JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: IASS

THE MESSETURM IN ROSTOCK– A TENSEGRITY TOWER

Mike Schlaich
Schlaich Bergermann und Partner, www.sbp.de

SUMMARY

THE TOWER AT THE FAIR IN THE CITY OF ROSTOCK, GERMANY

This tower, which is probably the highest tensegrity structure built so far, might become the new symbol of
the Rostock fair ground. The tower consists of six so-called twist elements of 8.3 m height, each made of
three steel tubes which are stabilized by three diagonal cables and three horizontal cables. Together with the
stainless steel needle placed on top, this sculpture reaches a height of 62.3 m. The paper briefly describes the
history of tensegrity structures, the conceptual and structural design as well as the non-linear analysis which
was necessary for this highly pre-tensioned lightweight structure.

Keywords: tensegrity, towers, cable structures, light-weight buildings

1. INTRODUCTION
The world’s highest tensegrity tower was completed
just in time for the opening of the International
Garden Exhibition in Rostock (IGA 2003) and
serves as a landmark on the grounds of the trade fair
Hanse-Messe. The tower is visible from afar with a
total height of 62.3 m and may have deflections
greater than one meter during storms.
On first sight the structure appears confusing (fig. 1,
2). Even experienced engineers need time to
understand the load transfer between the tower
components. However, after a while this sculpture
reveals its inner order which causes it to change its
appearance depending on the angle one looks at it
(fig. 3).

Figure 1. The Tensegrity tower in Rostock Figure 2. Close-up

 VOL. 45 (2004) n. 145
Figure 3. Nine Elevations
2. TENSEGRITY
The American inventor, engineer and architect, R.
Buckminster Fuller, coined the term “tensegrity”, a
combination of tensional and integrity [1]. True
tensegrity structures consist of a continuous system
of elements in tension and a discontinuous
secondary system of elements in compression.
Buckminster Fuller poetically described such
structural systems as “islands of compression in a
sea of tension.” These extremely lightweight and
transparent structures require high pre-tensioning
for stability.
Still, tensegrity structures are very lively, in spite of
high pre-tensioning. Particularly, tensegrity towers
are extremely flexible and yielding structures of
very limited practical use. Numerous university
studies around the world have done little to change
this fact. One can find thousands of internet sites on
tensegrity structures. The only practical application
for tensegrity structures has been the so-called
“cable domes” [2]. Large span roofing systems
based on the spoked wheel systems [3] have been
successful and may also be categorized as
tensegrity structures in the furthest sense of the
term.
Before Buckminster Fuller, who tried (with limited
success) to introduce tensegrity principles into
modern architecture, the American sculptor
Kenneth Snelson applied such ideas in his work.
Snelson’s 30 m high “Needle Tower” is a true
tensegrity structure, as no element in compression is
connected to another element in compression. The
highest tensegrity tower built before the Rostock
tower was constructed in 1968 at the Smithsonian
Institute in Washington, D.C. The very first to
experiment with tensegrity structures was perhaps
the Russian artist Karl Ioganson whose sculpture
“study in balance” was created in 1921 [4].
Presently, Japanese designers are perhaps the most
active in the field of tensegrity structures [5], [6].
3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
The architectural design of the Hanse-Messe called
for a large timber hall, a conference center, as well
as a tower to act as a symbol for the complex. After
it became clear that the tower would neither support
large signboards nor would be climbed by its users,
the large deflections of a tensegrity structure were
no longer a criteria for exclusion.
The jump from 30 m to 60 m (with needle) as the
highest tower was achieved using a trick: permitting
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: IASS

contact of certain compression elements, three main
independent compression elements are formed. This
decidedly increases the rigidity of the system while
at the same time simplifying the visual impression
of transparency (fig. 4). Experts still refer to such a
system as a tensegrity structure [7].
Ease in pre-tensioning and stability dictated the
geometry and the angle of rotation (30°) of the
twist-elements. The plane defined by a bar and a
diagonal cable must bisect the angle between two
horizontal cables [8]. This geometry inhibits
twisting during pre-tensioning. Still, the dead load
causes a small rotation of the twist element which
cannot be compensated by pre-tensioning.
However, overall this effect can almost be
eliminated by alternatively stacking left twist-
elements on right twist-elements.

