Nonlinear Mechanics of Bioinspired Tensegrity

Systems

Alex Neves Brandão Mendes

Advisor: Marcelo Amorim Savi

 Summary
 Introduction
 Simplex Tensegrity
• Formulation;
• Prestressed – Analytical;
• Loaded – Numerical;
• Loaded – Experimental-Numerical;
• Loaded – General Results.
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot
• Shape Memory Alloys
• Prosthesis Mechanical Performance
• Foot Physiology
 Concluding Remarks

2
 Introduction
Tension + Integrity = Tensegrity

Not a Tensegrity Tensegrity Tensegrity

Configuration System

“islands of compression in an ocean of tension” (Fuller, 1962)

3
 Introduction

Circuit Zig-Zag
Rhombic
(Cuboctahedron) (Truncated Tetrahedron)

(Bansod et al., 2014)

4
Introduction

5
Introduction

(Scarr, 2011)
6
Introduction

(Termonia, 1994)

7
Introduction

(Scarr, 2011)
8
 Introduction

Bioinspiration

(Sun et al., 2019)

9
 Simplex Tensegrity
Hypotheses:

• Elastic bars;
• Large structure displacements.

10
 Tensegrity: Formulation

W  F +W r  0  = W  F +W r
W W  N 
T
Lagrange
W = NC QC Multipliers

Levenberg-
Marquardt
2
f obj  

(Zak and Chong, 2016;Yuan et al., 2017)

11
 Tensegrity: Formulation
1 dVk V
 k  mk    k
mk d mk mk

Wk  Vk  mk 

Wk
 k  mk  
mk

12
 Simplex Tensegrity: Formulation
 r r r 3 r 3
 r   0  
W W  N   2 2 2 2 
 r 3 r 3 r r 
N  0    
W = NC T QC  2 2 2
r
2 
0 0 0 h0 h0 h0 

 1 0 0 1 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0 1 0  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
  
 0 0 1 0 0 1  0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   
 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
 0 1 1 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C  
1 0 1 0 0 0  Q  
0 0 0 1 1 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
   
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
 0 0 0 0 1 1 
 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
 
  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
 1 0 0 0 0 1   
  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
 0 1 0 1 0 0   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  8 
 0 0 1 0 1 0 
13
 Simplex Tensegrity: Formulation
 3r 0 3r 2 3r 0 3r 2 r r 3 4 
 2  2       3 3  r 3 5  r 3 3  r 3 5  
 2 2 2  2 
2
 3  1 3 r 8 1 3  3  
  1 r 6    r 7     r 7  r 3 4   1 r
 6   
  2  2 2  2 2 2    2  
2
  3 r 1 3  3 1 3 
   1   r 0  1    r 2  1   r 0 r 8 r 1   r
 2  
2 2   2  
  2  2
2 2 2 2  
 
 
 1 r 3 2 3 3r 3 3r 4 3r 4 
W   r 3   r 3 0  r 3 1  3r 1    r 3      
2
0 2 2 2 2 2 2
 
 r 3  3 1  3  3 1  3 r 6 
 2    r 7  1   r 8     r 7  1   r 8   
 2  2 2  2   2 2  2  2

 r 6 r 0  3  1 3 r 0  3  1 3  
   1   r 1    r 2  1  r
 1      r 2 
 2 2  2   2 2  2  2   2 2  
 
 
  h0 6  h00  h0 7  h01 h0 8  h0 2 h0 7  h0 0 h0 8  h0 1 h0 6  h0 2 

 F0 x F1x F2 x F3 x F4 x F5 x 
F   F0 y F1 y F2 y F3 y F4 y F5 y 
 F0 z F1z F2 z F3 z F4 z F5 z 
14
 Simplex Tensegrity: Formulation
Vk
 k  mk  
mk

• Elastic elements:

1
Vk  mk   k  mk  l 
0 2

2
Vk  mk   k mk  l 0 

 lk0 
 k  mk   k 1  
 mk 

15
 Simplex Tensegrity: Formulation
Vk
 k  mk  
mk

• SMA elements:

