Structural Engineering International

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsei20

Form Finding and Structural Optimisation of

Tensile Cable Dome Using Parametric Modelling
Tools

Iria Heitel (Engineer) & Feng Fu(Senior Lecturer)

To cite this article: Iria Heitel (Engineer) & Feng Fu(Senior Lecturer) (2021) Form Finding and
Structural Optimisation of Tensile Cable Dome Using Parametric Modelling Tools, Structural
Engineering International, 31:2, 271-280, DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2020.1750937

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2020.1750937

Published online: 19 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 225

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
Form Finding and Structural Optimisation of Tensile Cable
Dome Using Parametric Modelling Tools
Iria Heitel, Engineer; Feng Fu , Senior Lecturer, School of Mathematics, Computer Science & Engineering, City, University of London,
London, UK. Contact: cenffu@yahoo.co.uk
DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2020.1750937

Abstract finding is the process of determining

an initial equilibrium shape of a struc-
In this paper, a new framework of form finding and structural optimisations for ture. For tensile structures, the form-
tensile domes was developed using a cutting-edge parametric modelling tool, finding process adheres to the principle
Grasshopper in Rhino. The detailed exploration of this new technique is of “form follows force”, where the geo-
presented. It is found that the use of this parametric tool allows a more metry depends on the relationship
intuitive, rapid and flexible design. Structural optimisation of the member sizes, between topology and forces.
topology and surface can be explored easily at an initial design stage in a
project, providing a more effective and efficient way for form finding and In the past, form finding was done
structural optimisation. Based on the new method, a prototype tensile dome through experimentation using phys-
which is to replicate the existing tensile structure Georgia dome is designed ical models.6 However, physical form-
and analysed. The structural behaviour of the cable domes is investigated. finding methods are time consuming.
Using this new framework, two elliptical tensile domes with new geometric
configuration are developed. They exhibit enhanced load-bearing capacity, and New Technologically Advanced
therefore can be used in future long-span structure projects. Physical Form Finding in
Keywords: form finding; parametric design; force density method; dynamic Computational Methods
relaxation method; Grasshopper Different numerical methods have
been introduced over the years. In
1975, Argyris developed a form-
Introduction applied to cables in the self-equili-
finding method based on the finite
brium state; these significantly influ-
element method.7 Barnes introduced
ence the behaviour of a loaded
Lightweight tensile structures, such as a dynamic relaxation method (DRM),
structure and greatly contribute to its
tensile cable domes using a membrane which is defined by a system of
stiffness and stability. The ridge cables
as a roof cover, offer aesthetic richness springs and particles.8 The applied
are anchored into the compression
and material efficiency.1 The light- ring, a large concrete ring beam in
load causes the particles to move until
weight membrane structures origi- they eventually stabilise in a state of
most cases, to resist the huge tensile
nated from Frei Otto’s soap-film equilibrium. In the 1970s, Schek intro-
force from the cables. The cable dome
models in 1950. Tensile structures duced the force density method,
is a geometric nonlinear system, and
offer a wide range of design choices which remains the most used
the structural analysis can be divided
and innovations such as building envel- method.9 The stiffness matrix method
into two phases: the first phase is the
opes and façades.2,3 The initial geo- initial equilibrium (form finding); the
comes from structural analysis and
metric shape of tensile structures uses the elastic and geometric stiffness
second phase is static analysis.
depends on the equilibrium of the matrices. This method includes
internal forces of the structure. Any The design of cable domes requires a unnecessary material properties that
discontinuity in the membranes will balance between minimising steel increase cost and have difficulty in con-
lead to wrinkling and deformation, usage and providing sufficient stiffness trolling a stable convergence.10 The
and therefore reduce the life expect- through the judicious use of tension force density method can solve the
ancy of the structure. Hence, for this cables. The key task of optimisation is equilibrium equation of a tensile struc-
type of structure, to resist applied to find the minimal amount of material ture that is transformed into a discrete
loads, an adequate level of prestress is for a given structure with enough stiff- cable network, nodes and lines.11 In a
fundamental. The stress–strain ness. The geometry of tensile struc- cable network, pin-jointed network
relationship is geometric nonlinear, tures can be created by free-form structures reach the state of equili-
which requires specific design software mathematical methods, such as hyper- brium when the internal and external
for the analysis.4 bolic catenary hanging shapes related forces are balanced.12 The force
to funicular structures.5 The philos- density method is material indepen-
For long-span structures, self-weight is ophy of form finding by self-forming dent. It produces results that may
critical in the design. Therefore, light- processes developed into the concept serve only as preliminary, and
weight tensile structures such as cable of “minimal surfaces”, the smallest additional iterations may be necessary.
domes are widely used. A cable dome surface areas requiring the least poten-
consists of ridge cables, diagonal tial energy.
cables, hoop cables, vertical struts, an Structural Optimisation
inner tension ring and an outer com- The optimal topology of a structure
pression ring. The cables are in Form Finding aims to minimise material and weight,
tension and the struts are in com- Form finding is the first important step maximise stiffness and enhance the
pression. Initial prestresses should be in tensile cable dome design. Form load-bearing capacity. The design of

