See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367167560

Statics of integrated origami and tensegrity systems

Preprint · January 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 220

4 authors, including:

Ma Shuo Muhao Chen

Zhejiang University of Technology Texas A&M University
18 PUBLICATIONS 126 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 196 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert E Skelton
University of California, San Diego
523 PUBLICATIONS 17,253 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tensegrity Approaches to In-Space Construction of a 1-g Growable Habitat View project

Tensegrity construction of space structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhao Chen on 16 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Statics of integrated origami and tensegrity systems

Shuo Maa , Muhao Chenb,∗, Hongying Zhangc , Robert E. Skeltonb

a Collegeof Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, 310023, China
b Department of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77840, USA
c Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 119077, Singapore

Abstract
This study presents an explicit form of the static equilibrium equations of integrated origami and tensegrity systems. The analytical
approach allows one to model and analyze the isolated origami and tensegrity paradigms as a whole system. The tensegrity
and origami members are described by the nodal coordinates and hinge angels between the origami panels. The nonlinear static
equations of the integrated system are derived by the Lagrangian method. By Taylor’s expansion theory, we also presented its
linearized form. The developed approach is capable of conducting the following comprehensive statics studies for any integrated
origami and tensegrity systems: 1) Performing loading analysis, where bars and strings can have elastic or plastic deformations.
2) Conducting infinitesimal and large deformation analysis, which is helpful in understanding the stress in structural members and
actuation strategies. 3) Dealing with various kinds of boundary conditions, for example, fixing or applying static loads at any
nodes in any direction (i.e., gravitational force, some specified forces, or moments). 4) Conducting stiffness analysis, including
eigenvalues and their modes. Three examples, a Miura origami unit, an integrated tensegrity origami shelter, and a cable-driven
Kresling structure, are carefully selected and studied. This study provides a deep insight into structures, materials, as well as
performances. The integration idea also promotes our ability to design and build deployable structures at large.
Keywords: Origami, Tensegrity, Statics equilibrium, Deployable structures, Integrated origami and tensegrity structures

1. Introduction
In the field of deployable structures and soft robots, there
are two leading structure paradigms: tensegrity and origami,
that have attracted significant interest from researchers. Both
of them have shown great potential in engineering future
lightweight systems. To help understand the fundamental idea
of integrating the two paradigms, we first introduce a little bit
of each paradigm and its advantages and limitations.
The tensegrity art form was first created by Ioganson (1921)
and Snelson (1948) [1], which denotes a network of compress-
ible (bars/struts) and tensile (strings/cables) members. Buck-
minster Fuller coined the two words: tensile and integrity in
1959 [2]. After decades of study, tensegrity has shown its
great capacity in designing lightweight structures, deployable
infrastructures, and robotics, such as space platforms [3], cable
domes [4], space landers [5], etc. To summarize the strengths
and weaknesses of tensegrity, we know the pros of tensegrity
systems are: 1). Mass efficiency. All one-dimensional struc-
tural members are axially loaded. One can place the struc-
ture elements following the load path to achieve lightweight
designs [6, 7]. 2). Actuate model. There is no bar bending,
which brings accurate models. Accurate models can obtain
more precise control [8, 9]. 3). Tunable structure parameters.
One can adjust the structure parameters (i.e., prestress, length
of strings) to achieve various equilibrium states, stiffness, and
∗ Correspondingauthor.+1 979-985-8285
Email address: muhaochen@tamu.edu (Muhao Chen)
Preprint submitted to International Journal of Solids and Structures
shapes [10, 11]. 4). Metamaterials. One can neat the bar-string
patterns to get materials with metamaterial properties [12, 13].
5). Shape control. One can actuate the strings to achieve large
morphing objectives [14, 15]. The cons of tensegrity are 1).
There is no cover for the bar-string network. One can add mem-
branes, shells, and sheets to the bar-string network. But related
research is still quite limited. 2). The joints are complicated to
make. Since one node may connect several bars, and each bar
can have a different degree of freedom requirements, the joints
are usually non-standard types.
The origami art form or commonly known as paper folding
is probably as old as the invention of paper itself by the ancient
Chinese, and the ancient Japanese combined the two words oru
(means fold) and kami (namely paper) [16]. Origami was pre-
viously used as an art form with lucky meanings for celebrating
weddings and festivals in Asia. It was not until the 1950s that
origami gained popularity worldwide through the famous artist
Akira Yoshizawa, who created more than 50,000 models and
wrote 18 books on the art of origami [16]. After decades of re-
search, origami has been used to make space solar panels [17],
energy absorbers [18], robotics [19], etc. We also summarize
the plus and minus points of origami. The pros of origami sys-
tems are: 1). Complicated shapes. The model is easy to achieve
with complex folding shapes [20, 21]. 2). Compact size. The
2D sheets can be easily stowed in small sizes and then deployed
to a shape with large volume [22, 23]. 3). Low-cost manufac-
turing. One can use 2D sheets to make 3D, or 4D structures
[24, 25], which can also significantly simplify the assembly
January 16, 2023
process. 4). Metamaterial properties. Many origami structures
have tunable negative Poisson’s ratio, structural bistability, and
self-locking properties [26, 27]. The cons are 1). The origami
structure is usually of low stiffness. One can add actuators or
lock mechanisms to increase the stiffness, but it requires more
effort. 2). The transient dynamics during the shaping morphing
are challenging to control. Actuating the origami’s hinges is
possible to solve the problem partially, but it would complicate
the design.
It is natural to ask the question: tensegrity or origami, which
is a more efficient structure paradigm? On one side, people hold
the idea that tensegrity is more fundamental. Many nature sys-
tems implement this technology, i.e., cells [28], elbows [29],
spider fibers [30], etc. On the other side, some people believe
that origami is better. There are also nature pieces of evidence
that bio-structures follow such mechanisms. i.e., flowers [31],
horse-chestnut leaves [32], earwig wings [33], etc. Thus, inte-
grating the two paradigms may benefit each individual instead
of making the either-or decision. A little work has been con-
ducted to integrate the two systems. To name a few, Rohmer
et al. presented an experimental study of shape memory alloy-
based tensegrity cylinder with an origami structure [34]. Mi-
randa et al. showed active solar facades using tensegrity D-
Bar to actuate origami sunscreens for energy-efficient build-
ings [35]. Park designed a geodesic dome for Martian agricul-
ture based on the combined tensegrity and origami units [36].
However, the analytical work of the integrated system is still
very limited. This paper bridges the two paradigms by de-
riving the governing equations of the integrated system. This
paper proposes an explicit form of the static equilibrium equa-
tions approach that allows one to model and analyze the isolated
origami and tensegrity paradigms as a whole system.
The following paper is structured as follows. Section 2 gives
the notations and assumptions. Section 3 derives the geome-
try and kinematics of the integrated origami and tensegrity sys-
tems. Section 4 provides the nonlinear and linearized static
equilibrium equations by the Lagrangian method. Section 5
demonstrates three examples to verify the proposed methods.
Section 6 summarizes the conclusions.
2. Notations and Assumptions
2.1. Bar-and-hinge model
In order to describe the equation of motion of the integrated
origami and tensegrity system, we have to identify a proper way
to model the two paradigms, tensegrity and origami, as a whole
system. Let us first look at each of them. Recent theoretical
work by [9, 37] probably provided one of the most accessible
ways to explicitly model the tensegrity structures that allows
one to 1) perform rigid body dynamics with acceptable errors,
2) simulate FEM statics and dynamics accurately with elastic or
plastic materials, 3) deal with various kinds of boundary condi-
tions (i.e., gravitational force, specified forces, or arbitrary vi-
brations), 4) conduct accurate modal analysis, 5) analyze struc-
tures with clustered strings, and 6) study tensegrity, truss, and
membranes. The approach is derived based on the Lagrangian
2
Figure 1: An illustration of the bar-and-hinge model: (a) The bar-and-hinge
model of a Miura-ori unit cell. It is composed of 5 nodes and 8 bars. It has four
panels labeled as numbers with circles, and four hinges connect four panels.
(b) a hinge connects two triangular panels. i, j, k, and l are the indices of the
nodes. m and n are the normal vectors of the two panels, (c) the cross-section
of the hinge p. The thickness and the length of the hinge p are labeled as th,p
and lh,p . The rotation angles and moment are denoted as θ p and M p , (d) the
bending strain on the hinge p. We assume a linear curve about the neutral axis,
the strain ϵ = (θ p − θ0,p )x, where x here is the distance about the neutral axis.
method with nodal vector as the generalized coordinates. For
origami, recent analytical work by [38, 39] paved the way for
modeling any origami structures. The critical assumption about
the origami the papers made is the bar-and-hinge model, where
the origami panels can be modeled as the bars and hinges. The
idea is shown in Figure 1. Let us take a close look at this model.
When the rotational stiffness of the hinges is zero, one can view
this bar-and-hinge model as a truss. In other words, the bar-
and-hinge model is basically the combination of a truss model
with multiple hinges. Since the truss model is just a particu-
lar case of the tensegrity model, now one can see the connec-
tion between the tensegrity and origami structures. Thus, based
on the tensegrity model, we added rotational angles to describe
the hinge kinematics to formulate the integrated origami and
tensegrity systems. Moreover, in such a way, we can write an
explicit form of the integrated form to make the modeling and
computing much more effortless and benefit prestress design,
stiffness design, and shape control.
As shown in Figure 1(a), the configuration of the bar-and-
hinge model is determined by the nodal coordinates of the end
nodes of bar elements. Let there be nn number of nodes, the X-,
3
h iT of the ith node ni ∈ R in the vector form
Y-, and Z-coordinates
is ni = xi yi zi . By stacking ni for i = 1, 2, · · · , nn , we
can get the nodal vector n ∈ R3nn for the whole structure:
h iT
n = nT1 nT2 ··· nTnn . (1)
Sometimes, the nodal coordinates of the structure are written in
a useful matrix form, called nodal matrix N ∈ R3×nn :
h i
N = n1 n2 ··· nnn . (2)
2.2. Truss elements ith column of Ca ) can be written as:
In the integrated system, we use truss elements to model the  
 j 
bars and strings from tensegrity structures and the bars from
[Ca ](:,i) =  k  . (6)
 
