Tensegrity Systems: The State

of the Art

R Motro

Laboratoire de Mecanique et Genie Civil, Universite de Montpellier II, Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc

ABSTRACT: Tensegrity systems are space structures of a special nature and

their industrial use has not yet been fully developed. The article describes the
state of the art. The systems examined are geometrically and mechanically com-
plex. Solutions have been found for some of the problems and others require
development. A large set of references identifies the main contributions of
researchers encouraging the designing of tensegrity systems open up new pros-
pects for construction and application. .

1. INTRODUCTION Approaches using mechanics have developed

Tensegrity systems, selfstressing networks, float-
ing compression, critical or overcritical reticu-
lated systems ... there are many names for a single
reality which owes as much to art as to science and
which is fascinating and surprising. The variety of
terms results from the variety of approaches used
by researchers who have examined the question.
Although no conclusion can be drawn from the
validity of the denomination "Tensegrity systems"
used here, a name had to be chosen in order to
report on the state of the art.
Although the origin oftensegrity systems can be
pin-pointed in 1921, as was done by Emmerich [1],
the main investigations have been carried out over
the past forty years, with Snelson's work in 1948 [2]
as the starting point. It is interesting to note the
high points of the evolution of the approaches.
Interest on the part of artists - especially
sculptors - remained strong during this period,
as is demonstrated for example by Moreno's
Current work [3]. The great success of geometrical
studies has been lasting; most of the work was car-
ried out by Emmerich [1] and Fuller [4,5], and
continued by Pugh's publications [6]. Polyhedron
geometry formed the basis of these studies.
over the past decade; these partially question
some of the initial claims and are steadily
establishing the theoretical framework for model-
making. Tardiveau and Siestrunck [7], Calladine
[8], Pellegrino [9], Roth and Whiteley [10], Vilnay
[11,12], Tarnai [13] and Hanaor [14] have made
contributions for further knowledge of tensegrity
systems.A number ofstudies on the question have
been carried out at our laboratory (Motro [15,16],
Najari [17], Belkacem [18], Crosnier [19]). Indus-
trial. projects and proposals are beginning: Geiger
[20], Emmerich [1], Vilnay [11], Hanaor [21],
Motro [22].
Some of the essential ideas concerning ten-
segrity systems are presented here in order to
report on the state of the art.
2. DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY
2.1 Definitions
Several different definitions can be given, accord-
ing to whether one bases the viewpoint on prin-
ciples, on geometry or mechanics.
The point is to make the most of the strength of
materials faced with compression and tension,

International Journalof Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992 75


which are different because of buckling phenom-
ena in the former case. This is illustrated by
Robert Le Ricolais [23] who stressed "the illogic-
ality of cutting linear sections produced in
unlimited lengths into small elements, with the
necessity. of setting the latter by means of com-
plicated and often costly joints". After noting the
risks of buckling of long, compressed members, it
seemed necessary to him "to investigate which
tension structures can be used to partition space
while providing the required conditions of stab-
ili~ , whole compatible with strictly constant bar
Fuller defined the emergence of the notions of
tensegrity as follows [4]: "The word tensegrity is an
invention: it is a contraction of tensional integrity
... tension is omnidirectionally coherent. Ten-
segrity is an inherently nonredundant confluence
of optimum structural-effort effectiveness factors.
Tensegrity structures are pure pneumatic struc-
tures, at the subvisible level of energy events ...
Referring to Fuller's work, Pugh [6] provided a
definition which described different aspects of
tensegrity systems satisfactorily: "A tensegrity sys-
tem is established when a set of discontinuous
compression components interacts with a set of
continuous tensile components to define a stable
volume in space".
D.G. Emmerich [24] had previously given a
definition of"selfstressing" structures ("structures
autotendantes"): "Selfstressing structures consist
of bars and cables assembled in such a way that
the bars remain isolated in a continuum ofcables.
All these elements must be spaced rigidly and at
the same time interlocked by the prestressing
resulting from the internal stressing of cables
without the need for external bearings and
anchorage. The whole is maintained firmly like a
self-supporting structure, whence the term "self-
stressing"." '"
We have adopted Pugh's definition, but the
denomination "selfstressed reticulated space sys-
tems" ("Systemes Reticules Spatiaux Autocon-
traints") [5] underlines both the coexistence of
compressed and tension elements and the need
for selfstressing to make the whole structure
rigid.
