ll~iliil11i1m!

l~~H11rim1
3 1822 00943 5132

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , SAN DIEGO

DESIGN, OPTIMIZATION, AND CONTROL OF TENSEGRITY

STRUCTURES

A dissert ati on submitt ed in part ial sati sfacti on of th e

requir ement s for th e degree Doct or of Philo sophy

Engin eerin g Sciences (Aerospace Engineerin g)

by

Milenko Masic

Committ ee in charge:

Profe ssor Rob ert E . Skelton, Chair

Pro fessor Philip E . Gill
Profe ssor Willi am J . Helton
Profe ssor Thoma s R. Bewley
Professor Raymond de Callafon

Jun e 2004
 Copyright
Milenko Masic, 2004
All rights reserved.
 The dissertation of Milenko Masic is approved , and
it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on
microfilm :

Pro fessor Robert E . Skelton, Committee Chair

University of California, San Diego

2004

lll
 DEDICATION

To my family

lV
Contents

Signatur e Page iii

Dedication lV

Contents V

List of Figures viii

A cknowledgements Xl

Curriculum Vitae Xll

Abstract xiii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Histo ry of te nsegrity stru ct ures 1
1.2 Mot ivat ion for t he researc h . 4
1.3 Summary of t he dissertat ion 5

2 Statics of tensegrity structur es 8

2.1 Introd uct ion ......... . 8
2.2 Th e tensegr ity equilibriu m conditions 12
2.3 Shape constra ints . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Tensegrity stru ctur e stab ility analysis 30
2.5 Tensegrity form-finding exam ples 35
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

V
3 Enabling tools for tensegrity form-finding 42
3.1 Introdu ct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2 Invariant tensegrity geometric transformations 43
3.3 Composition of tensegrity structures ..... 45
3.4 Geometry and equilibrium ana lysis of some tensegrity modules 53
3.5 Geometry and equilibrium of monohedral modular tensegrity plates 68
3.6 Geometry and equilibrium of class-two tensegrity towers 77
3.7 Conclusions ......... ....... . 78

4 Open-loop control of modular tensegrities 80

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2 Slowly varying nonlinear systems and open-loop contro l 81
4.3 Examples . 83
4.4 Conclusions 88

5 Optimal mass-to-stiffness-ratio tensegrity design 90

5.1 Introdu ct ion . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2 Formulation of th e problem 92
5.3 · Nonlinear program formulation 100
5.4 Examples . 103
5.5 Discussion . 112
5.6 Conclusions . 113

6 Joint structure and control design 115

6.1 Introdu ction ......... . . . . 115
6.2 Lumped mass dynamic model of a tensegrity structure . 116
6.3 Linearized dynamic model of the structure . . . . . . . . · . 118
6.4 Designing the structure for the optimal LQR performance - optimiza-
tion over the prestress cone . 125
6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

7 General conclusions and future research 137

7.1 Conclusions . . . 137
(_
7.2 Future research . 138

Vl
8 Appendices 140
8.A Equivalency of the force density and length-minimization method for
tensegrity form-finding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8.B Symmetry of prestress forces .. .. . ... ... .... . ...... . 144
8.C Open-loop contro l laws for typica l elements of modular tensegrities . 148

Bibliography 152

(__

Vll
List of Figures

2.1 Node and plate constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2 A tensegrity cross that admits symmetries with respect to th e x and
y-axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 left: Class 1 shell-class t ensegrity tower that admits symmetries about
z-axis; right: Conn ect ivity diagram of shell-class tensegrity . . . . . . 21
2.4 Exampl e of a symmetric and asymmetric force distribution for a sym-
metric tensegrity structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Shell class tens egrity stag e geometry param ete rs . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.6 · Connectivity of the unit of the unstabl e unit plat e . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. 7 Initi al guess for the plate geometry (left) and computed plate geom-
etry(r ight) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.8 Equilibrium shell-class tensegrity towers with different heights 40
2.9 Shell class tensegrity with tap ered stages . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.1 An equilibrium ellipti cal ten segrity cross generated by the similarit y
transformation from th e equilibrium square configuration . . . . . . . 44
3.2 The sparsity pattern of equilibrium equations for a composition of
two tensegrity structures 46
3.3 Tensegrity plates made connecting thr ee, four and six-bar units 52
3.4 Tensegrity tower with two stages made by composition of two different
tensegrity modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.5 One-stage shell class module geometry and connect ivit y . ,55
3.6 Two-stage unit equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3. 7 Elliptical unit configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.8 Periodic geometry of a tensegrity plat e and associated lattice generators 69

Vlll
3.9 Matching relative positions for three-bar units .... 71
3.10 Two different topologies of three-bar modular plates . 74
3.11 Matching overlap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.12 Force distribution in then-bar stable unit plate 77
3.13 Module distribution in sparse plate 78
3.14 Composition of tower modules . . . 79

4.1 Deployment of a six-bar unit plate 84

4.2 The deployment of a paraboli c tensegrity structure . . . . . . . . 85
4.3 Positions of the top nodes of the paraboli c tensegrity plate vs. a
quadratic parabola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.4 Open-loop deploym ent of a tensegrity tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.5 Internal transversal wave function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.6 Self-propelled tensegrity actuated by applying transversal wave shape
control 88

5.1 A typical sparsity pattern of the J acob ian of the nonlinear constraints
for a symmetric problem ; the general shape constraint are excluded . 103
5.2 Initial vs. optimized tensegrity beam in loaded state , showing de-
formation und er load. Legend: light gray - slack strings , dark gray-
compressed bars, black- stretched strings ................. 104
5.3 Non-uniqueness of the optimal structure - different optimal structure 105
5.4 Initial vs. optimal aspect ratio , L / d, of symmetric tensegrity beam . 106
5.5 Optimal overlap ratio L 0 / L , truncation ratio d/ L and objective fun c-
tion fT u vs. material yield strain CJ/y . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6 Initial vs. optimal tensegrity tower under compr essive load . .. . .. 109
5. 7 Optimal numb er of stages vs. tensegrity b eam aspect ratio . . . . . . 110
5.8 Optimal number of stages of tensegrity beam vs. mate rial param eters 111

6.1 Tensegrity structure with three prestr ess modes . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

6.2 Extreme direction of the prestress cone of the structure in Figure 6.1 124
6.3 Combination of the extreme directions of the pr estress cone for the
structure in Figure 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.4 Initial (up) Vs . optimal (down) distribution of the prestress in the
tensegrity beam . . . . . . . . . ......... .......... 132

lX
6.5 Convergence of the algorithm - objective Vs. iteration number . .. . 132
6.6 Impuls e response of the initial plant Vs. impulse response of the
optimized plant - effect of the structure optimization on its dynamic
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.7 Closed-loop impulse response of the initi al plant Vs. the same re-
sponse for the optimized plant 134
6.8 Optimal contro llers for the initial and the optimized plants 135

8.1 Left: Symmetric three-bar module in the configurat ion with a= 1r/ 4.
Right: Prestressed elements of an asymmetric ext rem e direction of
the prestress cone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.2 Connectivity matrix of th e three bar unit ... ..... .... . .. . 145
8.3 Elements of the three-bar module that are pr estressed in the two
configurations with the extreme values of a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
8.4 Elements of the three-bar module that are prestressed in each of th e
three extreme direction of the prestress cone when a= 1r/ 3 ...... 147

X
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor , Professor Robert E .

Skelton, for his guidance and support over the course of my study.
I want to thank Dr. Mauricio C. de Oliveira for his valuable help without which
my research would not be the same.
I would also like to thank Professor Philip E. Gill for his directions and sug-
gestions that helped me complete several topics of my research , and for being an
extraordinary teacher.
Finally, I would like to thank Professor William J. Helton, Professor Thomas R.
Bewley, and Profe ssor Raymond de Callafon for serving on my Doctoral committee ,
and to all my professors at UCSD for making my PhD studies an unforgettable
experience.

Xl
 Curriculum Vitre
Milenko Masic

Education

1995 Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering

University of Belgrade , Serbia & Montenegro
2001 Masters Degree in Aerospace Engineering
University of California, San Diego
2004 Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering Sciences (Aerospace En-
gineering)
University of California, San Diego

Work Experience

1996-1999 Teaching Assistant

University of Belgrade , Serbia & Montenegro
1999-2004 Research Assistant
University of California , San Diego

Xll
 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Design , Optimiz at ion and Control of Tensegrity Stru ct ures

by

Milenko Masic

Docto r of Philo sophy in En gineering Sciences (Aerospace En gineering)

University of California , San Diego, 2004

Profe ssor Rob ert E. Skelton , Chair

The contributions of this dissertat ion may be divided int o four catego ries.
Th e first catego ry involves developin g a syste mat ic form-finding method for gen-
era l an d sym met ric tensegrity struct ures. As an extens ion of the available results ,
different shap e constraint s are incorporat ed in th e probl em. Methods for treatm ent
of these constraints are consid ered and prop osed. A systemat ic formulation of t he
form-finding probl em for symmetr ic tensegrity st ru ct ur es is introduced , and it uses
the symm et ry to reduce both th e numb er of equat ions and the number of variables
in the probl em . Th e equilibrium analysis of modular te nsegrit ies exploits t heir pecu-
liar symm et ry. Th e tensegrity similarity transformation comp letes the contribu tions
in the area of enablin g tools for tensegrity form-finding.
Th e second group of contribu t ions develops the methods for optima l mass-to-
stiffness-ratio design of tensegrity st ru ct ur es. This technique repr esent s the state-of-
th e-art for the static design of tensegrity structures. It is an exte nsion of the results
available for the topology optimization of truss structures . Besides guaranteeing
that the final design satisfies the tensegrity para digm , th e probl em constrain s t he
structur e from different mod es of failure , which makes it very general.
Th e open-loop control of th e shape of modul ar tensegrities is the third contribu-
tion of the dissertation. This analytical result offers a closed form solution for the
Xlll
control of the reconfiguration of modular structures. Applications range from the
deployment and stowing of large-scale space structures to the locomotion-inducing
control for biologically inspired structures. The control algorithm is applicable re-
gardless of the size of the structures , and it represents a very general result for a
large class of tensegrities. Controlled deployments of large-scale tensegrity plates
and tensegrity towers are shown as examples that demonstrate the full potential of
this reconfiguration strategy .
The last contribution of the dissertation represents the method for integrated
structure and control design of modular tensegrity structures. A gradient optimiza-
tion method is used for this particular class of problems , and it proves to be very
efficient. The examples that are given demonstrate the impact of the distribution
of the prestress on the optimal dynamic performance of the structure.

XlV
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 History of tensegrity structures

Tensegrities are a class of prestressable truss-like strictures . Unlike th e regular
trusses , whose elements can withstand both tension and compression , a tensegrity
emp loys strings that cannot carry a compressive load. Elements of a tensegrity
structure are connected with ball joints that are at the sam e time the points where
an externa l load is app lied to the structure . Hence, elements of a tensegrity structure
are subject to an axial load only.
Kenneth Snelson [54], and Buckminster Fuller [18], were the creators of the
first tensegr ity structures. The original notion of tensegrities that has been widely
adopted , e.g., [40],[26], defines the tensegrities as the collection of string and bar el-
ements where the strings are connected in a cont inuous network and the bars form a
discrete set. The notion of the tensegrity structures is extend ed here by allowing con-
nections between the bars , as opposed to the case where no two bars are connected
to a common joint . The tensegrities, that were invented by artists and architects ,
were visually appealing, and were initi ally used as art forms. Their potential for
engineer ing app lications was recognized later. Th e proposed utili zations of tenseg-
rity structures range from the large-scale geodesic domes [37] and the deployable
space structures [25], to describing some micro-scale biological phenomena. Sev-

1
 2
eral authors considered the possibility of modeling subcellular structures using the
tensegrity paradigm , e.g. [26, 27, 28]. The nature of components of these structures
seem to comply with the tensegrity definition . The potential for shape controllabi l-
ity of tensegrities was realized very early. Th e fact that the length of string elements
can be contro lled by simple means , resu lts in large shape changes. This generates
the interest in finding the ways of reconfiguring the tensegrities for different practical
applications . Since the materials available for manufacturing strings are generally
lighter and stronger than those availab le for compressive elements , tensegrities have
been believed to be a promising techno logy for the shape-contro llab le structures
that are at the same time lightweight . Although , many have recognized the benefits
of using the tensegrity techno logy, there have not been many practical applications
to this day. There have been severa l reasons for that; lacking a systemat ic design
procedure is one of them.
The fundamental problems in designing a tensegrity structure are finding an equi-
librium , and stability of the prestressed configurations. Not every arrangement of
the elements of a tensegrity yields the stab le equilibrium of the prestressed structure.
Although the same holds true even for trusses , this issue becomes more evident for
the tensegrities, where the set of admissible rigid topologies is genera lly sma ller due
to the presence of the slender strings. Historica lly, tensegrity form-finding accounts
for the major portion of the tensegrity research. Feasible tensegrity geometries have
been studied extensive ly, and severa l methods have been proposed for describing
them. Geometrical analysis techniques dominated the early work , e.g. [31], [44].
Many authors focused their research on investigating extensions of the Maxwell 's
rules for ana lysis of truss structures and applied them to the ana lysis of tensegrities ,
e.g. [8], [43]. Thi s method , that est imates dimensions of the fundamental subspaces
of equilibrium and stiffness matrices of a truss structure, remained the starting point
for form-finding problems addressed by severa l auth ors, e.g. [39].
Some form-finding methods have very limited scope of applicability . Very often,
they rely on properties of particular tensegrity structures and cannot be generalized .
For examp le, the lengt h-minimiz ation method in [31], can be used only for the
 3
structures that have the property that the tensegr ity configuration coincides with
the configuration that yield the minimum lengt h of certain elements. Similarly, some
kinemat ic form-finding methods result in structures with inferior stiffness properties .
Unless one wants specifically to design this type of the structures, that have an
infinit esimal mechanism mode, this method should not be used for ot her purpose.
Not all form-finding methods considered in the literat ur e can be regarded as a viable
design procedure . When designing a tensegrity structure, shape constraints must
be included in the problem , and must be treated simult aneo usly with t he search for
the prestressed equilibrium geometry . Thi s is a deficiency of the dynamic relaxation
method for form-finding. Since th is method does not guarantee a convergence to
any equilibrium of interest , even if the initi al guess for the structure parameters
correspond to an equilibrium tensegrity structure, it can be viewed only as the
equilibrium searc h that is based on a trial and error approach.
While designing tensegrity structures is intrinsica lly a hard problem , their dy-
namic modeling and ana lysis have very littl e specific elements compared to other
mechanical systems . The well known methods for the ana lysis of genera l systems of
rigid and elastic bodies are app licable, since the saturation nonlinearity of the string
stra in-force relationship is easily accounted for. Several different dynamic models
of the tensegrity structures have been developed, and they can be classified into
two group s, the large-disp lacement nonlinear models and sma ll-displacement linear
models. The nonlinear model in [51], assumes that the ent ire mass of the structure
is concentr ated in the bars that are rigid elements with a negligible inertia about
the axis along the lengt h of an element. Thi s model uses a non-min imal set of gen-
eralized coord inates, that combined with a kinematic (algebra ic constra int), yield a
non-minimal representation of the structure dynamics. Another rigid-bar nonlinear
dynamic model has been used concurr ently in the UCSD Structural Systems and
Control Laboratory, [23]. It uses the minimal number of generalized coordinates
at the expense of the configuration dependant mass matrix of the system being \..
singular in certa in configurations. Th ese two models are the state-of-the -art for de-
scribing the large-displa cement dynamics of tensegrity structures , and the research
 4

that relies on them is far from reaching their full application scope. They are imple-
mented both in the TENSOFT software [41]. In contrast to the rigid-bar models ,
the lump ed-mass nonlinear model , that assumes that all elements of a tensegrity
structure are elastic, was proposed in [38].
It is fair to say that the difficulties associated with the parametrization of equi-
librium tensegrity geometries had a large impact on almost all areas of the tensegrity
research . Hence , the number of results on the shape control of tensegrities did not
follow the early recognized potential of these structures. Several methods for con-
trolling the shape of tensegrity structures have been proposed , from static based to
dynamic based . Early proposed algorithms, e.g [25], were mostly static methods
for contro lling the configuration of tensegrities. Since they could not be regarded as
control algorithms in the dynamic sense, classifying them as methods for modifying
shape of a tensegr ity more closely describes their true chara cte r. These strategies
usually require simpler actuators compared to dynamically controlled structures,
and they are still considered for certain applications , e.g. [17]. Some of the recently
proposed concepts, that fall into this group, include embedding bistable devices in
the structures. These devices store strain energy that is used for deploying the
structures , e.g [66].
The problem of contro lling the shape of tensegrities in the dynamic sense was first
addressed by Skelton and Sultan [50],[62, 63, 59, 60]. The tensegrity reconfigurations
considered in [57, 58], can be characterized as tracking control problems , as opposed
to the set point regulation problem considered in [30].

1. 2 Motivation for the research

The research results presented in this dissertation were motivated by the need for
deriving the more advanced design and analysis techniques for tensegrity structures
than the ones that were available at the beginning of the Ph.D. program. For
examp le, while contro l science offered methods for designing a structure and contro l
jointly, this theory had not been applied on designing the tensegrity structures. This
 5
research was aimed at filling the obvious gap between the two disciplines.
Although the results, that are presented here, are general and applicable to any
tensegrity structure, the focus of the research was on the symmetric tensegrity struc-
tures. It was so due to the belief that most potential applications of the tensegrity
structures would be simpler if the manufacturability issues related to asymmetric
structures were avoided. This explains why the majority of the analyzed tensegrity
objects belong to the class of modular structures .
Initially , the efficient way of formulating governing equations for the different
tensegrity design problems was missing. A significant amount of the research was
focused on overcoming this deficiency and on finding a unified way for formulating
the problems. This resulted in the fact that a high level of uniformity has been
achieved, so that the basic results can be regarded as special cases of more advanced
ones.
Several intermediate steps were made in order to achieve the goal of deriving the
systematic methods for the integrated structure and control design of the tensegri-
ties. These results contributed to broader understanding of mechanical properties
of these structures. Hence , the static problems associated with tensegrity structures
were addressed first in an attempt to establish the basis for the research that was to
follow. The open-loop control results for modular tensegrity structures were a direct
consequence of the success in solving analytically the form-problem problem for the
modular tensegrity structures. The optimization of the tensegrities was considered
next. An extension of the available method for designing the trusses , with the op-
timal mass-to-stiffness ratio, was applied on tensegrity structures before addressing
the joint structure and control design problem.

1.3 Summary of the dissertation

The contributions of the dissertation are divided into four chapters that are laid
out as follows. The tensegrity form-finding problem is considered in Chapter 2.
This research focuses on the analysis of symmetric tensegrity structures. Different
 6
symmetries of tensegrity structures are defined and their relevance to the simplifi-
cation of the form-finding probl em is esta blish ed in a rigorous way. Th e theorem ,
that shows that a symmetric tensegrity st ru ct ure admits a symm etr ic distribution of
pr estress forces, is given and proved. Th e equilibrium conditi ons for the symmetric
tens egrity structures are defined in a redu ced form , and a suit able change of geomet-
ric variables is propos ed. Fin ally, several exampl es demonstrate the applicat ion of
the num erical algorithms for solving the form-finding probl ems for tensegrity plates
and towers.
Enablin g tensegrity form-finding tools are invest igated in Chapter 3. Two new
results are pr e$ent ed to facilitate the equilibrium analysis of tensegrity structures ,
. Th e first result concerns t he prop ert ies of modular tensegrities that can be used
to simplify their equilibrium analysis. Th e compo sition of tensegrity st ruct ures
enabl es decompo sition of the equilibrium condition s of a large modular structur e
into a collect ion of small decoupled equat ions. The second t heorem proves t hat
the tensegrity equilibrium is invariant with respect to an affine transformation of
the nodal geometry. Th e application scope of this new result is indi cated with
illustrativ e exa mples.
Chapter 4 concern s the open-loop control of modul ar te nsegrity struct ures. Thi s
closed form algorithm for the rest-length control of reconfigur at ion of the structures
is appli cab le for the modul ar tenseg riti es, and it is given for the structures of ar-
bitrar y sizes. Thi s control law drives a struct ure through the configur at ions that
are close to an equilibrium manifold using very littl e control energy. Applications
of this control law are given for the deployment of modul ar tensegrity plates and
t ensegrity towers.
Th e optimal mass-to-stiffn ess ratio design of tensegrity struct ures is shown in
Chapter 5. This result is an exte nsion of a met hod for topology optimization of
trusses. As opposed to the unconstrain ed stiffness optimization of trusses , this
result impos es constraints on the strength of elements . Geometry of the structure is
optimiz ed in addition to optimizing its connect ivity. This is accomplish ed by lett ing
nodal points of the structure move. Th e imp act of different global par amet ers of the
 7

shape of the structure is investigated as well as the influence of material properties

on the optimal design. This method for optimization of tensegrities is the most
advance procedure available for the static tensegrity design.
Finally , the procedure for integrating structure and control design of tensegrities
is presented in Chapter 6. A nonlinear dynamic model of is derived first. This model
assumes that the bars of the tensegrity structure are elastic , and therefore can be
used as control elements. The model that is used for the control design is obtained
by a linearization around a parameterized equilibrium of the structure. A gradient
method is proposed for finding the distribution of the prestress in a modular tenseg-
rity structure that yields the optimal control performance. The parameters of the
prestress appear linearly in the state-space model of the system , and the structure
of the problem is clearly displayed. This enables the analytical computation of the
objective gradient . Examples of the optimal structure design for the optimal LQR
performance are given.
Each of these chapters is preceded with more detailed overviews of the literature
that pertains to the problems. While the discussions of the results are placed at the
end of each of the chapters, the overall concluding remarks are given in Chapter 7.
Future research topics are also proposed in this chapter.
Chapter 2

Statics of tensegrity structures

2.1 Int roductio n

This chapt er of the dissertation concerns the formulation of t he t ensegrity form-
finding probl em. Th e majorit y of the tensegrity relate d results that are available
in lit erat ure pertain to this fund amental design issue. What makes the tensegrities
peculiar structures is the presence of the st rin g element s that are capable of carry -
ing a tensional load only. This property of the str ings reduces the domain of the
stable pr e-str essable tensegrity geometries. Tensegrity form-finding problems have
been studied exte nsively, and several met hod s have been proposed for solving them .
Tilbert and Pellegrino [65] publi shed recentl y an overview of available form-finding
methods , and they classified them into the kinemat ical and statical group .
Historically , the earliest form-finding met hods were pur ely geometric , e.g. [53],
and most of them dire ctly or indirectly involved the Maxwell's rul e for analysis
of trusses. Analyzing exceptions of the Maxwell's rul e and their applicat ion on
tensegrities, Calladine [8] referred to the Maxwell 's conject ure [35], that claims that
the prestressable configurations of fram es coincide with the configurations in which
th e elements of the structures attain the extre me lengths , minimal or maximal.
Pellegrino and Calladine [43] showed that the prestr essable configurations of some
tensegrity structures yield the extreme lengths of some elements , and they used that

8
 9
as the exampl es of the Maxwell's"' para dox" . Several form-finding met hod s dir ectly
or indirectly rest on th ese results. For exampl e, Kenn er [31] and Tilb ert [65, 64]
demonstrated how an equilibrium configuration of a symm etr ic tensegrity prism can
be computed by searching for the geometry that yields the minimum lengt h of one
of the strings , while the length s of all other element s are kept constant. According
to Tilb ert and Pellegrin o [65] the genera l form-finding method t hat uses the length-
minimiz at ion was propo sed by Pellegrino in [42].
Tilb ert and Pellegrino [65]partially indi cated the shortcom ings of all the met hods
that they analyzed , but did not propo se the solut ions. Th e failure to includ e genera l
shape constraints in the probl em , eith er explicitly or explicitl y, is t he common defi-
ciency of all the met hod s. Here is why. Th e author s ident ified some weaknesses of
the length minimiz at ion that they refer to as t he "non-linear programming ". There
exist several more drawbac ks that are associated with using t his met hod of mini-
mizing the lengt h of an element , as the aut hors proposed it . Th e first is lacking
a syste mati c procedure of picking t he element whose lengt h is to be extremized.
In general, there is no indicat ion, other than guessing, as to which element s, if
any, attain the ext reme lengt hs in the equilibrium . Th e except ions are very small
structures for which these element s are known a pri ori since the problem has been
already solved using some ot her method. Thi s is not the only problem. There
exist very simple structures that have no elements with extrem ized lengths in the
equilibrium configur at ions. For example, add ing only one group of vertical str ings
to the tensegrity pri sm so that two vertica l strings are connected at a node , ren-
ders a st ru ctur e with multipl e equilibria and these equilibri a are characterized with
th e absence of the strings with the minim al length . Th e length-minimi zat ion, if it
is formulat ed using [65], cannot solve this probl em . Th erefore, this met hod in its
pres ent form is suitable for verification of known results rather then being applica-
ble for solving new probl ems . Tilb ert and Pellegrino [65] conclud ed the same for all
kinemati c met hods that in addition includ e dynamic relaxation [36]. Th ey adde d
that all kinematic methods are restricted to what they call "less regular st ru ct ures" ,
that is to stru ctures with tensegrity geometry but of basically no int erest when the
 10
shape is concerned. This conclusion should not be surprising since non e of these
methods in their pr esent form concerns the shape constraints, except for the nod es
that are attached to supports [65]. Th e tr eatment of these constraints is essenti ally
different from the general shape constraints, that define th e desired geometry of the
equilibrium structure in the absence of the constra int forces. Whil e the boundar y
conditions constraints allow a redu ct ion of the numb er of equilibrium condition s by
introducing addition al nonb asic variables (Lagrange multipliers) in the probl em, the
general geometry constra ints that are formulated as algebra ic constra int s must be
treated simultaneously with th e full set of the equilibrium equat ions.
Th e application of the force density met hod to the analysis of tensegrity struc-
tures may be credit ed to Vassart and Motro [67], accord ing to [65]. Th ey extended it
from the same method used for genera l networks that was introdu ced by Schek [47].
William son et.a l. [69] offered an algebra ic treatment for the force density method
for form-finding.
Murakami and Nishimura [39], and Sultan and Skelton [56, 61] use mostly an-
alyt ical methods for solving form-finding probl ems. Th e closed form solution s that
they provid e involve the comput at ion of the zeros of the character ist ic polynomial
of equilibrium matr ices. Th e order of this polynomial increases with the size of the
st ru ctur e, which limit s the scope of this met hod to relatively sma ll st ru ct ures.
Connelly and Terell [11, 12] analyzed rigidity of severa l highly sym metr ic topolo-
gies that are the tensegrity repr esent at ions of the abstract sym metry groups , and
publish ed th eir full cata log [1].
In this chapter formulation of th e form-finding probl em based on the force den-
sity method is broad ened by includin g different shape constraints in an explicit
form . Symmetry of th ese constraints is treated in order to simplify t he formula-
tion of th e resulting probl em. Inst ead of focusing on highly symmetric tensegrity
structures from a topological persp ectiv e, this analysis will systematize the force
density form-finding met hod for the symmetric structures. Th e conditi ons leading
to the simplification of th e probl em are analyzed and cat egorized as necessary and
sufficient.
 11

This chapter is outlined as follows. First , in Sect ion 2, we esta blish the alge-
braic conditions on the collect ion of para meters defining an equilibrium tensegrity
structure. Sect ion 3 discusses shape and symm et ry constraint s. Several proper-
ties of symmetric tensegrity structures are analyzed and impl emente d in order to
redu ce the size and compl exity of the probl em . Sect ion 4 introdu ces a class of ge-
ometry transformations that preserve equilibrium. Stiffness and stability concepts
are discussed in Sect ion 5. Section 6 offers several form-finding examples, and the
conclu sions app ear in Sect ion 7.
In the app endix 8.A , the following is demonstrated in conn ect ion to t he remarks
in [65] regarding the unificat ion of the different form-finding met hod s,

(i) Th e force density met hod is ind eed equival ent to the length-minimi zat ion
met hod , and not only to the energy met hod as Tilb ert and Pellegrino [65]
observed when referring to the demonstrat ion of t he equivalency in [47].