origami’s bar-and-hinge model. The strings in the tensegrity
m
 
part will benefit the stiffness and shape control of the whole
structure by tuning their prestress and length.
For example, the panels in Figure 1(a) corresponds to the fol-
lowing:
2.2.1. Connectivity matrix of truss
The truss topology can be given by the index information 
5 5 5 5

of all the nodes, labeled by a connectivity matrix C ∈ Rne ×nn , Ca = 2

1 3 4 .

(7)
where ne is the total number of line segments (bars and strings 
1 3 4 2

from node to node) in the structure. Suppose the ith segment
is from node j to node k ( j and k = 1, 2, · · · , nn ). Then, the
It should be noted that the order of the three nodes reflects
connectivity matrix C ([C]mi is the mth row and ith column of
the normal direction of the panel. For example, if the order
C) can be written as:
of nodes is clockwise, the normal direction is inward of the

−1, i = j panel. If it is counter-clockwise, the normal direction is out-

 ward. The quadrilateral structure can be represented by the
= 1, i = k .

[C]mi (3)


 N5B8 (five nodes and eight bars) model, and the cross-section
 0, i = else

area of the bars is given in [39] for similar mechanical prop-
erties in both in-plane stretching, shearing, and out-of-plane
2.2.2. Cross-section information of truss bending and folding.
Apart from the geometric information, we also assign ma-
terial properties to describe the physics by defining the cross-
sectional area, Young’s modulus, tangent Young’s Modulus, 2.4. Hinges
length, rest length, and force vector of the ith truss element as
Ai , Ei , Eti , li , l0i , and ti . The corresponding vector of the whole There are bending and folding hinges in the adjacent panels
structure is A, E, Et , l, l0 , and t ∈ Rne . The force in the ith [38]. The scalable stiffness for both types of hinges is stud-
member ti satisfies: ied by [39]. The formulation for bending and folding hinges
is identical, and the difference is the stiffness properties. To
Ei Ai simplify our formulation, we do not distinguish between the
ti = (li − l0i ), (4)
l0i bending and folding hinges.
As shown in Figure 1(b), a rotational spring is used to model
where Ei is the secant Young’s Modulus, which contains the the pth rotational hinge in the conjunction of two triangle pan-
nonlinear constitutive law of the material. Then, the force vec- els. The dihedral angle is θ p , and the rest dihedral angle is θ0,p ,
tor t can be written as: representing the angle with a moment of M p = 0. The length,
thickness, Young’s Modulus, and tangent Young’s Modulus of
t = Ê Â l̂0−1 (l − l0 ), (5)
the ith hinge is lh,p , th,p , Eh,p , and Eth,p , as shown in Figure 1(c).
The corresponding vector containing information of the whole
where v̂ transforms a vector v into a diagonal matrix. Note that
structure is lh , t h , Eh , Eth , θ, θ0 , and M ∈ Rnh . Let the number
we differentiate the tangent and secant Young’s Modulus here.
of hinges be nh . Suppose the hinge material deforms linearly,
The tangent Young’s Modulus is used in linearized equilibrium
and the hinge’s plane sections remain planar after bending. In
equations. And the secant Young’s Modulus is for calculating
other words, the strain in the neutral axis is zero, and the bend-
the material strain considering the nonlinear constitutive law
ing strain follows a linear rule, as shown in Figure 1(d). The
of the material. Thus, the secant modulus can represent linear
moment of the pth hinge M p (θ p ) can be written as:
elastic, multi-linear elastic, and plastic material properties.
M p (θ p ) = Eh,p I p (θ p − θ0,p ), (8)
2.3. Panels
2.3.1. Connectivity matrix of panels where Eh,p is the secant modulus of the hinge. And I p =
1 3
As shown in Figure 1(a), we use triangle panels (or some 2 lh,p th,p is the second moment of area of the hinge’s cross-
people call them plates) as the element in the origami structure. section. The rotational stiffness of the pth hinge is:
Each triangle contains three nodes and three edges. The rota-
tional springs connect the adjacent panels to model the hinges ∂M p 1
kp = = Eth,p I p = 3
Eth,p lh,p th,p . (9)
in between the panels. We use Ca ∈ R3×n p to represent the con- ∂θ p 12
nectivity of the panel, where n p is the number of the panel. Sup-
pose the ith panel is connected by node j, k, and m in a counter- The rotational stiffness of all hinges in the structure is kh =
clockwise sequence. The connectivity matrix C ([Ca ](:,i) is the [k1 , k2 , · · · , knh ]T ∈ Rnh .
3
3. Geometry and Kinematics 3.2.2. Hinge related nodes
3.1. Truss geometry and kinematic To write the equilibrium equation of the whole structure, we
This part calculates the length of the ith (i = 1, 2, · · · , ne ) need to connect the nodal coordinates of the four nodes (as
truss. The vector of the ith member hi ∈ R3 can be calculated shown in Figure 1(b)) related to a hinge to the nodal coordi-
as: nates of the whole structure. We use nep ∈ R12 to represent the
four nodal coordinates labeled i, j, k, and l in the two panels
hi = Ci ⊗ I3 n. (10) connected to the pth hinge, as shown in Figure 1(b):
And its length can be expressed as: h iT
1 nep = nepi T nep j T nepk T nepl T . (20)
li = ||hi || = [n T
(CiT Ci ) ⊗ I3 n] .
2 (11)
We give the two useful forms of the derivation of the ith truss The relation between nep and nodal coordinate of the whole
length with respect to the nodal coordinate in the denominator structure n is connected by Eh p ∈ R3nn ×12 :
and numerator layouts:
∂li ∂nep T
= li−1 (CiT Ci ) ⊗ I3 n, (12) Eh p = . (21)
∂n ∂n
∂li
= li−1 hTi Ci ⊗ I3 . (13) Similar to the definition in Section 3.2.1, the above equation
∂nT can be written as follows to get nep from n:
∂li
Stack the ∂n T (i = 1, 2, · · · , ne ) in a column, we have the com-