A: twist element A (upper B: twist element B (upper

triangle rotated by +30°) triangle rotated by –30°)

Figure 5. Twist elements (twisted left, twisted right)

Figure 4. Pure Tensegrity and the Rostock solution

Still, the tower could only work if very tight

tolerances were respected. This leads to a precision
in design, fabrication and construction usually
found only in mechanical engineering. This
assignment was successfully mastered by the
contractor and his steel shop. High strength
materials such as fully locked coil ropes, which are
typically found in suspension bridge structures,
were used for the tower.

4. STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The tower consists of six so-called twist-elements,

each 8.3 m in height. Each of these elements
contains 3 bars in compression (273 mm diameter
tubular steel sections with wall thickness between
12 and 40 mm), three galfan coated diagonal cables
(50 mm to 75 mm fully locked coil ropes) and three
smaller horizontal cables (30 mm to 50 mm). Figure 6. Detail geometry
 VOL. 45 (2004) n. 145

A 15 m high stainless steel needle creates the
pinnacle of the tower and protrudes 12.5 m above
the top twist-element (fig. 7). The needle is hung on
3 pre-stressed stainless steel cable ropes (1 x 37
Ø=20mm). The tower weighs a total of 50 tons.
tower foundation. Pile design was governed by the
tension forces due to the high wind loads from the
Baltic Sea and the low weight of the structure,
which created large bending moments and relatively
low axial forces acting on the foundation.

Figure 7. Stainless Steel needle during erection

Figure 8. Typical node
Two bars in compression and 4 cables are joined at
each node. The large diagonal cables are connected
using open spelter sockets pinned to thick plates
which are in turn welded to the bars in compression.
At the nodes, bolted butt plates create a rigid
connection between the bars (fig. 8). Using a pined
connection between the bars would lead to
kinematic connections.