(ii) Th e formulation of the probl em demonstrat es how the exist ing length mini-
mizatio n method can be modified so that the full equivalency with t he force
density method can be claimed.

(iii) This analysis proves that the force density probl em formulation generates the
necessary condition for the soluti on of the lengt h minimization probl em, and
that it act ually represent s the corres ponding prim al-du al problem , where the
free force density variables are the dual variables.

(iv) It is furth er shown that the different choices for the fixed force density variables
parameterize the equilibrium geometr ies for the st ru ct ures with a non-uniqu e
equilibrium, and that this is a way of the direct control of the variation of
the state of prestr ess that was missing in the length-minimiz at ion met hod
according to [65]. )
 12
2 .2 The tensegrity equilibrium conditions

2.2 .1 The geometry of a tensegrity structure

D efinitio n 2 .2.1. The nod es vk , k = l , . .. , nn of a tensegrity structure , are the

points where bars and strings of the structure connect. A noda l vector Pk E IR3
represents the position of the node vk. The set of all nodes of a tensegrity structure
and the associated set of noda l vectors are denoted by N and JPrespectively.

D e finition 2.2.2. An e leme nt ei = {[vk, vj], zi} , k =/-j , i = l , ... , n e, of a

tensegrity structure is either a bar or string that connects the two nodes vk and
Vj. The pair [vk,Vj] is an ordered pair, and zi identifies the element type. For a
tensegrity structure with the element set lE, zi is defined such that

Zi ={ l, (2.1)
-1 ,

where JE5 E lE and lE6 E lE are the sets of string and bar elements.

D efinition 2.2.3. An e leme nt ve ctor gi E IR3 is a vector along the length of an

element ei = {[vk, vj], zi} . It emanates from the first node vk and ends at the second
node Vj of the element , i.e.,

It is obvious that magnitude of an element vector gi is equa l to its length llgill,

which is denoted by li.
Let IR~ denote the vector space of vectors x that have the following structure:

XE IR~ • X =

The vector p E JR~n of nodal vectors is formed by collecting all node vectors P i,
with similar definitions give the vector g (lE, JP) E JR~• of element vectors and the
 13
vector z E ~ n, of individu al element -typ e identifiers. It follows th at

Pl
P2
p = g= and z =

Th e m a ppi n g from nod a l po sitio n t o e lement vect or

We define th e matri x M (IE) E ~ n, xnn with element s mij as follows,

-1 , if vi is th e first node of t he element ei ,

1, if vi is t he second nod e of the element ei, (2.2)

0, oth erwise (i.e., element ei is not conn ecte d to node vj)-

By constru cti on one can show t hat t he vecto r g can be defined as follows,

m11h m12h m1,nnh

m21h m22h m2,nnh
g = p=Mp . (2.3)

mn, ,1h mn,,2h mn ,,nnl 3

Th e sparse matri x M E R 3 n e x 3 n n app ear ing in t his definiti on is called th e con-

n ectivi ty m atrix . In ord er t o emph asize it s dep end ence on th e element set IE, t he
conn ectivit y mat rix will ofte n be denot ed by M (IE) . Th e matri x M will be called
th e reduced conn ect ivity mat rix since it compl etely defines how indi vidu al elements
are conn ect ed in th e overall stru ctur e.

D efinition 2 .2.4 . T he Kronecker produ ct op erat or @ is defined as:

X '°'
'<Y
y ·. (m
ID..
n x m, m
ID..
r x q) --+ m
ID..
nrxmq 1
where [X '°'
'<Y
Y]i ,j block = X ij y · )

With this definition , th e conn ectiv ity matrix M may b e writt en in th e form

M (IE) = M( IE) @h -
 14
If thens string elements in IEs appear first, then the vector g and matrix M can be
partitioned in the form

g= [ :: l = Mp , M = [ gr
BT '
l with SE ~3n nX3ns.

An important property of Mused later in the text is given in the following theorem.

Theorem 2.2.1. The reduced connectivity matrix satisfies the identity

1
1

Proof. All column s of M sum to zero since every row of M corresponds to

exact ly one element and has exact ly two nonzero entries 1 and -1 corresponding to
the starting and ending nodes.

2.2.2 The tensegrity structure equilibrium conditions

If a structure with axially loaded elements is to be in prestressed equilibrium

without any externa l forces, the internal element forces at each of the nodes must
sum to zero.

3
Definition 2.2.5. The element force vector fj i E ~ represents the contribution of
the internal force of the element ei to the balance of the forces at node Vj.

Since all elements of the structure are axia lly loaded , f ji is collinear with the
element vector g i. Note that f ji -=/0 only if node vj appears in the definition of the
element ei. Moreover, for any element ei = {[vj, vk], zi} the element forces at the
two opposite nodes vj and vk of the element satisfy f ji = -fki · The magnitude of
these forces is denoted Ji
 15
We define a typica l element Cji of th e mat rix C(lE) E ]Rnnxne as follows:

Zi, if Vj is the first nod e of ei,

Cji = - zi, if vj is the second nod e of ei, (2.4)

0, otherwise,

With this definition it follows that

where Ai scales the vector of the element so th at its magnitud e is the same as t hat
of the collinear force vecto r. Note that Ai represents the force per unit length of the
element and will be called the for ce density.
String elements are mod eled as elements that can be eith er und er tension or
slack, but cannot be compressed. Since the force densiti es Ai serve as variab les in
the problem , their positiv e values for the str ing element s pr eserve tensi le characte r
of the st ring forces. Th e force density vector .X E JRne is defined by stac king force
densiti es of all elements in the single vector ,

.X=

If th e structure is to be pr estr essed it is necessary to exclud e th e triv ial solution

.X = 0. Th ese und esirabl e soluti ons for the force densiti es .X, are elimin ated by
constraining the probl em as follows:

(2.5)
(2.6)

Th e balan ce of the forces at the node vj can be writt en as:

ne ne

L f ji = L Cji A i g i =0 (2.7)
i= l i= l
 16
Repeating this procedure for all nodes of the structure gives the set of equations

cnh C12h C1,n, h gl 0 0 >.1 0

C21h C22h C2,n , I 3 0 g2 0 >.2 0

Cnn ,lh Cnn, 2h Cnn ,n e f 3 0 0 gn, An e 0

which can be written more compactly as

Cg,\= 0, (2.8)

where the linear operator 7 acting on the vector x E IR~ is defined as follows,

The sparse matrices C(lE) and C (lE) E }R3nn x 3n . appearing in (2.8) satisfy C =
C @h and will be called the reduced connectivity matrix and connectivity matrix re-
spect ively. These matrices incorporate structure connect ivity information ana logous
to M and M . Moreover , it can be shown from (2.2) and (2.4) that

8
M -- [ B rr] and C = [ -S B ], (2.9)

or , equivalent ly,
(2.10)
Note that (2.5), (2.6) and (2.8) represent necessary but not sufficient conditions for
the existence of the equilibrium tensegr ity structure . Solving (2.5) , (2.6) and (2.8)
for the variables g and ,\ may lead to the solution for which g does not represent
a connected network of elements. The element vector definition (2.3), may be used
as the change of variables to solve this problem.
After some simple algebraic manipulation , equation (2.8) may be rewritten in
the form

0
C g = 0. (2.11)

0 0
 17
Defining the linear operator C)acting on the vector x E ]Rn by,
I

X := X ® h E ]R3nx 3n ,

the identity (2.11) may be written in the more compact form ,

C.Xg = 0. (2.12)

Applying the change of variables given in (2.3), this identity becomes ,

C.XMp = 0. (2.13)

Finally, by including (2.5)- (2.6) , we obtain the relations characterizing the most
genera l tensegrity form-finding problem

C.XMp = 0 (2.14)

> 0,
11>-11 (2.15)
(2.16)

These equations must be satisfied for every tensegrity design probl em and are called
the the tensegrity equilibrium equations.
Observe that any >.satisfying (2.14)- (2.16) in the nodal configuration pli es in
the intersection of two convex sets. From (2.8), the first of the sets is the null space
of the matrix Cg. The second is the set of the vectors >.satisfying ,\ ~ 0, ei E Es.
Note that for any >.that sat isfies (2.14)- (2.16), a>.also satisfies these equations if
a > 0. Hence , the set of force density vectors >.solvin g (2.14)- (2.16) in the nodal
configurat ion p represents a convex cone.

Definition 2.2.6. Let

be the matrix with column s formed from of all npm linearly ind ependent soluti ons
>.i of (2.14)- (2.16) in the nodal configuration p. The prestress cone C(A) , of the
tensegrity structure in the nodal configuration p , is the cone spanned by the linear
 18
combination of the column s of th e matrix A, such that .X E C(A) =} Ai 2 0, Vei E lE5 •
The linearly independent force density vectors ,XJ and npm are called respectively the
prestress modes and the number of prestress modesof the tensegrity structure
in the nodal configurat ion p .

Definition 2.2.7. Let the basis A of the prestress cone C(A) be such that for every
vector .X E C(A) there exists a vector .X E }Rnp= that satisfies .X = A~ with ~ i 2 0.
The columns of A are called the extreme directions of the prestress cone C(A)
and the basis with this property is denoted AE.

The tensegrity equilibrium equations imply that the triple r = {IE,IP',A} com-
pletely defines the equilibrium of a tensegrity structure.

2.3 Shape constraints

In order to include different shape requirements it is necessary to add shape
constraints to the problem. The general form of a shape constraints is written as

cp(p) = 0, (2.17)

where <p is some general vector-valued function. Some common shape constraints
are analyzed in more detail below .

2.3.1 Linear shape constraints

Certain shape constraints are linear in the nodal position vector p . One con-
straint of this type requires that some nodes be located at specified positions ; for
examp le, some nodes of the tensegrity structure must be attached to supports. An-
other examp le occurs when some nodes must be located at certain positions to
support externa l loads (see the illustration on the left of Figure 2.1). This type of
shape constraint may be written in the form

Pp= P c, (2.18)
 19

Figure 2.1. Node and plate constraint

where P c is the given vector of specified positions and P is a sparse matrix of ones
that extracts the constrained elements of p .
If the desired shape has nodes lying on a flat surface , then the set of shape
constraints also has a linear form similar to (2.18). Tensegrity plates are the class
of tensegrity structures that have all nodes of the structure lying in two separate
parallel planes. The tensegrity plate flatness constraint can be written as

where !EhE IE is the subset of the elements lying in the planes perpendicular to the
vector n E IR3 (see the illustration on the right of Figure. 2.1). When written in
compact form , this constraint becomes

where H is the sparse matrix that extracts entries of g associated with the elements
]Eh·
 20
2.3.2 Constraints on the element length

Th e constraint that nc elements must have predefined lengt hs is defined as,

(2.19)

where Etc E E is the subset of elements with constrained lengths , and le E ]Rnc is a
given vector. By it s nature this constraint is quadratic,

(2.20)

where gc E iR;c is the vector formed by collecting the element vectors of the elements
in Etc·

2.3.3 Symmetric tensegrity structures

In many practical sit uat ions tensegrity structures and t heir desired shapes are
symmetr ic. In this case , the amo unt of information required to describe the geom-
etry and element forces can be significant ly redu ced . Two examp les of symmetric
structures are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3.
y axisof symmetry
p4
----~--::a

x axis of symmetry

Figur e 2.2. A tensegrity cross that admits symmetries with respect to t he x and
y-axis

Definition 2.3.1. A symmetry of a set S is an isometry that maps S onto itself

(see, e.g., [22]).
 21

4n 4n-1

seco nd stage

n-1

Figure 2.3. left: Class 1 shell-class tensegrity tower that adm its symmetr ies abo ut
z-axis; right: Connectivity diagram of she ll-class tensegrity

Isometr ies are bijective mappings that preserve distances between points and
angles between lines in the set. Symmetries associated with tensegrity structures
that are of relevance for form-finding problems can be divided in two groups, nodal
sym metry and element symmetry.

Nodal Symmetry

Th e set of noda l vectors IP'of a te nsegrity structure and any subset JP'5 E IP'
are subsets of the Euclidi an space JR3 . It can be shown that all symmetries (i.e.,
isometries) I (pk), Pk E JR3 , are affine mappings of the form

(2.21)

Definition 2.3.2. A subset of nodes Ns E N of a tensegrity stru cture is said to

ad mit nodal symmetry I if t he associated set of nodal vectors IP's E IP'sat isfies
(2.21) for some R andt. If the set Ns involves all nodes of N, i.e., Ns = N, then the
)
tensegrity st ru cture is said to have compete nodal symmetry .

Th e stru ct ure in Figur e 2.2 admit s a nodal symmetry since rotation about the
 22
y-axis yields,

P2 = Rp1 +t, Pl = Rp 2 + t , p4 = Rp 3 + t , p3 = Rp 4 + t ,

R = [ ~l : ~ ] and t = 0.
0 0 1

Element Symmetry

According to Definit ion 2.2.2, elements ei E lE of a tensegr ity structure are not
vectors in Euclidi an space. Hence, t he idea of element symmetry is different from
that of nodal symmetry.

Definition 2.3.3. A subset of elements JE5 E lE of a tensegrity structure is said to

admit element symmetry I if:

(i) the set of nodes Ns = N(lEs), defining t he elements lEs, admits nodal symmetry
I· )

(ii) for every element ei = {[vj, vk], zi} E JE5 there exists exactly one element

eq = {[vr, v Zq} 5 ], E lEs; such that Pr = I (pj ) , Ps = I (p k), or Pr = I (p k),

Ps = I (pj) ; and

(iii) Zi = Z q·

If the set JE5 involves all elements of lE, i.e., JE5 = lE, then t he tensegr ity structur e is
said to have complete element symmetry.

Definition 2.3.4. T wo elements ei and eq of the same kind or two nodes Vj and
vr are said to be equivalent , or to belong to the same equivalency class lEec E lE,
and Nee E N respectively , if there exist a complete element symmetry or a complet e
nod al symmetry that maps one to the other. )

Oth er symmetries can be associated with a te nsegrity structure, such as defor-

mat ion symmet ry and applied force symmet ry. However, these symmetries have no
relevance for form-finding and are not considered in this paper.
 23
Complete element symmetry and the reduction of force density variables

Complete element symm et ry can be exploit ed to reduce the number of variables

in the tensegrity equilibrium equations. Th e main result that estab lishes the basis
for this claim is given in Th eorem 2.3 .3. Th e next two lemmas estab lish some
background results.

Lemma 2.3.1. If a finite or infinite tensegrity structure admits comp lete element
symmetry I (x) = R(x) + t , then any mapping between element vectors , g i and gq
associated with any two elements ei and eq in the same equiva lency class , must be
str ict ly linear and satisfy the relations

(2.22)

Proof. Without loss of genera lity we assume the element vector orientat ion
gi = Pk - Pj and gq = Pr - P s· From Definition 2.3.3 (ii),

. Pr = Rpk +t, Ps = Rpj +t, Or Pr = Rpj +t, Ps = Rpk + t.

It follows that g q must satisfy one of the two cond itions ,

(2.23)

or
(2.24)

•
Note that alth ough a structure may adm it element symmetry , the set of element
vectors g does not necessarily adm it the same symmetry, or even any symmetry at
all. This is because the definition of the element vectors depends on t heir adopted
orientation. If t he orientation of the element vectors does not comply with the
symmetry of the structure , t hen the set of element vectors may not be symmetric.
Nonetheless , Lemma 2.3.1 shows that the mappings between the element vectors
 24
of the elements in the same element equivalency class are not independ ent of the
symmetry.
The next lemma shows that the contributions of the element forces of two ele-
ments in the same equivalency class at two nodes in the same equivalency class are
related by a symmetry mapping that is independent of the adopted orientation of
the element vectors .

Lemma 2 .3.2. Let a finite or infinite tensegrity structure admit complete element
symmetry I(x) = R(x) + t , and let Vj and vr be any two nodes in th e same nod e
equivalency class. Then for any element eq connected to node v r, it holds that

(i) there exists exactly one element ei (not necessarily different from eq) connected
to node v j, that is in the same equivalency class ; and

(ii) the compressive or tensional character of the element force is preserved und er
the symmetry transformation i.e.,

(2.25)

Proof. Since nodes Vj and Vr are in the same equivalency class , Definition 2.3.3
implies that for every element incident with node Vj there must be at least one
element in the same equivalency class that is incident with node Vr . This result ,
and the fact that symmetries are bijective mappings implies (i).
Without loss of generality we assume that ei = {[vj, vk],zi } and gi = Pk - Pj ·
There are two possible cases. First , assume that the orientation of the element eq

is such that eq = {[vr, vs], Zq }- Then from (2.4), Cji = Cri since from Definition 2.3.3
(iii), zi = Zq- In this case (2.23) holds , so that gq = Rg i. Finally , we have that

)
In the second case the orientation of the element eq is such that eq = {[vs, vr], Zq}.

From (2.4) it must hold that Crq = - Cji· Hence, from (2.24) we have gq = -Rg i,

and it follows that

 25

•
Theorem 2.3.3. Suppose a tens egrity struct ur e admits a comp let e element sym-
metry. Th en the tensegrity equilibrium equations (2.14)- (2.16) are satisfied if all
elements in the same element equivalency class IE~chave a common force densit y,

Proof. Let vj and vr be two nodes in th e same nod e equival ency class . Th e force
balance equations at nodes vj and vr are given by,
ne

L CjiAigi L CjiAigi = = 0, (2.26)

i= l
ne

L CrqAqgq = L CrqAqgq= 0, (2.27)

i= l

where ITjand ITrare th e sets of indices of the elements incident with nod es Vj and vr.
Let the notation Aq = Aq(i) indi cat e the depend ence of the force density Aq on Ai.
Using (2.25), every term CrqAq
g q in th e summation (2.27) can be substitut ed with
exactly one term CjiAq(i) Rg i. After changing th e indexing of the summation (2.27),
it follows that the balance of forces at th e nod e vr can be writt en as

L CjiAq(i )Rg i = 0. (2.28)

iEilj

Pulling out matrix R from the summation gives,

RL CjiAq(i) gi = 0. (2.29)
iEilj

If Aq(i) is chosen so that Aq(i) = Ai, i.e., if Aq = Ai, then (2.29) can be rewritt en as

RL CjiAigi = 0, )

iEilj

which always holds when (2.26) holds.

•
 26
Note that Aq(i) = Ai is a sufficient but not necessary condition for equilibrium
at node vr. To illustrat e this point, note that the symmetric tensegrity structure
of Figure 2.4 admits both a symmetric and an asymmetr ic solution for ,\_ The
difference in the two examp les is only in the distribution of the resulting element
forces. The top structure in Figure 2.4 has the same Ai and the same magnitudes Ji
of the element forces for the symmetric elements. The bottom structure does not.
: y axis of symmetry

f, 2(, f,

-"~! ;;;.,,...,.,,.,
f, 2{, f,
·: y axis of symmetry
f, 3(, 2f,

Figur e 2.4. Example of a symmetric and asymmetric force distribution for a sym-
metric tensegrity structure

Let all elements IE of the structure that adm it s a comp lete element symmetry ,
be grouped in nee disjoint element equ ivalency classes IEt, j = l, ... , nee· Theo-
rem 2.3.3 can be used to reduce the number of force density variab les from ,\ E JRne
to ~ E ]Rnec, where ~ is the reduced force density vector formed from the single rep-
resentative elements for each equiva lency class IEt. Th e element equivalency class
incidence matrix Q E ]Rnexnec, has elements % defined as follows ,

q ij ={ 1, (2.30)
0, otherwise. J

Given Q, the reduction in the number of variables can be written as,

,\ = Q~. (2.31)
 27
Complete element symmetry and reduction of the number of force bal-
ance equations

Recall that comp lete element symmetry implies comp lete nodal symmetry of
a tensegrity structure. Hence, the set of all nodes N can be partitioned in nn c

disjoint node equiva lency classes N~c, i = 1, ... , nn c · As suggested by (2.29),

equilibrium conditions for any two nodes in the same equiva lency class become
linearly dependant and are related via the nonsingular linear transformation R.
Thi s redundancy can be exploited further to reduce the number of force ba lance
equations in (2 .14) by keeping only the set of independent equations at the single
representative nodes for each node equiva lency class N~C'Let d ij denote the elements
a matrix D E ffi.n ncX n n such that

if node vj is the representative node of N~c,

d ij = { l,
0, otherwise.

The reduction in the number of equations can be represented by pre-multiplying

(2.14) by the matrix D E R 3nn cx 3nn) where D = D 0 h.

Nodal symmetry and reduction of the number of geometry variables

The fact that a tensegrity structure admits nodal symmetry can be used to
reduce the number of geometry variab les p in the tensegrity equilibr ium equat ions.
Let a tensegrity structure have nn c different node equiva lency classes N~c· Then, for
any two nodes vj and vr in the same equiva lency class N~c, there exists a symmetry
mapping such that ,
(2.32)

Let the node vj be selected to be the representative node for the node equivalency
class N~c· Since all nodes in the node equivalency class N~c are images of the
representative node Vj, by using (2.32) for each of the nn c node equivalency classes,
it is possible to write,

(2.33)
 28
Th e vector _e_is formed by collecting all nod al vecto rs of the representative nodes
for each of the nnc different nod e equival ency classes. Figur e 2.3 depicts the nod es
with nod al vectors forming _e_for the shell-class tensegrity st ru ct ur es defined in [51].
Equation (2.33) provid es the change of variables that redu ces the numb er of
geometry variab les p in (2.14)- (2.15) from 3nn to 3nnc· Thi s change of variab les
guarantees nod al symm et ry of the solution and simult aneously preserves t he bi-
linear charac t er of th e tensegrity equilibrium equat ions. In summ ary, the form of
the tensegrity equilibrium equat ions that accommod ates both nod al symm etry and
element symm etry of the te nsegrity structure can be written in the form

DCQAR_e_= 0 (2.34)

11
~11> 0, (2.35)

~ i 2: 0, ei E ts· (2.36)

2.3.4 Symmetric tensegrities and geometry parametrization

Th e complexity of the tensegrity form-finding problem is influenced by the com-
plexity of both the tensegrity equilibrium equat ions and the shape constra int s. Al-
though the tensegrity equilibrium equat ions have the nice bilinear form when the
nodal vecto r p is used to describ e th e geometry, a sensible change of variables may
yield more tractable equat ions and hence improv e the convergence of algorithm s
used to solve them .
The cylindrica l shell-class tensegrity stru ct ur e in Figur e 2.3 is analyzed to illus-
trate this fact . Given n-bars per stage, this st ru ct ur e adm its rotations by 2br /n,
k = i, ... , n - 1 about z axis, as the element symm et ries. Th e geometry constra int
th at requir es all nod es to lie on the cylind er of radius Ttarg et has the quadratic form

2 2 2
Pi,, + Piy = rtarget, i
.
= 1, · · ·, nnc· J

If r is a geometry variable, this constraint is linear, i.e., r = Ttarg et · In some cases,

it is beneficial to find a set of geometry variabl es for which the balance-of-th e-forces
 29
equation (2.14) becomes mor e nonlin ear , but the additiona l shape constraints are less
nonlin ear. Th e next section addr esses t his issue for shell-class tensegrity stru ctures.

Geometry parametrization of a symmetric shell-class tensegrity tower

Thi s class of tensegrity st ru ct ure has n bars for each of the n st stages (see Fig-
ur es 2.3 and 2.5). In ad dition to the rotational symmetry about the z axis , a
structure may also admi t ot her symmetries - for examp le, reflection abo ut t he plane
perp endi cular to the axis passing through the middle of the height of the stru ct ure.
For each of nst stages , let lb; denote the lengt h of the bars , ri the radius of the
bottom polygon , an d ai the twist angle, as shown in Figure 2.5. Let the truncation
ratio of the stages be defined as

where r;, i = 1, . . . , nst are t he radii of the top polygons of the stages. Similarly,
let /Ji,i = 1, ... , nst - 1, and 'Yi, i = 1, .. . , nst - 1 denote the parameters that
define the positions of the stages relative to each other , as depicted in Figure 2.5.
We define the collect ions of geomet ry parameters: lb E ]Rn• t , r E ]Rn• t , t E lRn st ,
a E ]Rn st , 1 E ]Rn •t - 1 and /3 E ]Rn •t-1 _

LetPti denot e the nod al vectors of the j = 1, .. . , n nod es at the bottom of each
of the i = 1, .. . , nst stages . Similarly , let P]i denote the nodal vectors of t he j = 1,
... , n nod es at the top of each of the i = 1, . . . , nst stages. Fin ally, we define t he
orthogonal rotation matrix about z axis:

R(x) = [ ~:~:x
:~::
~]
0 0 1

With these definitions , the geometry of a symmetr ic shell-class tensegrity can be

 30
parameterized as follows:

= R (( J· - 1)-27T)

l
b
Pji P b1,i,
n

PL - R(Of) [ ri: ' PL - R(Of)

5b1 = 0, bib = 5i-l

b
+ (-1) i ( ai-1 + /3i-l + -27T)
n
, (2.37)

2
bf=5f+ (-l)i- 1(ai + 7T),
n
z1 = o, zi = zi-1 + (1 - ,i) hi,

hi = 2
lb; - ri2 - t 2 ri2 + 2r i2 t cos (27T
-:;;:+ a i ) ,

where bfand 5;are the angular coordin ates of the nod es at p~i and p}i respectively ,
and hi is the height of the stages i = 1, ... , nst.
Note that all nodes p ~i in the same stage i = 1, ... , nst belong to the same
node equivalency class. Similarly, all nodes p}i, i = 1, . . . , nst , in the same stage
i = 1, ... , nst belong to the same nod e equival ency class. Suppose that the nodes
PL and Pi,i, i = 1, ... , nst, are selected as the represe ntative nodes for the 2nst

•t ,
different node equiva lency classes . Using these nodes to form the vector EE IR~n
the geometry parametrization (2.37) can b e written in the compact form

p = 'RE_, with E = E_(n, lb, r , t , a , /3,,) . (2.38)

2.4 Tensegrity structure stability analysis

In the above ana lysis the necessary conditions are defined for the exist ence of
a prestressed structure that satisfies tensegrity conditions. Stability of a tensegrity
structure can be examined by ana lyzing the prop ert ies of its stiffness matrix. In
the next section the nonlinear stiffness matrix of a tensegrity structure is defined .
Since a tensegrity structure can be regarded as a special case of a truss structure,
the results are also app licable to this kind of structures.
 31

Stage i+1

f ·7 1
Stage i 1
_L_ D A

Figure 2.5. Shell class tensegrity stage geometry parameters

2.4.1 Stiffness matrix of a tensegrity structure

Definition 2.4.1. The nonlinear stiffness matrix Kofa tensegrity structure under
the load w in t he nodal configuration p is defined as

An equilibrium structure is stab le if a sma ll change bw in the externa l load

results in a new equilibr ium nodal configuration p + bp with a sma ll bp . Th e
balance-of-forces equations in these two equi librium configurat ions must include
these add it iona l exte rn al loads. They can be written in a form similar to (2.14), i.e. ,
if

C-\Mp + w = 0, wit h w = (2.39)

 32
then it holds that

C(.-\ + 5.-\)M(p + 5p) + (w + 5w) = 0, (2.40)

where, as above , w E JR3nn denotes the vector of externa l nodal forces. Equation
(2.40) can be expanded as

C.-\Mp + C5.-\Mp + C.-\M5p + C5.-\M5p + w + 5w = 0.

