Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–14
Form-finding and analysis of an Ó The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
alternative tensegrity dome sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369433216689570

configuration journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Fatih Uzun

Abstract
Geiger domes are composed of cable and strut elements. This property of cable domes is the same as tensegrity structures, but in
contraction to tensegrity structures, strut elements do not have a function that balances tension in cable elements with compression.
In this study, a new cable dome configuration, that mimics the form of tensegrities, is proposed which is able to spread effect of an
applied load into all elements of the dome and reduces its local impact. Form-finding and analysis of the Geiger and new dome config-
urations are performed based on the principle of minimum potential energy. Self-equilibrium forms with minimum potential energy
are determined using genetic algorithms. The ability of genetic algorithm based potential energy minimization approach to perform
form-finding of loaded or load free cable domes is investigated. Performance of the proposed configuration is tested and compared
with the Geiger configuration under various loading conditions.

Keywords
cable domes, form-finding, genetic algorithm, energy minimization, potential energy

Introduction energy minimization approach. Achievements in com-

The idea of tensile integrity structures dates back to
the beginning of 20th century (Fuller, 1962). After this
invention, Snelson (1965) practised new configurations
as continuous tension and discontinuous compression
structures. The first non-regular tensegrity structure
was invented by Buckminster (1975) and further stud-
ies were focused on form-finding of tensegrity struc-
tures (Tibert and Pellegrino, 2003). Different methods
for the design of tensegrity structures were developed
such as dynamic relaxation (Belkacem, 1987; Day and
Bunce, 1969; Motro and Nooshin, 1984), force density
(Linkwitz, 1999; Linkwitz and Schek, 1971; Schek,
1974) and reduced coordinates (Sultan et al., 1999).
Computational methods were also developed by vari-
ous authors (Chen and Feng, 2012; Estrada et al.,
2006; Li et al., 2010; Masic et al., 2005; Pagitz and
Tur, 2009; Zhang et al., 2006; Zhang and Ohsaki,
2006) for the design of complex tensegrity structures.
Connelly used and developed energy methods
(Connelly, 1982, 1993; Connelly and Back, 1998;
Connelly and Terrell, 1995). These studies showed that
energy methods can be used to perform form-finding
of tensegrity structures. Pellegrino (1986) proposed
nonlinear programming method that performs form-
finding of tensegrity structures using a constrained
putation power supported that process and search
methods have been developed for the design of tensegr-
ity structures (Li et al., 2010). Paul et al. (2005) intro-
duced evolutionary algorithms for the determination
of tensegrity structures with non-regular forms. Xu
and Luo (2010a, 2010b) converted the form-finding
problem of non-regular tensegrity structures into a
constrained optimization problem and also developed
a simulated annealing algorithm to perform pre-stress
optimization and form-finding. Koohestani (2012) pro-
posed a genetic algorithm form-finding method based
on minimization of eigenvalues of the force density
matrix and developed analytical and numerical form-
finding methods (Koohestani and Guest, 2013).
Faroughi et al. (2014) used a genetic algorithm based
on the rank deficiencies on the geometry, the pre-stress
coefficients and the semi-positive definite condition
of the stiffness matrix. Ant colony systems were used
by Chen et al. (2012a) to perform form-finding of
Chemical Engineering Department, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Corresponding author:
Fatih Uzun, Chemical Engineering Department, Yeditepe University,
Atasxehir, Istanbul 34755, Turkey.
Email: fatihuzun@me.com
2 Advances in Structural Engineering
tensegrity structures. A node-based method was devel-
oped by Gan et al. (2015). Lee and Lee (2014, 2016)
used frequency constraints for optimum self-stress
design of cable–strut structures and developed a
method for topology design of tensegrity structures.
Another study based on optimization of force density
is performed by Cai and Feng (2015). Ohsaki and
Zhang (2015) used a nonlinear programming approach
to investigate the stability of the self-equilibrium shape.
Studies show that different numerical methods were
developed to determine the self-equilibrium state of
tensegrity structures. Metaheuristic techniques and
energy methods were used for the purpose of form-
finding of tensegrity structures; however, minimization
of total potential energy (TPE) have never done using
metaheuristic techniques in order to perform form-
finding of cable domes.
Dome design of Geiger is composed of nested circu-
lar structures that contain vertical strut elements con-
nected to cable elements. Various configurations of
this design were studied. Pellegrino (1992) investigated
the structural behaviour of pre-stressed cable domes
under different loading conditions. Kawaguchi et al.
(1999) investigated optimum shape to gain maximum
stiffness in a full-scale elliptic cable dome. Yuan and
Dong (2002) performed nonlinear analysis of cable
dome structures. Lazzari et al. (2003) developed a
finite element code for geometrically nonlinear analy-
sis. Yuan and Dong (2003) presented a specific equili-
brium state of integrally feasible pre-stressed cable
domes. Fu (2005) analysed cable domes using a
numerical method. A numerical method is also pre-
sented for form-finding of cable–strut structures and
applied to domes by Tran and Lee (2010). Tran et al.
(2012) proposed a numerical method for the initial
pre-stress design of cable dome structures with multi-
ple independent pre-stressed modes.
Stability of pre-stressed structures was investigated
using different computational methods (Chen et al.,
2012b, 2015; Guest, 2010; Sultan, 2013). The use of
evolutionary algorithms and principle of minimum
potential energy on form-finding (Uzun, 2016) and
analysis (Toklu and Uzun, 2016) of tensegrity structures
was previously investigated and the proposed method
provided accurate solutions based on the relation between
stability and potential energy. Energy method is success-
fully applied to form-finding of free-form tensegrities and
analysis of well-known tensegrity structures. This study is
an application of the previously proposed method for the
development of a new tensegrity dome configuration that
meets evolutionary algorithms with the principle of mini-
mum potential energy for the first time in order to deter-
mine the stable form of cable domes.
This study aims to develop a new cable dome design
and apply principle of minimum potential energy on
form-finding and analysis of this structure. The inner
ring of Geiger domes is composed of cable elements
supported with horizontal strut elements. In spite of
using horizontal strut elements, the configuration of
this form is changed in a way to create a tensegrity
structure. Same elements are used and it is aimed to
gain the most important advantage of tensegrities, dis-
tribution of the effect of applied load to all elements
rather than having a local effect with high impact, to
cable domes. Form-finding and analysis of the Geiger
and new dome configurations are performed using the
same parameters. The performance of the new dome
configuration is compared with that of the Geiger
dome configuration. Self-equilibrium forms are deter-
mined in a way to satisfy fair conditions for both struc-
tures and analyses are performed at various loading
conditions. Self-equilibrium states are determined
using only the basic information about cable domes
which are nodal joints and element properties. All
solutions are performed using a computer with Intel
Core i7-3610 CPU that works at a maximum clock
speed of 3.3 GHz.
Form-finding of tensegrity domes
Ziegler (1968) stated that equilibrium configuration of
a conservative system is stable when the potential
energy of the system demonstrates a minimum. This
principle can be used in a way to determine the equili-
brium configuration of a structure (Timoshenko and
Gere, 1961) based on the fact that the stability of
structures is inversely proportional to potential energy
(Alfutov et al., 2013; Gambhir, 2004; Godoy, 1999).
The development of metaheuristic algorithms enabled
application of the minimum energy principle to civil
engineering problems, without requirement of differen-
tiation of energy function or incremental techniques,
by carrying a search to find the stable form with mini-
mum potential energy. In this study, self-equilibrium
form of tensegrity domes, with or without load, are
determined by minimization of TPE using genetic
algorithms. Starting from a random structural form,
genetic algorithm increases the stability of the struc-
ture by decreasing the TPE.
The form-finding process of tensegrity domes,
under load or without any external load, is performed
based on a set of assumptions (Feng and Guo, 2015;
Ohsaki and Zhang, 2015). Elements of the structure
are assumed to be straight, self-weight of the structure
is neglected, element failure related to yielding and
buckling is not considered and no external loads are
acted on the system. The process requires simple infor-
mation about elements of the structure which are ele-
ment type (cable or strut), nodal joints, material
Uzun 3

