Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Robert E. Skelton
Abstract: This paper demonstrates a procedure to design an optimal mass to stiffness ratio tensegrity structure.
Starting from an initial layout of the structure that defines an allowed set of element connections, the procedure
defines positions of the nodal points of the structure, volumes of the elements and their rest lengths yielding a
tensegrity structure having smaller compliance for a given load applied then an initial design. To satisfy design
requirements strength constraint for all the elements of the structure, buckling constraint for bar elements as well
as constraint on geometry of the structure are imposed yielding a nonconvex nonlinear constrained optimization
problem. Structural static response is computed using complete nonlinear large displacement model. Examples
showing optimal layout of a 2D and 3D structure are shown.
Keywords: Tensegrity Structure, Optimal Stiffness, Design Constraints, Nonlinear
Program
1. INTRODUCTION
in works of several authors (Pellegrino and Calladine, 1985), (Hanaor, 1992), (Skelton et al., 2001).
A tensegrity structure is a prestressable stable dynamical truss-like system made of axially loaded elements. What differentiates them from regular truss
structures is that all tensile elements are strings capable of transmitting load in only one direction. Unlike
regular trusses a set of admissible topologies is much
smaller than the set of topologies that yield a structure
containing mechanisms.
Tensegrity structures as an art form were first introduced by Snelson (1965). Fuller (1962) was the first
one to recognize their engineering values. Over the
course of the
years from the moment of their first
creation, tensegrity structures were analyzed mostly
in a descriptive manner. Experimental and geometrical analysis techniques prevailed. No systematic design and analysis procedures were defined. All the
designs were usually obtained by ingenuity of their authors. The importance of developing systematic design
techniques for the tensegrity structures is recognized
Optimization of topology of structures has been studied for a long time. One of the results is the formulation of Optimality Criteria (Save et al., n.d.),
which has been worked out almost completely for
grillages while for trusses there is also a set of conditions, but not nearly as complete as for grillages
(Rozvany, n.d.). Furthermore, several approaches for
numerical optimization are known, while recent approaches are, e.g. free material modeling (Bendsoe,
1989; Bendsoe, 1995; Sprekels and Tiba, 1998; BenTal et al., 1999; Sigmund, 2001), or optimization of
trusses starting from a fully populated grid (Ben-Tal
and Nemirovski, 1997; Jarre et al., 1998). Practical
purposes require to:
outline the topology/geometry optimization, incorporating requirements for static equilibria for
pre-stressed mechanical structures, both loaded
and unloaded,
show the influence of incorporating nonlinear
failure constraints in the optimization, like yield
and buckling,
provide evidence that the approach yields physically relevant topologies and geometries,
investigate the handling of requirements of installing actuating devices to control the length
of the tendons, by excluding a certain range of
tendon lengths.
and nodal positions . For a given
vector of
applied external nodal forces , this set of
parameters defines a structure, whose static response,
defined in the vector of nodal displacement ,
yields a compliance energy "! $#$ , that is guaranteed
to be improved from the the value corresponding to
an initial design. Note that compliance is used as a
measure of the stiffness of the structure.
1657%
%85
'
=
:
+,; : #
#<
> ?
2$%57.
2 0A@.
>
5B :
;DCAE
FHGDIJ K L
is formed by stacking up force coefficients
F
M
. Linear operator N O P Q is defined as:
I J6S IT J
U T J$V F O W7X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ `
a F
M b T c V ^dWfedg g g h
OP R
(1)
Depending on the material model chosen,
the
relaF
tionship between force coefficients, and physical
parameters of the structure may be different. For this
analysis the linear elastic material model is used.
F Then
F
force coefficients of the tensegrity structure and i ,
at configurations defined by the vectors of nodal positions j and j6k&l , are computed as,
Mr M
Y M$u&Y s t V
F
MAW3m n m o W7p M q
YM
Y M Y so t N
Q
(2)
Mr M
M
F
MAWvm n i m o W7p M q
Y M$uHY s t
Q
i
(3)
YM
Y M Y so t N i
i
i
YMV YM
Lengths of the elements i , at configurations j and
jwk&l respectively are computed as,
V
Y MAW ` M V Y MW ` M V `6W7x
m mo
mi mo
i
N jwkHl$Q
(4)
i
pG&IJ K L
^yz
e u{e ^ y z
is a vector whose
entry is or G7if
IJ K L
element is a string or bar respectively end q
is a vector of Youngs modulus of the elements. The
F
MA|}
constraint
is equivalent to
u,p M Y Mu&Y s t
} g
N
Q,~
(5)
F O x
W7[ g
W7} V
i N jwkHl$QkH6kD
l
(6)
F
GDI T J
i is defined in (2) and GfI T isJ unknown
nodal
U TJ
[ G
constraint
reaction
force,
and
I TJ
where
up M Y M$uHY s t
} V
Ni
Q~
^G b V
(7)
| Ys MJ
t
t } V
M J G IJ K L .
(8)
p M M Y M$u&Y s t &
u Ys t
q N
Q
p M M Y M$u&Y s t u&Y s t
q Ni
Q
Ys
Ys
M
M
~
~
} V
} g
(9)
(10)
MAWp M q M N
Ys t
stQ
(11)
where
M Y M$u&Y s t &
u Ys t M } V
q Ni
Q
~
^G b
(12)
M V F
M Y M
M V ^G b
~ m n tt L m o
i i ~ m n tt L m o
Mb M t
(13)
V
M
W o q
m n tt L m o
Y so t
b M t
where
is a minimal moment of inertia of the
F
M Y M
o V
b M t W
Y so t
(14)
uY s o t Y M$uHY s t u r M } V ^G b
N
Q ~
u,Y s o Y M$u&Y s t u r M } V d
^ G4b g
Ni
Q ~
(15)
(16)
4
where
100
(17)
200
are given.
