Thesis Niels de Temmerman

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Department of Architectural Engineering Sciences

Design and Analysis of Deployable
Bar Structures for Mobile
Architectural Applications

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
the degree of Doctor in de Ingenieurswetenschappen (Doctor in
Engineering) by

Niels De Temmerman

June 2007

Promotor: Prof. Marijke Mollaert

Members of the Jury:

Prof. Dirk Lefeber (President)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Prof. Rik Pintelon (Vice-President)

Prof. Marijke Mollaert (Promotor)

Prof. Ine Wouters (Secretary)

Prof. Sigrid Adriaenssens

Prof. John Chilton
Lincoln School of Architecture

Prof. W.P. De Wilde

Dr. Frank Jensen
rhus School of Architecture

Acknowledgements

My interest in the exciting field of deployable structures came about through
the process of writing my masters thesis on the subject, under the supervision
of Prof. Marijke Mollaert. This has been the inspiration and drive to delve
deeper into this rich and rewarding research topic of which this dissertation is
the final result.

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Marijke Mollaert for
sharing her vast research experience and for her invaluable scientific guidance.
Also, I have great appreciation for her warm and kind personality and her con-
tinuous encouragement throughout the course of this research.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed in making the past four
years into an exciting and enriching experience:

My most heartfelt sympathy goes out to my colleagues of the Department of
Architectural Engineering, whom I thank for providing a kind and stimulating
environment, and for their friendship and support: Maryse Koll, Tom Van Mele,
Thomas Van der Velde, Lars De Laet, Lisa Wastiels, Anne Paduart, Caroline
Henrotay, Michael de Bouw, Prof. Ine Wouters, Prof. Hendrik Hendrickx, Prof.
Jos Depuydt, dr. Jonas Lindekens.

At the department of Mechanical Engineering, I would like to thank Prof. Dirk
Lefeber and Prof. Patrick Kool for their help on gaining an insight in the mobil-
ity of mechanisms. Prof. Patrick De Wilde, Prof. Sigrid Adriaenssens and Wim
Debacker from the department of Mechanics of Materials and Constructions,
and Prof. Rik Pintelon from the Department of Fundamental Electricity and
Instrumentation, I would like to thank for their scientific advice and sugges-
tions.

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support extended to me by IWT-
Vlaanderen (Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and
Technology in Flanders).
dr. Frank Jensen and Prof. John Chilton I would like to thank for sharing their
expertise on the subject and providing much valued comments and sugges-
tions.

Also, many thanks to Wouter Decorte, for the fruitful collaboration, his enthu-
siasm on the subject and for sharing his excellent model-making skills.

My parents, Eric and Monique, my sister Ilka and her husband Tom, and also
Solange, deserve special thanks for their love and friendship and for their un-
conditional support and encouragement.

Above all, I wish to express my love and sincerest gratitude to Els, my partner
and friend, for her continuous love and support. Without her I would never
have come this far.

Vilvoorde, June 2007
Niels De Temmerman

IV
Abstract

Deployable structures have the ability to transform themselves from a small,
closed or stowed configuration to a much larger, open or deployed
configuration. Mobile deployable structures have the great advantage of speed
and ease of erection and dismantling compared to conventional building
forms. Deployable structures can be classified according to their structural
system. In doing so, four main groups can be distinguished: spatial bar
structures consisting of hinged bars, foldable plate structures consisting of
hinged plates, tensegrity structures and membrane structures.

Because of their wide applicability in the field of mobile architecture, their
high degree of deployability and a reliable deployment, two sub-categories are
studied in greater detail: scissor structures and foldable plate structures.
Scissor structures are lattice expandable structures consisting of bars, which
are linked by hinges, allowing them to be folded into a compact bundle.
Foldable plate structures consist of plate elements which are connected by line
joints allowing one rotational degree of freedom. A wide variety of singly
curved as well as doubly curved structures are possible.

Although many impressive architectural applications for these mechanisms
have been proposed, due to the mechanical complexity of their systems during
the folding and deployment process few have been constructed at full-scale.

The aim of the work presented in this dissertation is to develop novel concepts
for deployable bar structures and propose variations of existing concepts
which will lead to viable solutions for mobile architectural applications. It is
the intention to aid in the design of deployable bar structures by first
explaining the essential principles behind them and subsequently applying
these in several cases studies. Starting with the choice of a suitable geometry
based on architecturally relevant parameters, followed by an assessment of
the kinematics of the system, to end with a structural feasibility study, the
complete design process has been demonstrated, exposing the strengths and
weaknesses of the chosen configuration.

V

Contents

Acknowledgements

Abstract

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Symbols

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Deployable Structures 1
1.2 Aims and scope of research 4
1.3 Outline of thesis 5

2. Review of Literature 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Deployable structures based on pantographs 9
2.2.1 Translational units 10
2.2.2 Polar units 11
2.2.3 Deployability constraint 12
2.2.4 Structures based on translational and polar units 13
2.2.5 Angulated units 21
2.2.6 Closed loop structures based on angulated elements 22
2.3 Foldable plate structures 29

VI

3. Design of Scissor Structures 39
3.1 Introduction 39
3.2 Design of two-dimensional scissor linkages 40
3.2.1 Method 1: Geometric construction 42
3.2.2 Method 2: Geometric design 57
3.2.3 Interactive geometry 68
3.3 Three-dimensional structures 70
3.3.1 Linear structures 72
3.3.2 Plane grid structures 74
3.3.3 Single curvature grid structures 77
3.3.4 Double curvature grid structures 82
3.4 Conclusion 85
4. Design of Foldable Plate Structures 87
4.1 Introduction 87
4.2 Geometry of foldable plate structures 88
4.3 Geometric design 95
4.3.1 Regular structures 97
4.3.2 Right-angled structures 104
4.3.3 Circular structures 107
4.3.4 Alternative configurations 111
4.4 Conclusion 112

5. Introduction to the Case Studies 115
5.1 Introduction 116
5.2 Geometry 117
5.3 Structural analysis of the proposed concepts 120
5.3.1 General approach 120
5.3.2 Load cases 122
5.4 Conclusion 132

VII

6. Case Study 1: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Translational Units
on a Three-way Grid 135
6.2 Description of the geometry 137
6.3 Geometric design 143
6.4 From mechanism to architectural envelope 149
6.4.1 Deployment and kinematic analysis 149
6.5 Structural analysis 159
6.5.1 Open structure (single curvature) 159
6.5.2 Closed structure (double curvature) 173
6.6 Conclusion 175

7. Case Study 2: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Polar and
Translational Units on a Two-way Grid 177
7.2.1 Open structure 179
7.2.2 Closed structure 183
7.2.3 Deployment 186
7.3 From mechanism to architectural envelope 188
7.3.1 Deployment and kinematic analysis 188
7.5 Conclusion 208

8. Case Study 3: A Deployable Bar Structure with Foldable
Articulated Joints 211
8.3 From plate structure to foldable bar structure 219
8.3.1 Deployment 223
8.3.2 Alternative geometry 229
8.3.3 Kinematic analysis 231

VIII

8.5 Conclusion 242

9. Case Study 4: A Deployable Tower with Angulated Units 245
9.1.1 A concept for a deployable tower 247
9.3 Geometric Design 255
9.3.1 First approach: Design of the undeployed configuration 255
9.3.2 Second approach: Design of the deployed configuration 264
9.4 From mechanism to architectural structure 270
9.4.1 Mobility analysis 270
9.4.2 The erection process 272
9.4.3 Alternative configuration 275
9.4.4 Simplified concept: prismoid versus hyperboloid 277
9.6 Conclusion 292

10. Conclusions 295
10.1 Novel concepts for deployable bar structures 296
10.1.1 Case study 1: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Translational
Units on a Three-way Grid 296
10.2.2 Case study 2: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Polar and
Translational Units on a Two-way Grid 297
10.2.3 Case study 3: A Deployable Bar Structure with Foldable
Articulated Joints 298
10.2.4 Case study 4: A Deployable tower with Angulated Units 299
10.2 Comparative evaluation of the proposed concepts 300
10.2.1 Architectural evaluation 300
10.2.2 Kinematic evaluation 301
10.2.3 Structural evaluation 302
10.3 Further work 303

IX

References 305

List of Publications 313

305
List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Mobile deployable bar structure ( Grupo Estran)..................................2
Figure 1.2: Classification of structural systems for deployable structures by
their morphological and kinematic characteristics [Hanaor, 2001] ..3

Figure 2.1 : Translational units ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 2.2: The simplest plane translational scissor linkage, called a lazy-tong
.............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.3: A curved translational linkage in its deployed and undeployed
position .............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.4: Polar unit .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.5: A polar linkage in its undeployed and deployed position.................. 12
Figure 2.6: The deployability constraint in terms of the semi-lengths a, b, c and
d of two adjoining scissor units in three consecutive deployment
stages.................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.7: Piero demonstrates his prototype of a deployable shell [Robbin,
1996] .................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.8: Planar two-way grid with translational units and cylindrical barrel
vault with polar units [Escrig, 1985] ........................................................ 15
Figure 2.9: Top view and side elevation of a two-way spherical grid with
identical polar units [Escrig, 1987] ........................................................... 15
Figure 2.10: Top view and side elevation of a three-way spherical grid with
polar units ......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.11: Top view and side elevation of a geodesic dome with polar units
[Escrig, 1987] ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.12: Top view and side elevation of a lamella dome with identical polar
units .................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.13: Deployable cover for a swimming pool in Seville designed by
Escrig & Sanchez ( Performance SL)....................................................... 16
Figure 2.14: Bi-stable structure before, during and after deployment ............... 17
Figure 2.15: Collapsible dome and a single unit, as proposed by Zeigler [1976]
.............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.16: Bi-stable structures: elliptical arch and geodesic dome [Gantes,
2004] .................................................................................................................. 18
306
Figure 2.17: Positive curvature structure with translational units in two
deployment stages [Langbecker, 2001].................................................... 19
Figure 2.18: Negative curvature structure with translational units in two
deployment stages [Langbecker, 2001].................................................... 19
Figure 2.19: Plane and spatial pantographic columns by Raskin [1998]............ 20
Figure 2.20: Pantographic slabs by Raskin [1998]..................................................... 20
Figure 2.21: Deployable ring structure [You & Pellegrino, 1993] ......................... 21
Figure 2.22: Angulated unit or hobermans unit........................................................ 21
Figure 2.23: A radially deployable linkage consisting of angulated (or
hobermans) units in three stages of the deployment......................... 22
Figure 2.24: Multi-angulated element .......................................................................... 23
Figure 2.25: A radially deployable linkage consisting of multi-angulated
elements in three stages of the deployment.......................................... 23
Figure 2.26: Multi-angulated structure with cover elements in an intermediate
deployment position ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.27: Model of a non-circular structure where all boundaries and plates
are unique [Jensen, 2004] ............................................................................ 24
Figure 2.28: Computer model of an expandable blob structure [Jensen &
Pellegrino, 2004] ............................................................................................. 25
Figure 2.29: Reciprocal plate structure......................................................................... 25
Figure 2.30: Swivel diaphragm in consecutive stages of deployment................. 26
Figure 2.31: Reciprocal dome proposed by Piero [Escrig, 1993]......................... 26
Figure 2.32: Iris dome by Hoberman [Kassabian et al, 1999]................................. 27
Figure 2.33: Retractable dome on Expo Hannover (courtesy of M. Mollaert)
Mechanical curtain Winter Olympics Salt Lake City 2002
[Hoberman, 2007]........................................................................................... 27
Figure 2.34: Retractable roof made from spherical plates with fixed points of
rotation .............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.35: Novel retractable dome with spherical plates with modified
boundaries......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2.36: Basic layout of Fosters module [Foster, 1986] .................................. 29
Figure 2.37: Combination of different modules [Foster, 1986] ............................. 30
Figure 2.38: Simplest building with 90 apex angle [Foster, 1986] ..................... 31
Figure 2.39: Building formed by two 90-modules joined at their ends [Foster,
1986] .................................................................................................................. 32
307
Figure 2.40: Building with apex angle of 120 [Foster, 1986]............................... 32
Figure 2.41: Building formed by two 120-modules joined at their ends [Foster,
1986] .................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 2.42: Structure with 90-, 60- and 30-elements [Foster, 1986].......... 33
Figure 2.43: Temporary stage shell with 120 modules - Tension cables used to
provide bulkhead [Foster, 1986]................................................................. 34
Figure 2.44: Double curvature variable shape (hyperbolic type), plane pattern
[Tonon, 1993] ................................................................................................... 34
Figure 2.45: Fold pattern with different individual plate angles, but a constant
sum throughout the plate geometry, guaranteeing full foldability. 35
Figure 2.46: Doubly curved folded shapes [Tonon, 1993] ....................................... 35
Figure 2.47: Linear and circular deployable double curvature folded shapes
[Tonon, 1993] ................................................................................................... 36
Figure 2.48: Folding aluminium sheet roof for covering the terrace of the pool
area of the International Center of Education and Development in
Caracas, Venezuela [Hernandez & Stephens, 2000] ............................ 36
Figure 2.49: (a) Fold pattern; (b) Fold pattern with alternate rings to prevent
relative rotation during deployment [Barker & Guest, 1998] ........... 37

Figure 3.1 : Translational and polar scissor unit ........................................................ 40
Figure 3.2: An ellipse as the graphic representation of the deployability
constraint for translational units, determining the locus of the
intermediate hinge ......................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.3: A circle as the graphic representation of the deployability
constraint for polar units, determining the locus of the intermediate
hinge................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.4: Circular arc as base curve, determined by the design values
r
H
(rise) and S (span) .......................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.5: The arc is divided in equal angular portions. Circles intersecting the
arc determine the loci of the intermediate hinge points ................... 44
Figure 3.6: The arc is divided in unequal angular portions. Variable circles
intersecting the arc determine the loci of the intermediate hinge
points.................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 3.7: An inner and outer arc determine the constant unit thickness....... 47
308
Figure 3.8: For the same span and rise, a pluricentred arc can offer increased
headroom compared to a single-centred arc......................................... 48
Figure 3.9: Example of a pluricentred base curve consisting of three arc
segments with decreasing radius............................................................... 49
Figure 3.10: Each arc segment (with a different radius) is divided in equal
angular portions. Identical circles ensure a constant bar length..... 51
Figure 3.11: The original and double ellipse representing the deployability
constraint intersection points M and M are the midpoints of the
unit thickness t................................................................................................ 53
Figure 3.12: Double ellipses impose the deployability constraint on a
translational linkage with constant unit thickness.............................. 53
Figure 3.13: Two differently sized, but compatible ellipses representing the
deployability constraint intersection points M and M are the
midpoints of the unit thickness t
1
and t
2
................................................. 55
Figure 3.14: Ellipses of different scale determine the location of the
intermediate hinges on the base curve to form a translational
linkage with varying unit thickness .......................................................... 56
Figure 3.15: The parameters used in the description of the geometry of the
circular arc: rise (H
r
) and span (S).............................................................. 57
Figure 3.16: Parameters needed for the geometric design of a polar linkage .. 60
Figure 3.17: Parameters for the geometric design of a translational linkage
with four units (U=4), of which two are shown.................................... 63
Figure 3.18: The relation between the original and the double ellipse in terms
of semi-axes a and b and the unit thickness t ...................................... 64
Figure 3.19: Translational linkage with U=2 fitted on a parabolic base curve. 67
Figure 3.20: Screenshot of interactive geometry file in Cabri Geometry II
[2007] software for designing arbitrarily curved translational
linkages with constant unit thickness (base curve marked in black)
.............................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 3.21: Deployable landscape consisting of one arbitrarily curved
translational linkage repeated in an orthogonal grid. Linkage
designed using the interactive geometry tool (Aluminium, 4.5 m x 3
m, (photo: courtesy of Wouter Decorte).................................................. 69
Figure 3.22: Possible shapes for three-dimensional stress-free deployable
structures, which can be designed using the tools presented.......... 70
309
Figure 3.23: Two-way grid with directions A and B.................................................. 71
Figure 3.24: Three-way grid with directions C, D and E .......................................... 71
Figure 3.25: Linear elements prismatic columns arches .................................. 72
Figure 3.26: Parallel linear structures connected by non-deployable elements
.............................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 3.27: Plane translational units on a two-way grid ...................................... 74
Figure 3.28: Plane translational units on a three-way grid.................................... 75
Figure 3.29: Plane translational units on a four-way grid..................................... 76
Figure 3.30: Plane and curved translational units on a two-way grid................ 77
Figure 3.31: Polar and translational units on a two-way grid............................... 78
Figure 3.32: Plane and curved translational units on a three-way grid ............. 79
Figure 3.33: Polar units on a three-way grid (variation 1) ..................................... 80
Figure 3.34: Polar and translational units on a three-way grid (variation 2) ... 81
Figure 3.35: Translational units on a two-way grid (synclastic shape)............... 82
Figure 3.36: Two variations for translational units on a two-way grid.............. 83
Figure 3.37: Translational units on a lamella grid..................................................... 84
Figure 3.38: Polar units on a lamella grid.................................................................... 85

Figure 4.1: Typical foldable plate structure ................................................................. 88
Figure 4.2: Fold patterns of type A and B for the smallest possible regular
structure (p=5)................................................................................................. 89
Figure 4.3: Unfolded and fully folded configuration of patterns A and B (p=5)
.............................................................................................................................. 90
Figure 4.4: Elevation view of the compactly folded and fully deployed
configuration for a regular structure with five plates and an apex
angle of 120.................................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.5: Right-angled fold pattern: altering one apex angle to 90 enables a
compacter folded configuration (introduction of quadrangular
plates near the sides)..................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.6: Elevation view of compactly folded and fully deployed
configuration for a right-angled structure with five plates and an
apex angle of 120 ......................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.7: Three stages of deployment for a basic regular foldable structure
(p=7; =120): completely unfolded, erected position and fully
compacted for transport............................................................................... 92
310
Figure 4.8: Plate element, compactly folded configuration and fully deployed
configuration (front elevation) for the first three compactly foldable
structures (p=5, p=7, p=9)........................................................................... 93
Figure 4.9: Side elevation of the fully deployed configuration of the first three
compactly foldable structures (p=5, p=7, p=9)..................................... 94
Figure 4.10: For a chosen number of panels p the apex angle can be altered
at will, affecting the width of the structure and the compactly
folded state....................................................................................................... 95
Figure 4.11: Parameters used to characterise a foldable structure: length L,
span S, width W, apex angle and the deployment angle ............ 96
Figure 4.12: A foldable plate and its parameters: length L, height H, H1, H2,
apex angle , the deployment angle and angles ,
1
,
2
.............. 96
Figure 4.13: Perspective view and side elevation of the vertical projection of a
plate linkage for empirically determining the relationship between
1
and p............................................................................................................. 98
Figure 4.14: The relationship between the apex angle and the deployment
angle for regular structures with p=5, p=7 and p=9....................... 99
Figure 4.15: Elevation view and perspective view of the deployment of a
regular five-plate structure with =120..............................................100
Figure 4.16: The parameters associated with the polygonal contour of the
flatly folded configurations with p=5, p=7 and p=9 and the
expressions for the area in terms of the edge length L
edge
................102
Figure 4.17: The relationship between the apex angle and the deployment
angle for right-angled structures with p=5, p=7 and p=9...........105
Figure 4.18: Plate element, fold pattern, compactly folded configuration and
fully deployed configuration (front elevation and side elevation) for
three compactly foldable five-plate right-angled structures (drawn
to scale)............................................................................................................106
Figure 4.19: Only for p=5 can any regular and any right-angled structure be
interconnected along a common edge, regardless of the value for
............................................................................................................................107
Figure 4.20: Top view and perspective view of circular foldable structure .....108
Figure 4.21: Fold pattern and a single sector of a circular structure with q=8
............................................................................................................................108
311
Figure 4.22: Horizontal projection of a plate linkage for empirically
determining the relationship between
2
and q..................................108
Figure 4.23: Connecting a regular module with two half-domes leads to an
alternative fully closed configuration with high plate uniformity 110
Figure 4.24: Circular structure with q=6, q=8 and q=10 (top view) and its
respective combination with a compatible regular structure
(perspective view) .........................................................................................111
Figure 4.25: Some examples of alternative configurations ..................................112

Figure 5.1: Some of the concepts for mobile structures presented in the
following chapters........................................................................................115
Figure 5.2: Front elevation view of cases studies shows the mutual similarity of
the geometry. Case study 1, 2 and 3 are based on the same shape
(semicircle with radius of 3 m).................................................................117
Figure 5.3: Overall geometry for the case studies: single curvature shape (open)
and double curvature shape (closed) ......................................................118
Figure 5.4: Perspective view of the single and double curvature geometries.118
Figure 5.5: Perspective view and side elevation of case study 4 ........................120
Figure 5.6: Wind and snow action on the open and closed structure...............122
Figure 5.7: Schematic representation of considered wind loads on the closed
and.....................................................................................................................125
Figure 5.8: Schematic representation of snow loads on the closed and open
structures ........................................................................................................127
Figure 5.9 : Method of accumulate damage [Eurocode 3, 2007] .......................131

Figure 6.1: Deployable barrel vault with translational units on a triangular
grid: scissor structure and tensile surface ............................................135
Figure 6.2: Plan view and perspective view of the same double curvature
structure with translational units on a quadrangular grid..............137
Figure 6.3: Translational scissor module with only single units..........................138
Figure 6.4: Translational scissor module with a double unit................................138
Figure 6.5: Plan view, perspective view and side elevation of a planar structure
with a triangulated grid..............................................................................138
Figure 6.6: Plan view, perspective view and side elevation of a barrel vault with
a triangulated grid........................................................................................139
312
Figure 6.7: Perspective view and plan view of three different triangular
modules............................................................................................................139
Figure 6.8: OPEN structure: perspective view and plan view...............................140
Figure 6.9: CLOSED structure: perspective view and plan view (double scissor
marked in red)................................................................................................141
Figure 6.10: Front elevation, top view and perspective view of a portion of the
barrel vault with four modules in the span: the projected versions
(marked in red) of the scissor units U1 and U2 determine the real
curvature .........................................................................................................142
Figure 6.11: Developed view of units U1, U2 and U3: graphic representation of
the deployability condition by means of ellipses................................143
Figure 6.12: An ellipsoid representing the geometric deployability condition in
three dimensions...........................................................................................144
Figure 6.13: Vertical section view of the small and big ellipsoid, imposing the
geometric deployability condition...........................................................144
Figure 6.14: A scissor linkage fitted on a circular curve, with all relevant design
parameters and the global coordinate system.....................................145
Figure 6.15: Developed view of the scissor linkage from Figure 6.14, showing a
chain of double ellipses ..............................................................................146
Figure 6.16: Perspective view of the scissor linkage from Figure 6.15 .............147
Figure 6.17: Perspective view, front elevation and top view of the deployment
process of the barrel vault with translational units OPEN structure
............................................................................................................................150
Figure 6.18: Proof-of-concept model of (half of the) closed structure
(aluminium, scale 1/10) ..............................................................................151
Figure 6.19: Two double scissors in partially (left) and fully deployed (right)
position ............................................................................................................151
process of the barrel vault with translational units CLOSED
structure ..........................................................................................................152
Figure 6.21: From scissor mechanism to the equivalent hinged plate linkage for
mobility analysis of the open structure (idem for closed structure) -
minimal constraints .....................................................................................153
Figure 6.22: Fixing all lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports.............154
313
Figure 6.23: An active cable (marked in red) runs through the mechanism,
connecting upper and lower nodes along its path. After deployment
it is locked to stiffen the structure..........................................................154
Figure 6.24: Top view and perspective view of one scissor unit, its intermediate
hinge and its end joints and their offset position relative to the
theoretical plane...........................................................................................156
Figure 6.25: Concept for an articulated joint, allowing the fins which accept
the bars to rotate around a vertical axis, to cope with the angular
distortion of the grid ...................................................................................156
Figure 6.26: Partially and undeployed state: as the structure is compactly
folded, the imaginary intersection point of the centrelines travels
on the vertical centreline through the joint.........................................157
Figure 6.27: Perspective view and top view of OPEN structure with integrated
tensile surface................................................................................................158
Figure 6.28: Perspective view and top view of CLOSED structure with
integrated tensile surface...........................................................................158
Figure 6.29: Top view and perspective view of the skeletal scissor structure
(left) and the boundary geometry for the compatible membrane
(right)................................................................................................................159
Figure 6.30: Views of the equilibrium form for the membrane...........................160
Figure 6.31: Typical stresses in the membrane range from 4 to 5.5 kN/m......160
Figure 6.32: FEM-model of six bars attached to a node........................................162
Figure 6.33: An intermediate pivot hinge connects two scissor bars................162
Figure 6.34: Local coordinate system of a bar element (left) and global
coordinate system (right) ...........................................................................162
Figure 6.35: Typical pattern of load vectors for transverse wind + pre-stress of
the membrane................................................................................................163
Figure 6.36: Typical pattern of reaction forces under transverse wind.............163
Figure 6.37: Bending moments My under transverse wind ..................................163
Figure 6.38: Typical deformation under transverse wind: .....................................164
Figure 6.39: Perspective view of the resulting structure with rectangular
sections of 120x60mm................................................................................166
Figure 6.40: Reactions in the global coordinate system: the maximal reaction
force occurs under ULS 2 (pre-stress + snow + transverse wind) .167
314
Figure 6.41: The critically loaded bar is located at the top. Summary of the
stresses occurring in the critically loaded bar (positive stresses
indicate pressure, negative values mean tension) ..............................167
Figure 6.42: Axial forces, transverse forces and bending moments in the local
coordinate system of the bars ..................................................................168
Figure 6.43: Maximal nodal displacements in the global coordinate system.169
Figure 6.44: Continuous cable zigzagging through the structure, connecting
upper and lower nodes and contributing to the structural
performance ...................................................................................................170
Figure 6.45: Resulting structure after optimization, with cable elements ......170
Figure 6.46: Summary of the determining stresses and forces for the strength,
stability and stiffness of case study 1: OPEN structure....................171
Figure 6.47: Perspective view of case study 1: CLOSED structure: with sections
after structure design and total weight.................................................173
Figure 6.48: Summary of the determining parameters for the strength, stability
and stiffness of case study 1 _ CLOSED structure..............................174
Figure 6.49: Case study 1: Single curvature OPEN structure (barrel vault) .....175
Figure 6.50: Case study 1: Double curvature CLOSED structure........................176

Figure 7.1: Deployable barrel vault with polar units on a quadrangular grid:
scissor structure and tensile surface ......................................................177
Figure 7.2: Plan view and perspective view of a planar structure with a
quadrangular grid .........................................................................................179
Figure 7.3: Plan view and perspective view of a barrel vault with quadrangular
grid ....................................................................................................................179
Figure 7.4: Series of polar linkages with 3, 4, 5 or 6 units in the span,............180
Figure 7.5: Geometric construction of the four-unit linkage...............................181
Figure 7.6: OPEN structure: perspective view and top view.................................181
Figure 7.7: Perspective view and developed view of units U1 (plane
translational) and U2, U3 (polar): graphic representation of the
deployability condition by means of ellipses........................................182
Figure 7.8: Adding an end structure based on parallels and meridians to the
main structure ...............................................................................................184
Figure 7.9: A lamella dome has a stress-free deployment ....................................184
315
Figure 7.10: The main structure is provided with half of an adapted lamella
dome .................................................................................................................185
Figure 7.11: CLOSED structure: perspective view and plan view........................185
process of the polar barrel vault OPEN structure............................186
process of the polar barrel vault CLOSED structure.......................187
Figure 7.14: Proof-of-concept model (half of the structure) in three
deployment stages........................................................................................187
Figure 7.15: Deployment sequence of a polar linkage ...........................................189
Figure 7.16: Polar linkage in an intermediate deployment stage: 1 0 < < ..190
Figure 7.17: Graph showing the relation between the deployment angle and
the span S for the polar linkage with U=4 ...........................................193
Figure 7.18: Deployment sequence of the polar linkage (U=4) ...........................193
Figure 7.19: Open barrel vault: scissor structure and equivalent hinged plate
structure ..........................................................................................................194
Figure 7.20: Geometry of a hinged plate module ....................................................194
Figure 7.21: Fixing all inner lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports..195
Figure 7.22: Closed barrel vault: scissor structure and equivalent hinged plate
structure ..........................................................................................................195
Figure 7.23: Geometry of the occurring plate modules .........................................195
Figure 7.24: Closed barrel vault: scissor structure and equivalent hinged plate
structure ..........................................................................................................196
Figure 7.25: Fixing all inner lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports..197
Figure 7.26: Joint connecting four bars (no rotation of the fins of the joint
around a vertical axis, as is the case for the translational barrel
vault in Section 6.4.1, Figure 6.24) .........................................................197
Figure 7.27: Top view and perspective view of one scissor unit and its
intermediate and end joints ......................................................................198
Figure 7.28: Perspective view and top view of OPEN structure with integrated
tensile surface................................................................................................198
Figure 7.29: Perspective view and top view of CLOSED structure with
integrated tensile surface...........................................................................199
Figure 7.30: Result without any measures taken to improve structural
performance ...................................................................................................200
316
Figure 7.31: Improved result by inserting vertical cable ties ...............................200
Figure 7.32: Additional diagonal bars triangulate the grid...................................201
Figure 7.33: Double diagonal cross bars offer no real advantage structurally
............................................................................................................................202
Figure 7.34: Perspective view of case study 2 OPEN structure, with sections
after structure design and weight/m
2
.....................................................203
and stiffness for case study 2 OPEN structure ....................................204
Figure 7.36: Main structure and additional end structures with no additional
measures to improve structural performance......................................205
Figure 7.37: Perspective view of case study 2 CLOSED structure:, with resulting
sections after structure design and total weight................................206
Figure 7.38: Summary of the results for the structural analysis of case study 2
............................................................................................................................207
Figure 7.39: Case 2: OPEN structure............................................................................208
Figure 7.40: Case 2: CLOSED structure .......................................................................209

Figure 8.1: Foldable bar structure based on the geometry of foldable plate
structures ........................................................................................................211
Figure 8.2: Typical foldable plate structure ...............................................................213
Figure 8.3: Design parameters for a basic regular foldable plate structure. ...214
Figure 8.4: For a chosen number of panels p the apex angle can be altered
at will, only affecting the width of the structure...............................215
Figure 8.5: Graph showing the relation between the deployment angle and
the apex angle in the fully deployed configuration for p=5......216
Figure 8.6: The resulting regular geometry for the case study: two extreme
deployment states and the fold pattern................................................217
Figure 8.7: Top view and a perspective view of a circular plate geometry with
six sectors arranged radially......................................................................217
Figure 8.8: The resulting circular geometry for the case study: two extreme
deployment states and the fold pattern................................................218
Figure 8.9: A combination of a regular and a circular geometry........................218
Figure 8.10: Dimensions in plan view of the shapes...............................................219
Figure 8.11: A foldable plate structure (p=7) and its similar counterpart, a
foldable bar structure..................................................................................219
317
Figure 8.12: Pattern 1: double bars present ..............................................................220
Figure 8.13: Pattern 2: double bars removed............................................................220
Figure 8.14: Pattern 3: double bars and diagonal bars removed, without
affecting the original kinematic behaviour ..........................................221
Figure 8.15: Foldable 3 D.O.F.-joint derived directly from the fold pattern,
therefore mimicking its kinematic behaviour ......................................221
Figure 8.16: Deployment sequence for the foldable joint: from the undeployed
to the fully deployed position...................................................................222
Figure 8.17: The (regular) open structure complete with bars and joints:.......222
Figure 8.18: Detailed view of bars and three variations of foldable joints
occurring in the structure ..........................................................................223
Figure 8.19: Deployment sequence for the open structure perspective view,
front elevation and top view.....................................................................224
Figure 8.20: Proof-of-concept model of the regular structure (with scissors) in
four stages of the deployment..................................................................224
Figure 8.21: Deployment sequence for the dome structure perspective view,
front elevation and top view.....................................................................225
Figure 8.22: Proof-of-concept model of the foldable dome (with additional
scissor units) in six deployment stages..................................................225
Figure 8.23: Deployment sequence for the closed structure: 1 regular module +
2 semi-domes.................................................................................................226
Figure 8.24: Six stages in the deployment of the closed structure (top view)227
Figure 8.25: Kinematic joint allowing all necessary rotations (3 D.O.F.) and the
resulting bar structure Proof-of-concept model to verify the
mobility............................................................................................................228
Figure 8.26: Integration of the membrane beforehand by attaching it to the
nodes Side elevation and perspective view of the undeployed and
deployed position..........................................................................................229
Figure 8.27: Right-angled geometry with its own set of joints ..........................230
Figure 8.28: Deployment sequence of a concept model of a right-angled
structure with aluminium bars and resin connectors [De
Temmerman, 2006a] ....................................................................................230
Figure 8.29: Several regular and right-angled structures connected together
after deployment...........................................................................................231
Figure 8.30: The two loops and their common fold line........................................233
318
Figure 8.31: A foldable open structure with a compatible integrated scissor
linkage one bar of each scissor unit doubles up as an edge the
foldable bar structure..................................................................................234
Figure 8.32: Top view and perspective view of the finite element model of the
foldable joint from Figure 8.15 (hinges are represented by dashed
lines)..................................................................................................................235
Figure 8.33: Model with the middle bars in the rhombus-shaped modules still
present..............................................................................................................236
Figure 8.34: Same model as in Figure 7.33, but with cross-bars........................236
Figure 8.35: Bars are grouped in pairs and joined by a fixed connection in their
apex angle.......................................................................................................237
Figure 8.36: Adding struts again only increases the weight, while the section
remains identical...........................................................................................237
and stiffness for case study 3 OPEN structure ....................................238
Figure 8.38: Resulting section and weight for the foldable dome .....................239
Figure 8.39: Perspective view of case study 3 CLOSED structure with sections
after structure design and total weight.................................................240
and stiffness for case study 3 CLOSED structure................................241
Figure 8.41: Case 3 OPEN structure .............................................................................242
Figure 8.42: Case 3 Foldable DOME structure ..........................................................243
Figure 8.43: Case 3 CLOSED structure.........................................................................244