This is a mechanical type ofcharacterization of
these systems which belong to the critical and
overcritical truss class which were the subject ora
76
Tensegrity Systems: The State of The Art
review at the Academic des Sciences, Paris, by J.
Tardiveau and R. Siestrunck in 1975 [7].
"Reticulated space structures with undegener-
ated perfect joints are considered; their external
links and internal structure are such that the sys-
tems have an index of mobility m>O, and their
configurations are hence presumed to depend on
m position parameters. Structures termed over-
critical are those in which, for fortuitous geometri-
cal reasons, the field of functioning as a mechan-
ism, that is to say the geometrical positions as a
length, is reduced to one isolated point".
This set of definitions would not be complete
without reference to the work of the Structural
Topology Group and in particular that of Roth
and Whiteley [10] who define tensegrity systems
as being made up of bars which maintain the dis-
tance between certain pairs ofnodes, cables which
place an upper limit on the distance between other
pairs of nodes and struts which place a lower limit
between yet other pairs of nodes.
This approach is characterized by the distinc-
tion thus made between bars, cables and struts.
This was formalized mathematically by W.
Whiteley [25] as follows:
"A tensegrity framework in d-space G(p) is a
signed graph (V;E-,Eo,E+), and an assignment
PLRdlvl such that pi = pj if(ij) E = E-UEo U E+.
The members in E- are cables, the members in Eo
are bars and the members in E+ are 'struts".
These definitions do not contradict each other;
there are different approaches and it is certainly
necessary to know them well to develop construc-
tional solutions with tensegrity systems.
Two remarks are called for:
- the tension elements are rectilinear - by nature.
The compression elements can ofcourse have rec-
tilinear axes, but it does not seem incoherent in
tensegrity systems to include systems whose com-
pression elements are assemblies of rectilinear
elements (for example, Moreno's sculptures
include star polyhedra whose compression ele-
ments are interlaced triangles) or curved elements
such as the compression rings in Geiger's
domes.
- the discontinuity of the compression elements,
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992
R. Motro
whatever their form, has been described to date as
one of the characteristics of tensegrity systems.
Should therefore constructions in which com-
pressed elements connect be excluded (see our
proposals for double curvature double layer
grids)? The reply varies according to the author
and it would be pointless to rule that one of them
is right.
One might be tempted to propose a definition
synthesizing the information above as follows:
"Tensegrity systems are systems whose rigidity
is the result of a state of selfstressed equilibrium
between cables under tension and compression
elements and independent of all fields of action."
This can be considered as a provisional defini-
tion, while awaiting a description which would
include aesthetics and lightness for example.
2.2 Historical Background
As is always the case in questions of "paternity", it
is difficult to know exactly who has the honour of
being the first to conceive a tensegrity system. It
would be vain to hope for certitude on this point,
and chronological references only are provided
here to aid the reader.
In a recent publication, D.G. Emmerich reports
What appears to him to have been the first struc-
ture that can be placed in the tensegrity system
category [1]. He refers to the research carried out
by the Russian constructivists reported in a book
by Laszlo Moholy Nagy: Von Materiel zu Archi-
tektur, first published in 1929 and republished in
1968. L.M. Nagy included two photographs of an
exhibition held in Moscow in 1921 showing an
"equilibrium structure" (Gleichgewichtkonstruk-
tion) by a certain Johansen. "This curious struc-
ture" writes Emmerich, "consists of three bars and
seve~ cables and is manipulable by means of an
eighth unstressed cable, the whole being deform-
able. This labile configuration is very close to the
selfstressing protoform with three bars and nine
cables".
In the same work, D.G. Emmerich mentions the
numerous constructions that he has completed
and projects related to selfstressing. The latter
include the projects of the sculptor K. Snelson,
and more especially the various masts that he
built, including the loo-foot one for Pakistan Air-
International Journalof Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992
lines in Karachi and the "needle tower" which can
still be seen in Washington mall.
Snelson's contribution cannot be denied. Amy
Edmondson [26] reports that in the 1940's, Buck-
minster Fuller was convinced that the universe
operated according to a tensional integrity princi-
ple but did not manage to materialise his con-
victions.
