International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Solids and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr

Geometric design of triangulated bistable scissor structures

taking into account finite hub size
L.I.W. Arnouts a,b,⇑, N. De Temmerman b, T.J. Massart a, P.Z. Berke a
a
Structural and Material Computational mechanics (SMC), BATir Department, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 50, avenue Franklin Roosevelt, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pre-assembled scissor structures can be transformed from a compact bundle of elements to a fully
Received 31 March 2020 deployed configuration, offering a considerable volume expansion. Intended geometrical incompatibili-
Received in revised form 16 July 2020 ties during transformation can be introduced as a design strategy to obtain bistability, which allows
Accepted 8 September 2020
instantaneously achieving some structural stability in the deployed state. Because of these incompatibil-
Available online 16 September 2020
ities, some specific members bend during transformation, resulting in a controlled potentially tunable
snap-through behaviour. Geometric design methodologies were proposed in the literature to obtain a
Keywords:
compatible geometry (i.e. with all of the beams straight) in the folded and the deployed configurations.
Deployable structures
Scissor structures
However, most of these approaches do not consider finite hub sizes or introduce extra incompatibilities
Bistability in the geometry by adding hub legs. In this contribution, deployability conditions are derived taking the
Snap-through finite hub size, i.e. the spacing between the connections of the different beams to the hub, into account to
Geometric design make triangulated bistable scissor modules fully geometrically compatible in the folded and the deployed
Finite hub size configuration.
Nonlinear computational mechanics Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction uration (Zeigler, 1976; Zeigler, 1977; Clarke, 1984; Krishnapillai,

Scissor structures consist of pantographs or scissor-like elements
(SLE’s), that themselves consist of two straight beams connected at
their intermediate points by a revolute joint (Fig. 1). In this contri-
bution, translational and polar units are considered. For transla-
tional units (Fig. 1a), unit lines that connect the upper and lower
nodes of one SLE remain parallel during deployment. For polar
units (Fig. 1b), they intersect at a single point.
Scissor structures can behave as mechanisms during deploy-
ment, and in this case need additional members in order to be
stable in the deployed configuration. Other designs, the so-called
self-locking scissor structures, avoid this need for external manip-
ulation. By the satisfaction of certain geometric constraints, scissor
structures can have straight members in the folded and the
deployed configuration while geometric incompatibilities exist
during transformation. For these bistable structures, the structural
response is characterised by a snap-through type of behaviour that
‘locks’ the structure and assures its stability in the deployed config-
⇑ Corresponding author at: Structural and Material Computational mechanics
(SMC), BATir Department, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 50, avenue Franklin
Roosevelt, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail address: larnouts@ulb.ac.be (L.I.W. Arnouts).
1992; Rosenfeld and Logcher, 1988; Rosenfeld et al., 1993).
Gantes and Connor formulated a systematic approach for the
geometric and structural design for bistable deployable structures
(Gantes et al., 1989; Gantes et al., 1991; Gantes et al., 1993; Gantes
et al., 1993; Gantes et al., 1993; Gantes et al., 1994; Gantes, 2001).
Their geometric design approach included the deployability condi-
tions for flat, curved and arbitrarily shaped bistable scissor mod-
ules without and with hub size (i.e. the distance between the
centre point of the hub and the rotation axis of the beam around
the hub), which required solving a system of non-linear equations.
However, it was disregarded that when a structure is folded, the
joints can prevent the SLE’s to close on a straight line. Developing
and analysing bistable scissor structures is still a contemporary
research subject in civil engineering, as can be seen from the large
number of recent contributions (Gantes, 2004; Kawaguchi et al.,
2019; Lee et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2016; Roovers and De
Temmerman, 2017; Arnouts et al., 2018; Arnouts et al., 2019;
Arnouts et al., 2020), without aiming for exhaustivity.
Geometric design approaches for scissor structures are based on
the requirement of straightness of the beams in the deployed and
in the folded state, which can be translated in the so-called deploy-
ability constraint (Fig. 2) (Escrig, 1985), which can be expressed as:
aþb¼cþd ð1Þ

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2020.09.009
0020-7683/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

the finite size of the hubs into account for triangulated structures
with arbitrary geometries.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 explains the geo-
metric design of flat structures consisting of polygonal modules,
subdivided in the derivation of closed-form expressions for the
design of a single module (Section 2.1), multi-module structures
(Section 2.2 and a comparison of different geometric design meth-
ods (Section 2.3). In Section 3 the geometric design of curved struc-
tures consisting of polygonal modules is established, also
subdivided in the design of a single module (Section 3.1), multi-
module structures (Section 3.2) and the comparison of different
design methods (Section 3.3). Finally, the geometric design of bis-
table scissor structures with arbitrary geometry is given in Sec-
tion 4 for structures consisting of translational units (Section 4.1)
as well as polar units (Section 4.2). Examples of the design of struc-
Fig. 1. A translational and polar unit (Arnouts et al., 2019).
tures with arbitrary geometry are given in Section 4.3. Conclusions
are given in Section 5.

2. Geometric design of flat bistable scissor structures consisting

of polygonal modules

2.1. Geometric design of flat bistable polygonal modules

In this section, relationships for the geometric design are

Fig. 2. Deployability constraint (Arnouts et al., 2019).
derived for flat bistable polygonal modules with n diagonals, using
translational scissor units (Fig. 3). In the figures, the blue and black
elements represent respectively the inner and outer SLE’s. The
Usually closed form expressions are proposed e.g. in the works
filled circles represent the revolute joints between the beams in
of Escrig et al. (1996), Gantes (1993), Río (1991), You (1996),
an SLE while the hollow circles represent the joints or connections
Kokawa (2000), De Temmerman et al. (2007) and Roovers and De
of the beams to the hubs. The two beams of an SLE are considered
Temmerman (2017). These methods are based on the deployability
to lie in a common plane i.e. the spacing between the beams due to
constraint combined with trigonometric rules to derive all
their finite thickness and their connection at the revolute joint is
unknowns. More systematic approaches include the foldability
not taken into account since it has no influence on the kinematics
vectors presented by Langbecker (1999), the matrix method
of the scissor structure as a whole, i.e. the motion of the hubs and
employed by Farrugia (2008) and graphical design methods pro-
the movement and bending of the beams.
posed by Roovers and De Temmerman (2017) and Roovers and
When the same hub size is used for the whole structure, a spac-
De Temmerman (2017).
ing is introduced in most of the cases between joints to accommo-
Often beams are represented by lines and joints by points. How-
date finite thickness beams in the folded configuration (v in Fig. 4
ever, to manufacture real life scissor grids, the members have to be
and Fig. 7). When this spacing is taken into account, there are two
given a volume (i.e. cross sections with finite width and height)
possibilities to make the structure compatible in the deployed as
without changing the kinematic behaviour of the structure. So-
well as in the folded configuration: (1) by Adapting the Beam
called hubs (with a finite size) ensure the rotation of several beams
Lengths to incorporate this spacing in the design, referred to as
around different rotation axes. A way to achieve this with a limited
the ABL method and (2) by Adapting the Hub Size to remove this
number of connected beams is to use high-tech ball joints. Usually
spacing in the folded configuration, referred to as the AHS method.
hub legs with a finite size (often referred to as joint lines in the lit-
These two strategies are explained and compared in the following.
erature) are proposed in the design to represent volumetric joints
(Escrig, 2012; Roovers and De Temmerman, 2017).
In the literature hub sizes are often ignored or not completely 2.1.1. ABL method: fixed hub size with adapted beam length
taken into account in the geometric design of bistable scissor struc- When using the same hub size for the entire structure (highly
tures. In this contribution, closed form expressions are derived for relevant for modular grids), the beam lengths can be adapted to
regular flat and curved bistable polygonal scissor modules and for take into account the introduced spacing in the structure in the
multi-module structures including explicitly the finite size of the folded configuration.
hubs. This geometric design phase precedes the structural design
phase of bistable scissor structures, in which materials and beam
cross sections are chosen to balance the conflicting requirements
of minimizing the deployment force and internal stresses during
transformation while enforcing stability in the deployed state
and complying with service state requirements (Arnouts et al.,
2020).
The main originalities of this contribution are (i) the derivation
of closed form expressions for the geometric design of polygonal
scissor modules and the extension of the proposed formulation
to multi-module structures, (ii) the proposal of different methods
to take the finite size of the hubs into account, (iii) the validation
and comparison of the proposed methods to existing methods in
literature and (iv) the proposal and validation of methods to take Fig. 3. Perspective view of a deployed flat bistable polygonal module with n ¼ 6.

