Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231

A force and torque tensegrity sensor

Cornel Sultan a,∗ , Robert Skelton b
a Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
b Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, La Jolla, CA 92093-0411, USA
Received 24 November 2003; received in revised form 28 January 2004; accepted 31 January 2004

Abstract

Tensegrity structures represent a special class of flexible structures, whose members can simultaneously perform the functions of strength,
sensing, actuating, and feedback control. In this article we show how these structures intrinsic properties can be exploited to construct a
smart sensor for simultaneous measurement of six different quantities: three orthogonal forces and three orthogonal torques. The static
and dynamic characteristics of the sensor are computed and the influence of friction and prestress upon these characteristics is analyzed.
An optimal estimator design is presented and its performance is evaluated through numerical simulations. These simulations indicate that
the tensegrity sensor is capable of simultaneously providing correct estimates of the six quantities of interest.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tensegrity; Sensor; Optical fiber

1. Introduction fibers and can be used to estimate the quantities of interest

A major challenge in the field of sensors technology is
the development of smart sensors. These should be sens-
ing devices, easy to calibrate and adapt to new operating
conditions and requirements, and capable of accommo-
dating complex algorithms for local processing to remote
controllers and computers. A smart sensor should also be
able to compensate algorithmically for the inherent noise.
Another important demand for smart sensors is to be capa-
ble of simultaneously providing redundant, highly reliable
information about different physical signals.
This article presents a smart sensor which enables the si-
multaneous measurement of six quantities: three orthogonal
forces and three orthogonal torques. The device consists of a
tensegrity structure (Fig. 1) composed of 18 elastic tendons,
six rigid bars, and a rigid top, whose intrinsic properties are
exploited to make it a smart sensor.
One of the most important advantages of tensegrity struc-
tures is that the elastic members (e.g. tendons) provide ex-
cellent opportunities for sensing functions while also acting
as structural elements. Measurements of the geometry of
these tendons are easy to obtain through embedded optical
∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Guidance Navigation and Con-
trol, Scientific Systems Company Inc., Suite 3000, 500 West Cummings
Park, Woburn, MA 01801, USA. Tel.: +1-781-933-5355x251;
fax: +1-781-938-4752.
E-mail address: cornel sultan@yahoo.com (C. Sultan).
(here three external forces and three external torques). Also,
because the number of candidate sensing elements is large,
various combinations can be used to provide more exact as
well as fault tolerant and redundant approximations of the
measured quantities.
The article is organized as follows. First, a detailed de-
scription of the tensegrity sensor is given. Next, the static
and dynamic characteristics of the sensor are analyzed. The
article shows how these characteristics can be easily cali-
brated through pretension adjustment. Then an optimal es-
timator is designed, based on the linearized mathematical
model of the structure’s dynamics and assumed models of
the external quantities to be estimated. Finally the design is
evaluated through numerical simulations.
2. Tensegrity sensor description
A perspective view of a tensegrity sensor is given in Fig. 1.
Its components are: a triangular fixed base (A11 A21 A31 ); a
triangular rigid top (B12 B22 B32 ); three bars attached through
ball and socket joints to the base (Ai1 Bi2 ); three bars simi-
larly attached to the rigid top (Ai2 Bi2 ); 18 tendons connect-
ing the end points of the bars. The tendons are classified as
saddle: S, (Aj2 Bi1 ); vertical: V, (Aj1 Bi1 and Aj2 Bi2 ); diag-
onal: D, (Aj1 Ai2 and Bj1 Bi2 ) tendons, respectively.
For the tensegrity sensor, the rigid top plays the role of
the proof element. The sensing task consists in estimating

0924-4247/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sna.2004.01.039
 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231 221

^t
3 B
22
B O
12
t ^t
1 B
32

^
b B
3 11
Bij A
12 B
B 31 21
A
32
A
^ 22
δ
b
3 ^
ij b
A 1
^ 21
α
b
ij 1 O A
31
A A 11
ij

Fig. 1. Two stage tensegrity structure.