"But in the summers of 1947 and 48, Fuller
taught at Black mountain College and spoke con-
stantly of "tensional integrity". Nature relies on
continuous tension to embrace islanded compres-
sion elements, he mused; we must create a model
ofthis structural principle ... Much to his delight, a
student and now well-known sculptor, Kenneth
Snelson, provided the answer. He presented his
discovery to Fuller: a small structure consisting of
three separated struts held rigidly in place with a
few strings. This was the birth of an explosion of
geometric tensegrity structures - the elegant solu-
tion to Bucky's quest. Tensegrity structures
demonstrate in a visible, tangible manner, the
interdependence of tension and compression, a
fundamental principle in nature structuring."
Correspondence between K. Snelson and the
author of the present article sheds interesting light
on the respective roles of Fuller and Snelson [2].
History will certainly record that tensegrity sys-
tems were developed by sculptors such as Johan-
sen and Snelson.
2.3 Patents
The search for the earliest patents is the domain of
specialised organisations. Several documents
show that patents were applied for almost simul-
taneously by R. Buckminster Fuller in the USA
and by D.G. Emmerich in France at the very
beginning of the 1960's. Reference [1] givesthe list
of patents taken out by D.G. Emmerich and his
comments on the reception of a patent concerning
"frame assembly elements, in particular for the
building industry ..." (June 1959). The first patent
referring to selfstressing systems is dated 1963.
R. Maculet [27] found four inventions by Buck-
minster Fuller concerning tensegrity systems, the
oldest dated 1962, in a work dated 1985 not bear-
ing an author's name [28]. The same date is men-
tioned in the journal Synergetica [29] concerning
77

a patent application by Gwilliam et al. The
numerous names mentioned on this occasion
showed the increase in patent applications in the
preceding years.
It is perhaps better not to ascribe too much
importance to finding out who was first and rather
examine the future of these systems.
3. STATE OF THE ART: THE LATEST
DEVELOPMENTS
3.1 Introduction
Because ofthe way in which tensegrity systems are
constituted, they belong to the class of systems of
indeterminate form, such as systems constructed
with textiles under tension. Definition of their
geometrical shape (characterized by a set of 3n
coordinates if they possess "n" nodes) depends
simultaneously on the initial geometry of the con-
stituent elements (non-deformed lengths ofcables
and struts), the relational structure (topology) of
the system and the existence of selfstressing, a
necessary condition for a certain degree of
rigidity. Their mechanical behaviour under exter-
nal actions (different to the effects of selfstressing)
form other problems insofar as firstly they belong
to a "critical" class of systems and secondly they
can only be analysed adequately taking into
account geometrical or even material non-
linearities. In order to present the latest known
developments, it is convenient to examine the
work of different researchers in several themes
discussed below in an order corresponding
roughly to the various stages leading from the ini-
tial idea to practical application.
3.2 Imagination and GeometrY
It was fortunately not necessary to analyse the
whole question before the first tensegrity systems
could emerge. Pragmatic approaches using imag-
ination have been used by many workers since the
1950's. Snelson's sculptures have already been
mentioned. Moreno's propositions - in par-
ticular that called "Crescent Moon" [3] - must
be added.
The most important work in geometry was car-
78
Tensegrity Systems: The State of The Art
ried out by R. Buckminster Fuller [4,5] and D.G.
Emmerich [1]. The results of a seminar held by
Gernot Minke in Stuttgart in 1970[30] should also
be mentioned. A Pugh's work [6] made it possible
to raw up a coherent classificatioin among the sys-
tems proposed. Pugh described the principle of
the constitution of geodesic systems, where it is
useful to make use of Kenner's work [31].
In most cases, the basis for the solutions is
polyhedron geometry. Two distinct attitudes can
be shown: the definition of an elementary module
and the addition of these or the breakdown of the
geometry into elements meeting the definition of
tensegrity systems.
Important progress in the definition of modules
was made by D.G. Emmerich [32]. From a formal
point of view, Pugh drew a distinction between
three types of system: "diamond", "circuit" and
"zig-zag" patterns. Emmerich has described in
detail the assembly ofthe basic modules [9].Three
principles emerge:
- juxtaposition of modules (a junction polygon is
common to two modules);
- interpenetration: the Junction polygon is non-
planar, the vertices lying on two distinct parallel
planes which certainly necessitates the addition of
extra cables in comparison with the basic mod-
ules;
- interlacing: certain elements become common
neighbouring modules.
This geometrical approach, which is generally
carried out using models, meets topological
criteria but is in some cases inadequate insofar as
the geometrical shape with selfstressing is not
strictly superposable with that of the polyhedra or
their proliferation (this is the case for example of
the truncated tetrahedron and the icosahedron)..