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021 Scientific Paper 271

the free-form surface and envelopes
has three main aspects: sizing, topology
and shape, related to the spatial con-
figuration and geometry.13
Structural optimisation can be cate-
gorised into two steps: (a) reduce the
size of individual members, and (b)
optimise the topology to decrease the
number of steel members, therefore
decreasing the weight and excessive
stresses.
Parametric Modelling
Parametric modelling is a new model-
ling process with the ability to change
the shape of model geometry through
modification of the parameters.14 It is
implemented through computer pro-
gramming code such as a script to
define the dimensions and shape of
the model. The model can be visual-
ised in three-dimensional (3D)
draughting programs to resemble the
attributes of the original project. Para-
metric modelling was first invented
using the 3D draughting software Rhi-
noceros® (Rhino). The key advantage
of parametric modelling, when setting
up a 3D geometric model, is that the
shape of the model geometry can be
changed as soon as the parameters,
such as the dimensions or curvatures,
are modified; therefore, there is no
need to redraw the model whenever
a change is required. This greatly
saves time for engineers, especially in
the scheme design stage. Before the
advent of parametric modelling, the
scheme design was not an easy task
for designers, as the model was prone
to be changed frequently, requiring a
great amount of work in the modifi-
cation of the analysis model. Conven-
tional methods to track changes are
complex, and maintaining the quality
of the design in complex structures
with a tight deadline can be especially
challenging. It requires more time,
and usually several physical models
will have to be built to test the
design options. Parametric modelling
allows the designer to modify the
entire shapes of the model, not just
individual members. It can simulate
the behaviour of the structure under
loading and make initial calculations
to study the feasibility of the design
options. This can be visualised and
changes to the geometry can be per-
formed so one can instantly gain a
sense of what is happening to the
global structural system when the geo-
metry is modified. The effect in the
272 Scientific Paper
whole system can be observed when
modifications are performed only par-
tially, therefore greatly saving the
engineers’ time.12,13
Use of Parametric Tools for Form
Finding and Structural
Optimisation
From the above literature review, it can
be seen that form finding and design
optimisation for tensile structure is a
complicated task. In particular, in the
current design project, the geometry
of the structure becomes increasingly
complicated.12,13 The traditional form-
finding techniques and structural
optimisation still need significant
improvement,15 as they cannot cope
with the increasingly complex struc-
tural geometry. They are more suited
to dealing with simple forms of struc-
tures, such as trusses. It is also difficult
for them to consider the effects of
buckling and the width to height
ratio, etc. The current complex struc-
tural forms require a better solution
that integrates all of these factors.16
Therefore, in this paper, a new digital
tool, Grasshopper in Rhino 3D,17 is
used for parametric modelling and
design optimisation of tensile domes.
The new method enables the efficient
simulation, evaluation and prerationa-
lisation of design outcomes for this
type of structure. The use of digital
tools for topology optimisation and
form finding enables a more integrated
and fully cooperative design.6 The use
of digital tools provides engineers and
architects with a faster way of rationa-
lising forms. Using the new tools, form
finding is able to develop an initial
design scheme and choose member
sizes while taking into consideration
the aesthetics and the vision of the
designer.18 By optimisation of shape
and topology, significant cost savings
can be made by reducing the amount
of material required for a structure.
Form Finding and Structural
Optimisation Method Using
the Parametric Tool
Grasshopper
In this paper, a new script was devel-
oped by the authors using the para-
metric tool Grasshopper in Rhino 3D.
This script is used to create a geometry
of cable domes and perform sub-
sequent form finding and structural
optimisation. This script was also used
for exporting the final geometry to
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
Oasys GSA for nonlinear analysis.