the three orthogonal forces and three orthogonal torques act-
ing on the rigid top. In order to accomplish this task, some
of the tendons will act as sensing elements and provide real
time information about their lengths. These individual mea-
surements are the inputs to a dynamic state estimator which
produces the desired estimates. In this design the sensing
tendons are not only structural elements, but members of the
intelligent system which accomplishes the estimating task.
The tensegrity structure, with the estimator designed to meet
certain performance specifications, represents a smart, inte-
grated sensor, capable of providing simultaneous informa-
tion about six different quantities.
2.1. Tensegrity structures
Tensegrity structures represent a class of space structures
composed of a set of soft members and a set of hard mem-
bers. The soft members cannot carry other significant loads
except for tensile ones. The representative example is an
elastic tendon which cannot be compressed for all practical
purposes but can carry significant tension. Because of this
property we shall also refer to these members as tensile
members. On the other hand, the hard members are char-
acterized by the fact that they can carry any type of load.
The representative example is a bar which can carry signif-
icant and comparable tension, compression forces, bending
torques, etc.
A structure composed of soft and hard elements as de-
scribed above is a tensegrity structure if it has the property
of prestressability. This property consists of the structure’s
ability to maintain an equilibrium shape with all tensile
members in tension and in the absence of external forces or
torques. Tensegrity structures integrity is guaranteed by the
tensile members in tension, hence their denomination, tense-
grity, an acronym of tension-integrity coined by R.B. Fuller.
The origins of tensegrity structures can be pin-pointed
to a constructivist artist’s (Loganson) sculpture in 1921
(see [12]). Tensegrity structures research was initiated by
Fuller [4] and Pugh [23]. Rigorous investigations have been
carried out rather recently, starting, interestingly enough,
with the fine contribution of the celebrated literary critic
of last century’s modernism, Kenner [9]. Calladine [1],
Motro et al. [11], Pellegrino and Calladine [22], Sultan
et al. [31], made important contributions to the general the-
ory of these structures statics. Sultan et al. [31], Murakami
and Nishimura [13,14] and Nishimura and Murakami [18]
published a series of results regarding analytical solutions
of the statics problem, while Hanaor [5], Kebiche et al. [8],
Vassart and Motro [38], developed numerical methods of
large generality. The field of tensegrity structures dynamics
research was pioneered by Motro et al. [11]. Significant
theoretical advances have been later made by Murakami
[15] and Sultan et al. [32,33] who developed nonlinear and
linearized dynamics models for tensegrity structures. Using
simpler models, Connelly and Whiteley [2] proved some
important results regarding the stability and rigidity of
equilibrium configurations, while Oppenheim and Williams
[20,21] discovered interesting properties of their vibration
and damping characteristics. Control design studies have
been pioneered by Skelton and Sultan [26], followed by
contributions of Sultan and Skelton [28], Djouadi et al. [3],
and Kanchanasaratool and Williamson [7]. Applications
of tensegrity structures have been proposed, ranging from
tensegrity domes [6,39], to antennas [3], space telescopes
[27], flight simulators [30], deployable structures [35,36].
2.2. Sensing mechanisms
The problem of choosing the sensing mechanism of the
sensing tendons deserves some discussion. The small size,
large dynamic bandwidth and ease of embedding make fiber
optic sensors extremely attractive for use as sensing elements
in a tensegrity sensor. Fiber optic sensors also present sev-
eral inherent advantages over conventional (resistive) sen-
222 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231
sors which include: electro-magnetic and hazardous envi-
ronment insensitivity, the absence of Joule heating effect,
high response bandwidth and low cost and weight per unit
length.
Optical fiber sensors are classified as being extrinsic or
intrinsic. In intrinsic sensors the optical energy in the fiber
is affected directly by the phenomenon being measured and
changes in the output intensity give an indication of the
magnitude of the disturbance. Typical intrinsic fiber sensors
are interferometric sensors such as Fabry–Perot (see e.g.
[40,41]), Mach–Zehnder (see [16]), Michelson (see [37]),
polarimetric sensors (see [10]) and modal interferometers
such as two-mode elliptic core [17] and twin core [37] ones.
In extrinsic sensors the fiber only serves to carry optical
power to, and sensing information from, the region of inter-
est. The sensing mechanism of the tensegrity sensing ten-
dons should be intrinsic in nature since the fiber must be
embedded in the tendon whose characteristics (e.g. lengths)
variations are to be measured.
Optical fiber sensors are also classified according to the
transduction mechanism which brings about a change in
some property of optical power passing through the fiber,
such as intensity, phase, modal content, polarization, etc.,
the corresponding sensors being known as intensity, phase
or interferometric based, modal interferometric and polari-
metric sensors.
Intensity sensors consist of an optical power source, an op-
tical fiber, and a photo-detector or spectrum analyzer. They
are simple and keep the signal processing complexity at a
low level. The main disadvantage of intensity sensors is their
relatively low sensitivity compared to interferometric or po-
larimetric sensors.
Interferometric sensors are more complicated, consisting
of a reference fiber which is isolated from the perturbation
being measured and a sensing fiber, extremely susceptible to
this perturbation. The outputs from the two fibers interfere at
the photo-detector, the magnitude of the interference being
dependent on the perturbation. The Mach–Zehnder, Michel-
son, Fabry–Perot interferometric sensors, employ the clas-
sical corresponding interferometer schemes. Their main ad-
vantage is an excellent strain sensitivity, while the main dis-
advantage is that the coherence length of the optical source
limits the maximum sensor length (typically 1 m or less). For
most of the interferometric sensors the input/output curve
is sinusoidal, requiring further post-processing electronics
which increases the signal processing complexity. Of the
interferometric sensors mentioned here, the Mach–Zehnder
and Michelson interferometers are usually larger in size
(since they are two-fiber sensors), which could make them
difficult to embed in the sensing tendon. Fabry–Perot, on the
other hand is single fiber, has excellent remote operability
properties with insensitive leads and, in principle, sensors
of virtually any length can be manufactured.
Modal interferometers are generally single fibers, lending
themselves to embedment. They can, in principle mea-
sure strain and temperature simultaneously providing the
opportunity for compensation during strain measurement.
Disadvantages are mainly related to the signal process-
ing complexity and to the difficult remote operability and
lead insensitivity. The fabrication of modal interferom-
eters is also somehow difficult. Their sensitivity is two
or three orders of magnitude lower than for standard
interferometers.
Polarimetric sensors use specialized high birefringence
fiber, containing two well-defined “eigenaxes” (birefringent
axes) which are orthogonal and have significantly differ-
ent effective refractive indices. Light energy entering either
“eigenmode” will remain in that mode as the fiber undergoes
temperature or strain variations, but the relative propagation
speed of energy in these two modes will be affected. Changes
in relative delay between components of the light in these
two modes have been shown to be proportional to longitu-
dinal strain [19]. This relative phase delay can be measured
by observing the output light through a correctly oriented
polarizer. Polarimetric sensors are single fiber—thus easy to
embed—exhibit excellent lead-in insensitivity, remote oper-
ability, are relatively easy to manufacture. On the other hand,
they are expensive, since they require specialized fiber, fiber
polarizers, etc. The signal processing complexity associated
with polarimetric sensors is also significant.
Each of the sensing mechanisms previously described rep-
resent viable options for tensegrity sensing tendons. The
purpose of this paper is to discuss the mechanics and com-
putational features of the sensor and to present a feasible
design, which is done next.
3. Modeling assumptions for the tensegrity sensor
The assumptions made for the mathematical modeling of
the tensegrity sensor are: the top is a rigid, homogeneous
plate, the bars are rigid, axially symmetric, of negligible lon-
gitudinal inertia, the tendons are massless and linear elastic.
The bars are attached to the fixed base or top through ball
and socket joints. Damping torques which are proportional
to the relative angular velocity between the bars and the base
or top act at the joints. The influence of the gravitational
field is neglected.
The inertial system of reference, b̂1 , b̂2 , b̂3 , is a dextral
set of unit vectors, whose center coincides with the geo-
metric center of the base triangle, A11 A21 A31 . Axis b̂3 is
orthogonal to plane A11 A21 A31 pointing upward while b̂1
is parallel to A11 A31 . The top reference frame, t̂1 , t̂2 , t̂3 ,
is a central principal system of the homogeneous top plate
B12 B22 B32 .
The 18 independent generalized coordinates necessary to
describe the configuration of this system are ψ, φ, θ, the
Euler angles for a 3–1–2 sequence to characterize the ori-
entation of the top reference frame in the inertial one, X,
Y , Z, the top mass center inertial Cartesian coordinates, δij ,
αij , the declination and the azimuth of the axis of symme-
try of bar Aij Bij , measured with respect to the inertial frame
 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231 223