The proposals for double layer double curva-
ture systems can also be mentioned (Hanaor [21],
Motro [22]). In this case, the junction of the mod-
ules is one of the following types:
- node on node
- node on cable
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992
R. Motro
- cable on cable, with partial or total covering of
the cables by two adjacent modules.
Real models have been constructed and show
the feasibility of the systems proposed.
Vilnay [11] proceeded by increasing the size of a
module. In this case, the dimension of the com-
pression members can form a limit because of the
risks of buckling, even under selfstressing.
3.3 Topology and Graph Theory
The constituent features oftensegrity systems ena-
ble modelling of their topology using graph
theory. It is possible [25] to define tensegrity sys-
tems on this basis. The most important work is to
be credited to the Structural Topology Research
Group in Canada. The journal published by the
group contains many articles on the subject (H.
Crapo, B. Roth, W. Whiteley, T.S. Tay, R. Con-
nelly). Roth and Whiteley presented an overall
formulation [10]. The studies are generally mathe-
matical; practical application in 3-dimensional
space serves mainly to warn the designers against
unstable solutions. A general seminar on struc-
tural rigidity was held in February 1987 at the
Mathematical Research Centre at the University
of Montreal, and a special place was reserved for
tensegrity systems. It is not possible here to des-
cribe the different theorems and conjectures pre-
sented on that occasion. The seminar organisers
plan to publish the results of the work.
The present author has shown [15] that in the
case of a spherical system, the graph of com-
pressed elements is a perfect bipartite graph and
that of the tension elements is a planar graph. On
this basis, an algorithm can be proposed for the
construction of the relational structure of a ten-
segrity system with "n" nodes (n even) [33] to
obtain a wide range of potential solutions.
4. RESEARCH IN MECHANICS
4.1 Introduction
The geometrical form of tensegrity systems must
satisfy the selfstressing criterion. If {t} represents
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992
the vectors of stresses in the constituent elements
and if [A] is the matrix of equilibrium of the sys-
tem, in general cases the equilibrium of a bar sys-
tem is expressed by:
[A] it} = {F}
{F} represents the vector of external actions
which is the zero vector in tensegrity systems; this
means that the matrix [A] must be singular in the
case of non-zero selfstressing.
Some form-finding methods have given a set of
3n node coordinates for b elements which make
the matrix singular. Although this approach is
adequate in some cases it must generally be com-
pleted. The main questions to be answered are
as follows:
- find a set of 3n cordinates ensuring the singu-
larity of [A]
- identify the potential selfstressing and partial or
total selfstressing states for this geometry,
- identify the internal mechanisms for this
geometry,
- determine the selfstressing states which elimin-
ate the mechanisms,
- ensure for these selfstressing states that there is
adequation between the stresses and the rigidity of
the elements (tension cannot be applied to
cables).
Once the existence of an acceptable solution
has been shown in this way, the behaviour of the
tensegrity systems can be studied under the effect
of external actions with, in particular, investiga-
tion of selfstressing instability. Can mechanisms
reappear as a result of external loading?
A considerable amount of research has been
carried out in recent years in order to answer all or
part of these questions. The last one - stability of
selfstress.ng equilibrium - still remains a fairly
open matter.
79

4.2 Form-finding
A simple static method can be used in the case of
an elementary module to obtain selfstressing
geometry [22]. Two types of method have been
used in general cases. Their principle consists of
seeking the minimum or maximum length of an
element or of a set of elements while respecting
dimentional conditions for complementary ele-
ments. Pellegrino [34] proposed treatment of the
question in the form ofa standard non-linear pro-
gramming problem. A method based on dynamic
relaxation with virtual damping gave the same
results [15]. The latter technique was improved by
S. Belkacem [18], who used a procedure with no
damping and attenuation of kinetic energy
already used successfully by Barnes in form-
finding research for textiles under tension. It is
noted that the form-finding principle with force
density method is being investigated. It is simply
necessary to attribute densities of contrasting
signs to the two classes of tension and compres-
sion elements. However, the mastery of element
lengths does not appear to have been achieved in
the result
The comparison and conjunction of these
methods have been described in cases of modules
such as the simplex and the truncated tetra-
hedron.
This work on form-finding, in addition to the
interest for general cases, confirms and quantifies
the "deviation" between the selfstressing form and
the geometry ofregular or semi-regularpolyhedra.