Figure 9.1: Design concept for a tensile surface structure with a deployable
central tower..................................................................................................245
Figure 9.2: Mobile structure with membrane surfaces arranged around a
demountable central tower ( The Nomad Concept).........................248
Figure 9.3: The top of the tower is accessible to visitors, allowing them to
enjoy the view................................................................................................249
Figure 9.4: Side elevation of the tower and canopy ...............................................250
Figure 9.5: Top view of the structure showing the three tensile surfaces
arranged radially around the central tower .........................................250
Figure 9.6: Dimensions of the tower and a single angulated bar .......................251
319
Figure 9.7: Comparison between a linkage with angulated SLEs and its polar
equivalent........................................................................................................252
Figure 9.8: Imposed condition on the length of the semi-bars a and b (a<b), in
order to make the linkage foldable along the vertical axis .............253
Figure 9.9: Initial unfolding of the compacted linkage to its polygonal form253
Figure 9.10: Six stages in the deployment of a hexagonal tower: elevation and
top view...........................................................................................................254
Figure 9.11: Design parameters of a two-module tower with angulated SLEs
(three states) ..................................................................................................256
Figure 9.12: Perspective view: design parameters of a two-module tower with
angulated SLEs Side elevation showing the non-coplanarity of
the angulated elements (marked in red)................................................259
Figure 9.13: Illustration of the influence of the apex angle on the geometry
of a linkage with angulated SLEs with two modules (n=2) in the
undeployed (top) and fully deployed configuration (below) ...........267
Figure 9.14: Illustration of the influence of the apex angle on the geometry
of a linkage with angulated SLEs with three modules (n=3) in the
undeployed (top) and fully deployed configuration (below) ...........268
Figure 9.15: A schematic representation of the relative rotations of the
quadrilaterals around imaginary fold axes during deployment......270
Figure 9.16: Kinematic joint connecting the angulated elements at their end
nodes.................................................................................................................271
Figure 9.17: The kinematic joint and the axes of revolution for the seven
rotational degrees of freedom..................................................................271
Figure 9.18: The scissor linkage in its deployed state and its equivalent hinged
plate structure for mobility analysis (left) Fixing the structure by
pinned supports (right)................................................................................272
Figure 9.19: Deployment of proof-of-concept model ............................................272
Figure 9.20: Deployment sequence (A, B and C) for the tower with the
membrane elements attached ..................................................................274
Figure 9.21: Design for a deployable hexagonal tower with angulated elements
............................................................................................................................275
Figure 9.22: Initial unfolding of the compacted linkage to its polygonal form
............................................................................................................................276
320
Figure 9.23: Three stages in the deployment of a hexagonal tower with 5
modules: elevation and top view.............................................................276
Figure 9.24: Hyperboloid geometry (as proposed in previous sections)
angulated elements do not remain coplanar during deployment..278
Figure 9.25: Prismoid geometry (simplified alternative to the previously
described geometry) - angulated elements remain coplanar during
deployment .....................................................................................................279
Figure 9.26: Non-symmetrical identical angulated elements result in a fully
compactable configuration: hyperboloid solution..............................279
Figure 9.27: Symmetrical identical angulated elements cannot be fully
compacted.......................................................................................................280
Figure 9.28: Symmetrical and non-identical angulated elements result in a
fully compactable configuration: prismoid solution..........................281
Figure 9.29: Symmetrical and non-identical angulated elements result in a
fully compactable configuration: prismoid solution..........................282
Figure 9.30: Three consecutive stages in the deployment of a prismoid
geometry..........................................................................................................282
Figure 9.31: Three consecutive stages of the corresponding planar closed-loop
structure ..........................................................................................................283
Figure 9.32: Perspective view of the deployment of a triangular tower ..........283
Figure 9.33: Top view and side elevation of the prismoid tower ........................284
Figure 9.34: Detailed view of the simplified hinge connecting four scissor bars
............................................................................................................................284
Figure 9.35: Triangular and quadrangular prismoid solution and their
respective equivalent hinged-plate structure, providing an insight in
the kinematic behaviour.............................................................................285
Figure 9.36: Top view and perspective view of the structure with indication of
the global coordinate system and the vector components of the
wind action.....................................................................................................287
Figure 9.37: Side elevation of the equilibrium form of the membrane.............288
Figure 9.38: Top view of the equilibrium form of the membrane.......................288
Figure 9.39: Horizontal cable ties to improve structural performance.............289
Figure 9.40: Perspective view, top view and side elevation of deployable mast
............................................................................................................................290
321
and stiffness of case study 4.....................................................................291
Figure 9.42: Case 4 A temporary canopy and its deployable tower with
angulated units..............................................................................................292

Figure 10.1: Case study 1 (Chapter 6) Translational barrel vault....................296
Figure 10.2: Case study 2 (Chapter 7) Polar barrel vault...................................297
Figure 10.3: Case study 3 (Chapter 8) Deployable bar structure with foldable
joints .................................................................................................................298
Figure 10.4: Case study 4 (Chapter 9) Deployable mast ....................................299

322
List of Tables

Table 4.1: The first eight values for in terms of p for compactly foldable
regular structures............................................................................................ 93
Table 4.2: Minimum and maximum possible apex angles for regular structures
with 5, 7 or 9 plates.....................................................................................100
Table 4.3: The span S and rise R for a given number of plates p of regular
foldable structures in terms of the plate length L..............................101
Table 4.4: The area of the compact configuration for (p=5, =90), (p=7,
=120) and (p=9, =135) in terms of the plate length L .............102
Table 4. 5: The area of the sectional profile of the deployed configuration for
(p=5, =90), (p=7, =120) and (p=9, =135) in terms of the plate
length L ............................................................................................................103
Table 4. 6: The expansion ratio for (p=5, =90), (p=7, =120) and (p=9,
=135) ............................................................................................................103
Table 4.7: Minimum and maximum possible apex angles for right-angled
structures with 5, 7 or 9 plates, as can be read from the graph in
Figure 9............................................................................................................105
Table 4.8: Values for and for a chosen q (circular structure), combined with
a regular structure (p=5) ............................................................................110

Table 5.1: Values for the wind pressure w per zone................................................126
Table 5.2: The seven load cases used for calculations in EASY............................128

Table 9.1: Characteristics of the hyperboloid geometry ........................................286
Table 9.2: Characteristics of the prismoid geometry ..............................................286
Table 9.3: Load combinations for wind and snow...................................................287

List of Symbols

Chapter 2

Deployment angle
p.10
a, b Semi-bars
p.11
Unit angle
p.11
a, b, c, d Semi-lengths
p.12
Kink angle
p.21
Angle
p.21

Chapter 3

Deployment angle
p.40
Unit angle
p.40
a, b, c, d Semi-lengths
p.40
M Intermediate hinge
P.41
H
r
Rise
p.42
S Span
p.42
t Unit thickness
p.43
2 Total unit angle
p.43
O Centrepoint
p.43
M Centrepoint
p.43
C Intermediate point
p.43
M Centrepoint
p.43
t
1,
t
2
Unit thickness
p.45
O
1,
O
2,
,O
3
Centrepoint
p.48
P, Q, S, T End nodes
p.51
t Unit thickness
p.54
K Intermediate hinge
p.54

Quarter of total sector angle
p.57
n
Angle
p.57
n
P
Base point of arc
p.57
0
P
Apex point of arc
p.57
O Centrepoint
p.57
in
R Internal radius
p.57
U Number of units
p.59
Sector angle
p.59
e
R
External radius
p.60
L Bar lenght
p.60
E
0,
E
1
Ellipse
p.63

Chapter 4

P Basic plate element
p.88
M Module
p.88
p Number of plates
p.88
Apex angle
p.89
L Plate length
p.95
W Module width
p.95
H
r
Rise
p.95
S Span
p.95
Deployment angle
p.95
H

Plate height
p.96
H
1
Horizontal projection of plate height
p.96
H
2
Vertical projection of plate height
p.96
,
1,
2
Angle
p.96
L
edge
Edge length
p.101
L Plate length
p.102
Expansion ratio
p.103
t
p
Thickness of a single plate element
p.103
T
p
Total thickness of the compactly folded configuration
p.104
q Number of sectors
p.107

Chapter 5

t Unit thickness
p.117

Air density
p.123
ref
v Reference velocity
p.123
ALT
c
Altitude factor
p.123
DIR
c Direction factor
p.123
TEM
c
Temporary factor
p.123
ref
q
Reference wind pressure
p.123
w Total wind pressure
p.123
w
e
Pressure on the external surfaces
p.123
w
i
Pressure on the internal surfaces
p.123

Opening ratio
p.123
A
L,W
Total area of openings at the leeward and wind
parallel sides
p.124
A
T
Total area of openings at the windward, leeward and
wind parallel sides
p.124
C
pi
Internal pressure coefficient
p.124
C
pe
External pressurecoefficient
p.124
C
pi,a
Permeability
p.124
k
s Characteristic snow load on the ground
p.127
t
C
Temperature coefficient
p.127
e
C

Exposure coefficient
p.127
i
Form factor for the snow load
p.127
G Permanent loads
p.128
Q Mobile loads
p.128

Safety factor
p.128
D Damage
p.130
n
i
Number of cycles
p.130
N
i
Critical amount of load cycles
p.130
i

Fluctuating stresses
p.130
c

Resistance against fatique
p.130
i

Shear stresses
p.132

Chapter 6

M1 Plane module
p.139
M2 Slightly curved module
p.139
M3 Highly curved module
p.139
U1, U2, U3 Linkage
p.142
t Unit thickness
p.144
a, b Semi axes
p.144
U Number of units in the span
p.145
R Radius of the circular arc
p.145
2
Angle
p.145
A, A Circular arc
p.145
2
a

Distance between parallel arcs
p.145
P
2,
P
0,
1
P , P
1,

P
2
Intersection point
p.145
E
0,
E
1
Ellipsoid
p.146

Angle
p.146
n Node
p.152
2,

3
Angle
p.155
f
y
Yield stress
p.164
S
max
Maximum stress
p.168

Chapter 7

U Units
p.180
O Centrepoint
p.180
P, Q, R Intersection points
p.180
h Unit height
p.180
U1, U2, U3 Linkage
p.181
S Span
p.188
H
r
Rise
p.188
t Unit thickness
p.188
a, b Semi-bar
p.188

Deployment angle
p.188
max S

Deployment angle for which the maximum span is
reached
p.188
design

Deployment angle in the fully deployed
configuration
p.188
S
max
Maximum span
p.188
S
design
Span of the deployed configuration
p.188

Deployment ratio
p.189
in
R
Internal radius
p.189
e
R
External radius
p.189
Unit angle
p.189

Sector angle
p.189
S
e
External span
p.192

Chapter 8

p Number of plates
p.214
Apex angle
p.214
Deployment angle
p.214
L Plate length
p.214
S Span
p.214
W Module width
p.214
q The amount of sectors arranged radially
p.216
m Number of modules
p.231
R Degree of statical determinacy
p.232
b Number of bars
p.232
j
Number of joints
p.232
r Number of restraints
p.232
N
joints
Number of continuous joints
p.233
N
links
Total number of links
p.233
N
loops
Number of loops
p.233

Chapter 9

a, b Semi-bar length
p.253
Kink angle
p.255
U Number of scissor units
p.255
n Number of modules
p.255
E Edge length
p.255
Sector angle
p.255
Deployment angle
p.257
h Height of the undeployed position
p.257
H Total height
p.257
Deployment ratio
p.258
R Radius
p.259
h Unit height
p.261
L Base length
p.261

Chapter 1 Introduction
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Deployable structures

A large group of structures have the ability to transform themselves from a
small, closed or stowed configuration to a much larger, open or deployed con-
figuration. These are generally referred to as deployable structures though they
might also be known as erectable, expandable, extendible, developable or un-
furlable structures [Jensen, 2003].

Although the research subject of deployable structures is relatively young be-
ing pioneered in the 1960s, the principle of transformable objects and spaces
has been applied throughout history. Applications range from the Mongolian
yurts, to the velum of the Roman Coliseum, from Da Vincis umbrella to the
folding chair. At present day, the main application areas are the aerospace
industry, requiring highly compactable, lightweight payload and architecture,
requiring either mobile, lightweight temporary shelters or fixed-location re-
tractable roofs for sports arenas.

Mobile shelter systems are a type of building construction for which there is a
vast range and diversity of forms and structural solutions. They are designed to
provide weather protected enclosure for a wide range of human activities. The
main applications are exhibition and recreational structures, temporary build-
ings in remote construction sites, relocatable hangars and maintenance facili-
ties and emergency shelters after natural disasters. Enclosure requirements are
generally very simple, with the majority needing only a weather protecting
membrane or skin supported by some form of erectable structure. In all appli-
cations, both the envelope and structure need to be capable of being easily
moved in the course of normal use, which very often requires the building sys-
tem to be assembled at high speed, on unprepared sites [Burford & Gengnagel,
2004]. An example of an easily erectable temporary exhibition structure is
shown in Figure 1.1.
2

Figure 1.1: Mobile deployable bar structure ( Grupo Estran)

Mobile deployable structures have the advantage of ease and speed of erec-
tion compared to traditional building forms. Because they are reusable and
easily transportable, they are of great use for temporary applications. However,
the aspect of deployability is associated with a higher mechanical complexity
and design cost compared to conventional systems. This increased cost has to
be balanced by the structures potential to be suitable for the particular appli-
cation.

Deployable structures can be classified according to their structural system. In
doing so, four main groups can be distinguished:

Spatial bar structures consisting of hinged bars
Foldable plate structures consisting of hinged plates
Tensegrity structures
Membrane structures

It is noted that these deployable structural systems only constitute a portion
of the possible applications in their respective field. The majority of spatial bar
structures, plate structures, tensegrity structures and membrane structures is
non-deployable and has a permanent location. What is referred to here are
those specific applications which exhibit a certain ability to transform their
shape, therefore adapting to changing circumstances and requirements.

Hanaor [2001] has classified the aforementioned structural systems used in
deployable structures by their morphological and kinematic characteristics
(Figure 1.2). Because of their wide applicability in the field of mobile architec-
ture, their high degree of deployability and a reliable deployment, two sub-
categories will be studied in greater detail (marked in red in Figure 1.2):
3

Figure 1.2: Classification of structural systems for deployable structures by their morphological
and kinematic characteristics [Hanaor, 2001]

4
scissor structures and foldable plate structures. Scissor structures are expand-
able structures consisting of bars linked together by scissor hinges allowing
them to be folded into a compact bundle. Although many impressive architec-
tural applications for these mechanisms have been proposed, due to the me-
chanical complexity of their systems during the folding and deployment proc-
ess, few have been constructed at full-scale [Asefi, 2006].

Foldable plate structures consist of rigid plate elements which are connected
by continuous joints allowing one rotational degree of freedom. In their unde-
ployed configuration they form a flat stack of plates, while a corrugated sur-
face is formed in their fully deployed configuration. Singly curved as well as
doubly curved surfaces are possible, characterised by a linear or radial deploy-
ment.

1.2 Aims and scope of research

Although many different deployable systems have been proposed, few have
successfully found their way into the field of temporary constructions. A cause
for this limited use can be found in the complexity of the design process. This
entails detailed design of the connections which ensure the expansion of the
structure during the deployment process. Therefore, not only the final de-
ployed configuration is to be designed, but an insight is required in the mobil-
ity of the mechanism, as a means to achieve that final erected state. Also, de-
signing deployable structures requires a thorough understanding of the spe-
cific configurations which will give rise to a fully deployable geometry.

The aim of the work presented in this dissertation is to develop novel concepts
for deployable bar structures and propose variations of existing concepts
which will lead to architecturally as well as structurally viable solutions for
mobile applications. It is the intention to aid in the design of deployable bar
structures by first explaining the essential principles behind them and subse-
quently applying these in several case studies. Starting with the choice of a
suitable geometry, followed by an assessment of the kinematics of the system,
to end with a structural feasibility study, the complete design process is dem-
5
onstrated. By doing so, the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen structural
system and geometric configuration, are exposed. Ultimately, the designer is
provided with the means for deciding on how to cover a space with a rapidly
erectable, mobile architectural space enclosure, based on the geometry of
foldable plate structures or employing a scissor system.

A review of previous research concerning scissor structures and foldable plate
structures is given, offering an insight in the wide variety of possible shapes
and configurations. An understanding of their geometry is crucial, because it
greatly influences the deployment behaviour of the structure. The design prin-
ciples behind these structures and several construction methods are explained
and novel geometric design methods are proposed, based on architectural pa-
rameters such as the rise and span of the structure. These principles are then
used in four case studies, which cover the key aspects of the design and are an
application of novel proposed concepts for mobile deployable bar structures.

1.3 Outline of thesis

In Chapter 2, previous work and a literature review of scissor structures and
foldable plate structures is presented and the main researchers active in this
field are discussed. The first part focuses on translational and polar scissor
units employed in spatial structures and angulated elements applied in closed
loop retractable structures. The second part is concerned with past develop-
ments within the field of foldable plate structures and their possible configu-
rations.

In Chapter 3 the basic principles needed for the design of deployable scissor
structures are clarified. As a simple means of obtaining a deployable scissor
linkage, several construction methods for translational and polar arches are
explained. A geometric design method is proposed, for which the derived
equations are based on the rise and span of the deployed configuration. This
method allows the design of polar linkages of circular curvature and transla-
tional linkages of any curvature. It is shown how these can be used to obtain
three-dimensional grid structures which are stress-free deployable.
6

Chapter 4 is concerned with the design of foldable plate structures. Some ba-
sic single curvature or double curvature foldable configurations are identified
which are compactly foldable for maximum transportability. The formulas
needed for designing single curvature and double curvature configurations are
derived. It is shown that a single plate element can be obtained from which
domes and barrel vaults or combinations thereof can be composed. These de-
sign principles are applied in Chapter 8, in which a concept for a deployable
bar structure is proposed based on a foldable plate geometry.

Chapter 5 serves as an introduction to the case studies which will bring into
practice the design methods discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The geometry for
the case studies is presented as well as the general approach for the structural
analysis and design. Also, the considered load combinations are discussed.

In Chapter 6 case study 1 is designed, which is a novel type of single curvature
deployable structure composed of translational units on a three-way grid. A
geometric design approach is proposed which is then brought into practice for
designing a translational triangulated barrel vault with a circular base curve.
Also, based on this barrel vault, a fully closed double curvature shape is pro-
posed as an alternative configuration. An insight is provided in the kinematic
behaviour during and after the deployment. The concept is structurally ana-
lysed according to the method specified in Chapter 5.

In Chapter 7 a barrel vault with polar and translational units is designed. For
the second case study a novel way of providing an open barrel vault with a
compatible stress-free deployable end structure is proposed, making use of
half of a slightly modified lamella dome. Analogous to case study 1, the kine-
matics of the system are discussed and a structural analysis is performed.

In Chapter 8 an innovative concept for a mobile shelter system, based on the
kinematics of foldable plate structures, is proposed. For case study 3 a basic
foldable barrel vault, as well as a foldable dome are designed, based on the
principles presented in Chapter 4. By combining these two basic shapes a
closed doubly curved foldable geometry is obtained. The transition from plate
7
structure to bar structures is discussed and a novel foldable articulated joint,
serving as a connector for the bars, is proposed. The mobility of the mecha-
nism is discussed and the concept is analysed structurally.

Chapter 9 is concerned with the design of case study 4, which is a deployable
tower with angulated scissor units. In the proposed concept the structure
serves as a tower or truss-like mast for a temporary tensile surface structure
and doubles up as an active element during the erection process. A compre-
hensive geometric design method is proposed and the influence of the design
parameters on the geometry and the deployment process are discussed. Finally,
the kinematic behaviour is explained and the structural feasibility is checked.

Chapter 10 concludes the study by discussing the proposed concepts in a
comparative evaluation. Also, a number of suggestions for further work are
provided.

8

Chapter 2 Review of Literature
9
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
2.1 Introduction

In this chapter the main contributors to the field of deployable structures are
discussed. A review is given of existing deployable scissor structures (or panto-
graph structures) and foldable plate structures for architectural applications.

The first part is concerned with an explanation of the characteristics of trans-
lational and polar units, and the deployability condition they have to comply
with when used in a scissor linkage, in order to guarantee deployability. Fur-
ther, angulated elements, which are used to form closed loop structures, are
discussed. These are characterised by a radial deployment, allowing the struc-
ture to retract towards its perimeter.

The second part discusses the application of foldable plate structures, includ-
ing single and double curvature configurations. An explanation is given of the
possible plate linkages which generate compactly foldable configurations.
Also, the condition which foldable plate configurations have to satisfy in order
to be compactly foldable is mentioned.

2.2 Deployable structures based on pantographs

Scissor units, otherwise called scissor-like elements (SLEs) or pantographic
elements, consist of two straight bars connected through a revolute joint,
called the intermediate hinge, allowing the bars to pivot about an axis perpen-
dicular to their common plane (Figure 2.1). By interconnecting such SLEs at
their end nodes using revolute joints, a two-dimensional transformable linkage
is formed, as shown in Figure 2.2. Altering the location of the intermediate
hinge or the shape of the bars gives rise to three distinct basic unit types:
translational, polar and angulated units.
10
2.2.1 Translational units

The upper and lower end nodes of a scissor unit are connected by unit lines.
For a translational unit, these unit lines are parallel and remain so during de-
ployment. In Figure 2.1 a plane and a curved translational unit are shown, the
plane unit being the simplest translational unit having identical bars. When
these units are linked, a well-known transformable single-degree-of-freedom
mechanism is formed, called a lazy-tong, shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.1 : Translational units

The curved unit named such because it is commonly used for curved linkages
has bars of different length. When the latter is linked by its end nodes, a
curved linkage is formed, pictured in Figure 2.3.

By varying the deployment angle a linkage is transformed from its most
compact configuration (a compact bundle) to its fully deployed position, as
shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3.

Plane unit Curved unit
Unit
line
End
node
Intermediate
hinge

11

Figure 2.2: The simplest plane translational scissor linkage, called a lazy-tong

Figure 2.3: A curved translational linkage in its deployed and undeployed position

2.2.2 Polar units

When in a plane translational unit the intermediate hinge is moved away from
the centre of the bar, a polar unit is formed with unequal semi-bars a and b
(Figure 2.4). It is this eccentricity of the intermediate hinge which generates
curvature during deployment. The unit lines intersect at an angle . This angle
varies strongly as the unit deploys and the intersection point moves closer to
the unit as the curvature increases. In Figure 2.5 a polar linkage is shown in its
undeployed and deployed configuration.

12

Figure 2.4: Polar unit

Figure 2.5: A polar linkage in its undeployed and deployed position

2.2.3 Deployability constraint

Crucial to the design of deployable scissor structures is the deployability con-
straint. This is a formula derived by Escrig [1985] which states that in order to
be deployable, the sum of the semi-lengths a and b of a scissor unit has to
equal the sum of the semi-lengths c and d of the adjoining unit. This trans-
lates theoretically into the ability of the bars to coincide in the compact state.
Practically, this means that the scissor linkage is foldable into a compact bun-
dle of bars. For the linkage in Figure 2.6, the deployability constraint is written
as:
d c b a + = +
(2.1)

a
b

13

Figure 2.6: The deployability constraint in terms of the semi-lengths a, b, c and d of two adjoin-
ing scissor units in three consecutive deployment stages

It should be noted that scissor linkages which do not comply with Equation 2.1
can still be partially foldable: one unit might be fully compacted, while the
adjoining unit might still be partially deployed. However, since this disserta-
tion is concerned with the design of compactly foldable scissor structures, the
deployability constraint is treated as a minimum requirement.

2.2.4 Structures based on translational and polar units

In the early 1960s, Spanish architect Emilio Perez Piero [1961, 1962] pio-
neered the use of scissor mechanism to make deployable structures. He was
among the first in modern times to employ the principle of the pantograph for
use in deployable architectural structures, such as his moveable theatre (Figure
2.7). This particular model consisted of rigid bars and wire cables, which would
become tensioned to provide the structure with the necessary stabilisation.
The members remain unstressed in the compact, bundled configuration and
the deployed state, except for their own dead weight. Furthermore, the struc-
ture is stress-free during the deployment, effectively behaving like a mecha-
nism. Piero was very productive in the field of deployable scissor structures,
until all this was brought to an end by his tragic death in 1972.

Another Spanish architect became one of the most prolific researchers on the
subject. Felix Escrig [1984, 1985] presented the geometric condition for de-
ployability (Section 2.2.3) and demonstrated how three-dimensional structures
a
b
c
d
14
could be obtained by placing scissor units in multiple directions on a grid. Fur-
ther, it was shown how curvature could be introduced in such a grid by vary-
ing the location of the intermediate hinge of the scissor units.

Figure 2.7: Piero demonstrates his prototype of a deployable shell [Robbin, 1996]

Escrig has also investigated, in collaboration with J. Sanchez and J.P. Valcarcel,
spherical two-way scissor structures based on the subdivision of the surface of
a sphere. These two-way grids require measures, such as cross-bars or cables,
to stabilise the structure in its deployed configuration, due to in-plane insta-
bility caused by non-triangulation.

A myriad of geometric models has been proposed by Escrig [1985,1987] based
on two-way and three-way grids with no curvature, single curvature or double
curvature. An example of each category is given in Figures 2.8 to 2.12.
15

Figure 2.8: Planar two-way grid with translational units and cylindrical barrel vault with polar
units [Escrig, 1985]

Figure 2.9: Top view and side elevation of a two-way spherical grid with identical polar units
[Escrig, 1987]

Figure 2.10: Top view and side elevation of a three-way spherical grid with polar units
[Escrig, 1987]

16

Figure 2.11: Top view and side elevation of a geodesic dome with polar units [Escrig, 1987]

Figure 2.12: Top view and side elevation of a lamella dome with identical polar units
[Escrig, 1987]

Besides constructing several models, Escrig has also designed a cover for a
swimming pool in Seville. The design consists of two identical rhomboid grid
structures with spherical curvature. The subdivision of the spherical surface is
executed in such a way, that straight edges emerge, allowing several struc-
tures to be mutually connected along these edges (Figure 2.13).

Figure 2.13: Deployable cover for a swimming pool in Seville designed by Escrig & Sanchez (
Performance SL)

17
Some of the proposed geometric configurations for three-dimensional grid
structures demonstrate a snap-through effect during the deployment. This
means that they do not deploy as mechanisms and are no longer stress-free
during expansion (apart from their own dead weight). This snap-through ef-
fect is caused by geometric incompatibilities between the member lengths
associated with the way they are contained within the grid. Because they are
in a stress-free state before and after deployment, but go through an interme-
diate stage with deployment induced stresses, they are called bi-stable de-
ployable structures. Figure 2.14 illustrates the snap-through effect on a square
module with diagonal units. The diagonal units (marked in red) are subject to
elastic deformation in the intermediate deployment stage, while the unde-
ployed and fully deployed configuration are stress-free.

Figure 2.14: Bi-stable structure before, during and after deployment

Figure 2.15: Collapsible dome and a single unit, as proposed by Zeigler [1976]

18
Zeigler [1981, 1984] was the first to exploit this phenomenon as a self-locking
effect, effectively making extra stabilisation after deployment (which is neces-
sary for stress-free deployable structures) obsolete. He proposed, on these
grounds, a partial triangulated spherical dome as shown in Figure 2.15.

Charis Gantes [1996, 2001] has thoroughly investigated bi-stable deployable
structures and has developed a geometric design approach for flat grids,
curved grids and structures with arbitrary geometry. Also, he has researched
the structural response during deployment, which is characterized by geomet-
ric non-linearities. Simulation of the deployment process is, therefore, an im-
portant part of the analysis requiring sophisticated finite element modelling.
The material behavior, however, must remain linearly elastic, so that no resid-
ual stresses reduce the load bearing capacity under service loads. Two of his
proposals for bi-stable structures, an elliptical arch and a geodesic dome, are
depicted in Figure 2.16.

Figure 2.16: Bi-stable structures: elliptical arch and geodesic dome [Gantes, 2004]

A geometric and kinematic analysis of single curvature and double curvature
structures has been performed by Travis Langbecker [1999, 2001]. He has used
translational units to design several models of positive (Figure 2.17) and nega-
tive (Figure 2.18) curvature structures. By using compatible translational units
and by keeping the structural thickness (unit thickness) constant throughout
the whole structure, these configurations are always stress-free deployable.

19
Figure 2.17: Positive curvature structure with translational units in two deployment stages
[Langbecker, 2001]

Figure 2.18: Negative curvature structure with translational units in two deployment stages
[Langbecker, 2001]

Pantographic deployable columns are linear deployable structures composed of
translational or polar units and were researched by Raskin [1996, 1998]. His
work focussed on pantographs behaving as mechanisms during deployment,
which are to be stabilised in the deployed configuration by additional bound-
ary conditions. First, plane linkages were investigated, which were subse-
quently used to form prismatic columns (Figure 2.19). Expanding his findings,
deployable pantographic slabs that can be packaged in different arrangements
were proposed. Figure 2.20 shows two variations of such a deployable slab,
consisting either of prismatic modules or an arrangement of prismatic col-
umns.

20

Figure 2.19: Plane and spatial pantographic columns by Raskin [1998]

Figure 2.20: Pantographic slabs by Raskin [1998]

Under the guidance of Dr. Sergio Pellegrino, a research group called the De-
ployable Structures Laboratory, emerged at the Cambridge University in 1990
as a driving force in the field of deployable structure research. One of their
proposals constituted a deployable pantographic ring structure developed as
the edge beam of a deployable antenna. Together with Zhong You, the condi-
tions for strain-free deployment of such a structure were derived [You &
Pellegrino, 1993]. Structures of this type consist of translational linkages on
the perimeter ring and inner ring, mutually connected by radially placed polar
units. As an example, Figure 2.21 shows a structure based on a twelve-sided
polygon.

21

Figure 2.21: Deployable ring structure [You & Pellegrino, 1993]

2.2.5 Angulated units

Unlike common pantograph units with straight bars, angulated units consist of
two rigidly connected semi-bars of length a that form a central kink of ampli-
tude . Because they were invented by Hoberman [1990] they are commonly
denoted as hobermans units. The major advantage is that, as opposed to polar
units, angulated units subtend a constant angle during deployment (Figure
2.22). For this to occur, the bar geometry has to be such that = /2. This im-
plies that angulated elements can be used for radially deploying closed loop
structures, capable of retracting to their own perimeter, which is impossible to
accomplish with translational or polar units, which demonstrate a linear de-
ployment. (Figure 2.23) shows a circular linkage with angulated elements in its
undeployed and deployed configuration.

Figure 2.22: Angulated unit or hobermans unit

a
a
= /2
22

Figure 2.23: A radially deployable linkage consisting of angulated (or hobermans) units in three
stages of the deployment

The structure shown in Figure 2.23 is formed by two layers of identical angu-
lated elements, of which one layer is formed by elements in clockwise direc-
tion (marked in gray), while the other is arranged in counter-clockwise direc-
tion (marked in red). As the structure deploys, each layer undergoes a rotation,
equal in magnitude but opposite to each other.

2.2.6 Closed loop structures based on angulated elements

You & Pellegrino [1996, 1997] extended the previous concept to multi-
angulated elements, which are elements with more than one kink angle, as
can be seen in Figure 2.24. They found that two or more such retractable
structures can be joined together through the scissor hinges at the element
ends. Two angulated elements from layers that turn in the same direction of
two such interconnected structures, were found to maintain a constant angle
and could therefore be rigidly connected, thus forming a multi-angulated ele-
ment. The deployment of such a structure, composed of two layers of twelve
identical multi-angulated elements with three kinks, is depicted in Figure 2.25.

23

Figure 2.24: Multi-angulated element

Figure 2.25: A radially deployable linkage consisting of multi-angulated elements in three stages
of the deployment

This concept was extended by You & Pellegrino [1996, 1997] to include gener-
alised angulated elements (GAE) which allow non-circular structures to be
generated. Depending on which type of GAE is used, such structures form pat-
terns of either rhombuses of parallelograms.