85
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

ðL  2RÞ2  v 2
x ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
2 4e2  v 2 l  2hH
The half-lengths b and d in the inner SLE’s can be found by:
d ¼ xl ð7Þ
b ¼ ð1  xÞl ð8Þ
Using the deployability constraint which takes into account the
spacing v in the folded configuration, c can be found as:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c¼ 4e2  v 2  d ð9Þ
Knowing that a=b ¼ c=d since the unit lines are parallel, a is:
1x
a¼ c ð10Þ
x
The height of the lower centre point, is given by:
Fig. 4. Top view of a deployed and folded flat bistable polygonal module with n ¼ 4.
1x
z¼h H ð11Þ
The length of a side of the polygonal module (L in Fig. 4 and x
Fig. 5) is: Inner SLE spacing: n > 6
p The spacing v between two joints connecting the inner SLE’ s, is
L ¼ 2D sin ð2Þ given by:
n
R
with D the length of the diagonals and n the number of diagonals. v¼  2R ð12Þ
The length of one of the inner beams l ¼ b þ d (Fig. 5) is: sin pn
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 When large values for n are chosen, v increases and the com-
l¼ h þ ðD  2RÞ2 ð3Þ
pactness of the folded structure decreases. It is therefore recom-
with h the height of the module in the centre and R the size of the mended to avoid large values for n (e.g. for n ¼ 12, the spacing is
hinges. around 2 times larger than the hub size).
The half-length of a beam in an outer SLE of the polygonal mod- The same relationships can be used as for the previous case
ule (e in Fig. 5)) is: (2 < n 6 6), except for Eq. (6) and Eq. (9), since
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 4e2 ¼ v 2 þ ðc þ dÞ is no longer valid in the folded configuration.
2

H2 þ ðL  2RÞ2 The equation to be used in the case of n > 6 is

e¼ ð4Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2e ¼ d  x2 v 2 þ c2  x2 v 2 (Fig. 8), which leads to:
2
2
with H the height of the module at the corners. ðL  2RÞ2
When n ¼ 6, the module is hexagonal, meaning that the module x¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð13Þ
4e l  v 2  2Hh
2
consists of equilateral triangles. For equilateral triangles and a con- rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
stant hub size, v ¼ 0, meaning that the beams of each SLE are
c ¼ d þ 4e  2ex l  v 2
2 2
folded on a single line in the folded configuration. When n < 6,
2 ð14Þ
there is a spacing between two joints connecting the outer SLE’s
(Fig. 4) while when n > 6, there is a spacing between two joints
2.1.2. AHS method: adapted hub size
connecting the inner SLE’s (Fig. 7). These two cases are explained
Instead of changing the beam lengths, the hub sizes can be
below.
adapted to remove the spacing between the hubs in the folded con-
Outer SLE spacing: 2 < n  6
figuration (v in. efsec:ABL). This method makes the overall design
When n < 6, the spacing between two joints connecting the
outer SLE’s, is given by:
p
v ¼ 4R sin  2R ð5Þ
n
The ratio x ¼ d=l can be found by using the law of cosines in the
triangle formed by c; d and H in the deployed configuration (Fig. 5)
and and by knowing that 4e2 ¼ v 2 þ ðc þ dÞ in the closed configu-
2

ration (Fig. 6). Using these two relationships, d can be found, which
can then be divided by l to compute x:

Fig. 5. The inner and outer SLE’s of a polygonal module in the deployed Fig. 6. The inner and outer SLE’s of a polygonal module in the folded configuration
configuration, represented in the same plane for the sake of visibility. in the case 2 < n  6.

86
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Fig. 9. The hub connecting the outer and inner beams of a polygonal bistable scissor
module with n ¼ 5.

Fig. 7. Top view of a deployed and folded flat bistable polygonal module with n ¼ 8.

Fig. 10. The hub connecting the inner beams of a polygonal bistable scissor module
with n ¼ 5.

for the connection of an inner beam with the outer beams and Ro2
is the hub size for the connection along the outer edge of the mod-
ule (Fig. 9 and 10).
To ensure compatibility of the module in the folded configura-
tion, there should be no spacing v between the hubs in the folded
state. Hence the hub sizes have to satisfy the following
relationship:
Fig. 8. The inner and outer SLE’s of a polygonal module in the folded configuration
in the case n > 6. p Ro2
sin ¼ ð18Þ
n Ri þ Ro1

easier and was therefore considered by some researchers in the It is advisable to take Ro1 ¼ Ro2 to ensure equal hub sizes in a
past (Pellegrino et al., 1993; You and Pellegrino, 1997; Roovers given hub.
and De Temmerman, 2017). However, the hub design will be more Eq. (2) is still valid. 2e ¼ c þ d in the folded configuration since
complex if the hub legs will have different sizes. v ¼ 0 and R should now be written as Ri ; Ro1 or Ro2 . The following
To ensure the connection between the beams and the hubs, the equations are used to calculate the length of the beams:
hub size has to satisfy the following equations, resulting from the qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
geometric assembly of the beams and the hubs (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) l¼ h þ ðD  Ri  Ro1 Þ2 ð19Þ
as well as the rotation of the beams around the hinge axes: qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H2 þ ðL  2Ro2 Þ2
e¼ ð20Þ
hsi 2p tsh p 2
Ri P pffiffiffi þ wsi cot þ cot ð15Þ
2 n 2 n ðL  2Ro2 Þ2
x¼ ð21Þ
hsi ðn  2Þp tsh ðn  2Þp 4el  2hH
Ro1 P pffiffiffi þ wsi cot þ cot ð16Þ
2 2n 2 4n Eq. (8) - Eq. (11) can still be used, except for Eq. (9), since v ¼ 0:
hso ðn  2Þp tsh ðn  2Þp
Ro2 P pffiffiffi þ wso cot þ cot ð17Þ
2 2n 2 4n c ¼ 2e  d ð22Þ

with hsi and hso the height of the cross-section of the beams in
respectively the inner and outer SLE’s, wsi and wso the width of 2.2. Geometric design of flat multi-module structures
these cross-sections and tsh the spacing between the beams of an
SLE. This beam spacing has to be taken into account when calculat- Flat bistable polygonal modules can be combined to form flat
ing the hub size, but has no influence on the kinematics. Ri is the multi-module structures (Fig. 11). There exist exactly three regular
hub size for the connection of the inner beams, Ro1 is the hub size tessellations composed of regular polygons tiling the plane
87
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