For example, the selfstressing geometry of a 12-
node spherical system does not correspond to that
of an icosahedron, the static equilibrium con-
ditions being quantified in this case by the relative
distance between two compression elements. The
work described above ([34 and 18]) also give the
same result for another 12-node spherical system;
the geometry obtained is very close to a truncated
tetrahedron, but in selfstressed position the hex-
agonal faces are not plane. This feature has been
reported qualitatively by all those who had
built models.
This observation is essential insofar as it reveals
the inadequacy of an approach which respects
polyhedric geometrical regularities. All studies
aiming at construction should include a phase of
80
Tensegrity Systems: The State of TheArt
research on selfstressed form-finding.
4.3 Mechanical Modelling
4.3.1 Selfttressing and Mechanisms
Studies of the behaviour of tensegrity systems
require the use of calculation models which take
into account non-linear features and the existence
of selfstressing which gives the systems their
rigidity. This rigidity is of an inferior order to that
observed in bar systems. The revealing of mech-
anisms which can be observed in this class of sys-
tem was noted by Siestrunck and Tardiveau [7].
Maxwell had anticipated the question and admit-
ted that the rule named after him might be inade-
quate; "In those cases where stiffness can be
produced with a small number of lines, certain
conditions must be fulfilled, rendering the case
one of a maximum or a minimum value ofone or
more ofits lines. The stiffness ofthe frame is of an
inferior order, as a small disturbing force may pro-
duce a displacement infinite in comparison with
itself." [35].
C.R Calladine showed that there was at least
one selfstressing state in this type of situation [8]
which made it possible to stabilise several modes
of mechanisims. More recently, the same author
and S. Pellegrino [9] described a method which
leads to determining the number of selfstressing
states and the number of mechanisms in the
general case. For this, the rank of the equilibrium
matrix [A] must be determined and the values
sought deduced by using the properties of linear
algebra and in particular breakdown of the
equilibrium matrix into four sub-spaces.
Mohri [36] showed how to ensure the adequa-
tion of selfstressing forces and the stiffness of the
elements. He demonstrated that matrix rank must
be studied taking into account in the mechanisms
the forces induced by selfstressing, and presented
an algorithm for the identification of the self-
stressing states compatible with the stiffness pro-
vided by the cables.
The work of Roth and Whiteley [37], Hangai
and Lin [39] and Tanaka and Hangai [40] can be
mentioned in the context of the mechanical mod-
elling concerning selfstressing and mechanisms.
International Journal of SpaceStructures J-Vl 7 No.2 1992
R. Motro
4.3.2 Behaviour Under the Effect of External
Forces
Non-linear analysis ofthe static behaviour often-
segrity systems has been performed with models
based on the principles of relaxation principles or
matrix updating with a Newton Raphson type
process. Chomarat, Savel and Soulard construc-
ted a model using dynamic relaxation [41].
In addition to the work of dynamic analysis pre-
sented in another article in this issue, the research
carried out by S.Najari [17] should be mentioned;
this led to establishing a calculation algorithm for
determining the dynamic characteristics of self-
stressed modules by application of harmonic
analysis. A physical model was constructed on
this occasion. The study completed experimental
work on a module made up in the same way in the
case of static loading [42].
More recently, Mohri demonstrated the rela-
tionship between the degree of selfstressing and
the dynamic response of a tensegrity system to a
harmonic excitation. The results were validated
by experimental work.
There were few experimental results for many
years. D.G. Emmerich mentioned a trial per-
formed on an assembly in Strasbourg [1]. A
Hanaor tested an assembly of triangular-based
modules in statics [21] Other trials are being car-
e.
ried out, some of which are described in this issue
of Space Structures.
6. CONSTRUCTION
In the present state of knowledge, there has not
been much application of the tensegrity principle
in the construction field. This does not mean that
there are no examples, but they have generally
remained at prototype stage for lack of adequate
technological design studies. The proposals made
by D.G. Emmerich [1] can nevertheless be con-
sulted; it will be seen that there is no lack ofideas.
However, the same author observed at an in-
house seminar for French schools of architecture
~n 1974 [43], that study of the problem ofstructures
In relation to architectural design consisted of five
essential, hierarchic phases: imagination, sizing,
stabilizing, calculation and construction.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992
Although the first four phases are well-mastered,
the fifth is not. Several fundamental questions
remain to be solved: how can a system be put
under tension with assurance of its level and per-
manence? What node system should be designed
to make industrialisation possible? What con-
struction procedure should be envisaged in the
light of the geometrical complexity of the systems
on the one hand and oftheir lack of rigidity before
prestressing on the other? The problem of the
cladding of the systems cannot be ignored either.