Several iterative processes between
Rhino and Oasys GSA were made
with the objective of minimising
material usage and reactions on the
foundations while achieving allowable
deflection by providing sufficient stiff-
ness from the cables.
Workflow of the New Digital Tool
Framework
Grasshopper, which is a graphical
algorithm editor integrated within
Rhino 3D’s modelling tools, is used as
the digital tool in this paper. Grasshop-
per allows users to automate tasks in
Rhino 3D or other programs that can
interoperate within the Rhino inter-
face. Grasshopper provides a multidi-
mensional data structure algorithm,
called a definition, that allows data
matching, and a program workflow
that organises building blocks of
pockets of algorithms in a logical,
user-friendly way while offering
highly efficient open-source, customi-
sable software to create, organise and
manipulate complex mathematical for-
mulae and geometries.
Grasshopper performs mathematical
operations and can evaluate conditions
and manipulate large sets of infor-
mation. The workflow of Grasshopper
allows users to create a visual represen-
tation of code, in the form of blocks
connected by wires. These blocks are
mainly parameters that store data and
components that perform actions
resulting in new data.
In the framework, input parameters
can be modified dynamically and inter-
actively. For example, the 3D grid-
based interface and value list of input
parameters allow exchange of data
from external software such as Excel
or Oasys GSA. The development of
the interoperability of Grasshopper
with other programs such as Autodesk
Revit and SAP 2000 makes Grasshop-
per a powerful tool for teamwork of
structural engineers and architects.
An interface for Grasshopper and
Oasys GSA is provided using Geome-
try Gym. The use of parametric tools
in the form finding of tensile structures
allows the user to freely model and
make changes at any stage of the
design process. A parametric model
created with Grasshopper allows auto-
matic generation of different versions
of a tensile dome by simply changing
a set of input or variables.
The parametric model is fully inte-
grated and responds to changes in
real time.
The structural analysis results, such as
cable deflections, produced by Oasys
GSA can be used to control par-
ameters and set limits under which
the length of the components can be
shortened, simulating a prestress con-
dition of the cables and setting con-
straints in the design. This allows
early use of optimisation tools that
affect the design decisions.
Design engineers and architects define
how a set of parameters will best influ-
ence the design through writing pipe-
line scripts.
Parametric design is the interface
between architects and designers where
they can bring problems to the canvas
and discuss the geometry and structure.
Cooperation is facilitated from the
early concept design stage throughout
the whole project duration. This was
not a possible when using traditional
methods, such as physical methods or
conventional software packages.
Structural engineers are now designing
the algorithms to perform structural
analysis more efficiently and they are
Fig. 1: Code design diagram for using Grasshopper to generate the tensile structure
Structural Engineering International
also participating more in the design, It can be seen that, as the whole
facilitating more collaboration and structure is generated using the para-
accommodating changes along the metric tools, it becomes easier to
pipeline in a more efficient way. perform form finding and structural
optimisation by simply changing
parameters.
Geometric Set-Up
Figure 1 shows the code pipeline
diagram using Grasshopper in Rhino,
which is used to generate the initial
geometry of a tensile cable dome.
Figure 2 shows the INPUT section,
which is used for changing the design
parameters by simply using sliders to
control the number and member
sizes of cables and struts in a tensile
dome.
Figures 3 and 4 show the pipeline code
for generating the first ring of cables
and struts in a tensile dome.
Figures 5 and 6 show the pipeline code
for generating the second ring of
cables and struts in a tensile dome.
Similarly, all other ring of cables and
structures are defined using
Grasshopper.
Figures 7 and 8 show the pipeline code
for generating the CENTRAL TRUSS
in the tensile dome using Grasshopper. Fig. 2: INPUT control of parameters
Nr. 2/2021 Scientific Paper 273
Fig. 3: Code for generating the first ring of cables and struts in tensile dome