Neglecting the second-order infinitesimal term C5.-\M5p and cance ling the terms
satisfying (2.39) yields
5w = -C5.-\Mp - C.-\M5p ,

and the corresponding derivative

5w 5.-\ ~
- = -C-Mp - C,\M .
5p 5p
If this expression is written in terms of the vector ,\ instead of the diagonal matrix
.-\, we obtain
5w = -Cg 5,\ - C.-\M
5p 5p '
which is a more convenient form for differentiating with respect to the vector p .
Assuming that elements are constructed from a linear elastic material that obeys
Hooke's law and has Young 's modulus Yi, the force densities >.i can be defined as,

(2.41)

or, equivalently,
(2.42)

Differentiating ,\ with respect to p and app lying the chain rule and using (2.3)
gives
5,\ 5,\ 5g
5p 5g 5p
5,\ = 5,\M.
5p 5g
 33
Then ,
gT
z1y1a1~ 0 0
o.-\ 0 0
(2.43)
og
0 0
Defining t he auxiliary vectors

allows us to write (2.43) in the compact form

o.-\ -
og= zyal-3gr .

Substituting this derivative in the express ion for 5,\ / op gives

(2.44)

If we exploit the fact that z, y, a, I are diagonal and gTis block diagonal , we may
write (2.44) as
o.-\
-
Op -
---- i- 3- TAM
zya g z .

.!,From (2.10) .e have that ,

zM= -e r.
Fin ally, the st iffness mat rix is written as,

'"v- = c gy
- - a- -1- 3 g-r cr - c /\'M . (2.45)

This stiffness matr ix matc hes its FEM definition for prestressed truss es given in J
the lit erat ure, see, e.g., [39]. Here , the sti ffness matrix is given in t he compact form
that clearly displays its st ru ct ure and sparsity pattern .. Thi s compact form great ly
simplifies the rank analysis.
 34
2.4.2 Stiffness matrix for changed geometry coordinat es
If the nons ingular linear coordinate transformation,

p = Tq , w = Tw q,

is performed, the equilibri um equat ion (2.39) of the tensegrity structure becomes:

C-XMTq + Tw q = 0, (2.46)

which can be written as

(2.47)

In t his case it is easy to show t hat the stiffness matrix Kq with respect to the
q-variables undergoes a similarity tra nsformat ion, with

2.4.3 Tensegrity stability classification

Let r= {IE:
, p , A} be a given tensegrity structure.

Definition 2.4.2. T he tensegrity structure r is said to be rigid if its stiffness

matrix K t O and rank(K) = 3n n - 6 for any ,\ E C(A) including ,\ = 0.
Definition 2.4.3. The tensegrity structure r conta ins a finit e mec hani sm if its
st iffness matr ix K t O and rank( K ) < 3nn - 6 for any ,\ E C(A) including ,\ = 0.
Definition 2.4.4. Th e tenseg rity structure r contains a soft mod e if its stiffness
t O for all ,\ E C(A) and rank (K ) = 3nn
matr ix sat isfies K, - 6 for some ,\ E C(A),
but when ,\ = 0 , K t O and rank(K) < 3nn - 6.

Definition 2.4.5. T he tensegrity structure r is stabl e if its st iffness matrix K t 0

for any ,\ E C(A) and it does not contain a finite mechanism.

Definition 2.4.6. Th e te nsegrity structure r is said to be unstabl e if it is not

stab le.
 35
2.5 Tensegrity form-finding ex am ples
We provid e two exampl es to illust rat e th e prop osed form-findin g met hods. Th e
first is th e form-findin g probl em of an un st able unit tensegrit y plat e. Thi s example
does not enfor ce and exploit nod al symm etr y. Th e second exampl e is a symmetr ic
shell-class te nsegrit y tower. In thi s case , th e desired sym metry of the st ru ct ure is
exploit ed to redu ce size of th e problem . Th e geomet ry is also para meterized to
impo se shape const ra ints in a convenient form .

2 .5 .1 A non- symme tr ic probl em - t he unsta bl e uni t pl ate

For un st able unit te nsegrity st ru ctur es, it is characte rist ic t hat t here exists a
repet itiv e conn ect ivity patte rn wit hin th e inte rior of t he st ru ctur e (see, e.g., Fig-
ur e 2.7). Unlike th e sta ble unit te nsegrity stru ctures defined in [34], t he repet it ive
unit , shown in Figure 2.6, does not repr esent a smaller equilib rium te nsegrity stru c-
tu re. Equilibrium of each of th e units is pro vided wit h t he help of t he forces coming
from t he element s of adjacent unit s. Thi s is why additi onal elements must be added
for bound ary unit s t o be in equilibrium . Th e presence of t hese elements violates t he
stru ct ur e element symm etry but not t he nodal symm et ry.

Figur e 2.6. Conn ectivity of t he unit of t he unst able unit plate

First , th e conn ectivit y scheme defined by JE5 and lEbis adopt ed . Shape constra ints
 36
require the design to be a plate-class tensegrity. All bars are required to be of equal
lengt h lb. Th e unit vector n E IR3 perpendicular to the plate must be provided in
order to define the plate. Next , the index iv of an element ei,, penetrating the plate
is identified so that the height of the plate can be constrained to be h. The matrix H
is constructed to extract the vectors of elements lying in the top and bottom plane
of the plate. In this examp le nodal symmetry is not enforced . The formulation of
the form-finding problem is then:

Given data C , M , Es, H , n , h, lb, iv and B

find p, .X
such that C~Mp = 0,

(2.48)
II.XII
> o,
(I @nT)Hg = 0, g = Mp ,
nTg i,,. = h )

Each constraint on the length of an element has been expressed as a quadratic form
rather than Euclidian norm. This ensures that the constraint derivative is well
defined and does not involve the inverse of the element length.
The formulation (2.48) requires the numerical solution of a large-sca le zero-
finding problem in which a subset of the variables are constra ined to be nonnegative .
Since standard zero-finding methods - such as the damped Newton method - are not
designed for problems with inequality constra ints , we introdu ce new variables qi and
apply the "sq uared-var iab le" transformation

(2.49)

to eliminate each constraint >.i2::0.

The height constra int in (2.48) can be rewritten as:
 37
where M iv are the rows of M that correspond to the element ei v .

These transformations give th e equiva lent zero-finding prob lem:

Given dat a C , M , H , n , h , M iv, 1b, B , E

find p, q

such that F1(p , q) = C q_2Mp = 0,

F2(P , q) = (I ® nT) H M p = 0, (2.50)

F3(p , q) = n TM [ p = h,
F4(p , q) = gfgb = Iblb, gb = B r p ,

llqll2~ E,

wher e Eis a sma ll positive numb er used to relax the strict inequality llqll2> 0. Th e
Jacobian of the residual vector for probl em (2.50) is given by

8Fifop Ccj2M
8F 8F2/8p (I ® nr)HM
op 0F3/8p nTMTi
8F 4 / 8p 2gfBT
(2.51)
8Fi/8 q 2Cgq

8F 8F 2 /8q 0
and g=Mp .
aq 8F3/8 q 0
8F4/8 q 0

In general, the squared-variable transformation (2.49) is not to be recommended

in the constrained optimization cont ext b ecause the transformed probl em may be
unbounded or have additiona l local solutions (see [21, pp . 267- 269] for more de-
tai ls). However , in the context of solving (2.50), there are very few values of Ai
near zero at a nontrivial solution and the detrimental effects of the transformation
are mitigated. Moreover , th e transformation has the ben eficial effect of steering the
damped Newton method away from th e trivia l solution 11.X.II = 0, which impli es that
 38
the inequalit y constraint llqll2::c can be effectively ignored during the zero-finding
process. For examp le, the trivial solution for the tensegrity plate design example
Figure 2. 7 was never found. Another explanation of this phenomenon is that the
initial guess for the design variables was always closer to a nontrivial solution . An-
alyti cal results obtained from an infinite unstable plate analysis were used as the
initial guess for the variables p and .X.

- 0 ,4

-0 ,5

-0 .7

Figure 2. 7. Initial guess for the plate geometry (left) and computed plate geome-
try(right)

2.5.2 A symmetric problem

In the next examp le, a six-st age shell-class tensegrity tower with four bars per
stage is designed. Th e desired symmetric shape of the structure enab les geometry
parametrization so that the change of variables defined in (2.37) is performed:

p = R_e.= R_e.(n, lb, r , t, a , /3,,) . (2.52)

All stages of the structure are constrained to share common geometry parameters .
In other words, the number of variables in the vectors lb, r, t , a, /3,1 can be reduced
to one. Moreover, it is required that the bars be of the given length lb, and that
the structure has the given radius r. Further , it is required that the truncation
 39
parameter be t = l , and {J = 21r/n that guarantees equa l lengths of the saddle
strings defined in [51]. The height of the structure h = h(n , lb, r , t , a , (3, , ) defined
in (2.37) , is constra ined to be htarget·
In this examp le, symmetry of the structure is exploit ed to reduce both the num-
ber of equat ions to be solved and the number of force density variables. The solution
of the corresponding problem is obtained by cast ing the nonlinear constrained zero-
finding problem as the optimization problem :

Given data C , M , Es, Q, D , R , htarget, n , lb, r , t , {J:

min (DCgQ~ f( DCgQ~ )
°',1',~
g = Mp , p = RE_(n, lb, r , t , a:, {J,,)

subject to -6.i~ 0, ei E E s,

11~11
> 0,
h(n , lb, r , t , a:, {J,,) = htarget·

This problem is solved numerically using the sparse nonlinear optimization package
SNOPT 6.1 developed by [19]. SNOPT is a general-purpose system for minimizing
a general nonlinear function subject to bounds on the variables and sparse linear
or nonlinear constraints . For more details consult [20]. An advantage of using an
optimization approac h is that the sparse constraint Jacobian is fully exploited during
the solution process. In addition , the simp le non-negativity constraints ~i ~ 0, ei E
Es , can be treated efficiently without needing the squared-variab le transformation
(2.49). Th e resulting optimization problem was easily solved , with a total of 99 trial
tensegrity structures being required before the algorithm converged to the leftmost
structure of Figure 2.8.
I

Th e same problem was solved again with different values for the height htarget
yielding the two remaining structures in Figure 2.8. All other given data was kept
unaltered. This repetitive procedure represents an iterative method that can be used
to generate feasible paths for the tower reconfigurations achievab le by contro lling
the string lengths .
 40
35

30

n.,=6 n.,=6 n,.=6

25 n=4 n=4
l,=6 n=4
l,=6 l,=6
20 r=1 r-1 r-1
p=0 .7854 P=0.7854
1=1 P=0.7854
15
1=1 1=1
variables : variables : variables :
u=0 .1413 u=0.2125 u= 0.5805
10 y=0 .5163 y=0 .3371
constraints : y=0.1540
~ constraints :
h=20 constraints :
h=25 h=30

Figur e 2.8. Equilibrium shell-class tensegrity towers with different height s

Th e final exampl e is a shell-class tower struct ur e with tapered stages. This

exam ple illustrates the genera lity of t he formulation introduced her e. Th e only
change from the previous problems is that the desired distribution of the truncation
ratio t is now:
t = [ 0.7 1 1 1 0.8 1.3 ] T ,

while all other constrain ts remain un alt ered. The final stru ct ure comp uted by
SNOPT is shown in Figur e 2.9.

2. 6 Con cl us ions

In this chapt er , an algebr aic framework for tensegrity form-finding is introdu ced.
It uses force densiti es and a special choice of geometry variables that facilitates ana l-
ysis of symmetric structures. With t he appropr iate choice of problem variables , a
bilin ear form of the tensegrity equilibrium equat ions is obtained. Th ese equatio ns
are imp ort ant because they define a set of algebra ic constra ints that can be im-
posed when dealing with more genera l t ensegrity design probl ems. For examp le,
when optimizing the structural prop erties of t ensegrity struct ures, th ese equat ions
become th e set of const raints that define a feasible region for tensegrity geometry
 41

35

30 ,,------,.. n,.=6
n=4
25 1.=6
r=1
20 ~=0.7854
t=[0 .7 1 1 1 0.8 1.3]
15 variables:
a=0 .2354
10 y=0.33625
constraints:
h=25

·1
-2 - 1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0,5 1 1.5 -2

Fi gur e 2.9. Shell class te nsegr ity with ta p ered stages

and element force vari ables.

On e of th e prin cipal contributi ons cont ained in t his chapt er is t he te nsegrity sym-
metr y analysis. Thi s est ablishes t he prop ert ies of a symm et ric te nsegr ity st ru ct ur e
and defines a syste mat ic way of simplif ying t he form-findin g problem . Th e pro-
p osed t ensegrit y invari ance t ransform at ion enables th e solut ion of th e form -findin g
probl em for a large class of te nsegriti es. It also repr esent s a new too l th at can b e
impl ement ed for th e design and control of t ensegrit y st ru ctur es.
Th e compl et e geometr y paramet rizati on of th e symm et ric shell-class te nsegrity
t owers of arbit ra ry size facilit ates th e num erical solut ions of t ensegrity t ower form s
beyond existin g analyti cal result s which are available only for stru ct ur es of a few
st ages, except for some special cases. Th e parameters definin g t he shape of th e
st ages and th eir relat ive positi ons are intro du ced as ind epend ent variables. Th e
t owers ,can have t ap ered st ages.
Beca use of t he non-convex nat ur e of th e form-findin g problem th ere is no guar-
ant ee th at th e num erical algorit hm s can solve it when initi al guess for t he variables
is far from a soluti on . Thi s is where th e designers intuiti on and experience pl ay t he
role in providin g a good initi al guess.
Chapter 3

Enabling tools for tensegrity

form-finding

3 .1 Introduction
The subject of this chapter is the investigation of the prop rti s of th tens grity
structures that lead to the simplification of th ir form-finding and pr str ss analy is.
The first result defines the concept of the invariance of the t nsegrity equilibrium.
Th e theorem is given that shows that the equilibrium of a tens grity structure is
not alt ered und er an affine nodal transformation.
It is shown in the sequel that for the modular tensegrity structur s the quilib-
rium comp ut at ions can be significantly simp lified. Due to their specific symmetry ,
the form-finding problem can be broken down into a collection of sma ller problems ,
independe ntly from the size of th e origina l structure. The set of th structure compo-
sition ryles that are associated with the modular tensegrities is defined. Thes rul s
represent an ana lyti cal method for the ana lysis of the equilibrium g om tri s and
the associated prestress space of these structures. These results facilitate the ana-
lyti cal solutions of the equilibrium conditions for the modular tensegrity structur s
of arbitrary sizes. Th e equilibrium computations of modules used for constructing
tensegrity plates and towers is given in this chapter. This analysis if followed by the

42
 43
investigation of th e geometr y of th e modul ar plates in ord er t o conclud e t his chapte r
with th e equilibrium param etriz ation of modul ar t ensegrity plat es and towers.

3.2 Invariant tensegrity geometric transformations

In this section it will be shown th at Th eorem 2.3.3 is a sp ecial case of a more
general prop ert y of t ensegrit y stru ctur es.

Definition 3.2.1. Suppo se th at th e geometr y of th e equilib rium t ensegrity stru c-

tu re r= {IE, p , A} is t ra nsformed using f> = T (p ). If t he t ransform ed stru ct ure
f' = {IE, f>, A} is in equilibrium , th en T will be called an invariant tensegrity
geometric transformation .

Theorem 3.2.1. Any affine geometri c t ransform ati on of th e nodal position vect or
p of th e form f>= I (p ) = Ap + T , where,

t E lR3
'
is an invariant t ensegrity geomet ric tr ansformati on.

The affine geometri c tr ansform ation I (p) will be called th e tensegrity similar-
ity transformation.
Proof. Since r = {IE, p , A} is an equilibrium te nsegrity st ru ct ure, it sat isfies t he
t ensegrity constitutiv e equation :

C~Mp = 0. (3.1)

Equilib;ium of th e stru ctur e f' = {IE,I (p) , A} is sati sfied if:

Using the identit y M(l nn@ h )t = 0 from Th eorem 2.2.1, we obt ain
 44
Rearranging this equation and app lying (3.1) yields

C.-\M(Inn@A)p = (Inn @ A)C.-\Mp = 0.

Theorem 3.2.1 represents a powerful tool for the equilibrium analysis of tensegrity
structures. It allows the trivial equilibrium analysis of all tensegrities with the
geometry defined via an affine transformation of a structure with known equilibrium
geometry. For example, it is possible to compute the equilibrium conditions for the
tensegrity cross in Figure 3.1 that has nodes at the vertices of a square. In this
case, the equilibrium of any tensegrity cross with its nodes lying on an ellipse is
guaranteed for the same set of force densities of the corresponding elements. Note
that the higher level of symmetry in the square tensegrity cross makes the number
of geometry variables and the number of equations in the constitutive equation
sma ller, thereby making the problem easier to solve. The linear part of the affine

ax.
X

Figure 3'.1. An equilibrium elliptica l tensegrity cross generated by the similarity

transformation from the equilibrium square configuration

node position transformation that generates the equilibrium configuration of the

 45
elliptical cross is given by

l
I
5
X 0 0
A= 0 Ys 0
0 0 0

Although it is intuitivel y obvious that a tensegrity st ru ct ur e remains in equilibrium if

it und ergo es a geometry transformation as a rigid body (i.e., rotation or transl at ion)
it is not obvious that th e same holds true for other affine transformations.

3.3 Composition of tensegrity structures

Equilibrium equat ions (2.14) can exhibit a particular st ru cture d form for some
tensegrity st ru ct ur es, und er certa in geometry constraint s. The st ru cture of the equa-
tions can be exploit ed to simplify their solution . The planar tensegrity of Figure 3.2
is given as the examp le that supp orts these claims and mot ivates t he ana lysis that
follows. Th e sparsity patte rn of the matr ix Cg of this structure indi cates that the
set of th e equilibrium equation s repr esent s the combin at ion of two almost decou-
pled linear equat ions in force density vari ables .X. Moreover, one can show that t he
matrix Cg admits th e symmetry, so that [Cg];j = [Cg]3n n - i ,Jn . -j"
Equations in (2.14) may be cast in the similar structured form for a large class of
tens egriti es. This highly structured problem can be furth er decompo sed into several
decoupled blocks of equat ions , each of which represents the equilibrium condition s
for a smaller separate substructure. Several definitions an d rul es will provide the
met hod for compo sition and decomposition of tensegrity st ru ctures to simplify their
equilibrium analysis. Th ese rul es will be called the composi tion rules.

3.3.1 Composition rules

Definition 3.3.1. Node vr of the structurer is said to be attached to element
ei = {[vi, vk],zi} if element ei is replaced in the structure definition with elements
 46

2 •

'2.

X 10 12 14

Figure 3.2. The sparsity pattern of equilibrium equations for a composition of two
tensegrity structures

eq = {[vj, vrl, zi} and es = {[vr,vk], zi}- This will formally be writt en as [eq,es] =
l.lr@e i ,

Definition 3.3.2. Node I.Ir of structure r is said to be attached to node vj if

node I.Ir · is replaced by node Vj in the definition of all elements incident with node
I.Ir· This will formally be written as I.Ir +--- vj.

The node attachment I.Ir +--- Vj shou ld not be confused with the node placement
Pr = pj. While the former operation removes node I.Ir from the set N, and conse-
quently Pr from the set lP', the later operation only place node I.Ir at the position of
the node vj so that both these overlapping nodes continue to exist.

Definition 3.3.3. Superposition of two overlapping elements ei = {[vj, vk], zi}

and eq = {h , vk], zi} or eq = {[vk, vj], zi} of structurer is the operation in which
I

element eq is deleted from the set lE. This will formally be written as eq +--- ei.

The following theorem concerns the composition of equilibrium structures and

the main property associated with the result of this composition .

Theorem 3.3.1. Let the tensegrity structure r = {IE, lP',.X} be defined from the
1
two equilibrium tensegrity structures r1 = {IE1, lP'1,.X } and r2 = {IE2 , lP'2 , .X2 } by
 47
attaching some nod es of structurer 1 to elements or nodes of structure r2 , and by
attaching some nodes of structure r2 to elements or nodes of structure r 1, so that
all of the following condition s are satisfied:

(i) If node Vr is attached to node vj then the nodal vectors satisfy Pr = Pj·

(ii) If node Vr is attached to element ei = {[vj, vk], zi}, so that [eq,e5 ] = vr @ei,
then the nodal vector Pr satisfies

Pr= Pj+a( pk- Pj), for O<a<l (3.3)

and force densities >..Pand Aq of elements eP and eq satisfy ,

(3.4)

(iv) If overlapping elements ei with force density >..i and ej with force density >..j
are generated, and replaced by their superposition ej t-- ei, the force density
of the remaining element is >..j + >..i, i.e. ,

Th en , structure r is an equilibrium structure.

Structure r of Theorem 3.3.1 is said to be the composition of the two com-

ponent structures r 1 and f2 .

Proof. The equilibrium conditions of structures r1 = {IE1,IP1 , .X1 } , and r 2 = {IE2 , IP2 , .X2 }
are defined as follows,

(3.5)

where ,
(3.6)

Consider first the case where nodes of r2 are attached to nodes of r 1- Without
loss of generality assume that only node vr of r2 is attached to the node vj of r1 .
 48
Although the definitions of elements incident with the node vr have changed, vector
of element vectors of the new structurer= {E, IP, ..\} remains the same as the vector
of the disjoint structures , i.e.,

g = [ :: l
Let the connectivity matrices be partitioned as follows,

(3.7)

where C 1j and C 2r denote the rows of the matrices corresponding to the nodes vi
and Vr respectively. Connectivity matrix C (E), and the equilibrium conditions for
the structure r have the following form ,

C1 j-

[~;,][~:
l
cj C2r

C1 H =0

0 C2 r-

0 C2 r+

The new equilibrium conditions have changed at the node vi only, compared to the
equilibrium conditions of th e disjoint structures, and they have the following form ,

(3.8)

From (3.5) we have that ,

which shows that (3.8) holds true in the new connected configuration. This proves
that attaching nodes to nodes does not violate the equilibrium if the condition (i)
of the theorem is satisfied .
 49
Consider now th e second case , where nod es of r 2 are attac hed to elements of r 1 .
Without loss of genera lity assume th at only nod e vr of r 2 is attac hed to the string
element ei = {h , vk],Zi} of f 1, so that , [eq, es] = Vr@ei, and eq = {[vj , Vrl,Zi},
1
es = {[vr, vk], zi}- Let C(IE1 ) , g(IE1,IfD
1
), and .X be part ition ed as follows,

After attaching the nod e vr to the element ei, the new equilibrium conditi ons must
be defined . Note that th e definition of the elements of IE2 is not affecte d by attac hing
the nod e Vr to the element ei, and C (IE2 ) , g 2 and .X2 do not need to be redefined.
We define th e new element vector , to account for the subst it ution of the element ei
with the two new elements eq and es,

g 1' =

and red efine conn ectivity mat rix C(IE) of the new stru ct ure. Thi s is accomplished
by substituting the column of the connect ivity matrix in (3.5) that correspo nds to
the element ei, with the two columns that correspon d to the newly formed elements
eq and es. Thi s is indicated in the equilibrium condition s of the new stru cture that
 50
have th e following form ,

0 0
I 0 f- Vj

Cl ;_ 0 0 Cl i+ Ai-1
0
-I

;,l
0 f-V k Aq
0 0 [ g~' As = 0.
Ai+
I 0 0 C 2r-
A2
0 I -I I 0 C 2r

.I 0 0 C 2r+

Appl ying th e relationship in (3.4) yields,

- 1
gi- 0 0 0 0 Ali-
0 gq 0 0 0 >,,.llg;ll2
'ff gqll2
C 0 0 gs 0 0 >,,.llg;ll2 = 0,
'lf g, fl2
-1
0 0 0 gi+ 0 Ai+
0 0 0 0 g2 A2

which from th e result of t he condit ion (ii) th at ,

~ gs gi
=
llgqll2 llgsll2 llgill2'
 51
gives,

- 1 Alt-
gi- 0 0 0 0
0 gi 0 0 0 Ai
C 0 0 gi 0 0 Ai
- 1
0 0 0 gi+ 0 Ai+
0 0 0 0 g2 A2
- 1
gi- 0 0 0
Alt-
0 gi 0 0
Ai
= C 0 gi 0 0 = 0.
- 1 Ai+
0 0 gi+ 0
A2
0 0 0 g-2

F inally, simp le manipu lati ons redu ce th ese equilibrium conditi ons t o,

0
I
0 0
-1 ,,\ 1
gi- 0 0 0 t-
- I
0 gi 0 0 >.i
0
-1
= 0,
0 0 gi+ 0 .X}+
0 0 0 g2 .X2
0 C2r-
0 0 0 C2r
0 C 2r+

which has th e identi cal form as (3.5). Thi s proves t hat at tac hing nodes t o elements
does not 'violat e equilibrium if it is perform ed in concordance with th e conditi ons
(ii) of th e Th eorem .
We omit th e proof of th e obvious fact t hat th e element sup erp osition does not
violat e equilibr ium of th e stru ctur e if it is perform ed in concord ance with th e con-
dition (iii). •
Theor em 3.3.1 indi cate s th at th e fact that a te nsegrit y stru ct ur e repr esents a
 52

Figure 3.3. Tens grity plates made connect ing three , four and six-bar units

composition of severa l tensegrity struct ures, is relat d to t h dimension of its pr -

st ress cone.

Result 3.3.1. Th e structure that is the composit ion of nc quilibrium tensegrity

st ru ct ures each of which has npm ;, i = 1 ... nc , prestress modes , has at 1 ast npm =
L npm; prestress mod es.

Th e compos ition of n c component struct ur es t hat can be classified in nm groups of

identic al st ru ct ur es called the modules, will be called the nm -hedral modular tenseg-
rity structure. If the st ru cture has only one module , th n t he modul will b all d
the unit, and the struct ure monohedral.