patibility matrix Bl ∈ Rne ×3nn : nep = EThp n. (22)

∂l
Bl = = l̂−1 b.d.(H)T (C ⊗ I3 ), (14) Stack the Eh p for p = 1, 2, · · · , nh , we have the transformation
∂nT
matrix of all the hinges-related nodes in the whole structure:
where H = NCT ∈ R3×ne is the element matrix, b.d.(H) means
the block diagonal matrix of H. One can also Eq. (14) as a h i
Eh = Eh1 Eh2 ··· Ehnh . (23)
standard compatibility equation:
Bl dn = dl. (15)
3.3. Hinge kinematics
Here, we should also give another useful form of the equi-
librium matrix A2 of the tensegrity system in [9] with member 3.3.1. First order kinematics
force as the variable, where the equilibrium equation is given as Based on [38], the Jacobian matrix of the pth hinge angle θ p
A2 t = w. The equilibrium matrix A2 is: to the related four nodal coordinates vector nep in Figure 1(a)
are:
∂lT
A2 = = C ⊗ I3 b.d.(H) l̂−1 . (16)
∂n ∂θ p ∥rk j ∥
e = m, (24)
One may observe that A2 is the transpose of compatibility ma- ∂npi ∥m∥2
trix A2 = BTl , which can be proved by the virtual work princi- ∂θ p ∥rk j ∥
ple, and the detailed derivation is referred to [9]. In summary, e =− n, (25)
∂npl ∥n∥2
the equilibrium matrix A2 and compatibility matrix Bl are the
Jacobian matrix of member length to nodal coordinate in the ∂θ p ri j · rk j ∂θ p rkl · rk j ∂θ p
e =( − 1) e − , (26)
numerator and denominator layouts. ∂np j ∥rk j ∥ 2 ∂npi ∥rk j ∥2 ∂nepl
∂θ p rkl · rk j ∂θ p ri j · rk j ∂θ p
e =( ,
3.2. Nodal Transformation Matrices − 1) e − (27)
3.2.1. Free nodes and constrained nodes ∂npk ∥rk j ∥2 ∂npl ∥rk j ∥2 ∂nepi
For a general model, we also need to deal with the nodal
constraints. Here, we use two index matrices Ena ∈ R3nn ×na and where
Enb ∈ R3nn ×nb to label the free nodal coordinate vector na ∈ Rna
rk j = nepk − nepk j , (28)
and fixed nodal vector nb ∈ Rnb in the total nodal vector n ∈
R3nn , where na and nb are the number of free and constrained
and the normal vectors m and n can be computed as:
nodal coordinates. We have the following equations to extract
na and nb from n:
m = ri j × rk j , (29)
na = ETna n, (17) n = rk j × rkl . (30)
nb = ETnb n. (18)
In the above derivation, we have the Jacobian matrix of one
We also have the following equation to combine na and nb into
hinge angle to the four connected nodes in the two connected
n:
panels. Extending the kinematics relation in one unit to the
n = Ena na + Enb nb . (19) whole structure, the Jacobian matrix of the hinge angle vector
4
with respect to the structure’s nodal coordinate vector is: Stack Gh,p for p = 1, 2, · · · , nh in a matrix, we have the matrix
Gh ∈ R3nn ×(3nn ×nh ) representing the second-order partial deriva-
∂θT X
nh
∂nep ∂θ p ∂θT T
= , (31) tive of the hinge angle to the nodal coordinate vector of the
∂n p=1
∂n ∂nep ∂θ p whole structure:
 ∂θ1   ∂θT
··· 0
 h i
  ∂n1
 e
  ∂θ1
   Gh = Gh,1 Gh,2 · · · Gh,nh (40)
 .. .. ..   ..
 
∂ne1 T ∂nenh T 
=  . . .   . (32) ∂ 2
θ
h 2 i
= ∂ θ1T ∂ θ2 ,

∂n ··· ∂n  2
···
nh
(41)
∂θnh    ∂θT  ∂n∂n ∂n∂n T T ∂n∂n
0 ···

∂nnh
e ∂θnh
The formulation of Gh will be used to derive the explicit tangent
∂θi
= Eh b.d.( e )Inh , (33) stiffness matrix of the whole structure in Section 4.4.
∂ni
∂θi
where b.d.( ∂ne) is the block diagonal matrix of 4. The Equilibrium Equation Formulation
i
∂θnh
 
