structures based on Variational
Method, Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Computation of Shell and
Spatial Structures IASS-IACM 2008.
[5] Yang, S. and Sultan, C., Modeling of
tensegrity membrane systems, International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 82, 125-143,
2016. (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.09.012)
[6] Klinka, K., Arcaro, V. and Gasparini, D.,
Form Finding of Tensegrity Structures using
Finite Elements and Mathematical
Programming, Journal of Mechanics of
Materials And Structures, 7, 899-907, 2012.
(DOI: 10.2140/jomms.2012.7.899)
[7] Arcaro, V. A Simple Procedure for Shape
Finding and Analysis of Fabric
Structures, http://www.arcaro.org/tension
[8] Nocedal, J., and Wright, S. J., Numerical
Optimization, Springer-Verlag, 1999. (DOI:
10.1007/b98874)
[9] Pena, D. M., Llorens, I., Sastre, R., Crespo,
D. And Martinez, J. Application of
Tensegrity to Tensile-Textile Constructions:
Formfinding and Structural Analysis, Journal
of The International Association for Shell and
Spatial Structures, 5, 67-81, 2011.
[10] Pars, M., http://www.tensegriteit.nl/