3.3.2 Examples of modular tensegrity structures

Observe that the class of tensegrity plates in Figure 3.3, introdu ced by [24],
repr esents monohedral modular tensegrity st ruct ures t hat are composed of id ntical
one stage shell class tensegrity unit s. The plates depict d are composed of thre -,
four- and six-bar t ensegrity unit s. The specific symmetry of these structures is due
to the part icular relative positions of t he unit s in the plates.
Th e tensegrity tower in Figure 3.4 is another examp le of a structure obta in d by
composition of tensegrity components. The only shape constra int that components
of this st ru ctur e have to sat isfy is t hat the radii of the two adjac nt stag s have to
be comp at ible. Th at is, the radii of t he top and bottom have to match respectively
th e radii of the bottom and top of the stages that precede and follow the stage .
 53

Figure 3.4. Tensegrity tower with two stages made by compos iti on of two different
t ensegrity modul es

3.4 Geometry and equilibrium analysis of some

tensegrity modules
In the sequel, geometry and equilibrium condition s is investigated for two tenseg-
rity structures that often serve as the modules in larger tensegrity stru ct ures.

3.4.1 Geometry of a one-stage shell-class tensegrity module

Th e shell-class tensegrity st ru ct ures are defined in [51]. Here , we ana lyze t hen-
bar shell-class tensegr ity in the configurat ion that admit s n-fold rotationa l symmetry
Cn about z-axis as the nod al symmet ry. Its noda l positions can be expr essed in terms
of th e geometr ic param eters h, r, a , t , that have already been defined in Section 2.3.4,
and th ey are depicte d in Figure 3.5. As suggested in (2.38), nod al vector of the
structure, p E IR5n,
can be relat ed to t hese parameters in t he following compact
form ,

P = RE_, E_= p (n, lb,r, a ,t) = [

P1(n, h ,r , a ,t)
P 2n(n, lb, r, a, t)
l
, (3.9)
 54
where t he consta nt mat rix R , reflects the symmetry of th e structure . Define matrix
R of th e rotation about z axis,

R(x) = [ ~:i:x
:~~
: ~] (3.10)

Th e nod al para met rizat ion in (3.9) takes now t he following form ,

P1 = [ r O O ] T , 2
p 3 = R( :) P1, P2n-1 = R- 1(2:) P1,
P2n = R( a) [ tr O h r, P2 = R(2:) P2n, P2n-2 = R- 1(2:) P2n,
(3.11)

where , t he height h of the st ru ctur e is comput ed as,

(3.12)

Feasible values for the geometric parameters

Th e relat ionship between the radius r and t he truncation ratio t of the one
stage-she ll class tensegr ity modul e must be such that it yields t he stru ct ure with a
positiv e real value for the height h given in (3.12). Th e upp er limit for the radius
r is comput ed by solving (3.12) for r when h = 0, which yields the following set of
feasible geometr ic param eters,

0 < r < -----~---

h (3.13)
1 + t 2 - 2t cos ( ~ + a) '
0 < t , 0 < lb. (3.14)

3.4.2 Equilibrium of the one-stage shell-class tensegrity mod-

ule
Not e that (3.11) param eterizes all configurations that admit the given nodal sym-
met ry, regardless of (2.34) being sat isfied. One must solve (2.34) to find the subset
of these symmetric configur at ions t hat yield equilibrium tensegr ity st ru ct ures. Due
 55

Figure 3.5. One-stage shell class module geometry and connectivity

to the element symmetry , equilibrium equat ions in (2.34) reduce to the equilibrium
equat ions at only two representative nodes , v1 , and v 2n. The element vectors of
the elements appearing in the equilibrium equations at the nodes v1 , and v 2n are
comp ut ed as ,

2
g1 = Pl - P2, g2 = P 3 - P1, g 3 = P1 - P 2n-1, g4 = R(-m :) P2n - Pl ,
2
g 5 = P 2 - P 2n, g6 = P2n - P2n-2, g7 = P 2n - R(q :)p3, (3.15)
gs = R(-q 2:)P2n-2 - P1, g g = P2n- 1 - P2n,
2
g10 = P 2n - R(m :) P1-
 56
Th e set of the equatio ns defining the equilibrium configurations of the module is,

g1A1+ g2A2 - g3A3 + g4A4+ gsAs = 0,

-g4A4 + gsAs - g5A5- g7A1- ggAg- g10A10= 0,

Ai~ 0.

Element symmetry of the structure allows further reduction of the number of force
density variables ,

(3.16)

With this , the equilibrium conditions reduce to ,

g1A1+ g2A2- g3A2+ g4A4+ gsA1 = 0,

- g4A4+ g5A4 - g5As - g1A1 - ggA1- g10A4= 0,
Ai~ 0.

This can be written in the more compact form ,

DCgQ~=0 , (3.17)
~= [ A1 A2 A4 A5 A7 ] T, (3.18)
Ai ~ 0, (3.19)

if one defines matrices D , C , g, Q corresponding to the problem and cast the problem
in the standard form (2.34). Th en, ~ that solves (3.17) is computed as a vector in
the null space of DCgQ . Since the basis /1 of the null space of DCgQ is one
dimensional, the solution ~ is uniqu e up to the scaling with a positive constant, and
 57
it is given by,

>..1~ 0, (3.20)
t csc 2 ( Z!:.)sin( (m+l)?r)sin( (q+2)7r)
A.2= )._
1 n n n (3.21)
2cos((m+~+l)7r - a) '
, _, csc 2 (;)s in(~) sin(~)
/\5 - Al (3.22)
2tcos((m+~+l)7r - a) '
m- q-=/-l , (3.23)
cos(q?r - a) sin((q+ 2 )7r)
A.4= A.1 n n (3.24)
cos( (m+~+l)7r- a) sin( (q- :+l)?r)'
cos( (l-m)?r + a) sin( (l+m)?r)
>._7 = -A 1 n n (3.25)
sin( (q- :+l)7r) cos( (m+~+l)7r- a)
m- q = l, (3.26)

A.4= >..1
, (3.27)

A.7= 0, (3.28)

which can be written in the corresponding more compact form ,

(3.29)

Th e connectivity for which m - q = l , corresponds to the case where the strings ,

e4 , and e 10 , overlap , so that they can be substituted with a single string.
For the given number of bars n, and the string connectivity parameters m and
q, permissible a can be computed from the condition that ,

(3.30)

Solving,
(3.31)

for a, gives the values of a where >..

7 changes the sign ,
7r 7r
a= - + (m - 1)- . (3.32)
2 n
 58
Solving,

(3.33)

for a , th e valu es of a where >.4 swit ches the sign are,

(3.34)

Fin ally, the admi ssible angles a are defined as,

. {'Ir+
= mm
a -2 -q71· -7r+ (m - 1)7r
-n }' (3.35)
- n 2 1

a= max{!!:+
2
q1r Z!:
n ' 2
+ (m - l )Z!:}
n ' (3.36)
a E [g_
, a]. (3.37)

It must be emph asized that this equilibrium analysis has been carr ied out und er
th e rest riction that the distribution of the element forces in the symm etr ic structure
is also symmetric. As it has already been shown in Theorem 2.3.3, the symmetry
of the forces is a sufficient but not a necessary conditi on for the equilibrium of the
symm et ric st ru ct ur e. Obviously, it prevents findin g the entire set of feasible force
densiti es when impo sed . At the same time the search for all feasible geometries is not
affecte d . In part icular , it can be shown that there exist soluti ons of t he equilibrium
force densiti es of this module that are asymmetric . Th e examp les of the asymmetr ic
pr est ress mod es for these modules and more details that perta in to this analysis are
given in App endix 8.B.
Th e results obtained from the symmetric equilibrium ana lysis of the module are
summarized.

Theorem 3.4.1. Th e equilibrium force densities given by (3.20-3.28), and the set
of admissible geometric param eters defined by (3.13-3. 14) and (3.35-3.37) , represent
the complete param et rizat ion of all equilibrium configur at ions of the symmetric one-
stage t ensegrity modul e with the symmetric distribution of element forces in (3.16).

Result 3.4.1. Th e following holds true for the symmetr ic module with the sym-
metric distribution of element forces.
 59

(i) Force densities A4 , and A7 depend only on the numb er of bars, n, in the
module , and the twist ang le, a, of the module . They remain unalter ed as the
truncation ratio , t, of the module varies.

(ii) The ratio A2/As is a function of the truncation ratio , t , only, and it is equal to
A2/As = t 2

Since the module with the values of the string connectivity parameters m = 0,
and q = 0 is of most int erest for the ana lysis that follows, these results are examined
in more details.

Corollary 3.4.2. Th e equilibrium of the one-stage tensegrity module with string

the connectivity parameters m = 0, and q = 0, and the symmetric distribution of
element forces is completely defined by,

A1 ~ 0, (3.38)
t 1r 1r . 27f
>.2 = A1 - csc(-) sec( - - a) sm(-), (3.39)
2 n n n
7f 7f 27f
A4 = >.1 cos a csc( - ) sec(- - a) sin( - ), (3.40)
n n n
1 1r 1r . 27f
>-s= A1 - csc( -) sec(- - a) sm(-), (3.41)
2t n n n
7f 7f
A7 = -A 1 cos(-+ a) sec(- - a), (3.42)
n n
a E [~ - ~ ' ~] · (3.43)

Proof. Form= 0 and q = 0, (3.20-3.28) and (3.35-3.37) reduce to (3.38-3.43). •

Observe that , if the string e4 , and the string , e1, are both present in the structure ,
the equilibrium geometry is not unique . Namely, any a satisfying (3.43) yields an
equilibrium tensegrity geometry. In the case where either of these two different
groups of str ings is not present in the structure, the equilibrium geometry becomes
unique and it is defined by the limits of a .
 60
Corollary 3.4.3. Equilibrium of the one-stage tensegr ity modul e without st rin g e 7
is comp lete ly defined by,

Ai 2::0, (3.44)
t 1T 1T 21T
A2 = Ai- csc(-) sec(- - a) sin(-) , (3.45)
2 n n n
A = { Ai cosa csc(;)sec(; - a)sin(2:) , m =J- 1,
4 (3.46)
Ai , m =- 1
l 1T 1T 21T
A5 = Ai - csc( - ) sec( - - a) sin( - ) , (3.47)
2t n n n
A1 = 0, (3.48)
1T 1T
a=
2- (1 - m)~ - (3.49)

P roof. From (3.25) , when A7 = 0, and q = 0,

1T 1T
a=
2- (1 - m)~ - (3.50)

Th e rest is prov en by substit ut ing (3.50) into (3.20-3.28). •

Uniqu eness of a b eing equ al to ~ - ; , has been a well known resu lt for t he unit
without the reinforcing st ring s and the vertica l str ing shift paramete r m = 0.
Note t hat equilibrium p ara met rizat ion of the unit with the str ings e 7 , an d str ing
connect ivity par ameter q = 0, but witho ut the str ings e4 , can be obtained by sett ing
m = 1 in (3.44-3.49). This follows from the equivalence of the resu lt ing conn ect ivit y
schemes.

3.4.3 Equilibrium of a two-stage class-2 tensegrity tower

Thi s st ru cture can also b e used as the modul e of modul ar te nsegrit y st ru ct ur es.
Th e conn ect ivit y and geometry of t he modul e are depict ed in Fi gur e 3.6. Since the
modul e ad mit s the same n-fo ld rotat ional symmetry Cn, as th e one-stage modul e,
its nodal vector p , can be writt en in the form similar to (3.9) ,

l
l
Pi (n , h, r, a , t)
p = RE, E = E (n, h, r, a, t) = P2n(n, h, r, a, t) (3.5 1)
P2n+i(n, h, r, a , t)
 61
z

0
N
£.

a, ~

Figur e 3.6. Two-stage unit equilibrium

 62
Note that the only addit ional constraint for this module is that the top and bottom
radii of the two stages must be equa l, that is, r 1t 1 = r 2. Then, (3.51) has following
form,

P n+l _
- R(21r)
-:;:;:-
P 2n, P 2n- 1 _
- R- 1(21r)
-:;:;:-
P 2n,

P 3n 21r)P 2n,
= R( -:;:;:- P 2n+2 = R-1(21r)
-:;:;:-
P 2n,

(3.52)
where from (3.12) the heights of the stages are computed as,

h1 = ✓z~l - Ti- r~ + 2r1r2 cos(~+ a1) ,

(3.53)
h2 = ✓z~2 - r~ - r~ + 2r2r3 cos(2: + a 2).

Equilibrium of the structure will be examined only for the configurations in which the
structure admits the element symmetry about the horizontal plane that is parallel
to x - y plane and passes through the top of the first stage. This symmetry imposes
the additional constraints on the structure geometry ,

(3.54)

Furth er, the prestress force symmetry will be imposed requiring that the force den-
sities of any two equivalent elements in the two different stages be the same. As the
result of these constraints , nodes v1 , and v2n+l belong to the same node equivalency
class, and there exist only two distinct node equivalency classes that are represented
by nodes v1 , and v 2n. Hence, equat ions (2.34) for this structure reduce to two equi-
librium equations at the nodes v 1 and V2n- From the node and element connect ivity
and numbering scheme , adopted in Figure 3.6, the element vectors of the elements
 63
conn ect ed to th ese nod es are defined as,

g1 = Pl - Pn+l , g 2 = P2 - P l, g 3 = Pl - Pn, g4 = P 2n - Pl ,
g s = Pn+l - P2n, g 6 = P 2n - P 2n- 1, g7 = P2n - P 2, gg = P 2n- l - Pi ,
gg = Pn - P 2n, g10 = P 2n+l - Pl , g12 = P2n - P2n+2,
g 13 = P 2 - P 2n, g14 = P3n - P2n ·
(3.55)
Th e set of equ ations defining th e equilibrium configurati on of th e unit is,

g1A1+ g2A2 - g3A3 + g4A4+ gsAs + g10A10 = 0,

-g 4A4 + gsAs - g6A6 - g1A1 - ggAg + g12A12 + g13A13 + g14A14 = 0,
Ai ~ 0.

Du e to th e element symm etr y of t he stru ctur e, th e furth er redu ction of t he numb er

of force density variables is posible,

(3.56)

which yields th e redu ced set of equilibrium condit ions ,

g1A1+ g2A2 - g3A2 + g4A4 + gsA1+ g10A10= 0,

-g 4A4 + gsAs - g6As - g1A1 - g9A1+ g12>-1+ g13..>.
4 + g14A1 = 0,

This can be writt en in th e more comp act form ,

DCgQ~= 0, (3.57)

~ = [ >-1 >-2 A4 As >-1 >-10 ] T , (3.58)

>.i ~ 0. (3.59)

if one defines matri ces D , C , g, Q correspondin g t o th e probl em . Th en , ~ th at solves

(3.57), is comput ed as a vector in th e null space of DCgQ . Since th e basis /1 for
th e null spa ce of DCgQ is two dimensional, und er th e imp osed force and geometr y
 64
constraints, the solution ~ is,

..\1~ 0, (3.60)

..\7 ~ 0, (3.61)
1 n
..\2= (..\1- ..\7+ (..\1+ ..\7)(t- cos a) cot(~) csca) , (3.62)
2
2n 2n
..\4 = csca(..\ 1 sin( - +a)+ ..\7 sin( - - a)) (3.63)
n n '
,,\ _ (..\1-..\7)t+(..\1+..\7)cot(~)(csca-tcota)
5 - t ' (3.64)
n n n
..\10= -(..\1 cos(-+ a)+ ..\7 cos(- - a)) csc(a) sin(-). (3.65)
n n n
which can be written in the following compact form,

~ = il [ ~:], il = !l(n, a, t). (3.66)

Then , the basis A for the prestress cone C(A) of the structure can be written as,

The permissible angles a can be computed from the condition (3.59). Solving,

(3.68)

for a , the lower bound ,

n n
a>--- (3.69)
- 2 n'
is obtained , as well as the bound for the feasible ..\7. The parameters ..\7and ..\1 that
parameterize the prestress cone of the modu le must satisfy ,
n n n n
a<-+- ..\7 < -..\ 1 cos(-+
==> a) sec( - - a), (3.70)
2 n' n n
n n n n
a>-+ - ==>..\7 > -..\ 1 cos(- + a) sec( - - a). (3.71)
2 n' n n
ote that these bounds for ..\7 are the same values given by (3.25) when m = 0
and q = 0. In other words , the force densit y ..\7, of the string e7, in the two-stage
 65
modu le, must not exceed th e value defined from th e one-st age modu le equilibrium .
Furth ermor e, for any feasible a, when >-.7 is equal to any of its extr eme values, strin g
e 10 is slack. Solving ,
(3.72)
for a, th e upp er bound for a,

n = 3,
(3.73)
n 2::4,

is obt ained , which can be rewritt en as,

7f 21r
a < max{- 1r - -} . (3.74)
- 2' n

Condit ion (3.72) also estab lishes t he addit ional rest rict ions for t he feasible values
for >-.
7,

27f 27f 27f

a<- =} A7 > - >-.
1 sin (- + a) csc(- - a) , (3.75)
n n n
27f 27f 27f
a> - =} A7 > - >.1 sin (- + a) csc( - - a) . (3.76)
n n n
For any feasible a , whenever )..7 is set to its extre me values, str ing e4 , is slack. Th e
pr evious analysis can be summ arized in t he following t heorem.

Th eore m 3 .4.4 . Th e equilibrium force densities given by (3.60-3.65), t he set of

th e feasible free force densit ies given by (3.70-3.71), and (3.75-3.76), and t he set of
adm issible geometri c parameters given by (3.13-3.14) and ,

a E [:! - max{:! 1r - 2
1r]] '
2
'.!
n ' 2' n
(3.77)

par amet erize all equilibrium configur ation s of th e two-st age t ensegrity module with
th e symm etri c distr ibution of element forces in (3.56).

Result 3.4.2. Th e following holds tru e for th e symm etri c modu le with th e sym-
metri c distr ibution of element forces:
 66
(i) Force coefficient s >.4 and >.7 depend only on the number of bars , n , and the
twist angle of the module , o:. Th ey remain unaltered as the truncation rat io,
t , of the modul e varies .

Th e equilibrium condit ions of the struct ure that does not have t he str ings e7
present , can be ana lyzed as t he special case of the preceding , by lett ing this string
be slack. Th at is, >.7 = 0 gives,

>-1~ 0, (3.78)
1 7r
>-2= >.1-((t - cos(o:)) cot( - ) csco: + 1), (3.79)
2 n
. 7r
A4= >.1 csco:s m (o: + - ), (3.80)
n
_ (t + cot
>-s- >-1....:,._ (;) (csc o: - t cot o:))
__ '-'-'-'-....:,._
____ ....:,._
, (3.81)
t
>.7 = 0, (3.82)
>.10 = ->.1 cos(~+ o:) csc(o:) sin(~) . (3.83)
n n
For the given number of bars n , permissible o: can be computed from the condition,

(3.84)

Solving ,
(3.85)

for o:, the lower bound on o: is obtained ,

7r 7r
0: > - - -. (3.86)
-2 n
Note that in the configurat ion of the module when o: is equa l to the lower bound ,
string e 10 , is slack. Solving ,
(3.87)

for o:, the upp er bound for o: is obtained,

21r
0::::; 7r- - , (3.88)
n
 67
that corresponds to the configuration in which the vertical string e4 , is slack.
Finally, the set of the feasible geometries of the two-stage tensegrity module
without strings , e7 , satisfies ,

a E [~ -
2
~ 7f - 21rl (3.89)
n' n '
and the equilibrium force densities are given in (3.78-3.83) .

3.4.4 Tensegrity modules generated by similarity transfor-

mation of symmetric tensegrity modules

It should not be surprising that for all modules with n bars analyzed so far ,
the basis A for the prestress cone C(A) depends only on the twist angle a and the
truncation ratio parameter t. This is a result of the fact that all the configurations ,
where these two parameters are kept constant, are related through te nsegrity the
similarity transformations. It can be shown that any two tensegrity modules that
have common n , r, a and tin symmetric configuration , but have different bar lengths ,
lb1 =/.lb2 , · are related through the similarity transformation with the linear part ,

A~ [ ~ h,L]
:

where h 1 and h 2 are the heights of the structures , that are computed from (3.12).
Now that equilibrium conditions for the tensegrity units that admit n-fold ro-
tational symmetry about z axis are defined , one can derive several different equi-
librium tensegrities with known force densities by applying the tensegrity similarity
transformations. For examp le, if the similarity transformation with the linear part ,

is app lied to the two stage module , an elliptical tensegrity structure with the unal-
tered height can be generated . See Figure 3.7.
 68

Figure 3. 7. Elliptica l un it configurat ion

3.5 Geometry and equilibrium of monohedral mod-

ular tensegrity plates

3.5.1 Symmetries of the infinite periodic monoh edral mod-

ular tensegrity plates

By a simp le observation it has already been inferred that the tensegrity plates
in Figure 3.3 belong to the class of monohedra l modular tensegrity structures . Th e
shape of the modules (un its) and their relative positions alow the whole plane of the
plate to be filled with the identical units to compose a monohedral periodic infinit e
plate . Th e set JP>
~ of geometr ical centers pf E ffi.3 of the unit s of the infinite plate,
by the definiti on of the periodicity of the plate , represents a latt ice spanned by two
linearly independent vectors , s 1 E ffi.3 , and s 2 E ffi.3 , called lattice generators, so that
pf = ais 1 + bis 2 , ai, bi E Z . See Figur e 3.8. Nodes of an infinit e periodic plate must
admit the trans lat ions in the form , P i = p 1 + (p~ - p~), \Ip ~, p~ E 1P
~, as noda l
symmet ries by the definition of the plate . Hence, the orientation of all units with
respect to a fixed reference frame must be the same , and once the geometry p u of
the unit has been specified, only the lattice generators s 1 , and s 2 need to be known
to comp lete ly define the geometry of the infinite plate.
 69

Figure 3.8. Periodic geometry of a tensegrity plate and associated lattice generators

Definition 3.5.1. The lattice generators s 1 and s 2 are called feasible lattice gen-
erators for the shell-class unit with the geometry pu(n , lb, r , a , t) , defined in (3.9), if
they span the lattice lfD~of an infinite periodic monohedral modular plate composed
of these units.

The only tensegrity plates of interest for this analysis are the ones that can be
regarded as sections of the infinite periodic monohedral tensegrity plates composed
of n-bar one-stage shell-class tensegrities units that admit Cn symmetry. In other
words , the plate can be defined by the composition of the finite number of units
of the infinite plate whose geometrical centers belong in the subset lfDcE lfD
~ of the
associated infinite plate . Further , it is required that all nodes of the infinite plate
be in the same node equivalence class generated by translational and rotational
symmetries only.
Note that the lattice lfD
~ of the plate must admit every symmetry of the plate .
Under the restrictions imposed on the plate symmetry, lfD~must admit Cn rotations
about pf E lfD~ since these are the symmetries that make all nodes of one unit be
in the same node equivalence class.
One can show that under these restrictions the only units that can be used to
build the monohedral modular plates are those that have three , four , or six bars ,
 70
and that th e associated lattice generators are relate d as follows,

R(~)s 1, if n= 4,
S2 = { R(i)s (3.90)
1, if n= 3, 6,
where n is th e numb er of bars in the unit.

Definition 3.5.2. Two points pf E IP~ and Pk E IP~ are called adjacent points
of the lattice IP~ if IIPf - Pkll2= lls1ll
2or IIPf- Pkll2= lls2ll2where s1and s1are
the generators of the latt ice IP~ . Two modul es of th e periodic modul ar tensegrity
plat e with cent ers pf and Pk are called adjacent modules if pf and Pk are adjacent
points of th e associated lat ti ce IP~.

Up to now, the relation ship between the lattice generators s 1 and s 2 has been
estab lished so th at the nod es of the plate satisfy the required symm etry. Wh at is
left to define is the relat ionship between the unit geometry p u(n , h, r , a, t) E IR~n,
and the lattice generator s 1 = s 1 ( n, lb, r, a, t) E IR3 , so that the geometry of any two
adjacent units enabl es th eir compo sit ion to form a plate.

Monohedral modular plate with three-bar units

Recall that position s of two adjacent units in the plate are related through the
transl at ional symmetry of the plate , that is defined by the vector conn ecting their
cent ers. Th e units will be placed initi ally so that their posit ions sat isfy this re-
quirem ent , and a nod e of one of the unit s is placed at the end of the element t hat
it shou ld be atta ched to as shown in Figure 3.9. Th e matc hing configur at ion, in
which every nod e of a unit can be attac hed to an element of an adjacent unit , can
be obtained by tr anslating the units relative ly to each other, as indi cate d in Figure
3.9, until th e mat ching position is satisfied for both nod es at points A and D . Note
that ther e are two possibl e relat ive trans lations of the units , which result in the two
distinct structures , with th e different geometry and connect ivity as shown in Figur e
3.9.
Th e first configurat ion is obtained by trans lating unit 2 along the element e2,
that connects th e nod es at D and E , until th e nod e at A touches the element e6 ,
 71

Figure 3.9. Matching relative positions for three-bar units

connecting the nodes at B and F. The magnitude of the relative translation of the
units , in this case , is equal to the lengths l 2, , and l 6, of the strings e2,, and e6 , that
are introduced by dividing the elements e2 , and e6 into two elements. Comput e
vectors,

---+
OA = [
r cos( 7r ) + r cos( "71"- /3), r - r sin( 7r - /3)] ,
6 6 2 6
---+
OC = [ 3r cos ( 7r r] ,
), 2
6
CB = -r cos( 7f + /3), -r sin( 7f + /3)] ,
----t [
6 6
7r r
----t
OB= OC +OB=
----t ----t [
r cos( ) + r cos ( 7r - /3), 2 - r sin (
7f
- /3)] ,
6 6 6
OD= [2r cos ( i),o],
---+
AB= ---+
OA- ----t
OB= [
r cos( 7f ) + rcos( 7r
- /3), r - rsin( 7r
- /3)] ,
6 6 2 6
---+
AB= ---+
OA ----t
- OB= [ 7r
r cos(-)+ r cos( -7r - /3) -r - r sin(-7r - /3)] .
6 6 '2 6

The position of point P can be computed by finding th e intersection of the line,

7f
YP - YA = - tan( )(xp - XA) , (3.91)
3
that is parallel to line ED and passes through point A , with th e line,
7f
YP - YB= tan( + /3)(xp - XE) , (3.92)
3
 72
that passes through points B and F. For /3=/-i, this gives the location of point P,

0-p _ [
- x p, y p - r --=---'------'-----'--
v3 cos(/3) - sin(/3)
2
] _ [ 3 cos(/3) + cos(2/3) - 1 2 sin ( ~) ( v3 - 2 sin(/3))
, r --=--=---------'--
v3 cos(/3) - sin(/3)
.
l (3.93)

The lengths l2,, and l 6 , of strings e2,, and e6 ,, are,

2
l2 = l6 = IIAPll2 = IIOA - OPll2 = 2rv3
1 1 - sin (~)(cos(/3) + v3sin( /3) - 2)
(sin(/3) - v3cos( /3))2 '
(3.94)
and th e overlap ratio, 'Y, is defined and computed as,

sin 2(~)(cos(/3) + v3sin( /3) - 2)

(3.95)
(sin(/3) - y3 cos(/3))2

Vector s defining the lattice of the plate can be computed as,

81
= OD_ AP= [r 3 - 3 cos(/3) - v3 sin(/3) 3r( v3 cos(/3) + sin(/3) - ./3)
]·
2\/3 cos(/3) - 2 sin(/3) ' 2\/3 cos(/3) - 2 sin(/3)
(3.96)
Note that, if /3= i, then the nod es at A and F coincide , and the matc hing conditions
are satisfied for any,

3
s, =OD+,BF=['; r(2 - ?), ;' ] , "I E [O, l] . (3.97)

The second configuration is obtained by trans lating unit 2 along the direction of
the element e2, that connects the nod es at D and G, until the node at A touches
the element e6 , connecting the nodes at B and F. The magnitude of the relative
translation of the units in this case is equal to the length SA. The position of point
S is computed by finding the intersection of the line,
7r
Ys - YA = tan( )(xs - xA),
3
that passes through point A , and is parallel to the line DG , with the line,
7r
Ys - YB= tan(
3
+ /3)(xs - xs),
 73
that connects points B and F. For {3 i= f this gives,

[
xs
Ys
l = [ -¼r csc(/3)( -3 cos(/3) + cos(2{3) - vi3(3 sin( /3) + sin(2{3)) + 2)
¼r(-2cos(f3) + vi3(2sin( /3) + vi3(2sin(f3) - 3tan( ~)) + 5))
l·
so that s 1 can be computed as,

s1 -
=OD+ ----t
SA= [
-43 r( v'3 + tan( -/3
2
3
)) , -r(-1
4
+ v'3tan( -{3)]
2 .