∂θ1 ∂θ2
∂ne1 ∂ne2 ···. Similar to the truss kinematics,
∂nenh 4.1. The Lagrangian method
we name the above Jacobian matrix as the equilibrium matrix
of hinge rotation Ah . The compatibility matrix of hinge We use the Lagrangian method to derive the governing equa-
rotation Bh is also the transpose of the equilibrium matrix: tions of the equilibrium equation. All the formulation here is
consistent with the principle of stationary total potential en-
∂θT ∂θi ergy and the principle of virtual work. However, using the La-
Ah = = Eh b.d.( e )Inh , (34)
∂n ∂ni grangian method to derive the equilibrium equation will make
∂θ ∂θi it easy to extend to the future study of the dynamics.
Bh = ATh = T = Inh b.d.( e )T ETh . (35) The general form of the Lagrangian equation is:
∂n ∂ni
We will explain in Section 4.3 that equilibrium matrix Ah d ∂L ∂L
− = fnpa , (42)
gives the equilibrium relation between hinge moment and ex- dt ∂ ṅa ∂na
ternal force.
where L = T − V is the Lagrangian function, T and V are the ki-
3.3.2. Second order kinematics netic energy and potential energy of the system, na is the gener-
The Hessian matrix for the pth hinge has size 12×12 and con- alized coordinates of the system, fnpa ∈ Rna is the non-potential
sists of 4×4 sub-matrices of size 3×3 [40]. Since the Hessian force vector exerted on the free nodal coordinate. The relation-
matrix is symmetric, ten independent sub-matrices are provided ship of fnpa with the non-potential force fnp exerted on all the
in the Appendix of [38]. The first 3×3 block of the Hessian ma- nodes is:
trix of θ p to nepi is given here as an example:
fnpa = ETa fnp . (43)
∂ θp
2
∥rk j ∥
=− (m ⊗ (rk j × m) + (rk j × m) ⊗ m). (36) For the statics problem, the kinetic energy T is zero, and Eq.
∂nepi ∂nepi T ∥m∥4
(42) degenerates to:
The above Hessian matrix for the pth hinge can be then written
in a compact form as: ∂V
= fnpa . (44)
 ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p 
 ∂na
 e e T
 ∂npi2∂npi ∂npi ∂np j
e e T
∂npi ∂npk
e e T
∂npi ∂npl 
e e T 

 ∂ θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p   4.2. Energy Functions
∂2 θ p  ∂nep ∂nep T ∂nep ∂nep T ∂nep ∂nep T ∂nep ∂nep T 
=  2 j i j j j k j l  . (37) The potential energy of the whole system contains three
∂nep ∂nep T  e∂ θ pe T ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p  
parts: the strain potential energy in the truss, the strain potential
 ∂npk ∂npi ∂npk ∂np j
e e T
∂npk ∂npk
e e T
∂npk ∂npl 
e e T  
 ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p ∂2 θ p   energy in the hinges, and the gravitational potential energy of
∂npl ∂npi
e e T e
∂npl ∂np j
e T e e T e
∂npl ∂npk
e T
∂npl ∂npl all the elements.
In the above derivation, we have the Hessian matrix of one
hinge angle with respect to the four connected nodes in a basic 4.2.1. Strain energy in truss
element with two connected panels. The Hessian matrix for the The strain potential energy of all the truss elements is:
pth hinge angle with the whole structure nodal coordinate is ne Z li
Gh,p ∈ R3nn ×3nn :
X
Vt = ti du. (45)
l0 i
∂ θp2 ∂nep T ∂ θ p ∂nep
2 i=1
Gh,p = = (38)
∂n∂nT ∂n ∂nep ∂nep T ∂nT This is a general form of potential energy since it can accom-
modate any material’s properties, i.e., linear elastic and plastic.
∂ θp
2
= Eh p EThp . (39) In many papers, one can see this equation is in the form of 12 k∆l,
∂nep ∂nep T which only assumes linear elastic materials.
5
 The partial derivative of Vt to na is: where m pi is the mass of the ith node, and mp ∈ Rnn is the point
mass vector.
∂Vt Then, the partial derivative of Vg to na is:
= ETa Kn = ETa A2 t, (46)
∂na
∂Vg ∂Vge ∂Vgp
where K is the nonlinear stiffness matrix (since K is a function = + (54)
∂na ∂na ∂na
of n) of the whole system. The detailed derivation is referred to
1 h iT
[9, 37]: = ETa ( |C|T me + mp ) ⊗ a x ay az (55)
2
K = (CT l̂−1 tC) ⊗ I3 . (47) = Ea g,
T
(56)

where g ∈ R3nn is the gravitational force vector.

4.2.2. Strain energy in the hinges
Similarly, we can write the strain potential energy of the 4.3. Nonlinear equilibrium equations
hinges:
The potential energy of the system is a summation of three
nh Z
X θi parts:
Vh = Mi (φ)dφi . (48)
i=1 θ0i V = Vt + Vh + Vg . (57)
The partial derivative of Vh to na is: Substitute Eqs. (46) and (50) into Eq. (44), and we have:

∂nT ∂θiT ∂Vhi

nh
∂Vh X ∂V
" #
t
= (49) = Ea Ao
T
= fnpa − ETa g, (58)
∂na ∂na ∂n ∂θi ∂na M
i=1
nh
X ∂θiT where Ao is the equilibrium matrix for integrated origami and
= ETa Mi (θi ) = ETa Ah M, (50)
i=1
∂n tensegrity systems:
h i
h iT Ao = A2 Ah . (59)
where M = M1 M2 · · · Mnh ∈ Rnh is the moment vector
of all the hinges in the structure. Note that the partial derivative The first part of Eq. (59) is the equilibrium matrix correspond-
of truss strain energy Vt and hinges strain energy Vh to na in ing to truss elements in Eq. (16), and the second is the equi-
Eqs. (46) and (50) has a similar form. librium matrix corresponding to hinge elements " #as in Eq. (34).
t
The Eq. (59) is a linear equation in terms of , which makes
4.2.3. Gravitational potential energy M
The gravitational potential energy is relative to any member the force design of complex structures possible by force density
that has mass. In the system, all the axial members and point methods [41, 42, 43]. To perform structural analysis subject to
mass will contribute to gravitational potential energy: external forces, Eq. (59) becomes a nonlinear equation in terms
of free nodal coordinate dna because Ao , t, and M are all func-
Vg = Vge + Vgp , (51) tions of dna . The linearization of the equilibrium equation will
be discussed in the next section.
where Vge and Vgp are the potential energies of the axial mem- The compatibility equation of the structure is:
bers and point mass. " #
The gravitational potential energy corresponding to the axial dl
Bo dna = . (60)
elements Vge [37] can be written as: dθ
X mei h i Based on the principle of virtual work, the compatibility matrix
Vge = ne a x ay az |Ci | ⊗ I3 n
i=1
2 is:
1 h i " T# " #
A B
= (mTe |C|) ⊗ a x ay az n, (52) Bo = ATo = 2T = l . (61)
2 Ah Bh
where mei is the mass of the ith axial element, and me ∈ Rne is It should be noted that the equilibrium Eq. (58) and the com-
the mass vector of all axial elements, a x , ay , az are the gravita- patibility Eq. (60) can describe the equilibrium and compatibil-
tional acceleration values in the X, Y, and Z-direction. ity properties of the structure information considering the axial
The gravitational potential energy of the point mass Vgp is: force members and hinges simultaneously. They degenerate to
  pure tensegrity structures considering only axial deformation of
nn
X h i  xi  bar and strings [37], which are:
Vgp = m pi ⊗ a x ay az yi 
zi
 
i=1
h i A2 t = fnpa − ETa g, (62)
= mTp ⊗ ax ay az n, (53) Bl dna = dl. (63)