1 1
Vk  mk   A  a  T  TM   m k  l   b  m k  l 
0 2 0 4

2 4
1 b2 

6 4a  TA  TM 
 mk  l 
0 6
   Vp  k

A 

 Vk m ak  TATMa TmkTMl mkb  m
      
0 3
3
F SMA
SMA 0
l 0
bl m  l 0
kk
mk  k k k k

bb22 


44aa  T

  llk  
mkk 
m 0 55
0
 pp 
TAA  TMM 
 T 
16
 Simplex Tensegrity: Formulation

• Bars:

 lk0 
k  k 1  
 mk 

• Strings:

elastic SMA
 A 
 m  a  T  T   m  l 0
  b  m  lk 
0 3

 
M k k k
lk0   k

k 1   , mk  lk
0
 b2 
k     mk  lk0    p  ,
5
mk  k    mk  lk0
 4a  TA  TM  

0 , mk  lk0 0 , mk  lk0



17
 Simplex Tensegrity: Prestressed - Analytical

S   0 1 2  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 1 1 1 1 1 1 
S   1 1 1 1 1 1
 3 3 3 3 3 3 

  hc 3
 1 
v v 3

(Zhang and Ohsaki, 2011)

 ,  ,  v ,  hc  prestresses
18
Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – Numerical

(Yuan et al., 2017)

19
 Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – Numerical
z y z y

x
x
x x

z z z z

y x
y
x

(initial) undeformed configuration (final) deformed configuration 20

 Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – Experimental-Numerical

0.4
Full range experimental data
Up to locking experimental data
0.3
F (kN)

0.2

0.1
Start loading
0.0 Structure
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
d (mm) locking Structure
Post-locking

(Amendola et al., 2014)

21
Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – Experimental-Numerical

22
Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – Experimental-Numerical
0.3 0.098

MeanGrad
0.049
0.2 0.000

F(kN)
7.40E-018 f
0.1 MeanGrad

f
3.70E-018
0.00E+000
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

LoadStep F(kN)
(a) (b)

Nodes displacement (mm)

0.3 30
Bar 1
Bar 2
0.2 Bar 3 20
F(kN)

Experimental

0.1 10 Node 1 Node 2 Node 3

Node 4 Node 5 Node 6

0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Bar Height Displacement (mm) F(kN)
(c) (d)
30 70
Ground Angle (degree)

Torsion Angle (degree)

Bar 1 a1
Bar 2 a2
Bar 3
60
20 a3
50
10
40

0 30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
F(kN) F(kN)
(e) (f)
23
 Simplex Tensegrity: General Results

No External Load!!!

No Prestress tr ing
ti cal S
Ver st re ss
Pre 100N 150N 200N

Bot
tomS
Pre trin
stre g
ss

50N 100N 200N

24
 Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – General Results

0.7
0.6
0.5 No Prestress
50 N
0.4 100 N
F(kN)

200 N
0.3
(Bottom strings prestress)
0.2
0.1
0.0
-50 -25 0 25 50 75
Height Displacement (mm)

25
Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – General Results

0.7
0.6
0.5
No Prestress
0.4 50 N
F(kN)

100 N
0.3 200 N
0.2 (top and bottom strings prestress)

0.1
0.0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75
Height Displacement (mm)

26
 Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – General Results

0.7
0.6
0.5
No Prestress
0.4 10 N
F(kN)

25 N
0.3
50 N
0.2 (vertical strings prestress)
0.1
0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75
Height Displacement (mm)

27
 Simplex Tensegrity: Loaded – General Results

Bottom Strings Top and Bottom Vertical Strings

Prestressed Strings Prestressed Prestressed
No prestress No prestress No prestress
50 N 50 N 10 N
100 N 100 N 25 N
200 N 200 N 50 N
Stiffness (N/mm or kN/m)

180 1200 20
16
120 800
12

400 8
60
4
0 0 0
Stiffness (N/mm or kN/m)

1200 1200 1200

800 800 800

400 400 400

0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
F (kN) F (kN) F (kN) 28
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot

(Rohen et al., 2015)

29
Smart Biotensegrity Foot

30
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot

(Rohen et al., 2015)

31
Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Shape Memory Alloys
0.6

0.4

F (kN)
0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 160 320 480 640 800
Displacement (mm) Loadstep

Temperature (K)

380

360

340
0 2 4 6 8 0 160 320 480 640 800
Loadstep
32
Displacement (mm)
Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Prosthesis Mechanical Performance

Experimental set used by McNicholas et al. (2010)

33
Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Prosthesis Mechanical Performance

1.2
1.0
0.8

F (kN)
0.6 80 N of prestress
T = 400 K
0.4
Bar 1
0.2 Bar 2
Bar 3
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)

34
Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Prosthesis Mechanical Performance

1.2 100 McNicholas Prostheses data envelope

450 K
1.0 400 K
80

Stiffness (kN/m)
373 K
333 K
0.8 (bottom strings prestressed of 80N)
60
F(kN)

