Analysis of Tensegrity Rotationally Repetitive Space

Structures Using the Substructuring Method

Aida Mottahedin 1; Jafar Keyvani 2; and Ali Kaveh 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr Vishwanath Karad MIT-World Peace University on 02/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In this paper, a substructuring method is presented for calculating the displacement of cable domes. This method obtained matrices
as a canonical form in cyclic structures using graph theory. This method helps to avoid the generation of the entire matrices. Then, a solution
for the eigenproblem is presented and nonlinear equations are solved by the Newton–Raphson method. In this paper, the cable domes are
prestressed rotationally repetitive structures that are cyclically symmetric, having cable part and compression strut part. For clarifying the
benefits of the proposed method, both the usual method and the substructuring method are performed for some examples. Results show that
the time and memory are considerably (more than 80%) saved in the substructuring approach. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-
5576.0000677. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Tensegrity structure-cable dome; Nonlinear analysis; Substructuring method.

Introduction for the eigensolution in symmetric structures can be found in the

A cable dome is a structure built by prestressed cables as tension
elements, and struts as compression members. The prestress level
was such that all cables were in tension. Usually prestress load was
between 5% and 10% of the cable yield stress. In this paper pre-
stressing is considered as 50% of the yield stress of the cables.
Geiger et al. (1986) designed a “cable dome” that was used in
the structures of the gymnastics and fencing arenas for the Seoul
Olympic Games in 1986. One of the largest existing structures of
this type is the Georgia Dome, designed for the Atlanta Olympics
Games in 1996 (Yuan and Dong 2003).
However, this structure could not be considered as an exact ten-
segrity system. Levy (1989) built the Georgia Dome (completed in
1992) in quasi-elliptical shape for the Atlanta Olympic Games.
Some researchers like Rebielak (2000) investigated new shapes of
cable domes.
The elastic stability of a long-span dome is poor (Abedi and
Parke 1996; Han and Liu 2002), so nonlinear analysis should be
used in a cable dome. Kebiche et al. (1999) researched nonlinear
analysis of tensegrity systems structures.
There are different variations of the geometries in cable-built
domes, which researchers investigated. For engineers, it is interest-
ing to know the behavior of the structures with different shapes and
the way they affect the weight and cost of the structure. Therefore,
the design of the tensegrity structure is also important for its
performance.
Many researchers have discussed a solution to the equilibrium
by considering symmetry and regularity. One of the best methods
1
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., Tehran
15719-14911, Iran (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-6057-8045. Email: aida.mottahedin.9@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Kharazmi Univ.,
Tehran 15719-14911, Iran. Email: jkeyvani@khu.ac.ir
3
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Iran Univ. of Science and
Technology, Tehran 13114-16846, Iran. Email: alikaveh@iust.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 14, 2021; approved on
December 2, 2021; published online on January 31, 2022. Discussion per-
iod open until June 30, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
work of Kaveh (2004), Kaveh and Salimbahrami (2004), and
Kaveh and Sayarinejad (2005). Kaveh and Rahami (2006) studied
canonical forms for adjacency and Laplacian matrices using graph
models and suggested methods for decomposing regular structures.
A structure is called regular if its model can be considered as the
product of two graphs. Other researchers (Aghayere 1983; Thomas
1979; Hasan and Hasan 2002; Williams 1986a, b) also worked
on the eigensolution methods for cyclically symmetric structures.
Kaveh and Nemati (2010) presented the eigensolutions for buck-
ling load and natural frequencies in vibrating systems considering
the canonical forms. Optimal analysis occurs when matrices in so-
lutions are spares and well-structured to solve the eigenvalue prob-
lem of the structure (Kaveh 2013).
In this paper the nonlinear static analysis of cable domes is in-
vestigated. For obtaining the eigensolution of stiffness matrix a
canonical form is used. With associating graph products and rota-
tion repeated property, a dome is divided into substructures, and the
solution is simplified by calculating the eigensolution of its repeat-
ing substructures.
Actually, instead of calculating the inverse matrix directly, graph
products are used to write the matrix as the sum of Kronecker prod-
ucts, and many simpler matrices developed for solving the eigen-
problems. Thus, the internal forces and displacements are obtained
without complicated calculations.
Analysis of Dome Structures
Tensegrity structures consist of two kinds of structural members
called cables and bars. They are self-equilibrium stable structures
established by interacting compression and tensile components
(Pugh 1976; Motro 1992, 2003).
Large displacements cause geometrical changes in the struc-
tures, resulting in nonlinearity. Cable domes have large displace-
ments, and the linear theory is not suitable for their analysis. In
these structures equations of equilibrium are written for the de-
formed configuration. For analysis, first initial geometrical equilib-
rium is obtained, then Newton–Raphson methods are used for static
analysis. After determination of the boundary condition, the pre-
stressed force is applied to the tensegrity structure. For extracting