6
The degenerated equilibrium equation Eq. (62) can also be in-
terpreted as the external force on the right-hand side is in the left
null space of Ah . In other words, the external forces only work
in the axial members without generating a moment in hinges.
This scenario happens when all external forces are in the space
spanned by the connected axial members. Eqs. (58) and (60)
can also degenerate to rigid origami structures considering only
hinge rotational deformation:

Ah M = fnpa − ETa g, (64)

Bh dna = dθ. (65) Figure 2: Configuration of the illustrative example, modified from Li [40]. On
the left-hand side, the four rectangular sheets, given by solid lines, are modeled
Eq. (64) can be seen as the external force is in the left null space by eight panels (separated by four dotted lines). The right-hand side is the
corresponding origami model. Nodes 1, 2, and 5 are pinned to the ground.
of A2 , which means the external forces only yield a moment in
the hinges without generating force in the axial members. This
scenario happens when all external force is in the null space It should be noted that the material stiffness of trusses Km1
spanned by the connected axial members. and hinges Km2 are in a very similar form, since A2 and Ah are
the equilibrium matrix for truss and hinges and Ê Â l̂−1 and k̂h
4.4. Linear equilibrium equations
are the stiffness of truss and hinges. The geometry stiffness of
Using Taylor’s expansion to Eq. (58) about an equilibrium trusses Kg1 and hinges Kg2 are also similar if we write the Kg1
configuration ni in the ith iteration step, we have the linearized in an equivalent form as:
equilibrium equation:
" # Kg1 = Gl t ⊗ I3nn , (75)
t
T
Ea Ao ni + ETa KT dni = fnpa − ETa g, (66)
M ni where the Gl ∈ R3nn ×(ne ×3nn ) is the in the similar form with Eq.
(41):
where KT ∈ R3nn ×3nn" is #the tangent stiffness matrix of the whole
t
h i
structure, Ao ni and are the equilibrium matrix and inner Gl = Gl,1 Gl,2 · · · Gl,nh (76)
M ni
∂ ln
2
h 2 i
force in ni configuration. Substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (66), = ∂ l1T ∂2 l2
· · · ∂n∂nhT . (77)
∂n∂n ∂n∂nT
we have:
" # Comparing Eqs. (74) and (75), we can observe they are sim-
t ilar. But we prefer to write Kg1 in the form of Eq. (72) because
T
Ea Ao ni + KT aa dnia = fnpa − ETa g − KT ab dnib , (67)
M ni the formulation is explicit and simple [37]. It should be noted
that the geometry stiffness related to hinges Kg2 in Eq. (74) is
where
difficult to be written into the form as Kg1 in of Eq. (72) because
KT aa = ETa KT Ea , KT ab = ETa KT Eb . (68) the nonlinear properties in the hinge kinematics.

Substitute Eqs. (34) and (41) into the definition of tangent

stiffness matrix, we have: 5. Numerical examples

∂(Kn + Ah M) 5.1. A Miura origami unit cell

KT = (69)
∂nT 5.1.1. Basic information
= A2 Ê Â l̂−1 AT2 + (CT l̂−1 tC) ⊗ I3 + Ah k̂h ATh + Gh M ⊗ I3nn . An illustrative example of a Miura origami unit cell is shown
(70) in Figure 2. In this example, we try to be as detailed as
In Eq. (70), the first and second parts are the material stiffness possible to help readers to understand the whole formulation.
and geometry stiffness of all truss elements, which is identical The Miura-ori unit cell is composed of 5 nodes and 8 bars.
to tensegrity formulation [9]: The quadrilateral model is simplified as triangle panels, which
means only folding hinges are needed in the unit cell. The inner
Km1 = A2 Ê Â l̂−1 AT2 , (71) angle of the unit cell is β = 75◦ . The nodal coordinate matrix
of the muri-ori unit cell is:
Kg1 = (CT l̂−1 tC) ⊗ I3 . (72)
 
−1.4142 −0.3660 −0.3660 1.4142 0
The third and fourth parts are the material stiffness and geome-
N =  0 1.3660 −1.3660 0 0 . (78)
 
try stiffness related to the hinges:
0 0 0 0 0
 

Km2 = Ah k̂h ATh , (73)

Nodes 1, 2, and 5 are pinned to the ground. The cross-sectional
Kg2 = Gh M ⊗ I3nn . (74) area of all the bars is set to be A = 1×10−4 m2 . The connections
7
and rest length of bars are:
1 2 1.7218
   
2 4
 2.2439
   
4 3 2.2439
  
3 1 1.7218
Cin =   , l0 =  . (79)
1 5 1.4142
2 5
 1.4142
 
  1.4142
4 5  
3 5 1.4142
Figure 3: The eigenvalues and modes of the illustrative example: (a) eigenval-
The panels have a thickness of t = 6 × 10−4 m and Young’s ues vs. order of the modes and (b) their corresponding modes.
modulus of E = 1 × 106 Pa.The connectivity of panels to nodes
are:
 
5 5 5 5
Ca = 2 1 3 4 . (80)
 
1 3 4 2
 

The rest angle and rotational stiffness of the folding hinges

are:
 ◦
180  2.546
 
180◦  2.546
θ =  ◦  , Kh = 10−4 ×   N·m/rad. (81)
180  2.546
◦
180 2.546
The moments in hinges of the flat Miura origami are zero.
The transformation matrix of the first hinge relates the node i, j,
k, and l in the local element to the node numbers 2, 1, 5, and 3 in
the global nodal coordinate. The corresponding transformation
for the four hinges are:
Figure 4: Configuration of the mode shape of the Miura–ori unit cell: (a) the
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
   
initial and final shapes, (b) stiffness of the structure, (c) stiffness contribution of
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
origami, bars, and hinges, and (d) normal of angle difference at different angles
Eh1 = 0 0 0 1 ⊗ I3 , Eh2 = 0 0 0 0 ⊗ I3 , (82)
   
of α.
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
   
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
5.1.3. Infinitesimal deformation analysis
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
   
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Figure 4(a) shows that the Miura origami unit cell is 80%
Eh3 = 1 0 0 0 ⊗ I3 , Eh4 = 0 1 0 0 ⊗ I3 . (83) folded. The nodes 1, 2, and 5 are fixed, and a unit external load
   
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 is applied at node 4. The external force is in the Y and Z planes,
and the angle between the force and the Y axis is θ. We perform
   