(Fig. 1). Hence the vector of generalized coordinates is prestressable configurations (see Fig. 2). These configura-
tions are characterized as follows: all bars are identical of
q = [δ11 α11 δ21 α21 δ31 α31 δ12 α12 δ22 mass m and length l; the top and base are equal equilateral
triangles of side b; all bars have the same declination (δ); the
α22 δ32 α32 ψ φ θ X Y Z]T (1)
vertical projections of points Ai2 , Bi1 , i = 1, 2, 3, onto the
base make a regular hexagon. For simplicity, it is assumed
that all saddle tendons are identical (of rest-length S0 and
4. Statics: prestressable configurations stiffness kS ), all verticals are identical (of rest-length V0 and
stiffness kV ), all diagonals are identical (of rest-length D0
Under no external forces and torques the structure can and stiffness kD ).
attain equilibrium configurations with all tendons in ten- Sultan et al. [31] showed that these configurations proper-
sion, called prestressable configurations. The corresponding ties can be described using three parameters, α, the azimuth
mathematical conditions are (see [31]) of bar A11 B11 , δ, and P, a positive scalar called the preten-
sion coefficient. In this paper we shall consider that under
A(q)T = 0, Tj > 0 (2) no applied forces or torques the sensor yields a symmetrical
where A(q) is the equilibrium matrix given by A[n, j] = prestressable configuration characterized by α = 50◦ , δ =
∂lj /∂qn , n = 1, . . . , 18, j = 1, . . . , 18, lj and Tj are the 30◦ , l = 0.4 m, b = 0.27 m. The corresponding generalized
length and tension of tendon j, respectively. Sultan et al. coordinates values are
[31] published closed form solutions of Eq. (2) for a partic- qe = [30 50 30 290 30 170 30 170 30
ular class of prestressable configurations called symmetrical
50 30 290 300 0 0 0 0 0.58]T (3)
B B B where the angles are given in degrees and the lengths in me-
12 32 22 ters. The tensions in all saddle, vertical, and diagonal ten-
dons are, respectively, equal to TS , TV , TD . The compression
force in all bars is the same, C0 . The state of tension and
compression of the structure is characterized by
B B
31 A
32
11 [ TS TV TD ] = [ 0.29 0.09 0.27 ]P, C0 = 0.37P
A B (4)
22 21
A
12
The bars are designed for buckling and the tendons for max-
imum stress as shown in [27,34], yielding:
  