(Gantes, 2001), which are composed of identical modules with

n ¼ 3; n ¼ 4 or n ¼ 6 (Fig. 12).
There are eight semiregular tessellations in the plane (Gantes,
2001), which are composed of two or more regular polygons,
which are modules with n ¼ 3; n ¼ 4; n ¼ 6; n ¼ 8 and n ¼ 12
(Fig. 13). The larger n, the less compact the folded structure. Fig. 12. The three regular tessellations.
The three regular and the eight semi-regular tessellations are
the only possibilities in which regular flat polygonal deployable
modules can be assembled to form larger flat bistable deployable
structures (Gantes et al., 1993).
For regular tessellations, in both methods (adapting the beam
length and adapting the joint size), the previously described devel-
opments apply directly since all modules are the same. Extra mea-
sures should be taken when semiregular tessellations are used.
When the method of the adapted joint size is used, it is important
to make sure that Eq. (15)–(18) are satisfied for every polygonal
module, which is challenging, since beams and hubs are shared
between modules. When the method of the adapted beam length
is used, the problem becomes more complicated since the spacing
v which ensures compatibility of one of the modules in the folded Fig. 13. The eight semiregular tessellations.
configuration should also be taken into account for the connected
modules. The module with the smallest amount of edges (which is
3 or 4) should be designed first, since the geometric design of this not taken into account. The overall dimensions and cross sections
module leads to a spacing v 1 (Eq. (5)) located on the outside edges of the investigated structures are given in Table 1.
of this module. This means that all of the adjacent modules in the Table 2 shows Ri ; Ro ; v 1 ; v 2 and z (fully defining the module
tessellation will have a spacing v 1 on their outside edges. A module geometry) for the 3 methods.
connected to this module will have a spacing v 2 located on the In this example, Abaqus is used (Dassault Systémes, 2012) for
inner diagonals, taking the spacing v 1 on their outside edges into the analysis of the transformation phase. Four 2-noded beam FE
account: are used to model the semi-length of each beam, which was veri-
fied to be a converged mesh. The joints are simulated with the Aba-
2R þ v 1
v2 ¼  2R ð23Þ
qus connector type ‘hinge’. The hubs are modelled as a stiff grid
2 sin pn composed of short beam elements with the Abaqus connector type
‘hinge’ at their extremities (Fig. 15). The deployed configuration is
The method explained in Section 2.1.1 can be used, except for
used as the initial configuration and the folding is driven using the
the equations in which the spacings v 1 and v 2 need to be taken
Riks solution strategy (an arc-length method). The lower corner
into account as given in the following:
points of the structure are fixed in the vertical direction as if the
ðL  2RÞ2  v 21 structure was standing on a horizontal surface. To prevent rigid
x ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi ð24Þ body modes, the centre points are allowed to move only in the ver-
2 ð4e2  v 21 Þðl  v 22 Þ  2hH
2
tical direction while rotations around the vertical axis are prohib-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ited. Horizontal radial forces are applied to the corner points of the
c ¼ d þ 4e2  v 21  2x ð4e2  v 21 Þðl  v 21 Þ
2 2
ð25Þ structure. In all of the FE analyses in this contribution, aluminium
is used as the beams material (Young’s modulus of 70 GPa, Pois-
son’s ratio of 0.35).
2.3. Comparison of the transformation behaviour of structures issued Fig. 16 shows the relative total transformation load (sum of the
from different design methods magnitudes of the applied loads) for the 3 cases (i.e. 1 is the max-
imum load for the method previously used in literature (Gantes
For a module with the same overall dimensions (Fig. 14), the et al., 1993)) as a function of the relative displacement (i.e. 0 is
ABL and AHS methods have been compared to a method previously deployed, 1 is folded). In the folded configuration, i.e. the right
used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993) in which the spacing v was end of the curves, the method previously used in literature
(Gantes et al., 1993) does not lead to a folded configuration for
which the applied load is zero, while for the other 2 methods the
applied load is close to zero. The small difference from zero can

Fig. 14. The deployed, intermediate and folded state of a flat square polygonal
Fig. 11. A flat structure composed of modules with n ¼ 4. module.

88
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Table 1
The overall dimensions of the flat module and multi-module structure.

Module Multi-module structure

n 1xn=4 1xn=6 6xn=4 6xn=3
L 1m 1m 1m 1m
H 0.33 m 0.33 m 0.33 m 0.33 m
h 0.4 m 0.4 m 0.4 m -
wsi 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm -
hsi 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm -
tsi 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm -
wso 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm
hso 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm
tso 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm
tsh 0.5 cm 0.5 cm 0.5 cm 0.5 cm

Table 2
Comparison of the method previously used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993) and the two proposed methods to design a flat bistable scissor module with n ¼ 4.

Ri [m] Ro [m] v1 [m] v2 [m] z [m]

Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.075 0.075 0 0 0.2794
ABL 0.075 0.075 0.062 0 0.2783
AHS 0.032 0.075 0 0 0.2499

Fig. 16. Comparison of the load–displacement curves for the square flat single
module.

Fig. 17 shows the relative maximum von Mises stress (i.e. 1 is

Fig. 15. An overall view of the Abaqus model and a detailed view of the hubs and
pivotal joints.
be explained by taking into account the deformability and stiffness
of the beams in the computational model and the applied loads and
boundary conditions (Arnouts et al., 2018). The behaviour of the
structure obtained by the ABL method is close to that of the struc-
ture obtained by the previously used methods since the geometric
design is very similar. Only the lower middle point is located
slightly lower. The structure designed using AHS has a different
behaviour (the applied load is considerably lower), since the geo-
metric design is considerably different (the lower centre point is
located significantly lower than for the other methods).
the maximum von Mises stress for the method previously used
in literature (Gantes et al., 1993)) in the structure during transfor-
mation. As the geometric design phase is the first phase in the
design of bistable scissor structures, the value of the stresses is
irrelevant in this contribution, since it is a result of the random
choice of material and cross sections. This is the reason why rela-
tive values are shown. In the ideal case, it would be expected that
there are no stresses in the structure in the deployed as well as in
the folded configuration. The method previously used in literature
does not lead to perfectly bistable structures, since there are resid-
ual stresses in the folded configuration (the right side of the curve).
The other methods achieve a folded configuration in which the
stresses are very close to zero. The structure designed using
method AHS again has a different behaviour (the maximum stress
is only half of the maximum stress for the other methods and the
stresses reduce more gradually to zero). In summary, the design of
method AHS is more compact in the folded configuration, requires
a lower peak load and has lower stresses during transformation.
As an alternative, the strain energy curve is shown in Fig. 18
alongside the von Mises stress. It can be seen that there are two
stable positions i.e. the deployed and the folded state because in
these positions the strain energy vanishes. However, the same