© ASCE 04022004-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(2): 04022004

 the initial equilibrium, unbalancing of the nodes under prestress
force must be considered. Therefore, the coordinates and the pre-
stress forces must be modified step by step until the entire structure
is balanced.
The formula to determine the initial equilibrium is

K gT u ¼ Fext ð1Þ

where K gT and Fext are the stiffness matrix and external load vector,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr Vishwanath Karad MIT-World Peace University on 02/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

respectively. Stiffness matrix is a summation of elastic stiffness and

geometric stiffness from prestresses

K gT ¼ K gE þ K gG ð2Þ

where

2 3

 1 0 0
E i Ai I 0 −I 0 6 7
kE ¼ ; I0 ¼ 6
40 0 07
5 ð3Þ
I 0i −I 0 I0
0 0 0

and

2 3

 1 0 0
Fi I 3 −I 3 6 7
kG ¼ ; I3 ¼ 6 7
4 0 1 0 5; i ¼ 1; : : : ; b ð4Þ
I i −I 3 I3
0 0 1 Fig. 1. Flowchart of the nonlinear analysis.

In Eq. (4), Fi = pretension load.

After extracting the equilibrium equation using the Newton– 2 3
A B 0 0 ··· 0 0 B1
Raphson method for solving it. In each iteration, the “unbalanced” 6 T 7
section of the external load is estimated for the next increment. As 6B A B 0 ··· 0 0 0 7
6 7
a summary, Fig. 1 shows a flowchart of steps in the nonlinear 6 7
6 0 B1 A B ··· 0 0 0 7
analysis. 6 7
6 .. .. 7
6 0 0 B1 . . 0 0 0 7
6 7
K¼6 . .. .. .. 7 ð5Þ
6 . 7
Dome Analysis with a Canonical Form 6 . . . . A B 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 B1 A B 0 7
6 7
In this section, a canonical form is presented for circular repetitive 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 B1 A B7
structures, and the eigensolution via this form is obtained. 4 5
In the classic methods, the entire structures have been used to B 0 0 0 0 0 B1 A
find required matrices (Chen and Feng 2012; Chen et al. 2012). The
proposed method considers some properties of symmetric and
Generating A, B, and BT requires less effort in the substructur-
regular structures to improve eigensolution and analysis, so analy-
ing method.
sis needs only small parts of the structures, and matrices have
After numbering the nodes in substructure, the corresponding
much smaller dimensions to solve large dimension matrices of
elements should be defined. Eq. (6) shows the stiffness matrices
eigensolution.
of the extracted substructure
For derivation of a proper substructure, all boundaries of
segments may not have any joint and three arbitrarily selected seg- 2 3
ments choose. Nodal numbering in this method is important, and in C B 0
6 t 7
each segment the number difference of arbitrarily selected nodes is ½K ¼ 6
4B A B7
5 ð6Þ
constant in each corresponding node in the adjacent segment.
All substructures have the same conditions in analysis under a 0 Bt D
symmetric loading. However, rotation substructure that leads to dis-
placements will not be identical in Cartesian directions. Thus, for The blocks A, B, Bt , C, and D are the submatrices of the sub-
calculating a governing equation, the cylindrical coordinate system structure’s stiffness matrix. For finding the eigenvalues of the stiff-
is more suitable than the Cartesian coordinate system. ness matrix A, B, and Bt are needed.
With proper numbering of the nodes, the global stiffness matrix After generating the blocks A, B, and Bt , eigenproblems are
of the entire structure is formed as shown in Eq. (5) solve by the following solution.

© ASCE 04022004-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(2): 04022004

 Table 1. Roots matrix L
n Real roots Complex roots θ
If n is even 1, −1 cos θ  isinθ θ ¼ 2kπ=n, k ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; ðn − 2Þ=2
If n is odd 1 cos θ  isinθ θ ¼ 2 kπ=n, k ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; ðn − 1Þ=2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr Vishwanath Karad MIT-World Peace University on 02/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. (a) Plane view of the dome of Example 1; (b) section (Z direction) of the dome of Example 1; and (c) section (Y direction) view of the dome of
Example 1.