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0
$$
w
{
7
A $& d A6
6&$D 7
A $&
A 67 w&$
4
, $& ,
dD
, $D
,
D ,
,
$& d& dD
$& d& dD
$ & d&
A
, $& d7 d d
, $& d7 d d
A
$ 4 7
Given
100
200
300
nz = 15419
400
500
Fig. 1. Sparsity pattern of the the analytically computed constraint Jacobian for the given 3D example
4. NUMERICAL RESULTS
The basic 2D problem used to illustrate the optimal
mass to stiffness ratio tensegrtiy design is given in
Figure 2.
2
10
12
1
0.5
1
11
0
0
node .
After applying the optimization procedure the following design illustrated in Figure 3 is obtained.
We note the following:
4.5
4
1
3.5
0.5
3
2.5
ycoordinate
0
0.5
2
1.5
1
1
0
2
E
=100, E
bar
0.5
ten
0
0.5
1
1.5
3
4
xcoordinate
0.5
0
0.5
0
45
33
46
34
21
29
35
1
10
5
11
4
12
16
24
38
15
1
13
14
37
0.5
2.5
1.5
1
3
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
1.5
39
18
19
26
0.5
40
48
27
17
23
25
20
42
7
41
47
28
36
22
30
0.5
43
31
44
32
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
20
33
43
48 45
44
47
34
86
3
36
21
46
31
32
35
2
23
7 22
1.5
30
19
29
40 39
28
25
41
4216
38
27 24
37
10
12
11
1
3
15
18
3
2
17
0.5
26
13
14
1
1
0
0.5
1
0.5
1.5
2.5
Fig. 6. Initial vs. optimal design of a 3D tensegrity beam system in loaded state; unstressed element: light gray, pre-stressed bars: dark gray, prestressed tendons: black
tensegrity topological and geometrical optimization, cast in the form of a nonlinear program, is
effectively solvable,
if the problem is feasible the optimization approach is an appropriate design tool that guarantees monotonic stiffness improvement compared
to an initial design,
class two tensegrity topologies are advantageous,
optimal topologies are highly asymmetric.
include symmetry in the design objective by penalizing utilization of too many different elements to reduce manufacturing expenses
optimize parameterized geometry which guarantees desired level of symmetry
add buckling constraint for the structure as a
whole.
REFERENCES
Ben-Tal, A. and A. Nemirovski (1997). Robust truss
topology design via semidefinite programming.
SIAM J. Optimization 7, 9911016.
Ben-Tal, A., M. Kocvara, A. Nemirovski and J. Zowe
(1999). Free material design via semidefinite programming: The multiload case with contact conditions. SIAM J. Optimization 9, 813832.
Bendsoe, M.P. (1989). Optimial shape design as a material distribution problem. Struct. Optim. 1, 193
202.
Bendsoe, M.P. (1995). Optimization of structural
topology, shape and material. Berlin: SpringerVerlag.
de Jager, B. and R.E. Skelton (2001). Optimizing stiffness properties of tensegrity structures.. In: Proceedings of International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition 2001. Vol. 3330.
New York.
Fuller, R. Buckminister (1962). Tensileintegrity
structures. US Patent. 3,063,521.
Gill, P.E., W. Murray and M.A. Saunders (1999).
Users guide for SNOPT 5.3: A FORTRAN package for large-scale nonlinear programming. University of California, San Diego.
Hanaor, A. (1992). Double-layer tensegrity grids as
deployable structures. International Journal of
Space Structures.
Jarre, F., M. Kocvara and J. Zowe (1998). Optimal
truss design by interior-point methods. Siam J.
Optim 8(4), 10841107.
Masic, M. and R.E. Skelton (2001). Open-loop controlled deployment of stable unit tensegrity structures. In: 3rd World Conference on Structural
Control. Como,Italy, 0712 April.
Pellegrino, S. and C. R. Calladine (1985). Matrix analysis of statistically and kinematically indeterminate frameworks. International Journal of Solids
and Structures 22(4), 409428.
Rozvany, G.I.N. (n.d.). Structural Design via Optimality Criteria, The Prager Approach to Structural
Optimization. Vol. 8. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Save, M., W. Prager and G. Sacchi (n.d.). Structural Optimization, Volume 1, Optimality Criteria,Mathematical Concepts and Methods in
Science and Engineering. Vol. 34. New York:
Plenum Press.
Sigmund, O. (2001). A 99 line topology optimization
code written inMatlab. Struct. Multidisc. Optim.
21, 120127.
Skelton, R. E. and R. Adhikari (1998). An introduction to smart tensegrity structures. Proc. 12th
ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conf. pp. 2427.
Skelton, R.E., J.P. Pinaud and D.L. Mingori (2001).
Dynamics of the shell class of tensegrity
structures. Journal of The Franklin institute
(338), 255320.
Snelson, K. (1965). Continuous tension, discontinous
compression structures. U.S. Patent 3,169,611.
Sprekels, J. and D. Tiba (1998). A duality approach
in the optimization of beams and plates. SIAM J.
Control Optim. 37(2), 486501.