Figure 1. Single units used to construct Geiger and new

configurations.

Table 1. Formulation of number of nodal joints of ith unit.

Geiger configuration New configuration

ai = i ai = i
bi = i + ns bi = i + ns
ci = 2ns + i ci = 2n
8s + i
di = 2ns + i < 2ns + i + 2 i ø 3
di =
:
8 8 3ns + i  2 i\3
< i + ns + 1 i\ns <i+1 i\ns
ei = ei =
: :
8 i+1 i = ns 8 i + 1  ns i = ns
< i+1 i\ns <i+3 i\(ns  2)
fi = fi =
: :
i + 1  ns i = ns i + 3  ns i ø (ns  2)

properties (modulus of elasticity), stress-free element Figure 2. General procedure for TPE optimization using
lengths and cross-sectional area of elements. metaheuristic optimization techniques (Toklu and Uzun, 2016).

Tensegrity dome configurations
Tensegrity structures are composed of cable and strut
elements. In this study, single units are used to con-
struct Geiger and new dome configurations. Both con-
figuration types are composed of one strut and four
cable elements. Two cables have the function of sup-
porting units that hold the inner ring and the other two
cables are used to construct the inner ring of the dome.
The main difference between the two configurations
is the connection of elements. As illustrated in Figure
1, Geiger configuration has two cable elements con-
nected to each end of strut element while new config-
uration has one and three cable elements connected
to conjugate ends of the strut element. Both of the
units have five nodal joints and they are denoted as
a, b, c, d and e.
Nodal connections in a configuration are numbered
according to the formulation given in Table 1. In these
equations, ns is used to define the quantity of strut ele-
ment in a configuration and i represents the number of
the unit to be identified. ns also defines the number of
units. Based on this information, a configuration can
have 3ns number of nodal joints. First 2ns number of
nodal connections {(ns + 1), (ns + 2), ., 2ns} are
assigned to joints of inner ring and nodal connections
from 2ns + 1 to 3ns{(2ns + 1), (2ns + 2), ., 3ns}
are used to define the fixed joints of supporting cable
elements.
Genetic algorithm for TPE minimization
TPE minimization is performed in order to determine
the Self-equilibrium form of tensegrity domes, under
load or without load, using evolution process of the
genetic algorithm. For this purpose, the basic and well-
known steps of the simple genetic algorithm are used.
Principles of this process can be found in the study of
Uzun (2016) where form-finding of free-form tensegr-
ity structures was performed using the principle of
minimum potential energy. Difference in this study is
modifying the fitness function by adding work done by
applied forces. Flowchart of this process is adapted
from the study of Toklu and Uzun (2016) and given in
Figure 2.
Parameters of the evolution process are determined
according to the results of the study of Grefenstette
(1986). Genetic algorithm operators, elitism, selection,
crossover and mutation, are applied to base configura-
tions, after evaluation of the fitness, during the cre-
ation of new configurations. A dynamic mutation
4 Advances in Structural Engineering