By providing this type of structure with cover elements, Kassabian et al. [1997,
1999] has shown it possible to employ them as a retractable roof (Figure 2.26).

= /2
/2
/2
/2

24
The cover elements provide, both in the open and closed position a gap-free,
weatherproof surface.

Figure 2.26: Multi-angulated structure with cover elements in an intermediate deployment posi-
tion

Jensen [2004] has found that, instead of covering a bar structure with plates,
it is possible to remove the angulated elements and connect the plates directly
by means of scissor hinges at exactly the same locations as in the original bar
structure. Thus, the kinematic behaviour of the expandable structure remains
unchanged. He has developed general methods and the conditions for con-
necting expandable structures of any plan shape (Figure 2.27), leading to the
possibility of creating plane or stacked assemblies composed of individual ex-
pandable structures. This has led to the development of transformable free-
form or blob-structures, as shown in Figure 2.28 [Jensen & Pellegrino, 2004].

Figure 2.27: Model of a non-circular structure where all boundaries and plates are unique [Jen-
sen, 2004]

25
Figure 2.28: Computer model of an expandable blob structure [Jensen & Pellegrino, 2004]

Several other types of closed loop structures have been developed by Escrig et
al. [1996], Chilton et al. [1998], Wohlhart [2000], You [2000] and Rodriguez &
Chilton [2003]. Retractable reciprocal plate structures have been developed by
Chilton et al. [1998], of which an example is shown in Figure 2.29. The struc-
ture shown consists of six triangular rigid plate elements which each slide
against each other as the structure is retracted, hence providing a continuous
surface throughout the deployment process.

Figure 2.29: Reciprocal plate structure

Rodriguez & Chilton [2003] have proposed a novel retractable structure called
the swivel diaphragm. It forms a ring of congruent parallelograms between
angulated elements by using the fixed points of the structure together with
straight bars. In Figure 2.30 a swivel diaphragm is shown in several stages of
the deployment. As opposed to the multi-angulated elements proposed by
Kassabian et al., the support points can always be directly connected to the
angulated elements, which allows the angulated elements to swivel around
the fixed points. The angulated elements can be replaced by rigid plate ele-
ments to form a continuous surface in both the open and closed position. Rod-
26
riguez et al. [2004] has also developed methods for interconnecting several
individual swivel diaphragms to form larger retractable assemblies.

Figure 2.30: Swivel diaphragm in consecutive stages of deployment

Several researchers have proposed dome shaped structures that can retract
towards their perimeter. Piero pioneered a diaphragm retractable dome with
a number of wedge-shaped plates which are able to rotate about an axis nor-
mal to the sphere [Escrig, 1993]. When the plates are rotated, an aperture is
created at the centre of the dome. During opening and closing, all plates show
an overlap, except in the fully closed position where the plates form a gap-
free spherical cap. To create a single-degree-of-freedom mechanism, pairs of
adjacent plates are mutually connected through a revolute joint at the apex of
one plate. This joint is then run along a certain path on the other plate, as il-
lustrated in Figure 2.31.

Figure 2.31: Reciprocal dome proposed by Piero [Escrig, 1993]

Angulated elements connected by scissor hinges not only subtend a constant
angle in a plane surface, but also on a conical surface. This was discovered by
Hoberman [1991], who has proposed the Iris Dome shown in Figure 2.32. The
structures consists of five concentric rings of angulated elements, connected
with axes of rotation tangential to the circular plan of the rings, and thus a
27
retractable dome is formed. The dome uses rigid plates as cladding material,
attached to the individual angulated elements. When the dome is closed, a
continuous surface is formed, while in the open configuration the plates are
stacked upon each other. Hoberman exhibited a model for a dome, which was
continuously retracted by an actuator, at the Expo 2000 in Hannover. In 2002
he designed and built a semi-circular retractable mechanical curtain for cere-
monial purposes at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Both structures are

Figure 2.32: Iris dome by Hoberman [Kassabian et al, 1999]

Figure 2.33: Retractable dome on Expo Hannover (courtesy of M. Mollaert) Mechanical curtain
Winter Olympics Salt Lake City 2002 [Hoberman, 2007]

Extending his work on two-dimensional retractable plate structures, Jensen
[2004] has proposed an elegant solution for a retractable dome structure, us-
ing only plate elements, instead of a combination of multi-angulated elements
and cover plates. One of his proposals is a novel type of retractable dome, de-
scribed as a self-supporting reciprocal mechanism, similar to that proposed by
Piero [Escrig, 1993]. Unlike the concept developed by Piero, the current
structure does not have any overlaps, and hence friction between neighbour-
28
ing plates is removed, which makes it better suited for large scale applications.
Other advantages are the possibilities of modifying the plate boundaries and
the location of the fixed points about which the plates rotate. Figure 2.34
shows a retractable dome with plates having fixed points of rotation. The
plates provide a gap-free surface in the open and closed position. Figure 2.35
shows a retractable dome with modified boundaries.

Figure 2.34: Retractable roof made from spherical plates with fixed points of rotation
[Jensen, 2004]

Figure 2.35: Novel retractable dome with spherical plates with modified boundaries
[Jensen, 2004]

29
2.3 Foldable plate structures

A family of foldable, portable structures, based on the Yoshimura buckle pat-
tern for axially compressed cylindrical shells, has been presented by Foster and
Krishnakumar [1986/87]. These structures have considerable shape flexibility
(multiple degrees of freedom), but once erected they possess significant stiff-
ness.

Figure 2.36: Basic layout of Fosters module [Foster, 1986]

Foldable plate structures consist of a series of triangular plates, connected at
their edges by continuous joints, allowing each plate to rotate relative to its
neighbouring plate. The plates can fold into a flat stack and unfold into a pre-
determined three-dimensional configuration, with a corrugated surface. De-
termining the actual shape of the deployed configuration, is an origami-like
pattern formed by intersecting mountain folds and valley folds. The foldable
plate linkage consists of a repetition of the basic plate element which is of
triangular shape and must possess one angle of at least 90, in order to gener-
30
ate a configuration which is compactly foldable into a flat stack of plates. All
elements within sections (modules) of the structures must have the same
shape and equal apex angles.

A module, as Figure 2.36 shows, is essentially a strip of plates joined in such a
way that opposite sides are parallel when fully deployed. The module pictured
contains four plates: three full and two halves (which are counted as one full
plate). Separate modules, which must each be capable of being compactly
foldable, are joined together by continuous hinges along the parallel sides to
form the complete structure. The apex angle of the triangular plate is the main
parameter which determines the fold pattern, and therefore the geometry of
the final deployed shape. As can be seen from Figure 2.36, some apex angles
give rise to folded configurations, which are not fully compacted, i.e. there is a
gap in the folded configuration. This can be avoided when the apex angle is a
sub-multiple of 360. The simplest foldable shape is a four-plate linkage with
an apex angle of 90. Now if all plates are isosceles triangles, the compact
folded configuration has a square shape but when all plates are right-angled
triangles, the compactly folded configuration is of rectangular shape.

Figure 2.37: Combination of different modules [Foster, 1986]

31
When two modules, one with isosceles triangles and one with right-angled
triangles, are connected, their flatly packed shape is an overlapping square and
rectangle, as shown in Figure 2.37. This shows that not all elements in a struc-
ture have to be identical, but, on the other hand, the usefulness and the ele-
ment uniformity of such a mixed structure is decreased. There is a maximum
number of plates associated with each apex angle which will give a foldable
configuration. Using a higher number of plates would make folding of the con-
figuration physically impossible, due to plate overlap. For instance, a 90 apex
angle corresponds with a maximum of four full plates, a 108 apex angle with
five plates, a 120 apex angle with six plates, and so on.

Figure 2.38: Simplest building with 90 apex angle [Foster, 1986]

Consider the minimal foldable configuration: a four-plate linkage with an apex
angle of 90, shown in Figure 2.38. This linkage is the most compactly foldable
32
configuration, as it folds into a compact square shape. Despite its advanta-
geous folding properties, a major shortcoming of practical use is that clear
headroom is quite low. A possible solution is to make a longitudinal field joint
between two modules, as depicted in Figure 2.39. Of course, the joined sub-
structures will have to be disassembled in order to be foldable.

Figure 2.39: Building formed by two 90-modules joined at their ends [Foster, 1986]

A plate linkage with appealing characteristics is the one with an apex angle of
120. From Figure 2.40 it can be seen that the width of the collapsed configu-
ration is identical to the plate length. If, for example, the length is made 2.4
m, the headroom is 2.08 m and this would make it suitable for human habita-
tion, as opposed to the 90-elements, where the headroom would only be 1.7
m. As Figure 2.41 shows, by connecting two modules by means of a field joint,
the resulting deployed structure would be employable as a temporary field
service hangar for light aircraft and similar applications [Gantes, 2001].

Figure 2.40: Building with apex angle of 120 [Foster, 1986]

33

Figure 2.41: Building formed by two 120-modules joined at their ends [Foster, 1986]

Employing isosceles triangular plates leads to skewed deployed configurations,
which can equally be combined along their parallel, straight edges. Figure 2.42
shows a structure with 90-, 60- and 30-elements.

Figure 2.42: Structure with 90-, 60- and 30-elements [Foster, 1986]

The previously discussed structures are all characterised by a linear deploy-
ment. As the structure deploys, it undergoes a linear expansion in the longitu-
dinal direction and a variation of the curvature in the transverse direction. The
120-structure can also be circularly deployed, by holding the bottom ele-
ments together and only deploying the middle section. The example in Figure
2.43 could be used for a temporary stage shell.

34

Figure 2.43: Temporary stage shell with 120 modules - Tension cables used to provide bulkhead
[Foster, 1986]

Due to the fact that these structures are basically a mechanism, a number of
constraints have to be considered to make them statically determinate. Figure
2.43 shows how tension cables can be integrated in the span of a 120-
structure to provide bulkhead.

Further expanding this concept, Tonon [1991, 1993] has studied the geometry
of single and double curvature foldable plate structures, such as domes,
conics, paraboloids and hyperboloids. To obtain these shapes, variations of the
apex angle and/or the plate dimensions are imposed in subsequent modules.
Although they are compactly foldable into a compact stack of plates, some
fold patterns cannot be developed in a plane, as opposed to the configurations
previously described by Foster.

Figure 2.44: Double curvature variable shape (hyperbolic type), plane pattern [Tonon, 1993]

35
As can be seen from Figure 2.44, which has a variable double curvature (hy-
perboloid shape), such a pattern cannot be developed in a plane. However,
once the corresponding edges are connected by a field joint in a partially de-
ployed state, the structure can be further folded until it reaches its fully com-
pacted shape. Tonon has formulated the condition, which the plate geometry
has to satisfy, in order to guarantee full foldability: the sum of the individual
base angles of two neighbouring plate elements has to be constant through-
out the plate geometry. This is illustrated by Figure 2.45, from which it can be
seen that the size of the individual plate angles varies, although their sum re-
mains constant throughout the pattern. It is noted that Tonon uses the base
angle of the triangular plates to describe the fold pattern, as opposed to the
apex angle used by Foster.

Figure 2.45: Fold pattern with different individual plate angles, but a constant sum throughout
the plate geometry, guaranteeing full foldability.

A selection of doubly curved paper models is shown in Figure 2.46 and Figure
2.47.

Figure 2.46: Doubly curved folded shapes [Tonon, 1993]

Plates with
variable base
angles
Constant
sum
36

Figure 2.47: Linear and circular deployable double curvature folded shapes [Tonon, 1993]

Using a plane foldable geometry, Hernandez & Stephens [2000] have proposed
a folding aluminium sheet roof for covering the terrace of a pool area. The fold
pattern consists of trapezoidal plate elements which give rise to a plane cor-
rugated surface (Figure 2.48). Because no curvature is introduced by folding,
the roof retracts on a supporting steel structure consisting of seven parallel
trusses, to provide the necessary headroom. The retraction, during which the
sheets are supported by wheels running on a rail, is realised by a motor driven
system of wire cables. Special attention has been given to the joint design,
providing a waterproof sealing between consecutive plates.

Figure 2.48: Folding aluminium sheet roof for covering the terrace of the pool area of the Inter-
national Center of Education and Development in Caracas, Venezuela [Hernandez & Stephens,
2000]

Another interesting idea, although not of immediate use for an architectural
application, is brought forward by Guest and Pellegrino [1994], treating the
folding of triangulated cylinders, later expanded by Barker & Guest [1998].
Such triangulated cylinders consist of identical triangular panels, placed on a
37
helical strip of the cylinder. All cylinders made of isosceles triangles fold down
to prisms and are packaged as a compact stack of plates. They are strain-free
in their compacted and fully deployed configuration. However, in intermediate
folding positions, some deformation of the surface is required. The concept has
been tested and applied to inflatable, thin walled metal cylinders.

Figure 2.49: (a) Fold pattern; (b) Fold pattern with alternate rings to prevent relative rotation
during deployment [Barker & Guest, 1998]

38

Chapter 3 Design of Scissor Structures
39
Chapter 3
Design of Scissor Structures
3.1 Introduction

This chapter is concerned with explaining the basic principles needed for the
design of deployable scissor structures, composed of translational or polar
scissor units, of which the characteristics have been discussed in Sections
2.2.1 and 2.2.2.

Retractable closed loop structures consisting of angulated elements (Section
2.2.5) are not discussed in this chapter. As can be seen from Figure 2.14, such
structures are not foldable into a compact bundle of bars in their undeployed
position. In the context of highly compactable, easily transportable single cur-
vature or double curvature grid structures, they offer therefore no added value
over translational or polar units. However, a specific design approach will be
proposed to employ angulated elements in a different setting: a linear deploy-
able tower for case study 4, where they contribute substantially to the con-
cept.

It will be shown how translational and polar units can be connected to form
the simplest of scissor mechanisms: a two-dimensional linkage, which can be
designed by either of two methods: pure geometric construction or a novel
geometric design method, using equations to obtain the complete geometry in
its deployed configuration.

Further, it is shown how these two-dimensional linkages can be combined to
form stress-free deployable three-dimensional grid structures of single or dou-
ble curvature, which will form the basis of the design of case studies 1 and 2.
In Section 2.2.4 (Figure 2.14) the difference between stress-free deployable
and bi-stable structures has been explained. Because the aim of this disserta-
tion is to provide the means for designing easily deployable scissor structures,
the focus is on stress-free deployable structures only. Finally, the grid struc-
40
tures known from literature (Section 2.2.4) which are guaranteed stress-free
deployable, are identified and classified according to their grid type (two- or
three-way) and their curvature (single or double).

3.2 Design of two-dimensional scissor linkages

Two methods for obtaining a deployable scissor linkage will be presented.
Whether it be pure geometric construction, or a geometric design method em-
ploying a series of equations, both approaches are based on the deployability
constraint (Section 2.2.3). The two-dimensional and three-dimensional struc-
tures of which the design is explained in this chapter, are based on the trans-
lational or the polar unit (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 : Translational and polar scissor unit

It should be noted that scissor linkages which do not comply with equation 3.1
can still be partially foldable: one unit might be fully compacted, while the
adjoining unit might still be partially deployed. However, since this disserta-
tion is concerned with the design of compactly foldable scissor structures, the
deployability constraint is treated as a minimum requirement.

The deployability constraint can be made more tangible by using its graphic
representation. Consider the scissor unit with semi-lengths a and b in Figure
3.2. When a compatible unit is to be linked with the first unit, the location of

t

t
41
the intermediate hinges has to be determined, in such a way that semi-lengths
c and d satisfy the deployability constraint. The locus of all valid intermediate
hinges M that comply with the deployability constraint is an ellipse, with the
common end nodes of both units as its foci. This method of representation is
valid for all general scissor linkages.

Figure 3.2: An ellipse as the graphic representation of the deployability constraint for transla-
tional units, determining the locus of the intermediate hinge

When polar units are used, however, the locus of valid intermediate hinges can
be represented by a circle, as shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: A circle as the graphic representation of the deployability constraint for polar units,
determining the locus of the intermediate hinge

a
b
c
d
M
a
b
c
d
M
42
In the following section the deployability constraint and its geometric repre-
sentation will be used to design two-dimensional deployable linkages com-
posed of translational and polar units.

3.2.1 Method 1: Geometric construction

Apart from a plane (or rectilinear) curve, the most common curve for a scissor
linkage is a circular arc (Figure 3.4). From an architectural point of view, it
makes sense to describe this base curve in terms of a given rise (Hr) and span
(S). Once the geometry of the base curve is determined, it can be fitted with a
series of compatible scissor units, each obeying the geometric constraint (or
deployability constraint). The construction of polar and translational units will
now be discussed in greater detail.

Figure 3.4: Circular arc as base curve, determined by the design values
r
H (rise) and S (span)

r
H
S
O
43
Polar linkages

Method 1: the base curve contains the intersection points of the scissor bars
(intermediate hinges). Linkages can be constructed with either a constant or a
variable unit thickness t. The unit thickness is defined as the distance between
the internal and external end nodes of the scissor units, as shown in Figure
3.1.

Constant unit thickness (Figure 3.5)
A polar linkage with a constant unit thickness has bars of identical length. All
intermediate points C of the scissor units lie on the base curve.

Construction:
A: the base curve is divided in equal angular portions by the polar unit
lines, which all intersect in centre O. Segment MC is tangent to the
base curve, perpendicular to OC, which is the bisector of a segment.
Point M is the centre of the circle which represents the geometric
constraint for deployability. This circle intersects the base curve in the
intermediate point C.
B: now a scissor unit can be drawn, in such a way that MC is the bi-
sector of unit angle 2. Now the unit thickness t is determined.
C: the line through MC intersects the next unit line in point M. A cir-
cle can now be drawn with centre M and MC as radius. The intersec-
tion point of this circle with the base curve is the intermediate point
of the next unit.
D: proceeding this way leads to a complete linkage
44

A B
C D
Figure 3.5: The arc is divided in equal angular portions. Circles intersecting the arc determine
the loci of the intermediate hinge points
t
C

M
M
45
Variable unit thickness (Figure 3.6)
A polar linkage with a variable unit thickness has different units comprising of
bars of variable length. All intermediate points C of the scissor units lie on the
base curve.

Construction:
A: the base curve is divided in unequal angular portions by the polar
unit lines, which all intersect in centre O. Point C is arbitrarily placed
on the base curve between two consecutive unit polar lines. Segment
MC is tangent to the base curve, perpendicular to OC. Point M is the
centre of the circle which represents the geometric constraint for de-
ployability. This circle intersects the base curve in the intermediate
point C.
B: now a scissor unit can be drawn, in such a way such that MC is the
bisector of unit angle 2. Now the unit thickness t
1
is determined.
C: the line through MC is intersected with the next unit line in point
M. A (differently sized) circle can now be drawn with centre M and
MC as radius. The intersection point of this circle with the base curve
is the intermediate point of the next unit. The extended scissor bars of
the first unit intersect with the unit line through M by which unit
thickness t
2
is obtained.
46

A B
C D
Figure 3.6: The arc is divided in unequal angular portions. Variable circles intersecting the arc
determine the loci of the intermediate hinge points

t
1

C

M
M
t
2

47
Method 2: an inner and outer curve, with a constant distance t (unit thickness)
between them, contain the inner and outer end nodes of the polar units. This
is a simple method for constructing a linkage with constant unit thickness. All
units have identical bars.

A B

C D
Figure 3.7: An inner and outer arc determine the constant unit thickness

t
C
48

Construction:
A: the inner curve is divided in equal angular portions by the polar
unit lines, which all intersect in centre O.
B: an outer arc is offset a distance t from the inner base curve, by
which the unit thickness is determined and kept constant.
C: the intersection points of the polar unit lines with the inner and
outer curve determine the position of the inner and outer end nodes
of the units. Constructing the units is simply a matter of connecting
the appropriate nodes

A pluricentred polar linkage

Using a pluricentred arc as base curve for the 2D-linkage (as opposed to the
previously discussed single-centred arc) can increase the overall headroom,
while maintaining the same span and rise. Figure 3.8a shows a single-centred
arc with centre O
1
. The segmented arc in Figure 3.8b has an identical span and
rise, but consists of three arcs: one arc with centre O
2
and two arcs with cen-
tre O
3
and a decreased radius. Figure 3.8c shows the difference in headroom
between the single-centred and the pluricentred arc .

a b c
Figure 3.8: For the same span and rise, a pluricentred arc can offer increased headroom com-
pared to a single-centred arc

O
1

O
2

O
3

49

Figure 3.9: Example of a pluricentred base curve consisting of three arc segments with decreas-
ing radius

In a polar pluricentred linkage with a constant unit thickness all bars are iden-
tical. The base curve is a concatenation of arc segments, each of which has its
own centre. Because of the varying curvature of the base curve, there is a dif-
ference in unit geometry per segment, although all bars are identical. This
means that the location of the intermediate hinge of the units differs per
segment. The geometry is determined by the end nodes lying on the inner and
outer curve.

Construction:
A: the first segment of the inner base curve with centre O
1
is divided
in equal angular portions by the polar unit lines, which all intersect in
centre O
1
. A second arc segment with centre O
2
has a smaller radius
50
B: an outer curve is drawn, with an offset distance t from the inner
curve
C: the intersection points of the polar unit lines with the inner and
outer curve determine the position of the inner and outer end nodes
of the units. One bar of the first unit is constructed by connecting the
appropriate end nodes. A circle, which represents the geometric con-
straint is drawn with centre M and radius MM.
D: now the same circle is drawn, but with centre M. The intersection
point with the outer curve is the centre for the next circle. This is re-
peated until the end of the complete base curve is reached. The repe-
tition of the circles ensures a constant bar length.
E, F: analogous to phase D, the second chain of bars is now con-
structed, effectively completing the scissor linkage

A B
R
2
R
1
t
M
M
O
1
O
2
51
C D

E F
Figure 3.10: Each arc segment (with a different radius) is divided in equal angular portions.
Identical circles ensure a constant bar length

Translational linkages

As opposed to polar linkages, which are commonly based on a circular curve,
translational linkage are easily based on any arbitrary curvature. Therefore, the
general method for base curves with arbitrary curvature will be explained, by
which all possible curves are covered. Linkages with variable or constant unit
thickness are possible.

Method: the base curve contains the midpoints M, M of the segments PQ and
ST representing the unit thickness t, shown in Figure 3.11. Points P, Q and S, T
are also the foci of the ellipses representing the deployability constraint.
52
Points M and M are found by intersecting a double ellipse (twice the size of
the original ellipse) with the base curve. Once these intersection points are
found, completing the scissor units is simply a matter of appropriately con-
necting the end nodes by segments PT and QS.

A translational linkage with a constant unit thickness has bars of variable
length. All midpoints M lie on the base curve.

Construction:
A: a vertical segment of length t is placed twice on the base curve, a
chosen distance removed from each other, in such a way that mid-
points M and M are located on the base curve. This determines the
geometry of the first translational unit. The small ellipse (deployability
constraint) can be drawn and subsequently the double ellipse is de-
rived.
B: now the double ellipse and the unit thickness t are placed repeat-
edly on the base curve, each time using the intersection point from
the previous ellipse.
C, D: now the end nodes are appropriately connected to form the
complete linkage.

Figure 3.11: The original and double ellipse representing the deployability constraint intersec-
tion points M and M are the midpoints of the unit thickness t
M t
M
M
M
Q
P
S
T
53

A

B

54
C

D

Figure 3.12: Double ellipses impose the deployability constraint on a translational linkage with
constant unit thickness

Variable unit thickness (Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.14)
A translational linkage with a variable unit thickness {t
1
, t
2
,, t
n
}

has bars of
variable length. The intersection points K of the (small) ellipses with the base
curve determine the location of the intermediate hinges. This approach is
somewhat laborious because for each new unit a separate ellipse has to be
drawn to determine the location of the next intermediate hinge. Because of
the varying unit thickness, the method of the double ellipses cannot be used.

Construction:
A: a vertical segment of length t
1
is placed on the base curve. The lo-
cation of the intermediate hinge K of the first unit is arbitrarily cho-
sen on the base curve. P, Q and K are determined. Now the ellipse can
be drawn. Lines through PK and QK are intersected by an arbitrary
55
vertical unit line. These intersection points S and T determine the unit
thickness t
2
. Now the second ellipse can be drawn.
B: the intersection point of the second ellipse and the base curve is
determined and the previous steps are repeated
C, D: now the end nodes are appropriately connected to form the
complete linkage.

Figure 3.13: Two differently sized, but compatible ellipses representing the deployability con-
straint intersection points M and M are the midpoints of the unit thickness t
1
and t
2

K
t
1
M
M
Q
P
S
T
t
2
56

A

B

C
57

D

Figure 3.14: Ellipses of different scale determine the location of the intermediate hinges on the
base curve to form a translational linkage with varying unit thickness

3.2.2 Method 2: Geometric design
Parameterisation of the base curve based on the rise and the span

This section is concerned with determining the geometry of polar and transla-
tional linkages based on architecturally relevant design parameters: the rise
r
H and the span S of the circular base curve, as shown in Figure 3.15. The
equations for a geometric design approach will be presented.

Design values:
r
H , S
Unknowns:
in
R , O ,
0
P ,
n
P ,
n
,
58

Figure 3.15: The parameters used in the description of the geometry of the circular arc: rise (H
r
)
and span (S)

First
n in
R , , are found through the following relationships:

|
.
|
\
|
= =

S
H
S
H
r r
2
tan
2
tan
1

(3.1)
( )
( )
2 sin 2
1 2
2 sin
S
R
R
S
in
in
= =
(3.2)
2
2
=
n

(3.3)

The general polar equation of the circular arc is given by Eqn (3.4), with
n n
:
=
=
sin
cos
in
in
R y
R x

(3.4)

n
in
R
59
By joining Eqns (3.1), (3.2) and (3.4) we can now write the equation in terms
of
r
H and S:

|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
sin
2
tan 2 sin
2
1
cos
2
tan 2 sin
2
1
1
1
S
H
S
y
S
H
S
x
r
r

(3.5)

Point ) , 0 (
0 in
R P is the midpoint of the curve and ) sin , cos (
n in n in n
R R P is
an endpoint.

Now the base curve has been derived from two design parameters S and
r
H ,
only two more parameters are to be given a value, in order to fully determine
the complete linkage: the number of units U and the unit thickness t . This is
shown for both a polar and a translational linkage in the following section.

Geometric design of a polar linkage

The base curve can now be fitted with a chosen number of polar units U.
Therefore, the sector angle has to be divided into equal angular portions ,
as shown in Figure 3.16. From Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16, we know that

U =
(3.6)

and
4 =
(3.7)

Therefore,
U
4
=
(3.8)

60
With the inner radius (radius of the base curve)
in
R obtained from Eqn (3.2), a
unit thickness t is chosen, which determines an outer curve with radius
e
R :

t R R
in e
+ =
(3.9)

Because the scissor units from Figure 3.16 are polar units, each bar length L
is divided into two unequal semi-bars a and b . Now the geometry of the
linkage can be totally derived by finding values for semi-bar lengths a , b and
the deployment angle . From Figure 3.16 and from Sastre [1996] we can find
the following relations:
b a L + =
(3.10)

With known from Eqn (3.8) and
in
R ,
e
R known from Eqns (3.2) and (3.9) we
can use the cosine rule to obtain L:
cos 2
2 2 2
e in e in
R R R R L + =
(3.11)

Figure 3.16: Parameters needed for the geometric design of a polar linkage

R
e

R
in
t S

m
n

a
b

61
Through similarity of triangles is
n
m
R
R
e
in
=
(3.12)
and
b
a
n
m
=
(3.13)

Equating (3.12) and (3.13) results in
in e
e
in
R b R a
b
a
R
R
= =
(3.14)

Substituting Eqn (3.10) in Eqn (3.14) gives
e in
e
R R
R L
b
+
=
(3.15)
and
e in
in
R R
R L
a
+
=
(3.16)

Also,
2
sin
a m =
(3.17)
and
2
sin
in
R m =
(3.18)

Finally, by equating (3.17) and (3.18), an expression for the deployment an-
gle is obtained:
|
.
|
\
|
=

2
sin sin 2
1

a
R
in

(3.19)

The complete geometry has now been derived from design parameters H
r
, S, U
and t.

62
Geometric design of translational linkages

This section is concerned with the geometric design of a translational linkage
with constant unit thickness on a base curve. As opposed to the approach pre-
viously described for the polar linkage, a translational linkage is not character-
ised by the angular portions of the sector angle of the arc. This is because the
unit lines for a translational unit are parallel and not radially arranged as is
the case with polar units. Therefore, another approach is used for subdividing
the base curve, which will involve solving a system of equations. First, a circu-
lar arc is used as base curve, but the approach is easily extended to other
curves as well.

Let H
r
and S determine a circular arc as shown in Figure 3.15. Again, a semicir-
cle or an arc segment can be derived, determined by the angle
n
.

The additional design parameters that will fully determine the geometry of the
linkage are the number of units U, the unit thickness t. The number of desired
units U will determine how many intersection points between the unit lines
and the base curve will have to be calculated. To explain the method, a linkage
with U=4 is used. Due to symmetry, only two units are shown.

As shown in Figure 3.17 the location of P
0
and P
2
is known: P
0
is the midpoint
and P
2
the endpoint of the curve. Essentially, the only solution needed is the
position of point P
1
on the base curve.

63

Figure 3.17: Parameters for the geometric design of a translational linkage with four units
(U=4), of which two are shown

Analogous to the geometric construction method previously discussed, the
double ellipse is used for imposing the geometric constraint and determining
the intersection points P
0
, P
1
and P
2
with the base curve (the original, small
ellipses in Figure 3.17 are merely there to illustrate the geometric constraint of
the units, but serve no further purpose in the calculation). Figure 3.18 shows
the relation between the semi-axes of the double ellipse and the unit thick-
ness. Their relation is given by

2 2 2
a b t = (3.20)

P
0
P
1
P
2
t

E
0
E
1
2
P
e
P
in
64
For the given design parameters (U and t) there is only one solution for which
the array of double ellipses in Figure 3.17, fits exactly on the curve, i.e. the
position of P
0
, P
1
and P
2
is exactly as pictured.

Figure 3.18: The relation between the original and the double ellipse in terms of semi-axes a
and b and the unit thickness t

The general polar equation for a circular arc is given by

cos R x =
sin R y =
(3.21)

The general parametric equation for an ellipse, with 2 0 , is given by

cos a x =
sin b y =
(3.22)

For brevity, the radius of the circular arc is denoted by R, but as usual it can be
expressed in terms of the rise and span using Eqn (3.2). The point P
0
(x
0
, y
0
) has
coordinates (0, R) and P
2
is determined by
2
, which in turn can be expressed
in terms of H
r
and S.
t

t

a

b

65

The coordinates of P
1
are determined by the unknown angle
1
. P
1
(x
1
, y
1
) is
located on the base curve and has coordinates:

1 1
cos R x =
1 1
sin R y =
(3.23)

P
1
also lies on ellipse E
0
, with centre P
0
(x
0
, y
0
):

0 0 1
cos x a x + =
0 0 1
sin y b y + =
(3.24)

Equating (3.23) and (3.24) gives:

0 0 1
cos cos x a R + =
(3.25)
0 0 1
sin sin y b R + =
(3.26)

Analogously, we can write the coordinates for point P
2
(x
2
, y
2
), lying on the base
curve:
2 2
cos R x =
2 2
sin R y =
(3.27)

and on ellipse E
1
, with centre P
1
(x
1
, y
1
):

1 1 2
cos x a x + =
1 1 2
sin y b y + =
(3.28)

Equating (3.27) and (3.28) gives:

1 1 2
cos cos x a R + =
(3.29)
1 1 2
sin sin y b R + =
(3.30)

66

Eqns (3.25), (3.26), (3.29), (3.30) and (3.20) form a system of five equations in
five unknowns. With R,
2
and t as input parameters the system can be solved
for
1
, a, b,
0
and
1

=
+ =
+ =
+ =
=
2 2 2
1 1 2
1 1 2
0 1
0 1
sin sin sin
cos cos cos
sin sin
cos cos
a b t
R b R
R a R
R b R
a R

(3.31)

Two different cases can be distinguished:
0
2
= : this evidently means that P
2
lies on the X-axis and coincides
with the endpoint of the circular arc. Therefore, a semi-circle is used
as the base curve.

2
0
2

< < : in this case P
2
lies somewhere on the arc and therefore
only a user-defined portion of the circular arc is used for carrying the
linkage.

Now that a solution for
1
has been found, the coordinates of P
1
is given by
Eqn (3.23). The y-coordinate of the external end nodes P
e
of the scissor units
are easily found by adding an amount 2 / t to the y-coordinates of P
0
, P
1
and P
2
.
Analogously, by subtracting an amount 2 / t the internal nodes P
in
are found.