4l 2 λC
m = ρb πl R2 − R4 − 3 
0
(5)
A
11
A
21
A
31
π Eb
Frontal View
E∗ T∗ γ
k∗ = (6)
B
σ∗max
A 11
32 Here k∗ is the stiffness of tendon ∗, λ and γ are the safety
A
21 coefficients, ρb , Eb , and R the density, Young’s modulus,
B
and exterior radius of a bar (assumed pipe), respectively,
22 whereas E∗ and σ∗max are the Young’s modulus and maxi-
B
12
mum allowed stress in tendon ∗, respectively.
A
^ 12
B b ^
31 2 b
1
O
b
5. Static characteristics
A
α 31
In order to gain further insight into this sensor’s prop-
A
11 erties, we shall investigate its static characteristics when it
is subjected to constant external forces or torques acting
B
32 on the rigid top. For several values of the pretension co-
B
A 21 efficient, P, the tendons are designed for maximum stress
22 according to Eq. (6).
Top View
Consider that a force along the t̂3 axis, F3 , acts on the rigid
Fig. 2. Symmetrical prestressable configuration. top. The plot of vertical displacement of the top mass center
224 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231
30
20
10
F (N)
0 P = 200
3
P = 150
P = 25 P = 50 P = 100
–10
–20
–30
–0.03 –0.02 –0.01
∆Z (m)
Fig. 3. Load deflection characteristic.
vertical coordinate (&Z) versus the amplitude of F3 is called
the load–deflection characteristic. If a torque, M3 , along the
t̂3 axis acts on the rigid top, the plot of ψ variation (&ψ)
versus M3 is called the torsional characteristic. In order to
compute these characteristics a tangent predictor–corrector
continuation procedure has been applied to solve the nonlin-
ear equations of equilibrium which result from the applica-
tion of the virtual work principle (see [27,29,31] for details).
The results obtained for α = 50◦ , δ = 30◦ , λ = γ = 4, l =
0.4 m, b = 0.27 m, E∗ = 1010 N/m2 , σ∗max = 109 N/m2
are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
At all equilibria on these characteristics, the tendons were
tested for maximum stress (considering γ = 1.5) and slack-
ness conditions and the bars for buckling (with λ = 1.5).
None of these tests failed for the investigated ranges of F3
and M3 .
We ascertain that the static characteristics vary with the
pretension coefficient, P. As P varies, the shapes of these
curves change from a very nonlinear, hardening spring-like
characteristic, to a more linear one. Also the slopes of these
curves at the origin (sensor’s sensitivity) can be modified
through pretension adjustment.
6. Dynamic characteristics
The nonlinear equations of motion derivation has been
presented in [27,32]. Their linearization around a member
of the symmetrical prestressable configurations class leads
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
to the following equations of motion (see [33]):

6 
4
mi Mi q̃¨ + dCq̃˙ + ki Ki q̃ + Df + w = 0 (7)
i=1 i=1
wherem 6
i ∈ {Mt , J1 , J2 , J3 , m, J}, ki ∈ {P, kS , kV , kD }
4
and i=1 m i M i , dC, i=1 ki Ki are the mass, damping,
and stiffness matrices, respectively. Detailed formulas for
these matrices are given in [33]. In the above, q̃ = q − qe ,
Mt is the mass of the top, J1 , J2 , J3 the principal mo-
ments of inertia of the top, J the longitudinal moment
of inertia of a bar, d > 0 is the friction coefficient at all
joints, f = [ M1 M2 M3 F1 F2 F3 ]T the vec-
tor of external forces and torques acting on the rigid
top, given on t̂i , and w accounts for the inherent plant
noise.
The linearized equations of motion are used to eval-
uate the influence of friction and pretension upon the
dynamics of the structure, evaluated by plotting the min-
imum and maximum natural frequencies (ωmin and ωmax ,
respectively) versus P and d. Static design constraints,
Eqs. (5) and (6), are employed and the same numerical
values as before are used. In addition the following char-
acteristics of the bars and rigid top are specified: Eb =
7 × 1010 N/m2 ; ρb = 2800 kg/m3 ; R = 0.01 m; Mt =
0.1 kg; J1 = 0.06 kg m2 ; J2 = 0.06 kg m2 ; J3 = 0.1 kg m2 .
The results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
For the investigated range of P and d, we ascertain that
slightly damped structures exhibit only oscillatory modes,
which, as the friction coefficient increases, transform into
 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231 225

1.5

0.5
(Nm)

0 P = 300
3
M

P = 250
–0.5
P = 200

–1 P = 150
P = 100

–1.5

2
–0.8 –0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

∆ψ (rad)

Fig. 4. Torsional characteristic.

Fig. 5. Minimum natural frequency (ωmin ) variation.

pure exponentially decaying ones (Fig. 5). However, the 7. Estimator design
oscillatory nature of the linearized motions does not com-
pletely disappear (ωmax = 0, see Fig. 6). The pretension in- In order to estimate the external forces acting on the rigid
fluence is opposite: natural frequencies increase with P. Fig. top, we cast Eq. (7) in first-order form and consider the
6 shows that for small P the maximum natural frequency linearized measurement equations:
is small; the range of P over which this parameter remains
small increases with d. ẋp = Ap xp + Dp f + wp , z = M p xp + v (8)
226 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231

Fig. 6. Maximum natural frequency (ωmax ) variation.