Early in the design it became apparent that the

tower would best be erected by joining
prefabricated twist elements. The use of double butt
plates allowed these pre-fabricated twist elements to
be easily connected and eased erection. The
individual elements were connected to each other Figure 9. Connection of prefabricated elements and
with high-strength bolts (M30, 10.9). In order to temporary stressing frame
avoid using double horizontal cables, a temporary
steel frame with integrated pre-tensioning jacks was
used during erection (see fig. 9, for details on 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
fabrication and erection refer to [9]).
The two most critical load cases were pre-
At the foot of the tower, three connections are tensioning and wind. Dead load played a much
created using base plates (t = 100 mm) anchored to smaller role. The wind loads were treated as linear
a pile cap. Three drilled piles (Ø = 0.5 m) form the distributed loads on all cable and tube sections and
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: IASS
were calculated using the German Code DIN 4131
Anhang A and the draft of the DIN 1055-4 from
March 2001. The Code also stipulates that wind
loads are also to act on cable and tube sections
covered with ice. Using such increased sections, the
wind velocity can be reduced and the resulting
stresses from the two load cases were more or less
the same.
The first natural frequency of the tower occurs at
f= 0.6 Hz. The corresponding mode shape is that of
a cantilever. The dynamic response of the structure
was taken into account by an additional load factor
of safety of γd = 1.3.
The stiffness of the system depends heavily on the
pre-tensioning. Low pre-tensioning would lead to
large deflections due to wind, earlier cable drop-
out, large bending moments in the bars and possibly
to a reduction of the bearing capacity of the system.
On the other hand, high pre-tensioning can also
reduce the bearing capacity, e.g. highly compressed
tubes might buckle earlier. The chosen pre-
tensioning force (at 30% of the tensile strength of
the cables) was so that no cable will go slack under
service loads (1.0 x wind load).
It is difficult to precisely reach the desired
pre-tensioning. Slip of the anchor cone in the
spelter sockets, cable creep and even small errors
in steel work fabrication (such as a variation
in the node distances) can have a large influence on
v [mm]
Figure 10. Horizontal displacements of the tower top for dead load, pre-tensioning and wind loads
pre-tensioning. This is especially so for short
cables. For the 9.6 m long cables, a strain of only 20
mm is necessary to reach the desired pre-tensioning
(1100 kN). A variation of only 10 mm can decrease
the pre-tensioning by up to 50%.
Because of this effect, the pre-tensioning load case
was studied with coefficients of safety of γv = 0.65
and γv = 1.35. The calculations showed that even
under such unfavorable load cases, the system still
exhibited enough bearing reserves. The system was
studied using a 3-D finite element model taking into
account geometric non-linearities and large
deformations. Compression elements were finely
subdivided and modelled with local imperfections.
Several possible eigenforms of the tubes were
studied to determine the most disadvantageous
imperfection. The worst second order effects
occurred for a parabolic deflection of these
elements as defined in the German Code DIN
18 800 Part 2. The maximum values were taken as
1/200 of the compression elements. For the tubular
sections, these imperfections were chosen so as to
act in the direction of the maximal bending moment
in their middle.
The horizontal deflection v of the tower pinnacle
due to dead load plus wind loads (factored by γw) is
shown in fig. 10. The graphs show the structural
behaviour of the system for various levels of pre-
tensioning (65%, 100% and 135% pre-tensioning).
 VOL. 45 (2004) n. 145
It is obvious from the graphs that the structural
behaviour is very dependent on the system pre-
tensioning. The diagonal cable at the base of the
tower goes slack at a certain value of wind load.
The tower remains stable, but there is a notable
decrease in rigidity (kink in the curve at point 1). By a
further increase in loading, the cables above begin to
successively go slack (points 2 and 3), each bringing
about a further decrease in system stiffness.
“Failure” was calculated to occur at over double the
expected maximal wind load (γw=2). The theoretical
breaking load of a horizontal cable is first reached in
the lowest twist elements (points V1) followed by a
failure of a diagonal cable (points V2). Failure of the
cables occurs at the same wind level for all levels of
pre-tensioning. It is independent of pre-tensioning
(points V1 in the graphs). Only the deflections vary
for the different levels of pre-tensioning. However,
the graphs also show that the structure with 65% pre-
tensioning fails slightly earlier, due to buckling of a
compression element (point V3). Bending moments
in the rigidly connected column elements increased
more quickly, for the structure with low pre-stress
due to larger deflections and the design stress of the
steel was reached earlier than for the other systems.
The results in fig. 10 are valid for the assumption of
linear-elastic materials behaviour. In reality, the
cables as well as the tubes have reserves above the
linear-elastic limits of the material.
6. CONCLUSION
The tower in Rostock shows that today it is possible
to construct large-scale tensegrity structures of this
kind. Computer software for the exact description
of system geometry and analysis of these structures
is available. Contractors are able to fabricate and
erect them with the required precision. Tensegrity
towers need not only be student models anymore.
However, due to their inherent flexibility and
irregularity of the geometry, it is doubtful that also
in the future such structures will be much more than
impressive sculptures.
The potential of tensegrity for roof structures,
however, is substantial. Here, the increased costs
for additional design and fabrication efforts can be
compensated by savings in material and weight. In
this field many useful, light and elegant structures
can still be expected.
THE TEAM
Client:
IGA Rostock gmbh
Project Management and Architecture:
von Gerkan, Marg und Partner, Hamburg, Germany
Conceptual and Structural Design:
Schlaich Bergermann und Partner, Stuttgart,
Germany (collaborators: Arturo Ruiz de Villa
Valdés (analysis) and Christiane Sander (drawings),
as well as B.Friedrich, U. Burkhardt and H.
Jungjohann)
Fabrication and Erection:
Mero, Würzburg, Germany
REFERENCES
[1] J. Krause (Hrsg.): Your Private Sky - R.
Buckminster Fuller, Verlag Lars Müller,
Museum für Gestaltung Zürich, 1999 (in
German).
[2] H. Berger: Light Structures Structures of
Light, Birkhäuser, 1996.
[3] R. Bergermann, K. Göppert: Das Speichenrad
– ein Konstruktionsprinzip für weitgespannte
Dachkonstruktionen; Stahlbau 69, 2000 Heft 8,
Ernst & Sohn (in German).
[4] T. Robbin: Engineering a new architecture,
Yale University Press, New Haven London,
1996.
[5] M. Saitoh: Story of Space and Structure –
Structural Design’s Future; 2003 (in Japanese)
[6] K. Kawaguchi: Prestress States of Tension-
Truss and Tesegrity; IASS Congress Taipei,
2003
[7] R. Motro: Tensegrity: state of art, Fifth
International Conference on Space Structures,
Guildford, U.K., August 2002. Conférence
générale invitée, ed by G.A.R. Parke & P.
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: IASS

Disney, U.K., edited by Thomas Telford, ISBN

0 7277 31734, pp. 97-106.
[8] S. Peters: Tensional Integrity, Diploma thesis
Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Konstruktion
und Entwurf II (Prof. Jörg Schlaich), 1998 (in
German).
[9] H. Klimke, S. Stephan, X. Essrich: Fertigung
und Montage des Messeturmes; Stahlbau 73,
2004 Heft 2, Ernst & Sohn (in German).