89
L.I.W. Arnouts et al.
Fig. 17. Comparison of the von Mises stress during transformation for the square
flat single module.
trends can be observed in the stress curve. In the remainder of this
contribution, the stress curves are shown instead of the strain
energy curves because they are a measure of the bending in the
beams during transformation, which causes the snap-through
effect.
ABL and AHS methods have also been compared to the method
previously used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993) by comparing the
different designs for a flat multi-module (Fig. 19) with overall
dimensions and cross sections given in Table 1.
Table 3 shows Ri ; Ro ; v 1 ; v 2 and z (fully defining the module
geometry) for the modules for the 3 cases. In the module with
n ¼ 6, the 3 approaches give the same result, since there is no spac-
ing between equal joints in a hexagonal module.
Fig. 20 shows the relative total transformation load (i.e. 1 is the
maximum applied load) as a function of the relative displacement
(i.e. 0 is deployed, 1 is folded). Again for both the proposed meth-
ods the applied load is close to zero. This can also be seen in Fig. 21
which shows the von Mises stress during transformation. The
novel methods achieve folded configurations in which the stresses
are close to zero. Again, the structure designed using AHS has a dif-
ferent structural behaviour i.e. the applied load and the von Mises
stresses during transformation are considerably lower.
To conclude, both ABL and AHS methods lead to bistable scissor
structures that are compatible in the deployed as well as in the
folded configuration. AHS leads to more compact structures which
require a lower peak load and which have lower stresses during
transformation. Hence, this method can be interesting for flat
modules.
Fig. 18. Comparison of the strain energy and the von Mises stress during
transformation for the square flat single module designed using method ABL.
90
International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100
Fig. 19. The deployed, intermediate and folded state of a flat multi-module
structure.
3. Geometric design of curved bistable scissor structures
consisting of polygonal modules
3.1. Geometric design of curved bistable polygonal modules
In this section, the geometric design is derived for regular
curved polygonal modules with n diagonals using polar scissor
units (Fig. 22).
For modules consisting of polar units, the unit lines must
remain concurrent (i.e. intersect in the same point) to preserve
the kinematic behaviour. Roovers proposed two solutions for this,
without fully developing them (Roovers and De Temmerman,
2017): (1) adding equal hubs in the upper and lower points of
the structure and (2) adding hubs for which the unit lines and
the lines interconnecting the central nodes of the upper and lower
hubs are concurrent. These two strategies are explained and com-
pared in the following.
3.1.1. PUL method: parallel unit lines
Equal hub legs can be added in the upper and lower beam end
nodes of the structure. By using this method, small incompatibili-
ties arise during transformation (Fig. 23) which are however negli-
gible compared to the geometrical incompatibilities due to the
bistability.
For curved modules it is impossible to use equal hub sizes for
the whole structure, unlike for flat modules in Section 2.1.1, since
the spacing between the hubs would be different for the lower and
upper side of the polygonal module. This means that the hub size
will have to be adapted to remove the spacing between the joints
in the folded configuration, as was the case for flat modules in Sec-
tion 2.1.2. By consequence, Eq. (5)) - Eq. (18) are used to determine
the hub sizes.
The length L of an upper side of the module and the length of
the upper diagonals D is given by Eq. (2). To fix the curvature of
the module, either jCOj; x or / (Fig. 23) should be known as a
design parameter. The other variables can be calculated as follows:
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Table 3
Comparison of the method previously used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993) and the two proposed methods to design a flat bistable multi-module structure composed of one
module with n ¼ 6, 6 modules with n ¼ 4 and 6 modules with n ¼ 3.

Ri [m] Ro [m] v1 [m] v2 [m] z [m]

6 modules with n ¼ 3 without inner SLE’s
Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) – 0.107 0 – –
ABL – 0.107 0.089 – –
AHS – 0.107 0 – –
6 modules with n ¼ 4
Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.107 0.107 0 0 0.2929
ABL 0.107 0.107 0.089 0 0.2903
AHS 0.045 0.107 0 0 0.2480
1 module with n ¼ 6
Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.107 0.107 0 0 0.0679
ABL 0.107 0.107 0.089 0.089 0.0679
AHS 0.107 0.107 0 0 0.0679

Fig. 22. Perspective view of a deployed curved bistable polygonal module with
n ¼ 6.

Fig. 20. Comparison of the load–displacement curves for the flat multi-module
structure.
 2  2
2 / /
ðe þ f Þ ¼ jCB1 j  Ro2 cot þ jCB1 j  H  Ro2 cot
2 2
  
/ /
 2 jCB1 j  H  Ro2 cot jCB1 j  Ro2 cot cos /
2 2
ð29Þ
The angles c and  can be obtained and used to calculate f and e:
  
sin / /
c ¼ arcsin jCB1 j  H  Ro2 cot ð30Þ
eþf 2
¼/þc ð31Þ
sin 
f ¼ H ð32Þ
sinðp    cÞ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
e ¼ f þ H2  2fH cos c
2
ð33Þ

jCA1 j can be calculated:

jCA1 j ¼ cos xðjCB1 j  HÞ þ h ð34Þ
Fig. 21. Comparison of the von Mises stress during transformation for the flat
multi-module structure. l ¼ b þ d is obtained by using the law of cosines:
 2
2 Ro1 Ri
l ¼ jCA1 j  jCB1 j  jCOj
D D D
jCOj ¼ ð26Þ  2
tan x
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Ri Ro1
þ jCB1 j  H  jCB1 j  jCOj
jCB1 j ¼ jCOj2 þ D2 ð27Þ D D ð35Þ
 
L Ro1 Ri
/ ¼ 2 arcsin ð28Þ  2 jCA1 j  jCB1 j  jCOj
2jCB1 j D D
 
Ri Ro1
Knowing jCB1 j; / and the design parameter H; e þ f can be calcu- jCB1 j  H  jCB1 j  jCOj cos x
D D
lated by using the law of cosines:

91
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

The ratio x ¼ d=l can be computed knowing the deployability

constraint c þ d ¼ e þ f and the law of cosines in the triangle
formed by c; d and H:
2
ðe þ f Þ  H2
x¼ ð37Þ
2lðe þ f  H cosðx þ hÞÞ
The lengths d and b can easily be found by:

d ¼ xl ð38Þ
b ¼ ð1  xÞl ð39Þ
c can be found by using the deployability constraint:
c ¼eþf d ð40Þ
By calculating s and a first, it is straightforward to find a and z:
 
sinðx þ hÞ
s ¼ arcsin H ð41Þ
c
a¼phs ð42Þ
b sin h
a¼ ð43Þ
sin a
b sin s
z ¼ jCA1 j  ð44Þ
sin a

3.1.2. CUL method: concurrent unit lines

The CUL method maintains the concurrency of the unit lines
throughout the transformation (Roovers and De Temmerman,
2017). The unit lines and the lines interconnecting the central
nodes of the upper and lower hubs (e.g. line jCB1 j in Fig. 24) are
concurrent.
Eq. (16) and Eq. (17) should be taken into account to determine
Ro1 and Ro2 to ensure the connection between the beams and the
hubs. Ro1 should be equal to Ro2 (¼ Ro ), since otherwise the lengths
c þ d and e þ f are no longer equal in the folded state, and by con-
sequence the deployability constraint (c þ d ¼ e þ f ) would no
longer be valid. This means that all the hub legs connected in the
same hub should have the same length.
Eq. (26)–(28) are still valid (Fig. 24). R0o is given by:

jCB1 j  H
R0o ¼ Ro1 ð45Þ
jCB1 j

The angle /0 can be obtained by:

Ro
/0 ¼ /  2 arctan ð46Þ
jCB1 j
e þ f can be calculated by:

ðe þ f Þ ¼ jCB1 j2 þ R2o þ ðjCB1 j  HÞ2 þ R02

2
o
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð47Þ
02
2 ðjCB1 j þ Ro ÞððjCB1 j  HÞ þ Ro Þ cos /0
2 2 2

The angle c can be calculated and used together with Eq. 31

( ¼ /0 þ c) to obtain f and e:
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sin /0
c ¼ arcsin ðjCB1 j  HÞ2 þ R02 ð48Þ
eþf o
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sin  2
f ¼ H2 þ ðRo  R0o Þ ð49Þ
sinðp    cÞ
Fig. 23. parallel unit lines.

e ¼ ðe þ f Þ  f ð50Þ
h can also be found by using the law of cosines:
Ro1 R To ensure the compatibility of the module in the folded config-
jCA j jCB j i jCOj
cos h ¼ 1 D 2l 1 D uration, there should be no spacing between the hubs in the folded
 R Ro1
2 ð36Þ state (i.e. the beams of each SLE are theoretically folded on a single
l2  jCB1 jH Di jCB1 j D jCOj
þ  R R
 line). Hence the angles k (Fig. 24) which define the hub sizes, have
2 jCA1 j o1 jCB j i jCOj
D 1 D
l
to satisfy the following relationship:
92
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Ro  R0o
ko ¼ arctan ð52Þ
eþf
Ri
ki ¼ arctan 0 ð53Þ
l þ sinRoko

with l and Ri unknown.

x0 and l are given by (using Eq. (34) for jCA1 j):
Ri Ro
x0 ¼ x  arctan  arctan ð54Þ
jCA1 j jCB1 j
l ¼ jCA1 j2 þ R2i þ ðjCB1 j  HÞ2 þ R02
2
o
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð55Þ
2 ðjCA1 j2 þ R2i ÞððjCB1 j  HÞ2 þ R02 o Þ cos x0
Using Eq. (53) and Eq. (55), l and Ri can be obtained.
h can again be found by using the law of cosines:

jCA1 j2 þ R2i þ l  ðjCB1 j  HÞ2  R02

2
cos h ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi o
ð56Þ
2l jCA1 j2 þ R2i

The ratio x ¼ d=l can be calculated by knowing the deployability

constraint c þ d ¼ e þ f and the law of cosines in the triangle
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
formed by c; d and H2 þ ðRo  R0o Þ :

2
ðe þ f Þ  H2  ðRo  R0o Þ
2
x¼  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ð57Þ
2l e þ f  H2 þ ðRo  R0o Þ cosðx0 þ hÞ
2

Eq. (39)–(44) are still valid except for Eq. (41) and Eq. (44), since
the angles caused by the concurrent unit lines have to be taken into
account:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sinðx0 þ hÞ
s ¼ arcsinð H2 þ ðRo  R0o Þ Þ
2
ð58Þ
c 
Ri b sin s
z ¼ jCA1 j  cos arctan ð59Þ
jCA1 j sin a
Finally, R0i can be found:
z
R0i ¼ Ri ð60Þ
jCA1 j
It has to be checked that both Ri and R0i satisfy Eq. (15), that Ro
and R0o satisfy Eq. (16) and Eq. (17) to ensure the connection
between the beams and the hubs. If not, the assembly or rotation
of the beams is impossible, implying that a larger Ro should be cho-
sen in the beginning and the geometric design should be repeated
starting from Eq. 45.
Note that the PUL method is preferable due to the easier design
and fabrication process, since it reduces the amount of different
hubs that need to be fabricated.

3.2. Geometric design of curved multi-module structures

Curved modules can be combined to form multi-module struc-

tures in a spherical configuration (Fig. 25). There exist 5 regular
polyhedra composed of modules with n ¼ 3; n ¼ 4 or n ¼ 5
(Fig. 26 and 13 semiregular polyhedra which are composed of a
combination of modules with n ¼ 3; n ¼ 4; n ¼ 5; n ¼ 6; n ¼ 8 and
Fig. 24. concurrent unit lines.
n ¼ 10 (Fig. 27). No (semi-) regular polyhedra exist that are com-
posed of modules with n > 10 (Gantes, 2001).
Designing a full sphere with polar units is impossible unless
p sin ko extensible members are used for the beams on the bottom side
sin ¼ ð51Þ of the sphere, as investigated by Kawaguchi et al. (2019). For reg-
n sinðki þ ko Þ
ular polyhedra, the proposed formulas are directly applicable since
with ki and ko the angles formed by respectively the inner and the all modules are the same. Extra measures should be taken when
outer hub legs in the folded configuration, given by: semiregular polyhedra are used because it is important to make
93
L.I.W. Arnouts et al.
Fig. 25. A curved structure composed of modules with n ¼ 5 and n ¼ 6.
Fig. 26. The 5 regular polyhedra.
Fig. 27. The 13 semiregular polyhedra.
sure that Eq. (15)–(18) are satisfied for every module. If not, the
hub size should be increased.
3.3. Comparison of the transformation behaviour of structures
obtained from different design methods
For a module with the same overall dimensions (Fig. 28), PUL
and CUL methods have been compared to a method previously pro-
posed in literature (Gantes et al., 1993). The overall dimensions
and cross sections of the studied structures are given in Table 4.
PUL results in smaller inner hubs than the method previously
used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993), which means that this
method leads to structures which are more compact in the folded
configuration. CUL leads to less compact structures than method
PUL, since the upper hubs are larger than the lower hubs (Table 5).
Since the use of method CUL makes the design and fabrication pro-
cess a lot more complicated, and since it leads to less compact
structures in the folded state, it is advised to use method PUL for
the design of curved structures.
94
International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100
Fig. 28. The deployed, intermediate and folded state of a curved square polygonal
module.
Fig. 29 shows the comparison of the relative transformation
load (i.e. 1 is the maximum applied load) as a function of the rela-
tive displacement (i.e. 0 is deployed, 1 is folded) for the 3 cases. As
opposed to Gantes et al. (1993), for both the new methods the
applied load is close to zero. The structural behaviour of PUL and
CUL is very different from the method used previously (Gantes
et al., 1993), i.e. the applied load is considerably lower. Fig. 30
shows the comparison of the relative von Mises stress during
transformation (i.e. 1 is the maximum von Mises stress). The
method previously used in literature leads to considerable residual
stresses in the folded configuration while for the other methods
the stresses are close to zero.
The PUL and CUL methods have also been compared to Gantes
et al. (1993) for a curved multi-module structure (Fig. 31) with
overall dimensions and cross sections given in Table 4.
As was the case for the single module, method PUL leads to the
most compact structure in the folded configuration. The design of
the structure using CUL proved to be more complicated, since the
upper and lower hubs have different sizes (Table 6). For the struc-
tural analysis, an extra vertical force in the middle of the structure
was needed to be able to fold the structure.
Fig. 32 shows the relative transformation load (i.e. 1 is the max-
imum applied load) as a function of the relative displacement (i.e. 0
is deployed, 1 is folded). The structural behaviour is comparable to
Gantes et al. (1993) and method PUL for the beginning of the fold-
ing process. The proposed methods achieve loads close to zero in
the folded configuration. CUL results in this case in a lower applied
load during transformation. Fig. 33 shows the comparison of the
von relative Mises stress (i.e. 1 is the maximum von Mises stress
during transformation). Both new methods tend to have some
low residual stresses in the folded configuration unlike (Gantes
et al., 1993). These residual stresses in the folded configurations
of curved multi-module structures are due to the hubs in the reg-
ular curved polygonal modules that are not fully compatible with
the folded grid. Every single polygonal module can fold while
maintaining the overall regular polygonal shape of the module.
However, when modules are combined, there are incompatibilities
introduced between them. When the polygons of a polyhedron are
drawn in 2D (i.e. as if the curved shape is unfolded), there are small
gaps introduced between the modules (Fig. 34). When a curved
multi-module structure is folded, this 2D shape is approached by
the hubs. However, since there are no gaps between modules,
the modules must deform to take into account these incompatibil-
ities, see Fig. 34. This problem cannot be solved with the approach
of regular curved modules used in this contribution.
4. Geometric design of bistable scissor structures with arbitrary
geometry
The advantage of the geometric design of the deployable struc-
tures in previous sections is that closed form expressions were
derived, making the design of bistable scissor structures straight-
forward. The disadvantage is that the designed structures have
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Table 4
The overall dimensions of the curved module and multi-module structure.