Here xp = [ q̃T q̃˙ T ]T , f represents the vector of forces
and torques acting on the rigid top, to be estimated using
the measurements z, which consist of some of the tendons
lengths, wp = [0 − wT ]T and v represent plant and measure-
ment noise, respectively.
For the purpose of f estimation we choose to represent its
elements as some arbitrary collection of prescribed functions
of time, which are orthogonal over an interval of length τ.
The coefficients of the orthogonal functions are to be auto-
matically updated by the use of the real time measurements.
One possibility is to approximate each element of f by
specifying a system of the form:
ṡi = Qi si + Bi &(t), fi = NiT si
where the choices for Qi depend upon the particular orthog-
onal functions. Here &(t) is the Dirac impulse. The response
of the system is equivalent to that of the unforced system,
with initial conditions si0 = si0 + Bi .
Various Qi matrices can be constructed to generate as
eigenfunctions of Eq. (9) different orthogonal polynomials.
For example, if
 
0 0 0 0 0
 1 0 0 0 0
 
2 0 4 0 0 0
Qi =   (10)
τ 3 0 6 0 0
 Following these observations, for each of the six elements
 0 8 0 8 0
... h×h
then any solution of Eq. (9) (arbitrary initial conditions si0 )
yields fi as a sum of Chebyshev polynomials fi = NiT H,
Hj = cos[(j − 1)cos−1 (µ)], µ = 2t/τ − 1 with Hj the
Chebyshev polynomial of first kind and degree j − 1. Hj
are orthogonal over t ∈ [0, τ] with weight g(τ) = τ/2(t(τ −
t))−1/2 :
 τ 
πτ 2 if j = 1
Hj (τ)g(τ)Hk (τ) dτ = &jk (11)
0 4 1 if j = 1
&jk being the Kronecker delta symbol.
Of particular interest is the case when the Chebyshev
system can generate arbitrary linear combinations of Hj ,
j = 1, . . . , h. The next result is a direct consequence of
the properties of Chebyshev systems proved by Skelton and
Likins [24].
(9)
Theorem 1. The Chebyshev system in Eq. (9) can generate
an arbitrary sum of Chebyshev polynomials of degree h−1
if and only if the last element of Ni is nonzero.
It follows that there exists an initial conditions vector (si0 )
such that h of the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial
representation of fi can take on arbitrary values if and only
if Ni (h) = 0. On the strength of this fact we can claim that
any particular coefficients which are appropriate for fitting
the actual fi can be automatically determined by employing
state estimation techniques.
of f we construct a Chebyshev system of degree h − 1:
ẋf = Af xf + Bf &(t), f = Cf xf , Af = diag[Qi ],
Bf = vec[Bi ], Cf (i, h × i) = 0 (12)
with dim(Qi ) = h, ∀i = 1, . . . , 6.
 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231 227

The augmented system which results using the linear mod- is minimized. Here ei (t) is the response of the system given
els of the structure, Eq. (8), and of the external forces and by Eq. (16) when the disturbance (impulse or initial state) is
torques, Eq. (12), is applied only in the ith channel (n∗ is the dimension of the
∗ vector). Under fairly general conditions, this deterministic
ẋa = Aa xa + Ba wa , f = C a xa , z = Ma xa + v, treatment is mathematically equivalent with the stochastic
xaT = [ xpT xfT ], wTa = [ wT &(t) ] T
(13) one in which the disturbances are zero mean, white noise
stochastic processes (see [25]).
  The solution to this optimal estimation problem is given
Ap Dp Cf
Aa = , Ma = [ Mp 0 ], Ca = [ 0 Cf ], by
0 Af
  G = E0 MaT Va−1 (18)
018×18 0
 
Ba =  −I18 0  (14) Aa E0 + E0 ATa − E0 MaT Va−1 Ma E0 + Ba Wa BaT + E0 = 0
0 Bf (19)
The estimation task is accomplished with the aid of a state
where Wa = diag(· · · w2ai · · · ), Va = diag(· · · v2i · · · ), E0 =
estimator designed for the system given by Eq. (13):
diag(· · · e2i0 · · · ), wai , vi being the intensity of the impulsive
x̂˙ a = Aa x̂a + G(z − Ma x̂a ), f̂ = Ca x̂a (15) disturbance applied in the ith channel, and ei0 the ith initial
The error estimation system is condition.

ė = (Aa − GMa )e + Ba wa − Gv, e = xa − x̂a (16)

8. Numerical example
xa0 and x̂a0 being the initial conditions of the system and of
the estimator. Ideally a sensors selection algorithm should be integrated
Under the assumption of observability on the pair with the system design in order to choose an appropriate set
(Aa , Ma ) the poles of the error system can be arbitrarily of sensing tendons out of all possible combinations (see [28]
placed. Since the plant is affected by disturbances (wa , v) for an example of integrated structure design, control system
we design G such that design, and actuators selection). In this article we assume
nxa +nwa +nv  ∞ that previous considerations (e.g. technological ones) have

V= ei (t)T ei (t) dt (17) led to the decision that the sensing tendons are the six saddle
i=1 0 ones.