Form Finding and Structural

Optimisation
The strength of Grasshopper is that it
can analyse a given geometry, and
data extracted from it that can be
further used for making new geometry.
With the plug-in Kangaroo for Grass-
hopper, boundary conditions loads
can be defined. Kangaroo14 is a
numerical simulation plug-in for Grass-
hopper, which performs geometrically
nonlinear structural analysis of the
digital models using a dynamic pro-
cedure. This plug-in uses the DRM
for form finding to find a static equili-
brium solution. After form finding, a
structural analysis can be further
explored by exporting it to commercial
software such as GSA. Geometry Gym
Fig. 4: First ring of cables and struts generated by Grasshopper (green)

Fig. 5: Code for generating the second ring of cables and struts in tensile dome

for Grasshopper is an interface

between Rhino and GSA. These tools
provide efficient means for manipulat-
ing and generating a 3D model with
form and shape as fundamental
factors in its performance. Using the
above process, the form finding, and
structural Optimisation of a cable
dome can be achieved.

Comparison of the New Method to

Existing Methods
New Method
The interdisciplinary design process of
parametric tools means that some pro-
cesses can be automated to facilitate
flexibility and quality in the design
Fig 6: Second ring of cables and struts in tensile dome by Grasshopper (green) process.

274 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021

Fig 7: CENTRAL TRUSS definition
Fig. 8: CENTRAL TRUSS definition generated by Grasshopper (green)
The initial sizes of members can be cal-
culated to assess the initial design.
Changes are adjusted automatically,
saving time along the design pipeline.
As a result, the quality of the design
is enhanced. In the case of tensile
cable domes, this is a great advantage
because it allows determination of a
set of parameters to assess feasibility
and optimise the individual members
and the structural system, allowing
changes at any time. Form finding opti-
mises the right level of prestress force
by the way in which loads are applied
to the system.
Parametric modelling can simulate the
behaviour of the structure under
loading and make initial calculations
to study the feasibility of the design
options. This can be visualised and
changes to the geometry can be per-
formed so that engineers can instantly
gain a sense of force and deflection
changes in the global structural
system when the geometry is modified.
The efficiency of the whole system
Structural Engineering International
under such modifications can be
checked. For example, the form-
finding method could be thought of as
a memory foam mattress that will
take the shape of your body when
you lie on it. In the case of tensile struc-
tures, the prestress force will define the
shape of the net, so understanding how
the forces are distributed is key to the
design. Form finding with the means
of parametric design will allow this
conversation between forces and
shape. The benefits of implementing
parametric design in the early stages
of construction are that creative think-
ing and rationalisation are involved
early in the design process. It requires
thinking about and analysing the
system and its parts, and computer pro-
gramming offers a set of tools to create
an algorithm that will assist with those
changes. So, when coding the script,
one is addressing the body of the
design and the assumptions that are
being made, while identifying the vari-
ables. With the movement towards pre-
fabrication, offsite construction and 3D
Nr. 2/2021
printing, a circular economy will need
an organisation of the construction
pieces that allows rationalisation but
also flexibility of the design. Being
compatible with additive manufactur-
ing processes, parametric modelling
will facilitate this transition.
Conventional Methods
For conventional methods, tracking
changes can be complex and maintain-
ing the quality of the design in complex
structures with a tight deadline can be
especially challenging. More time is
required, and usually several models
have to be built, to test the design
options.
Case Studies
A parametric model of a tensile ellipti-
cal dome was created in Rhino 3D
Grasshopper, as shown in Fig. 9. This
replicates the existing tensile structure
Georgia Dome (the dome was demol-
ished). Different parameters were set
out allowing variations in the size of
the elements and their connectivity.
The resulting free-form geometry was
then rationalised by changing par-
ameters through the pipeline code in
Grasshopper. The form finding and
optimisation results can be changed
freely and quickly in each iteration by
varying the parameters. An initial
form finding of different options was
conducted with the plug-in Kangaroo
using the dynamic relaxation method.
The results were compared and then
exported to GSA for further form
finding, which allowed an initial sizing
of the elements with the force density
method. Further nonlinear analysis
was then carried out and the results
were compared. Therefore, an iterative
process of form finding was carried out
with the objective of minimising the
sizes of the cross-section areas of
cables by distributing the force
density ratios. The rigidity and stiffness
Scientific Paper 275