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
linear elastic material with small displacement static analyses of
5.1.2. Tangent stiffness analysis the structure. Figure 4(a) shows the displaced shapes obtained
The spectral decomposition of the tangent stiffness matrix by the static analysis as θ = 45◦ , and the deformation of node
Eq. (70) reveals the stiffness properties by eigenvalue λi and its 4 is in towards the Z-direction, which is identical to the fold-
corresponding deformation mode vi of free nodal coordinate: ing trajectory in the rigid folding assumption. The stiffness of
the structure is defined by the reciprocal of compliance, which
KT aa vi = λi vi . (84)
equals the work done by the unit of external force. The semi-
Figure 3(a) is the eigenvalue of tangent stiffness with differ- log plot of stiffness to orientation angle θ is shown in Figure
ent orders. Figure 3(b) shows the mode shapes corresponding 4(b). The result shows that the structure gets stiffer as θ is close
to each eigenvalue. We can observe that the first and second to 180◦ and 360◦ . And the stiffness is the lowest as θ is close
modes are plane deformation, in which nodes 3 and 4 moves to 90◦ and 270◦ , which is in the direction close to the mech-
to the opposite and the same direction in the Z-coordinate. anism trajectory. Figure 4(c) gives the percentage of stiffness
The first two modes mainly involve the folding hinges rotation contributed by bars and hinges. We can observe that bars and
deformation, which requires less energy, so the eigenvalue is hinges contribute around 2/3 and 1/3 of the total stiffness, re-
much lower than the other deformation modes. Modes 3 to 6 spectively. However, when α is around 180◦ and 360◦ , there is
mainly contain the bar length deformation in the plane, which a huge reduction of hinge stiffness. This is because the displace-
needs higher energy and, thus, the higher eigenvalue of the tan- ment is in the null space of the compatibility matrix Bh , which
gent stiffness matrix. means the nodal displacement caused by the external force will
8

Figure 5: Folding information of the Miura–ori unit cell: (a) the folding pro-
cess, (b) stiffness of the structure, (c) angles of the panels, and (d) moment in
the hinges at different load factors.
not change the angle of hinges Bh dna = 0. Figure 4(d) gives the
norm of angle difference in external force, and we can see that
at around 180◦ and 360◦ , the norm of angle difference is zero.
This means the material stiffness of rotational hinges does not
contribute to the structural stiffness.
5.1.4. Large deformation analysis
The integrated origami and tensegrity formulation can also
capture large deformations of the origami structures. For ex-
ample, when actuating a Miura-ori unit cell by changing the
rest angle of folding hinges, the Miura-ori unit cell will de-
form from a flat configuration to a folded one, as shown in
Figure 5(a). Note that the rest angle of one mountain fold and
three valley folds increases and decreases respectively by 180◦
in the folding process, as shown in Figure 5(c). The Newton-
Raphson method is used as the static solver in large displace-
ment analysis since the singularity of the stiffness matrix does
not occur in this problem. Note that if the structures are sub-
ject to highly geometric nonlinearity, the modified generalized
displacement control method (MGDCM) [44] can be used as
the solver. Figure 5(d) shows the moment in the four folding
hinges, in which the relation between the folding angles and the
moments is calculated by Eq. (8). The moment in the mountain
fold is negative, while the moments in the two symmetric val-
ley folds are the same. The characteristic stiffness for the X-,
Y-, and Z-directions is calculated in the folding process. Figure
5(b) shows that the stiffness of the Miura-ori can be tuned by
9
Figure 6: Configuration of an integrated tensegrity origami shelter. The left-
hand side is the 2D view. On the right-hand side, the shelter is a combination
of origami sheets and a tensegrity frame.
changing the configuration. The maximum stiffness in X- and
Y-directions is obtained when the structure is flat. The stiffness
in the Y-direction is generally higher than in the X-direction be-
cause the in-plane stiffness of panels strengthens the Y-direction
stiffness. In the Z-direction, the stiffness is maximum when bar
7 is close to vertical.
5.2. Integrated tensegrity origami shelter
5.2.1. Basic information
Accordion shelters are origami-like deployable shelters de-
veloped by the U.S. military [45]. To increase the stiffness and
controllability of the deployable shelter, an integrated tensegrity
origami shelter is proposed, as shown in Figure 6. The shelter
comprises two planar D-bar tensegrity structures [46] braced
with out-of-plane truss and a six-fold origami panel modeled
by N5B8 unit [39]. The number of D-bar in planar tensegrity
structures is defined as the complexity p of the structure, and
we choose p = 3 for the structure, as given in Figure 6. The
length of bars in the D-bar and the width of the structure in the
X-direction is 1.4140 m. The angle of the bars in the D-bar
in the Y-direction is 40◦ . The cross-sectional area of bars and
strings is 10−4 m2 , the area of the diagonal bars in N5B8 unit is
10−7 m2 , and the area of vertical strings is reduced to 10−7 m2
to allow large deformations in the folding process. The Young’s
Modulus of bars and strings is set as E = 2 × 1011 Pa for steel
materials. The rotational stiffness of the rotational and bending
hinges are 2.546 × 10−4 N·m/◦ and 1.8 × 10−2 N·m/◦ . Note that
the rotational hinge stiffness is decreased for the consideration
of the reduction of Modulus due to the plastic deformation.
5.2.2. Tangent stiffness analysis
Figure 7(a) gives the first 15 eigenvalues of the tangent stiff-
ness. The 10th to 15th modes correspond to the in-plane de-
formations of the center nodes in the N5B8 unit of the origami
part. The 7th to the 9th modes correspond to the lateral defor-
mations of the origami panels in the X-direction. Note that the
deformation happens in the upper part instead of the bottom part
because the brace truss in the bottom is stiffer than the diagonal
bars in the origami panels. The 1st to the 6th modes corre-
spond to the out-of-plane deformations of the 6 origami panels,
Figure 7: The eigenvalues and modes of the illustrative example: (a) eigenval-
ues vs. order of the modes, (b) mode 15, (c) mode 8, and (d) mode 5.

which is reasonable because the origami panels are compara-

tively weaker in the out-of-plane direction than the tensegrity
part.

5.2.3. Large deformation analysis

The integrated origami and tensegrity shelter can be folded
or deployed by changing the rest length of horizontal strings
actively, as shown in Figure 8(a). The rest length of the hori-
zontal strings is reduced by 70% in the folding process, while
the rest length of other members is constant. The length of ver-
tical strings is elongated to allow deformation of the D-bar, as
shown in Figure 8(c). The force of bars and vertical strings
increases, and the force of horizontal strings increases in the
first half part and decreases in the second half part, as shown in
Figure 8(d).
The characteristic stiffness for the external force exerted on Figure 8: Folding information of the shelter: (a) the folding process, (b) stiff-
ness of the structure, (c) length of structural elements, and (d) force in the struc-
the two end nodes in the X-, Y-, and Z-directions are calculated tural elements at different load factors.
in the folding process. Figure 8(b) shows that the stiffness of
the shelter can be tuned by changing its configuration. The stiff-
ness in Y- and Z-directions increases as the structure is folded,
which is reasonable because the cantilever length decreases.
The stiffness in the Z-direction is generally higher than in the
Y-direction because the height of the structure is higher than in
the Z-direction. The stiffness in the X-direction decreases as
the structure is folded because the increment in the angle of the
D-bar with the X-axis reduces the X-direction stiffness.