range with a convergence limit is used. The process Table 2. Parameters of TPE minimization process.
ends when the convergence limit is reached.
Genetic algorithm process finds the optimum solu- Population size 30 members
tion using a set of solutions called population of mem- Elitism (percent of elite members) 10%
bers. Each member corresponds to a solution which Crossover rate (probability) 0.95
determines coordinates of nodal joints of tensegrity Mutation rate (probability) 0.04
dome. Nodal joints of chromosome of a member are Initial mutation range (IMR) MEL 3 1024
Mutation range expansion factor 1.1
represented as genes. ith member of the population (Mi )
Mutation range reduction factor 0.9
with n number of nodal joints is defined with a vector Convergence limit IMR 3 1023
where genes are nodal joints (Nj ) which are composed
of axial coordinates, xj , yj and zj . In this study, a popu- TPE: total potential energy; MEL: maximum stress-free element length.
lation is composed of 30 members
h i X
m X
q
Mi = Nji= 1 , Nji= 2 , . . . , Nji= n ð1Þ F= sl Al Ll 
0
Fk u k ð3Þ
h i l=1 k=1
Nji = xij , yij , zij ð2Þ X
m X
q
F= s l Vl  Fk u k ð4Þ
In all, 10% of fittest members in the population are l=1 k =1

determined to be elite members. The selection process Strain energy density of an element is calculated
of mating members is performed using pie graph selec- using equation (5) where s is stress and e is the strain.
tion method. The number of selected members is deter- Stress is defined in terms of modulus of elasticity (E)
mined to be 90% of all members. After the selection and strain. Tensegrity structures have some restrictions
process, a one-point crossover is performed at each in the case of structural analysis. Cable elements can-
mate with a probability of 0.95. Non-elite child mem- not be compressed and accordingly deformation of
bers are mutated according to a predetermined muta- them cannot be negative. Strain energy density of a
tion rate. Mutation probability of this process is cable element is determined to be zero if its strain is
determined to be 0.04. A gene is mutated by changing less than zero
axial coordinates (xj , yj , zj ) of the node within a
8
dynamic spherical mutation range. In this study, initial < 0 e\0
mutation range is determined to be 0.01% of the s= Ðe Ðe 2 ð5Þ
stress-free maximum element length (MEL). Mutation : sde = Ee de = Ee =2 eø0
0 0
range is increased after an improvement in the fitness
of the best member of the population by a factor of The strain of an element is defined in equation (6)
1.1 and decreased if the fitness is not changed by mul- where L0 is the stress-free length and L is the length of
tiplying with 0.9. Minimum mutation range in this the lth element. The final form of the fitness function
study is 0.1% of the initial search limit which is also which determines the TPE as a function of strain is
the termination limit. Summary of genetic algorithm given in equation (7)
parameters is listed in Table 2.  0 
Ll  Ll
el = 0 ð6Þ
Ll
Fitness function
X
m X
q
Fitness function of a cable–strut structure is the sum F ðeÞ = Vl Ee2l =2  Fk u k ð7Þ
of strain energy densities of all cable and strut ele- l=1 k=1
ments. In the case of application of external loads on
the structure, work done by these loads is also added. Form-finding of tensegrity domes with
The sum of potential energies of m number of elements
eight units
and applied loads are calculated using equation (3)
where s is the strain energy density, A is the cross- Form-finding of eight-strut tensegrity domes with
sectional area, L0 is the stress-free length of lth element, Geiger and new dome configurations are performed
F is the load and u is the displacement corresponding separately after determination of nodal joints using
to the kth load among q number of loads. In this equa- equations given in Table 1. Initial element lengths of
0
tion, Al Ll determines the volume of an element. The both designs are identical. The length of struts, hoop
volume of lth element is determined as Vl and modified cables and support cables at rest are 100, 50 and
fitness function is given in equation (4) 150 mm, respectively. Structural properties of Geiger
Uzun 5

Table 3. Properties of the cable dome with Geiger configuration after form-finding process.

No ET IL NJ No ET IL NJ No ET IL NJ No ET IL NJ

1 S 100 1-9 11 S 100 3-11 21 S 100 5-13 31 S 100 7-15

2 C 50 1-2 12 C 50 3-4 22 C 50 5-6 32 C 50 7-8
3 C 50 9-10 13 C 50 11-12 23 C 50 13-14 33 C 50 15-16
4 C 150 1-17 14 C 150 3-19 24 C 150 5-21 34 C 150 7-23
5 C 150 9-17 15 C 150 11-19 25 C 150 13-21 35 C 150 15-23
6 S 100 2-10 16 S 100 4-12 26 S 100 6-14 36 S 100 8-16
7 C 50 2-3 17 C 50 4-5 27 C 50 6-7 37 C 50 8-1
8 C 50 10-11 18 C 50 12-13 28 C 50 14-15 38 C 50 16-9
9 C 150 2-18 19 C 150 4-20 29 C 150 6-22 39 C 150 8-24
10 C 150 10-18 20 C 150 12-20 30 C 150 14-22 40 C 150 16-24

S: strut; C: cable; ET: element type; IL: initial length (mm); NJ: nodal joints.