Fig. 9: Model 1 in Rhinoceros 3D
of the dome comes are provided
through the equilibrium of internal
forces between cables and struts. To
avoid slackening of the cables, a high
level of prestress is required. This will
determine the sizes of the cables, and
thus the cost of the materials and the
construction process.
Meanwhile, different forms of cable
domes, Models 1, 2 and 3, are proposed
and compared. The topology of the
different models created was associ-
ated with different force density
ratios. A nonlinear analysis was per-
formed and the results were compared.
For comparative study purposes, the
dimensions of all the models have the
same height 30 m, width 192 m, length
240 m and 20 subdivisions in each
layer. As the dome has an elliptical
shape, the cables on the same layer
have different lengths. The dome has a
triangulated geometry similar to Levy’s
Georgia Dome and has a span of 240 m.
The following three models have
different numbers of concentric ellipti-
cal layers and the process of form
finding contributes to finding the
optimal prestresses of the cables and
the distribution of the forces in the
network. The cross-section areas of
the ridge cables from the outer layer
to the centre are 8540, 4600, 2200 and
2200 mm2. The lengths of the diagonal
cables are 480, 560, 240 and 240 mm,
respectively. The cross-section areas
of the hoop cables are 19,000, 26,800
and 7500 mm2. The yield strength of
the cables is 1670 N/mm2, and the
tensile strength of the cables is ft =
1860 N/mm2. Using these
276 Scientific Paper
specifications, if a ridge cable on the
outer layer has a cross-section area of
8540 mm2, the maximum stress
reached before failure will correspond
to 158,844 kN. The struts are S275 cir-
cular tubes in compression.
It was determined that an initial pres-
tress for averaging 30% of cable tensile
capacity was needed. Thus, a starting
value of 30% was taken to define the
initial force density value and the itera-
tive process of form finding.19 For a
ridge cable with a cross-section area of
8540 mm2, the initial force density
value q = fy * cross-section area * 0.3 =
4279 kN was taken.
A live load of 0.6 kN/m2 is applied on
the roof, with a projected wind load of
1 kN/m2. The nonlinear analysis is
defined for a combination of the
internal load due to prestresses and
the dead load of 1 kN/m2. A
Fig. 10: Model 2 in Rhinoceros
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
combination of internal loads due to
prestress, dead load and snow is also
compared.
Figures 9–12 illustrate how Grasshop-
per was used first to generate a
tensile dome. This model was then
exported into Oasys GSA using Geo-
metry Gym.
Model 1
It can be seen that, after loading, the
forces on the ridge cables decrease,
especially those on the top and inner
layers. The forces on the outer and
lower layer of diagonal cables increase,
while for the inner and upper layer the
forces decrease. The forces on the
hoop cable increase more rapidly on
the bottom layer.
The results in Fig. 13 show that Model 1
presents considerable vertical displace-
ment and deformation. The distribution
of the stresses and dimensions of the
cables and struts need to be further
adjusted. The necessary changes are
performed in the parametric model in
Grasshopper. Longer struts are added
and higher prestresses are considered.
The central zone of the tensile dome
needs to be reinforced with vertical
struts, and adding another concentric
ring of ridge cables and diagonal cables
seems to be a good idea since the hori-
zontal distances between the struts are
too large and the cables need to be
highly prestressed to maintain the
stresses.
Model 2
The new Model 2 is an improvement
on Model 1. An extra layer of struts
and ridges and diagonal cables is
 added. There are 12 different types of
elements with different rations of pres-
tresses. The prestress of the cables is
gradually increased during the form
finding with the force density method
in Oasys GSA. During the form
finding, the same dimensions of
height, width and length are kept, and
efficient use of the materials is
explored through the intelligent distri-
bution of the stresses in the network.
Figures 14–16 show the results of the
analysis.
Model 2 requires more cables and
struts than Model 1. However, it per-
forms well with an allowable
Fig. 11: Model 3 maximum vertical displacement of
506 mm. The results of form finding