Calculating higher numbers of units is simply a matter of adding the appropri-
ate equations to the system. Per additional angle (extra intersection points P
on the base curve) to be calculated, two equations are added. Generally, for n
units (U=n) and R,
n
and t as design parameters, the system with 2n+1 equa-
tions for 2n+1 unknowns can be written as
67
=
+ =
+ =
+ =
=

2 2 2
1 1
1 1
0 1
0 1
sin sin sin
cos cos cos
...
sin sin
cos cos
a b t
R b R
R a R
R b R
a R
n n n
n n n

(3.32)
which gives solutions for a, b, { }
1 1
..., ,
n
and { }
1 0
..., ,
n
.

The approach is not limited to circular arcs only. Any equation for a curve can
be used, such as the parametric equation for a parabola. Eqn (3.33) stands for
an inverted (open towards negative y-values) parabola with parameter v.
Figure 3.19 shows such a parabola, of which the focus lies in the origin, as
base curve for a four-unit linkage, of which two are considered due to symme-
try.
v q x 2 =
2
v q y =
(3.33)

Figure 3.19: Translational linkage with U=2 fitted on a parabolic base curve

P
1
P
2
P
0
q

o

Y
X

68
The base curve is determined by assigning a value to q. Analogous to the ap-
proach for circular arcs, values for U and t are chosen. The endpoint of the
base curve P
2
is found by determining v
2
. Now the coordinates of P
1
can be
calculated from a system of five equations in five unknowns:

=
=
+ =
+ =
=
2 2 2
2
1 1
2
2
1 1 2
0
2
1
0 1
sin
2 cos 2
sin
cos 2
a b t
v q b v q
v q a v q
q b v q
a v q

(3.34)

which gives solutions for v
1
, a, b,
0
and
1
. The value obtained for v
1
will suf-
fice for determining the position on the parabola of P
1
, by using Eqn (3.33).

3.2.3 Interactive geometry

The geometric construction of scissor linkages can be automated by using a
program called Cabri Geometry II [2007]. This allows the creation of interac-
tive drawings responding in real-time to changes made by the user. For exam-
ple, the geometry of a translational linkage with constant unit thickness has
been drawn up using the method of the ellipses (Figure 3.20) After altering the
geometry at will, all necessary values for the bar lengths and angles can be
read. This tool has been used by Wouter Decorte [2007], a designer of kinetic
art, for the formfinding of a deployable landscape. It consists of translational
units with constant unit thickness on an arbitrary base curve. Figure 3.21
shows three consecutive deployment stages.

69
Figure 3.20: Screenshot of interactive geometry file in Cabri Geometry II [2007] software for
designing arbitrarily curved translational linkages with constant unit thickness (base curve
marked in black)

Figure 3.21: Deployable landscape consisting of one arbitrarily curved translational linkage re-
peated in an orthogonal grid. Linkage designed using the interactive geometry tool (Aluminium,
4.5 m x 3 m, (photo: courtesy of Wouter Decorte)

70
3.3 Three-dimensional structures

In this section a description will be given of possible configurations for three-
dimensional scissor structures composed of translational and polar units. These
can be designed by utilising the methods discussed in this chapter. There is a
myriad of possible configurations for such structures, all obeying the deploy-
ability constraint, some of which have been reviewed in Section 2.2.4. How-
ever, only part of those will be stress-free deployable, meaning that the scissor
members will be in a stress-free state the stresses induced by selfweight left
aside - before, during and after deployment, effectively behaving like a
mechanism. Two-dimensional scissor linkages obeying the deployability con-
straint will always be stress-free deployable, but it is when they are placed
into a three-dimensional grid that additional effects can come into play.

Linear/Flat Single curvature Double curvature
Figure 3.22: Possible shapes for three-dimensional stress-free deployable structures, which can
be designed using the tools presented

Although, theoretically, the configurations which will be discussed are linkages
(or mechanisms) they will be referred to as structures, because ultimately they
will be used as such in an architectural environment and become stabilised in
order to be able to carry loads. They are classified according to their overall
curvature (plane, single curvature or double curvature), the grid directions
71
(two-, three-, or four-way grid) and the type(s) of units used (translational,
polar or both). The characteristic shapes which can be designed using the
methods previously described are shown in Figure 3.22. In Figure 3.23 and
Figure 3.24 a two-way and a three-way grid are shown with their respective
directions, which will be used to contain the plane or curved translational and
polar linkages.

Figure 3.23: Two-way grid with directions A and B

Figure 3.24: Three-way grid with directions C, D and E

72
3.3.1 Linear structures

The most elementary three-dimensional shape is the linear structure, which is
often used as a prismatic column, masts or beam. It consists of translational or
polar units, or a combination thereof. As these linear structure deploy, their
length increases while their width decreases (Figure 3.25, left). Also, combina-
tions of scissor units and non-deployable elements are possible, in which case
the non-deployable elements give the structure a certain initial width, which
is invariable throughout the deployment (Figure 3.25., right).

Square and triangular beam Square and trapezoidal arch

Triangular column Quadrangular column
Figure 3.25: Linear elements prismatic columns arches
(left): linear elements consisting solely of scissor units
(right): Parallel scissor units connected by non-deployable elements
73
This concept can be extended to the structures shown in Figure 3.26. Here, the
non-deployable elements are of such length, that a space enclosure is formed.
By laterally connecting arches of increasing size by non-deployable elements,
numerous variations become possible with single or double curvature (Figure
3.26, bottom right). Also, three-dimensional linear structures can be placed
parallelly and become mutually connected (Figure 3.26, top left).

Parallel triangular 3D-arches Parallel 2D- arches
Polar and translational linkages Scaled 2D-arches
Figure 3.26: Parallel linear structures connected by non-deployable elements
74
3.3.2 Plane grid structures

These are structures with zero curvature (zeroclastic) and consist of plane
(rectilinear) translational linkages placed on either a two-, three- or four-way
grid.
Two-way grid
Translational units
This is the simplest of geometries. Plane translational units are placed in direc-
tions A and B of a two-way grid with square of rhombus-shaped cells (Figure
3.27).

Plan view Perspective view

Elevation view

Figure 3.27: Plane translational units on a two-way grid
75
Three-way grid
Translational units
By placing plane translational linkages in three directions C, D and E of a
three-way grid, a plane grid is formed with equilateral grid cells (Figure 3.28).


Elevation view

Figure 3.28: Plane translational units on a three-way grid
76
Four-way grid
Translational units
By adding two more directions diagonally to the already present orthogonal
directions A and B of the grid in Figure 3.29, a four-way grid structure is
formed with isosceles grid cells. Per grid cell, the four units contained in the
diagonal directions are basically identical to those in directions A and B, ex-
cept that they are shortened, to fit inside the grid cells. It should be noted that
for the grid to be stress-free deployable, all units have to be plane. Using
curved units on the diagonals would render the geometry bi-stable.


Elevation view

Figure 3.29: Plane translational units on a four-way grid
77
3.3.3 Single curvature grid structures

Cylindrical grids are monoclastic shapes, often referred to as barrel vaults.
They are obtained by curving one direction of a two-way grid, or two, respec-
tively three directions of a three-way grid.
Two-way grid
Translational units
A combination of plane and curved translational units is used to form a trans-
lational barrel vault with an orthogonal grid. Grid direction A is kept plane,
while curvature is introduced in direction B (Figure 3.30).


Elevation view

Figure 3.30: Plane and curved translational units on a two-way grid
78

Polar and translational units
Rows of polar units are now contained in curved direction B, while direction A
contains plane translational units. This structure is referred to as a polar barrel
vault (Figure 3.31).


Elevation view

Figure 3.31: Polar and translational units on a two-way grid
79
Three-way grid
Translational units
Plane and curved translational units are placed in a three-way grid. Direction
C contains plane translational units, while D and E contain curved units
(Figure 3.32). The result is a translational barrel vault with isosceles grid cells.
During deployment the angles inside the grid cells vary slightly, a phenomenon
called angular distortion. This will be explained in greater detail in Section
6.4.1.


Elevation view

Figure 3.32: Plane and curved translational units on a three-way grid
80

Polar and translational units (variation 1)
Now direction C, which contains polar units, is curved and placed in the direc-
tion of the span (transverse direction). Directions D and E are also curved, but
run diagonally over the span and contain translational units (Figure 3.33). The
rows of translational units warp out of their common plane during deploy-
ment. In order for this structure to be deployable, the bars of each transla-
tional unit have to be able to move apart by sliding along their intermediate
pivot hinge.


Elevation view

Figure 3.33: Polar units on a three-way grid (variation 1)
81

Polar and translational units (variation 2)
Direction C contains translational units and is placed perpendicular to the
span (longitudinal direction). Directions D and E are also curved, but run di-
agonally over the span and contain polar units (Figure 3.34). The rows of
translational units in direction C warp out of their common plane during de-
ployment. In order for this structure to be deployable, the bars of each transla-
tional unit have to be able to move apart by sliding along their intermediate
pivot hinge.


Elevation view

Figure 3.34: Polar and translational units on a three-way grid (variation 2)
82
3.3.4 Double curvature grid structures
Two-way grid
Translational units
Translational units are placed in a two-way grid. A linkage of any curvature
can be repeatedly placed in the grid in one direction (A). When the same link-
age is also placed in the perpendicular direction (B), a synclastic shape is ob-
tained (Figure 3.35). When the linkage in direction B is inverted, an anticlastic
shape is obtained (Figure 3.36a). As long as a constant unit thickness is used
throughout the structure, any two arbitrarily curved linkages can be combined
in a grid (Figure 3.36b). Using translational units of constant unit thickness in
a two-way grid is a very powerful method of creating structures with positive
or negative Gaussian curvature [Langbecker, 1999, 2001].


Elevation view

Figure 3.35: Translational units on a two-way grid (synclastic shape)
83

Variations

Anticlastic shape (a) Arbitrary curvature (b)
Figure 3.36: Two variations for translational units on a two-way grid
84
Lamella grid
Spherical lamella grids have rhombus-shaped cells which are arranged circu-
larly around a pole of the structure. They are deployed radially, either from the
edge toward the centre or vice versa, in which case an opening exists in the
middle.

Translational units
Curved translational units with constant unit thickness are placed in radial
direction, to form a translational lamella dome (Figure 3.37).


Elevation view

Figure 3.37: Translational units on a lamella grid
85

Polar units
Identical polar units are arranged radially to form a polar lamella dome (Figure
3.38).

3.4 Conclusion

In this chapter the basic principles behind the design of deployable scissor
structures composed of translational or polar scissor units have been ex-
plained.

It has been demonstrated how two-dimensional scissor linkages, with either
translational or polar units, can be obtained by pure geometric construction,
based on the geometric deployability constraint (Section 2.2.3). Several meth-
ods for obtaining polar linkages based on a circular base curve and transla-
tional linkages based on any curve have been discussed.

Elevation view

Figure 3.38: Polar units on a lamella grid
86

A geometric design method, for which the equations have been derived, has
been proposed, based on the key design parameters for a space enclosure: the
rise and span. It has been shown how based on these parameters, a base curve
is determined, which is subsequently translated into a scissor geometry in its
deployed configuration.

Two-dimensional scissor linkages which comply with the deployability con-
straint are always stress-free deployable, since the bi-stable deployment is
caused by geometric incompatibilities associated with a three-dimensional
configuration. For three-dimensional grid structures, the deployability con-
straint is therefore a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for stress-free
deployability. It has been found that, whether or not a certain configuration
will be stress-free deployable, fully depends on the specific combination of the
grid type (two-, or three-way), unit type (translational and/or polar) and cur-
vature (plane, single or double). To assist the designer in the choice of a suit-
able configuration, the stress-free deployable configurations known from lit-
erature have been identified and discussed.

It was found that designing single curvature structures (plane grids, barrel
vaults) is quite straightforward when translational (plane or curved) and/or
polar units are used on a two-way or three-way grid, provided that a constant
unit thickness is imposed throughout the structure. But when it comes to us-
ing these units in doubly curved deployable grids (domes, saddle shapes, arbi-
trarily curved) some care must be taken in preserving the stress-free deploy-
ability. As opposed to polar units, for which the only valid stress-free deploy-
able geometry is a lamella dome, translational units can be used for a myriad
of arbitrarily curved double curvature grids, provided that a constant unit
thickness is used throughout the structure and the sums of the semi-lengths
of the scissor bars is constant. This has lead to the conclusion that transla-
tional units are a powerful means for designing stress-free deployable bar
structures with positive or negative curvature.

Chapter 4 Design of Foldable Plate Structures
87
Chapter 4
Design of Foldable Plate Structures
4.1 Introduction

This chapter extends the work of Foster [1986/87] and Tonon [1991, 1993]
who have proposed a variety of geometric shapes for foldable plate structures
such as beams, barrel vaults and some doubly curved surfaces, as discussed in
Section 2.3. However, not all configurations are foldable: some are merely de-
mountable while others are constructed from smaller foldable sub-structures
that have to be joined together afterwards [Hanaor, 2001]. Since the focus of
this research is on rapidly erectable structures, only fully foldable configura-
tions are discussed.

An insight in the basic fold patterns and the impact they have on the geome-
try of the final deployed configuration is offered. The individual plate geometry
as well as the complete fold pattern in both the flatly folded and the final de-
ployed configuration are thoroughly described.

An advance is made in the design process by developing a geometric design
method for which the necessary equations are derived. These equations are
used to geometrically describe regular structures, which are single curvature
structures (barrel vaults) characterised by a linear deployment. Additional pa-
rameters, such as the expansion ratio, as a measure for the increase in size
between the compacted, stowed configuration and the fully deployed configu-
ration, are introduced.

The geometric design method is then extended to right-angled structures a
variation of the regular structures and circular structures. The latter are
foldable domes characterised by a circular deployment. It is shown that it is
possible, with appropriately chosen design values, to connect single and dou-
ble curvature modules to form alternative foldable shapes, with maximum
plate uniformity.
88

Figure 4.1: Typical foldable plate structure

4.2 Geometry of foldable plate structures

Foldable plate structures consist of a series of triangular plates, connected at
their edges by continuous joints, allowing each plate to rotate relative to its
neighbouring plate. The plates can fold into a flat stack and unfold into a pre-
determined three-dimensional configuration, as the one shown in Figure 4.1.
The origami-like fold pattern consists of intersecting mountain folds (continu-
ous lines) and valley folds (dashed lines), as shown in Figure 4.2. A fold pattern
consists of a repetition of the basic plate element marked P, which is of trian-
gular shape and must possess one angle of at least 90. An array of several
interconnected plates in the directrix direction is called a module, marked M.
Now, the fold pattern can be expanded by repeating the module M any num-
ber of times in the generatrix direction. In this case both patterns consist of
two modules (m=2), which leads to the smallest symmetrical and usable solu-
tion. Foldable plate structures can be characterised by the number of plates (p)
they have in the span, which is found by adding up the number of whole and
half elements in one module. The possible values for p are all odd integers
equal to or greater than five. The minimal configuration (p=5) with two mod-
ules (m=2) is depicted in Figure 4.2. Even values for p would make the struc-
ture asymmetrical and are therefore discarded. Another important parameter is
89
the apex angle at which the mountain fold lines intersect. The apex angle
strongly influences the way curvature is introduced during deployment. So
together, the three main design parameters p, m and of the fold pattern,
determine the overall morphology of the structure and its behaviour during
deployment.

Figure 4.2: Fold patterns of type A and B for the smallest possible regular structure (p=5)

The apex angle can range from 90 to 180 and can be identical or variable
throughout the structure. When all s are identical the structure is called
regular, while changing one of the apex angles makes it irregular. Countless
variations of shapes are possible but generally speaking the more exotic the
fold pattern becomes, the less useful the resulting structure will be as a fold-
able space enclosure. Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 show that minor changes, such
as altering the outer most apex angle of pattern A to 90 (the minimum), can
give it an interesting quality: the fully folded configuration is much compacter
that the one of pattern A and B, shown in Figure 4.2, although all patterns
have p=5 and share the same dimensions. Another consequence is that the
triangular plate located at the base becomes quadrangular which makes in-
corporating an entrance in the side panel easier than would be the case with
triangular panels as in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4. Also, this so called right-
angled structure has increased headroom near the sides when compared to its
regular counterpart.

90

Figure 4.3: Unfolded and fully folded configuration of patterns A and B (p=5)

Figure 4.4: Elevation view of the compactly folded and fully deployed configuration for a regular
structure with five plates and an apex angle of 120

91

Figure 4.5: Right-angled fold pattern: altering one apex angle to 90 enables a compacter folded
configuration (introduction of quadrangular plates near the sides)

Figure 4.6: Elevation view of compactly folded and fully deployed configuration for a right-
angled structure with five plates and an apex angle of 120

A specific class of foldable structures which are of interest are the regular
structures with their apex angle being a multiple or sub-multiple of 360. In
their most compact, fully folded configuration there is only one corresponding
apex angle for each specific number of plates p for which the edges of the
end plates meet to form a closed circle. When designing a mobile structure,
looking for the most compact folded configuration for a regular structure can
only improve transportability. The example shown in Figure 4.7 is a regular
structure with seven panels in the span (p=7), which will fold to its most com-
pact form, only when the apex angle is 120.

92

Figure 4.7: Three stages of deployment for a basic regular foldable structure (p=7; =120):
completely unfolded, erected position and fully compacted for transport

A greater apex angle would cause the folded configuration to be less compact
and show a gap, while a smaller apex angle would cause an overlap, therefore
making the configuration unable to fold. Eqn (4.1) returns the apex angle
(degrees) for a given number of plates p and the first eight pairs of p and are
shown in Table 4.1.

( )
( ) 1
3
=
p
p

(4.1)

93

p []
5 90
7 120
9 135
11 144
13 150
15 154,3
17 157,5
19 160
Table 4.1: The first eight values for in terms of p for compactly foldable regular structures

The first three configurations from Table 4.1 (p=5, p=7, p=9) are pictured in
Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9.

p=5; =90 p=7; =120 p=9; =135

Figure 4.8: Plate element, compactly folded configuration and fully deployed configuration
(front elevation) for the first three compactly foldable structures (p=5, p=7, p=9)

94

p=5; =90 p=7; =120 p=9; =135

Figure 4.9: Side elevation of the fully deployed configuration of the first three compactly fold-
able structures (p=5, p=7, p=9)

It is interesting to note what influence the apex angle has on the overall ge-
ometry. Figure 4.10 shows two structures with similar fold patterns and the
same number of panels (p=5). Although they have a different apex angle, their
projection (or silhouette) in the erected position is identical. This means that
for a certain number of elements the width of the resulting structure can be
dramatically increased, simply by increasing the apex angle. As a result, mate-
rial can be used more economically, since the structure with an increased apex
angle will reach more width with the same amount of connections. This ex-
plains an important characteristic concerning the design of such structures.
From an architectural point of view, the span and the rise of a structure can
be treated as key design parameters, as they determine the silhouette of the
structure in vertical projection. This implies that for a certain chosen number
of plates and a chosen rise and span, a myriad of possible configurations exist,
all equal in projection, but with different actual plate dimensions. Since these
plate dimensions, together with the apex angle , determine whether or not
the configuration will be compactly foldable, it is important to choose the ap-
propriate plate geometry that will lead to the required deployed shape.

95

Figure 4.10: For a chosen number of panels p the apex angle can be altered at will, affecting
the width of the structure and the compactly folded state

4.3 Geometric design

In order to design these structures, a parameterisation of a single module and
the structure as a whole is needed. This provides us with a description of all
relevant design parameters such as the apex angle (), bar length (L), the span
(S), rise (H
r
), width (W) and the number of plates (p) in one module. In order to
understand the way the various design parameters affect the deployment be-
haviour and the geometry of the various configurations, we need to establish
their mutual relationships. A significant parameter is the deployment angle ,
measured between a triangular face and the vertical axis, as shown in Figure
4.11. The deployment angle determines to what degree a structure is un-
folded with values ranging from 0 (fully compacted configuration) to 90
(flat, completely unfolded position). In between these extremes there is a
unique value for that corresponds with the fully erected position, i.e. a semi-
circular shape for the regular structure when viewed in elevation. For an ir-
regular structure such as the one depicted in Figure 4.5 we are looking for the
configuration whereby the side plates are standing perfectly vertical.

96

Figure 4.11: Parameters used to characterise a foldable structure: length L, span S, width W,
apex angle and the deployment angle

Figure 4.12: A foldable plate and its parameters: length L, height H, H1, H2, apex angle , the
deployment angle and angles ,
1
,
2

The following relationships can be derived from Figure 4.12:

/2
L
H
H
2
H
1
H
r

97
2

=
(4.2)
tan
2
L
H =
(4.3)
cos
1
H H =
(4.4)
1 1
tan
2

L
H =
(4.5)
sin
2
H H =
(4.6)
2 2
tan
2

L
H =
(4.7)

Substituting (4.3) in (4.4) and (4.6), and equating (4.4) to (4.5) and (4.6) to
(4.7) gives:

cos tan tan
1
=
(4.8)
sin tan tan
2
=
(4.9)

Equations (4.8) and (4.9) will be used to determine the relationship between
the apex angle, the number of plates and the deployment angle for regular,
right-angled and circular structures.

4.3.1 Regular structures

The geometric relationship between the apex angle, the number of plates and
the deployment angle can now be derived. There is a unique value for the de-
ployment angle that corresponds with the fully erected position of the regular
structure (although in reality the deployment angle can range from 0 to 90,
when is mentioned hereafter, it is this unique value for the fully deployed
configuration that is being referred to). As Figure 4.1, Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4
show, in this deployed position the bottom most (half) panels touch the
ground along their bottom edge and in elevation view the silhouette of the
structure is a perfect semi-circle. It can be described as a barrel vault with
cylindrical curvature.

98
Eqn (4.8) allows
1
to be written in terms of and :
( ) cos tan tan
1
1

= (4.10)

Figure 4.13 represents the projection in the vertical plane of a regular plate
linkage with p plates. Empirically, it can be observed that
1
is a sub-multiple
of /2. This results in the following equation:
( )
2
1
1

= p
(4.11)

Figure 4.13: Perspective view and side elevation of the vertical projection of a plate linkage for
empirically determining the relationship between
1
and p

Substituting (4.2) and (4.11) in (4.10) gives:
( )
2
cos
2
tan tan 1
1

p
(4.12)

Finally, Eqn (4.13) gives the value of in terms of p and for regular struc-
tures:
( )

=

2
tan
1 2
tan cos
1

p

(4.13)

The relationship between these parameters for geometries with p=5, p=7 and
p=9 is plotted in the graph of Figure 4.14. For example, looking at the regular
structures of Figure 4.10 we can see that, while both configurations have p=5,
1
99
the one on the left has =120 and the one on the right has =90. From the
graph we can read the appropriate deployment angle for both structures:
44.16 and 65.53 respectively.

Looking at the graph from Figure 4.14 we can draw the following conclusions:
The higher the number of plates, the blunter the apex angle can be.
There is, for a given number of plates, a minimum and maximum value
for the apex angle. These values are given in Table 4.2. Lower or higher
values generate configurations that cannot be made into a foldable
structure
For a fixed number of plates, an increased apex angle means a de-
creased deployment angle
For a fixed apex angle, increasing the number of plates also increases
the deployment angle

Relationship between the apex angle and the deployment
angle for REGULAR STRUCTURES
p=5 p=7 p=9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155
Apex angle [deg]
D
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

a
n
g
l
e

[
d
e
g
]

Figure 4.14: The relationship between the apex angle and the deployment angle for regular
structures with p=5, p=7 and p=9

100

Number of plates p min[] max []
5 90 135
7 120 150
9 135 157.5
Table 4.2: Minimum and maximum possible apex angles for regular structures with 5, 7 or 9
plates

Figure 4.15: Elevation view and perspective view of the deployment of a regular five-plate
structure with =120

Crucial to the design of space enclosures are the span and rise, which are in-
fluenced by the number of plates and their length. The relationship between
the number of plates p, the plate length L, the span S (defined between the
outer points) and the rise H
r
for regular structures is expressed by Eqns (4.14)
and (4.15). Table 4.3 shows the span S and rise H
r
for a given number of plates
p for regular foldable structures in terms of the plate length L.

=
1
tan
p
S L

(4.14)

101
Because in projection the profile is a semi-circle, the rise is given by
2
S
H
r
=
(4.15)

p S (x L) H
r
(x L)
5 1.41 0.71
7 2.00 1.00
9 2.61 1.31
Table 4.3: The span S and rise R for a given number of plates p of regular foldable structures in
terms of the plate length L.

An expression can be found for the relationship between the width w of a sin-
gle module and the plate length L, the apex angle , the deployment angle
for both regular and right-angled structures. From Figure 4.11 it can be seen
that the width w of a single deployed module is equal to H
2
. By substituting
Eqn (4.9) in (4.7) we obtain the following expression for w:
sin tan
2
L
w =
(4.16)
Substituting Eqn (4.2) in (4.16) gives an expression for w in terms of and :

sin
2
tan
2

=
L
w
(4.17)
Or in other form:
sin
2
cot
2
L
w =
(4.18)
Eqn (4.19) gives the total width W in terms of the number of modules m.
w m W =
(4.19)

An important characteristic in transportable structures is the compactness of
the flatly folded plate linkage in its stowed condition. The space required will
be the volume determined by the area of the polygonal footprint of the folded
configuration and the total thickness of the stack of plates, determined by the
individual plate thickness.

For the fully foldable configurations from Figure 4.8, the area of the polygon is
expressed in terms of the edge length L
edge.
. Figure 4.16 shows the relationship
102
between the apex angle , the plate length L and the edge length L
edge
which
allows the following relationship to be written:
2
sin 2

L
L
edge
=
(4.20)

Now that the edge length L
edge
of the polygon is known, the area can be ex-
pressed. Figure 4.16 shows the expressions for the area of a polygon in terms
of its edge length [Mathworld, 2007].

p=5; =90 p=7; =120 p=9; =135

2
2
edge
L

2
3
2
3
edge
L ( )
2
2 1 2
edge
L +
Figure 4.16: The parameters associated with the polygonal contour of the flatly folded configu-
rations with p=5, p=7 and p=9 and the expressions for the area in terms of the edge length L
edge

Using Eqn (4.20) and the expressions from Figure 4.16, the area of the com-
pact configuration is expressed in terms of L
edge
for the three basic fully fold-
able configurations (Table 4.4).

Configuration Area
compact
p=5, =90 0.5
2
L
p=7, =120 0.87
2
L
p=9, =135 1.41
2
L
Table 4.4: The area of the compact configuration for (p=5, =90), (p=7, =120) and (p=9,
=135) in terms of the plate length L

L
L
edge

103
The area of the sectional profile of the fully folded configuration gives us in-
formation on the space the fully deployed configuration will occupy. The span
S has been defined as the distance between the lower extremities of the circu-
lar profile (Figure 4.11). The area of the sectional profile equals the area of a
semi-circle with radius Hr. Using the expressions for H
r
in terms of the plate
length L from Table 4.3, we can now express the area of the sectional profile
for the deployed configurations, for which the results are given in Table 4. 5.

Configuration Area
deployed
p=5, =90 0.79
2
L
p=7, =120 1.57
2
L
p=9, =135 2.7
2
L
Table 4. 5: The area of the sectional profile of the deployed configuration for (p=5, =90), (p=7,
=120) and (p=9, =135) in terms of the plate length L

Now, the ration between the compacted shape and the fully deployed configu-
ration can be expressed as the expansion ratio :
deployed
compact
Area
Area
=
(4.21)
The values for are given in Table 4. 6. It can be seen that the smallest con-
figuration demonstrates the largest expansion.

Configuration Expansion ratio

p=5, =90 0.63
p=7, =120 0.55
p=9, =135 0.52
Table 4. 6: The expansion ratio for (p=5, =90), (p=7, =120) and (p=9, =135)

The plate thickness has a great impact on the compactness of the stowed con-
figuration. As can be observed from Figure 4.3, Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.15, the
geometry of these structures is such, that each module (as defined in Figure
4.2) in its flatly folded configuration consists of two overlapping layers of
plates. When t
p
represents the thickness of a single plate element, then the
104
total thickness T
p
of the compactly folded configuration with m modules is
given by:
p p
t m T 2 =
(4.22)

The expressions for the area and the thickness of the compactly folded con-
figuration allow to determine the volume in the stowed position, simply by
multiplying Area
compact
by the total plate thickness T
p
. Also, the volume occupied
by the fully deployed configuration can be determined by multiplying the area
of the sectional profile Area
deployed
by the total width W from Eqn (4.19).

4.3.2 Right-angled structures

Analogously, when p and are known, the deployment angle for a right-
angled structure such as the one in Figure 4.5 can be calculated by solving Eqn
(4.23) for :

( )
2 2
tan cos tan 2
2
cot cos tan 3
1 1

p
(4.23)

The approach used for deriving Eqn (4.23) is identical to the empirical method
used for regular structures and will therefore not be repeated.

When looking at the graph from Figure 4.17, it is clear that altering the first
and last apex angles to 90 generates a completely different behaviour as
compared to regular structures:
The higher the number of plates, the less sharp the apex angle can be.
There is, for a given number of plates, a minimum and maximum value
for the apex angle, which is given in Table 4.7. Lower values generate
configurations that cannot be made into a foldable structure
For a fixed number of plates, an increased apex angle means an in-
creased deployment angle
For a fixed apex angle, increasing the number of plates also increases
the deployment angle
105

Relation between apex angle and deployment angle for RIGHT-
ANGLED STRUCTURES
p=5
p=7
p=9
65
70
75
80
85
90
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Apex angle [deg]
D
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

a
n
g
l
e

[
d
e
g
]

Figure 4.17: The relationship between the apex angle and the deployment angle for right-
angled structures with p=5, p=7 and p=9

Number of plates p
min
[]
max
[]
5 90 180
7 120 180
9 135 180
Table 4.7: Minimum and maximum possible apex angles for right-angled structures with 5, 7 or
9 plates, as can be read from the graph in Figure 9

Although the apex angle can range from min to 180, the highest values will
generate quite useless structures since their structural thickness converges to
zero. As opposed to the regular structures from Figure 4.8, there is no unique
optimal value for the apex angle for which a right-angled structure with
p=5 will be compactly foldable without overlap or gap. All valid values for
(from the graph in Figure 4.17) will lead to compactly foldable five-plate con-
figurations. This can be seen in Figure 4.18, which shows three configurations
for p=5, each of which has a different apex angle. No matter which apex angle
106
is chosen (within bounds imposed by Eqn (4.23) and Figure 4.17), all resulting
configurations are compactly foldable.

p=5; =90; =65.5 p=5; =120; =68.1 p=5; =135; =71.5

Figure 4.18: Plate element, fold pattern, compactly folded configuration and fully deployed con-
figuration (front elevation and side elevation) for three compactly foldable five-plate right-
angled structures (drawn to scale)

To form an alternative configuration, a five-plate configuration of a right-
angled structure can be connected to a regular structure, when a type B pat-
tern is used (Figure 4.2). When five plates are used, such patterns will always
have an identical vertical edge, for any value for . By connecting along this
common edge, linear arrays of regular and right-angled structures are possible,
as shown in Figure 4.19.

107

Figure 4.19: Only for p=5 can any regular and any right-angled structure be interconnected
along a common edge, regardless of the value for

4.3.3 Circular structures

Formulas for the geometric design in terms of the apex angle and the number
of plates have been proposed. Not only single curvature structures with linear
deployment are possible: dome-like structures with circular deployment can
also be used as foldable space enclosures. As opposed to regular structures,
their fold pattern cannot be developed in a plane. To flatten the shape, radial
incisions have to be made. The foldable dome from Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21
consists of a radial pattern of sectors joined together along their common
edge. When this configuration is cut along one radius, it can be folded into a
compact stack of plates by rotating its sectors around a vertical axis. These
configurations are characterised by the number of sectors q that make up a
full circle in plan view: in this case q=8. Empirically, it has been found that its
value can be any even integer equal to or greater than six (due to apex angle
restrictions for
min
). Values below six would give rise to non-foldable solu-
tions. An interesting application is to connect half of a dome to an array of
regular structures, making a fully closed space enclosure, as shown in Figure
4.23. It would make the design process and fabrication easier when a single
plate size could be used for both the half domes and the regular structure.
Therefore, once the number of sectors q is chosen, the resulting apex angle
for the circular structure is also used for the regular structure, leading to a
geometry with uniform plate elements.
Identical
vertical edge
108

Figure 4.20: Top view and perspective view of circular foldable structure

Fold pattern developed in a plane Sector module
Figure 4.21: Fold pattern and a single sector of a circular structure with q=8

Let q be the number of sectors in the circular structure, which can be freely
chosen. Again, the geometric relationships derived from Figure 4.12 are used.