Table 4. Properties of the cable dome with new configuration after form-finding process.

No ET IL NJ No ET IL NJ No ET IL NJ No ET IL NJ

1 S 100 1-9 11 S 100 3-11 21 S 100 5-13 31 S 100 7-15

2 C 50 2-9 12 C 50 4-11 22 C 50 6-13 32 C 50 8-15
3 C 50 4-9 13 C 50 6-11 23 C 50 8-13 33 C 50 2-15
4 C 150 3-17 14 C 150 5-19 24 C 150 7-21 34 C 150 1-23
5 C 150 9-17 15 C 150 11-19 25 C 150 13-21 35 C 150 15-23
6 S 100 2-10 16 S 100 4-12 26 S 100 6-14 36 S 100 8-16
7 C 50 3-10 17 C 50 5-12 27 C 50 7-14 37 C 50 1-16
8 C 50 5-10 18 C 50 7-12 28 C 50 1-14 38 C 50 3-16
9 C 150 4-18 19 C 150 6-20 29 C 150 8-22 39 C 150 2-24
10 C 150 10-18 20 C 150 12-20 30 C 150 14-22 40 C 150 16-24

S: strut; C: cable; ET: element type; IL: initial length (mm); NJ: nodal joints.

and new dome configurations are given in Tables 3
and 4. The cross-sectional area of cable and strut ele-
ments are 10 and 100 mm2, respectively. Modulus of
elasticity of cables and struts are independently deter-
mined to be 110 and 210 GPa.
Tensegrity structures have a Self-equilibrium form
where the tension in cable elements is balanced with
compression in strut elements. TPE is a measure of
strain energy within elements of a structure. Based on
this background information, it is aimed to have dome
structures with minimum positive TPE that sustain a
balance between tension and compression elements.
The radius of the outer ring, where support cables
are connected, is another structural property of ten-
segrity domes that affects strain density of elements.
The increase in radius raises strain density while lower-
ing the radius causes formation of strain-free unstable
shape. In order to determine the tensegrity form that
provides minimum required strain density within ele-
ments, the radius of tensegrity domes is investigated in
terms of TPE.
Results of radius investigation of Geiger and new
dome configurations are illustrated in Figure 3. It can
be clearly seen that the increase in radius causes accu-
mulation of strain energy density in the elements. TPE
increases in both the configurations as a result of the
increase in dome radius. TPE of Geiger configuration
exceeds 307,838,929.440 N mm when the radius is
determined to be 300 mm. The new configuration has
344,507,669.993 N mm TPE at this radius. It can be
stated that new configuration has a wider span with
higher radius when both the configurations are set to
the same magnitude of TPE. This is the first advantage
of new configuration over the Geiger configuration.
It is aimed to set the radius of both configurations
to a value that will provide positive TPE with mini-
mum strain energy density within the elements.
Investigations showed that TPE of Geiger configura-
tion is minimum between radius values of 210 and
220 mm. Fine tuning within this section provided TPE
of 10.094 N mm when the radius is 214.120 mm. After
a series of similar tests, the new configuration with
206.767 mm radius is found to have 10.687 N mm
TPE. Storing similar magnitude of potential energy in
self-equilibrium form of both dome configurations
satisfies fair condition while testing both structures.
6 Advances in Structural Engineering

Figure 3. Effect of outer radius on TPE.

Figure 4. Self-equilibrium form of dome structures with Geiger and new configurations.

For this purpose, TPE is taken as a measure because it
is also an average measure of level of initial pre-stress/
strain in the members.
Among the configurations with similar TPE, new
configuration has a wider span. The shape of self-
equilibrium forms of both configurations is illustrated
in Figure 4. Nodal connections and element types are
given in these illustrations. Coordinates of nodal
connections are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The thickness
of inner ring seems to be lowered with the new config-
uration which has a thickness of about 40 mm. The
thickness of Geiger configuration is analogous to the
length of horizontal strut members which is about to
be 100 mm.
Element lengths of the self-equilibrium form of both
configurations are given in Tables 7 and 8. Results
Uzun 7

Table 5. Coordinates of nodal joints of Geiger configuration, in millimetres, as distance from the origin.

No Initial Final No Initial Final

x y z X y z x y z x y z

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.32 20.06 249.95 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 265.33 20.06 49.98
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.24 46.16 250.03 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.16 246.24 50.01
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 65.36 250.08 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 265.36 50.08
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.15 46.29 250.09 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.23 246.20 50.08
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 265.34 0.11 250.02 17 206.77 0.00 0.00 206.77 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.28 246.11 249.99 18 146.21 146.21 0.00 146.21 146.21 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.10 265.30 249.92 19 0.00 206.77 0.00 0.00 206.77 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.12 246.23 249.92 20 2146.21 146.21 0.00 2146.21 146.21 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.35 0.00 50.04 21 2206.77 0.00 0.00 2206.77 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.19 46.19 49.97 22 2146.21 2146.21 0.00 2146.21 2146.21 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.02 65.30 49.92 23 0.00 2206.77 0.00 0.00 2206.77 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.20 46.15 49.91 24 146.21 2146.21 0.00 146.21 2146.21 0.00

Table 6. Coordinates of nodal joints of new configuration, in millimetres, as distance from the origin.