Th e length of the string e2, is,

l2 1
= IIASll2= iv'3r -s ec 2(~)(cos({3) + v'3sin(/3) - 2). (3.98)

and, th e overlap ratio 'Y is defined and comput ed as,

l2 , l
2 , 1 {3
'Y =DC= y:;
=2 -s ec2 ( )(cos(f3) + v'3sin( /3) -2) .
2 (3.99)

If /3= f, th en nod es at A an d F coincide , and the matching conditi ons are sat isfied
for any,

"fE [0, l] . (3.100)

Th e two distin ct ive plate topologies are depicte d in Figur e 3.10.

Monohedral modular plates with four- and six-bar units

We ana lyze relat ive positions of the units in the plates depicted in Figur e 3.11.
Let strings e2, and e211,and e6 , and e611, be formed after dividing strings e2, and e6
as th e result of the composition of the two unit s as indi cate d in Figure 3.11. In
this ana lysis,only th e overlap parameter 'Y that defines the ratio between length s l 2
and l2, is computed. It is the only param eter of the overall plate geometry that is
significant for th e plat e equilibrium comput ation , beyond the para meters defining
th e geometry of the units. Define angle {3, as the relat ive angle between the top and
bottom polygon of the unit . This angle can be comput ed as,
21r
{3 = mod(a, - ), (3.101)
n

(_
 74

-1

-1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -2

Figure 3.10. Two different topologies of three-bar modular plates

where mod(x, y) is the remainder operator of the division x/y. Define angle 6 as th e
half of the angle of the n-sided regular polygon ,

21r 7T' 7T'

6 = (7r- -) / 2 = - - -. (3.102)
n 2 n
The overlap ratio, for four- and six-bar units can be computed for both connectivity
cases by computing the length of the element e2 ,, that connects the nodes at D and
Bin Figure 3.11. In the first connectivity case, for /3=/.0, length l2, of the string e2,
can be computed by applying the sin theorem to the triangle OAB ,

sin(7r - 6 - ; + ~) sin(; - ~)
(3.103)
r 12

Substituting (3.102) into (3.103), and dividing the length l2, by the total length l2
of the string connecting the nodes at D and E, the overlap ratio can be computed,
after some trigonometry manipulations , as,
/3
, = =l 2, = -
l 2,
= 1 - tan(-). (3.104)
DE l2 2
 75

Figure 3.11. Matching overlap

In the second connectivity case , the length l 2, of the string e 2, , that conn ects the
nodes at D and B , is computed by applying the sin th eorem to the triangle OAD ,
sin(; - ~) _ sin(1r - <5- ~)
~
(3.105)
r
2

Substituting (3.102) into (3.105) , and dividing the length l 2, by the tota l length l2
yields the overlap rat io,
l, l, 1r 1r /3 /3
1 = =2 = -2 = csc( - ) sec( - - - ) sec( - ) . (3.106)
DE l2 n n 2 2
Observe that the overlap ratio I is not unique when /3 = 0, for both connectivity
cases, and it can take any value between I E [O,1].

3.5.2 Equilibrium of stable unit tensegrity plates

A monohedral modular tensegrity plate can be formed by a sequence of structure
compos ition operations. All one-stage shell-class component modules must share the
 76
same geometric parameters n, lb, r, a, t in (3.9), but not necessar ily the same value
for the force densit y A1 in (3.20-3.28) . The collection of these free force densities for
all modules param ete rizes the prestress cone of the stable unit plate .

Result 3.5.1. Let the vectors s 1 = s 1 (n , lb, r, a, t) E IR3 , and s 2 be the feasible gen-
erators of the lattice IP~ for the shell-class unit with the geometry pm(n , lb, r, a , t) E
IR~n, where n = 3, 4, 6. Let the set , p c E IP~ , of nm points be such that for every
point pf E pc there exists at least one adja cent point Pk E pc. Let pc repres ent the
set of geometrical centers of nm identi cal shell-class tensegrity structures with the
identical equilibrium geometric parameters, pm(n , lb, r, a, t) E IR~nand t = l. Let
the collect ion of nm different force densiti es Ai :::::0, i = 1, ... , nm of the bars of the
nm structures be given. Let A} = Aj( Ai) denote the solutions Aj of (3.20-3.28), and
(3.16), when A1 = A{. Let At denot e the force densiti es of the elements introdu ced
by th e composition of the two adja cent structures with the centers p f and Pt Th en
the relative positions of all nm structures enable their composition with all adjacent
structures, and the series of nm - 1 compositions yields an equilibrium monohedral
modular plate with the force densiti es,

A~ = Aj( Ai), j = 1, 4, 5, or 7, (3.107)

and for any two adjacent units n-bar units pf and PL

n = 4,6
Ai_k = A2(Ai)+ A2(At)' J. = 2' ) 6 )
1

J 'Y 'Y
Ai· = A2(Ai) . = 2" 6"
J 1- "( ' J ) )
n=3
Ai· = A2(Ai) J. = 2' ) 6' )
J 'Y )

Ai· = A2(Ai) J. = 2 ) 6 .
11 11

J 1- "('

Proof. This result is a direct consequence of Th eorem 3.3.1 and Th eorem 3.4.1. •
 77

Ak1

Figure 3.12. Force distribution in then-bar stable unit plate

Note that the equilibrium plate need not be fully popu lated by modu les. See
Figure 3.13.

3.6 _Geon1etry and equilibrium of class-two tenseg-

rity towers
The tensegrity towers that are analyzed here repr esent a composition of nm
one-stage , or two-stage tensegrity modu les, whose geometry and equilibrium have
already been defined . All of these modu les have the same numb er of bars per
stage and ad mit n-fold rotat ional symmetry Cn. The only constraint for nm of
these equilibrium tensegrity structure to be compatible for the composition , by
stacking them up to bui ld a tower, is that the radii of the top and bottom of the two
adjacent structures are the same. This enab les that the top nod es of one structure-
modu le can be attached to the bottom nod es of the adjacent stru ct ure-modul e. See
Figure 3.14. Th en , for the given collection of nm compatibl e equilibrium tensegrity
modu les, Th eorem 3.3.1 guara nti es that the series of nm - l composition s of these
nm component st ru ct ures, yields an equilibrium class 2 tensegrity tower.
 78

Figure 3.13. Module distribution in sparse plate

3. 7 Conclusions
This chapter established two useful properties of tensegrity structures and demon-
strated how they can be used to facilitate the form-finding and prestress ana lysis.
The first result defines the concept of the invariance of the tensegrity equilibrium
and it is applicable to any class of tensegrity structures . The theorem that is given
shows that an equi librium tensegrity remains in equilibrium if an affine nodal trans-
formation is applied . Moreover, it shows that the equilibrium force densities remain
unaffected by this transformation. This result eliminates the need for equilibrium
analysis of structures whose geometry can be generated by an affine transformation
of a structure with a known equilibrium .
The second topic of this chapter has been equilibrium analysis of modular tenseg-
rity structures. After showing that their equilibrium analysis can be broken down
into a collection of smaller problems, the results have been applied to parameterize
equilibria of large scale tensegrity plates and tensegrity towers. The equilibria of
the modules of these structures have been investigated thoroughly.
The analysis of the structures in this chapter identified a convenient set of param-
 79
z
,.
.,, ' '
.,,
.,,.,, ''
.,,
.,, ''
~
.,, ''
¥ ~
-- \
------ "\

...---- \
~

t '=rt'

Figure 3.14. Composition of tower modul es

eters to characterize their equilibria and the set of feasible values for these variab les.
Non-uniqueness of the possib le choices for these param eters enab les additiona l op-
tim ization criteria in the study of optima l structura l and contro l performanc e.
Chapter 4

Open-loop control of modular

tensegrities

4 .1 Intro d uctio n
Control laws for reconfigurations of tensegr ity structures are the topic of this
chapte r of t he dissertation. The planned path for a shape change in a tensegrity
st ru ct ur e is character ized as a path from one equilibrium to another throu gh a
continuous sequence of equilibri a. For tensegr ity structures , this means , t hat in
every desired configurat ion, the struct ure has to satisfy tensegr ity cond itions . These
cond ition s can be char acterized as time dependent if the resulting motion is slow
comp ared to the dynamics of the system. For the nonlinear system whose model and
equilibri a are p arameterized , und er mild restrict ions on the stabi lity of the equilibria,
a sufficiently slow variation of the parameter set produces t he response of the system
that rema ins in t he close proximity of the parameterized equilibrium manifold. Very
littl e changes in potential energy are required to follow these trajectories in the
absence of exte rn al forces. Thi s is a benefit over normal contro l paths that require
strain energy chang es, since such energy must be supp lied by the contro l system .
Modular tensegrities are intrinsically suit able for this open-loop contro l strategy
since the configurations that satisfy the tensegrity cond itions can be characterized

80
 81
in terms of a few parameters only. At the same time , these parameters are mean-
ingfully related to the overall desired shape of the structures , which facilitates the
formulation of comprehensive reference contro l signals.
String elements of a structure are used as actuators , and the rest-lengths serve
as the contro l signa ls. The equilibrium rest-lengths in the desired configurations
are computed first. The reference open-loop control signa l is defined by slowly
varying the desired geometric parameters , that define the equilibrium rest-lengths.
This makes the structure track trajectories that are defined by the time dependent
geometric parameters. The examp les with simulation results , that are generated
by TENSOFT software [41], show different reconfiguration scenarios of tensegrity
plates, and class-two tensegrity towers .

4.2 Slowly varying nonlinear systems and open-

loop control
The open- loop contro l strategy , that is postulated for the reconfiguration of
equilib rium tensegrity structures , is a resu lt of a well known resu lt from nonlinear
contro l theory.

Proposition 4.2.1. Let a parameterized model of a nonlinear system be given in

the state space form,
dx
- = J(x, 5), (4.1)
dT
where 5 represents the set of the parameters defining the model of the system . Let
g (5) satisfying ,
0 = J(g(5) , 5), (4.2)

be an exponentia lly stable equilibrium manifold of the system. If a sufficiently

slowly varying function, 5 = 5(T), is defined , then trajectory , x( T), of the system ,
x = J(x, 5(T)), tracks the equilibrium manifold , g (5(T)).

For more detailed analysis related to this topic consult [32].

 82
Several different nonlin ear mod els of t ensegrity structures have been devised,
e.g. [51],[23],[38]. What is common for all of them is that the rest-l ength s of elast ic
elements are the param eters of th eir state- spa ce repr esentation in (4.1). Th e rest-
length lo; of the elastic element , ei, of the tensegrity structure , r= {lE, IP, A}, that
is in equ ilibrium , may be comput ed as,

(4.3)

where the meaning of the param et ers Yi, ai, ... depends on the particu lar mater ial
strain-stress relation. For th e linear elast ic mate rial mod el of the elast ic element s,
the force-strain relat ionship is given by the Hooke's law,

Yiai
f . = )...[
i
. = z·i -(ll
ii
O;
i · - lo.)
,,

where ai, and Yi are the cross sect ion area and Young 's modulus. With this , (4.3)
has th e following form ,
zi liyiai _
l0, - --- (4.4)
i + ZiYiai
li.>..
Note that the lengths li, of all the elements of the structure f , depend only on the
structure geometry IP, and connectivit y lE. If the equilibrium of the structure is
defined by the set of the feasible geomet ric and force parameters , D,

p = p (a, ,6, , , . . .),

A = A~ , A= A(a , ,6, , , ... ), (4.5)
~ ' a ,,6, , , ... ED,

the corresponding equilibrium rest-length s are ,

10 = 10 (~, lE, a , ,6, , , . .. , z , y , a) . (4.6)

Once the material , and th e cross sect ions have been assigned to all th e element s of
the structur e r , (4.6) reduces to ,

lo= lo(~ , a , ,6, , , . . .). (4.7)

 83
Recall that t he rest- lengths 10 of the elast ic members serve as the parameters c5
of the nonlinear dynamic model of the system (4.1) , so that using (4. 7) yields the
parameterized structure model in the following form ,

x= f (x, lo(~ , ex, /3, 1 , . . .)) = f(x , ~ ' ex, /3, , , . ..). (4.8)

Prop osit ion 4.2.1 suggests that the system (4.8) tracks th e equilibrium configuration ,

if one defines the sufficient ly slowly varying functions ,

that define the desired configurat ion p(T), and the force densities .X(T) at every time
inst ance T. For the tensegrity structures whose equilibrium has been ana lyzed in
this text , (4. 7) has the following genera l form ,

lo = lo(~ , n , lb, r , ex, t , 'Y)- (4.9)

Assume that all bar elements are rigid with fixed lengths lb as it is postulated in
the model [51]. Then the only parameters of the desir ed geometry of the system
that can be time dependant are , ~ (T), r (T), ex(T) and t (T), and additiona lly 'Y(T)for
some stab le unit plates. With this , the string elements rest lengt h open- loop control
becomes ,
(4.10)

An impl ementation of the open-loop contro l law (4.10) is given in the sequel for a
numb er of modular tensegrity stru ctures. The closed form explicit express ions of
(4.10) for severa l structures may be found in Appendix 8.C.

4.3 Examples

4.3.1 Plate deployment

Th e contro l objective is to deploy the 6 x 6 modules six-bar unit plate with bar
lengths lb= 2. In order to define the contro l law (4.10), a monotonically increasing
 84
function r(T) on the int erval (0, T) is defined. Any monotonically increas ing r(T),
on the int erval (0, T) , driv es th e plat e from the stowed configur at ion , with r(0) at
T = 0, to the deployed configur at ion, with r = r(T) > r(0) at T = T. In the same
fashion , a monotoni cally decreas ing r (T) should be defined to stow the st ru cture
back. Th e desired geometry parameter fun ctio ns in (4.10) are defined as follows,

r(T) = 0.2 + 0.04T, t = 1, r(T) = 0.2 + 0.02T, 0 < T::; 20,

r(T) = 1, t = 1, 1 (T) = 0.6, 20 < T::; 30.

Bar force densities >-i(T) of all of the sixty-four modul es are set to be t he same
throughout the deployment , so that ~/T) = >.i(T)= >.1(T), and ,

A1(T) = 1, 0< T ::; 20,

A1(T) = 1 - 0.02(T - 20), 20 < T ::; 25,

A1(T) = 0.9, 25 < T ::; 30.

Th e simul at ion result s are depicted in Fi gur e 4.1. The ratio between the areas

•
Figur e 4.1. Deployment of a six-b ar uni t plate

of th e pl ate in the final and initi al configur at ion is proportional to the number of
unit s in the plate, and the square of t he ratio between radii of t he unit s in the two
configur ation s, r 2 (T)/r 2 (0). In this particular case it is approx imate ly 25.
The paraboli c st ru ct ur e of Fi gur e 4.2 is obtai ned by modifying the contro l law
for th e strings th at lay on the top surfa ce of the plate , while the contro l of all
 85
other strings remains un alt ered. Th e rest -lengths of the top strin gs are addition ally
reduced by th e factor q(t) that is defined during the reconfigur at ion as follows,

q(t) = 1, 0 < t < 20,

q(t) = 1 - 0.02(t - 20) , 20 < t < 25, (4.11)

q(t) = 0.9 , 25 < t < 30.

Th e deviations of th e nodal positions from the shap e of a quadrati c para bola are
shown in Figur e 4.3.

Figur e 4.2. Th e deployment of a para bolic tensegrity struct ure

Figure 4.3. Positions of the top nod es of the para bolic tensegrity plate vs. a
quadratic parabola
 86
4.3.2 Tower deployment

The contro l objective in this example is to deploy the class-two tensegrity tower
that is composed of two two-stage four-bar modules with the bar lengths lb = 6.
In order to define the deployment control law (4.10), a monotonically decreasing
function r( T) on the interval (0, T) is defined . The desired geometric parameters in
(4.10) are defined as follows,

r(T) = 3.2 - 0.05T, t = 1, 0< T ~ 25,

r(T) = 1.95, t = 1- 0.l(T - 25), 25 < T ~ 30.

Force densities >.i(T) and >-HT)for both modules are set to be the same throughout
the deployment , so that ~ (T) = [ >.1 ( T) >.7 ( T) ] T, and

A1(T)= 1, >-1(T)= 0.0lT , 0 < T :s;20,

>-1(T)=l , A7(T)= 0.25, 25 < T ~ 30.

The closed form expressions for the string rest-lengths control law is given in Ap-
pendix 8.C. The results of the simulation are depicted in Figure 4.4. The ratio

Figure 4.4. Open-loop deployment of a tensegrity tower

between the initial and final height of the tower is approximately 3.15.
 87
r(u) l ~• /j\ ,/\ 'rel

·,.l____./-~::7;,;
\ ------'<--M---"'-----"'-d
Tl<--------l<-w-
--- _
~ X,,(1)~ X T 2T 3T

Figur e 4.5. Int erna l tra nsversa l wave function

4.3.3 Self-propelled tensegrity structures - a tensegrity worm

If t he te nsegrity structure changes it s shape in a periodic wave-like mode , as

a result of an internal shape contro l, the interaction of the structure with its sur -
rounding can indu ce locomotion. Th e following is an examp le of a self-prope lled
tensegrity tower , where the envelope of t he shape of the structure r( T , x) represe nts
the longitudin al wave that propagates with the velocity Vw along th e length of the
st ru ct ur e.

(4. 12)

W>.
Vw=y (4. 13)

Th e shape of the wave and its frequency cont ent can be defined by selecting the
magnitudes , Ak , of its, nk , harmonics and t he wave length , W>.. Assume that all
modules of the tower have the same height h, so that th e location Xi of the nodes
of the modules and t he wave length W>. can be approx imated as,

xi = (i ~ l )h , W>. = mh , m E Z. (4.14)

Th e continuou s fun ct ion ri(T) E C 1 of the radi i of the modules in t he te nsegrity

tower , whose shape envelope represents a transversa l wave, and t he correspond ing
feasible truncation ratio ti(T) of t he modules can be written as,
1) -
ri(T) = r 0 + L Ak cos(27r(i -
nk
m
9Tr el
k),
k=l
_ ri+1(T)
ti (T ) - ri ( T) ·
 88

Figure 4.6. Self-propelled tensegrity act uate d by applying transversal wave shape
control

The requir ement that r i ( T) is a continuou s funct ion guarantees that the str ing rest
length control fun ct ion is also cont inuous and represents a physi cally realizable con-
trol, that does not require infinite power to achieve.
Th e locomot ion of the tower has the opposite direction from the direction of
the wave propagation , and it is generate d by the int eract ion of the tower with its
environment , whether it is a fluid dr ag or friction from a cont act surface. Th e sim-
ulation results , that are shown in Figur e 4.6, represent the appli cat ion of this shape
control strategy on a class-two tensegrity tower that is made by the composition of
six one-stage tensegrity modul es.

4.4 Conclusions
Dynamic models for describing the reconfiguration of tensegrity structures are
highly non-linear , and th ey have a non-autonomous char acte r at the same time. The
control problem , that is associated with the tensegrity reconfiguration , is th erefore
very hard to solve in general. The fact th at the equilibrium configurations of mod-
ular tensegrity structures can b e char acte rized analytically is applied to formulate
the open-loop strategy for their shape control. This propos ed control algorithm is
app licable ind epend ently from the size of the structures. The problems related to
 89
the highly nonlinear nature of the models of tensegrity structures , and the non-
autonomous character of tracking control problems are bypassed with this control
strategy. The proposed reconfiguration trajectories are not unique which enables
their additional optimization with respect to different control performance criteria.
Chapter 5

Optimal mass-to-stiffness-ratio
tensegrity design

5 .1 Introdu ction
A procedure for optima l stat ic design of tensegrity structur es is considered in
this chapter. This work is motivated by t he need for deriving the advanced design
met hod s, that go beyond form-finding. Practical reasons require including the stat ic
performance of the structure in the problem , as well as constra inin g its elements from
different mod es of failur e. The results are an extens ion of the similar procedure ,
that has been proposed for designing truss structures . Optimization of topology of
structures has been st udi ed for a long time , e.g [46],[45]. Several approaches for
num erical opt imizat ion are known , e.g [16, 4, 7, 5, 6], with recent approaches being
free mat erial modelling , [2], and optimizatio n of trusses , [3, 29].
Th e goal of this work is to provide the design of a te nsegrity structure that has an
optimal performance , und er a given app lied load. Th e formulation of the problem
includ es the tensegrity existence cond itions , that parameterize prestressed equilib-
rium of the structure , in order to accommodate specifics of tensegrities. Th e domain
of topologies, within which the optimal connectivity of the stru ct ure is sought , is
adopted first. Starting from the initial layout of the stru cture, that defines the

90
 91
larg est set of allowed element conn ection s, th e pro cedur e defines posit ions of nodal
point s, volum es of t he element s and t heir rest lengt hs th at yield th e st ru ct ure wit h
th e smaller compli ance t hen th e initial design . In cont rast t o optimi zati on of t russes,
th at st art from a fully popul ate d grid , e.g [29], t he maximum set of allowed geome-
tri es of th e stru ctur e is not pr edefined , since nodal positions are act ually the design
vari ables. Str engt h constra int s for all elements of t he st ru ct ure, bu ckling constra int s
for bar element s, and shape constr aints are impo sed, result ing in a nonlin ear con-
strain ed optimiz at ion probl em . Th e prob lem formul at ion accommodates different
symm etr y constrain ts for stru ctur e para mete rs and shape. Th e stat ic responses of
stru ctur es are compu te d using a nonlinear large-displacement model. Th e examples
show th e layout s of 2D and 3D asymm et ric and symmetric st ru ct ures. Th e influence
of material para mete rs on t he opt imal shape of stru ct ur es is invest igate d also.
 92
5.2 Formulation of the problem
The objective of this analysis is to design a tensegrity ~tructure that for the
given mass of the material available has the maximum stiffness . The total volume
Vtotal of the structure can be used to fix the mass under the assumption that all
elements are built of the same material. One can define different criteria to measure
structure stiffness. The focus of this analysis is the behavior of the structure under
a given loading scenario, that is, the objective is to optimize the structure stiffness
under the given externa l load. Hence , the strain energy may be used as a norm of
the stiffness of the structure.
In the seque l, the tensegrity equilibrium conditions will be modified to incorpo-
rate the presence of the additional forces that are applied on a tensegrity structure.
These forces may be classified as externa l working forces and constraint non-working
forces for the purpose of the static ana lysis. Constitutive equations that relate the
deformation of the structure and the elastic forces of the elements must also be
included in a convenient form.

5.2.1 Generalized tensegrity equilibrium

Let the vectors fJ(p) E IR3 and fJ(p) E IR3 represent respectively the vectors of
the externa l and constraint forces acting at the node vi in the given configuration p .
The externa l and constraint force vectors are defined by grouping the individual
nodal force vectors ,

ff
f2 (5.1)

In the presence of the add itional forces, the equilibrium conditions for the struc-
ture with properly loaded strings in the configuration p can be written by modify-
 93
ing (2.14) as follows,

C.X(p)Mp + re(p) + fC(p) = 0, (5.2)

>.i(P) ~ 0, ei E Es. (5.3)

Thro ughout th is chapter it will be assumed that the string elements of the tenseg-
rity structure are numbered first , so that the vectors ( •) E IR~ of all different prop-
erties associated with the elements of the structure can be part itioned as,

(·)( p) = [ (-)s(P) ] , (·)s E IR~, (·) E IR~. (5.4)

(·)b(p)

Linear elastic material and constitutiv e equations

The relations hip between the force density variables ,\ (p) m (5.2) and actua l
st ru ct ur e parameters depends on t he strain-stress relatio nship for th e materia l used
to build elast ic elements of th e structure. Th e force dens it ies ,\ (p), in any equilib-
rium configurat ion p , can be computed from Hooke's law for linear elastic materia ls.
Define volumes vi, rest lengths l0i, and Young's modu lus Yi, of cylindrica l elements
and collect them in the correspond ing vectors 10 E IRn•, v E IRn• and y E IRn•,

lo1

l
V1

lo=
lo2
[ lo,
lob '
V=
V2
=
[::l· y=
[::l·
lon. Vne

Then the force densities can be computed as,

(5.5)

so that that (5.3) can b e rewritt en in the equivalent form,

(5.6)
 94
5.2.2 Defining the optimization objective , and id entifying
th e design variables and constraints
In th e sequ el t he optimi zat ion obj ect ive is defined in term s of t he problem
variables. Th e con tra int are derived in t erm s of t hese var iables, and t hey are cast
in a form th at is uitab le for t he compu tat ion of t he derivat ives with respect to t he
probl em variable .

Equilibrium condition s in ab se nce of ex t e rna l for ces

Since t he st ru ct ure t hat is be ing designed is requir ed to sati sfy the te nsegrity
paradigm it must sat isfy equilibrium condit ions in t he ab ence of exte rn al forces.
Th e pr esence of constra int forces modifies the original form-findin g formul at ion by
includin g th ese forces in t he equilibrium equati ons. From (5.2), ub tit utin g (5.3)
with (5.6), equilibrium condit ions of th e tensegrity stru ct ur e in t he configurat ion p ,
in th e pr esence of no exte rn al load fe(p ) = 0, become,
C,\ (p )Mp + fC(p ) = 0, (5.7)
-( li (p) - lo,) ::::;0 ei E IEs, (5. )

where A(p) is given by (5.5).

Larg e di splac e m e nt st atic res pon se - lo aded e qu ilibrium condi t io ns

Once th e exte rn al force, re, is appli ed up on t he struct ure in equilibrium configu-

rat ion p , it deform s to a new equilibrium configur at ion p + u. Th e vector of nodal
displacement u E IR;n,

U =

3
an be compu te d wit hout any assumpt ion on t he ize of the di pla em nt u 1 E IR
of the node 1.1 .
1
Equat ion (5.5) d fin th quilibrium for d n ity v tor A(p + u)
 95
in any equilibrium configuration p +u . This relationship holds true independently
on the magnitude of u . Hence , nodal displacements u of the loaded structure can
be computed dire ctly from the structure equilibrium conditions in the configuration
p + u , instead of the linearization method that involves comp utation the structure
stiffness matrix. From (5.2), substituting (5.3) with (5.6) , equilibrium conditions
for the configuration p +u become,

C.X(p + u)M(p + u) + re(p + u) + rc(p + u) = 0, (5.9)

-(li( P + u) - loJ :::;0 ei E lEs, (5.10)

where .X(p + u) is given by (5.5). Th e constraint in (5.10) guarantees that the string
elements are not compressed in this new equilibrium .
The relationship between the nodal disp lacements u and the external forces re
is nonlinear , although the elements of the structure are linear elastic.
The nonlinear structure mod el in (5.9) param etr izes all equilibrium configura-
tions of the structure under the exte rn al force re. Th e non-uniqu eness of the equi-
librium geometry p +u resu lting from global buck ling or other nonlin ear effects is
also accommodated by this model.