0.6
0.4 40

0.2 20
0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Displacement (mm) F (kN)

35
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Foot Physiology

2
0
2 2
1 1
0
0 1

80
Displacement (mm)

Node 0
60 Node 1
2
Node 2

40
0 1

20

333 340 345 350 2

Temperature (K)
0 1

Eversion
0 1
36
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Foot Physiology

2
2
1
0 0
1
2
1 0
80
Node 0
Displacement (mm)

60 Node 1
Node 2
2
40 1
0
20

333 340 345 350

2
Temperature (K)
1
0

2
1 0
Dorsiflexion
37
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Foot Physiology

2 0
2

1 0 1
2
1 0
80
Displacement (mm)

Node 0
60 Node 1
Node 2

40 2
1 0
20

333 340 345 350

0
Temperature (K) 2
1

0
2
1
Plantarflexion
38
 Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Foot Physiology

1
0
2 2
1 0
2 0 1
80

Node 0
Displacement (mm)

60 Node 1
Node 2
1
40
2 0

20

333 340 345 350

Temperature (K)
1

2 0

Varus
1

2 0 39
Smart Biotensegrity Foot: Foot Physiology

40
 Concluding Remarks

 The tensegrity structure:

• Is capable of representing a human foot;

• Has similar performance to that of commercial prosthesis;

• Is capable of replicating the human foot movements;

• Can be actuated by SMA strings.

41
 Concluding Remarks

 A glimpse into the future:

• Gait analysis (dynamical walking analysis);

• Shock absorption and vibrations;

• Experimental prototype construction;

• Control;

• Smart interface integration (smartwatches and smartphones);

• Energy harvesting;

• Product development, ergonomics and aesthetics.

42
 Thank you!

43

May the nonlinearities be with you!

 References
• BENYUS, J. M. Biomimicry. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997. BING, W.
Bin. Free-standing Tension Structures. [S.l: s.n.], 2004.
 
• BERCK, P., SYDSÆTER, K., BERCK, P., et al. "Kronecker products and the vec operator",
Economists’ Mathematical Manual, p. 113–115, 1993. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-
11597-8_22
 
• BING, W. Bin. Free-standing Tension Structures. [S.l: s.n.], 2004
 
• BUCKMINSTER FULLER, R. "Tentional Integrity Structures US3139957A Patent", 1962.
 
• CAÑADAS, P., LAURENT, V. M., ODDOU, C., et al. "A cellular tensegrity model to
analyse the structural viscoelasticity of the cytoskeleton", Journal of Theoretical
Biology, v. 218, n. 2, p. 155–173, 2002. DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.2002.3064.
 
• CHONG, E. K. P., ŻAK, S. H. An Introduction to Optimization. Hoboken, NJ, USA, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118033340
.
 
• CONNELLY, R., BACK, a. "Mathematics and Tensegrity: Group and representation
theory make it possible to form a complete catalogue of" strut-cable" constructions
with
prescribed symmetries", American Scientist, v. 86, n. 2, p. 142–151, 1998
44
 References
• EKEBERG, Ö., PEARSON, K. "Computer simulation of stepping in the hind legs of the
cat: An examination of mechanisms regulating the stance-to-swing transition",
Journal of Neurophysiology, v. 94, n. 6, p. 4256–4268, 2005. DOI:
10.1152/jn.00065.2005.
 
• FERNÁNDEZ, F. M. "The Kronecker product and some of its physical applications",
European Journal of Physics, v. 37, n. 6, 2016. DOI: 10.1088/0143-
0807/37/6/065403.
 
• HANDBOOK, B. R. Biomimicry Resource Handbook. [S.l: s.n.], 2011.
 
• HUTSON, M., WARD, A. Musculoskeletal medicine. 2nd. ed. [S.l.], Oxford, 2003.
 
• LEON, S. E., PAULINO, G. H., PEREIRA, A., et al. "A unified library of nonlinear solution
schemes", Applied Mechanics Reviews, v. 64, n. 4, 2011. DOI: 10.1115/1.4006992. .
 
• MOTRO, R. Tensegrity, Structural Systems for the Future. [S.l.], Kogan Page Limited,
2003.
 
• NAYAKANTI, N., TAWFICK, S. H., HART, A. J. "Twist-Coupled Kirigami Cellular
Metamaterials and Mechanisms", [S.d.]. .
 