Figure 4.22: Horizontal projection of a plate linkage for empirically determining the relationship
between
2
and q

2
109
Eqn (4.9) allows
2
to be written in terms of and :

( ) sin tan tan
1
2

= (4.24)

Figure 4.22 represents the horizontal projection of half a circular plate linkage.
Empirically, it can be observed that
2
is a sub-multiple of . This results in the
following equation:

=
2
q
(4.25)

Substituting Eqn (4.2) and Eqn (4.24) in Eqn (4.25) gives the relationship be-
tween q, and for circular structures:

2
tan sin tan
1
q
(4.26)

Or in other form

=

2
tan tan sin
1

q

(4.27)

When a number of units q is chosen, solving Eqns (4.13) and (4.27) simultane-
ously will return a unique value for and the corresponding deployment angle
. Table 4.8 gives for a chosen q the appropriate and . For example, the
combined regular-circular structure (p=5, q=8) from Figure 4.23 has =119.3
and =45 throughout the entire structure.
110

For p=5
q [] []
6 109.2 54.3
8 119.3 45.0
10 124.5 38.1
12 127.5 32.9
14 129,4 28.9
16 130.6 25.7
Table 4.8: Values for and for a chosen q (circular structure), combined with a regular struc-
ture (p=5)

Figure 4.23: Connecting a regular module with two half-domes leads to an alternative fully
closed configuration with high plate uniformity

Figure 4.24 shows the first three configurations (q=6, q=8 and q=10) for cir-
cular structures which are calculated with Eqns (4.13) and (4.27). They are
combined with a compatible regular structure (p=5) with identical plate ele-
ments. Although Eqn (4.13), when used separately, allows the calculation of
regular structures with any number of plates (p>5), the combined calculation
for the fully closed configuration using Eqns (4.13) and (4.27) is only specifi-
cally applicable to regular structures with five plates, combined with a circular
structure with any q equal to, or greater than six. Empirically, it has been
found that regular structures with a higher number of plates (e.g. p=7) cannot
be mutually connected with a seven-plate circular counterpart, if all plates
remain identical. With uniform plates, no common edge for connecting the
111
structures was found. At this stage, it is unclear whether an irregular geometry
with variable apex angles can be found which would solve this problem.

q=6; =109.21;
=54.34
q=8; =119.28;
=44.9
q=10; =124.47;
=38.11

Figure 4.24: Circular structure with q=6, q=8 and q=10 (top view) and its respective combina-
tion with a compatible regular structure (perspective view)

4.3.4 Alternative configurations

By using the previously discussed regular, right-angled and circular plate
structures as building blocks, certain alternative configurations can be com-
posed. Figure 4.25 shows a few possible variations.

112

Figure 4.25: Some examples of alternative configurations

4.4 Conclusion

In this chapter the findings of Foster [1986/87] and Tonon [1991, 1993], who
have proposed a number of geometric shapes for foldable plate structures
have been extended. Some foldable configurations are merely demountable
while others are constructed from smaller foldable sub-structures that have to
be joined together afterwards [Hanaor, 2001], thus compromising the trans-
portability and the speed of erection. Therefore, a geometric design method
has been developed which entails the design of fully foldable and rapidly
erectable configurations with single or double curvature.

A comprehensive study of the design parameters (deployment angle, apex an-
gle, plate length, number of plates) has provided a thorough insight in the ge-
ometry of individual plates and the fold patterns they constitute, as well as
113
the impact on the compactly folded shape and the final deployed configura-
tion.

An advance has been made in the design process by developing a geometric
design method for which the necessary equations have been derived. These
equations are used to geometrically describe regular structures, which are sin-
gle curvature structures (barrel vaults) characterised by a linear deployment.

By introducing the deployment angle , it was made possible to derive equa-
tions - expressed in terms of the apex angle and the number of plates p -
which explain the relationship between the plate geometry and the fully de-
ployed configuration. By analysing these formulas and the resulting graphs, an
understanding has been provided on what minimum and maximum values for
and p give rise to compactly, fully foldable configurations.

Additional characteristics, such as the expansion ratio a measure for the in-
crease in size between the compact and the deployed state - have been stud-
ied and expressed in terms of the key parameters, i.e. the plate length and the
apex angle.

It has been shown that, by slightly altering the regular plate geometry, an in-
teresting variation arises: a right-angled structure. This variation provides, in
its deployed configuration, increased headroom near the sides of the structure
and has quadrangular side panels, providing the option of a larger entrance
space. It has also been found that, for a five-plate geometry, this type of
structure is always compactly foldable. The design method has been extended
to include right-angled structures, as well as circular structures. The latter are
foldable domes characterised by a circular deployment.

Further, it has been proven possible that, by solving the equations for dome-
like configurations and regular configurations simultaneously, a single plate
element is found which can be used for both regular (single curvature) and
circular (double curvature) shapes with five plates. Because of the plate uni-
formity, it was shown possible to combine these shapes into alternative double
curvature shapes.
114
The current geometric design method is based on basic foldable shapes with a
circular sectional profile and with high plate uniformity. The approach can be
extended to include single and double curvature shapes with variable curva-
ture. Although the method provided allows the design of regular foldable
structures with any number of plates, the equations for circular structures, as
well as those for the combined shapes, are currently valid for the smallest
configuration (p=5). Further study is required to include configurations with a
higher number of plates.

Chapter 5 Introduction to the Case Studies
115
Chapter 5
Introduction to the Case Studies

Figure 5.1: Some of the concepts for mobile structures presented in the following chapters
116
5.1 Introduction

This chapter serves as an introduction to the concepts proposed in the follow-
ing chapters, in which a number of case studies will be discussed, bringing into
practice the findings and methodologies presented in the previous chapters.

All concepts presented are mobile structures for architectural applications that
use either scissor-hinged bars or bars connected by foldable joints combined
with a tensile surface for weather protection (Figure 5.1). An advance is made
in the field of mobile structures by proposing novel concepts for deployable
bar structures or by making use of existing concepts in an alternative, novel
way.

Four case studies, in which these concepts are put into practice, are chosen in
such a way that a variety of structural systems is used: bars, cables and mem-
branes in single and double curvature shapes, built from translational and po-
lar scissor units on a triangular (case study 1) or quadrangular grid (case study
2), or based on the geometry of foldable plate structures (case study 3), or
angulated (hobermans) units connected in a linear way (case study 4). The
geometry of the case studies is chosen in such a way that mutual comparison
becomes possible. Per case study, a general description is given and the overall
geometry, together with the dimensions, is discussed.

As part of a feasibility study in which the proposed concepts are evaluated
architecturally, kinematically and structurally, this chapter elaborates on the
approach taken for the structural analysis of the case studies. It is explained
how a simplified approach is used for the preliminary design and what con-
secutive steps are taken in the structural analysis. By using Eurocode 1 [2007],
the wind and snow loads are calculated and it is shown how these will effect
the different load zones of the structure.

117
5.2 Geometry

The first three case studies are concepts for small, easily erectable mobile
shelters of semi-cylindrical shape (barrel vault). Deriving all three geometries
from the same basic shape - a semicircle with a radius of 3 m - makes com-
parison in terms of architectural and structural qualities more convenient
(Figure 5.2). The length of the barrel vaults is approximately 10 m, which does
not exceed the maximum length/width ratio for barrel vaults of 2:1. In case
several structures are connected in the longitudinal direction, and therefore
exceeding the length/width ratio, diaphragm walls or some kind of stiffening
cable arrangement should be introduced. Also, the structural thickness t is
chosen to be identical for each case. These barrel vaults are open structures
with no back nor front, as shown in Figure 5.3. Then, using the same structural
elements from the single curvature structures, alternative configurations are
proposed, to form double curvature shapes with a fully closed surface. The sin-
gle and double curvature shapes will be referred to as open, respectively closed
structures.

Case study 1 Case study 2 Case study 3
Figure 5.2: Front elevation view of cases studies shows the mutual similarity of the geometry.
Case study 1, 2 and 3 are based on the same shape (semicircle with radius of 3 m)

t t
t
118

Figure 5.3: Overall geometry for the case studies: single curvature shape (open) and double cur-
vature shape (closed)

The first case study consists of translational scissor units placed on a three-
way grid (Figure 5.4). Scissor structures with translational units can be easily
made into single or double curvature structures with a quadrangular grid.
Two-way grids have quadrangular grid cells which make them susceptible to
skewing (angular distortion of the grid cells). The proposed concept is a varia-
tion: a single curvature shape with translational units on a three-way grid (tri-
angular grid cells). This makes triangulation of the grid cells, to counter the
skewing effect, obsolete.

Figure 5.4: Perspective view of the single and double curvature geometries
for cases studies 1, 2 and 3

119
Polar scissor arches, combined with translational units on a two-way grid are
used for the second case study (Figure 5.4). Using polar scissor arches is an
effective way of introducing curvature in a quadrangular scissor grid, there-
fore, these polar barrel vault structures are relatively common. Identical polar
units can also be used to make a deployable dome-like shape with rhombus-
shaped grid cells, otherwise called a lamella dome. As a variation, two halves
of this dome are added to the open structure to turn it into a closed, double
curvature shape.

The third case study has its geometry and kinematic behaviour based on that
of foldable plate structures. Instead of plates, bars are used as structural com-
ponents to hold up a membrane surface (Figure 5.4). The reason for using a
continuous membrane instead of separate plates is explained in Section 8.1.
The bars are connected by foldable joints, which behaves like a miniature fold-
able plate mechanism. Optionally, scissor units can be added to influence the
kinematic behaviour.

The fourth and last case study is a deployable mast of approximately 8.5 m
high which, when deployed, holds up three circularly arranged membrane
canopies, each measuring 10 m x 5 m. It is made from scissor modules, stacked
upon each other to form a vertical linear deployable truss-like structure. Dur-
ing deployment the mast - to which the membrane elements are attached -
expands vertically. By doing so the canopy becomes gradually tensioned until
maximal deployment is reached. The three scissor modules which make up the
structure consist of angulated scissor elements. Angulated scissor units were
not discussed in the context of the design of deployable scissor arches to form
single curvature barrel vaults, for reasons specified in Section 3.1. However, in
this particular case, as they are connected in a linear manner to expand verti-
cally, they demonstrate a particular deployment behaviour which is used to
the advantage of the proposed concept (Section 9.1).
120

Figure 5.5: Perspective view and side elevation of case study 4

5.3 Structural analysis of the proposed concepts
5.3.1 General approach

Since all considered case studies are mobile architectural shelters, a canopy
serving as a climatological protection is an integral part of the design. Because
this tensile surface is subject to wind and snow loading and it is physically
attached to the bar structure, its behaviour under load is to be determined
first. Subsequently, the actions of the membrane are transferred to the bar
structure which allows the members to be sized as part of a preliminary struc-
tural design.

So first, the formfinding of the tensile surface is done with EASY-software
[Technet, 2007] which uses the force-density method [Mollaert, Forster, 2004].
All membranes are attached to the nodes of the bar structure. These nodes
become the boundary points for the membrane geometry that is used as input
for the formfinding process. A moderate level of pre-tension is introduced in
the membrane (1 kN/m in warp and weft direction). For mobile structures as
the ones presented here this seems reasonable, as it provides a fair balance
between the tension in the membrane and the resulting forces transferred to
the bar structure. Also, avoiding the need for highly sophisticated material for
introducing the pre-tension is in accordance with the low-tech nature of the
structures. After the equilibrium form has been calculated, snow and wind
121
loads are applied, of which the latter are determined according to the Euro-
code 1 [2007]. Seven load cases are used for the structural analysis of the ten-
sile surface which returns the reaction forces of the membrane on the bound-
ary points. These vectors are then transferred to a FE-model (Finite Element
Model) of the bar structure which is used for a preliminary structural design
performed in ROBOT [Robobat, 2007].

This simplified approach is chosen because these software packages are readily
available and perform their respective tasks (tensile surface design and struc-
tural analysis and design) well and because this is a preliminary design to test
the feasibility of the proposed concepts, this method seems well-suited for the
purpose. The three loads (transverse wind, longitudinal wind and snow) cannot
be separately applied in EASY and the subsequent load vectors (action of the
membrane on the boundary points) combined into several load cases, which
will be imposed on the bar structure in ROBOT. After all, this would mean that
the load vectors, obtained from the non-linear calculations on the membrane,
would become superimposed, which leads to false results. Instead, the loads
are combined into several load cases (pre-stress combined with wind and/or
snow) which are applied in EASY, and the non-linear response of the mem-
brane is measured. Besides, combining the separate load vectors obtained from
EASY into load cases in ROBOT would falsely take the pre-tension several
times into account, because it would be an integral part of each calculated
load case in EASY. Therefore each possible load case has to be manually de-
termined and applied on the membrane model in EASY, after which the reac-
tion forces are transferred to the FE-model of the bar structure. There, the load
cases are combined with the self-weight of the bar structure. While the wind
and snow load are live loads, the pre-tension in the membrane is treated as a
permanent load, with all safety factors applied accordingly.

It should be noted that this method is a simplification in the sense that it does
not take into account the effect the bar structure has on the membrane, since
its displacements under load would alter the boundary conditions of the mem-
brane. If a more profound and accurate analysis would be required, an inte-
grated, more detailed model of both the tensile surface and the skeletal struc-
ture - which takes into account the mutual response - would be a better
122
route. Or, in the current approach, going back and forth between programmes,
each time using the obtained results from one calculation as new boundary
conditions for the next, in an iterative way, would lead to more accuracy, but
with a huge effort and little return for this study.

In summary, these are the steps to be taken in the structural analysis:
- Formfinding of the tensile surface: calculation of the equilibrium form of the
membrane under pre-stress
- Statical analysis of the tensile surface: determining the reaction forces of
the membrane on the boundary points under different load cases
- Structure design of the skeletal structure: the bar structure is dimensioned
with the action of the membrane and the selfweight of the structure applied

Figure 5.6: Wind and snow action on the open and closed structure

5.3.2 Load cases

Three different live loads are considered: longitudinal wind, transverse wind
and a snow load (Figure 5.6). For this simplified approach, only two wind di-
rections are used, for mutual comparison of the different configurations. In a
more profound analysis, the 45 wind direction should also be included, since
its effect, especially on the open structure, could prove significant. The closed
123
structure as well as the open structure are divided into three zones or load
areas, allowing a differentiated wind load application: pressure or suction.
Whenever assumptions are made or simplifications are done, the most unfa-
vourable value is chosen.
The reference wind pressure is expressed as [Eurocode 1]:

ref
ref
v q
2
2
=

(5.1)

with the air density =1.25 kg/m3 and the reference velocity
ref
v determined
from:

0 ,
. . .
ref ALT TEM DIR ref
v c c c v =

(5.2)

For Belgium
0 , ref
v =26.2 m/s, the altitude factor
ALT
c =1, the direction fac-
tor
DIR
c =1 and for the temporary factor
TEM
c a value of 0.8 is chosen which
corresponds with a one month exposure (November). This gives a value for
ref
q = 0.275 kN/m
2
.
The total wind pressure acting on the surfaces is obtained from:

i e
w w w =
(5.3)

with we the pressure on the external surfaces and wi on the internal surfaces,
given by:

( )
pe e e ref e
C Z C q w . . =
(5.4)
( )
pi i e ref i
C Z C q w . . =
(5.5)

As terrain category, the most severe is chosen: category I, flat country. The
external pressure coefficient is determined by the geometry of the structure,
which means the surface is divided into several zones, each with their own C
pe
.
The internal pressure depends on C
pi
and is calculated by taking the influence
of openings in the surface into account, by means of a factor (opening ratio),
which is given by:
124
T
W L
A
A
,
=

(5.6)

Here, A
L,W
stands for the total area of openings at the leeward and wind paral-
lel sides and A
T
stands for the total area of openings at the windward, leeward
and wind parallel sides. The closed structure is assumed to have an opening
(entrance) on both the front and back (windward and leeward side for the lon-
gitudinal wind) which will allow internal wind pressure to be generated. By
calculating the s for both closed and open structures, values for C
pi
of -0.5
(suction under transverse wind) and 0.14 (pressure under longitudinal wind)
are obtained. The permeability C
pi,a
of the membrane has not been taken into
account. Figure 5.7 shows the different load zones in plan view for both the
open and closed structures. The wind pressure and suction are shown sche-
matically in a transverse and longitudinal section view. Table 5.1 gives a sum-
mary of all obtained values for the external and internal wind pressure and
exposure coefficients and the resulting total pressure per load zone and wind
direction. Although the schematic representations of the sectional profiles are
shown as semi-circles, the loads are applied to the actual non-smooth shape
of the membrane model in EASY.

125
Plan view Section view

CLOSED structure Transverse wind

OPEN structure Transverse wind

CLOSED structure Longitudinal wind

OPEN structure Longitudinal wind
Figure 5.7: Schematic representation of considered wind loads on the closed and
open structures

A B C
D E F
I

H

G
L

K

J
126
Transverse wind
Zone C
pe
w
e

[kN/m
2
]
C
pi
w
i

[kN/m
2
]
w
[kN/m
2
]
A 0.8 0.4 -0.5 -0.25 0.65
B -1.2 -0.6 -0.5 -0.25 -0.35
C
L
O
S
E
D

C -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 -0.25 0.05
D 0.8 0.4 -0.5 -0.25 0.65
E -1.2 -0.6 -0.5 -0.25 -0.35
O
P
E
N

F -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 -0.25 0.05
Longitudinal wind
Zone C
pe

w
e

[kN/m
2
]
C
pi
w
i
[kN/m
2
]
w
[kN/m
2
]
G 0.7 0.4 0.14 0.1 0.3
H -0.2 -0.12 0.14 0.1 -0.22
C
L
O
S
E
D

I -0.3 -0.18 0.14 0.1 -0.3
J -0.6 -0.35 0.14 0.1 -0.45
K -0.3 -0.2 0.14 0.1 -0.3
O
P
E
N

L -0.2 -0.12 0.14 0.1 -0.22
Table 5.1: Values for the wind pressure w per zone
for the closed and open structures

127

Transverse section view Longitudinal section view

CLOSED structure

OPEN structure
Figure 5.8: Schematic representation of snow loads on the closed and open structures

The snow load is determined with the following formula [Eurocode 1]:

k t e i
s C C s . . . =

(5.7)

with
k
s the characteristic snow load on the ground in kN/m2, the temperature
coefficient
t
C , the exposure coefficient
e
C and the coefficient
i
(form factor
for the snow load). All factors
t
C ,
e
C and
i
are given the value 1 and for the
characteristic snow load a value of 0.5 kN/m
2
is chosen. This leads to a snow
load of 0.5 kN/m
2
, which is a typical value. Because surfaces with an inclina-
tion of 60 and above are assumed to be without snow, the snow load is only
applied to the zones at the top of the canopy, as shown in Figure 5.8.

Based on the three mobile loads transverse wind, longitudinal wind and snow
- seven load cases are compiled, according to the prescribed combination fac-
128
tors, with the most severe conditions chosen (weather conditions statistically
occurring once every 50 years). It is assumed that the two wind loads, each
having a distinct direction, cannot occur simultaneously. With G the perma-
nent loads and Q the mobile loads and their respective safety factors, the
total load can be written in its general form:

S =
i

G
G
k,i
+
Q
Q
k,1
+
j

Q

0,1
Q
k,j

(5.8)

For the ultimate limit state (ULS) G=1.35 and Q=1.50. These values become
equal to 1 when the service limit state (SLS) is considered. In ULS the strength
(determination of sections) and stability (buckling analysis) of the structure
are verified, while SLS is used for verification of the stiffness (displacements).
Table 5.2 shows the resulting seven load cases for both ULS and SLS. For ex-
ample, ULS 1 and SLS 1 are a combination of pre-stress, transverse wind and
snow and are given by:

ULS 1=1,35 pre-stress + 1.5 transverse wind + 1.5 0.6 snow
SLS 1=1 pre-stress + 1 transverse wind + 1 0.6 snow

Load case Permanent
load
Main solicitation
Additional solicita-
tion
ULS/SLS 1 Pre-stress transverse wind snow
ULS/SLS 2 Pre-stress snow transverse wind
ULS/SLS 3 Pre-stress longitudinal wind snow
ULS/SLS 4 Pre-stress snow longitudinal wind
ULS/SLS 5 Pre-stress snow
ULS/SLS 6 Pre-stress transverse wind
ULS/SLS 7 Pre-stress longitudinal wind
Table 5.2: The seven load cases used for calculations in EASY

These load cases are used to determine the actions of the membrane on the
boundary points in EASY. Therefore, the self-weight of the bar structure can-
not be included at this stage. These load vectors will be transferred to the FE-
129
model in ROBOT, to analyse and design the bar structure under the considered
load cases.

With all load cases determined, a structural analysis of each case study will be
performed, following the earlier described approach. At this stage the self-
weight of the bar structure (with a safety factor of 1.35 applied) is included in
the load cases. The structural analysis of the first case study the three-way
grid barrel vault with translational scissor units will be discussed in detail. Of
the remaining case studies, which are calculated analogously, a concise sum-
mary of the results will be given.

Structural analysis in the following chapters will show that either buckling or
strength is the dimensioning ULS criterion. Although (static) stiffness stan-
dards are not stringent for this kind of foldable structures, other SLS criteria,
such as fatigue should be considered.

Fatigue is defined as a progressive, localised structural damage that occurs
when a material or a component is subjected to cyclic or fluctuating strains at
nominal stresses. The values of stresses when fatigue occurs are less than the
static yield strength of the material. This means that structural failure can
happen at stresses below ultimate tensile stress (ULS).

Although this phenomenon has not been included in the structural feasibility
study, the designer should be aware of its possible impact on the structural
performance.

Since fatigue is caused by dynamic (and/or moving) loads, an obvious cause in
the case of deployable structures could be the repeated folding and unfolding
of the structure. However, as this will amount to a relative low number of cy-
cles compared to the lifespan of the construction, another phenomenon is
likely to influence the structural performance, namely fluctuating wind loads
(on the erected configuration). Therefore the calculation methodology used in
the European standards [Eurocode 3] will be explained.

130
In case of an applied load with variable amplitude, the accumulative damage D
has to remain smaller than 1. D is expressed by the Palmgren-Miner equation
[Eyrolles, 1999]:
=
i
i
N
n
D
(5.9)

with n
i
the number of cycles of the extent of fluctuating stresses
i
during
a reference period and N
i
the critical amount of load cycles during the same
reference period and under the extent of fluctuating stresses
i M
which
the structure or the material can withstand.

Figure 5.9 shows the consecutive steps to determine all the necessary parame-
ters [Eurocode 3, 2007]:

a) Based on existing knowledge of similar constructions the typical so-
licitation sequence can be determined. Herein a realistic fluctuation of
wind pressure is difficult to define. A conservative way to solve this is-
sue is to consider a constant amplitude of the design wind pressure.
b) A stress history can be set up for a particular structural detail. A
stress-time graph can also be determined; either by measuring on
similar constructions or using dynamic calculations of the response of
the construction.
c) Stress histories may be evaluated by using one of the following known
techniques to determine the extent of stresses and their number of
cycles: i. Rain drop method
ii. Reservoir method
d) The range of stress variations are determined by drawing them, in
combination with the number of cycles, in a descending way.
e) Using the Wohler or S-N curves, the number of cycles N
i
can be read
of. For typical structural details these curves already exist and can be
plotted in families. Each construction detail family is defined by a ref-
erence value of the resistance against fatigue
c
at a constant am-
plitude and a number of cycles of 2.10
6
cycles.
f) The accumulative damage caused by the different stress variations can
be calculated using the Palmgren-Miner equation
131

a

b

c

d

e

f

Figure 5.9 : Method of accumulate damage [Eurocode 3, 2007]

132
A similar way of working can be followed to determine the damage created by
varying shear stresses
i
.

Further experimental research has to be conducted to see if fatigue is a di-
mensioning criterion. The determination of the resistance against fatigue of
the specific joints used in the presented cases requires experimental data,
which can not be given at this stage of research. Furthermore, a more realistic
stress history due to fluctuating wind loads requires wind tunnel testing.

5.4 Conclusion

In this chapter the concepts have been introduced which will be presented in
the subsequent chapters. These case studies use either scissor-hinged bars or
bars connected by foldable joints combined with a tensile surface for weather
protection. The proposed concepts contribute to the field of mobile deployable
bar structures by being either novel, or by making use of existing ideas in a
new way.

To facilitate mutual comparison, an overall shape has been determined on
which the single curvature geometry from case studies 1, 2 and 3 is based: a
barrel vault shape with a radius of 3 m and an approximate length of 10 m. A
fourth concept has been introduced, which uses an 8.5 m high linear deploy-
able truss-like structure to support its architectural envelope.

The general approach for the structural analysis and the steps it involves have
been clarified in this chapter. It has been explained how the considered load
cases [Eurocode 1, 2007], for both ULS and SLS, have been compiled and ap-
plied to the numerical model of the membrane. Subsequently, the obtained
reaction forces on the boundary points are transferred to the corresponding
nodes of the FE-model of the primary structure. This simplified approach
seems suited for a preliminary design within the framework of a feasibility
study.

133
It has been noted that this approach does not take into account the mutual
response between the bar structure and the membrane. Therefore, it is sug-
gested that, for a more profound analysis, an integrated model of both the
primary structure and the tensile surface should be used. Also, the joints which
are currently excluded from the structural design, will require detailed analy-
sis. It is unclear at this stage whether strength will be the governing design
criterion, or fatigue, caused by fluctuating wind loads. This fatigue calculation
falls out of the scope of this dissertation, but requires further study. Therefore,
the consecutive steps to determine the needed parameters for the calculation
have been discussed [Eurocode 3, 2007], [Eyrolles, 1999].

134

Chapter 6 Case study 1
135
Chapter 6
Case study 1: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Trans-
lational Units on a Three-way Grid

Figure 6.1: Deployable barrel vault with translational units on a triangular grid: scissor structure
and tensile surface
136
6.1 Introduction

The present chapter is concerned with the development of a new concept for a
mobile deployable shelter. As described in Section 5.2, a semi-circular single
curvature shape (barrel vault) is designed, consisting of plane and curved
translational units on a three-way grid.

Using translational scissor units is a very powerful method for developing
positive and negative curvature surfaces [Langbecker, 1999]. This statement
applies to two-way scissor grids (Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4) but is no longer
valid for three-way (or triangulated) scissor grids. Langbecker [1999] states
that for a curved three-way scissor geometry to be stress-free foldable, double
scissors units have to incorporated, as shown in Figure 6.4.

In this chapter it is shown, however, that it is possible to obtain a single cur-
vature triangulated grid without the use of double scissor units, which leads to
the development of a novel scissor geometry. A novel geometric design
method is developed based on equations nased on the rise and span of the
base curve and the number of units in the span.

Also, it is investigated how the semi-cylindrical shape can be equipped with
suitable double curvature end structures to obtain a fully closed architectural
space. A simple, yet elegant solution is proposed which does not alter the
original deployment behaviour.

The implications of the scissor geometry and the effect of the deployment on
the joints is discussed. It is shown that the phenomenon of angular distortion,
as a consequence of the deployment behaviour, can be dealt with by a custom
joint design.

By introducing the concept of an equivalent hinged-plate model, an interest-
ing way of gaining insight in the kinematic behaviour of the deployed configu-
rations is proposed. To test the structural feasibility of the concept, both the
open barrel vault and the closed double curvature configuration are structur-
137
ally analysed, using the method explained in Section 5.3.1 and the results are
discussed.

6.2 Description of the geometry

Consider the saddle-shaped (anticlastic) structure depicted in Figure 6.2. As
can be seen in both the plan and perspective view, it consists of identical
translational scissor linkages placed in two directions of an orthogonal grid.
Using translational units on an orthogonal grid, while maintaining a constant
unit thickness throughout the structure, is a powerful method for obtaining a
wide variety of singly or doubly curved structures (Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4).

Figure 6.2: Plan view and perspective view of the same double curvature structure with transla-
tional units on a quadrangular grid

But this statement is no longer valid for three-way grids with single or double
curvature. If a triangulated grid is to be designed, with single or double curva-
ture, the introduction of double scissors is needed, in order to obtain a stress-
free deployable configuration [Langbecker, 1999]. Figure 6.3 shows a scissor
module composed of single scissor units, while Figure 6.4 shows a module
with a double unit. The effect of the integration of a double unit is that the
module is no longer triangular, but quadrangular. This non-triangulation of the
grid can lead to in-plane instability, resulting in swaying or skewing of the
structure. Although double scissor units are inevitable for triangulated double
curvature structures, it will be shown that single curvature grids can be de-
signed with only single units.
138

Figure 6.3: Translational scissor module with
only single units
Figure 6.4: Translational scissor module with a
double unit

Consider Figure 6.5 which represents a planar translational scissor grid. The
two-dimensional scissor linkages A, B and C contain plane units with constant
unit height throughout the grid with equilateral triangular cells.

Figure 6.5: Plan view, perspective view and side elevation of a planar structure with a triangu-
lated grid

Now, by introducing curvature in direction B and C a cylindrical shape is ob-
tained, as shown in Figure 6.6:
- direction A (longitudinal direction) contains parallel rows of identical plane
units
- direction B and C run diagonally over the span and contain rows of non-
identical curved translational units

A
B C
Double unit
Single unit

139

Figure 6.6: Plan view, perspective view and side elevation of a barrel vault with a triangulated
grid

Curving these scissor units has a particular consequence: for the scissor mod-
ule to have its unit height unaltered while the units become curved, the equi-
lateral grid cells have to turn into isosceles ones, i.e. their apex angle increases
while their projected area decreases. Figure 6.7 shows a plane module M1 and
its curved derivatives M2 and M3, which are both used to compose the barrel
vault from Figure 6.6.

M1: plane M2: slightly curved M3: highly curved
Figure 6.7: Perspective view and plan view of three different triangular modules
3
A
B
C
140
In Figure 6.7 three different scissor modules are shown in their deployed posi-
tion (not one single unit in consecutive deployment stages).

So the only way to make a deployable barrel vault with translational scissor
units on a triangular grid without the use of double scissor units - is to use
isosceles scissor modules of constant unit height (Figure 6.7). But a double
scissor can also prove itself useful. The barrel vault described earlier is an open
structure, which means the membrane canopy forms only a roof, while the
front and back side remain open (Figure 6.8).

However, by using a novel way of providing the open barrel vault with double
curvature end structures, the open structure can be fully closed. This is done
by adding two modules which are identical to those used in the rest of the
structure to both the front and back, as shown in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.8: OPEN structure: perspective view and plan view

For the doubly curved end structures, the integration of double scissors cannot
be avoided. In order for the structure to be able to deploy, each added module
is provided with its own separate double scissor unit. The effect this has on the
deployment is discussed in Section 6.4.1.
9.4 m

6 m

141

Figure 6.9: CLOSED structure: perspective view and plan view (double scissor marked in red)

Now that the composition of the grid has been discussed, a closer look is
drawn to the structure itself: as shown in Figure 6.10 it has a circular curva-
ture when viewed in front elevation and consists of four modules in the span.

As can be seen in Figure 6.10, the curved scissor units which make up the
modules are not coplanar, nor do they lie in the direction of the span. There-
fore, the curvature of the structure - which is of importance to the design - is
different from that of the scissor linkages B and C, because these find them-
selves at an angle with the span direction.

The eventual curvature is determined, not by the actual scissor units, but by
their projected counterparts, marked in red in Figure 6.10, with the projection
plane lying in the direction of the span.

6 m

10.6 m

142

Figure 6.10: Front elevation, top view and perspective view of a portion of the barrel vault with
four modules in the span: the projected versions (marked in red) of the scissor units U1 and U2
determine the real curvature

All scissor units obey the geometric deployability condition (Section 3.3),
which is graphically represented by ellipses on the linkage U1, U2 and U3, de-
veloped in a common plane, as shown in Figure 6.11.

Now there are two ways to design such a barrel vault, depending on how
much control over the eventual curvature is desired.

The first approach is based purely on geometric constructions and involves no
numeric computation. It is simply a matter of constructing a two-dimensional
linkage such as the one shown in Figure 6.11. Subsequently, the scissor units
are rotated in 3D until they form closed triangular scissor modules, as depicted
in Figure 6.10, which are repeated to form a complete grid. As mentioned ear-
lier, the definitive curvature can be evaluated by projecting the units on the
plane lying in the direction of the span.
U1
U2 U3
143

Top view of units U1, U2 and U3: rotated until coplanar

Figure 6.11: Developed view of units U1, U2 and U3: graphic representation of the deployability
condition by means of ellipses

It is evident that, when a designer wants total control over the final curvature,
another, more precise approach is to be used. When, for example, a circular
curve with a certain rise and span for the barrel vault is desired, numeric com-
putation has to be used to find a geometry that will satisfy this requirement.
The second approach will now be discussed in greater detail.


Using the rise and span as initial design parameters, a circular arc is deter-
mined, which represents the actual curvature of the barrel vault. The goal of
the numeric approach is to find, based on a number of design parameters, a
series of scissor modules which will fit on the desired base curve. For this ex-
U2
U3
U1
U1 U2 U3
144
ample a circular arc is chosen to facilitate comparison between the barrel
vaults from case study 1, 2 and 3 - but any curve, in its parametric form, can
be used. For this approach, the method of the ellipses for imposing the geo-
metric deployability condition onto two-dimensional linkages (Chapter 3) is
extended to three dimensions. By simply revolving the ellipses around their
vertical axis, an ellipsoid is obtained with three semi-axes, of which two are
identical, as shown in Figure 6.12. Where the ellipse determines the locus of
all valid positions for the intermediate hinges in two dimensions (Figure 6.13),
the ellipsoid fulfils the same role in three dimensions.