Using Kronecker products to rewrite stiffness matrix in Eq. (7) For finding the eigenvector of K using the transformation in
yields the following: Eq. (13), as shown here
K nm×nm ¼ I n×n ⊗ Am×m þ Ln×n ⊗ Bm×m þ Ltn×n ⊗ Btm×m ð7Þ ϕi ¼ Uðej ⊗ Y i Þ ¼ ðX ⊗ IÞðej ⊗ Y i Þ ¼ Xej ⊗ IY i ð13Þ
where L = unsymmetric matrix shown in Eq. (8):
ϕi ¼ X j ⊗ Y i ð14Þ
2 3
0 1 ··· 0
6 .. 7 this method decreases computational time and memory
6. 0 1 7 significantly.
L¼6 .. 7 ð8Þ
40 ··· . 15
1 0 ··· 0 nn
An Illustrative Example
Thus, the eigenvalues of the matrix K can be obtained using the
union of the eigenvalues of n blocks as follows: The following assumptions are for simplifying the solution:
1. Cables are tension-only members;
n n 2. Cables have negligible buckling; and
eigðKÞ ¼ ∪ eigðBLj Þ ¼ ∪ eigðA þ λj ðLÞB þ λ̄j ðLÞBt Þ ð9Þ
j¼1 j¼1 3. Twisting and bending strength and transfer loads are found by
developing direct tension only (Krishnan 2015; Gurfinkel and
where λj = eigenvalue of L generated as follows: Krishnan 2017).
λn − 1 ¼ 0 ð10Þ

Eq. (10) has n real and complex roots shown in Table 1. Table 2. Node displacement with total analysis time
The matrix X in Eq. (11) is the eigenvectors of L: Classic method Present method
Displacement Time Displacement Time
X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn  ð11Þ Node (mm) (s) Node (mm) (s)
the eigenvector Y i is for the jth block calculated as follows: 2 −0.15338136 2 −0.16460926
3 −0.228321712 16.07 3 −0.263196485 1.042
BLj Y j ¼ μi Y i ð12Þ 5 −0.635667521 5 −0.680987944

© ASCE 04022004-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(2): 04022004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr Vishwanath Karad MIT-World Peace University on 02/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Example 2 dome and substructure.

Table 3. Material properties used for structural analysis Table 5. Example 3 nodes displacement with total analysis time
Modulus of Ultimate tensile Classic method Present method
Member type elasticity (MPa) strength (MPa) Area (mm2 ) Member Force (kN) Time (s) Member Force (kN) Time (s)
Ridge and hoops 137,895 1,751 2,130 Diagonal1 391.654 Diagonal1 389.268
Diagonal cables 165,474 1,862 1,400 and 2,800 Struts1 −164.128 37.549 Struts1 −144.127 4.43
Hoop cables 165,474 1,862 6,135 Ridge1 181.781 Ridge1 182.814
Struts 200,000 290 9,613 and 11,680 Hoop1 297.14 Hoop1 295.489

Table 4. Example 2 nodes displacement with total analysis time Fig. 3 shows a cable dome with span = 120 m and its substruc-
Classic method Present method ture. This substructure is selected by considering a minimum num-
Member Force (kN) Time (s) Member Force (kN) Time (s)
ber of elements that covers the entire structure property with
rotation. A prestress between 45% and 50% of the yield stress
Diagonal1 187.3 Diagonal1 180.46 of the cable is assumed as an initial value. Members’ properties
Struts1 −559.95 17.98 Struts1 −556.32 2.842 are shown in Table 3. Displacement and time for both methods
Ridge1 356.96 Ridge1 352.68
are presented in Table 4.
Hoop1 297.14 Hoop1 295.48
Fig. 4 shows a cable dome with span = 120 m and its substruc-
ture. A prestress between 45% and 50% of the yield stress of the
cable is assumed as the initial value. Members’ properties are
shown in Table 3. Displacement and time are presented in Table 5.
Assumptions 1 and 2 are satisfied by suitable prestress load. The time ratio in example 3 is 0.158065 and in example 4 is
Fig. 2 shows the cable dome studied by Pellegrino (Kangwai 0.117979 that show how effective this method in time saving.
et al. 1999). The total span is 1,725 mm. The Young’s modulus
of cables and struts are E ¼ 185 × 106 kN=m2 and E ¼ 210 ×
106 kN=m2 , respectively. Conclusion
As shown in Table 2, the results of the present method are near
to those of the classic method, with remarkable time reduction for Prestressed symmetrical cable domes are investigated with the
their calculation. numerical decomposition method. By using suitable subsystems

Fig. 4. Example 3 dome and substructure.