Module Multi-module structure

n 1xn=4 1xn=8 4xn=6 4xn=4
L 1m 1m 1m 1m
H 0.33 m 0.33 m 0.33 m 0.33 m
h 0.33 m 0.33 m 0.33 m 0.33 m
jCOj 2m 1.914 m 2.091 m 2.207 m
wsi 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm
hsi 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm
tsi 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm
wso 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm
hso 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm 4 cm
tso 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm 0.2 cm
tsh 0.5 cm 0.5 cm 0.5 cm 0.5 cm

Table 5
Comparison of the method previously used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993) and the two proposed methods to design a curved bistable module with n ¼ 4.

Ri [m] Ro [m] R0i [m] R0o [m] z [m]

Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 1.9087
PUL 0.032 0.075 0.032 0.075 1.8769
CUL 0.035 0.089 0.033 0.075 1.8758

Fig. 29. Comparison of the load–displacement curves for the square curved single
module.

Fig. 31. The deployed, intermediate and folded state of a curved multi-module
structure.

triangular grids are designed with arbitrary geometry, geometric

constraint equations can be derived for the separate triangular
modules of 3 connected SLE’s. These modules can be consisting
of translational units (Fig. 35a and Fig. 36) or polar units
(Fig. 35b). For the geometric design of regular polygonal modules,
the analytical method is the easiest and most straightforward to
use. For triangular modules with arbitrary shape however, using
an analytical method is impractical due to the many parameters
and the non-linear equations which have to be solved, as was
shown in Gantes (2004). Hence, use of such analytical approaches
is not encouraged for structures with arbitrary geometry.
Fig. 30. Comparison of the von Mises stress during transformation for the square
curved single module.

4.1. Structures with arbitrary geometry with translational units

limited shapes i.e. only flat structures and structures with constant
curvature were possible. Other shapes can be obtained by Theoretically it would be possible to have an equal hub size for
abandoning the current approach of polygonal modules. When all the joints in the structure. However, this would lead to extre-
95
L.I.W. Arnouts et al. International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100

Table 6
Comparison of the method previously used in literature (Gantes et al., 1993) and the two proposed methods to design a curved bistable multi-module structure composed of one
module with n ¼ 6, 6 modules with n ¼ 4 and 6 modules with n ¼ 3.

Ri [m] Ro [m] R0i [m] R0o [m] z [m]

4 modules with n ¼ 4 and jCOj = 2.207 m

Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 2.1123
PUL 0.032 0.075 0.032 0.075 2.0804
CUL 0.035 0.088 0.032 0.075 2.0795
4 modules with n ¼ 6 and jCOj = 2.091 m
Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 1.8249
PUL 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 1.8249
CUL 0.086 0.088 0.074 0.075 1.8195
1 module with n ¼ 8 and jCOj = 1.914 m
Previous method (Gantes et al., 1993) 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 1.5231
PUL 0.121 0.075 0.121 0.075 1.5504
CUL 0.144 0.088 0.112 0.075 1.5361

Fig. 32. Comparison of the load–displacement curves for the curved multi-module
structure.

Fig. 34. The semiregular polyhedron (upper left) which was used to design the
multi-module structure (lower left) and the flat configuration of the same
polyhedron (upper right) which corresponds to the top view of the folded
configuration (lower right).

nected SLE’s (i.e. the smallest angle in the triangle) and tsh the spac-
ing between the beams. Furthermore, to make the structure
compatible in the folded configuration (i.e. the beams of an SLE fold
theoretically on a straight line in the folded configuration), the joint
sizes have to comply with the following relationship:
RA1 þ RB2 RB1 þ RC2 RC1 þ RA2
¼ ¼ ð62Þ
f s t

Fig. 33. Comparison of the von Mises stress during transformation for the curved
multi-module structure.

mely complicated geometric constraint equations because spac-

ings v would have to be taken into account everywhere between
the hubs (as was the case in Section 2.1.1), which would also make
the design of the connected modules more difficult. A better
approach is to use hub sizes adapted to the geometry of the grid.
All the hub sizes should satisfy the following condition to ensure
the connection between the beams and the hubs:
hs tsh a
Ri P pffiffiffi þ ws cot a þ cot ð61Þ
2 2 2
with Ri the considered joint size, hs and ws respectively the height
and width of the beams, a the smallest angle between the con- Fig. 35. Triangular modules with arbitrary geometry.