Should one opt for rigid cladding or prefer the use
of flexible materials such as textiles?
Partial replies exist, but research effort should
bear on the technological aspect in such a way as
to concretise the advantage of selfstressing which
by nature does not require complementary struc-
tures, in contrast with most systems made up of
elements and which only have tensile stiffness.
Applications have nevertheless begun to
emerge during the past fiveyears, as can be seen in
several articles in this issue. This is encourage-
ment for further research in the field.
6. CONCLUSION
Tensegrity systems belong wholly to the space
structure category. Their lightness leads to clas-
sifying them next to cable and membrane systems.
The selfstressing which provides their rigidity
makes them independent of any costly apparatus
to balance the stresses induced. An interesting
stage would be to make it possible to fold and
unfold them, as they would thus become an
interesting technical solution for the construction
of orbital space stations for space exploration and
thus give two meanings to the term "space
structures".
REFERENCES
1. D.G. EMMERICH, "Structures tendues et autotendan-
tes", Monographies de Geometrie Constructive. Edi-
tions de l'Ecole d'Architecture de Paris La Villette.
1988.
2. K SNELSON correspondance avec R Motro. 1990.
3. MORENO, "The Crescent Moon" Canadian Winning
entry to the 6th Henry Moore Competition at the
Hakone Open Air Museum. Japan.
81

4. FULLER RB., "Synergetics explorations in the geo-
metry of thinking". Collier Macmillan Publishers.
London. 1975.
5. RB. FULLER, R MARKS, "The Dymaxion World of
Buckminster Fuller". Anchor Books Edition 1973.
6. PUGH A, "An introduction to tensegrity". University
of California Press Berkeley. 1976.
7. TARDIVEAU J., SIESTRUCNK R, "Efforts et defor-
mations dans les assemblages en treillis critiques et
surcritiques en elasticite lineaire", Note presentee par
M.M. Roy a l'Academie des Sciences. T.280.NoJ. 20
Janvier 1975.
8. C.R CALLADINE, "Buckminster's Fuller tensegrity
structures and Clerk Maxwell rules for the construction
of stiff frames". Int. J. SolidsStructures. Vol. 14, pp. 161-
172. 1978.
9. S. PELLEGRINO, C.R. CALLADINE, "Matrix analy-
sis of statically and kinematically indeterminate
frameworks." Int. J. SolidsStructures. Vol. 22, No.4, pp.
409-428.
10. B. ROTH, W. WHITELEY, ''Tensegrity Frameworks"
Transactians at the American Mathematical Society Vol.
256, No.2, 1981, p. 419.
11. VILNAY 0., Structures made of infinite regular ten-
segric nets, IAS.s. Bulletin, 63, 1977, 51·57.
12. VlLNAY 0., Determinate Tensegric Shells, Journal of
Structural Division ASCE, Vol. 107, No.STIO, 1981,2029-
2033.
13. TARNAI T., Simultaneous Static and Kinematic
Indeterminacy ofSpace Trusses with Cyclic Symmetry,
Int. J. Solids Structures, Vol. 16, 347-359.
14. HANAOR H., "Prestressed Pin-Jointed Structures -
Flexibility Analysis and Prestress", Design Computers
and Structures. Vol. 28, No.6, pp. 757-769, 1988.
15. MOTRO R, "Formes et Forces dans les Systemes Con-
structifs. Cas des Systemes Reticules Spatiaux Auto-
contraints". These d'Etat Montpellier. U.S.T.L. 1983.
16. MOTRO R, BROCHIERO E., JOUANNA P., "Etude
quantitative de systemes autotendants", World Con-
gr~ss on non lYPica1 Structures IAS.S. Mar del Plata
Argentine, Septembre 1982.
17. NAJARI S., "Identification par analyse harmonique de
structures en genie civil. Application de la methode
non appropriee et comparaison a la methode approp-
riee, C~ '(les structures reticulees spatiales autocon-
traintes" These de 3° cycle I.N.SA de Toulouse.
Decembre 1985.
18. S. BELKACEM, "Recherche de forme par relaxation
dynamique de systemes reticules spatiaux autocon-
traints", These de Docteur Ingenieur en Genie Civil.
Universite Paul Sabatiet. Toulouse. Juin 1987.