© ASCE 04022004-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(2): 04022004

 from the structures, complicated eigenproblems turned into much
simpler eigenproblems.
Eigenvalues of a structure with n rotationally repeating segment
need an nm × nm matrix where m is the number of degrees of
freedom in a substructure, in the proposed method eigenvalues
of m × m matrix are calculated n times. This saves considerable
time and memory for eigensolution.
Prestressed levels and cable cross sections are the most effective
items. Prestrain must prevent cable slacking and help to avoid over-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr Vishwanath Karad MIT-World Peace University on 02/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stressing the struts. In this work, prestress keeps cables in tension.
The nonlinear equilibrium equation of structure and substruc-
ture are developed and solved using the Newton–Raphson method.
The results of the illustrative example show that the analysis in the
cable dome is effective, correct, and reliable.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
References
Abedi, K., and G. Parke. 1996. “Progressive collapse of single-layer braced
domes.” Int. J. Space Struct. 11 (3): 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1177
/026635119601100302.
Aghayere, A. O. 1983. “Structural systems with polar symmetry: Solution
by quasicirculant matrices.” Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chen, Y., and J. Feng. 2012. “Generalized eigenvalue analysis of symmetric
prestressed structures using group theory.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 26 (4):
488–497. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000151.
Chen, Y., J. Feng, L. Zhuang, and S. Xia. 2012. “Elastic stability of sym-
metric dome structures using group theory.” In Proc., Earth and Space
2012: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Chal-
lenging Environments, 655–663. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10
.1061/9780784412190.071.
Geiger, D. H., A. Stefaniuk, and D. Chen. 1986. “The design and construc-
tion of two cable domes for the Korean Olympics.” In Proc., IASS Symp.
on Shells, Membranes and Space Frames. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
Gurfinkel, G., and S. Krishnan. 2017. “Analysis and design of cable-stayed
steel columns using the stiffness probe method.” Eng. J. Am. Inst. Steel
Constr. 54 (3): 195–210.
Han, Q., and X. Liu. 2002. “Behavior of a single layer spherical dome with
openings and large depth-to-span ratio.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 5 (3): 137–
142. https://doi.org/10.1260/136943302760228086.
© ASCE 04022004-5
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(2): 04022004
Hasan, M. A., and J. A. Hasan. 2002. “Block eigenvalue decomposition
using nth roots of the identity matrix.” In Proc., 41st IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control, 2002. New York: IEEE.
Kangwai, R., S. Guest, and S. Pellegrino. 1999. “An introduction to the
analysis of symmetric structures.” Comput. Struct. 71 (6): 671–688.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(98)00234-X.
Kaveh, A. 2004. Structural mechanics: Graph and matrix methods.
Somerset, UK: Research Studies Press.
Kaveh, A. 2013. Optimal structural analysis using the concept of symmetry
and regularity. Berlin: Springer.
Kaveh, A., and F. Nemati. 2010. “Eigensolution of rotationally repetitive
space structures using a canonical form.” Int. J. Numer. Methods
Biomed. Eng. 26 (12): 1781–1796. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.1265.
Kaveh, A., and H. Rahami. 2006. “Block diagonalization of adjacency and
Laplacian matrices for graph product; applications in structural mechan-
ics.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 68 (1): 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1002
/nme.1696.
Kaveh, A., and B. Salimbahrami. 2004. “Eigensolution of symmetric
frames using graph factorization.” Commun. Numer. Methods Eng.
20 (12): 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.711.
Kaveh, A., and M. Sayarinejad. 2005. “Eigenvalues of factorable matrices
with form IV symmetry.” Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 21 (6): 269–
287. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.744.
Kebiche, K., M. Kazi-Aoual, and R. Motro. 1999. “Geometrical non-linear
analysis of tensegrity systems.” Eng. Struct. 21 (9): 864–876. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00014-5.
Krishnan, S. 2015. Prestressed cable domes: Structural behavior and
design. Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Levy, M. 1989. “Hypar-tensegrity dome.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Sports
Architecture, 157–162. London: Thomas Telford.
Motro, R. 1992. “Tensegrity systems: The state of the art.” Int. J. Space
Struct. 7 (2): 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/026635119200700201.
Motro, R. 2003. Tensegrity: Structural systems for the future. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Pugh, A. 1976. An introduction to tensegrity. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Rebielak, J. 2000. “Structural system of cable dome shaped by means of
simple form of spatial hoops.” In Lightweight structures in civil engi-
neering, edited by J. B. Obrebski Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 114–115.
Warsaw, Poland: Micro-Publisher.
Thomas, D. L. 1979. “Dynamics of rotationally periodic structures.” Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 14 (1): 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme
.1620140107.
Williams, F. 1986a. “An algorithm for exact eigenvalue calculations for
rotationally periodic structures.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 23 (4):
609–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620230407.
Williams, F. 1986b. “Exact eigenvalue calculations for structures with rota-
tionally periodic substructures.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 23 (4):
695–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620230411.
Yuan, X., and S. Dong. 2003. “Integral feasible prestress of cable domes.”
Comput. Struct. 81 (21): 2111–2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045
-7949(03)00254-2.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.