Fig. 12: Grasshopper pipeline coding

Fig. 13: Form-finding results of Model 1

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021 Scientific Paper 277

Fig. 14: Form-finding results of Model 2

of Model 2 are geometrically more

satisfactory.

Model 3
Model 3 is a further improvement on
Model 2 where more cables were
added. The central zone is again the
weakest part of the structure. The
design process has the main objective
of strengthening the central part of
the dome.
Figures 17–19 show the analysis results
of Model 3. The initial force density
result is in the range of 4278–1092 kN
for the ridge and diagonal cables, and
Fig. 15: Static analysis results (reactions) of Model 2 13,416–3 787 kN for the tension hoop
cables. After form finding in Oasys
GSA, it has increased to 60%, with a
maximum of 26,822 kN, compared to
the initial 30% of the prestress level
of a cable. The stresses are distributed
through a more homogeneous
network. The maximum vertical
displacements have decreased with
the new geometry and prestress
distribution. By comparison, under
the same load conditions, Model 3 per-
formed better than Models 1 and 2,
mainly owing to the higher
prestresses of the cables. The weakest
part of the dome is the central zone.
Strengthening the central section of
the dome, especially the ridge and
diagonal cables in the central section,
Fig. 16: Static analysis results (vertical deflection Uz) of Model 2 was necessary.