500
h =5
400
Estimation Error

4
300
3
2
200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
τ
3.5

3 h=2

2.5 3
Decay Rate

2
4
1.5
5
1

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ
Fig. 7. Chebyshev parameters influence upon estimator performance.
228 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231

– = Exact; – – = Estimated
1.4
M1 exact = 1
1.2

1
M1 (Nm)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time( s)
4

M2 exact = 1+t
3
M2 (Nm)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time( s)

Fig. 8. M1 and M2 estimator evaluation.

The structure and estimator design procedures are applied
assuming that the bars, made of Al (for which Eb = 7 ×
1010 N/m2 , ρb = 2800 kg/m3 ), have an exterior radius R =
0.01 m, are designed for buckling (with γ = 4) according to
Eq. (5), and the tendons (assumed to have all the same me-
chanical properties: E∗ = 1010 N/m2 ; σ∗max = 109 N/m2 )
are designed for maximum stress using λ = 4 in Eq. (6).
The inertial properties of the proof element (rigid top)
were assumed to be: Mt = 0.1 kg; J1 = 0.06 kg m2 ; J2 =
0.06 kg m2 ; J3 = 0.1 kg m2 . These values correspond to
those used to generate the static and dynamic characteristics.
The pretension and friction coefficients are chosen from

– = Exact; – – = Estimated
1.4

1.2 M3 exact = log(1+t)

1
M3 (Nm)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time( s)

F1 exact = 1t 2+0.1 t3
0
F1 (N)

6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time( s)

Fig. 9. M3 and F1 estimator evaluation.

 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231 229

– = Exact; – – = Estimated
1.4
F2 exact = sin(t)
1.2

1
F2 (N)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time( s)

0.5
F3 exact = t
1.5
F3 (N)

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time( s)

Fig. 10. F2 and F3 estimator evaluation.

static and dynamic considerations. We choose P = 200
such that the static characteristics in Figs. 3 and 4 look lin-
ear for the investigated ranges of F3 and M3 and their slopes
are not very large, since large slopes result in low sensitivi-
ties. The friction coefficient is given a value d = 0.6 which
assures that the minimum natural frequency is zero and the
maximum natural frequency has a small value (see Figs. 5
and 6). For estimator design we choose ei0 = 0, wai = 10,
vi = 10−5 , BiT = [ 10 0 0 ], Cf (i, j) =&j,h×i (&j,h×i
being the Kronecker delta symbol).
In order to choose the Chebyshev system parameters (h
and τ) we evaluate their influence upon the estimation error,

= Exact; = Estimated
1.5

0.5
F3(N)

0. 5

1
Exact F3 = sin(1.5 t)
1. 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

1.5

0.5
F3(N)

0. 5

1
Exact F3 = sin(3 t)
1. 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Fig. 11. Estimator evaluation for sinusoidal F3 excitation.