19. CROSNIER B, MOHRI F., MOTRO R, "Incidence du
niveau de pretension sur Ie comportement Dynamique
d'un Systeme Reticule Spatial Autocontraint", Congres
Strucome Paris Nov. 1990, pp. 129·143.
20. GEIGER D.H., A cost comparison of roof systems, for
sports halls, IAS.S. Bulletin. 96, 1988,9-23.
82
Tensegrity Systems: The State of The Art
21. HANAOR A, "Preliminary investigation of double-
layer tensegrities", International Conference on the
design and construction of non-conventional struc-
tures. London 1987. Civil Comp press.
22. R MOTRO, "Tensegrity systems for Double Layer
Space Structures", International Conference on the
design and construction of non-conventional struc-
tures. London 1987. Civil Comp Press.
23. Le RICOLAIS R, "Ala recherche d'une mecanique des
formes", Conference donnee au Palais de la Decou-
verte. Paris. 1965.
24. D.G. EMMERICH, "Constructions de Reseaux Auto-
tendants", Brevet No. 1.377.29O·Avril 1963.
25. W. WHITELEY, Seminaire sur la Rigidite Structurale.
Centre de Recherches Mathematiques, Universite de
Montreal. Fevrier 1987.
26. EDMONDSON Amy, "Geodesic Reports: The Deres-
onated Tensegrity Dome", Synergetica. Journalof Syn-
ergetics Volume 1#4. November 1986.
27. MACULET R, "Etude et ca1cu1 de structures autoten-
dantes". Dip10me d'Architecture. Ecole d'Architecture
de Paris La Villette. Janvier 1987.
28. "Inventions: The Patented works of RB. Fuller". St.
Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Av. N.Y. New York. 10010
1985.
29. CHU R, ''Tensegrity'', Journal ofsynergetics. Vol. 2# I,
June 1988.
30. G. MINKE, ''Tensegrity Tragwerke". Publie dans la
revue ZODIAC, No. 19.
31. H. KENNER, "Geodesic Math and How to use it."
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA 1976.
32. D.G. EMMERICH, "Reseaux" 1 nd International
Conference on Space Structures. Z.S. Makowski ed.
Battersea College 1966. Ed. Blackwell.
33. R MOTRO, "Graphes et structures relationnelles des
systemes reticules spatiaux autocontraints", Revue de
Topologie Structurale.
34. S. PELLEGRINO, "Mechanics of kinematically indet-
erminate structures" PhD University of Cambridge.
April 1986.
35. rc, MAXWELL, Phil. Mag. 27,294 (1864): (paper
XXVI in Collected Papers, Cambridge 1890)
36. MOHRI F., Analyse Theorique et Experimentale des
Systemes Reticules Autocontraints. incidence du
niveau d'Autocontrainte. These de Doctorat, Mont-
pellier. Decembre 1990.
37. ROTH B., WHITELEY W., Tensegrity Frameworks,
'Irons. Amer. Math Soc. 265,419-446, 1981.
38. WHITELEY W., Global and Second Order Rigidity of
Tensegrity Frameworks, chapter for the Geometry of
Rigid Structures. H. Crapo and W. Whiteley eds. (pre-
print Champlain Regional College, Canada).
39. HANGAI Y., LIN X, Geometrically non-linear Analy-
sis in the vicinity of critical points by the generalised
Inverse, Int. J. Space Structures. 4, (4), 1989, 181-191.
40. TANAKA H., HANGAI Y., Rigid Body Displacement
and Stabilization Condition of Unstable Truss Struc-
International Journal of Space Structures VoL 7 No.2 1992
R. Motro
tures, Shell, Membrane and Space Frames, Proc. of
IA.S.S. Osaka. Sept. 15-19, 1986.
41. CHOMARAT A.. SAVEL 1., SOULARD JA, "For-
mulation d'une methode iterative applicable au calcul
de structures surcritiques", Revuefrancoise de mecani-
que No. 78. 1981.
42. MOTRO R., NAJARI S., JOUANNA P., "Static and
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 7 No.2 1992
dynamic analysis oftensegrity systems", Shell and Spa-
tial Structures: Computational Aspects. Proceedings of
the International Symposium July 1986. Leuven Bel-
gium. Springer Verlag.
43. EMMERICH D.G., "Structures et conception architec-
turale". Seminaire, Unite Pedagogique d'Architecture
de Toulouse. 1974.
83