Instead of the small ellipsoid, marked in red in Figure 6.13, an ellipsoid of dou-
ble size is used to determine the locus of the intersection points between the
unit lines of a scissor unit and the curve. The small unit has unit thickness (t)
which is also half the distance between the foci of the double ellipsoid. The
relation between the design parameter t and the length of the semi axes a and
b is expressed by Eqn (6.1):

2 2 2
a b t = (6.1)

Figure 6.12: An ellipsoid representing the
geometric deployability condition in three
dimensions
Figure 6.13: Vertical section view of the small
and big ellipsoid, imposing the geometric de-
ployability condition
K

K
t
t
b
a
145
When the following four design parameters are given a value, the geometry is
fully determined:
U: the number of units in the span
R: the radius of the circular arc
t: the unit thickness
2
: the angle which determines the position of point P
2
and whether the curve
is a semi-circle (
2
=0) or an arc segment (
2
0
2

) - see Section 3.2.2.

Now consider Figure 6.14 which shows a circular arc Aand a parallel circular
arc A with a distance of
2
a
between them. The location of endpoint
2
P of the
arc is determined by
2
.

Figure 6.14: A scissor linkage fitted on a circular curve, with all relevant design parameters and
the global coordinate system

A solution has to be found for
1
P (x
1
, y
1
, z
1
). Its position on the circular arc is
such that it determines a translational SLE (scissor-like element) which is
P
0

A
A
P
1

P
2

P
0

R
2
146
compatible with the plane SLE, as depicted in the developed view of the link-
age in Figure 6.15. This is the intersection point of ellipsoid E
0
with the circle
arc A , determined by the angle
1
(which determines the position of P
1
on the
circular arc).

Figure 6.15: Developed view of the scissor linkage from Figure 6.14, showing a chain of double
ellipses

The general form of the parametric equation for an ellipsoid with centre (x
0
,y
0
,
z
0
), semi-axes a and b and the axis of revolution parallel to the Z-axis (see
Figure 6.12), with 2 0 ; 0 becomes:

0
0
0
cos
sin sin
sin cos
z b z
y a y
x a x
+ =
+ =
+ =

(6.2)

The general equation of a circular arc parallel to the ZX-plane (y=cte) with
centre around the origin with 0 is

sin
cos
R z
R x
=
=

(6.3)
Plane
unit
Compatible
curved units
Plane
unit
P
0
P
0
P
1
P
2

E
0
E
1
147

From Figure 6.14 the following relations between ellipsoids E
0
, E
1
and points
0
P ,
1
P ,
2
P are derived:
The location of endpoint
2
P of the arc A depends on
2
with
2
0
2

2 2
2 2
sin
cos
R z
R x
=
=

(6.4)

Figure 6.16: Perspective view of the scissor linkage from Figure 6.15

The coordinates for point
1
P on A are given by
1 1
1
1 1
sin
2
cos
R z
a
y
R x
=
=
=

(6.5)

148
We can now write the parametric equation for ellipsoid E
0
with centre
0
P (0, 0,
R):
R b z
a y
a x
+ =
=
=
0
0 0
0 0
cos
sin sin
sin cos

(6.6)

1
P (x
1
, y
1
, z
1
) is the intersection between E
0
and the circular arc A , which is
expressed by joining Eqns (6.5) and (6.6) in:

1 0
0 0
1 0 0
sin cos
2
sin sin
cos sin cos

R R b
a
a
R a
= +
=
=

(6.7)
(6.8)
(6.9)

1
P is also the centre for ellipsoid E
1
(size identical to E
0
) which intersects with
circular arc Ain point
2
P .
We can write the parametric equation for ellipsoid E
1
with centre
1
P :
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
cos
sin sin
sin cos
z b z
y a y
x a x
+ =
+ =
+ =

(6.10)

Joining Eqns (6.4), (6.5) and (6.10) leads to the following relations:

2 1 1
1 1
2 1 1 1
sin sin cos
0
2
sin sin
cos cos sin cos

R R b
a
a
R R a
= +
= +
= +

(6.11)
(6.12)
(6.13)

Equations (6.1), (6.7), (6.8), (6.9), (6.11), (6.12) and (6.13) lead to a system of
seven equations in seven unknowns which is solved numerically. By assigning
values to R,
2
and t a solution is found for { }
1 0 1 0 1
, , , , , , b a

149
=
= +
= +
= +
= +
=
=
2 2 2
2 1 1
1 1
2 1 1 1
1 0
0 0
1 0 0
sin sin cos
0
2
sin sin
cos cos sin cos
sin cos
2
sin sin
cos sin cos
a b t
R R b
a
a
R R a
R R b
a
a
R a

(6.14)

The previous parameterisation determines a geometry of four units (U=4) in
the span. More units can be calculated by adding the appropriate equations
for the ellipsoids in an analogous manner, but as the number of units rises, the
complexity of the system of equations increases.

6.4 From mechanism to architectural envelope
6.4.1 Deployment and kinematic analysis

A two-dimensional scissor linkage has a single rotational degree of freedom
(D.O.F.). When such linkages are placed on a grid, this rotational D.O.F. is, de-
pending on the grid geometry, either preserved or removed. All this depends on
the type of scissor units used (translational, polar, angulated), the type of grid
they form (two-way, three-way, four-way) and the curvature (plane, single or
double). An insight in the mobility of the mechanism is needed to understand
to what degree constraints have to be added after deployment to turn it into a
load bearing structure.

During deployment the rotational degree of freedom is used to expand the
scissor mechanism. Figure 6.17 shows the different stages in the deployment.
As is typical for translational scissor units, the mechanism expands gradually
in two directions in the horizontal plane, while maintaining its overall height
during deployment. The deployment itself can be performed by pulling the four
150
lower corner nodes away from the centre. When on even terrain, wheels at the
corners could aid in the deployment. Alternatively, small lifting equipment -
which would usually be already present for loading and unloading during
transport can be used to lift the mechanism at a central node.

Figure 6.17: Perspective view, front elevation and top view of the deployment process of the
barrel vault with translational units OPEN structure

151

Figure 6.18: Proof-of-concept model of (half of the) closed structure (aluminium, scale 1/10)

As mentioned before, the custom end structures which turn the open structure
into a closed one, have double scissor units. There are two of these, one for
each side, as shown in Figure 6.19. In the partly deployed position there is a
gap in the structure that will close during deployment. That is the reason for
providing each module with its separate double scissor. In the fully deployed
state these modules meet and the double scissors coincide. The deployment
process of the closed structure is depicted in Figure 6.20. A proof-of-concept
model of the closed structure has been constructed, which has shown that the
kinematic behaviour is as desired.

Figure 6.19: Two double scissors in partially (left) and fully deployed (right) position

Two double units,
side by side
Two double units
theoretically coincide
152

barrel vault with translational units CLOSED structure

A novel way of gaining an insight in the mobility of the mechanism and the
restraints which are needed to turn it into a structure in the deployed configu-
ration, is to represent the configuration by an equivalent hinged plate struc-
ture. This structure shares the same kinematic properties as the scissor geome-
try would have when its rotational degree of freedom (scissor action) is re-
moved. Removal of this rotational D.O.F. is a minimum requirement for a scis-
sor mechanism to act as a structure, otherwise it is allowed to collapse and
return to its initial undeployed state. Since the triangulated geometry with
translational units is a single-D.O.F.-mechanism, it is sufficient to block the
movement of a single unit in order to remove the rotational D.O.F., e.g. by fix-
ing the distance between two end nodes n
1
and n
2
(as shown in Figure 6.21) by
means of a bar or cable element. Alternatively, two lower end nodes n
3
and n
4

153
at opposite sides of the structure can be kept at the same distance in the same
way (Figure 6.22).

The reason the equivalent hinged plate model is a valid representation of the
scissor grid with the rotational D.O.F. removed, is illustrated in Figure 6.21. A
scissor unit with its D.O.F. removed can be replaced by a rigid plate of which
the vertices correspond with the end nodes of the scissor. The original parallel
unit lines (imaginary lines connecting the upper and lower nodes of the scissor
units) now become fold lines acting as continuous joints for the plates. Each
module or grid cell consists of three plates, which is a rigid body. And because
the complete configuration consists of such three-plate modules, the grid has
no in-plane mobility (no skewing or swaying). This means we can form an idea
of the extra restraints needed in the deployed configuration, apart from con-
straining the scissor action, to turn the mechanism into a structure. A mini-
mum of seven translations need to be constrained (including constraining the
scissor action), as Figure 6.21 shows. In practice however, it is suggested to fix
all nodes touching the ground by pinned supports (Figure 6.22). Standard solu-
tions for fixing mobile, lightweight structures the ground can be used. An
overview of recoverable lightweight anchors is given by Llorens [2006].

Figure 6.21: From scissor mechanism to the equivalent hinged plate linkage for mobility analysis
of the open structure (idem for closed structure) - minimal constraints

n
1

n
2


154

Figure 6.22: Fixing all lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports

Undeployed state: cable at full length Fully deployed state: cable shortened and
locked
Figure 6.23: An active cable (marked in red) runs through the mechanism, connecting upper and
lower nodes along its path. After deployment it is locked to stiffen the structure

Crucial to any deployable structure are the joints. Every unit consists of two
bars connected by a revolute joint (intermediate hinge). At their ends, the bars
are connected by another revolute joint. In reality, the members of the scissor
units and the joints have discrete dimensions, unlike the theoretical geometric
line models which have zero thickness. In theory, both bars of a scissor unit lie
in a common plane. As opposed to the theoretical one-dimensional coplanar
scissors, the physical bars are not in the same plane. A scissor unit has an
imaginary centreline, which separates the two scissor bars lying on either side
of that axis (Figure 6.24).

The size of the joint is influenced by the number of bars it has to connect and
by the dimensions of the bar. The wider the section of the scissor bars be-
comes, and the higher the number of bars that to be connected in the joint,
n
3

n
4

155
the larger the radius of the joint becomes, in order to accommodate all ele-
ments without interference during deployment.

Some joint solutions have been proposed by Escrig [1984]. The joints will have
to allow every possible movement, imposed by the grid geometry, to ensure a
stress-free deployment. It has been shown that, in the deployed position, the
grid cells are isosceles triangles. But during deployment of the mechanism
proposed here, the apex angles inside the scissor modules increase in size. Take
the angles
2
and
3
from Figure 6.7: when the maximal deployment is reached,
2
=63 and
3
=95. This angular distortion has to be allowed by the specially
constructed joint, which adds some complexity to the design. A joint is pro-
posed, of which the fins can freely rotate around the cylindrical hub. Figure
6.25 shows a top view of the designed joint connecting six bars. The bars are
provided with wedge-shaped end pieces, which allow them to be as compactly
arranged as possible, without interfering with one another during deployment.

The centrelines of all units connected by a certain joint have a single intersec-
tion point G, lying on a vertical axis through the joint, as Figure 6.26 shows. In
the fully deployed position, this intersection point of centrelines of the scissor
units lies on the vertical axis through the joint. As the structure is compacted
towards its undeployed state, point G moves further upward until all centre-
lines become parallel in the undeployed position.
156

Figure 6.24: Top view and perspective view of one scissor unit, its intermediate hinge and its end
joints and their offset position relative to the theoretical plane

Figure 6.25: Concept for an articulated joint, allowing the fins which accept the bars to rotate
around a vertical axis, to cope with the angular distortion of the grid
157

Figure 6.26: Partially and undeployed state: as the structure is compactly folded, the imaginary
intersection point of the centrelines travels on the vertical centreline through the joint

The bars are connected to a hinge point which is not at the intersection point
of bar centrelines (different from the scissor unit centreline from Figure 6.24).
This eccentricity has an effect on the structural performance of the structure
in the sense that this geometric imperfection induces a 2
nd
order effect, i.e.
bending in the bars.

The hollow, cylindrical hub around the fins of the joint rotate, can accept an
active cable (Figure 6.23), guided by a pulley system, for stiffening the struc-
ture after deployment (or for raising the membrane and bringing it under pre-
tension. In the deployed state, after the structure is appropriately fixed to its
supports, the cable can also be used to influence the stiffness by introducing
more or less tension.

After deployment, the membrane is raised toward the inner end nodes of the
bars, after which a basic level of pre-tension is introduced. In Figure 6.27 and
Figure 6.28 the resulting mobile shelters (open and closed) are shown together
with the area they cover. Alternatively, instead of attaching the membrane to
the inner nodes of the structure, the tensile cover could function as an outer
layer, attached to the external nodes, providing weather protection for the
structure as well.
Joint
centreline
Unit centre-
line
G
158

Perspective view Top view

Covered area
60 m
2
Figure 6.27: Perspective view and top view of OPEN structure with integrated tensile surface


Covered area
58 m
2
Figure 6.28: Perspective view and top view of CLOSED structure with integrated tensile surface

159
6.5 Structural analysis
6.5.1 Open structure (single curvature)
Formfinding of the tensile surface

Before any load can be applied to the membrane surface, an equilibrium form
under pure pre-tension is to be found first. The boundary geometry used for
generating the membrane in the formfinding process in EASY consists of a
pattern of rhombi and triangles. A pre-tension of 1 kN/m in both directions is
introduced in the net with a mesh length of 0.2 m. A force of 2kN is intro-
duced in the boundary cables which have a stiffness of 12000 kN, while the
membrane is given a basic stiffness of 400 kN/m in both directions. A typical
PVC-coated polyester fabric is chosen for all case-studies. In Figure 6.29 a top
view and perspective view of the skeletal structure and the matching boundary
geometry for the membrane are shown. After formfinding, the equilibrium
form for the tensile surface is found, as depicted in Figure 6.30. Typical values
for stresses in the membrane vary from 4 to 5.5 kN/m (Figure 6.31).

Figure 6.29: Top view and perspective view of the skeletal scissor structure (left) and the bound-
ary geometry for the compatible membrane (right)

160

Figure 6.30: Views of the equilibrium form for the membrane
as a result of the formfinding process

Figure 6.31: Typical stresses in the membrane range from 4 to 5.5 kN/m
161
Statical analysis under load combinations

With all load combinations (Section 5.2.2) applied, the actions of the mem-
brane on the outer boundary points are determined. In accordance with the
hypothesis, the pre-tension is treated as a permanent load and is therefore
multiplied with its appropriate safety factor. In the case of the ultimate limit
state (ULS) the pre-tension is increased to 1.35 kN/m and the force in the
boundary cable is raised to 2.7 kN. For the service limit state calculations (SLS)
the membrane pre-tension and the force in the boundary cable are left at their
initial values of 1kN/m and 2 kN respectively. Now the seven load combina-
tions are applied and the resulting forces in the boundary points are calcu-
lated.

Structural design of the scissor structure

The resulting forces are applied to the corresponding nodes of the FE-model of
the scissor structure in ROBOT [2007]. The lower nodes touching the ground
are fixed with pinned supports. This removes the mobility from the mechanism
and enables it to act as a structure and transfer loads. In accordance with the
physical model, the joints which connect the scissor bars consist of separate
elements that share one rotational degree of freedom around an axis through
their common point and perpendicular to their common plane. Figure 6.32
shows six bars (black lines) attached at their ends (P) to six node elements
(PQ) and the attributed rotational degrees of freedom: the bars of the scissor
units are allowed to rotate around their local Y-axis (Figure 6.34) at their ends
(P) as well as at their intermediate pivot hinge (RS). For modelling purposes,
each physical bar is represented in the FE-model by two (half-length) separate
lines, joined together with a fixed connection (R and S): 3 translations and 3
rotations constrained.

162
Figure 6.32: FEM-model of six bars attached
to a node
Figure 6.33: An intermediate pivot hinge
connects two scissor bars

The line elements that make up the nodes rotate around their local Z-axis. The
global coordinate system and the local coordinate system of a bar are shown
in Figure 6.34.

When, for example, load case 6, which is transverse wind is considered (a full
description of the load cases is given in Section 5.3.2), the distribution of the
load vectors and their relative size is shown graphically in Figure 6.35. The
resulting reaction forces in the supports are depicted in Figure 6.36. The load
vectors from Figure 6.35 represent the action of the membrane on the nodes
of the structure, as a result of transverse wind load and priestess and the re-
sultant load vectors are pointed inward. The reaction forces in the support
points of the structure are shown in Figure 6.36. As can be seen from the
schematic, the action on the middle section induces a reaction force pointed

LOCAL Coordinate System GLOBAL Coordinate System
Figure 6.34: Local coordinate system of a bar element (left) and global coordinate system
(right)
P
Q
R
S
163
upward and outward, while the reaction forces in the sections near the open
ends are pointed inward and downward.

Front elevation Side elevation
Figure 6.35: Typical pattern of load vectors for transverse wind + pre-stress of the membrane

Front elevation Side elevation
Figure 6.36: Typical pattern of reaction forces under transverse wind

Moments around the local Y-axes of the bars are shown in Figure 6.37, which
is a typical diagram for a scissor arch. Here the maximal and minimal values
for My are 2.21 kNm and -2.49 kNm respectively.

Figure 6.37: Bending moments My under transverse wind
164

A typical deformation pattern (not to scale) under transverse wind load is

Figure 6.38: Typical deformation under transverse wind:
undeformed [grey] and deformed [red] configuration no scale

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

With all load cases and combinations applied, a structural analysis is per-
formed to examine the structures strength (section design) and stability
(buckling analysis), in accordance with Eurocode 3 [2007] in the deployed con-
figuration. The extreme values for the reactions, forces and stresses will be
discussed. When a load case is mentioned, it is assumed that the selfweight of
the structure is included in the combination, with its appropriate safety factor
applied, depending on whether ULS or SLS is considered. Aluminium is chosen
as the material for the bars which are tubular and have a rectangular section.
Because the joints will not be designed in this study, their influence on the
structure design is made as small as possible. Therefore, their size is limited
and they are awarded a very large section together with a high stiffness and
yield stress (f
y
). The structure design is performed by means of an iterative
static analysis with minimum weight as the optimization criterion. When
three possible tubular sections for the bars are suggested round, square and
165
rectangular - the algorithm evaluates the latter as being the most structural
efficient. Rectangular sections not only seem to be appropriate from a struc-
tural point of view, but they are preferred anyway over round or square sec-
tions because of the higher degree of compactness they provide in the unde-
ployed position. A buckling analysis is performed with all bars having a buck-
ling length coefficient of 1. After optimization, the proposed section is rectan-
gular: TREC 120x60x3.2 mm. This leads to a total weight of 856 kg, which
gives, for a total covered surface of 63 m
2
, a weight-per-square-meter of 13.6
kg. Figure 6.39 shows the optimized structure with the resulting weight/m
2

and the material characteristics. Because the joints are not structurally ana-
lyzed and designed, their weight is not taken into account. Therefore, the
structural performance is only a measure of the main members. Also, the
weight the membrane is neglected and no analysis is performed in the par-
tially deployed state.
166

Section hxbxt [mm] Total weight [kg] Weight/m
2
[kg/m
2
]
TREC 120x60x3.2 mm 856 13.6
Material E-modulus [GPa] f
y
[MPa]
Aluminium 75 180
Figure 6.39: Perspective view of the resulting structure with rectangular sections of
120x60mm

In ROBOT positive stresses indicate pressure, negative values mean tension.
The reaction forces in the global coordinate system are mentioned in Figure
6.40. Induced by load combination ULS 2 (pre-stress + snow + transverse
wind), the largest reaction force is 52 kN in the Z-direction. Marked in red is
the support in which Fz max occurs.

167
REACTIONS
FX (kN) FY (kN) FZ (kN)
MAX 13,36 44,50 52,03
Case ULS 5 ULS 1 ULS 2
MIN -13.44 -38.58 -40.57
Case ULS 5 ULS 1 ULS 2

Figure 6.40: Reactions in the global coordinate system: the maximal reaction force occurs
under ULS 2 (pre-stress + snow + transverse wind)

STRESSES Section TREC 120603.2 mm
Bar S max [MPa] S max(My) [MPa] S max(Mz) [MPa]
154 157.8 115.08 14.67
Fx/Ax [MPa] S min [MPa] S min(My) [MPa] S min(Mz) [MPa]
30.54 -96.74 -115.08 -14.67

Figure 6.41: The critically loaded bar is located at the top. Summary of the stresses occurring
in the critically loaded bar (positive stresses indicate pressure, negative values mean tension)

168
The governing load combination for the design for strength is ULS 5 (pre-stress
+ snow). In the critically loaded bar a total stress level of 157.8 MPa occurs,
part of which is caused by My, inducing a bending stress of 115.8 MPa (Figure
6.41). The bending stress around the local Z-axis is a fraction of S
max
(My).

When the stability is checked, ULS 2 (pre-stress + snow + transverse wind) is
the governing load combination, which induces an axial force Fx of 45.22 kN
(Figure 6.42). The bar, which is most susceptible to buckling, is located near
the bottom of the structure. During buckling analysis in ROBOT, second order
effects are taken into account.

FORCES
Bar FX (kN) FY (kN) FZ (kN)
540 45.22 -0.17 0.04
Load Comb. MX (kNm) MY (kNm) MZ (kNm)
ULS 2 -0.02 0.04 -0.41

Figure 6.42: Axial forces, transverse forces and bending moments in the local coordinate
system of the bars

169
Service limit state (SLS)

The stiffness of the structure is analysed under service limit state by checking
the displacements of the nodes. The nodes which are subject to the largest
displacements are marked in Figure 6.43: 2.0 cm in the X-direction (SLS 2), 1.0
cm in the Y-direction (SLS 5) and -1.4 cm along the Z-axis. Because this is a
concept for a mobile structure, the same strict requirements as for permanent
buildings do not apply. These values seem perfectly acceptable for a structure
of this type and the displacements will not degrade the serviceability of the
structure. The maximum deflection occurring in the structure is approx. 1/100.

DISPLACEMENTS
UX (cm) UY (cm) UZ (cm)
2.0 1.0 -1.4
Load Comb. SLS 2 SLS 5 SLS 5

Figure 6.43: Maximal nodal displacements in the global coordinate system

The obtained section of 120603.2 mm causes the total weight to mount up
to 856 kg which makes the structure bulky and heavy for transport. The sec-
tion can be reduced by connecting the lower and upper nodes with a continu-
ous cable running over pulleys. Figure 6.44 shows the cable and its path
through the structure in both the undeployed and deployed state. After de-
ployment, the cable is locked from which moment it can contribute to the
overall structural performance. The effect is a decrease in section of the scissor
170
bars and an increase of the structural stiffness. The steel cable with a section
of 28 mm
2
has been assigned a calculation strength of 1500 MPa (safety factor
of 1.5 applied). For practical reasons, the continuous cable is modelled as dis-
crete cable fragments, each of which connects an upper and lower node. Al-
though this is an approximation of the real situation, the results of the analy-
sis indicate a noticeable positive effect on the structural behaviour (Figure
6.46).

Figure 6.44: Continuous cable zigzagging through the structure, connecting upper and lower
nodes and contributing to the structural performance

Scissor bars

Tension cable
Section hxbxt, d Total weight/section [kg] Weight/m
2
[kg/m
2
]
TREC 60x40x3.2mm 459
Cable 6 mm 6
Total weight: 465 7.75
Figure 6.45: Resulting structure after optimization, with cable elements
Cable tie
171

RESULTS for case study 1: OPEN structure (with cable elements)
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max
S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TREC 60x40x3.2 75.7 55.0 9.2 11.5 ULS 5
Cable d=6 -856.7 - - -856.7 ULS 5
FORCE
Section [mm] Fx [kN] My [kNm] Mz [kNm] Load comb.
TREC 60x40x3.2 16.4 0.2 0.2 ULS 5
Cable d=6 -25.7 - - ULS 5
REACTIONS [kN]
FX Load comb. FY Load comb. FZ Load comb.
-6.34 ULS 6 12.06 ULS 6 7.95 ULS 5
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
Ux Load comb. Uy Load comb. Uz Load comb.
3.3 SLS 6 0.9 SLS 5 -2.4 SLS 6

Figure 6.46: Summary of the determining stresses and forces for the strength, stability and
stiffness of case study 1: OPEN structure
Ux
Uy
Uz
172

When considering Figure 6.40 (no cable) and Figure 6.46 (with cable), a no-
ticeable difference in values for Fy and Fz can be observed. This is due to the
fact that only the highest peak value occurring in the structure, under a cer-
tain load case, is represented. The sums of all values of Fy (and equally for Fz)
are identical for both structures, only the structure without cables demon-
strates higher peak values. The effect of incorporating a cable is an alteration
of the stiffness, resulting in a redistribution of forces and a decrease in peak
values.
173
6.5.2 Closed structure (double curvature)

Section hxbxt, d[mm] Total weight/section [kg] Weight/m
2
[kg/m
2
]
TREC 60x30x3.2 420
Cable 6 6
Figure 6.47: Perspective view of case study 1: CLOSED structure: with sections after structure
design and total weight

The closed structure is provided with the same cable elements as in the open
structure. The added modules lead to a slight decrease in section width (30
mm as opposed to 40 mm for the open structure). The weight/m
2
for both
structures is approximately 7.5 kg/m
2
.
174

RESULTS for Case study 1: CLOSED structure (with cable elements)
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max
S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TREC 60x30x3.2 54.5 48.3 4.8 1.5 ULS 2
Cable d=6 -949.9 - - 928.6 ULS 2
FORCE
TREC 60x30x3.2 9.7 0.03 -0.05 ULS 2
Cable d=6 -26.8 - - ULS 2
REACTIONS [kN]
-7.8 ULS 6 8.3 ULS 2 6.3 ULS 2
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
3.1 SLS 1 3.7 SLS 1 -3.7 SLS 1

Figure 6.48: Summary of the determining parameters for the strength, stability and stiffness
of case study 1 _ CLOSED structure
Ux
Uy,
Uz
175
6.6 Conclusion

It is known from literature that using translational scissor units on a two-way
grid allows the design of stress-free deployable positive and negative curva-
ture surfaces, but this does not apply to three-way (triangulated) scissor grids.
For non-flat three-way grids to be stress-free deployable, the integration of
double scissors is required [Langbecker, 1999].

Figure 6.49: Case study 1: Single curvature OPEN structure (barrel vault)

In this chapter an advance has been made by developing a stress-free deploy-
able scissor geometry of single curvature with translational units on a three-
way grid. It has been shown that the curved triangulated grid can be solely
composed of single scissor units, therefore making the integration of double
scissor units obsolete. By avoiding double scissors, the number of connections
is kept to a minimum. Also, the inherent triangulation of the grid provides in-
plane stability. As a consequence, the deployed configuration does not require
additional cross-bracing of the grid cells to prevent the structure from skew-
ing.

A geometric design method has been developed and the necessary equations
have been derived, based on architecturally relevant design parameters. Al-
though this design method allows the design of barrel vaults with a semi-
circular section, this approach can easily be extended to other base curves as
well. To test the feasibility of the concept, a barrel vault with four units in the
span has been designed, of which two variations have been presented: an
open, single curvature structure (barrel vault) (Figure 6.49) and a closed double
curvature structure (Figure 6.50). In case of the double curvature structure, it
176
has been found indeed inevitable, as opposed to the single curvature structure,
to incorporate double scissors to guarantee stress-free deployability.

Figure 6.50: Case study 1: Double curvature CLOSED structure

An explanation has been given for the angular distortion, a phenomenon asso-
ciated with the deployment of the proposed geometry. A design for a joint has
been proposed, which takes this effect into account.

By introducing the concept of an equivalent hinged-plate model, an interest-
ing way of gaining insight in the kinematic behaviour of the mechanism has
been offered. It has been shown that the proposed geometry is a single-
degree-of-freedom mechanism.

As a result of the structural analysis, it has been found that, due to high in-
plane bending stress in the scissor members, the strength is the governing de-
sign criterion. By adding a continuous cable between the upper and lower
nodes, a significant increase in structural performance and a reduction in
weight has been achieved. The open and closed structure, both covering
approx. 65 m
2
, achieve a weight ratio of approximately 7.5 kg/m
2
. It is noted
that the joints are not included in the structural design and therefore no
statement is done concerning their weight.


177
Chapter 7
Case study 2: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Polar
and Translational Units on a Two-way Grid

Figure 7.1: Deployable barrel vault with polar units on a quadrangular grid: scissor structure and
tensile surface

178
7.1 Introduction

In this chapter the design of the second case study, a deployable barrel vault
with polar and translational scissor units on an orthogonal two-way grid, is
described. Using polar units is an effective way of introducing single curvature
in an orthogonal grid. A number of examples have been presented in literature,
such as single curvature shelters and scissor arches (Section 2.2.4).

This case study is an illustration of how a basic stress-free deployable single
curvature structure can be obtained by putting the construction methods and
the geometric design methods, as described in Section 3.2, into practice. A
structure with four units in the span is proposed, similar in shape and dimen-
sions to case study 1.

What sets this concept apart is the innovative way the open structure is fully
closed by adding doubly curved end structures, which are compatibly deploy-
able with the original structure. Previous solutions, such as the elegant pro-
posal by Escrig [2006], also provide a doubly curved closed surface, but are,
however, not stress-free deployable. Therefore, it is shown how an existing
geometry, the lamella dome (Section 3.3.4) is adapted to fit the required pur-
pose.

Based on the geometric design method proposed in Section 3.3.2, the equa-
tions, which allow the study of the geometry in several stages of the deploy-
ment, are derived. These are then used to predict the maximum span the con-
figuration will reach during deployment.

Similar to case study 1, the mobility of the system is discussed by means of an
equivalent hinged-plate model providing an insight in the stability of the de-
ployed configuration. As quadrangular grids are prone to skewing due to a lack
of in-plane stability, measures are taken such as the introduction of cross-
cables or cross-bars in several configurations, which are structurally analysed
and discussed.

179
7.2.1 Open structure

Consider Figure 7.2 which represents a plan view and perspective view of a
planar translational scissor grid. The two-dimensional scissor linkages A and B
contain plane units with constant unit height throughout the grid with square
cells.

Figure 7.2: Plan view and perspective view of a planar structure with a quadrangular grid

Figure 7.3: Plan view and perspective view of a barrel vault with quadrangular grid

As mentioned in chapter 3, a polar unit is simply obtained by moving the in-
termediate hinge of a plane translational unit away from the middle of the
bar. This eccentricity of the revolute joint creates curvature when the unit be-
comes deployed.
Now, by introducing curvature in direction B, a cylindrical shape is obtained as
shown in Figure 7.3:
- direction A (longitudinal direction) contains parallel rows of identical plane
units
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A

180
- direction B runs in the direction of the span and contains rows of identical
polar units

Figure 7.4 shows a series of polar linkages with 3, 4, 5 and 6 units in the span.
From Figure 7.4, the linkage with four units in the span (U=4) is chosen, for
reasons explained in Section 5.1: all case-studies (with single curvature shape)
are based on the same circle arc with a radius of 3 m and share the same
structural thickness of 1.25 m. This facilitates mutual comparison.

3 units 4 units

5 units 6 units
Figure 7.4: Series of polar linkages with 3, 4, 5 or 6 units in the span,
based on the same circular arc

The geometric construction is based on a chosen circular arc, marked in red in
Figure 7.5, which is divided into four segments (U=4) by radial lines through
centre O. The intersection points on the arc, such as point Q, determine the
location of the inner end nodes of the scissor units. Now a line is drawn
through Q, tangent to the circle arc. P and R are the intersection points which
mark the outer end nodes of the units, by which the unit height (h) is immedi-
ately determined. By symmetry, the complete geometry can now be con-
structed.


181

Figure 7.5: Geometric construction of the four-unit linkage

Subsequently, a curved four-by-four grid is composed by connecting parallel
placed polar arches (direction B) by plane translational linkages (direction A).
All bars, both translational and polar, are of identical length, the only differ-
ence between the translational and polar units being the location of the in-
termediate hinge, relative to the middle of the bars. The resulting configura-
tion is shown in Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6: OPEN structure: perspective view and top view

Evidently, all scissor units obey the geometric deployability constraint (Section
3.2), which is graphically represented by ellipses on the linkage U1, U2 and U3,
developed in a common plane, as shown in Figure 7.7.

10.9 m

8.5 m

6 m

P
Q
R
O
h

182

Figure 7.7: Perspective view and developed view of units U1 (plane translational) and U2, U3
(polar): graphic representation of the deployability condition by means of ellipses

The translational unit U1 belongs row A in Figure 7.3, while the polar units U2
and U3 belong to the perpendicular direction B. When this linkage is devel-
oped in a common plane, the ellipses which impose the deployability con-
straint can be drawn, as shown in Figure 7.7. It should be noted that, although
polar units are used here, an ellipse is required to impose the deployability
U2
U3
U1
U1
U2
U3

183
constraint. This is because the polar units from the transverse direction are to
be linked with the translational units from the longitudinal grid direction. Us-
ing circles is only valid for polar units, while the ellipse is valid for both unit
types. Therefore, mixing polar and translational units requires the general
method, hence, an ellipse is to be used.

7.2.2 Closed structure

As an alternative to the open structure, a closed double curvature structure is
proposed. For this, half of the open structure (called main structure) is kept
and provided with compatibly deployable end structures.