230 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231
defined by Y = trace(Ca E0 CaT ), and the decay rate, β =
min(|Re(eig(Aa − GMa ))|). These variations are plotted in
Fig. 7. Let us first analyze the influence of h. For fixed τ, fast
estimation (high decay rate) is obtained for small h. The es-
timation error also decreases with decreasing h. Apparently,
a small h would be desirable. On the other hand a small h
results in complicated functions being approximated by sim-
ple functions, which works if the time interval over which
the approximation is computed is small. For fixed h, small τ
results in fast estimation. But the estimation error increases
with decreasing τ. Thus, a trade-off must be made between
the speed of the estimator and accuracy. For our design and
the following simulations, we choose h = 3 and τ = 1.
Comparisons between exact values of the quantities of in-
terest and those provided by the estimator, when all six ex-
ternal forces and torques act on the rigid top, are shown in
Figs. 8–10. The tensegrity sensor simultaneously provides
fast and accurate estimations of all six quantities. Fig. 11
shows the numerical simulations of the estimations of F3
compared with the exact values, when only a sinusoidal ex-
citation, F3 , acts. It is easily seen that, as the frequency of
external excitation increases, the estimator looses its capa-
bility to provide accurate information. The problem can be
fixed by changing the estimator poles locations and making
it fast enough. One way to do this is, as we saw, by changing
the Chebyshev system parameters (e.g. decreasing h and τ).
On the other hand, if more knowledge about the excitations
to be estimated is available, the Chebyshev system might be
replaced with other types of orthogonal filters. For example,
if it is known that the excitations have a certain frequency, a
harmonic system may be used instead of the Chebyshev one.
We remark that our linear and nonlinear simulations of this
tensegrity sensor mathematical models indicated that there
is practically no difference between the linear and nonlinear
models responses for the investigated range of parameters
and disturbances. This is generally the case when the tenseg-
rity structure is highly prestressed (see [33] for details).
9. Conclusions
Through the design and performance analysis of a
tensegrity sensor for simultaneous measurement of three or-
thogonal forces and three orthogonal torques, we illustrate
the opportunities tensegrity structures present for sensor
technology.
The static properties reveal the fact that the pretension
coefficient can be used as a tuning factor of the static char-
acteristics: their shape can change from a very nonlinear,
hardening spring-like curve, to an approximately linear one
as the pretension increases. Also the slopes at the origin (sen-
sitivities) can be modified through pretension adjustment.
Dynamic characteristics can be tuned through friction and
pretension coefficients adjustment. The natural frequency
decreases with increasing friction and the low frequency
oscillatory modes transform into pure exponential decaying
ones. The pretension has an opposite effect, its increase
leading to higher natural frequencies.
The estimating task is accomplished by an optimal state
estimator whose inputs are the measurements provided by
some of the tendons. For estimator design the excitations
are represented as some arbitrary collections of Chebyshev
polynomials. The influence of the maximum degree of the
Chebyshev polynomials and of the length of the interval
over which these are orthogonal upon the estimator perfor-
mance is evaluated by plotting the estimation error and the
decay rate variations. The decay rate increases with decreas-
ing the maximum degree and with decreasing the interval
of orthogonality. The estimation error also decreases with
the decreasing of the maximum degree but increases with
decreasing the length of the interval of orthogonality.
Numerical simulations of the exact applied forces and
torques and those estimated by the tensegrity sensor show
the validity of the proposed approach. The estimation is fast
enough (settling time less than 1.5 s) and accurate for all six
quantities. As with all estimators, previous knowledge of the
maximum possible frequency of the estimated quantity can
help in the decision regarding poles allocation.
References
[1] C.R. Calladine, Buckminster Fuller’s tensegrity structures and Clerk
Maxwell’s rules for the construction of stiff frames, Int. J. Solids
Struct. 14 (1978) 161–172.
[2] R. Connelly, W. Whiteley, Second-order rigidity and prestress stabil-
ity for tensegrity frameworks, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 9 (3) (1996)
453–491.
[3] S. Djouadi, R. Motro, J.C. Pons, B. Crosnier, Active control of
tensegrity systems, ASCE J. Aerospace Eng. 11 (2) (1998) 37–44.
[4] R.B. Fuller, Synergetics, Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking,
Collier Macmillan, London, 1975.
[5] A. Hanaor, Prestressed pin-jointed structures—flexibility analysis and
prestress design, Comput. Struct. 28 (6) (1988) 757–769.
[6] A. Hanaor, Aspects of design of double layer tensegrity, Int. J. Space
Struct. 7 (2) (1992) 101–113.
[7] N. Kanchanasaratool, D. Williamson, Modeling and control of class
NSP tensegrity structures, Int. J. Contr. 75 (2) (2002) 123–139.
[8] K. Kebiche, M.N. Kazi-Aoual, R. Motro, Geometrical nonlinear
analysis of tensegrity systems, Eng. Struct. 21 (9) (1999) 864–876.
[9] H. Kenner, Geodesic Math and How to Use It, University of Cali-
fornia Press, Berkeley, 1976.
[10] C.E. Lee, H.F. Taylor, A.M. Markus, E. Udd, Optical fiber
Fabry–Perot embedded sensor, Opt. Lett. 14 (1989) 1225–1227.
[11] R. Motro, S. Najari, P. Jouanna, Static and dynamic analysis of
tensegrity systems, in: Proceedings of the ASCE International Sym-
posium on Shell and Spatial Structures: Computational Aspects,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986, pp. 270–279.
[12] R. Motro, Structural morphology of tensegrity systems, Int. J. Space
Struct. 11 (1/2) (1996) 25–32.
[13] H. Murakami, Y. Nishimura, Initial shape finding and modal analysis
of cyclic right-cylindrical tensegrity modules, Comput. Struct. 79