No Initial Final No Initial Final

x y z x y z x y z x y Z

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.15 265.35 19.23 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 265.35 0.21 219.26
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.05 246.35 219.15 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.30 246.10 19.16
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.35 20.16 19.24 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.21 265.35 219.22
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.35 46.05 219.14 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.09 246.31 19.18
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 65.33 19.05 17 214.12 0.00 0.00 214.12 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.04 46.33 219.00 18 151.41 151.41 0.00 151.41 151.41 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 265.33 0.14 19.12 19 0.00 214.12 0.00 0.00 214.12 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.33 246.04 218.99 20 2151.41 151.41 0.00 2151.41 151.41 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.33 20.21 219.11 21 2214.12 0.00 0.00 2214.12 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.31 46.07 19.03 22 2151.41 2151.41 0.00 2151.41 2151.41 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 65.33 219.07 23 0.00 2214.12 0.00 0.00 2214.12 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 246.08 46.29 19.01 24 151.41 2151.41 0.00 151.41 2151.41 0.00

Table 7. Element lengths of Geiger configuration in millimetres after form-finding process.

No Length No Length No Length No Length

1 99.99987 11 99.99987 21 99.99987 31 99.99987

2 50.00450 12 50.00450 22 50.00450 32 50.00450
3 50.00453 13 50.00453 23 50.00453 33 50.00453
4 150.01096 14 150.01095 24 150.01096 34 150.01097
5 150.01102 15 150.01103 25 150.01103 35 150.01101
6 99.99987 16 99.99987 26 99.99987 36 99.99987
7 50.00450 17 50.00450 27 50.00451 37 50.00450
8 50.00453 18 50.00453 28 50.00452 38 50.00452
9 150.01095 19 150.01095 29 150.01097 39 150.01098
10 150.01102 20 150.01103 30 150.01103 40 150.01101

show that all cable elements are in tension and all strut
elements are in the compression state. Joint coordi-
nates and element lengths of the self-equilibrium form
of both configurations are assigned as initial condi-
tions on further analyses.
Analysis of tensegrity domes with eight
units
Self-equilibrium form of tensegrity domes is analysed
at varying loading conditions. In order to accomplish
8 Advances in Structural Engineering

Table 8. Element lengths of new configuration, in millimetres, after form-finding process.

No Length No Length No Length No Length

1 99.99989 11 99.99988 21 99.99988 31 99.99989

2 50.00528 12 50.00540 22 50.00536 32 50.00526
3 50.00462 13 50.00464 23 50.00450 33 50.00448
4 150.00985 14 150.00987 24 150.01009 34 150.01009
5 150.00944 15 150.00958 25 150.00910 35 150.00904
6 99.99989 16 99.99988 26 99.99989 36 99.99989
7 50.00560 17 50.00567 27 50.00565 37 50.00562
8 50.00483 18 50.00491 28 50.00489 38 50.00484
9 150.00933 19 150.00953 29 150.00925 39 150.00910
10 150.00993 20 150.01015 30 150.01016 40 150.00999

Figure 5. Illustration of the loads and the joint configuration (dashed lines do not represent elements).