278 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021

Fig. 17: Form-finding results of Model 3
Fig. 18: Static analysis results (displacements Uz) of Model 3
Fig. 19: Static analysis results (reactions) of tensile dome Model 3 ]
Analysis of Results and Discussion
In elliptical domes, the weakest part of
the structure is the central region
between the centre point and the first
hoop cable. Slackening of the cables
may cause failure. This applies
particularly to the ridge and diagonal
cables. The failure occurs mainly
by breaking of the hoops and
diagonal cables, buckling of the struts,
or both.
Structural Engineering International
The configuration of the cable net can
be either in a wedge shape or in a tri-
angular shape. A combination of both
will improve the stability and perform-
ance of a tensile dome.
The benefits of implementing para-
metric design in the early stages of con-
struction are that creative thinking and
rationalisation are involved early in the
design process. This requires thinking
about and analysing the system, and
Nr. 2/2021
computer programming offers a set of
tools to create an algorithm that will
assist with those changes.
Conclusions
In this paper, a new parametric tool for
form finding and design optimisation of
tensile structures is presented. Using
the new tool, a prototype model
which replicates the Georgia Dome is
first designed and analysed. Based on
the parametric form finding and optim-
isation results, this dome is further
improved and two new elliptical
tensile domes with new geometric con-
figurations are designed.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
. Computational design using para-
metric tools allows an initial design
evaluation of multiple form options,
facilitates an intuitive design
exploration of the topology, and
drives the structural optimisation
and exploration of the design in a
more efficient way.
. Any improvements in the design of the
tensile dome will focus on strengthen-
ing the ridge and diagonal cables of
the inner and upper parts of the
central section of the dome while mini-
mising the use of steel in the structure.
. The two new geometric configurations
of elliptical tensile domes were devel-
oped, primarily to strengthen the
central part of the dome. The new
types of tensile domes exhibit better
load-bearing features.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was
reported by the authors.
ORCID
Feng Fu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
9176-8159
Scientific Paper 279
References
[1] Adriaenssens S, Block P, Veenandaal D,
Williams C. Shell Structures for Architecture,
Form Finding and Optimization. Routledge:
New York, 2014.
[2] Benoît Descamps B. Computational Design
of Lightweight Structures, Form Finding and
Optimization. London: Wiley.
[3] Brandt-Olsen C. Harmonic form finding
for the design of curvature-stiffened shells.
Master of Philosophy, University of Bath, 2015.
[4] Berger H. Shaping lightweight
surface structures. IASS International
Symposium’97 on Shell and Spatial Structures,
Singapore, 1997.
[5] Castro G, Asce M, Levy P, Asce F. Analysis
of the Georgia Dome cable roof. Proceedings of
the Eight Conference of Computing in Civil
Engineering and Geographic Information
Systems Symposium, ASCE, 1992.
[6] Chandana P, Lipson H, Cuevas FV.
Evolutionary form finding of tensegrity
structures. Conference paper, Mechanical and
280 Scientific Paper
Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, USA,
2005.
[7] Argyris, J. H., Scharpf, D. W. Large deflection
analysis of prestressed networks. J. Struct. Div.
1972; 98(3): 633–654.
[8] Barnes, M. R. Form finding and analysis of
tension structures by dynamic relaxation. Int. J.
Space Struct. 1999; 14(2): 89–104.
[9] Schek, H.-J. The force density method for
form finding and computation of general net-
works. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
1974; 3(1): 115–134.
[10] Motro R. Tensarch: a tensegrity double-
layer grid prototype, Space Structures 5,
Thomas Telford: Guildford, 2002, 57.
[11] Fu F. Structural behaviour and design
methods of Tensegrity domes. J. Constr. Steel.
Res. 2005; 61(1): 23–35.
[12] Fu F. Advanced Modelling Techniques in
Structural Design. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell,
2015.
[13] Fu F. Design and Analysis of Tall and
Complex Structures. Oxford: Elsevier, 2018.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
[14] Shepherd P. On the benefits of a parametric
approach to stadium design. Proceedings of the
International Association for Shell and Spatial
Structures (IASS), Symposium, Amsterdam,
2015.
[15] Yuan X, Chen L, Dong S. Prestress design
of cable domes with new forms. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 2007; 44: 2773–2782.
[16] Pavlov GN. Methods of virtual architecture
used for the design of geodesic domes and multi-
petal shells. In Space Structures 5, Parke GAR,
Disney P (eds). Thomas Telford: Guildford,
2002, 673–681.
[17] Piker D. Kangaroo: Form Finding with
Computational Physics, 2013. http://kangaroo3d.
com
[18] Nenadović A. Development, characteristics
and comparative structural analysis of
Tensegrity type cable domes. Spatium Int. Rev.
2012; 22: 57–66.
[19] Fu F. Non-linear static analysis and design
of Tensegrity domes. Steel Composite Struct.
2006; 6(5): 417–433. doi:10.12989/scs.2006.6.5.
417