5.3. Cable-driven Kresling structure

5.3.1. Basic information
The cable-driven Kresling structure is a combination of a
Kresling pattern origami [38, 47] and strings, as shown in Fig-
ure 9(a). The cable-driven Kresling structure is composed of
vertical bars, horizontal bars, diagonal bars, and strings, and
the connectivity is shown in Figure 9(b). The complexity of
the structure in horizontal and vertical directions is p and q, Figure 9: The geometric configuration of the cable-driven Kresling pattern: (a)
axonometric view, (b) expansion view of the cylinder, (c) side view of one layer
which are the number of sides of the polygon and the layers of
(there are q layers in total), and (d) top view.
the structure. The angles between the diagonal bar, the hori-
zontal bar, and the vertical bar are α and β. For Kresling pat-
tern origami under compressive load [47] when α + β < 90◦ ,
the strain in each member remains in tension or compression
throughout the deployment and collapse processes. The strain
10
Figure 10: Stiffness of the cable-driven Kresling structure in X-, Y-, Z-, and
rotational directions.
may vary between tension and compression when α + β > 90◦ .
The front and top views of a one-layer cable-driven Kresling
structure are shown in Figure 9(c). The height of one layer
Kresling structure is h. The twist angle between the bot-
tom and top polygon is φ. The cross-sectional area of all the
bars and strings is 10−4 m2 . The panels have a thickness of
t = 6 × 10−4 m, and Young’s modulus of E = 1 × 106 Pa. For
the cable-driven Kresling structure in Figure 9(a), the geometry
parameters are p = 5, q = 3, r = h = 5 m, and φ = 15◦ .
5.3.2. Stiffness analysis
The configurations of the cable-driven Kresling structure
with different h ∈ [5, 15] and φ ∈ [−45◦ , 45◦ ] are shown in
Figure 10, given complexity p = 5, q = 3 and radius r = 5 m.
The normalized force vector is exerted on the top nodes in X-
, Z-, and rotational directions. As shown in Figure 10(a) and
(b), the maximum stiffness in X- and Z-direction is obtained
when h = 10 m and φ = −45◦ . The minimum stiffness in the
X-direction is at φ = 45◦ , while the minimum stiffness in the
Z-direction is at h = 6 m or 14 m and φ = −45◦ . The string ac-
tuation stiffness is defined as the sensitivity of force increment
to string length decrement. As shown in Figure 10(c), for string
actuation in the deployment, h = 5 m and φ = −45◦ is the most
difficult configuration for actuation. At the same time, it would
be much easier to actuate as the height increases. As shown in
Figure 10(d), the rotational stiffness at φ = −45◦ is more than
four times higher than at φ = 45◦ , and the maximum stiffness
in the rotation is obtained at h = 6 m or 14 m and φ = −45◦ ,
which is the minimum stiffness in the Z-direction.
5.3.3. Large deformation analysis
The cable-driven Kresling structure can be easily folded or
deployed by increasing or decreasing the rest length of strings,
as shown in Figure 11(a). Note that the rest length of the hor-
izontal strings is reduced by 80% in the folding process, while
the rest length of other members is constant, as shown in Fig-
ure 11(c). The difference between the length and rest length for
bars is much higher than that of strings, as in Figure 11(c). As
a result, the force in the bars is much higher than in strings, as
in Figure 11(d).
11
Figure 11: Folding information of the cable-driven Kresling structure: (a) the
folding process, (b) stiffness of the structure, (c) length of structural elements,
and (d) force in the structural elements at different load factors.
The characteristic stiffness for X-, Y-, Z-, and rotational di-
rections is calculated in the folding process. Figure 11(b) shows
that the stiffness of the cable-driven Kresling structure can be
tuned by changing its configurations. The stiffness in X- and Y-
directions increases as the structure folds, which is reasonable
because the cantilever length decreases. The stiffness in the Z-
direction is generally higher than in X-and Y-directions because
the Z-direction forces compress the structure while the X- and
Y- direction forces bend the structure. The stiffness in the Z-
direction decreases as the structure folds due to the decrease of
angles between bars and the X- and Y-planes. The rotational
stiffness reaches the highest point in the middle of the folding
process.
6. Conclusions
A static analysis approach to nonlinear integrated tenseg-
rity and origami systems based on the Lagrangian method with
nodal coordinates and angles between the origami panels is
given in this paper. This approach allows one to conduct com-
prehensive studies on any integrated origami and tensegrity sys-
tems with any node constraints and various load conditions (i.e.,
gravitational force, specified forces, and moments). Results
show that this method can 1) perform loading analysis of the
integrated system with infinitesimal or large deformations. For
example, from the three examples, we can get information on
stiffness, deformation, forces, and moments of all the structural
elements. 2) help understand the stiffness contributions of the
bars and hinges. For example, in the Miura origami unit ex-
ample, the bars and hinges contribute around 2/3 and 1/3 of
the total stiffness. 3) study the deployment process or actu-
ation strategies of the cables. For example, in the integrated
tensegrity origami shelter example, from the eigenvalue study,
we can see that the deformation happens in the upper part in-
stead of the bottom because the first six modes correspond to
the out-of-plane deformations are comparatively weaker in the
out-of-plane direction. 4) One can change the stiffness of the in-
tegrated structure by changing its configurations with analytical
guidance. For example, in the cable-driven Kresling structure,
by tuning the length of cables, we get the contour of stiffness
with respect to the heights of the cylinder. Overall, this study
paves a way to help people design deployable structures from
the benefits of both tensegrity and origami systems, as well as a
comprehensive understanding of the performance of both struc-
tures and materials.
Acknowledgment
The research was supported by the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (Grant No. 52208218) and the
Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (Grant No.
LQ23E080021).
References
[1] K. D. Snelson, Continuous tension, discontinuous compression struc-
tures, 1965. US Patent 3,169,611.
[2] R. B. Fuller, Tensile-integrity structures, Patente US3063521, concedida
(1959).
[3] K. M. Roffman, G. A. Lesieutre, Morphing tensegrity space platforms,
in: AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, 2021, p. 0428.
[4] S. Ma, M. Chen, R. E. Skelton, Design of a new tensegrity cantilever
structure, Composite Structures 243 (2020) 112188.
[5] K. Kim, A. K. Agogino, A. M. Agogino, Rolling locomotion of cable-
driven soft spherical tensegrity robots, Soft robotics 7 (2020) 346–361.
[6] M. Chen, X. Bai, R. E. Skelton, Minimal mass design of clustered tenseg-
rity structures, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing 404 (2023) 115832.
[7] A. Fraddosio, G. Pavone, M. D. Piccioni, Minimal mass and self-stress
analysis for innovative v-expander tensegrity cells, Composite Structures
209 (2019) 754–774.