this, TPE minimization is performed at each loading
condition. Deformations and nodal displacements are
determined after loads are applied. Structures are
loaded from a single nodal joint of each configuration
as illustrated in Figure 5. Loads are varied from 2500
to 500 N parallel to the z-axis. Same loads are applied
to both dome configurations.
TPE variation related to applied load is given in
Figure 6. Results show that TPE decreases with
increasing magnitude of the negative and positive
loads. As it is stated before, TPE is a measure of strain
energy, but in this case, it also includes the effect of
applied load. Deformations directly affect the magni-
tude of TPE. It can be stated that TPE can be seen as
a measure of deformations and displacements occurred
in the dome structures. Applied load has a negative
effect on TPE, and its effect is much more than strain
energy density. In the case of structures with identical
elements, the same number of cable and strut elements
with same cross-sectional area and strength, the lower
magnitude of TPE means higher nodal displacement
and element deformation.
Results show that TPE of the dome with Geiger
configuration is lower at each loading condition. This
means that deformations and nodal displacements are
lower in the new configuration. The difference in mag-
nitude of TPE increases with increase in the magnitude
of the load. This is the second result of this study,
which proposes another advantage of the new config-
uration. In order to prove that outcome, axial displa-
cements of the load applied joints are investigated
separately as illustrated in Figure 7.
Deformation of the load applied node of the Geiger
configuration is higher than the new configuration.
Positive loads cause displacement in the positive direc-
tion of z-axis while the reverse is observed with nega-
tive loads. The magnitude of displacements in z-axis
increases with increasing magnitude of the load and
the difference of displacement between two configura-
tions also increases with increasing magnitude of the
load. Displacement in x-axis and y-axis is much lower
in the new configuration when compared to the Geiger
configuration and they are in opposite directions.
Negative loads cause displacement in the positive
Uzun
Figure 6. TPE variation related to the applied load to the domes with Geiger and new configurations.
direction of the axes in new configuration while the
direction of load and displacement are identical in
Geiger configuration. All in all, results show that dis-
placements along the coordinate axes in the new con-
figuration are lower than that occurred in Geiger
configuration.
Displacement of nodal joints is illustrated in
Figure 8 for both Geiger and new configurations.
These illustrations are results of loading at 2500 and
500 N. Displacements are visualized using the pale image
of the initial condition of structures before the application
of loads. Changes in the elements around the load
applied nodes can be observed, but displacements at
other nodes are hard to comprehend so that nodal displa-
cements of all joints are listed in Tables 9 and 10.
Results show that opposite end of loaded strut ele-
ment has the next higher magnitude of axial displace-
ments in both configurations. Nodal displacements
are identical in Geiger configuration. The new con-
figuration also has a high axial displacement at oppo-
site end of loaded strut element, but the magnitude of
displacement is lower than the loaded end. This is
caused by the natural property of tensegrity struc-
tures. The effect of applied load is distributed in all
other elements, and a local effect of applied load is
prevented. This property of tensegrities is also the
result of the low magnitude of displacement in load
applied joints.
Linear displacement of nodal joints after the appli-
cation of loads is given in Table 11. The load applied
to 10th joint of Geiger configuration caused highest
deformations at the joints 10 and 2. Second joint is
connected to the same strut element with 10th one.
Deformations are similar at both loading conditions in
9
Geiger configuration. Lowest deformation is observed
at joint 16 when the applied load is 2500 N.
Linear displacement of joints of the new configura-
tion is highest in the load applied joint and its counter
at the same strut element. The maximum displacement
is lower than the one in the same class with Geiger con-
figuration. Lowest deformation is observed at joint 12
when the applied load is 500 N.
In order to get an estimation about the overall dis-
placement of joints, the sum of displacements in all
four cases is also provided. The sum of displacements
shows that total displacement of the new configura-
tion is less than half of the total deformations of
Geiger configuration. This is another advantage of
the new configuration when compared to the Geiger
configuration.
Previously, it is stated that new configuration distri-
butes an applied load to the whole of the structure.
Results show that this does not occur as the arithmetic
allocation of the impact of the applied load to other ele-
ments. This new design uses strength and resistance of
other elements in order to lower the effects of the
applied load. The impact of the applied load is reduced
by the resistance of all elements. As a result of this, mag-
nitude of deformations of elements and nodal displace-
ments at joints are much lower in the new configuration
when compared to the Geiger configuration. It can be
stated that using the principles of tensegrity structures
improved the durability of cable dome structures.
Conclusion
The design of a new tensegrity dome configuration is
done using the basic principles of tensegrity structures.
10 Advances in Structural Engineering

Figure 7. Axial displacements of load applied node of Geiger and new dome configurations.

The inner ring of the new configuration is built as a new design is investigated by testing it under various
regular tensegrity structure, in spite of vertical strut loading conditions. Analyses showed that the new
elements connected by cables. The performance of the design is stronger than the classical Geiger
Uzun 11

Figure 8. Illustration of deformations in the Geiger and new dome configurations (pale lines represent initial form).

Table 9. Displacements, in millimetres, of joints of Geiger configuration from their self-stable coordinates at two different loading
conditions of joint 10.

No 2500 N 500 N No 2500 N 500 N

x y z x y z x y z x y z

1 0.556 1.477 21.818 20.691 20.936 1.770 13 20.800 20.632 2.423 0.928 0.926 22.399
2 1.624 1.707 26.503 21.619 21.542 6.591 14 20.712 20.628 2.820 0.727 0.801 22.847
3 1.342 0.517 21.707 21.060 20.732 1.885 15 20.738 20.768 2.333 0.836 0.962 22.495
4 1.333 0.637 1.119 21.032 20.677 20.914 16 20.631 20.995 0.937 0.688 1.372 21.101
5 0.949 0.773 2.452 20.782 20.793 22.371 17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
6 0.842 0.686 2.841 20.597 20.747 22.826 18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
7 0.981 0.917 2.361 20.594 20.816 22.467 19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8 0.796 1.419 0.975 20.525 20.954 21.064 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 20.724 21.010 21.857 0.528 1.398 1.733 21 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 21.580 21.593 26.612 1.657 1.659 6.487 22 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 20.975 20.684 21.745 1.413 0.569 1.848 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 20.981 20.544 1.082 1.372 0.764 20.951 24 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

configuration. The success of this new dome is accom- This reduces the local impact of a load like dividing
plished by tensegrity-based configuration, by spreading strength of it into small pieces and applying them to
out the local effect of a load into the whole structure. different elements. However, the load applied to the
12 Advances in Structural Engineering

Table 10. Displacements, in millimetres, of joints of new configuration from their self-stable coordinates at two different loading
conditions of joint 14.