Escrig [2006] has proposed an elegant solution for a deployable dome which
consists of polar units placed on a grid of parallels and meridians. Figure 7.8
shows a single slice of such a dome added to part of the open structure, in
three consecutive deployment stages. However elegant this solution may be,
there is a slight snap-through phenomenon during deployment and, as can be
seen in Figure 7.8, severe angular distortion in the end nodes, to allow the de-
formation of the grid cells. This proposal is discarded because a stress-free
deployable solution is to be found.

Consider the polar structure from Figure 7.9 (Section 3.3.4) called a lamella
dome. It consists of identical polar scissor units placed on a spherical grid with
six rhombus-shaped grid cells arranged radially, as can be seen in the top
view. There is no snap-through phenomenon during deployment, so it is fully
compatible with the stress-free deployment of the main structure. A minor
adaptation to the lower scissor units is needed to ensure a completely closed
surface. The dashed lines in Figure 7.10 represent the unaltered lower units of
the lamella dome, of which the end nodes would float above ground level, if
all units were to be identical. This is due to the fact that the lower lamella-
units meet the ground plane at an angle, as opposed to the lower units of the
main structure, which are normal to the ground plane. For the simple reason
of the longer distance these have to bridge to actually touch the ground, this
requires them to be elongated. The width of the compact bundle of bars is not

184
influenced by the longer bars, however, they protrude at the top and at the
bottom, therefore increasing the height of the undeployed shape.

Full dome (meridians and parallels) Adding a single row to the main structure

During deployment there is a snap-through phenomenon and angular distortion of the
grid cells
Figure 7.8: Adding an end structure based on parallels and meridians to the main structure

Figure 7.9: A lamella dome has a stress-free deployment


185

The resulting closed structure is shown in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.11: CLOSED structure: perspective view and plan view

Top view of full lamella
dome with six modules
arranged radially
In order to form a gapless enclosure, the lower units
(red) of the lamella modules have to be elongated until
they touch the ground
Figure 7.10: The main structure is provided with half of an adapted lamella dome
6 m

15.2 m

11.5 m


186
7.2.3 Deployment

The deployment process of the open and closed structure is depicted in Figure
7.12 and Figure 7.13.

polar barrel vault OPEN structure


187

polar barrel vault CLOSED structure

Figure 7.14: Proof-of-concept model (half of the structure) in three deployment stages

188
7.3 From mechanism to architectural envelope
7.3.1 Deployment and kinematic analysis

The polar linkage with four units in the span (U =4) can easily be constructed
as explained in Section 3.2.1. Alternatively, the parametric design approach,
described in Section 3.2.2 can be used. Either way, the geometry can be fully
derived from four design parameters: the span S and rise
r
H of the base
curve, the number of units U and the unit thickness t . Ultimately, values for
the semi-bar lengths a and b and the deployment angle
design
are obtained
which fully determine the geometry of the linkage in its deployed position.
Furthermore, these three parameters suffice to study the deployment behav-
iour of the polar linkage, as will be shown later. An expression for the span S
as a function of the deployment angle , including the design constants a , b
and U has been derived and is used to determine the value
max S
for which
the maximum span is reached during the deployment.

Now polar linkages have a peculiar property: during deployment, as the de-
ployment angle increases from 0 (compact configuration) to
design
(de-
ployment angle in the fully deployed configuration), the span S will not
merely increase. As increases, a maximum span (S
max
) is reached, only to de-
crease again slightly until
design
is reached (S
design
). Figure 7.15 shows a typical
deployment pattern for a polar linkage.

189

1 2 3

4 (S
max
=maximum span) 5 (S
design
)
Figure 7.15: Deployment sequence of a polar linkage

It is useful to know, for practical reasons, what the precise behaviour of the
linkage will be during deployment, in terms of variation of the span, and at
what point this maximum is reached.
In order to locate this point in the deployment, an expression has to be found
for the span, as a function of the constants a , b and U and the variable .

With
design
0 the deployment ratio can be defined as:
design

= with 1 0
(7.1)

where 0 = stands for the undeployed configuration and 1 = for the fully
deployed configuration.

The constants U , a and b are known, while , t ,
in
R ,
e
R , , and S are
unknown and vary throughout the deployment.

We can derive a few relations from Figure 7.16. Using the cosine rule we can
write the following expression:

) cos( 2
2 2 2
+ = b a b a t
(7.2)


190
which gives for t :
cos 2
2 2
b a b a t + + = (7.3)

Figure 7.16: Polar linkage in an intermediate deployment stage: 1 0 < <

From Figure 7.16 the following can be readily written:
t R R
in e
+ =
(7.4)

in e
e
i
R b R a
b
a
R
R
= =
(7.5)

Thus, by substituting Eqn (7.4) in Eqn (7.5) an expression for
in
R is obtained:
a b
a
t R
in
=
(7.6)

R
e

R
in

t

2

a
b
S
m
t

S
e

191
Further, we know that
U =
(7.7)

and from Figure 7.16 we can see that
4 =
(7.8)

From Eqns (7.7) and (7.8) we can find
4
U
=
(7.9)

Also,
2
sin
a m =
(7.10)
and
2
sin

in
R m =
(7.11)

from which an expression for is found:
=

2
sin sin 2
1

in
R
a

(7.12)

From Section 3.4.2 (Eqn (3.3)) we know that
) 2 sin( 2
in
R S =
(7.13)

Finally, substituting (7.3), (7.6), (7.9) and (7.12) in (7.13) results in an expres-
sion for the span S as a function of U , a , b and
=

2
sin sin sin 2
1

in
in
R
a
U R S
(7.14)
with cos 2
2 2
b a b a
a b
a
R
in
+ +
=
(7.15)

Alternatively, an expression can be found for the external span S
e
as defined in
Figure 7.16. It can be observed that
cos 2t S S
e
+ =
(7.16)


192
and
2
2
=
(7.17)

Substituting (7.17) in (7.16) gives
+ =
2
2
cos 2t S S
e

(7.18)
Or in other form:
2 sin 2t S S
e
+ =
(7.19)

Now, the value for the deployment angle (S
max
) at which the structure will
have reached it maximum span S
max
, can be found. Using f(x) for Eqn (7.14),
then (S
max
) is found by
0 ) ( = f
(7.20)

When applied to the polar linkage from which the barrel vault is built, the key
stages in the deployment sequence are obtained, as shown in Figure 7.18,
marked A, B and C. The relation between the deployment angle and the span is
represented by the graph in Figure 7.17. In the undeployed configuration (A)
both and S are evidently equal to 0. Between stages (A) and (B) the correla-
tion between and S is virtually linear. The maximum span is reached in stage
(B). Then the linkage further deploys until stage (C) is reached, for which it is
designed, where a slight decrease in span occurs. Theoretically, the deploy-
ment can be continued until the extremities of the linkage meet to complete a
circle and the span is reduced to 0, but as an architectural space enclosure
this configuration is useless.

Alternatively, the external span S
e
can be used (Eqn 7.19) to describe the
maximum span the structure will reach at its extremities during the erection
process. This could prove especially useful on sites with limited dimensions, to
check whether S
e
remains within the limits allowed.


193

Relation between the deployment angle ()
and the span (S) of the polar linkage with U=4
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Deployment angle ()
S
p
a
n

(
S
)

Figure 7.17: Graph showing the relation between the deployment angle and the span S for the
polar linkage with U=4

Stage A represents the undeployed position: both and S are equal to 0. The
maximum span of approximately 7 m is reached for =111.6. Stage C is the
final deployed position for which the linkage is designed and has =135 for a
span of 6 m, which are evidently the chosen design values.

A: =0, S=0 B: =111.6, S=701.7 cm C: =135, S=600 cm
Figure 7.18: Deployment sequence of the polar linkage (U=4)

Similar to the approach used for the translational barrel vault, a hinged plate
model is made, based on the grid geometry. This eliminates the rotational de-
gree of freedom of the scissors and allows to study the kinematic properties of
S
max

S
design

(S
max
)

design

A B C

194
the grid, in order to determine to what extent constraints have to be added to
turn the mechanism into a structure. Figure 7.19 shows the equivalent hinged
plate structure, consisting of plates that are mutually connected by a line
joint, allowing one rotational degree of freedom. This model represents the
mobility of the grid.

Figure 7.19: Open barrel vault: scissor structure and equivalent hinged plate structure

The complete structure is built from one module, pictured in Figure 7.20. Be-
cause the fold lines that represent the line joints do not share a single inter-
section point, this module has no mobility. By deduction, the complete struc-
ture has no mobility. Therefore, there is no need for additional constraints,
other than the one needed to eliminate the rotational degree of freedom of
the original scissor mechanism. However, similar to the translational barrel
vault (Section 6.4.1, Figure 6.21), all inner nodes touching the ground are fixed
by pinned supports, as shown in Figure 7.21.

Figure 7.20: Geometry of a hinged plate module


195

Figure 7.21: Fixing all inner lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports

Figure 7.22: Closed barrel vault: scissor structure and equivalent hinged plate structure

Figure 7.23: Geometry of the occurring plate modules


196

3 modules undeformed
2 deformed (red) and 1 undeformed
(black) modules
Figure 7.24: Closed barrel vault: scissor structure and equivalent hinged plate structure

Figure 7.22 and Figure 7.23 show the individual modules from which equiva-
lent hinged plate structures can be built for the closed configuration.
Because the middle part of the structure (half of the previously discussed open
structure) has no mobility, the degrees of freedom of the complete structure
are those of the added end structures alone. In Figure 7.24 the undeformed
and deformed state of an end structure is shown. When one module is kept
immobile, the two other can be simultaneously deformed. This leads to the
conclusion that there are two degrees of freedom per end structure, which
gives a total of four for the complete geometry. Again, in the deployed posi-
tion all inner nodes touching the ground are pinned to the ground, effectively
removing all mobility, as shown in Figure 7.25. The resulting open and closed
structure, with the tensile surface attached, are shown in Figure 7.28 and
Figure 7.29, with a covered area of 66 m
2
and 60 m
2
respectively.

The joint solution is similar to that of the translational barrel vault, as de-
scribed in Section 6.4.1. However, this is a simpler version because no rotation
of the plate elements (or fins) of the joint has to be allowed to cope with an-
gular distortion of the grid.

197

Figure 7.25: Fixing all inner lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports

Figure 7.26: Joint connecting four bars (no rotation of the fins of the joint around a vertical
axis, as is the case for the translational barrel vault in Section 6.4.1, Figure 6.24)


198

Figure 7.27: Top view and perspective view of one scissor unit and its intermediate and end
joints


Covered area

66 m
2
Figure 7.28: Perspective view and top view of OPEN structure with integrated tensile surface


199


Covered area

60 m
2
Figure 7.29: Perspective view and top view of CLOSED structure with integrated tensile surface


Analogous to case 1, the structural analysis will now be discussed. Without
taking any measures to improve structural performance, the calculated section
for the polar barrel vault is 1501003.2 mm, which, for a covered surface of
66 m
2
, translates into a weight-per-square-metre of 15.8 kg/m
2
(Figure 7.30).
With steel cable elements (d=6 mm, design strength=1500 MPa) inserted be-
tween upper and lower nodes (cfr. Section 6.5.1, Figure 6.45), the section of
the scissor bars is decreased to 120803.2 mm, leading to an improved 12.7
kg/m
2
, as shown in Figure 7.31.


200

Element
type
Section [mm]
Weight
[kg]
Scissor
bar
1501003.2 1046
T-cable
Cross bar
Cross ca-
ble

Total weight

1046
Weight/m
2
15.8

Figure 7.30: Result without any measures taken to improve structural performance

Element
type
Section
[mm]
Weight
[kg]
Scissor bar 120803.2 828
T-cable d=6 7
Cross bar
Cross ca-
ble

Total weight 835
Weight/m
2
12.7

Figure 7.31: Improved result by inserting vertical cable ties

Triangulation of the quadrangular grid can enhance the structural stability.
Therefore, diagonal struts are added inside each quadrangular scissor module,
as shown in Figure 7.32. These crossbars can be added after deployment by
fixing them to the nodes, which requires some extra manual labour. Alterna-
tively, these crossbars could be equipped with an intermediate hinge which
enables them to be integrated into the structure beforehand and allows them

201
to deploy compatibly with the scissor modules. However, these hinged bars
need to be locked at their intermediate hinge in order to fulfil their structural
role. Also, they are the longest bars in the structure which makes them sus-
ceptible to buckling. The outcome of the analysis of this configuration is a sec-
tion of 100502.5 mm for the scissor bars, while the crossbars have a tubu-
lar round section of 702.5 mm, both made from aluminium (Youngs
modulus: 75 GPa, design strength: 180 MPa). The section of the scissor bars
decreases to 100502.5 mm and although 100 kg is added through the
crossbars, the weight-covered area ratio drops to 8.9 kg/m2 because of the
reduced section of the scissor bars.

Element
type
Section
[mm]
Weight
[kg]
T-cable d=6 7
Cross bar 702.5 101
Cross ca-
ble

Total weight 589
Weight/m
2
8.9

Figure 7.32: Additional diagonal bars triangulate the grid

By adding another series of diagonal crossbars, as shown in Figure 7.33, their
section is slightly decreased to 602.5 mm and the section of the scissor bars
is further decreased to 80402.5 mm, leading to a weight ratio of 8.5 kg/m
2
.
This is too little a difference to be called an improvement, especially since a lot
more connections have to be made.

202

Due to the added complexity of the locking mechanisms in case of the foldable
crossbars or the additional on-site assembly in case of non-folding bars, an-
other option is chosen. Steel cables can instead be used to triangulate the
scissor grid to become tensioned by deployment of the structure. As a result,
the section of the scissor bars, and therefore the weight increases in compari-
son to the versions with cross-bars, but nonetheless this option is chosen be-
cause of its lower complexity. The resulting structure weighs 9.9 kg/

m
2
with a
section for the scissor bars of 100503.2 mm. The resulting geometry and
the weight is given in Figure 7.34. It is noted that the membrane, if warp and
weft directions are placed diagonally over the grid, can simulate the effect of
cross-bracing with cables. In Figure 7.35 a summary is given of the resulting
stresses, forces and displacements of the analysis of the open structure. The
governing load case is ULS 6 (pre-stress + transverse wind). The nodal dis-
placements are small and are comparable to those for the translational barrel
vault from Chapter 6. The bar deflections (not shown) do not exceed 1/300 of
the bar length.
Element
type
Section
[mm]
Weight
[kg]
T-cable d=6 7
Cross bar 602.5 173
Cross ca-
ble

Total weight 560
Weight/m
2
8.5

Figure 7.33: Double diagonal cross bars offer no real advantage structurally

203

100503.2
mm

Cable d=6 mm

Section hxbxt, dxt [mm] Total weight/section
[kg]
Weight/m
2
[kg/m
2
]
TREC 100x50x3.2 616
Cable d=6 7
Diagonal cable d=6 30
Figure 7.34: Perspective view of case study 2 OPEN structure, with sections after structure
design and weight/m
2

Diagonal
cable

204
RESULTS for Case study 2 OPEN structure (with cable elements)
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max
S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TREC 100x50x3.2 129.3 98.5 11.3 27.9 ULS 6
Cable d=6 -1153.7 - - -1153.7 ULS 6
Cross Cable d=6 -401.31 - - -401.31 ULS 2
FORCE
TREC 100x50x3.2 41.13 -1.85 -0.14 ULS 6
Cable d=6 -32.53 - - ULS 6
Cross Cable d=6 -11.3 - - ULS 6
REACTIONS [kN]
-16.7 ULS 6 -24.5 ULS 6 11.1 ULS 5
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
-1.2 SLS 6 -0.9 SLS 5 -2.1 SLS 6

for case study 2 OPEN structure
U
y
U
z
U
x

205

After structural analysis and design of the closed structure, without any addi-
tional measures taken to improve structural performance, a section of
1501003.2 mm for the bars is obtained. This leads to a total weight of 1060
kg, which gives a massive 17.6 kg/m
2
for a covered area of 60 m
2
(Figure 7.36).

When now diagonal steel cables (d=6 mm, design strength=1500 MPa) are
added to cross-brace the quadrangular scissor modules, the structural per-
formance is enhanced. The section is reduced to 120603.2 mm which gives,
for a total weight of 798 kg and a covered area of 60 m
2
, a ratio of 13.3 kg/m
2
.

Element
type
Section [mm]
Weight
[kg]
Structure
bar
1501003.2 1060
Cable d=6
Total weight 1060
Weight/m
2
17.6

Figure 7.36: Main structure and additional end structures with no additional measures to im-
prove structural performance

Form Figure 7.38 it can be seen that ULS 3 (pre-stress + longitudinal wind +
snow) is the governing load case. Again, displacements and deflections (not
shown) are within limits and are comparable to those of previous calculations.


206
120603.2
mm

Cable d=6 mm

Section hxbxt, dxt [mm] Total weight/section
[kg]
Weight/m
2
[kg/m
2
]
TREC 120x60x3.2 755
Cable d=6 16
Diagonal cable d=6 27
Figure 7.37: Perspective view of case study 2 CLOSED structure:, with resulting sections after
structure design and total weight

Diagonal
cable

207
RESULTS for Case study 2 _ CLOSED structure (with cable elements)
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max
S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TREC 120x60x3.2 161.1 150.9 2.7 8.14 ULS 3
Cable d=6 -523.8 - - -523.8 ULS 4
FORCE [kN]
Section [mm] Fx My Mz Load comb.
TREC 120x60x3.2 12.5 -0.05 -0.07 ULS 3
Cable d=6 -14.77 - - ULS 4
REACTIONS [kN]
-9.1 ULS 6 -7.77 ULS 7 10.43 ULS 4
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
1 SLS 6 1.8 SLS 3 -2.2 SLS 3

Figure 7.38: Summary of the results for the structural analysis of case study 2
CLOSED structure

U
x
U
y
U
z

208
7.5 Conclusion

This chapter was concerned with the design of a deployable barrel vault with
polar and translational scissor units on an orthogonal two-way grid. First, an
open barrel vault with four units in the span has been designed (Figure 7.39),
similar in shape and dimensions to case study 1, as described in Section 5.2.
For this case study, the construction methods and the geometric design meth-
ods, as described in Section 3.2, have been put into practice, to obtain a basic,
single curvature stress-free foldable solution.

Figure 7.39: Case 2: OPEN structure

Despite the simplicity of the design, providing the barrel vault with doubly
curved end structures to form a fully closed envelope, while these added sub-
structures are required to be stress-free foldable, has proven troublesome. A
clever solution proposed by Escrig [2006] consisting of polar scissor units,
placed in parallels and meridians, is characterised by an unwanted bi-stable
deployment.

An innovative solution was found in the lamella dome (Section 3.3.4). It has
been shown that, with a slight modification to the bottom most scissors, half
of such a dome can be connected to a polar barrel vault and demonstrate a
compatible, stress-free deployment (Figure 7.40).

Based on the geometric design method proposed in Section 3.3.2, the equa-
tions, which allow the study of the evolution of the span throughout the de-
ployment, have been derived. These were then used to predict the maximum
span the configuration reaches during deployment. This parameter has pro-

209
vided information on the minimum space required for deployment and can
prove useful during erection on a site with limited dimensions.

Figure 7.40: Case 2: CLOSED structure

The mobility of the system has been discussed by means of an equivalent
hinged-plate model, a method proposed in Section 6.4.1. It was found that the
open barrel vault is a one-degree-of-freedom mechanism, while each added
end structure has two D.O.F., leading to a total of five D.O.F. for the fully
closed, doubly curved structure. It was suggested to fix all lower nodes to the
ground by pinned supports, effectively eliminating all mobility from the struc-
ture.

To prevent the quadrangular grids from skewing due to a lack of in-plane sta-
bility, several configurations were provided with either cross-cables or cross-
bars. From the structural analysis it was found that the configuration with
double cross-bars provided the lightest solution (8.5 kg/m
2
). However, on prac-
tical grounds, the slightly heavier solution with the cross-cables was opted
(9.9 kg/m
2
). Although this structure has larger sections for the scissor mem-
bers, the connection of four extra cables to a joint, as opposed to four extra
bars, is preferred because of simpler connection and a more compact unde-
ployed configuration. The structural analysis of the fully closed configuration
has led to a structure with a weight ratio of 13.3 kg/m
2
. The increase in section
is attributed to the longer bars of the doubly curved end structures and the
resulting higher buckling sensitivity. A uniform section has been chosen for all
bars in the structure and, hence, an increase in weight was observed.


210


211
Chapter 8
Case study 3: A Deployable Bar Structure with
Foldable Articulated Joints

Figure 8.1: Foldable bar structure based on the geometry of foldable plate structures

212
8.1 Introduction

In this chapter a novel concept for a mobile shelter system is developed, based
on the geometry and kinematic behaviour of foldable plate structures, of
which the architectural application has been described in Section 2.3.

Evaluated by Hanaor [2001], plates are found to require an substantial thick-
ness because they are subject to compression and bending. The resulting over-
all weight may be higher than a structure surfaced with a membrane. Storage
efficiency is low due to the plates dimensions and thickness and waterproof-
ing of joints between individual plates poses a problem. Therefore, as an archi-
tectural envelope for the third case study, a textile membrane is proposed, as
it provides a flexible, lightweight, translucent and continuous shelter surface.
The membrane is held up and tensioned within the foldable bar structure, act-
ing as the primary load bearing structure.

As this case study is based on a foldable plate structure, the geometric design
method proposed in Section 4.3 is used to design a single curvature shape
(barrel vault, as shown in Figure 8.1), similar to the shape of case study 1 and
2. Also, a double curvature configuration (foldable dome) consisting of the
same plate elements is designed. Further, it is shown how these basic shapes
can be connected to form new, alternative configurations [De Temmerman,
2006b].

Next, it is explained how the transition is made from plate geometry to bar
structure. An innovative foldable articulated joint, serving as a connector for
the bars, is proposed [De Temmerman, 2006a]. It is demonstrated that the bar-
joint system preserves the kinematics of the plate structure it is derived from,
even when certain bars are discarded from the structure.

An insight in the mobility is offered [Foster1986/87], since these mechanisms
typically possess multiple degrees of freedom [Kool, 2006], which are to be
removed after deployment to stabilise the structure. The structural feasibility
of the concept is assessed in a preliminary structural analysis, where several

213
configurations are tested and mutually compared. Key aspects regarding the
architectural use are discussed.

Figure 8.2: Typical foldable plate structure


As described in Chapter 4 foldable plate structures consist of triangular plates,
hinged together along their edges by continuous joints which provides them
with one rotational degree of freedom. These hinges allow the structure to
fold according to a pattern of mountain and valley folds. By unfolding the
initially flattened plate linkage, a three-dimensionally expanding corrugated
surface arises, as shown in Figure 8.2. In Chapter 4 an overview is given of
some typical configurations and the equations needed for parametric design
are presented. For clarity, the key design parameters will be concisely
explained. Although in the end a foldable bar structure is to be designed, the
underlying geometry is no different from that of the plate structure it is
derived from. Therefore the geometry will be described in terms of plates and
all previously determined design parameters and equations remain valid. In
Figure 8.3 the parameters are shown which completely determine the
geometry of a foldable plate structure. This particular shape is called regular.
The key parameters which determine the overall geometry are: the number of

214
plates (p) in the span, the apex angle of the plates (), and the deployment
angle () for the fully deployed configuration. What is called the fully deployed
configuration corresponds with the position for which the edges of the plates
nearest to the ground are perfectly horizontal, i.e. they touch the ground
(Figure 8.2). In elevation view the silhouette of the structure is then a perfect
semi-circle. The impact additional parameters such as the plate length (L), the
span (S) and the module width (W) have, is limited to a variation of the
dimensions of the structure.

Fully deployed position

Fold pattern
Figure 8.3: Design parameters for a basic regular foldable plate structure.


215
As stated in the introduction to the case studies (Chapter 5) a circular arc with
a radius of 3m is used as base curve. This two-dimensional profile can be seen
as a projection in the vertical plane of a three-dimensional plate geometry
with five plates in the span (p=5). Taking a projected profile as a starting
point, implicates that there is an endless collection of plate geometries which
will fit this requirement. This is illustrated in Figure 8.4: the two pictured fully
deployed configurations are both valid solutions for p=5, but have a different
apex angle and a different width W.

Figure 8.4: For a chosen number of panels p the apex angle can be altered at will, only
affecting the width of the structure

However, not all values for the apex angle give rise to a valid, foldable
configuration which in addition can be folded into a compact configuration. It
has been shown that the minimal apex angle for a five-plate linkage which is
still compactly foldable is
min
=90 while the maximum value is
max
=135. This
can also be seen in the graph from which, for a certain chosen , the
appropriate deployment angle can be derived for linkages with p=5 (the
graph is drawn up using Eqn (4.13) from Section 4.3.1).


216
Relation between the apex angle () and the deployment angle
() in the fully deployed configuration for p=5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
Apex angle () []
D
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

a
n
g
l
e

(
)

[
]

Figure 8.5: Graph showing the relation between the deployment angle and the apex angle in
the fully deployed configuration for p=5

Because the 90 solution achieves - for a certain number of plates and con-
nections - the greatest expansion (and therefore the greatest width), this
seems a logical choice, but there are other factors that play a part in choosing
a suitable geometry.

The equations for designing circular structures have been proposed as well. It
has also been shown that a common module geometry can be found which
can be used in both regular and circular configurations, leading to a higher
uniformity of plate elements. The amount of sectors arranged radially in the
circular structure (q) can be freely chosen. Figure 8.7 shows such a sector of
which there are six in this particular example, which will be the amount used
for this case study. With chosen values p=5 and q=6, solving Eqn (4.13) and
Eqn (4.27) simultaneously results in an apex angle =109.2 and an accompa-
nying deployment angle =54.3 (marked in red in the graph from Figure 8.5).
This means that the original value for has risen from 90 to 109.2, which
translates in a reduced width in the deployed configuration. But the benefit is

217
that a plate geometry is obtained which can be used to form both regular and
circular configurations with the same plate elements and that these can be
mutually connected to form new alternative configurations, as shown in
Figure 8.9.

Fully deployed Compactly folded

Fold pattern
Figure 8.6: The resulting regular geometry for the case study: two extreme deployment states
and the fold pattern

Figure 8.7: Top view and a perspective view of a circular plate geometry with six sectors ar-
ranged radially


218

Fully deployed Compactly folded

Fold pattern
Figure 8.8: The resulting circular geometry for the case study: two extreme deployment states
and the fold pattern

Figure 8.9: A combination of a regular and a circular geometry

a
c
b
c
a
b
c

219
In Figure 8.10 the dimensions are given for three obtained geometries, which
all share the same interior height at their highest point: 4.25 m.

Open structure Closed structure Dome
Figure 8.10: Dimensions in plan view of the shapes

8.3 From plate structure to foldable bar structure

Now that the geometry has been fully determined, the transition from foldable
plates to foldable bars can be made. The goal is to devise a foldable bar struc-
ture with a kinematic behaviour identical to that of its similar counterpart, the
foldable plate structure. So instead of plate elements as cladding components,
a continuous membrane supported by a skeletal structure will be used to form
the architectural envelope.

Figure 8.11: A foldable plate structure (p=7) and its similar counterpart, a foldable bar structure

A first way of obtaining the bar structure is to cut away the middle sections
of the plates until only thin borders remain, which represent the bars. Where
8.5 m
10.4 m
8.5 m
10.8 m
8.5 m

220
there were originally two neighbouring plates meeting edge to edge, there are
now two parallel bars, one on each side of the fold line. These double bars,
however, lead to an inefficient use of material (Figure 8.12).

Figure 8.12: Pattern 1: double bars present

Therefore, as many superfluous bars as possible are removed, without affecting
the original kinematics of the system. Of each pair of double bars, one is con-
sequently discarded, as shown in Figure 8.13.

Figure 8.13: Pattern 2: double bars removed

Additionally, provided that the bars are appropriately connected, some of the
middle bars (valley between two triangles) can be left out, without altering the
kinematic behaviour, provided that the two remaining V-shaped legs are
joined by a fixed connection at the apex. The reason for discarding these bars,
is to be able to incorporate a membrane, hung inside from the nodes. If the
bars would remain in place, the membrane would be unable to reach its anti-
clastic shape inside the V-shaped folded rhombuses. The resulting bar pattern

221
is shown in Figure 8.14, which is the type that will be used for the open struc-
ture.

Figure 8.14: Pattern 3: double bars and diagonal bars removed, without affecting the original
kinematic behaviour

By connecting the bars by means of a custom foldable joint, shown in Figure
8.15 the bar-node system demonstrates the same kinematic behaviour as the
plate structure it is originally derived from. It consists of six parts connected
by hinges in such a way that the folding and unfolding is unhindered by the
thickness of the bars (Figure 8.16). In this way a lightweight articulated bar
structure is obtained which behaves like a foldable mechanism.

Figure 8.15: Foldable 3 D.O.F.-joint derived directly from the fold pattern, therefore mimicking
its kinematic behaviour


222

Figure 8.16: Deployment sequence for the foldable joint: from the undeployed to the fully de-
ployed position

By appropriately connecting bars and foldable joints according to the fold pat-
tern previously discussed, a foldable barrel vault is formed, as shown in Figure
8.17. All joints are identical, except for those at ground level, which are
slightly modified versions. The dome-shaped structure from Figure 8.8 and the
combined geometry shown in Figure 8.9 can both be built in a similar manner,
composed from the same elements.

Figure 8.17: The (regular) open structure complete with bars and joints:
perspective and top view side and front elevation


223
Figure 8.18: Detailed view of bars and three variations of foldable joints occurring in the struc-
ture

8.3.1 Deployment

The deployment process of the open structure is shown in Figure 8.19. During
deployment almost all the expansion occurs in the longitudinal direction (per-
pendicular to the span). In the transverse direction (parallel to the span) the
variation of the geometry is not as significant. In the undeployed position, the
outermost nodes, marked in Figure 8.19, touch the ground. These remain in
contact with the ground throughout the deployment and can therefore be
used to attach wheels to facilitate the deployment on even terrain.

1
2
3

224

Figure 8.19: Deployment sequence for the open structure perspective view, front elevation and
top view

Figure 8.20: Proof-of-concept model of the regular structure (with scissors) in four stages of
the deployment

The foldable dome is deployed in a circular manner, by rotating all sector
around a vertical axis through the highest point. The deployment process of
the circular structure is shown in Figure 8.21.


225

Figure 8.21: Deployment sequence for the dome structure perspective view, front elevation
and top view

Figure 8.22: Proof-of-concept model of the foldable dome (with additional scissor units) in six
deployment stages


226
The deployment of the combined structure is similar to that of its regular and
circular sub-structure. First the regular structure is deployed while the circular
modules are kept compacted, as shown in Figure 8.23 and Figure 8.24 (stage A,
B and C). Then, the circular modules are deployed until the structure becomes
a fully closed envelope (stage D, E and F).

Figure 8.23: Deployment sequence for the closed structure: 1 regular module + 2 semi-domes
A
B
C
D
E
F

227

Top view
A B C D

E F
Figure 8.24: Six stages in the deployment of the closed structure (top view)

An alternative way of translating the fold pattern into a bar structure has been
looked at. As opposed to the previous method, a bar is placed exactly on every
fold line of the pattern. The bars are connected by custom kinematic joints
which allow all necessary rotations during deployment. Some bars are grouped
into triangles to make connections simpler. The resulting geometry is shown in
Figure 8.25. A model has been constructed to evaluate the mobility of the
mechanism which behaves in the desired way. However, fully folding or un-
folding proves difficult because obstruction occurs in the joints, and therefore
this solution cannot be folded as flat as the configuration with the foldable
joint. Consequently, this proposition will not be further investigated.


228
Figure 8.25: Kinematic joint allowing all necessary rotations (3 D.O.F.) and the resulting bar
structure Proof-of-concept model to verify the mobility

Ultimately the foldable bar structure has to provide shelter by means of a ten-
sile surface. Two approaches are proposed, depending on whether the mem-
brane is integrated in advance or not. Because the deployment of the structure
is characterised as folding, a membrane can well be integrated beforehand by
attaching it to the nodes. Then, it is unfolded along with the structure and
brought under tension as the structure reaches its fully deployed position. In
Figure 8.26 the integrated membrane is shown in both the undeployed and
deployed position. Another option is to deploy the bar structure first, after
which the membrane can be pulled up to the nodes by cables, until it becomes
sufficiently tensioned.

229

Figure 8.26: Integration of the membrane beforehand by attaching it to the nodes Side eleva-
tion and perspective view of the undeployed and deployed position

8.3.2 Alternative geometry

As an alternative configuration, a right-angled structure as described in Chap-
ter 4 has been designed using the same approach. Such a geometry, shown in
Figure 8.27, can be very compactly folded, provided that the design parameters
are appropriately chosen. Also, the vertical sides are quadrangular, which
could make it easier to provide access to the structure. As a downside, the
higher variation of the apex angles, when compared to the regular structure,
translates in three different foldable joints, with another two variations at
ground level. But the main concern is the relatively low structural thickness,
due to the gentler corrugation of the surface. This is because a right-angled
structure has a larger deployment angle and it is this increased deployment
range that gives the roof its higher slenderness in the deployed configuration,
making it susceptible to sagging or even snapping through. A model (Figure

230
8.28) with aluminium bars and resin connectors (not to scale) has been built
to test the deployment behaviour, which proves to be as required.