96
L.I.W. Arnouts et al.
Fig. 36. The SLE’s of a triangular module with translational units in the deployed
configuration folded out in the same plane for the sake of visibility.
with f ; s and t known values.
This means that joints are used that describe a grid similar in
shape to the grid of the projected lengths of the SLE’s. This solution
was proposed previously in literature for mechanism-type scissor
structures (Pellegrino et al., 1993; You and Pellegrino, 1997;
Roovers and De Temmerman, 2017) but can also be applied for bis-
table structures.
By using the deployability constraint and trigonometric rules,
the beam lengths can be calculated. However, this approach is
extremely complex. A more efficient design approach for arbitrary
shapes with translational units (flat as well as curved) is to use
graphical design methods in digital design environments in the
form of parametric models (Roovers and De Temmerman, 2017;
Roovers and De Temmerman, 2017) which rely on the input of a
base geometry and which use the deployability constraint to con-
vert the geometry into a deployable scissor grid. Using this
methodology, the joints are disregarded in the design of the scissor
grid and added later. Attention has to be paid when adding the size
of the hub legs afterwards, since the overall dimensions of the
structure are altered.
4.2. Structures with arbitrary geometry with polar units
Using the deployability constraint and trigonometric rules, the
beam lengths of structures with arbitrary geometry with polar
units could be calculated. However, deriving all the equations, as
was the approach used in Gantes (2004), is extremely complex
and time-consuming. An efficient graphical approach to design
scissor structures is used by Roovers, who developed digital design
tools to design several types of scissor grids (Roovers and De
Temmerman, 2017). Using those tools, the design of different grids
is reduced to the geometric exercise of finding a suitable grid in
which the deployability constraints are taken into account, which
makes it possible to design scissor grids of arbitrary geometry
without deriving all the equations. However, hubs are not consid-
ered in this approach and are added after the initial design of the
scissor grid.
As was the case for regular curved polygonal modules, there are
two solutions to add hub legs which preserve the kinematic beha-
viour: (1) PUL method (parallel unit lines): adding equal joints in
the upper and lower points of the structure and (2) CUL method
(concurrent unit lines): adding joints for which the unit lines and
the lines interconnecting the central nodes of the upper and lower
joints are concurrent. These methods have been proposed previ-
ously in literature (Roovers and De Temmerman, 2017), but were
never elaborated to design bistable scissor structures.
The PUL method keeps the curvature of the structure constant
but alters the overall dimensions of the scissor grid (Fig. 37). Com-
patibility in the deployed configuration can be maintained by
dimensioning the hub legs proportionally (with factor c) to the
lines mi running from the middle of the beam ends orthogonally
to the unit lines (Roovers, 2017) (Fig. 37). Another option is to
97
International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100
Fig. 37. hub legs with with the same length in the upper and lower nodes added to
a compatible triangular module of polar units.
design joints that describe a grid similar in shape to the grid of
the projected lengths of the SLE’s on a sphere with as centre point
the point in which all the unit lines are joined. This method can
only be used when all the unit lines intersect in the same point.
The CUL method maintains the concurrency of the unit lines
throughout transformation but changes the curvature of the struc-
ture. There are some important considerations that should be
taken into account: (i) the hub legs connected in the same hub
should have the same length (to make sure the deployability con-
straint is still valid) and (ii) the compatibility of the grid should be
maintained (i.e. the beams should be still straight in the deployed
configuration after adding the hubs). For non-spherical shapes, this
method does not work when the sizes of the hub legs are added
afterwards, since requirements (i) and (ii) cannot be satisfied
simultaneously. For the reasons above the PUL method is thus
preferable.
4.3. Example of the design of structures with arbitrary geometry
To validate the geometric design method of structures with
arbitrary geometry including the finite hub size, two structures
were designed with (i) translational and (ii) polar units according
to the graphical design approaches proposed by Roovers and De
Temmerman (2017,).
The structure with translational units is designed by projecting
a triangular grid on an arbitrary curved surface and by taking into
account the deployability constraint (Fig. 39). The structure is by
consequence not flat. The hub legs were added afterwards. The
sum of the joint lengths corresponding to each SLE is proportional
to the projected length of that SLE (Fig. 38).
The beams of the structure are between 0.7 and 1 m while the
hub sizes are between 6.5 and 7.5 cm. The cross sections are cho-
sen to be 4x4x0.2 cm and aluminium is used for all the beams. The
lower center point of the structure is considered as fixed, while the
upper centre point is only allowed to move in the vertical direction.
4 loads were applied in the corners of the structure.
Fig. 40 shows the load–displacement response. The required
force is zero in the deployed and the closed configuration, as would
be expected from a bistable structure. Also the remaining stresses
in the folded configuration (Fig. 41) are close to zero, correspond-
ing to a structure with a compatible geometry i.e. the beams are
straight.
The structure with polar units is also designed by projecting a
triangular grid on a curved surface (Fig. 42). The hub legs were
again added afterwards. The lower center point of the structure
is considered as fixed, while the upper centre point is only allowed
L.I.W. Arnouts et al.
Fig. 38. Top view of the scissor grid with hub legs in the deployed and folded
configuration. The joints describe a grid similar in shape to the grid of the projected
lengths of the SLE’s.
Fig. 39. The deployed, intermediate and folded state of a structure with arbitrary
geometry with translational units.
Fig. 40. Load–displacement curve for the structure with arbitrary geometry with
translational units.
to move in the vertical direction. Loads were applied in the corners
of the structure and in some centre points (Fig. 42).
98
International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100
Fig. 41. Maximum von Mises stress in the structure during transformation for the
structure with arbitrary geometry with translational units.
Fig. 42. The deployed, intermediate and folded state of a structure with arbitrary
geometry with polar units.
Fig. 43 shows the corresponding load–displacement response.
The required force, which is the sum of all the applied folding force
magnitudes, is close to zero in the deployed and the closed config-
uration, as would be expected from a bistable structure. As was the
case for the regular multi-module curved structure, incompatibili-
ties are introduced in the folded state (Fig. 44) due to a mismatch
of the different triangular modules in the folded state (Fig. 34). This
problem cannot be solved when adding the hub legs afterwards. To
solve the problem, the hub legs should be taken into account from
the beginning of the design process, which is a complicated task
which can be investigated in the future.
L.I.W. Arnouts et al.
Fig. 43. Load–displacement curve for the structure with arbitrary geometry with
polar units.
Fig. 44. Maximum von Mises stress in the structure during transformation for the
structure with arbitrary geometry with polar units.
5. Conclusions
A geometric design methodology was proposed in which
deployability conditions were derived for regular flat and curved
bistable scissor modules, for multi-module structures and for
structures with arbitrary geometry including explicitly the finite
size of the hubs i.e. the spacing between the connections of the dif-
ferent beams to the hub.
Several solutions to make regular flat and curved structures
geometrically compatible while taking the finite size of the hinges
into account were proposed and compared.
For structures consisting of translational units, two methods
were proposed: the ABL method (adapting the beam lengths) and
the AHS method (adapting the hub size). These methods were
shown to lead to more compatible solutions in the folded state
than previously used analytical methods. The structural behaviour
depends considerably on the used method. The AHS method was
shown to lead to more compact structures and to require a lower