No 2500 N 500 N No 2500 N 500 N

x y z x y z x y z x y z

1 0.292 20.044 0.553 20.626 0.104 0.109 13 0.000 0.458 21.050 20.009 20.499 20.266
2 20.240 0.039 0.664 0.285 0.114 21.191 14 0.822 0.104 26.073 20.573 20.407 5.612
3 20.114 0.453 20.479 20.161 20.269 20.523 15 20.235 20.031 20.978 0.299 0.077 0.240
4 20.258 0.013 0.577 20.264 0.265 20.419 16 0.164 0.311 20.397 20.456 20.195 20.675
5 20.592 0.032 0.640 20.116 20.179 20.633 17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
6 20.376 0.546 24.963 0.047 20.795 4.691 18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
7 20.014 20.658 0.431 0.030 20.391 0.577 19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8 20.115 0.368 0.287 0.104 20.446 22.002 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 20.096 0.034 0.031 20.207 0.286 1.150 21 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 20.440 0.348 20.095 20.061 20.170 20.513 22 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 20.285 0.022 20.917 20.441 20.086 0.280 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 20.416 20.463 0.189 20.129 20.282 20.096 24 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 11. Linear displacement of nodal joints.

No Geiger configuration New configuration No Geiger configuration New configuration

2500 N 500 N 2500 N 500 N 2500 N 500 N 2500 N 500 N

1 2.407 2.118 0.627 0.644 13 2.629 2.734 1.146 0.566

2 6.917 6.960 0.707 1.230 14 2.976 3.046 6.129 5.656
3 2.232 2.283 0.669 0.610 15 2.565 2.802 1.006 0.391
4 1.853 1.536 0.632 0.562 16 1.505 1.889 0.530 0.838
5 2.741 2.620 0.872 0.668 17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
6 3.042 2.983 5.007 4.758 18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
7 2.716 2.665 0.787 0.698 19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8 1.897 1.522 0.481 2.054 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 2.234 2.288 0.106 1.203 21 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.982 6.898 0.569 0.544 22 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 2.113 2.395 0.961 0.529 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 1.559 1.836 0.650 0.325 24 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sum 46.367 46.575 20.880 21.274