The optimization objective

One can define different criteria to measure structure stiffness . Th e work done by
the externa l forces , f6, to deform the structure from configuration p to p +u is one
possible measure . The inner product ½reTu is an approximation of this work done
and will be called approximate complian ce since it is comput ed from the nonlinear
structure mod el (5.9). Computed values of the approximate comp liance, ½PT
u,
are genera lly lower than the compliance ½reT
u 1, if the nodal displacements u 1 were
computed from the linearized structure mod el. this is due to the nonlinear stiffening
effects.
If the approximate comp liance is the inverse measure of the stiffness, only the
nodal displacements of the nodes at which the external forces act are pena lized. An
 96
ellipti cal norm u T Qu, Q t O can be used as the stiffness measure to penalize other
nod al displacements.

Design variables

From (5.2)-(5.3) , (5.9)-(5. 10) and (5.5), it is clear that for the tensegr ity structure
with the connectiv ity IE the parameters that define the static response , u are the
nod al vector, p , element rest lengths , 10 , and element volumes, v. These three
st ru ct ur e parameters are the variab les in the opt imizat ion problem . The doma ins of
their feasible values are 10 > 0, v ~ 0. Note that the element ei in the set IE defines
allowab le element connections in t he structur e, but that the volum e vi > 0 is the
act ual indi cator of the presence of the element in th e structure . For the structur e
compri sed of t he elements built of the same materia l, the constra int that fixes its
total mass can be written as I::vi = Vtotal ·

Symmetry treatment

Imp osing symmetry constra ints on the set of the design variab les reduces the
freedom in the design and yields the optima l structures with genera lly higher values
for the minimized objective function. Yet , these constraints structures that are
genera lly easier to manufacture and assemb le. There can be two classes of symmetry
with the structure param eters identified so far. Th e first symmetry is the nodal
symmetry. It has already been shown in (2.33) that th e nodal symmetry constraint
can be cast in the following linear form ,

P = R.e_
, (5.11)

where the matrix R depends on the particular nodal symmetry . Obviously the
nodal symmetry constraint represents a reduction in t he numb er of independent
geometry variables from p E JR~n to .e_E JR~c, where the vector .e_is t he nodal vector
of the subset of nodes NE N. Th e second symmetry is t he symmetry of the sets of
param eters 10 , and v associated with the elements of the stru ct ure. It can also be
 97
regard ed as a redu cti on of th e numb er of variables and cast in t he linear form
'
lo = Elo, v=Ev _, (5.12)

where th e sparse matrix E relat es th e vecto r of different ty pical elements with t he full
vect or of th e variables. It is possible t o define ot her symm et ries of the stru ct ure.
Symm et ry of ext ern al forces and nodal displacements are two examples. Th ese
additi onal symmetr ies will not be exploited in t he prob lem formul at ion beca use
th ey are not ind epend ent from each ot her , and if not defined consiste nt ly wit h other
constra ints t hey can rend er an infeasible prob lem .

Shape constraints

A desired shape of t he st ru ct ure before exte rn al forces, f e, have been applied,

(£) = 0. To
can be specified by defining t he form of t he genera l shape const raint <;:,
ensur e th at t he te nsegrity st ru ct ur e can be supp orted at t he pr escribed locat ions,
and th at t he exte rn al load act ing at specified locat ions can be attac hed to it , the
t ensegrit y st ru ctur e in the configur at ion p = 'R.£has to satisfy t he shape constra ints
in th e linear form ,
(5.13)

where P and Ee are a given mat rix and a given vector.

Th e element lengt h constra ints ,

li (p) > lm in;,

li( P + u) > l m in ;

where l min; is th e given minim al length of t he element , also belongs to t he cat egory
of geometry constrain t s. One of th e reason for constrainin g th e minim al lengt h of
th e element s is th e limit ed ability to manufa ct ure stru ctur es wit h elements th at are
too short . Thi s constr aint also guara ntees th at th e J acobian of constraints is well
defined since it involves inverses of element lengt hs.
 98
Boundary conditions treatment

The only constraint on structure displacements u that will be considered here is

the consequence of attaching the nodes of the structure to linear supports . In this
case, the admissible nodal displacements must satisfy the following linear constraint,

(5.14)

where the structure of the constra int matrix Cu E JRncx3nn depends on the type of
the supports that the structure is attached to. It can be shown that the constra int
forces , fc(p) , in any configurat ion p , are the vectors in the left range space of the
matrix Cu. Hence, fC(p) can be written as,

(5.15)

for some choice of the Lagrange multipliers .Xc(p) E JRnc. Assum e that only n c
independent boundary cond itions are defined so that the matrix Cu has the full row
rank. Let the singular value decomposition of the matrix Cu be given,

Cu = UEV r =u[ E1 0 ] [ Vl vt ] = UE1 vlr ' (5.16)

uur = uru = I , (5.17)

vvr = vrv = I . (5.18)

so that ,
(5.19)

An equivalent formulation of the equilibrium condit ions in (5.9) and (5.2) can
be obtained by using (5.15) in these equations and multiplying them from the left
with the orthonormal full rank matrix vr yielding ,

[;;,:
l (d.(p)M(p) + f'( p)) + [ l
E1t A"(p) - 0. (5.20)
 99
It is clear from (5.20) that the solution of the problem can be split into two parts.
In the first part,
V{(C>.(p)M(p) + fe(p)) = O (5.21)
that the represents the reduced equilibrium conditions , .Xc, does not appear as the
variable , whereas the second set of equations,

(5.22)

gives the solutions for the Lagrange multipliers .Xc(p), and the constraint forces re,
N(p) = -UI;tVt(C>.(p)M(p) + fe(p)) ,
fC(p ) = C~N(p) = -C~UI;1 1 Vt(C>.(p)M(p) + fe(p)) ,
if they are of interest.

Strength constraints

All elements of a tensegrity structure must be constra int from yielding in order
to preserve struct ure int egrity in both unloaded configuration, p , and loaded con-
figuration , p + u. Th ese constraints can be defined from the Hooke's law for th e
axially loaded elements as,
li(P) - loi
Ei(P )Yi = Zi l Yi ~ O'i,
oi
li(P + u) - loi
Ei(P + u)y i = Zi l Yi ~ O'i,
oi
where O'i is the yield stress of the element ei. An equivalent form of these constrains
is,

zi (li(P) - loJYi - O'ilo;~ 0,

zi (li(P + u) - loJYi - O'iloi ~ 0.

Since bar elements are allowed to be under tension , additional constra ints must be
defined to account for this fact ,

Yi(li(P) - lo;) - loiO'~ 0, ei E Eb, (5.23)

Yi(li(P + u) - lo;) - lo;O'~ 0, ei E Eb. (5.24)

 100
Buckling constraints

Since the bar elements are the only elements that may be compressed , a buckling
constra int is app lied only to bars. The maximum magnitud e, f max;, of the compre s-
sive force , li, that the bars can be loaded with , is defined by Eul er's formula,

(5.25)

where I min ; is the minimal moment of inert ia of the cross section of the element.
Assuming that all bars have a round cross section with the radius ri, h min is defined
as,

Th en , using ,

h min can be computed as ,

2
J.
t,nin
= __5_
47r l2 ' (5.26)
O;

From (5.5) and (5.26) after manipulating (5.25), the bar bu ckling constraint be-
comes ,
2 7r
-l 0 (li(P) - loJ -
4vi '.S0, ei E lEb.

Th e buckling constraint must be sat isfied in both unloaded configuration p and

loaded configurat ion p + u , so that it is finally written as,

-l Q2 (l·(p)
t - l 0,. ) - 4t- · < 0,
7r
-v (5.27)

-l 02 (li(P + u) - lo;) - 7r
4vi '.S0, (5.28)

5.3 Nonlinear program formulation

Keeping strength and buckling constra ints in the probl em for zero volume el-
ements may produce conservat ive results. Hence, these constra ins for a zero vol-
ume element ei should be relaxed by multiplying t hem with t he element volume vi.
 101
With this, the opt im al mass-to-stiffness ratio optimization probl em for the tensegrity
structure is written as,

Given data C , M , z , Y, re,½,P , E_

C,n , E , a , Vtota l, lomin,lmin,Imin
mm f eT U
_e_,!
o,Y,U

subj ect to

lin ear constraints : PE_= Ee,

-lo+ lomin::::;0,
-y::::;0,
[ 1 1 1 . 1] V - Vtota l = 0,
nonlinear constraints : ) = 0,
<p(E_
vtc-X(p)Mp = o,
½{C-X(p + u)M(p + u) + v[ re= 0,
-vs( ls(P) - las) ::::;0,
-v s(ls(P + u) - las) ::::;0,
- l(p) + lmin ::::;0,
-l(p + u) + lmin::::;0,
v(zy (l(p) - 10 ) - 5-lo) ::::;0,
vb(Yb(lb(P)- lob)- 5-blob) ::::;0,
v(zy(l(p + u) - lo) - 5-lo)::::;0,
vb(Yb(lb(P+ u) - lob)- 5-blob) ::::;0,
~2
-vb(lob (lb(P) - lob) - 4Vb
7r )
::::;0 ,
- 7r )
-vb(l6b(lb(P + u) - lob) - 4Vb ::::;0,

where: p = RE_, li(P) = llgi(P)ll2, g(p) = Mp,

10 = El 0 , v = Ey ,
- ZiYiVi (l ·( ) - l )
>.i(P) - l t·(p )lQi2 i P oi ·
5.3.1 Jacobian of the nonlinear constraints

Th e j acobian of the nonlin ear constraints is given in the following matrix , where the operator x denotes x
x(p + u).

oc,o(_e)/o_e 0 0 0
V[ C.XM - V[Cgyvla1I- 3e c T v[ cgzyv (-2103 + I02I- 1) V{Cgzyla 2I- 1(l - lo) 0
v[ c.>.M- v[cgyv I0 11-3 gYc r v[ cgzyv (-2103 + 1021- 1) V{Cgzyla 2I- 1(I - lo) V:tc>.M- v{cgyv I 11-3 gYcT
0
- -1-r sr
V s 1s g s vs -(ls- IoJ 0
- J-l =TgT
Vs s g s vs -(Is- IoJ =-l_T T
Ysls g s S
- I-l gTM 0 0 0
]= - J-l gI'M 0 0 -J-lgI' M
zvyi- 1g;YM - zyv - uv zy(l - lo) - Iou 0
YbYblb 1gf BT YbVb - O'bVb h (lb - lob)- lobu b 0
zvy1- 1gI'M - zyv - uv zy(I - lo) - Iou zvy1- 1FM
YbYsb 1gfBT YbVb - O'bVb h (lb - lob)- Iobu b YbYsb 1gf BT
- 1ob
- vb 2 I-b 1-TBT
gb (3it - 2lo) b)vb -I 5b(lb - lob)- fvb 0
- 12 =
1 -l
- Vb Obb gb =TBT (3lt - 21oJb)vb - b-1Ob
2=
1b- lgb
=TBT
- I5b(Ib- lob)- f v b -V

1--'
0
tv
 103

0 20
nz= 1162

Figure 5. 1. A typ ical spars ity pattern of the Jacobian of the nonlin ear constraints
for a symmetric problem ; t he genera l shape constraint are excluded

5.4 Examples
Th e solutions of the examp le prob lems that are given here are obta ined using
SNOPT 6.1 [19, 20], a software package for sparse nonlinear optimization. All
constraint J acob ians , and the object ive gradient were provided during the execution
of the code in its sparse mode.

5.4.1 Asymmetric planar cantilevered beam under bending

load
Th e tensegrity structure of Figure 5.2 depicts the result of the optimizat ion
algorithm that is app lied on the 2D tensegrity canti levered beam. This tensegrity
beam is built up from three planar tensegrity crosses, with an aspect ratio of seven. It
is attac hed to the fixed supports at the two leftmost nodes. The structure is loaded
 104
with a unit vertical force acting at the top right node . In the initial symmetric
configuration , the structure satisfies all design constraints.