(2001) 891–917.
[14] H. Murakami, Y. Nishimura, Static and dynamic characterization of
regular truncated icosahedral and dodecahedral tensegrity modules,
Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (2001) 9359–9381.
 C. Sultan, R. Skelton / Sensors and Actuators A 112 (2004) 220–231
[15] H. Murakami, Static and dynamic analysis of tensegrity structures.
Part 1. Nonlinear equations of motion, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (2001)
3599–3613.
[16] K. Murphy, J.C. Duke Jr., A rugged optical fiber interferometer
for strain measurements inside a composite material laminate, J.
Compos. Technol. Res. 10 (1988) 11–15.
[17] K.A. Murphy, M.S. Miller, A.M. Vengsarkar, R.O. Claus,
Elliptical-core, two mode, optical fiber sensor implementation meth-
ods. IEEE J. Lightwave Technol. 8 (11) (1990) 1688–1696.
[18] Y. Nishimura, H. Murakami, Initial shape finding and modal analysis
of cyclic frustum tensegrity modules, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng. 190 (2001) 5795–5818.
[19] Y. Ohtsuka, T. Ando, Y. Imai, M. Imai, Modal birefringence mea-
surements of polarization-maintaining single-mode fibers without and
with stretching by optical heterodyne interferometry, J. Lightwave
Technol. 5 (1987) 602–607.
[20] I.J. Oppenheim, W.O. Williams, Vibration of an elastic tensegrity
structure, Eur. J. Mech. A: Solids 20 (6) (2001) 1023–1031.
[21] I.J. Oppenheim, W.O. Williams, Vibration and damping in a 3 bar
tensegrity structure, ASCE J. Aerospace Eng. 14 (3) (2001) 85–91.
[22] S. Pellegrino, C.R. Calladine, Matrix analysis of statically and kine-
matically indetermined frameworks, Int. J. Solids Struct. 22 (4)
(1986) 409–428.
[23] A. Pugh, An Introduction to Tensegrity, University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1976.
[24] R.E. Skelton, J. Likins, Orthogonal filters for model error compen-
sation in the control of nonrigid spacecraft, J. Guidance Contr. Dyn.
1 (1) (1978) 41-49.
[25] R.E. Skelton, T. Iwasaki, K. Grigoriadis, A Unified Algebraic Ap-
proach to Linear Control Design. Taylor & Francis, New York, 1997.
[26] R.E. Skelton, C. Sultan, Controllable tensegrity, a new class of
smart structures, in: Proceedings of the SPIE Fourth Symposium
on Smart Structures and Materials, vol. 3039, 1997, pp. 166–
177.
[27] C. Sultan, Modeling, Design and Control of Tensegrity Structures
with Applications, PhD Dissertation, Purdue University, 1999, p. 200.
[28] C. Sultan, R.E. Skelton, Integrated design of controllable tensegrity
structures, in: Proceedings of the ASME International Congress and
Exposition, vol. 54, 1997, pp. 27–37.
[29] C. Sultan, M. Corless, R.E. Skelton, Peak to peak control of an
adaptive tensegrity space telescope, in: Proceedings of the SPIE Sixth
Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, vol. 3667, 1999,
pp. 190–201.
[30] C. Sultan, M. Corless, R.E. Skelton, Tensegrity flight simulator, J.
Guidance Contr. Dyn. 23 (6) (2000) 1055–1064.
[31] C. Sultan, M. Corless, R.E. Skelton, The prestressability problem of
tensegrity structures. Some analytical solutions, Int. J. Solids Struct.
38/39 (2001) 5223–5252.
[32] C. Sultan, M. Corless, R.E. Skelton, Symmetrical reconfiguration of
tensegrity structures, Int. J. Solids Struct. 39 (2002) 2215–2234.
231
[33] C. Sultan, M. Corless, R.E. Skelton, Linear dynamics of tensegrity
structures, J. Eng. Struct. 24 (2002) 671–685.
[34] C. Sultan, R.C. Skelton, Tensegrity structures prestressability inves-
tigation, Int. J. Space Struct. 18 (1) (2003) 15–30.
[35] C. Sultan, R.E. Skelton, Deployment of tensegrity structures, Int. J.
Solids Struct. 40 (18) (2003) 4637–4657.
[36] A.G. Tibert, S. Pellegrino, Deployable tensegrity reflectors for small
satellites, J. Spacecraft Rockets 39 (5) (2002) 701–709.
[37] R.D. Turner, T. Valis, W.D. Hogg, R.M. Measures, Fiber-optic strain
sensors for smart structures, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 1 (1990)
26–49.
[38] N. Vassart, R. Motro, Multiparametered formfinding method: ap-
plication to tensegrity systems, Int. J. Space Struct. 14 (2) (1999)
147–154.
[39] B.B. Wang, X.L. Liu, Integral tension research in double-layer tenseg-
rity grids, Int. J. Space Struct. 11 (4) (1996) 349–362.
[40] A. Wang, S. Gollapudi, K.A. Murphy, R.G. May, R.O. Claus,
Sapphire-fiber-based intrinsic Fabry–Perot interferometric, Opt. Lett.
17 (14) (1992) 1021–1032.
[41] A. Wang, S. Gollapudi, R.G. May, K.A. Murphy, R.O. Claus, Ad-
vances in sapphire-fiber-based interferometric sensors, Opt. Lett. 17
(21) (1992) 1544–1557.
Biographies
Cornel Sultan received a PhD in Aeronautics and Astronautics, a MS
in Mathematics, both from Purdue University in 1999, and a MS in
Aerospace Engineering from Bucharest Polytechnic University in 1992.
He was a Research Fellow at Harvard University and recently joined
Scientific Systems Company Inc., MA, as a Senior Research Engineer.
His current research interests are in tensegrity structures, formation
flying spacecraft, reusable launch vehicles, and bio-engineering. He has
published over 25 papers, holds one patent, and lectured extensively on
tensegrity structures.
Robert E. Skelton received a BS in electrical engineering from Clemson
University, a ME in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama,
and a PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles, in mechanics
and structures. He began his career with Lockheed Missiles and Space
Company and then moved to Sperry Rand, designing controllers for
spacecraft. Between 1975 and 1997 he was a Professor of Aeronautics
and Astronautics at Purdue University. He is a Fellow of AIAA and
IEEE, the 1991 Russell Severence Springer Professor at the University
of California, Berkeley, a recipient of the Senior Scientist Award form
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and a recipient of a research
award from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. He served on
the National Research Council’s Aeronautics and Engineering Board and
on the External Independent Review Team for the servicing missions of
the Hubble Space Telescope. He has published three books and over 150
journal papers. He holds patents on the control of tensegrity structures.