peak load and stresses during transformation.
For structures consisting of polar units, the following methods
were proposed: the PUL method (equal hubs in the upper and
lower points) and the CUL method (hubs for which the unit lines
and the lines interconnecting the central nodes of the upper and
lower joints are concurrent). The PUL method results in the most
compact structures in the folded state and is preferable due to
the easier design and fabrication process.
99
International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100
For structures with arbitrary geometry, an analytical approach
is impractical due to the many parameters and the non-linear
equations which have to be solved. It is advisable to use structures
consisting of regular polygonal modules or to use a graphical
design method. Two structures with arbitrary geometry were
designed using (1) translational units and (2) polar units. The
design method resulted in geometrically compatible configura-
tions in the deployed as well as in the folded configuration, i.e. bis-
table structures. The disadvantage of graphical methods is the
needed prior knowledge about parametric design environments.
One of the main limitations found in this contribution are small
incompatibilities in the folded configuration of multi-module
structures with polar units. These incompatibilities result in a
folded configuration in which the applied load and von Mises stres-
ses are not equal to zero. To solve this problem, it is not possible to
combine regular polygonal modules or to add the hub legs after-
wards. It would be necessary to take the hubs into account from
the beginning of the design process, which can be investigated in
the future.
Various hub designs can be imagined. In order to obtain a
purely compatible configuration in the folded state, the SLE’s must
be able to reach their most compact stage in which the beams of an
SLE are aligned, which is an added complexity in the design of the
hubs.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by a Research Fellow (ASP – Aspirant)
fellowship of the Fund for Scientific Research – FNRS (F.R.S.-FNRS)
(Grant No. FC 23469).
References
Arnouts, L.I.W., Massart, T.J., De Temmerman, N., Berke, P.Z., 2018. Computational
modelling of the transformation of bistable scissor structures with geometrical
imperfections. Eng. Struct. 177, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2018.08.108.
Arnouts, L.I.W., Massart, T.J., De Temmerman, N., Berke, P.Z., 2019. Computational
design of bistable deployable scissor structures: trends and challenges. J. Int.
Assoc. Shell Spatial Struct. 60 (199), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.20898/j.
iass.2019.199.031.
Arnouts, L.I.W., Massart, T.J., De Temmerman, N., Berke, P.Z., 2020. Multi-objective
optimisation of deployable bistable scissor structures. Autom. Constr. 114,.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103154 103154.
Clarke, R., 1984. The kinematics of a novel deployable space structure system. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Space Structures. Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, Guildford, UK, pp. 820–822.
Dassault Systémes, Abaqus 6.12 Analysis User’s Manual Volume III: Materials
(2012)..
De Temmerman, N., 2007. Design and analysis of deployable bar structures for
mobile architectural applications, Ph.D. thesis..
Escrig, F., 1985. Expandable Space Structures. Int. J. Space Struct. 1 (2), 79–91.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026635118500100203.
Escrig, F., 2012. Modular, ligero, transformable: un paseo por la arquitectura ligera
móvil, Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville..
Escrig, F., Sánchez, J., Valcárcel, J., 1996. Two way deployable spherical grids. Int. J.
Space Struct. 11, 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/026635119601-231.
Farrugia, P., 2008. Kinematic analysis of foldable structures, Ph.D. thesis..
Gantes, C., 1993. Geometric constraints in assembling polygonal deployable units to
form multi-unit structural systems. In: 4th International Conference on Space
Structures Surrey, pp. 793–803. https://doi.org/10.1680/ss4v1.19683.0085.
Gantes, C.J., 2001. Deployable Structures: Analysis and Design. WIT Press,
Southampton, UK.
Gantes, C.J., 2004. Geometric design of arbitrarily curved bi-stable deployable
arches with discrete joint size. Int. J. Solids Struct. 41 (20), 5517–5540. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.04.030.
L.I.W. Arnouts et al.
Gantes, C.J., Connor, J.J., Logcher, R.D., Rosenfeld, Y., 1989. Structural Analysis and
Design of Deployable Structures. Computers Struct. 32 (3–4), 661–669. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(89)90354-4.
Gantes, C.J., Connor, J.J., Logcher, R.D., 1991. Combining numerical analysis and
engineering judgment to design deployable structures. Computers Struct. 40
(2), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(91)90368-V.
Gantes, C.J., Logcher, R.D., Connor, J.J., Rosenfeld, Y., 1993. Deployability Conditions
for Curved and Flat, Ploygonal and Trapezoidal Deployable Structures. Int. J.
Space Struct. 8 (1&2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266351193008001-
210.
Gantes, C.J., Connor, J.J., Logcher, R.D., 1993. Simple Friction Model for Scissor-type
Mobile Structures. J. Eng. Mech. 119 (3), 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)0733-9399(1993)119:3(456).
Gantes, C.J., Logcher, R.D., Connor, J.J., Rosenfeld, Y., 1993. Geometric Design of
Deployable Structures with Discrete Joint size. Int. J. Space Struct. 8, 107–117.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266351193008001-211. Special Issue on Deployable
Space Structures.
Gantes, C.J., Connor, J.J., Logcher, R.D., 1994. A Systematic Design Methodology for
Deployable Structures. Int. J. Space Struct. 9 (2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026635119400900202.
Kawaguchi, K., Sato, T., Yang, X., Seo, N., 2019. Development of a deployable
geodesic full sphere. J. Int. Assoc. Shell Spatial Struct. 60 (1), 35–46. https://doi.
org/10.20898/j.iass.2019.199.033.
Kokawa, T., 2000. Structural idea of retractable loop-dome. J. Int. Assoc. Shell Spatial
Struct.: IASS 41 (133), 111–116.
Krishnapillai, A, 1992. Deployable structures, United States Patent, US 5,167,100.
URL:https://patents.google.com/patent/US5167100A.
Langbecker, T., 1999. Kinematic Analysis of Deployable Scissor Structures. Int. J.
Space Struct. 14 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1260/0266351991494650.
Lee, D.S.-H., Jia, W., Cai, J., Malcangi, A., 2015. Investigation into possible
geometrical configurations for scissor-type deployable structures using
100
International Journal of Solids and Structures 206 (2020) 84–100
expandable bars. In: Proceedings of the IASS 2015 Symposium - Future
Visions, Amsterdam.
Lee, D., Larsen, O., Kim, S., 2016. Computation tools for the design of a deployable
dome structure, in. Struct. Arch., 267–274 https://doi.org/10.1201/b20891-34.
Pellegrino, S., You, Z., 1993. Foldable ring structures. In: Parke, G., Howard, C. (Eds.),
4th International Conference on Space Structures. Thomas Telford, London,
Surrey, pp. 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1680/ss4v1.19683.0084.
Río, L.P.D., 1991. Space frames for deployable domes. Bull. IASS 32 (2), 107–113.
Roovers, K., 2017. Deployable Scissor Grids - Geometry and Kinematics, Phd thesis,
Vrije Universiteit Brussel..
Roovers, K., De Temmerman, N., 2017. Geometric design of deployable scissor grids
consisting of generalized polar units. J. Int. Assoc. Shell Spatial Struct. 58 (193),
227–238. https://doi.org/10.20898/j.iass.2017.193.865.
Roovers, K., De Temmerman, N., 2017. Deployable scissor grids consisting of
translational units. Int. J. Solids Struct. 121, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijsolstr.2017.05.015.
Rosenfeld, Y., Logcher, R.D., 1988. New Concepts for Deployable- Collapsable
Structures. Int. J. Space Struct. 3 (1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026635118800300103.
Rosenfeld, Y., Ben-Ami, Y., Logcher, R.D., 1993. A Prototype Clicking Scissor-Link
Deployable Structure. Int. J. Space Struct. 8 (1–2), 85–95. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0266351193008001-209.
You, Z., 1996. A Pantographic Deployable Conic Structure. Int. J. Space Struct. 11 (4),
363–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/026635119601100403.
You, Z., Pellegrino, S., 1997. Foldable bar structures. Int. J. Solids Struct. 34 (15),
1825–1847. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7683(96)00125-4.
Zeigler, T.R., 1976. Collapsible self-supporting structure, United States Patent, US
3,968,808. URL:https://patents.google.com/patent/US3968808A.
Zeigler, T.R., 1977. Collapsible self-supporting structures, United States Patent, US
4,026,313. URL:https://patents.google.com/patent/US4026313A.