E=100, cr=5, I /0=56.2926, I v=100, f 'ru=8.7337e-1

·~ ·····
~~~·
0.5 ..... .. ... . . . .. : ........ : ... .
. .

.1 : ... : . ·...... : _:_' ... : .. · ...... :

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E=100 , cr=5, I /0 =52.7111, I v=100 , f 'ru=2.9093e-1

Figure 5.2. Initial vs. optimized tensegrity beam in loaded state , showing defor-
mation under load . Legend: light gray - slack strings , dark gray - compressed bars,
black- stretched strings

It is observed that the algorithm found more than one optimal solution with the
same value of the objective function, and that this depend on the initi al guess for
the variables in the problem . See Figure 5.3. The optimized structure in Figure
5.3 has the very similar geometry p to the optimized structure in Figure 5.2, but
the different distribution of the variables 10 , and v. For examp le, the total rest
length of the elements are significantly different in these two optimal structures , i.e,
I:: 10 = 52.7111, and I:: 10 = 48.2842 respectively. The active constraints in these
two distinct optimal configuration are also different. Observe that only two strings
become marginally slack in the second examp le, as opposed to the four strings in the
first example . Slightly different values of the objective functions can be attributed
to the stopping criterium of the optimization algorithm. This optimality condition
causes the algorithm to stop when the orthogonality test in the optimality conditio ns
 105
is met within the sma ll defined bounds.
E=100, o=5, r l,=48.2842, r v=100, f '' u=2.911e-1

Figure 5.3. Non-uniqueness of the optimal structure - different optima l structure

From these results it can be inferred that:

• The optimal topologies are highly asymmetric,

• there exists more than one optima l structure , and

• the class-two tensegrity topologi es, where some of the bars touch each other
are advantageous.

5.4.2 Symmetric planar cantilevered beam under bending

load

In the examp le in Figur e 5.4, additio nal symmetry constrains are imposed . Th e
initial and the optimized structur e are depicted in the und eformed configurations.
Th e nodal position vector , p , and th e distribution of th e parameters 10 , and v ,
admit symmetry with respect to the horizontal axis of the structures. The structure
is atta ched to the fixed supports at the two leftmost nodes . The unit vertical force
is app lied at the top right node . The length , L , of the structure is fixed , so that the
y-coordinat e, of the nodes at the end of th e beam , defined by d is a free variabl e.
Observe that an equivalent formulation of the yield strengt h constraint may be
obtained by dividing it by the yield stress CJ. Hence, this material parameter is
substituted in the problem with the material yield strain , /y, that
CJ modifies the
 106
y=100 , cr=16, :E10 =43.8707 , :Ev=100 , , •ru=5.2717e-2

ILol

-0 .5 ·

0.5

y=100 , cr=16, :E10 =28.9772 , :Ev=100 , , •ru=7.7476e-4

~
a.
0

......__J_
"O

-1.5

0.5 1.5 2.5

,________ L ----------j

Figur e 5.4. Initi al vs. opt imal aspect ratio, L / d, of symmetr ic tensegrity beam

dir ection of the constraint J acob ian. Increasing the value of th e mater ial /y ratio ,
CJ

effective ly makes th e yield stress constra int less restrictive with resp ect to other
constraints. Smaller values of the yield strai n corr espond to rubber -like mater ials
 107
that can undergo large elastic deformation , whereas the large yield strain pertains
to the more traditiona l, metal-like , engineering materials .
We varied the mat erial Young 's module , y, and the yield strain CJ /y, in order
to invest igate their impact on the parameters that characterize overall shape of
the optima l design of the two stage tensegrity beam. These shape par amet ers are
defined in Figure 5.4. The resu lts are given in Figure 5.5.

optimalLJL

0.5

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

1.5 ,-----,--- -----, -----,----,-----r;:::==:::;::::;::;~

- y=100
optimal d/L - y=500
r-==:::j:::::::::::::,,,,,,-...,
=-- y=500 - =100
y=100
0.5
y=1000

OL-----'-------'---------......_-----------
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
0.03~ ---~---~-----,----..,.-------.------,
optimal f u
0.02 c----- ----- y-=100

0.01 y=500
y=1000
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
log(cr/y)

Figure 5.5. Optimal overlap ratio L 0 / L , truncation ratio d/ Land objective function
f Tu vs. material yield strain CJ /y

Th e results depicted in Figure 5.5 lead to the following conclusions :

• Overlap ratio between stages L 0 / L exhibits a significant sensitivity to the

variation of bothy and <Jjy in the neighborhood of <Jjy = 0.1. Outside this
region , it monotonically increa~es with the increase of the yield strain, /y,
CJ

and is not sensit ive to the variat ions of y.

 108
• The truncation ratio , d/ L , of the structure monotonically decreases with the
increase of the yield strain , CJ/y, and is not sensitive to the variations of y .

The increase of the overlap ratio between stages , with the increase of the yield strain ,
is consistent with the ana lytical result in [14]. This result shows that the stiffness of
the planar tensegrity beam, without any additiona l constraints , is optimized when
stages comp lete ly overlap , i.e., when L 0 / L = 1. Note that increasing yield strain
/y makes
CJ the feasible domain wider, and this ana lysis becomes more similar to the
unconstrained stiffness ana lysis in [14].

5.4.3 Symmetric tensegrity tower under compressive load

The symmetric tensegrity tower design in Figure 5.6 is obtained by optimizing

the geometry of the modified two stage shell-class tensegrity structur e. This struc -
ture , that is defined in [51], is modified by includ ed the additional strings in the
connectiv ity scheme. A symmetric compressive load is applied at the top nodes of
the structure . The bottom nodes of the structure are attached to the fixed supports.
From this examp le, it can be concluded that ,

• Class-two tensegrity towers , where bars of the adjacent stages are connected
at a node , are superior to the class-one structures , where bars do not touch.
This result is expected since the path that transmits the load from the top to
the supports is shorter in the class-two structures .

5.4.4 Optimal number of stages

In the following section, the optimal number of stages of a planar tensegrity
beam is investigated. Similarly to the two previous planar examp les, the tensegrity
beam is supported at the two leftmost nodes and loaded with the unite vertical force
acting at the top right node. The shape of the structure is constrained to adm it
the symmetry with respect to the horizontal axis. Truncations of the stages are not
allowed. All stages have the same shape, and their positions in the structure can
 109
E=1000 , cr=S00, I 10 =79.4069, I v=100, Obj=7.4927e-5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0 .5

3.5- > ··

3-

2 - '.

1.s .....
.~---······· u.. -----.,..,,

·------->

···-. :_·:--·········

:•.:·
--.·
-1 -1

Figure 5.6. Initial vs. optimal tensegrity tower under compressive load

be characterized by the one dimensional lattice formed of the centers of the stages,
as it is indicated in Figure 5. 7. Th e fami lies of curves depi ct ed in Figur e 5. 7 and
Figure 5.8 are generated by running a sequence of the optimization probl ems , in
which the number of th e stages of the ten segrity beam varies from one up to the
 110
maximum value at which a loss of feasibility of the problem occurs .
5.5r--r--,-----,----,---,r--,---,----,----,- __ _
min ,· ·u

•.5 y=100, a/y=0 .1

3.5

2.5
d/L=0 .1

1.5

______________
..
~-- d/L=0 .2
0.5

Numberof stages

Figure 5. 7. Optimal number of stages vs. tensegrity beam aspect ratio

From these results the following may be inferred:

• For a fixed material , the optimal number of stages decreases as the beam
aspect ratio , d/ L , increases , and the sensitivity is large for the larger ratio
d/ L.

• For a fixed beam aspect ratio d/ L , and Young 's module y , the opt imal number
of stages increases as the material yield strain CJ/y increases , but the sensitivity
 111
1.1 ,--r---.-----,---,---,--,----r----.-----,---,--
min f "'u
cr/y=0.025
1.05
y=100 , d/L=0 .2
I
0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0·60:---:--- ~ -~-------'-5-___J5L___J_ 7 -----'- 8 _ ___J__ 1,_

0_ _j11
Number of stages
3.5 1 -,-----,----,----,---r----.-----,---.-~,------r--
min f "'u

2.5 d/L=0.2, cr/y=0.1

1.5 y=50
I
I

0 .5
~--!-. ----- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
y=100 --
_/

I :y=1000
A
o~ _ _.__ _..__
_ __._ ___JL..,__ _L...... _ _.__--'-------'--___J'----L.....-
o 2 4 6 10 11
Numberof stages

Figure 5.8. Optimal number of stages of tensegrity beam vs. materi al paramet ers

to the yield stra in variation decreases .

• For a fixed beam aspect ratio and a fixed mat erial yield strain <J/ y, the op-
timal number of stages increases as the Young 's modul e y increases , and the
 112
sensitivity to this variation decreases.

5.5 Discus si on

Class-one tensegrity structures , with a discontin uous network of compressive el-

ements , are mor e favorable for the mate rials with a high yield strain . Thi s may
explain their pr esence in some biological st ru ct ures. The success that class-one
tensegrities demonstr ate d in modelling cytos keleton as reported by some authors ,
e.g. [13], [68], might be att ribut ed to thi s fact. Th e benefit of utilizing class-one
structur es is twofold. Not only can they und ergo larger chape changes as already
indicated , but as we have shown here, it can be accomplished at no st iffness penalty
for certain mater ials. Thi s is a clear adva nt age for biological systems that predom-
inantly utiliz e materials with the high yield stra ins.
By insp ect ing the stiffness mat rix of pr estressed struct ures given in (2.45), one
can show that increasing prestress in a st ru ct ure affects its stiffness. It can also be
realized that the sensitivity of the condition number of the st iffness mat rix to this
change incr eases as the mater ial yield stra in increases. Thi s leads to the conclusion
that a significant stiffening of a structure due to the prestress may be expected only
if the structure is of a material with a relat ively high yield strain. Most biological
materi als belong to this category which may explain a noticeabl e sensitivity of the
cytosk eleton stiffness to pr estress change, as several researchers verified, e.g. [55].
In the class-one tensegrity st ru ct ures, with the minimum feasible numb er of
elements , there usually exist soft eigen-modes of the st iffness matrix. In other words,
if these structures are not significantly pr estresse d their stiffness matr ices have a very
high condition numb er. One can do one of the following in order to st iffen these soft
mod es:

• increase prestress ,

• add extra elements to remove these soft mod es, or

• transition to a class-two structure.

 113
Let us investigate these three options for structures of different material yield strains .
For a low material yield strain , increasing prestress moves small eigenvalues of
the stiffness matrix away from zero, but their increase , relative to the eigenvalues
of the high stiffness modes , is negligible. This is because the large eigenvalues of
the stiffness matrix are proportional to Young 's modulus y , whereas the eigenvalues
associated with the soft modes are proportional to the prestress CJ. This prestress at
the highest allowed value is still very small compared to Young 's modulus . Adding
extra elements to the structures would require allocating extra material for them,
so that the third option of using a class-two structure seems most favorable for
structures of a low material yield strain .
In structures of the materials that have high yield strain , significant contribution
of the prestress explains why class-two structures are not inferior to class-one struc-
tures. Using a smaller number of elements , so that more material can be allocated
for remaining elements , in conjunction with a significantly increased prestress , may
yield an efficient structure with a well-conditioned stiffness matrix .
As it is well known some geometric configurations yield superior stiffness prop-
erties. Our results indicate that there also exist configurations that enable a larger
impact of the prestress, which in some materials predominantly contributes to the
structure stiffness . These results indicate those configurations for the t ensegrity
beam.

5. 6 Con cl us ions
The increased interest in tensegrity structures justifies systematic methods for
their structural optimization. Unlike methods that concern finding feasible tenseg-
rity geometries only, this work proposes a systematic procedure for designing optimal
tensegrity structures . Including additional constraints is an important step toward
deriving more advance tensegrity design tools. The choice for the design variables
and the way that the constraints are formulated clearly display their interconnec-
tions and suggests efficient ways of scaling the constraints to improve efficiency of
 114
the numerical optimization algorithms.
One of the novelties is the utilization of optimization methods for solving nonlin-
ear static response problems associated with large nodal displacements. In addition
to a higher accuracy in predicting a static response of a structure, this method en-
ables efficient solutions of the problems in structures that have ill-conditioned or
even singu lar stiffness matrices at no additional cost. It also indirectly incorporates
global buckling as a possible mode of the deformation of the structure.
There is no guarantee that the results shown here represent global optimal so-
lution s because of the non-convex nature of the opt imization problem . In some
instances , repeated solutions increas ed confidence to draw several general conclu-
sions. These results demonstrat e that ,

• the optimization of tensegrity topology and geometry, cast in th e form of the

nonlinear program , is effectively solvable, and

• if the problem is feasible, the optimization approach is an appropriate design

tool that guarantees a monotonic stiffness improvement compared to the initial
design.
Chapter 6

Joint structure and control design

6.1 Introduction
Traditionally, the structure and the contro l design s have been two separate tasks.
Designing a structure first , and solving its contro l problem later is not an effective
way of achieving a good performance. This is because the structure design part
of the process completely disregards the structure controllabilit y, usu ally yielding
structures with severe limit at ions on the atta inab le performan ce. This is not a criti-
cal issue for certain applications , but for some applications a simu lt aneous structure
and control design is the only way of achieving very restrictive performance require-
ments. Although the approach of designing a structure and its contro l jointly has a
clear advantage , mathematical tools for solving this problem are of a limit ed scope
due to the non-conv ex chara cter of th e problem. There has been a number of results
available on this subject , e.g. [49, 33, 52, 15, 10, 9]. Th e available methods for t he
joint structure and contro l optimization provide at most a convergence to a local
mm1mum .
This chapter of the dissertation concerns the optimization of the prestress of a
tensegrity structure that enabl es the optimal LQR performance of the closed loop
system. A linear ized dynami c model of the structure is derived first . The force
density variables , that parameter ize the pr estress of the structure , appear linearly

115
 116
in this model. The problem is posed such that the optimization algorithm seeks the
distribution of the prestress variables yieldin g the optima l LQR performance of the
system for a given nodal configuration , and support and load conditions.
Th e particular structure of the dynamic model is exploited in this ana lysis. The
feasible region for the prestress variables is defined in terms of the extreme directions
of the prestress cone. A numerical method for computing this basis for the prestress
cone is proposed. Several properties of the problem are estab lished inside the feasible
region of the parameters , which motivates a choice for a solution algorithm. The
problem is solved using a line-search gradient method that provides a monotonic
decreas e of the objective function inside the feasible region. Th e gradient of the
objective fun ction is computed ana lytica lly. The application of this design method
is illustrated with a numerical examp le of a canti levered planar tensegrity beam.
This chapter is outlined as follows. In Section 2, a nonlinear model of a tensegrity
structure is derived. The linearized model is computed in Section 3, along with the
definition of the feasible set of the design parameters . In Section 4, the problem is
formulated first. The solution algorithm is proposed based on the severa l properties
of the problem that are established. A numerical example is given in Section 5.

6.2 Lumped mass dynamic model of a tensegrity

structure
Let the set IE of ne elements of the structure be given , and let lEs and IEbdenote
its partitions into the sets of ns strings and nb bars respectively. Define the element
mass vector, m E JRne, by associat ing its typical element , mi E JR+, with every
element ei. Assume that the distribution of the mass of the structure is such that it
is concentrated at the nodes , and that one half of the mass , mi , of each element is
lump ed at each of the nodes that the element is connected to. One can define the
nodal mass vector m n E JRnnwith the typical mi E JR+ associat ed with every node
 117
vi. The nodal mass vector can be written now as )

mn = 0.5abs(C)m, (6.1)

where the reduced connectivity matrix , C(IE), of the structure is defined in (2.4),
and abs(-) is the absolute value operator.
The Newton's law represents the starting point for deriving the dynamic model
of this system of the lumped masses that are connected with the elements. Let
fn(p , p) , f e(p , p) , and f c(p), represent respectively contributions of the internal
element forces , externa l forces , and nonworking constraint forces to the total force
at each of the nodes. With this , dynamics of the system of material points is defined
by the following collection of equat ions,

m7Pi = ft( P, p) + ft (P, p) + ft (P), vi EN. (6.2)

Both elastic and dumping components of the element forces m P(p , p) are
collinear with the elements of the structure. Hence , the element force vector ,
3
f ji E JR , that represents the contribution of the internal force of the element ei,
to the total force at the node llj , can be written as ,

(6.3)

where the element elastic and damping force densities Ai and ..\fare scalars . The
scalars Cj i in (6.3) have already been defined in (2.4) as the typical elements of the
reduced connectivity matrix , C(IE) E JRnnxn • . Similarly to (2.8) , lumping all internal
element forces at the nodes can be writt en in a compact form . This defines the total
nodal force vector as,

(6.4)

The relationship between the elastic and damping force density variab les, A E
]Rn e and Ad E ]Rn• and structura l parameters depends on the particular material
' '
model. Let the cross-sectiona l area , Young 's modulus , rest lengths , and viscous
damping coefficient of the elements be given in the following vectors , m , a , Y, lo, µ E
 118
JRne. In the case of a linear elastic material, the relationship between the elastic
force density variables and the structure parameters is given by the Hooke's law, as
it has already been shown in (5.5) . This relationship is modified in order to account
for the dynamic character of the system and the possibility that some transitional
configurations may yield slack strings,

Assume that the elements of the structure are subject to a viscous damping and
that the magnitude of the damping force in the element ei, is proportional to the
rate of change of the element length l;. The damping force densities is defined as
the magnitude of the element damping force per unit length of the element ,

Af(p, p) = { Zid p)µ;Zi(P, i>), (6.6)

0, ei E lEs and li (p) :S:lo;.
Similarly to (6.5), the non-smooth nonlinear relationships in (6.6) reflects the fact
that the string elements cannot transmit a load when they are slack.
Equations (6.2) , (6.5) and (6.6) represent the nonlinear lump ed mass model of
a tensegrity structure .

6.3 Linearized dynamic model of the structure

A linearized dynamic model of the structure in the neighborhood of an equilib-
rium configur ation will be computed in this section . Assume that the structure is
stat ionary in the the equilibrium configuration , p , so that p = 0. Assume further
that all strings are taut and that they remain taut if the structure undergoes a
small cha nge of configuration , op. If all strings are taut in the neighborhood of the
equi librium , (6.5) and (6.6) can be written in the compact forms,

.-\(p ) = zI- 1Ia\ya(l(p) - lo(P)), (6.7)

.,xd(P, i>) = zI- 1 p,i(p,i>), (6.8)
 11

t th f II ,,·m uilil riun U ti ll 11 [

.F (p . p ) = ,

g p ) ,\ p) f '( p . -\(p )) = ( . )

l~ 1E ,. ( .1 )

In rd r t !in ariz th n nlin rd ' nami r um.1 thi 1uili ri urn. a.:-
um th t th tru tur n in nit al p fr Ill

th quilibrium ti n p , n in nit im 1
· m unt. p. ·um furth r that th ,\ • an infinit -
imal n unt r ult f G n infinit imal hen f th
fr m t 1 + lo. whil all th r m tri an tru tural
. Th r ultin va.ri ti n f h t ~lndlfr · in ( ) anb mput d

>., ( .11)

and ,Yritt n
( .1 )

wh r th ' tiffn · matrix f h tru tur fin d = - f" p , an th

amptn n atri. · · =- f"/ p. Fr rn th u ti n in ( ...!) i f II w th t.

g(p), ( .1 )

th t ~ pplyin th h in rul f iff r nti ati n vi Id ,

f" ,\
,\ = -( p)-. p p g( ) -\.
p
{ 1 1)
hl' . t iffn . , n I l· 111p111 nh tri (' ·nn d n, · I by
fr 11 ( ~) an l ( ) r . p th · •ly 111 1t h,u , Ir , I\' I n h
t r :.., h, t h t1 n s nwtrix f th uquilil riu1n 11 IH I ...

= >- L
 120
only damping matrix D is derived here. In order to comp lete the damping ma-
trix computation by computing o>.d / op, write the element length vector, l, in the
equivalent quadratic form ,

(6.16)
Differentiating the left and the righthand side of (6.16) gives,

(6.17)

and,
-61 = -1- 1- yo"g
- = -1- 1-T M (6.18)
op g op g .

Th e rate of changing element lengths i can be computed as,

· 61 op 61 - 1
1 = --
op ot
= -o·
op P
= 1- -r Mo·
g P, (6.19)

yielding,
ol = -1- 1 -rMo·
-op g p. (6.20)

Equation (6.8) , using (6.20) yields,

d •
-o>. - - -1- 1_
op -- zµ
ol - - -1- 11-- 1-T M - - - -1-2-T M
op -- zµ g - zµ g , (6.21)

and damping matrix D can finally be written as,

(6.22)

Assume that the finite variation of the variables are small so that the finite
variation 6fn of the total nodal force caused by these variations can be approximated
with the first order approximation,

6fn = L om
i
Oxi 6xi , Xi = {p , P, >.}. (6.23)

If the externa l forces that are applied to the structure do not "follow" the structure,
that is of e/ op= 0 and of e/ 8p = 0, then the the finite approximation w may be use
 121
as an approximation of their variation. Finally, for an unconstrained equilibrium
tensegrity structure with re= 0, the linearized dynamic model , can be written as,

, p, y , a)u = Cg6>..+ w ,
Mu+ Vu+ K(>.. (6.24)
= Cgyai-3gTcT- C.-\M
K(>.., p , y , a) (6.25)
v = Cgi- 2 µ,grcr , (6.26)
M = m n, mn = 0.5abs(C)m , (6.27)

where u and 6>..denote th e finite variations of the variab les p , >..respectively .

Boundary conditions treatment

The only constraint on the structure displacements u that will be considered

here is the consequence of attaching the nodes of the structure to linear supports.
In this case , the admissible nodal displacements must satisfy the following linear
constraint ,
(6.28)

and consequently ,
(6.29)
3
where the structure of the constraint matrix C u E ffi.ncx nn depends on the type of
the supports that the structure is attached to . It can be shown that the constraint
forces , fc(u ), in any configuration u , are the vectors in the left range space of the
matrix Cu. Hence , fc(u) can be written as ,

(6.30)

for some choice of the Lagrange multipliers >..

c E ]Rnc. Assume that only nc inde-
pendent boundary conditions are defined so that matrix Cu has a full row rank. Let
the singular value decomposition of the matrix Cu be given as,

c. = UEV" = u [ E1 0 l
l [ 0 = UE1V[ , CJ= ½E1UT

UUT = uru = I , VVT = vrv = I.

 122
One can show that the admissib le nodal displacements in (6.28) - (6.29) are the vec-
tors in the null space of the matrix Cu and can be expressed in the following equiv-
alent form ,

(6.31)

Adding the constraint forces variation term to account for the presence of the
constra int forces, the linearized dynamic model (6.24) , for the constrained structure
dynamics becomes,

Mu+ Du+ K(>..,p , y, a)u = Cg~>..+ w + C'[;N(u) (6.32)

Multiplying both sides of (6.32) from the left with the orthonormal full rank matrix
vr , and app lying the change of variables in (6.31) yields,

[ ~: ] (MV,.i!+ V½.!!+ IC(>.,p , y , a)V2y) =

l l l
(6.33)

= [ ~: Cgll>.+ [ ~: w + [ E,t >.' (p),

It is clear from (6.33) , that the solution of the problem can be split into two parts .
Lagrang e multipliers >..
c do not appear as the variable in the first set of equations ,

so that,

V[ M1-'i Y+ V[ DVii! + V[K( >..

, p , y , a)Vi!! = V{ Cg~>..+ V[ w (6.34)

whereas the second set of equations provides the solution for the lagrange multipliers ,
and the constraint forces. The minimal representation of the dynamics model is
given in terms of the the constra ined mass , damping and stiffness matrices ,

M .!i+ D .!!+ K(>..,p , y , a)!!= V[Cg~ >..+ V[ w (6.35)

6.3.1 State-space model of the system

After ident ifying nodal displacements '.Y.,and nodal velocities Y,_as the state vari-
ables, ~>..as contro l input variables, and w as exogenous inputs , the parameterized
 123

~~t
l><JM><]
0 1 2 3 ~

Figure 6.1. Tensegrity structure with three pr tress modes

state space model of the linearized dynamics of the structure is written as,

(6.36)

(6.37)

(6.38)

Identifying structure design freedom

Recall that the prestress parameters, .\ , of the structure model in (6.36), repre-
sent the equilibrium force densities. Any freedom in the model must comply with
this constraint. Consider an equilibrium tensegrity structure that in the configura-
tion p has a multidimensional prestress cone. Let th columns of the prestress cone
basis, AE (p), represent the extreme directions of the tensegrity cone , so that every
feasible force density vector, .\ E A(p) , can be written as, .\ = AE(p)~ , for some
choice of~ that satisfies ~i ~ 0. The basis for the prestres cone with this property
can be computed by app lying an algorithm that is derived from an implementation
of the binding direction method (simp lex method) for linear programming. This al-
gorithm seeks and identifies all vertices of the linear constraint N x ~ 0. Figure 6.2
depicts an app lication of the algorithm on identifying the extreme directions of the
prestress cone of the structure that has thr e prestress modes.
One must additionally constrain the pre tress parameters .\ to ensure that the
act ual elements of the structure can be built after defining the prestre s of th
tructure. If the cro s-sectional ar a of th lement a , and the Young ' module y ,
 124

~j
C><X><J o, 2 3 4 s s 1 a 9

_:j[><J
0

0 1 2 3
9
9

·:
r
- 0.5
_, 9
0
C><]
4 s s 1 a 9

Figur e 6.2. Extr eme dir ect ion of the pr est ress cone of the stru ctur e in Figure 6.1

~;t
I><Q><J 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figur e 6.3. Combination of the extreme directions of the prestress cone for the
structure in Figur e 6.1
 125
of the material are fixed, this constraint must guarantee that that the element rest
lengths are feasib le, that is lo; > 0. Hence, from (6.5) , force density variables must
satisfy ,
(6.39)

Imposing a similar but more restrictive constraint ,

0 < c < 1, (6.40)

on all elements of the structure , is a way to ensure that the prestress of the elements
does not exceed the yield stress , which constrains the structure from failure.

6.4 Designing the structure for the optimal LQR

performance - optimization over th e pr estress
cone

6.4.1 Formulation of t he problem

Bar elements are contro lled only in this consideration. Constraints on contro l
variab les 6..\ b do not need to be imposed , since th e bars can withstand both com-
pression and tension . This reduction of the number of contro l variab les modifies
(6.36) as follows,
6.A = [ On s Xnb ] 6.Ab (6.41)
Inb

Given the covariance matr ix of externa l disturbances W , and the contro l and
output variance pena lty matrices R ~ 0 and Q t 0, the problem of the optima l
design of prestress of the structure for the optimal LQR performance can be cast in
 126
the following non-convex form ,

min Tr[(GT RG + Q)X]

~,G

subject to (A(~ )+ BG)X + X(A(~) + BGf + BwW B; = 0,

>..2".0, (6.42)
>.- < aiyi
t - E li )

where

Lemma 6.4.1. Let a truss structure have no elements with zero length ) l t· > O) i E
IE, and let the stiffness matrix K(>..)of the constrained structure be positive definite
for >..= 0. Then, K(>..)is positive definite for any equilibrium >..satisfying >.
i<
Yiadl i 2".0 for all compressed elements. A violation of this constraint yields a
structure with a negative eigenvalue if the minimal numb er of const raints is applied
on the structure , so that , R(CT½) = R(g) .

l
Proof.

K(>..)= vt c (gyaI-3gT+ [ >-s O )CT½. (6.43)

0 -Ab
From the positive definiteness of the matrix K(>..)for>..= 0, one concludes that the
ent ire range space of the matrix CT½ lies in the range space of the full rank matrix
g, that is, R (CTV2 ) E R(g). Consequently, a positive definiteness of the matrix ,

(6.44)

in the subspace of vectors lying in th e range space of R(g) , which is an easily

verifiable fact , is a sufficient condition for the positive definiteness of the stiffness
matrix for the given support condition matrix ½. It is also a necessary condition if
the minimal number of the supports is app lied only, in which case R(CT½) = R(g).
One needs to inspect how adding the prestr ess in the structure affects this subspace.
This can be done by investigating the sign definiten ess of the following diagonal
 127
matrix,

(6.45)

Since this matrix is diagonal,

(6.46)

is a sufficient condition for the positive definiteness of the stiffness matrix of the sup-
ported prestressed structure . This condition is also necessary if a minimal number
of supports is applied , in which case R(CT½) = R(g). •
Th ere exist some pathological cases when a violation of this constraint would not
affect the stiffness matrix of the support ed structure. For examp le, if a bar is placed
between two fixed supports , the stiffness matrix , JC(>.)
, of the unsupported structure
remains unaffected by the violation of the constraint , while the stiffness matrix , IC,
of t he free structure does become affected. The constraint that Ai > yiad li ~ 0 for
compressed elements is a simp le consequence of the fact that the deformation lo; - li
of a compressed element must not be larger than lo;.
Lemma 6.4.1 and the following well known result , estab lish the stability of the
matrix A(~) in (6.36) , and the feasibility of (6.42) for every feasible ~ -

Lemma 6.4.2. Let the matrices of the vector second order system in (6.35) satisfy
M >--0, D >--0, and IC >--0. Then , the vector second order system is stab le.

Proof. Let

V(x) = xT [ ~ : ] x, V(x) > 0, 'Ix E JR•, x - oo => V(x) - oo

be a Laypunov function candidate for the system (6.35) with the state space form (6.36).
 128
Th e derivative of the Lyapunov functions along the state trajectories is,

O ] X ~ 0, \/x E IR.n
2D
LaSalle 's theorem [32] shows that the state trajectories of a system with a non-
negat ive derivative of the Lyapunov function converge to the largest invariant set of
the system . Since the only invariant set of the system (6.36) is x = 0, the equilibrium
of the system (6.36) is globally asymptotica lly stab le. •

6.4.2 An algorithm for designing the structure for optimal

LQR performance
The following algorithm provides a monotoni c decrease of the cost function of
the problem (6.42) if an initial guess for~ yields a stab le matrix A(~).

Step 1 Pick feasible ~ ' A(~).

Step 2 Solve the LQR problem for X and G ignoring the constraint on feasible ~ -

Step 3 Compute the gradient grad of ( er RC+ Q)X with respect to ~ -

Step 4 Compute the projected grad ient gradproj with respect to the constraint on
feasible~-

Step 5 Update ~ and A(~) using the line search parameter o: that yields a sufficient
decrease of the objective , and satisfies that ~ - o: gradproj remains feasible.

Step 6 Rep eat Steps 2- 5 until the optimality conditions are sat isfied.

Lemma 6.4.1 and Lemma 6.4.2 guarantee that the feasible updated plant struc-
ture in Step 5 is stab le if the initial plant of Step 1 is stab le. This in turn represents
a sufficient condition that ensures that every instance of the LQR in Step 2 of the
algorithm has a feasible solution , [70], [48].
 129
Computing the gradient of the objective function

Lemma 6.4.3. Th e sensitivit y fJf( x* (y))/fJy of the following optimization problem

x*(y) =argmin f( x)
X

subj ect to c(x,y) = 0

is
fJJ(x*(y)) = fJL I • ·= *TfJc(x,y)
fJy fJy x=x ,t=t t fJy lx=x• (6.47)

where t*T is the vector of lagrange multipli ers at the opt imal point x*.

Proof. At any optimal point x*, t* , Lagrangian of t he problem , L , that is defined as,

L( x, y, t) = f(x) + tTc(x, y) ,
must satisfy ,

L( x*(y), y, t*(y)) = f( x*(y)) + t*T(y)c(x*(y), y) = f (x*(y)).

since,
c(x*(y) , y) = 0.

Differentiating the Lagrangian at the optimal point , x*, t*, yields,

fJJ(x*(y)) fJL (x*(y), y, t*(y)) _

fJy fJy -
fJL fJx*(y) fJL fJt*(y) fJL
= fJx lx=x• ,t=t• fJy + 8t lx=x• ,t=t • -a;;-
+ fJy lx=x• ,t=t•,

Th e first order optimality condition s, i~lx=x•,t=t•= 0, ~flx=x•,t=t• = 0, give,

Lemm a 6.4.3 suggests a met hod for comp utin g th e grad ient of th e objective
function . From the equat ion in (6.47), computat ion of the gradient involves the
 130
dual var iab les t*. The dual prob lem associated with the insta nce of LQR in the
Step 2 of the solut ion algorithm is,

min Tr[B wW B~T]

~ ,G

subject to (A(~ )+ BGfT + T(A( ~ ) +BG)+ er RG + Q = 0,