[8] Z. Kan, F. Li, N. Song, H. Peng, Novel nonlinear complementarity func-
tion approach for mechanical analysis of tensegrity structures, AIAA
Journal 59 (2021) 1483–1495.
[9] S. Ma, M. Chen, R. E. Skelton, Dynamics and control of clustered tenseg-
rity systems, Engineering Structures 264 (2022) 114391.
[10] X. Feng, W. Zhang, Y. Luo, S. Zlotnik, Optimal prestress investigation
on tensegrity structures using artificial fish swarm algorithm, Advances
in Civil Engineering 2020 (2020).
[11] D. T. Trinh, S. Lee, J. Kang, J. Lee, Force density-informed neural net-
work for prestress design of tensegrity structures with multiple self-stress
modes, European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 94 (2022) 104584.
[12] A. Amendola, A. Krushynska, R. Miranda, F. Fraternali, Optimal pre-
stress design of the band gap dynamics in tensegrity metamaterials, in:
Advances in Engineering Materials, Structures and Systems: Innovations,
Mechanics and Applications, CRC Press, 2019, pp. 995–999.
[13] J. Bauer, J. A. Kraus, C. Crook, J. J. Rimoli, L. Valdevit, Tensegrity
metamaterials: Toward failure-resistant engineering systems through de-
localized deformation, Advanced Materials 33 (2021) 2005647.
12
[14] T. Rhodes, C. Gotberg, V. Vikas, Compact shape morphing tensegrity
robots capable of locomotion, Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6 (2019) 111.
[15] H. Zhou, A. R. Plummer, D. Cleaver, Distributed actuation and control of
a tensegrity-based morphing wing, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mecha-
tronics 27 (2021) 34–45.
[16] M. Meloni, J. Cai, Q. Zhang, D. Sang-Hoon Lee, M. Li, R. Ma, T. E.
Parashkevov, J. Feng, Engineering origami: A comprehensive review
of recent applications, design methods, and tools, Advanced Science 8
(2021) 2000636.
[17] T. Chen, O. R. Bilal, R. Lang, C. Daraio, K. Shea, Autonomous deploy-
ment of a solar panel using elastic origami and distributed shape-memory-
polymer actuators, Physical Review Applied 11 (2019) 064069.
[18] Y. Li, Z. You, Origami concave tubes for energy absorption, International
Journal of Solids and Structures 169 (2019) 21–40.
[19] Q. Ze, S. Wu, J. Nishikawa, J. Dai, Y. Sun, S. Leanza, C. Zemelka, L. S.
Novelino, G. H. Paulino, R. R. Zhao, Soft robotic origami crawler, Sci-
ence advances 8 (2022) eabm7834.
[20] E. P. Hernandez, D. J. Hartl, D. C. Lagoudas, Active origami, Active
Origami (2019).
[21] R. J. Lang, Origami design secrets: mathematical methods for an ancient
art, CRC Press, 2012.
[22] K. Huang, H. Elsayed, G. Franchin, P. Colombo, Complex sioc ceramics
from 2d structures by 3d printing and origami, Additive Manufacturing
33 (2020) 101144.
[23] Y. Zhang, C. Wang, Y. Dong, D. Wang, T. Cao, S. Wang, D. Liu, Fold 2d
woven dna origami to origami+ structures, Advanced Functional Materi-
als 29 (2019) 1809097.
[24] Q. Ge, C. K. Dunn, H. J. Qi, M. L. Dunn, Active origami by 4d printing,
Smart materials and structures 23 (2014) 094007.
[25] Z. Zhao, X. Kuang, J. Wu, Q. Zhang, G. H. Paulino, H. J. Qi, D. Fang, 3d
printing of complex origami assemblages for reconfigurable structures,
Soft Matter 14 (2018) 8051–8059.
[26] S. Kamrava, D. Mousanezhad, H. Ebrahimi, R. Ghosh, A. Vaziri,
Origami-based cellular metamaterial with auxetic, bistable, and self-
locking properties, Scientific reports 7 (2017) 1–9.
[27] H. Yasuda, J. Yang, Reentrant origami-based metamaterials with negative
poisson’s ratio and bistability, Physical review letters 114 (2015) 185502.
[28] N. Wang, K. Naruse, D. Stamenović, J. J. Fredberg, S. M. Mijailovich,
I. M. Tolić-Nørrelykke, T. Polte, R. Mannix, D. E. Ingber, Mechanical
behavior in living cells consistent with the tensegrity model, Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (2001) 7765–7770.
[29] G. Scarr, A consideration of the elbow as a tensegrity structure, Interna-
tional Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 15 (2012) 53–65.
[30] F. Fraternali, N. Stehling, A. Amendola, B. A. Tiban Anrango, C. Hol-
land, C. Rodenburg, Tensegrity modelling and the high toughness of spi-
der dragline silk, Nanomaterials 10 (2020) 1510.
[31] V. Caratelli, G. Fegatelli, D. Moscone, F. Arduini, A paper-based elec-
trochemical device for the detection of pesticides in aerosol phase in-
spired by nature: A flower-like origami biosensor for precision agricul-
ture, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 205 (2022) 114119.
[32] B. Kresling, Origami-structures in nature: lessons in designing “smart”
materials, MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) 1420 (2012).
[33] J. A. Faber, A. F. Arrieta, A. R. Studart, Bioinspired spring origami,
Science 359 (2018) 1386–1391.
[34] J. L. Rohmer, E. A. Peraza Hernandez, R. E. Skelton, D. J. Hartl, D. C.
Lagoudas, An experimental and numerical study of shape memory alloy-
based tensegrity/origami structures, in: ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, volume 57526, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 2015, p. V009T12A064.
[35] R. Miranda, E. Babilio, N. Singh, F. Santos, F. Fraternali, Mechanics
of smart origami sunscreens with energy harvesting ability, Mechanics
Research Communications 105 (2020) 103503.
[36] J. Hong Park, Tensegami: Design principle of combining tensegrity and
origami to make geodesic dome structure for martian agriculture, in:
Earth and Space 2021, 2021, pp. 978–984.
[37] S. Ma, M. Chen, R. E. Skelton, Tensegrity system dynamics based on
finite element method, Composite Structures 280 (2022) 114838.
[38] K. Liu, G. Paulino, Nonlinear mechanics of non-rigid origami: an effi-
cient computational approach, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Math-
ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473 (2017) 20170348.
[39] E. Filipov, K. Liu, T. Tachi, M. Schenk, G. H. Paulino, Bar and hinge
 models for scalable analysis of origami, International Journal of Solids
and Structures 124 (2017) 26–45.
[40] Y. Li, S. Pellegrino, A theory for the design of multi-stable morphing
structures, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 136 (2020)
103772.
[41] J. Zhang, M. Ohsaki, F. Tsuura, Self-equilibrium and super-stability of
truncated regular hexahedral and octahedral tensegrity structures, Inter-
national Journal of Solids and Structures 161 (2019) 182–192.
[42] Y. Chen, Q. Sun, J. Feng, Improved form-finding of tensegrity structures
using blocks of symmetry-adapted force density matrix, Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering 144 (2018) 04018174.
[43] Y. Wang, X. Xu, Y. Luo, Form-finding of tensegrity structures via rank
minimization of force density matrix, Engineering Structures 227 (2021)
111419.
[44] S. E. Leon, E. N. Lages, C. N. De Araújo, G. H. Paulino, On the effect
of constraint parameters on the generalized displacement control method,
Mechanics Research Communications 56 (2014) 123–129.
[45] A. Thrall, C. Quaglia, Accordion shelters: A historical review of origami-
like deployable shelters developed by the us military, Engineering struc-
tures 59 (2014) 686–692.
[46] R. E. Skelton, M. C. De Oliveira, Tensegrity systems, volume 1, Springer,
2009.
[47] Z. Zhai, Y. Wang, H. Jiang, Origami-inspired, on-demand deployable and
collapsible mechanical metamaterials with tunable stiffness, Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (2018) 2032–2037.

13

View publication stats