Geiger dome configurations mostly affects the ele-
ments around the loaded joint and high deformations
occur in these elements.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Alfutov NA, Balmont V and Evseev E (2013) Stability of
Elastic Structures. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Belkacem S (1987) Recherche de forme par relaxation dynami-
que des structures reticules spatiales autocontraintes. PhD
Dissertation, Universite Paul Sabatier de Toulouse.
Buckminster FR (1975) Non-symmetrical tension-integrity
structures. Patent US3866366 A.
Cai J and Feng J (2015) Form-finding of tensegrity structures
using an optimization method. Engineering Structures
104: 126–132.
Chen Y and Feng J (2012) Generalized eigenvalue analysis of
symmetric prestressed structures using group theory. Jour-
nal of Computing in Civil Engineering 26(4): 488–497.
Chen Y, Feng J and Wu Y (2012a) Novel form-finding of
tensegrity structures using ant colony systems. Journal of
Mechanisms and Robotics 4(3): 031001.
Chen Y, Feng J and Wu Y (2012b) Prestress stability of pin-
jointed assemblies using ant colony systems. Mechanics
Research Communications 41: 30–36.
Chen Y, Feng J, Ma R, et al. (2015) Efficient symmetry
method for calculating integral prestress modes of
Uzun
statically indeterminate cable-strut structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering 141(10): 04014240.
Connelly R (1982) Rigidity and energy. Inventiones mathema-
ticae 66(1): 11–33.
Connelly R (1993) Rigidity. In: Gruber PM and Wills JM
(eds) Handbook of Convex Geometry. North-Holland,
London: Elsevier Publishers Ltd, pp. 223–271.
Connelly R and Back A (1998) Mathematics and tensegrity:
group and representation theory make it possible to form
a complete catalogue of ‘strut-cable’ constructions with
prescribed symmetries. American Scientist 86: 142–151.
Connelly R and Terrell M (1995) Globally rigid symmetric
tensegrities. Structural Topology 1995 núm 21. Available
at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4c3/9690b383be27d
4d0ed7bbf10db55c7d03fd3.pdf
Day A and Bunce J (1969) The analysis of hanging roofs.
Arup Journal 3: 30–31.
Estrada GG, Bungartz H-J and Mohrdieck C (2006) Numer-
ical form-finding of tensegrity structures. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 43(22): 6855–6868.
Faroughi S, Kamran M and Lee J (2014) A genetic algorithm
approach for 2-D tensegrity form finding. Advances in
Structural Engineering 17(11): 1669–1680.
Feng X and Guo S (2015) A novel method of determining
the sole configuration of tensegrity structures. Mechanics
Research Communications 69: 66–78.
Fu F (2005) Structural behavior and design methods of ten-
segrity domes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
61(1): 23–35.
Fuller R (1962) Tensile-integrity structures. Patent US3063521 A.
Gambhir ML (2004) Stability Analysis and Design of Struc-
tures. Germany: Springer.
Gan BS, Zhang J, Nguyen D-K, et al. (2015) Node-based
genetic form-finding of irregular tensegrity structures.
Computers & Structures 159: 61–73.
Godoy LA (1999) Theory of Elastic Stability: Analysis and
Sensitivity. London: Taylor & Francis.
Grefenstette JJ (1986) Optimization of control parameters
for genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics 16(1): 122–128.
Guest SD (2010) The stiffness of tensegrity structures. IMA
Journal of Applied Mathematics 76(1): 57–66.
Kawaguchi M, Tatemichi I and Chen PS (1999) Optimum
shapes of a cable dome structure. Engineering Structures
21(8): 719–725.
Koohestani K (2012) Form-finding of tensegrity structures
via genetic algorithm. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 49(5): 739–747.
Koohestani K and Guest S (2013) A new approach to the
analytical and numerical form-finding of tensegrity struc-
tures. International Journal of Solids and Structures 50(19):
2995–3007.
Lazzari M, Vitaliani RV, Majowiecki M, et al. (2003)
Dynamic behavior of a tensegrity system subjected to fol-
lower wind loading. Computers & Structures 81(22):
2199–2217.
Lee S and Lee J (2014) Optimum self-stress design of cable–
strut structures using frequency constraints. International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 89: 462–469.
13
Lee S and Lee J (2016) A novel method for topology design
of tensegrity structures. Composite Structures 152: 11–19.
Li Y, Feng X-Q, Cao Y-P, et al. (2010) A Monte Carlo
form-finding method for large scale regular and irregular
tensegrity structures. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 47(14): 1888–1898.
Linkwitz IK and Schek H-J (1971) Einige bemerkungen zur
berechnung von vorgespannten seilnetzkonstruktionen.
Ingenieur-Archiv 40(3): 145–158.
Linkwitz K (1999) Formfinding by the ‘direct approach’ and
pertinent strategies for the conceptual design of pre-
stressed and hanging structures. International Journal of
Space Structures 14(2): 73–87.
Masic M, Skelton RE and Gill PE (2005) Algebraic tensegr-
ity form-finding. International Journal of Solids and Struc-
tures 42(16): 4833–4858.
Motro R and Nooshin H (1984) Forms and forces in tensegr-
ity systems. In: Nooshin H (ed.) Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Space Structures. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, pp. 180–185.
Ohsaki M and Zhang JY (2015) Nonlinear programming
approach to form-finding and folding analysis of tensegr-
ity structures using fictitious material properties. Interna-
tional Journal of Solids and Structures 69–70: 1–10.
Pagitz M and Tur JM (2009) Finite element based form-
finding algorithm for tensegrity structures. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 46(17): 3235–3240.
Paul C, Lipson H and Cuevas FJV (2005) Evolutionary
form-finding of tensegrity structures. In: Proceedings of
the 2005 conference on genetic and evolutionary computa-
tion, Washington, DC, USA, 25–29 June 2005, pp. 3–10.
New York: ACM.
Pellegrino S (1986) Mechanics of Kinematically Indeterminate
Structures. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Pellegrino S (1992) A class of tensegrity domes. International
Journal of Space Structures 7(2): 127–142.
Schek H-J (1974) The force density method for form finding
and computation of general networks. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 3(1): 115–134.
Snelson K (1965) Continuous tension, discontinuous compres-
sion structures. Patent US3169611 A.
Sultan C (2013) Stiffness formulations and necessary and suf-
ficient conditions for exponential stability of prestressable
structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures
50(14–15): 2180–2195.
Sultan C, Corless M and Skelton R (1999) Reduced prestres-
sability conditions for tensegrity structures. In: Proceed-
ings of the 40th ASME structures, structural dynamics
and materials conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, 12–15
April 1999, pp. 2300–2308. The American Institute of
Aeronautics & Astronautics.
Tibert A and Pellegrino S (2003) Review of form-finding
methods for tensegrity structures. International Journal of
Space Structures 18(4): 209–223.
Timoshenko S and Gere JM (1961) Theory of Elasticity Sta-
bility. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Toklu YC and Uzun F (2016) Analysis of tensegric structures
by total potential optimization using metaheuristic algo-
rithms. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 29(5): 04016023.
14
Tran HC and Lee J (2010) Advanced form-finding for cable-
strut structures. International Journal of Solids and Struc-
tures 47(14): 1785–1794.
Tran HC, Park HS and Lee J (2012) A unique feasible mode
of prestress design for cable domes. Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design 59: 44–54.
Uzun F (2016) Form-finding of free-form tensegrity struc-
tures by genetic algorithmbased total potential energy
minimization. Advances in Structural Engineering. Epub
ahead of print 19 August. DOI: 10.1177/1369433216664739.
Xu X and Luo Y (2010a) Form-finding of nonregular tenseg-
rities using a genetic algorithm. Mechanics Research Com-
munications 37(1): 85–91.
Xu X and Luo Y (2010b) Force finding of tensegrity systems
using simulated annealing algorithm. Journal of Structural
Engineering 136(8): 1027–1031.
Advances in Structural Engineering
Yuan X and Dong S (2002) Nonlinear analysis and optimum
design of cable domes. Engineering Structures 24(7):
965–977.
Yuan X and Dong S (2003) Integral feasible prestress of cable
domes. Computers & Structures 81(21): 2111–2119.
Zhang J, Ohsaki M and Kanno Y (2006) A direct approach
to design of geometry and forces of tensegrity systems.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 43(7):
2260–2278.
Zhang JY and Ohsaki M (2006) Adaptive force density
method for form-finding problem of tensegrity structures.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 43(18):
5658–5673.
Ziegler H (1968) Principles of Structural Stability. Waltham,
Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing Company.