so that, after finishing the execution of the Step 2 the dual variab les T = TT can
be recovered by solving the observer Lyapunov equation ,

(A(~ )+ BGfT + T(A(.X)+BG)+ er RG + Q = 0.

An equiva lent form of the Lemm a 6.4.3 for the prob lems involving matrices results
in the following,
af(G*( ~ )) aL*

where ,

L* = Tr[(Gr RG + Q)X] + Tr[T(A(~) + BG)X + X(A( ~ ) + BGf + BwWB~)].

Grouping the terms that depend on ~ ' and using the fact that Tr[AB] = Tr[BA] =
Tr[B TAT] for compatible matrices yields ,

aL* = ~Tr[2TA(
8~ 8~
~ )X] =
-
2t
u~
T r [XTA(~)] .
-

From (6.37), it is clear that ~ appears in the [A(~)b, 1 block of the matrix A(~ )
only, so that,
aL * 8
~ = 2 ~ Tr[[XT]i ,2[A(~ )h1] =
0 0
a
=2 ~ Tr[[XT]i, 2M- 1V[C.XMV2]= 2 8~ Tr[MVi[XT
A l1,2M -1 ½r e']
A.
0 0

If the i th of npm column s of t he prestress basis AE is denoted Af , then ,

-aL* = 2-T
a r[M Vi[XT]i 2M - 1 Vr C
2
LA
AiE ~ . l =
8~ 8~ ' -·
= 2~ '""">..Tr[MV 2[XT]12M - 1v;rc Af].
8~ ~= i ,
 131
Finally, the gradient of the objective function can be written as
'
Tr[M½[XT] 1,2 M- 1 V[CJ\.fl
fJL* Tr[M½[XT] 1,2 M- 1 v[cAf]
grad= - =2 (6.48)
a~

6.4.3 Example

The planar tensegrity structure depicted in Figure 6.4 is optimized. The struc-
ture is supported at the two leftmost nodes yielding a stable structure for any feasible
choice for the prestress variables~- A vertical zero mean white noise disturbance of
a unit variance acts at the top rightmost node. The initial distribution of the pre-
stress is uniform, ~T = [ 0.1 0.1 0.1 ] T' as depicted in upper structure of Figure
6.4. The outputs of interest are the nodal positions of all free nodes .
The optimal distribution of the prestress is not uniform as indicated in the lower
structure of Figure 6.4. The elements that are prestressed are shown only. The
elements of the module of the structure that is closer to the supports are prestressed
more then the elements of the module closer to the excitation . The optimal prestress
of the two bars closer to the supports is binding , whereas for the two remaining bars
this constraint is not active.
The effect of the optimal prestress on the open-loop plant is depicted in Fig-
ure 6.6. This figure shows the vertical displacement of the top right node and it is
obvious that the optimal distribution of the prestress stiffens the plant. The closed
loop behavior of the system is shown in Figure 6. 7 depicting vertical displacement
of the top right node. It is clear that the L 2 norm of the plant output is reduced
compared to the initial plant. The same holds for the control energy. Figure 6.8
shows the contro l action of the controlled bar that is attached to the top right node.
The optimal LQR contro ller for the optimal plant requires less control energy than
the initial optimal controller.
 132

0.5
t W=1

-0.5

-1
5 6 7 8 9

t
4

W=1
0.5

-0.5
1.75 0.34
-1
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 6.4 . Initia l (up) Vs. optimal (down) distribution of the pr estress in the
tensegrity beam

1.5...- - -...,......---~--~--~---~-----~

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

0 .9

0.8

0 .? OL,___ _1-10
__ __,20___ 3.1..0
__ _c40___ 5L.O
-- - 6-:L0---::' 70

Figure 6.5. Convergence of the algorithm - objective Vs. it eration number

 133

Impulse Response

Ij I
08
11I I
I

0.6 ~I I

II I

04 I
µ=0 .01

0.2
Q)
'O
-~ 0
a.
E
<t

111 I I
1H
-0 .4 11 II I I

II I
11,
-0.6 JI) I
II - · initial plant
11') x optimized plant
- 0 8 I \,
I I

-1
0 500 1000 1500
Time (sec)

Figure 6.6. Impulse response of th e initial plant Vs. impulse response of the opti-
mized plant - effect of the structure optimization on its dynamic performance
 134

Impulse Response
0.3 1 -----------,--------------~-- J -x initial closed loop
optimized closed loop

0 .25

X
X

~
0.2

X
X
X
X
0 .15 X
<I>
'O X
X
.~
a.
E
i X
X
<( X
0.1

0 .05

- 0.05 ~- -----------'--------------'-----------____,
0 5 10 15
Time (sec)

Figure 6.7. Closed-loop impul se respons e of the initial plant Vs. the same response
for the optimized plant
 135

Impul se Response
0.1

- optima l contro ler for the initia l plant

x optimal controler for the optima l plant
- 0.1

- 0 .2 -

Q) - 0.3
'O
.-e
a.
E
< -0 .4

-0 .5

- 0.6

- 0 .7

-0 .8 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 2 3 4
Time (sec)

Figure 6.8. Optim al contro llers for the initial and the optim ized plants
 136
6.5 Conclusions

Stru ctur e and control designs have been tra diti onally two separa t e pro cesses th at
can yield significant perform ance limit at ions when perform ed independently. Th e
t ensegrit y stru ct ures have not been an except ion in th at regard . Thi s Chapt er of th e
dissertation demonstrat es a met hod for t he int egrat ed plant and cont rol design of a
t ensegrit y stru ctur e. In part icular, t he st ru ctur e is optimi zed over t he distribu tion
of th e pr estr ess th at yields an optim al cont rol perform ance.
The fact th at keeping th e prest ress param ete rs within th e feasible region can
not dest abilize a st able st ru ct ure, mot ivates the gradient based algorithm t hat is
proposed for solving th e probl em . Th e obj ect ive gradient was comput ed analyti cally.
This num erical algorit hm for solving t he problem proved to be efficient , alth ough
its compari son with ot her available algorit hms was not th e obj ective. Th ere is no
guarant ee th at th e solut ions are the global opt imum points since it has not been
est ablish ed th at th e probl em is of a convex nat ure. Nonet heless, t he algorithm th at
is propo sed guarantees a monotonic improvement of the performance criterion, and
th erefore can b e regard ed as a legit imate tensegrity design too l.
One of th e novelties in thi s Chapt er is th e demonstrat ion of th e decomp osition
of th e tensegrity pr est ress cone int o th e ext reme direct ions.
 Chapter 7

General conclusions and future

research

7 .1 Con cl us ions

Tensegrity technology has generated significant research int erest in th e past

years. The early recognized pot ential of these st ructures has not been followed
with many successful applications. This was partially du e to the lack of advanced
design methods.
This work has b een aimed at defining the methods for the synthesis of the tenseg-
rity structures by br idging the gaps between different engineering disciplines. Specif-
ica lly, t he focus of the research has been on defining advanced methods for designing
high performance structures for both stat ic and dynamic applications. In order to
achieve this final objectiv e, severa l int erme diat e steps were needed .
A unified method for tensegrity form-finding is establ ished first , with the goal
to define a numerically tractab le method for form-finding of a genera l tensegrity
structure . The method that has been prop osed here extends the results that were
availab le by exp licit ly incorporating shape constraints in the problem. A method-
ology for exp loit ing symmetry of the prob lem is demonstrated , and t he impact that
it has on its simp lification.

137
 138
Optimization of tensegrity structures has been studied in the two different frame-
works, static and dynamic. The optimal mass-to-stiffness-ratio design is a method
for optimization of static properties of a tensegrity. In comparison with an algorithm
similar to those proposed for truss structures, this procedure includes strength and
buckling constraints as well as the structure shape constraints. This method can be
applied to optimization of structures using different forms of these constraints. Its
formulation accommodates different symmetries of the structure. It can be used for
the optimization of the parameters of a structure that are of the integer character,
as demonstrated in the procedure for the optimization of the number of stages of a
tensegrity.
Control of tensegrities is studied first as a tracking contro l problem that is as-
sociated with the tensegrity reconfiguration. The open- loop contro l algorithms are
derived directly from the ana lytical solutions for the equilibrium of several struc-
tures. It is shown that this method of contro lling the reconfiguration of a structure
may be characterized with a small number of independent control signa ls, and it is
applicable independently from the size of the modular structure.
The set-point contro l of modular tensegriti es is studied in the context of the
integrated structure and control design . This work combines the results available
from the contro l theory with several properties of modular tensegrities , that are
estab lished in order to propose the solution algorithm .

7.2 Future research

Several extensions of the results shown in the dissertation are possible . The
following is the list of research topics directly related to this research , that should
be addressed using the results and the methods shown here .

• While the open-loop control algorithms for the reconfiguration of tensegrity

structures are very genera l, the main shortcoming associated with the recon-
figuration control of large structures is the large number of actuators that are
 139
needed. Some prelimin ary results have already demonstrat ed that the signif-
icant reduction in the numb er of the act uato rs can be achieved by using the
string actuators that conn ect more th an two nod es of a structur e. Mathemati-
cal tools for analy sis and design of these structures need furth er improv ements .

• The method for optimal mass-t o-st iffness rat io tensegrity design in its present
form assumes that the mater ials used to manufactur e str ings and bars are the
same . Hence, the pot enti al of reducing mass of the stru ct ure and increasing
its stiffness, by using sup erior materials for st rin gs, has not been incorpor ated
in the analysis here .

• Th e same gradient based method for the optimiz at ion of stru ct ure prestress
can be readily exte nded to th e optimization of the structure geometry and
for passiv e control of st ru ct ures by optimizing dist ribution of passive dampin g
elements .
Chapter 8

Appendices

8.A Equivalency of the force density and length-

minimization method for tensegrity form-finding
Let x 1 = x(IE1) denot e the partit ion of the vector x corr espo ndin g to the ind exed
set IE1 of elements ei.

Lemma 8.A.1. First order necessa ry condition s for the solut ion of the following
opt imizat ion problem

Given data IE1,Ev, AJ, le :

2
min I:: e;ElEt
.\ili(P )

l
p

l;(P) - llg,(p)II, , g(p) - [ ~ :::; p

subj ect to lv(P) = le.

(8.1)
ca n be written in t he following primal - du al form

[ -M(IE1) M(JE,,)] g(p) [ ~: ] - 0 (8.2)

where Av are the Lagrangian multipli er variab les.

140
 141
Proof. The objective function f (p) can be written in a compact quadratic form ,

f (p) = L AJJ(p); = g;>.Jgf = pTM(lEJf >-tM(lEJ )p .

ei EIEJ
(8.3)

Similarly , the compact form of the constraint function, c(p), is,

c(p) = g;(p)g v(P) = le (8.4)

Th e gradient of the objective function f (p) is,

(8.5)

which may be expressed in the equiva lent form ,

(8.6)

The J acobian of the constraints can be comput ed as,

(8.7)

With this , the first order necessary optimality conditions ,

(8.8)

yield,

(8.9)
and finally, after a rearrangement ,

[-M (JEJ) M(lEv) ][g JO(p) O

gv(P))
][AJ]
Av =
0 (8.10)

•
Lemma 8.A. 1 demonstrates the equiva lence of the force density method for form-
finding and the length-minimi zation method considered in [65]. The force density
variables in this context can be separated into two groups with the meaning of
 142
both being clearly identified. While the fixed force density variables >..
1 modify
the Hessian of the quadratic objective function , and thereby its gradient , the free
force density variables Av represent the Lagrange multipliers associated with the
problem. In contrast to what has been shown in [65], this result demonstrates that
some equilibrium configurations yield the minimum combination of element lengths ,
rather than minimal lengths of some of the elements.
The formulation of the length-minimization method in (8.1) is modified , from
the one considered in [65], by modifying the objective function . This modification
accommodates penalizing lengths of more than one group of elements. Since the
>..1can be set beforehand , this enables a control over the final pre-stress of the
equilibrium structure , which in turn enables a control over the desired equilibrium
configurations. For example , for the structure that has non-unique geometry , like the
one stage module of Figure 3.5, different choices of >..
1 parameteriz e all equilibrium
geometries through the implementation of the length minimizati on problem. By
choosing,

(8.11)

and varying its value as ,

(8.12)

all equilibrium configurations having a different twist angle a can be computed using
this method .
The equivalence of the force density method and the length-minimization method
that is established proves that the computational issues related to these two prob-
lems are equivalent. That is, the primal-dual approach of solving the length-
minimization method involves solving the force density equilibrium conditions. More-
over, this proves that the formulation of a form-finding problem using the force
density method is superior over the length minimization . This is due to the fact
that the force density method enables direct formulation of the relevant shape con-
straints , without guessing which element lengths should be constrained , and which
 143
ones should be free. An a priori knowledge of this is almost never existent when
formulating a new problem, so is not the equivalent knowledge of the force density
variables when solving the force density prob lem . Furthermore , the issues related to
the sign of the free force densities Av are not addressed by the length minimization
method in the present form, since there is no guarantee t hat the significant vari-
ab les in Av are non-negative. Changing some of the equality constraints to inequality
constraints is a way of modifying this prob lem further.
 144

4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5

0 0

0.5 0.5
0

-1 -1

Figure 8.1. Left: Symmetric three-bar modu le in the configuration with a = 1r / 4.

Right: Prestressed elements of an asymmetr ic extreme direction of the prestress
cone .

8.B Symmetry of prestress forces

This analysis considers the relationship between the symmetry of a structure
and the properties of the structure prestress. It has been already demonstrated in
the structure of Figure 2.4, that the symmetry of the forces is a sufficient, but not
a necessary condition for the equilibrium of a symmetric structure. The same can
be shown for the symmetric tensegrity modules ana lyzed in Section 3.4.2. One
can verify that the dimension of the null space of the equilibr ium matrix , CR_e,
of the structure of Figure 8.1 satisfies ;V(CR_e) E ]Rn• x 3 , independently from the
twist ang le a. It has been shown that the tensegrity prestress cone, C(AE), of this
structure is nontrivia l if and only if a be longs to the feasib le domain defined in
(3.35-3.37). It can further been shown that for any a E (g_,a) , the dimension of
the tensegr ity prestress cone satisfies C(AE) E 1Rn•x 3 , and that C(AE) E ]Rn.xi when
 145
0

. . . .
• . . • .
Q) 3 . . . .
"O
g
4 . . •
5 . .
6 . . .
7
0 2 6 8 10 12 14 16
element

Figure 8.2. Connectivity matrix of the three bar unit

a= Q or a= a.
0.4328 0.4328 0.2744
0.1584 0.4328 0.4328
0.4328 0.1584 0.4328
0.1293 0.3533 0.0473
0.0473 0.3533 0.1293
0.0473 0.1293 0.3533
0.1293 0.0473 0.3533
E 1f
A (n = 3 a= - t = 1) = 0.3533 0.0473 0.1293 (8.13)
' 4'
0.3533 0.1293 0.0473
0.4328 0.1584 0.1584
0.1584 0.4328 0.1584
0.1584 0.1584 0.4328
0 0.2744 0
0 0 0.2744
0.2744 0 0

Observe that none of the extreme directions of the prestress cone in (8.13) admits
cyclic symmetry of the structure, while the one dimensional prestress cones corre-
 146
spond ing to extreme feasible values of Q that are given in the following matrices do .

1 1
1 1
1 1
0.5774 0.5774
0.5774 0.5774
0.5774 0.5774
0.5774 0.5774
AE(n = 3 = - t = 1) =
7r E 7r
(X 0.5774 A (n = 3 (X = -2' t = 1) = 0.5774
' 6' ' '
0.5774 0.5774
1 0
1 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
0 1

3.5
3.5

2.5
2.5

1.5
1.5

0 .5
0.5

0,5

-1 -1

Figure 8.3. Elements of the three -bar module that are prestr essed in the two con-
figurat ions with the extre me values of Q
 147
The extreme direction of the prestress cone of the same module for the configu-
ration with a = 1r /3 are given in th e following matrix , and depicted in Figure 8.4

1 1 0
1 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 1
E 7r
A (n = 3) a= -3 ) t = 1) = 0 1 0 (8.14)
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
1 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0

o.s

_, -1 -I -1

Figur e 8.4. Elements of the thre e-bar module that are prestr essed in each of the
three extreme direction of the prestress cone when a = 1r / 3
 148
8.C Open-loop control laws for typical elements
of modular tensegrities

8.C.1 Control of structures build from the one-stage module

The procedure defined in Chapter 4 is used to compute the closed form of the
string rest-length reconfiguration contro l for the tensegrity plate. Let the connec-
tivity parameters of the module in Figure 3.5 be m = 0 and q = 0. The lengths of
the string elements can be computed from (3.15), using (3.11), and (3.12),

l2 = llg2II= 2r sin(;) ,
l4 = IIg4II = ✓,-h-2_+_2_r-
2t-(c-o-s(- _+_a_)_--co_s_a_)
2n-1r ,
(8.15)
ls= llgsll = 2rtsin(;),
l1 = llg1II= ✓,-lb_
2 ___4_r-2t-s-in_
(_2:-)-s1-.n-a.

The open-loop contro l law for reconfiguration of the module is obtained by substi-
tuting (8.15), and (3.38)-(3.43) into (4.4) which yields ,
_ 2r sin(;)a2y2
lo2 - A, r t sec (1r:;:;:
- a ) srn
• ( 21r)
+ a 2y2 ,
-:;:;:--
1

2 _+_2_r_2 -t(-co_s_(_~_+_a_)_--co_s_a-)a4y4
✓,.lb_

lo4 = -------------,============---- '

2.\ 1 cos(;) cos a sec(; - a)Jlb 2 + 2r 2t(cos(2: + a) - cos a)+ a4 y 4
2rt sin( ;)a5y5 (8. l6 )
los = /\, r sec (:;:;:
1r
- a ) srn
• ( 21r)
+ a5Ys '
-:;:;:--
1
Jh 2 - 4r 2t sin(2:) sin aa7y7
lo1 = ------'---------;=========--- ,
.\ 1 cos(;+ a) sec(; - a)Jh 2 - 4r 2t sin(2:) sin a+ a1y1

a E [i- ;, i].
where , ,\ 1 2: 0, and r, and t must satisfy (3.13)-(3 .14).
Th e control law for structures that are built from this module is computed next.
If a string ei of the module is divided into two string , eq, and es, as a result of
attaching node Llr of an adjacent module to it, as it is the case in tensegrity plates ,
 149
the rest- length control for these new strings must be recomputed. In the tensegrity
plates ana lyzed in Chapter 3, the strings equivalent to the string e 2 of Figure 3.5
are divided int o two sections, e 2, , and e 2,,, that have lengths ,

l2, = '"'(l2 = 2'"'(r sin(;) ,

(8. 17)
l211= (1 - '"Y
)l 2 = 2(1 - '"Y)rsin(;),

where the feasible values of the parameter '"Y

, for the different plates , are defined
in Section 3.5.1. Result 3.5 .1 and (3.39) provide solut ions for the equilibrium force
densities of these strings. If force densities of all bars in the structure are the same ,
independently from the unit that they belong to , the force densities of strings e 2,,
and e 211are as follows ,

1 1 t 1r 1r 21r
A211= -->-. 2 = -->-. 1- csc(-) sec( - - a) sin( - ) , (8.18)
1-'"'( 1-'"'( 2 n n n
~>-.2= A12\ csc(;) sec(; - a) sin(2:) , if n = 3,
>-.
2, = (8.19)
{ ~>-.2 = >-.
1~ csc(;) sec(; - a) sin(2:) , if n = 4 or n = 6.

Observe that all tensegrity plates ana lyzed in Chapter 3 emp loy modules with
truncation parameter t = 1, so that strings e 2, and e 5 are equiva lent , and all the
results given for the bottom strings e 2,, and e 211apply to the top string e 5, , and e 5,,
respectively. Substituting (8.17) , and (8.18) int o (4.4) yields the rest-length contro l
for these elements ,

2r sin(;)a2y2
lo2,, = ('"'I- 1) ,>..r sec ( :;:;: ( 21r) , (8.20)
- a sm -:;:;:-+ a2y2
1r ) •
1
2rsin ( ;)a 2y2 if n = 3
l _ '"'(>.1rs ec( ~-o) s in ( ~)+a2y2 ' '
(8.2 1)
02 1 - 2rsin(.!!: )a 2y2 "f
{ ~
1 n 1 n= 4 mn= 6
2>.1r sec(~ -o) s in ( ~ ) +a 2y2 ' '

With this we concl ud e the derivation of the closed form expressions for the string
'
rest-length contro l for tensegrities that employ the one-stage module only. This
includ es tensegrity plates and class-two tensegrity towers.
 150
8.C.2 Control of structures build from the two-stage mod-
ule

For the tensegrity towers built from the two-stage modules , th e closed form of the
contro l law is defined in the same way. Lengths of the characteristic strings of the
two-stage module in Figure 3.6 are computed first , by combining and substituting
(3.52)-(3.54) into (3.55) ,

l2 = 11g2 11 = 2r sin ( ~) ,
l4 = llg4II = ✓~h-2 _+_2_r- 2 t-(c-o-s(-2n_7r_+_a_)_--
co_s_a_),

ls = llgs II = 2rt sin(~) , (8.22)

l1 = 11g1 II = ✓,_lb-
2 ---4-r-
2 t-s-in_(_~-)-si_n_
a,
2
lio = llg1oll = 2Jh - r 2 (1 + t 2 ) + 2r 2 tcos(2: + a).

Substituting (8.22), and (3.60)-(3.65) into (4.4) yields t he open-loop control law for
th e two-stage unit ,

l _ 2r sin( ~ )a2y2
02 - r sin (~ )((>. 1+>.7)tcos( ~ )- >.1 cos(~ -0)->.1 cos( ~+a)) csc( ~) csc a+a2y2'
l _ Jtb
2+2r 2t(cos(~+a)-cosa)a
4 y4

04 - csco(>. 1 sin( ~+a)+>.1 sin ( 2,; -a))Jlb 2 +2r 2t(cos( 2,; +o)- cos a)+a4y4'

2rtsin( ~) sin oa5y5

-2(>.1 +>.1)r cos(~ )(t cos o- 1)+2( >.1->.1 )rt sin (~) sin o+si n oasys '
(8.23)
l _ Jlb2 -4r 2tsin(~)sinoa7y 7
07 - >.7 Jlb2 -4r 2tsin(~)sino+a1y7'

2Jlb 2 -r 2 (l +t 2)+2r 2t cos(~ +o)a10Y10

where , ,\ 1 ~ 0, and a and .\7 satisfy, (3.77) and (3.75)-(3.76), and r and t satisfy
(3.13)-(3.14). If strings used to control the deployment of the structure are rigid,
that is yiai - oo, then loi --+ li and the rest-length contro l law (8.23) reduces to the
length contro l given by (8.22).
 151
Deploying the module with the prescribed rate of changing the height
using rigid strings

Let the desired rate, h, of changing the hight of the stages of the module during
a reconfiguration be given , and let the truncation rat io t and the twist angle a be
constant. Th e desired height of the stages evolves as,

(8.24)

which uniquely defines t he radi us of a modu le and its time derivative as,

l/ - h2(T)
r(T) =
(1 + t 2 - 2tcos(2: +a)) '
dr -h(T)h
dT = r(T)( l + t 2 - 2tcos(2: +a)) ·

With this, the rates of chang ing t he lengt hs of th e rigid strings are,
. . 11'
lo2 = l2 = 2r sin ( - ) ,
n
. . 4r(T)rt(cos(2: + a) - cos a)
lo4 = l4 = ---=============== '
2 ✓h 2 + 2r 2 (T)t(cos(2: + a) - cos a)
. • 11'
lo5 =ls= 2rts in(- ) ,
n
. . -8r( T )r sin(2:) sin a
lo7 = h = ---========== '
2 ✓lb 2 - 4r2 (T)t sin(2:) sin O'.
i010 = i10 = 2h(T).

If a pulley of the rad ius r pull ey ; is used to wind a string , angular velocity ni of the
shaft that the pulley is mounted to must be ,

(8.25)
Bibliography

[1] A. Back and R. Conne lly. Catalogue of symmetr ic tensegrities.

http :/ /math lab .cit.corne ll.edu/visualization/tenseg / tenseg.htm l, March 1998.

[2] A. Ben-Tal, M. Kocvara , A. Nemirovski , and J. Zowe. Free material design via
semidefinite programming: The multiload case with contact condit ions. SIAM
J. Optimization , 9:813- 832, 1999.

[3] A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski. Robust truss topo logy design via semidefinite
programming. SIAM J. Optimi zation , 7:991- 1016, 1997.

[4] A. Ben-Tall and M.P. Bendsoe . A new method for opt imal truss topo logy
design . Siam J. Optim , (3):322- 358, 1993.

[5] M. P . Bendsoe. Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem . Struc-

tural Optimi zation , 1:193- 202, 1989.

[6] M. P. Bendsoe . Optimization of Structural Topology, Shape , and Material.

Spring er , 1995.

[7] M. P. Bendsoe and N. Kikuchi. Generating optimal topologies in struct ura l de-
sign using a homoz enizat ion met hod . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engin eering, 71:197-224 , 1988.

[8] C. R. Calladine. Buckmin ster fuller's tensegrity stru ctures and clerk maxwell's
rul es for th e constru ct ion of st iff frames. Int ernational Journal of Solids and
Stru ctures, 14(2) :161- 172, 1978.
152
 153
[9] Juan F. Camino, Mauricio Carvalho de Oliveira, and Robert E. Skelton. Plant
and contro l design using convexifying LMI methods. In Proceedings of the 15th
IFA C Conference , pages 2405-2410, Barcelona , Spain , 2002.

[10] Juan Francisco Camino, Mauricio Carvalho de Oliveira , and Robert E . Skelton.
'Convexify ing' linear matrix inequality methods for integrating structure and
control design. Journal of Structural Engineering - ASCE , 129(7) :978- 988,
2003.

[11] R. Connelly and A. Back. Mathematics and tensegrity. American Scientist ,

86(2): 142- 151, 1998.

[12] R. Connelly and M. Terrell. Globly rigid symmetric tensegrities. Structural

topology , 21:59- 78, 1995.

[13] M. F. Coughlin and D. Stamenovic. A tensegrit y structure with buckling com-

pression elements: Application to cell mechanics . Trans . of ASME 1 Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 64:480- 486, 1997.

[14] B. de Jager and R.E . Skelton. Optimizing stiffness properties of tensegrity

structures. In Proceedings of International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition 2001 , volume 3330 , New York, 2001.

[15] Mauricio Carvalho de Oliveira, Juan. F. Camino , and Robert E. Skelton. A

convexifying algorithm for the design of structured linear contro llers. In Pro-
ceedings of the 39th CDC Conf erence , pages 2781- 2786 , Sydney, Australia ,
2000 .

[16] A. R. Diaz and M. P. Bendsoe. Shape optimization of structures for multiple

loading conditions using a homogenization method. Structural Optimization ,
4:17-22, 1992.

[17] E. Fest e, K. Shea, B. Domer, and I.F. C Smith. Adjustable tensegrity structures.
Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE, 129( 4):515 - 526, 2003 .
 154
[18] R. Bu ckminist er Fuller. Tensil e- integrity struc tur es. US Pat ent , 3,063,521,
1962.

[19] P. E. Gill , W . Murra y, and M. A. Saunders . User 's guide for SNOPT 5.3: a
Fortran package for large-sca le nonlinear pro grammi ng. Numerica l Analysis
Report 97-5, Department of Mathematics , University of California, San Diego,
La Joll a, CA , 1997.

[20] P. E . Gill, W. Murra y, and M. A. Saund ers. SNOPT: An SQP algorit hm for
lar ge-scale constra ined opt imization. SIAM J. Optim. , 12(4) :979- 1006, 2002.

[21] P. E . Gill, W. Murray , and M. H. Wright. Pra ctical Optimization. Academic

Pr ess, London and New York, 1981.

[22] B. Grunbaum and G.C. Shepard . Tilings and Patt ers. W .H Freeman and
Company , New York, 1986.

[23] J. Han. Nonlinear dynamic mod el of t ensegrity struct ures. Technical report ,
UCSD , Dept . of MAE , Stru ctural Syst ems and Contro l Lab., 2000.
1
[24] A. Hanaor. Double-layer tensegrity grids - stat ic load respons e. 1. ana lytica l
study . J ourna l of Stru ctural Eng ineerin g-ASCE , 117(6):1660- 1674, 1991.

[25] A. Hanaor. Doubl e- layer tensegr ity grids as deployable stru ctures. Interna-
tiona l Jou rnal of Space Stru ctures, 8, 1992.

[26] D. E . Ingber. Cellular tensegrit y: Defining new rul es of biological design t hat
govern the cytoskeleton. Journal of Cell S cience, 104(3):613- 627, 1993.

[27] D. E. Ingber. Tensegrity: Th e architect ural basis of cellular mechanotransduc-

tion . Annual R eview of Phy sio logy, 59:575- 599, 1997.

[28] D. E . Ingb er. Architecture of life. Sci entifi c American , Janu ary:48- 57, 1998.

[29] F . Jarr e, M. Kocvara , and J. Zowe. Optim al truss design by int erior-point
methods . Siam J. Optim , 8(4):1084- 1107, 1998.
 155
[30] N. Kanchanasaratool and D. Williamson. Modeling and control of class nsp
tensegrity structures. Int ernational Journal of Control , 75(2):123- 139, 2002.

[31] H. Kenner. Geodesic math and how to use it . University of California Press,
Berkl ey, California , 1976.

[32] H.S Khalil. Nonlinear systems . Prentice Hall, 1996.

[33] J.B . Lu and R.E. Skelton. Integrating structure and control design to achieve
mixed h- 2/h - infinity performance. International Journal of Control, 73(16).

[34] M. Masic and R.E. Skelton. Open-loop shape contro l of stable unit tenseg-
rity structures. In Proceedings of 3rd World Congress of Structural Control,
volume 2, pages 439- 447, Como , Italy , 2002.

[35] J. C. Maxwell. On the calculation of the equilibrium and stiffness of frames.

London , Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, pages 294- 299, 1864.

[36] R. Motro. Forms and forces in tensegrity systems. In H. Nooshil , editor ,

Proceeding of Third International Conference on Space Structures , pages 180-
185, Amsterdam, 1984. Elsevier.

[37] R. Motro. Tensegrity systems and geodesic domes. International Journal of

Space Structures, 5:341- 351, 1990.

[38] H. Murakami. Static and dynamic ana lysis of tensegrity structures. part 1.
nonlin ear equat ions of motion. International Journal of Solids and Structures.,
38(20) :3599- 3613, 2001.

[39] H. Murakami and Y. Nishimura. Static and dynamic character ization of regu-
lar truncated icosahedral and dodecahedral tensegrity modules. Int ernational
Journal of Solids and Structures. , 38(50-51):9359 - 9381, 2001.

[40] Y. Nishimura. Static and Dynamic Analisys of Tensegrity Structures. PhD

thesis, University of California San Diego, La Jolla , CA, USA, 2000.
 156
[41] M. Oliveira and J . Akesson. Tensoft software for nonlin ear dynami c analyis
of tensegrity structures. Technical report , UCSD , Dept. of MAE , Structural
Syst ems and Control Lab ., 2000.

[42] S. Pellegrino . Mechanics of kinematica lly indeterminate structures. PhD thesis ,

Universit y of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK, 1986.

[43] S. Pellegrino and C.R. Calladine. Matrix ana lysis of statist ically and kinemat i-
cally indeterm inate fram eworks. Int ernational Journal of Solids and Structures ,
22( 4):409 - 428 , 1986.

[44] A. Pugh . An Introduction to Tensegrity. University of California Pr ess, Berke-

ley, CA, USA, 1976.

[45] G.I.N . Rozvany. Structural Design via Optima lity Criteria , Th e Prager Ap-
proach to Structural Optimi zation , volume 8. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publi shers.

[46] M. Save, W. Pr ager , and G. Sacchi. Stru ctural Optimi zation , Volume 1, Opti-
mality Criteria ,Mathematical Concepts and M ethods in Science and Engin eer-
ing, volume 34. New York: Plenum Press .

[47] H. J. Schek. Th e force density method for form finding and computation of
general networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Eng ineering ,
3(1):115 - 134, 1974 .

[48] R. E. Skelton. Dynam ic Systems Contro l - Linear Systems Analy sis and Syn-
th esis. John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

[49] R. E . Skelton . Integr ate d plant and contro ller design . Am erican Control Con-
fer ence, S eattl e, Jun e 21- 23,, 1995.

[50] R. E. Skelton and R. Adhikari. An introdu ct ion to smart tensegrity structures .

In Proc. 12th ASCE Eng ineering Mechanics Conj., pages 24- 27, San Diego,
CA, USA, March, 1998.
 157
[51] R. E. Skelton , J .P. Pinaud , and D.L. Mingori. Dynamics of the shell- class of
tensegrity structures. Journal of Th e Franklin Institute , 2- 3(338) , 2001.

[52] RE. Skelton , B .R. Hanks, and M. Smith. Structure redesign for improved
dynamic - response. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynam ics, 15(5) .

[53] K. Snelson . Stucture & tensegrity. www.kennethsnelson.net.

[54] K. Snelson. Continuous tension , discontinuous compress ion structures. U.S.

Pat ent 3, 169, 611, 1965.

[55] D. Stamenovic , J .J. Fredberg , N. Wnag , J .P. Butl er, and D.E . Ingb er. A
microstructural appro ach to cytos keletal mechanics based on tensegrity. Journal
of Th eoretical Biology , 181(2) :125- 136, 1996.

[56] C. Sultan. Modeling , design , and control of tensegrity structures with applica-
tions . PhD thesis , Purdue University , School of Aeronautics and Astronautics ,
West Lafayett e, USA, 1999.

[57] 0 . Sultan, M. Corless, and R. E . Skelton . Symmetric reconfiguration of tenseg-

rity structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 39:2215- 2234,
2002.

[58] C. Sultan , M. Corless , and R. E. Skelton. Deployment of tensegrity structures.

Int ernationa l Journal of Solids and Structures , 40(18):4637-4657 , 2003.

[59] C. Sultan , M. Corless , and R.E . Skelton. Peak to peak control of an adaptive
tensegrity space telescope. In Proceedings of SPIE 6th Symposium on Smart
Structures and Materials 3323, pages 190- 201, 1999.

[60] C. Sultan , M. Corless , and R.E. Skelton . Tensegrity flight simulator. Journal
of Guidanc e, Control , and Dynami cs, 23(6):1055 - 1064, 2000.

[61] C. Sultan and R. E . Skelton . The pr estressab ility problem of tensegrity struc-
tures. some analytical solutions . Journal of Solids and Structures , 38(30-
31):5223 - 5252, 2001.
 158
[62] C. Sultan and RE. Skelton . Force and torque smart tensegrity sensor. In
Pro ceedings of SPIE 5th Sympo sium on Smart Structures and Mat erials 3323,
pages 357- 368, 1998- 1.

[63] C. Sultan and R.E . Skelton. Tendon control deployment of tensegrity structures.
In Proceedings of SPIE 5th Symposium on Smart Stru ctures and Materials 3323,
pages 455- 466, 1998- 2.

[64] A. G. Tib ert . D eployabl e Tensegrity Structures for Space Applications . PhD
th esis, Royal Institut e of Technology, Sto ckholm , Sweden , 2002.

[65] A. G. Tib ert and S Pellegrino . Review of form- finding met hods for tensegrity
structures. Int erna tiona l Journal of Space St ructures, 2001.

[66] A. G. Tib ert and S. Pellegrino . Deployable tensegrity masts. In 44th

AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS/ ASC Structures , Structural Dy namics and Mate-
rial Conferenc e en d Exhibite , Norfolk, VA, USA, 2003.

[67] N. Vasart and R Motro . Multiparameter ed formfinding method: applicat ion to

tens egrity systems. Int ernationa l Journal of Space Structur es, 14(2):147- 154,
1999.

[68] N. Wang , K. Naruse , D. Stamenovic , J .J. Freedberg, S.M. Mijailovic, I.M.

Toric-Norr elykke, T . Polt e, R Manix, and D.E . Ingb er. Mechanical behavior
in living cells consist ent with the tensegrity mod el. procedings of the national
academy of sciences of the unit ed states of Am erica, 98(14):7765- 7770, 2001.

[69] D. Williamson , RE. Skelton , and J. Han. Equilibrium conditions of tens egrity
stru ctur es. In Third World Conference on Structural Control , volume 2, pages
407- 424, Como , It aly, 2002.

[70] K. Zhou and J. C. Doyle. Ess ent ials of Robust Control, chapt er 13, pages
255- 261. Prenti ce Hall, Upp er Saddle River , NJ 07458, 1998.