• OLIVEIRA, M. C., SKELTON, R. E. Tensegrity Systems. Boston, MA, Springer US, 2009.
v. 53. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-0-387-74242-7. 45
 References
• PAN, H., JING, X., SUN, W., et al. "Analysis and Design of a Bioinspired Vibration
Sensor System in Noisy Environment", IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, v.
23, n. 2, p. 845–855, 2018. DOI: 10.1109/TMECH.2018.2803284.
 
• PASSINO, K. M. Biomimicry for optimization, control, and automation. [S.l: s.n.],
2006. v. 26.
 
• SCARR, G. "A consideration of the elbow as a tensegrity structure", International
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, v. 15, n. 2, p. 53–65, 2012. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijosm.2011.11.003.
 
• SCHÄCKE, K. "On the Kronecker Product", p. 1–35, 2013.
 
• SIMMONS, A. H., MICHAL, C. A., JELINSKI, L. W. "Molecular Orientation and Two-
Component Nature of the Crystalline Fraction of Spider Dragline Silk Published by :
American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2890379", Advancement Of Science, v. 271, n. 5245, p.
84–87, 2010.
 
• SULTAN, C., STAMENOVIĆ, D., INGBER, D. E. "A computational tensegrity model
predicts dynamic rheological behaviors in living cells", Annals of Biomedical
Engineering, v. 32, n. 4, p. 520–530, 2004. DOI:
10.1023/B:ABME.0000019171.26711.37.
46
 References
• SUN, J., SONG, G., CHU, J., et al. "An Adaptive Bioinspired Foot Mechanism Based on
Tensegrity Structures", Soft Robotics, v. 6, n. 6, p. 778–789, 2019. DOI:
10.1089/soro.2018.0168.
 
• TERMONIA, Y. "Molecular Modeling of Spider Silk Elasticity", Macromolecules, v. 27,
n. 25, p. 7378–7381, 1994. DOI: 10.1021/ma00103a018.
 
• TIBERT, A. G., PELLEGRINO, S. "Review of form-finding methods for tensegrity
structures", International Journal of Space Structures, v. 26, n. 3, p. 241–255, 2011.
DOI: 10.1260/0266-3511.26.3.241.
 
• VERA, C., SKELTON, R., BOSSENS, F., et al. "3-D nanomechanics of an erythrocyte
junctional complex in equibiaxial and anisotropic deformations", Annals of
Biomedical Engineering, v. 33, n. 10, p. 1387–1404, 2005. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-005-
4698-y.
 
• WU, Z., JING, X., BIAN, J., et al. "Vibration isolation by exploring bio-inspired
structural nonlinearity", Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, v. 10, n. 5, p. 56015, 2015.
DOI: 10.1088/1748-3190/10/5/056015.
 
• YUAN, X. F., MA, S., JIANG, S. H. "Form-finding of tensegrity structures based on the
Levenberg–Marquardt method", Computers and Structures, v. 192, p. 171–180,
2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.07.005.
 
• ZHANG, J. Y., OHSAKI, M. Tensegrity Structures. [S.l: s.n.], 2015.

47
 Appendix: Levenberg-Marquardt
i 1
n n δ i i
optimal

 
f obj n  δ  f obj  n   T f obj  n  δ  O  δ 2 

1
min  f obj  n    f obj  n  δ 
2
 T

2
f obj  ni   f obj  ni   T f obj  ni  δoptimal
i
0


f obj  ni   f obj  ni   f obj  ni   T f obj  n i  δoptimal

i
0

  f obj  n    f obj  n   f obj  n i   f obj  n i 

1
i i T i
δoptimal

48
 Appendix: Levenberg-Marquardt
i 1
n n δ i i
optimal

 
f obj n  δ  f obj  n   T f obj  n  δ  O  δ 2 
• Newton-Gauss:
1
     obj   obj  
1
 xf fobjni x 
2
min
δ i  f
obj 
T
hT f n   i
f n i
 f n i
2
optimal  obj obj

f obj  ni   f obj  ni   T f obj  ni  δoptimal

i
0

• Levenberg-Marquardt:
f obj  ni   f obj  ni   f obj  ni   T f obj  n i  δoptimal
i
0

 n    f obj  nobj   fobj  n LM

  f obj  n  obj   obj  
1
δi i
δoptimal
optimal     f
  f objobj i
n 
i T
 T
f i

1
n i
  Ii  
i
f ni
 f ni

49
 Appendix: Lagrange Multipliers

Lagrangian + k Gk  N 

Constraint
Lagrange Condition
Multiplier
   0
Gk N  N ij  N ij  0
0
 
 
wkr   k 
 
 
 0  50