A B C
Figure 8.27: Right-angled geometry with its own set of joints

Figure 8.28: Deployment sequence of a concept model of a right-angled structure with
aluminium bars and resin connectors [De Temmerman, 2006a]

Right-angled and regular structures with a type B pattern (Section 4.2) and
with p=5 have identical edges in the vertical plane. This implies that they can
be linked together along that edge to form a chain of structures. However, the
A
B
C

231
difference in shape between the regular and the right-angled structure in the
undeployed configuration prevents a simultaneous deployment. Therefore, they
are to be coupled after deployment (Figure 8.29).

Figure 8.29: Several regular and right-angled structures connected together after deployment

8.3.3 Kinematic analysis

The devised articulated bar system and the plate system it is derived from, are
mechanisms with multiple degrees of freedom. The mobility of foldable plate
linkages can be determined from the layout of the plates. In chapter 4, the
difference between a type A and type B pattern has been explained. For all
patterns similar to pattern A the formula for the total number of degrees of
freedom is derived by Foster [1986/87]:

2 2 + + m p
(8.1)

where p stands for the number of plates in one module and m for the number
of modules in the pattern. Analogous to Eqn (8.1), a similar formula can now
be derived for patterns of type B:

4 2 + + m p
(8.2)


232
From these two expressions it is immediately apparent that patterns of type B
posess, for an identical number of plates and modules, a higher mobility.
Because we want to limit the mobility of the mechanism, in order to gain
control over the deployment, the patterns used in this case study are therefore
chosen to be of type A.
Applying Eqn (8.1) to the open structure (Figure 8.19) with p=5 and m=6, the
mechanism has 19 D.O.F. Now it is necessary to determine what constraints
have to be added in order to turn the linkage into a structure. Pinning eight
lower nodes of the linkage to the ground adds 24 constraints (83 translations
removed). This ensures stability for the structure which is now 5 times
overconstrained.

Now, for comparison, the number of constraints for the articulated bar linkage
from Figure 8.25 is determined. Eqn (8.3) for pin-jointed truss systems gives
the degree of statical determinacy (R) in terms of the number of bars (b), the
number of joints (j) and The number of restraints (r) on the structure [Callad-
ine, 1978]:

) 3 ( r j b R =
(8.3)

When the pattern for the open structure is built up using the structural system
shown in Figure 8.25, the number of bars b=53 and the number of joints j=24.
With again 8 pinned supports to constrain the structure (83 constraints), the
statical determinacy R=-5. This means the structure is 5 times overconstrained
and therefore stable.

These identical results demonstrate the similarity between a foldable plate
system and the articulated bar structure in terms of kinematic behaviour.

It can be asked to what extent the predicted degree of mobility represents the
actual kinematics of the system. Often, formulas such as Ktzbach-Grbler
[Hiller, 1991] for predicting the mobility of a system based on counting the
number of joints and links, fail due to singularities occurring in mechanisms
with high symmetry. Therefore Kool [2006] has devised a method for deter-

233
mining the mobility of foldable plate structures which uses a joint matrix for
each kinematic loop in the structure. The number of kinematic loops can be
easily determined with Eqn (8.4), attributed to Euler.

1
int
+ =
links s jo loops
N N N
(8.4)

Here, N
joints
is the number of continuous joints between plate elements, while
N
links
is the total number of plates in the configuration. In short, once the num-
ber of loops has been established, the mobility can be predicted with a struc-
ture matrix. The columns of the joint matrix are the line vectors representing
the hinges between the plates. The joint matrices can be assembled into a lar-
ger structure matrix. The folding patterns can be calculated by using a svd-
composition of this matrix and the zero singular values which are indicative
for the rank-deficiency of the matrix correspond to the number of possible
patterns. For a detailed explanation of the method please refer to [Kool, 2006].

Applying this approach to the foldable plate configuration from Figure 8.7, the
number of loops is found using Eqn (8.4): N
loops
=1110+1=2. These two loops
are shown in Figure 8.30.

Figure 8.30: The two loops and their common fold line

By applying the mentioned approach, five degrees of freedom are found for
the foldable plate configuration from Figure 8.30: two in each loop and one
angle around the common fold line. Practically, this means that, when the an-

234
gle around the fold line is determined (deployment angle ), another angle in
each loop can be chosen to place the bottom edges on the ground. Finally, a
second angle in each loop can be chosen to force the side edges in a vertical
plane in order to be able to mutually connect several modules.

Possibly, this high degree of mobility of the mechanism can cause undesired
movement. Therefore, incorporating a scissor linkage a one D.O.F-mechanism
could be a solution. Figure 8.30 and Figure 8.31 show the deployment of a
dome and a regular structure, both with an integrated compatible scissor link-
age.

A foldable dome with a compatible integrated scissor linkage only the upper nodes of the
scissors are connected to the dome

Figure 8.31: A foldable open structure with a compatible integrated scissor linkage one bar of
each scissor unit doubles up as an edge the foldable bar structure


235

The bars and foldable joints are modelled in ROBOT as shown in Figure 8.32.
The foldable articulated joints are entered as six separate entities, each con-
sisting of fixed bar elements. The bars, in turn, are connected to these joint
elements by fixed connections. By releasing the rotations, represented by the
axes in Figure 8.32, the joints have the same kinematic behaviour as the actual
joint model, shown in Figure 8.15.

Figure 8.32: Top view and perspective view of the finite element model of the foldable joint
from Figure 8.15 (hinges are represented by dashed lines)

The load combinations, specified in Chapter 5, are applied to the model as
nodal forces. These load vectors are distributed over the six elements of the
nodes. The joints elements are excluded from the design process. Therefore,
their size is limited and they are awarded a very large section together with a
high stiffness and design strength.

Again, some variations of the configurations have been structurally analysed.
First, a configuration where the middle bars of each rhombus-shaped module
are still present, has been calculated. All lower nodes are fixed to the ground
by pinned supports. The resulting section and the weight ratio is shown in
Figure 8.33. As material for the bars, aluminium is chosen (Youngs modulus:
75 GPa, design strength: 180 MPa). This results in a tubular round section of
882.5 mm, with a weight ratio of 5 kg/m
2
.
Joint
element
Bars

236

Element type Section
[mm]
Weight
[kg]
Structure bar 882.5 375
Strut
Total weight 375
Weight/m
2
5

Figure 8.33: Model with the middle bars in the rhombus-shaped modules still present

When cross-bars are added to the top layer of the system, the section remains
unaltered. Instead, the added bars only increase the weight which has
mounted to 403 kg, leading to a weight ratio of 5.4 kg/m
2
(Figure 8.34).

[mm]
Weight
[kg]
Strut 552.5 28
Total weight 403
Weight/m
2
5.4

Figure 8.34: Same model as in Figure 7.33, but with cross-bars

The configuration from Figure 8.35 is the one which is presented in the previ-
ous sections. It has no middle bars in the rhombus-shaped modules and the
bars are joined, in pairs, at their apex angle by a fixed connection. This is also
shown in Figure 8.14, Figure 8.15 and Figure 8.18. The result is again a round
tubular section of 882.5 mm, but with fewer bars, which gives a total weight
of 296 kg, resulting in a weight ratio of 3.9 kg/m
2
, which is the lightest solu-
tion of all proposals.


237
[mm]
Weight
[kg]
Strut
Total weight 296
Weight/m
2
3.9

Figure 8.35: Bars are grouped in pairs and joined by a fixed connection in their apex angle

When struts are added, the section isnt decreased. Adding struts only adds to
the weight, which mounts up to 335 kg, resulting in a weight ratio of 4.5
kg/m
2
(Figure 8.36).

[mm]
Weight
[kg]
Strut 762.5 39
Total weight 335
Weight/m
2
4.5

Figure 8.36: Adding struts again only increases the weight, while the section remains identical

Figure 8.37 shows a summary of the results of the structural analysis of the
proposed configuration. For the strength, the governing load case is ULS 5
(pre-stress + snow). The stresses are quite low and buckling sensitivity is the
determining phenomenon here. Also, the snow action (in SLS 5) is the govern-
ing load for the displacements, which stay within acceptable bounds. Deflec-
tions (not shown here) do not exceed 1/1000.

238

RESULTS for Case study 3 _ OPEN structure
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TRON 88x2.5 41.5 7.1 8.7 25.9 ULS 5
FORCE
TRON 88x2.5 23.65 0.01 0.06 ULS 5
REACTIONS [kN]
-14.22 ULS 6 9.08 ULS 6 -19.6 ULS 5
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
0.6 SLS 5 1.3 SLS 5 -1.6 SLS 5

for case study 3 OPEN structure

Ux
Uy
Uz

239

[mm]
Weight
[kg]
Total weight 208
Weight/m
2
4.5

Description:
Foldable dome: bar structure without
middle bars and no struts
Figure 8.38: Resulting section and weight for the foldable dome

First, the proposed dome structure is analysed (Figure 8.38). The same results
as for the open structure are obtained: tubular round aluminium sections
measuring 882.5 mm. The weight is 208 kg leading to a weight ratio of 4.5
kg/m
2
.


240

Section hxbxt, d[mm] Total weight/section [kg] Weight/m
2
[kg/m
2
]
TRON 88x2.5 375
Total weight: 375 5
Figure 8.39: Perspective view of case study 3 CLOSED structure with sections after structure
design and total weight

Next, the closed structure is analysed (Figure 8.39). Again, the same sections
are obtained and a comparable result in terms of weight ratio is obtained: 5
kg/m
2
. Figure 8.40 gives an overview of the strength, stability and displace-
ments. ULS 5 (pres-stress + snow) is the governing load case for the strength
and stability. Displacements are still acceptable without harming the service-
ability of the structure, but have risen in comparison with the open structure.
Also, deflections (not shown) have risen (compared to the open structure) to
1/600.


241
RESULTS for Case study 3 CLOSED structure
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TRON 88x2.5 81 68.4 5.9 12.59 ULS 5
FORCE [kN]
Section [mm] Fx My Mz Load comb.
TRON 88x2.5 29.7 0.03 0.37 ULS 5
REACTIONS [kN]
-15.43 ULS 6 -11.36 ULS 7 30.29 ULS 5
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
0.6 SLS 6 1.3 SLS 7 -3.5 SLS 5

for case study 3 CLOSED structure

Uz
Ux
Uy

242
Transverse forces and bending moments are high in the elements which con-
stitute the joints (bodies of the foldable articulated joint) and are low in the
bars. This structural behaviour is comparable with that of a truss with fixed
nodes (no releases for bars in the nodes). The fact that the transverse forces
and the shear stresses are high in the nodes requires further, detailed analysis
in which the joints are structurally designed. The governing phenomenon is
buckling of the bars. The relatively great length of the bars especially the
inverted V-shapes at the front and back of the open structure makes them
susceptible to buckling. This explains the relatively low stresses in the bars,
which leads to the conclusion that the stability is determining for the design,
and not the strength.

8.5 Conclusion

In this chapter a novel concept for a rapidly erectable shelter system, based on
the geometry and kinematic behaviour of foldable plate structures, has been
proposed. First a single curvature foldable plate geometry (barrel vault Figure
8.41) has been designed using the geometric design method proposed in Sec-
tion 4.3.1. A five-plate geometry was chosen, since its sectional profile is simi-
lar to that of case study 1 and 2, as explained in Section 5.2. Also, a double
curvature shape (dome Figure 8.42) has been designed using the same ap-
proach.

Figure 8.41: Case 3 OPEN structure


243
Due to the plate uniformity, achieved by using the equations derived in Sec-
tion 4.3, it has been shown possible for both these shapes to be combined into
a closed doubly curved foldable geometry (Figure 8.43).

It has been shown that the transition from plate structure to bar structures
can be made, while preserving the kinematic behaviour of the original plate
system. To simplify the structure, it was found that some excess bars could be
discarded from the configuration, while still maintaining the same deployment
behaviour.

Figure 8.42: Case 3 Foldable DOME structure

For connecting the bars, an innovative foldable articulated joint has been de-
veloped. Through a proof-of-concept model, it has been proven that the bar-
joint system preserves the kinematic properties of the plate structure it is de-
rived from.

By counting the number of loops, it was found that a five-plate module has
five D.O.F.s. To ensure a controlled deployment, it has been proposed to stra-
tegically incorporate scissor mechanisms, turning the configuration in a sin-
gle-D.O.F. mechanism.


244

Figure 8.43: Case 3 CLOSED structure

From the structural analysis it was found that transverse forces and bending
moments were high in the joints and low in the bars. Buckling of the bars has
been recognised as the governing phenomenon. Therefore, other configura-
tions with a higher number of units (for the same span), leading to shorter
bars, should be investigated. Currently, all three configurations (joints ex-
cluded) have achieved a weight ratio of approximately 5 kg/m
2
.

While the proposed concept seems promising and the architectural and kine-
matic feasibility have been demonstrated, more profound and detailed struc-
tural analysis is needed on an integrated model consisting of the bar structure,
the joints and the tensile surface.

245
Chapter 9
Case study 4: A Deployable Tower with Angulated
Units

Figure 9.1: Design concept for a tensile surface structure with a deployable central tower
246
9.1 Introduction

This chapter is concerned with the design of the fourth and final case study,
which is an innovative concept for a deployable hyperboloid tower with angu-
lated scissor elements. Its purpose is two-fold: serving as a mast for a tensile
surface structure while acting as an active element during the erection proc-
ess.

Angulated scissor elements have been extensively investigated and this has
yielded a wide range of concepts and applications in the field of deployable
scissor structures [Hoberman, 1991], [You & Pellegrino, 1996, 1997], [Rodri-
guez & Chilton, 2003], [Jensen, 2004]. Although primarily intended for ra-
dially deployable closed loop structures, it is shown in this chapter that angu-
lated elements can also prove valuable for use in a linear three-dimensional
scissor geometry. It is explained how angulated elements offer, for the pro-
posed application, an advantage over polar units in terms of deployment be-
haviour and a reduction of the number of connections.

A comprehensive geometric design method is proposed for which the equa-
tions, expressed in terms of relevant design parameters, are derived, enabling
the design of any hyperboloid shape. Two different approaches are introduced,
offering the designer a choice between designing the undeployed or the de-
ployed configuration.

As the deployment is an integral part of the design, an insight in the relation-
ship between the geometry of the structure and its subsequent kinematic be-
haviour is offered. The mobility of the system is assessed through use of the
equivalent hinged-plate model, as introduced for case study 1 (Section 6.4.1)
and case study 2 (Section 7.3.1).

An innovative design for a joint is proposed, allowing all necessary rotations
between subsequent elements. Finally, the tower is structurally analysed under
wind and snow action and conclusions are drawn on the structural feasibility
of the proposed design.
247
9.1.1 A concept for a deployable tower

This case study is quite different from the previous three. Although a deploy-
able bar structure and a tensile surface are once again involved, the way it
provides an architectural enclosure is what sets it apart. For the barrel vaults
of case studies 1, 2 and 3 the bar structure and the membrane surface follow
the same curvature (monoclastic in the case of the open structure and syn-
clastic for the closed structures). In this case on the other hand, the scissor
structure is a central vertical linear element, used to hold up the anticlastic
membrane canopies at one of their high points. The question was raised
whether it would be possible to design such a deployable tower for a tempo-
rary tensile structure and to use it as an active element during the erection
process. In addition, the pantographic tower allows visitors to access several
platforms to enjoy the views, under or above the different membrane elements
(Figure 9.1).

The proposed concept is based on a design by The Nomad Concept [2007], a
company active in the field of tensile surface structure design. Figure 9.2
shows the original (undeployable) tower (or mast), consisting of several mod-
ules which are assembled and dismantled on-site by stacking them vertically,
for which a lifting device is needed. After assembly the membrane would have
to be attached to the top, after which the pre-tension in the membrane can be
introduced.
248

Figure 9.2: Mobile structure with membrane surfaces arranged around a demountable central
tower ( The Nomad Concept)

By making the tower deployable, all connections could be made on ground
level, while the mechanism is in its undeployed, compact state, therefore
eliminating the need for additional lifting equipment. After connections be-
tween the membrane elements and the tower have been made, the mechanism
is deployed until the required height is reached and the membrane elements
become tensioned. The tower could be deployed to such an extent that a suffi-
cient amount of pre-tension is introduced in the membrane, ensuring the abil-
ity to withstand external loads. Since the tower is basically a mechanism addi-
tional bracing is needed after full deployment to turn it into a load-bearing
structure.

249

Figure 9.3: The top of the tower is accessible to visitors, allowing them to enjoy the view
( The Nomad Concept)


The deployable tower is horizontally divided in several modules, which are
closed-loop configurations of identical hobermans units or otherwise called
angulated SLEs. Figure 9.4 shows an example of a tower with triangular mod-
ules, of which three are stacked vertically. Because every bar in the structure is
identical, the sums of the semi-lengths are evidently constant, therefore, the
geometric deployability constraint is automatically fulfilled.

The dimensions of the structure are shown in Figure 9.4, Figure 9.5 and Figure
9.6. The tensile surfaces are identical and measure 10 m along their longest
diagonal. The top of the second module, at which the membrane elements are
attached, is located at 5.2 metres above ground level. The other high point of
the membranes is held 4 m above ground by additional masts.
250

Figure 9.4: Side elevation of the tower and canopy

Figure 9.5: Top view of the structure showing the three tensile surfaces arranged radially around
the central tower

10 m
4 m
5.2 m
251

Figure 9.6: Dimensions of the tower and a single angulated bar

It could be argued that a tower with a broad base and a narrow top can
equally be built with polar units with decreasing size as they are located
nearer to the top. In Figure 9.7 two linkages one with angulated elements,
another with polar units - are shown, with identical height and width, but
with varying number of units U and different bar lengths. Using the angulated
elements offers an advantage: while the linkage with angulated elements is
built from only 3 SLEs with 11 hinges and nodes, the equivalent polar mecha-
nism needs 8 units with 26 connections to reach a similar deployed geometry.
The effect that the angulated elements have on the modules is that, during
deployment, the top of a module becomes narrower than its base. The radius
of the top of a certain module becomes equal to the radius of the base of the
next, higher located module. This means that the narrowing effect is enhanced
and passed on through the mechanism, from module to module, from bottom
to top.

252
Linkage with angulated SLEs: Equivalent linkage with polar SLEs:

Number of SLEs: n=3
Number of hinges and end nodes: 11
Number of SLEs: n=8
Number of hinges and end nodes: 26
Figure 9.7: Comparison between a linkage with angulated SLEs and its polar equivalent

The dimensions of the individual bars of the scissor units are such, that the
horizontal projection of b is equal to a, as shown in Figure 9.8. The imaginary
vertical axes connecting the end nodes of the bars can act as fold lines, used
to further flatten the linkage. Therefore, the modules are cut open along one
253
fold line, after which the whole can be flatly folded for easier transport. Such
a fold sequence is shown in Figure 9.9. This way of further compacting is pre-
sented as an option and could be ignored, provided that the dimensions in the
undeployed state are kept reasonable.

Figure 9.8: Imposed condition on the length of the semi-bars a and b (a<b), in order to make the
linkage foldable along the vertical axis

Step 1 (Compacted for transport) Step 2

Step 3 Step 4 (ready to deploy)

a
b
254
The deployment sequence of the tower is presented in Figure 9.10, showing a
top view and a side elevation for each stage. The maximum deployment is
reached when the upper end nodes of the top module meet in one point.

Step 5 (Undeployed) Step 6 Step 7

Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 (Fully deployed)
Figure 9.10: Six stages in the deployment of a hexagonal tower: elevation and top view
255

Two different design approaches are presented here, depending on what the
determining design criteria are:
The first method from unit to linkage allows to design the mecha-
nism in its compact, undeployed configuration, after which it is de-
ployed into the desired position. This offers control over the geometry
of the scissor elements themselves, rather than the overall final de-
ployed result. This is a straightforward, linear design approach that al-
lows each subsequent parameter to be derived from the previous one.
The second approach from linkage to unit allows the overall ge-
ometry of the deployed configuration to be determined from a set of
design values. Finding solutions for the remaining parameters (geome-
try of the SLEs) relies on numerical calculations.
In this section the two approaches and all relevant design parameters are
discussed. All equations are valid for any n-sided polygon (n>3) as basic
shape for the tower. For simplicity, the parameterisation is applied to a
two-module mechanism, but the approach is easily extended to more
modules.

9.3.1 First approach: Design of the undeployed configuration (Unit
linkage)

The tower is designed by means of parameters which determine the geometry
of the linkage in the undeployed state (Figure 9.11b) and remain constant
throughout the deployment: semi-bar lengths a and b, the kink angle of the
angulated SLEs, the number of scissor units U in one module and the total
number of modules n stacked vertically. The number of units U with the
minimum obviously being three in the closed loop determines the sector an-
gle (Figure 9.11e). The edge length E (a parameter specific to the unde-
ployed state) of the base polygon determines the length of the semi-bars a
and b, with a being half the length of E and bs horizontal projection is equal
to a (Figure 9.11d). (As mentioned earlier, this extra requirement makes it pos-
sible to further compact the whole linkage in its folded configuration).
256

(d) Elevation view of angulated element

(a) Intermediate state
(01); (012max)
(e) Top view showing the edge length E
and the sector angle

(b) Undeployed state
(=0); (1=2=0)
(c) Fully deployed state
(=1); (012=max)
Figure 9.11: Design parameters of a two-module tower with angulated SLEs (three states)

L
b
L
a
L
b

L
a

L
a
L
b

max

2
E
257
The design parameters a, b, , U and n remain constant throughout the de-
ployment which is achieved by letting the deployment angle vary over a cer-
tain interval. As the module deploys, its width decreases while its height in-
creases..

E, , U and n completely determine the geometry of the linkage in the unde-
ployed configuration. The sector angle is a submultiple of 2 and depends on
the number of units U, corresponding with the number of sides of the base
polygon:
U
2
=
(9.1)

The shortest semi-bar a measures half of the length of the edge of the base
polygon E:
2
E
a =
(9.2)

The length of semi-bar b is given by:

( ) cos cos
a a
b =
=
(9.3)

In the undeployed position the height of one module equals:

tan a h
undeployed
=
(9.4)

while the total height of all modules is:

undeployed undeployed
h n H =
(9.5)

Now that all necessary design parameters are given a value, we can unfold the
linkage by increasing the deployment angle . Figure 9.11a shows two mod-
ules (n=2) in an intermediate deployment position in which the bottom and
top module both have their separate deployment angle
1

and
2
respectively.

258
We can define to what degree a linkage is deployed by introducing the de-
ployment ratio , with 01:
max
=
(9.6)

The uppermost (n
th
) module will have reached its maximal deployment before
any other module. Therefore its deployment angle
n
shall be used for deter-
mining the deployment of the whole structure. When
max
is reached, the up-
permost end nodes meet in one point, rendering further deployment physically
impossible. We can express
max
in terms of the kink angle , via definition of
an extra angle or it can be found directly from the drawing in Figure 9.11:

max
2

=
(9.7)
=
(9.8)

which gives for
max
:
2
max

=
(9.9)
There are three distinct deployment stages: undeployed (=0), intermediate
(01) or fully deployed stage (=1). These will now be discussed in greater
detail.
259

Intermediate state (01); (012max)
Figure 9.12: Perspective view: design parameters of a two-module tower with angulated SLEs
Side elevation showing the non-coplanarity of the angulated elements (marked in red)

The general, intermediate configuration (Figure 9.11a) is used to draw up the
geometric relations between the design parameters. The undeployed and fully
deployed states can be seen as special cases of the intermediate one. From
Figure 9.12 a number of geometric relations can be drawn:

( ) tan cos sin 2
1 1 1
= a h
(9.10)
M
2
M
1
M
0
L
0

L
1

L
2

H
2
H
1
h
1

h
2
R
2
R
1
R
0
p
0
p
1
p
2
p
0
p
1
p
2
260
( ) tan cos sin 2
2 2 2
= a h
(9.11)
1 0
cos 2 a L =
(9.12)
2 1
cos 2 a L =
(9.13)
( ) tan sin cos 2
1 1 1
+ = a L
(9.14)
( ) tan sin cos 2
2 2 2
+ = a L
(9.15)
sin 2
1 1
R L =
(9.16)
sin 2
2 2
R L =
(9.17)
2
cos
0 0

R M =
(9.18)
2
cos
1 1

R M =
(9.19)
2
cos
2 2

R M =
(9.20)
2 1
H H H + =
(9.21)
( )
2
1 0
2
1 1
M M h H = (9.22)
( )
2
2 1
2
2 2
M M h H = (9.23)

a) The intermediate position (01)

(0
1
max
)
The linkage is designed from top to bottom, by assigning a value to
2
with
0
2

max
. Together with the previously determined design parameters n, U,
, a, b and , all dimensions can be derived by subsequently solving Eqn (9.24)
to (9.31). The parameters used in this section are pictured in Figure 9.12.
For the top module:

( ) tan cos sin 2
2 2 2
= a h
(9.24)
( ) tan sin cos 2
2 2 2
+ = a L
(9.25)
sin 2
2
2
L
R =
(9.26)
261
2
cos
2 2

R M =
(9.27)
2 1
cos 2 a L =
(9.28)
sin 2
1
1
L
R =
(9.29)
2
cos
1 1

R M =
(9.30)
( )
2
2 1
2
2 2
M M h H = (9.31)

For the bottom module:

1
can be calculated from this equation:
( ) tan sin cos 2
1 1 1
+ = a L
(9.32)

Alternatively,
1
can be expressed in terms of L
1
, a and :
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=

2
2 4 2
1
2
1
1
1
2
sin sec 4 cos cos
cos
a
a L a L a

(9.33)

The unit height h
1
, base length L
0

, radius R
0
and projected height H
1
are given
by:
( ) tan cos sin 2
1 1 1
= a h
(9.34)
1 0
cos 2 a L =
(9.35)
sin 2
0
0
L
R =
(9.36)
2
cos
0 0

R M =
(9.37)
( )
2
1 0
2
1 1
M M h H =
(9.38)

When the total linkage consists of more modules (n2), these can be calcu-
lated by repeating Eqns (9.32) to (9.38) for each extra module.
262
b) Fully deployed position (=1)

(0
1
2
=
max
)
With
2
=
max
Eqns (9.24) to (9.31) become:

For the top module:

( ) tan cos sin 2
2 2 2
= a h
(9.39)

Knowing that
2
max 2

= =
(9.40)
Eqn (9.39) becomes
( ) tan sin cos 2
2
+ = a h
(9.41)

Alternatively, a simpler form can be found:
cos
1 cos
2
2
+
= a h
(9.42)

Because the upper end nodes meet in one point:
0
2 2 2
= = = M R L
(9.43)
Also,
2 1
cos 2 a L =
(9.44)
sin 2
1
1
L
R =
(9.45)
2
cos
1 1

R M =
(9.46)
With M
2
=0 Eqn (9.31) becomes
2
1
2
2 2
M h H =
(9.47)

263
For the bottom module:

The calculation is identical to that for 01, idem as Eqns (9.32) to (9.38):
1
can be calculated from this equation:

( ) tan sin cos 2
1 1 1
+ = a L
(9.48)

Alternatively,
1
can be expressed in terms of L
1
, a and :
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=

2
2 4 2
1
2
1
1
1
2
sin sec 4 cos cos
cos
a
a L a L a

(9.49)

The unit height, base length, radius and projected height are given by:

( ) tan cos sin 2
1 1 1
= a h
(9.50)
1 0
cos 2 a L =
(9.51)
sin 2
0
0
L
R =
(9.52)
2
cos
0 0

R M =
(9.53)
( )
2
1 0
2
1 1
M M h H = (9.54)

When the total linkage consists of more modules (n>2), these can be calcu-
lated by repeating the last set of Eqns (9.48) to (9.54) the appropriate number
of times.

c) Undeployed position (=0)

Evidently, in the undeployed position both modules are equal. Deployment an-
gles
1
=
2
=0 in which case
L
0
=L
1
=L
2
=E (9.55)
R
0
=R
1
=R
2
(9.56)
h
1
=h
2
= tan a h
undeployed
=
(9.57)
264
undeployed total
h n H =
(9.58)

This position is after all the one from which the mechanism was designed.

9.3.2 Second approach: Design in the deployed configuration (Linkage
unit)

By following the reverse approach, it is possible to impose overall dimensions
on the linkage, after which the remaining parameters such as the bar length
and the kink angle are derived. The governing equations for a simple one-
module linkage are derived first, after which the geometry for two modules
will be simultaneously derived.

For determining the global geometry n, U, R
0
, R
1
, H
1
are chosen and can be
awarded any value (Figure 9.12 ). Depending on the value of R
1
, this can be an
intermediate position (R
1
>0) or an fully deployed position (R
1
=0), in which
case the top nodes coincide.

The sector angle is found from
U
2
=
(9.59)

while L
0

and M
0
are given by
sin 2
0 0
R L =
(9.60)

and
2
cos
0 0

R M =
(9.61)

L
1
and M
1
are given by
sin 2
1 1
R L =
(9.62)
2
cos
1 1

R M =
(9.63)
265

which gives for h
1
:
( )
2
1 0
2
1 1
M M H h + =
(9.64)
A system of four equations (9.10), (9.12), (9.14) and (9.3) in four unknowns is
used to calculate the remaining parameters.

( )
( )
=
+ =
=
=

cos
tan sin cos 2
cos 2
tan cos sin 2
1 1 1
1 0
1 1 1
a
b
a L
a L
a h

(9.65)

Solving this system numerically gives two sets of solutions { a , b , ,
1
} and
{ a , b , ,
1
} which means that two different geometries meet the imposed
design requirements. It is up to the designer to make a choice on which one to
use. It is likely that the most extreme configurations, although strictly a cor-
rect solution, will not be of great use as a deployable structure with a large
deployment range.

We can use a similar approach for simultaneously calculating two modules.
Again we impose dimensions on the top and bottom extremities of the link-
ages.
Choose n, U, R
0
, R
2
. The first parameters are calculated from:

U
2
=
(9.66)
sin 2
0 0
R L =
(9.67)
2
cos
0 0

R M =
(9.68)
sin 2
2 2
R L =
(9.69)
2
cos
2 2

R M =
(9.70)

266
Now, the remainder of the parameters can be found from a system of twelve
equations (9.71) in twelve unknowns. Solving this system numerically gives
two sets of solutions { a , b , ,
1
,
2
,
1
h ,
2
h ,
1
H ,
2
H ,
1
R ,
1
L ,
1
M } and { a , b ,
,
1
,
2
,
1
h ,
2
h ,
1
H ,
2
H ,
1
R ,
1
L ,
1
M }:

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
+ =
=
=
=
=
+ =
+ =
=
=
=
=
=
2 1
2
2 1
2
2 2
2
1 0
2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2 2
1 1 1
2 1
1 0
2 2 2
1 1 1
2
cos
sin 2
tan sin cos 2
tan sin cos 2
cos 2
cos 2
tan cos sin 2
tan cos sin 2
cos
H H H
M M h H
M M h H
R M
R L
a L
a L
a L
a L
a h
a h
a
b

(9.71)

Again, a choice can be made between the two obtained geometries. Compared
to the calculation for one module, the complexity has risen. For each addi-
tional module to be calculated (simultaneously) an extra set of six equations is
needed.

a) Influence of parameters

Minimal changes in the design values can have a significant effect on the
overall geometry. The two parameters with the strongest impact on the ge-
ometry are the kink angle and the number of modules in the linkage. Figure
9.13 shows the undeployed and fully deployed position for six different con-
267
figurations with various combinations of two or three modules with values for
of 135, 150 and 165. All configurations have the same edge length.

n=2
=135
n=2
=150
n=2
=165
Figure 9.13: Illustration of the influence of the apex angle on the geometry of a linkage with
angulated SLEs with two modules (n=2) in the undeployed (top) and fully deployed configura-
tion (below)

268

n=3
=135
n=3
=150
n=3
=165
Figure 9.14: Illustration of the influence of the apex angle on the geometry of a linkage with
angulated SLEs with three modules (n=3) in the undeployed (top) and fully deployed configura-
tion (below)
269
We can draw the following conclusions from Figure 9.13 and Figure 9.14:

n=cte, cte: a fixed number of modules, but different kink angles. As
increases, the overall height of the deployed configuration also in-
creases, while the radius decreases. The biggest impact however is no-
ticeable in the undeployed configuration. By increasing from 135 to
165, the height in the stacked position is reduced to a third. So
blunter kink angles lead to linkages which are more compact easier
transportable - in their undeployed state.

ncte, =cte: Since all configurations are maximally deployed, in-
creasing the number of modules actually means adding more modules
at the bottom of the linkage, each of which will be less deployed than
the previous one. As a consequence although it is obvious that add-
ing more modules leads to an increased height in both the undeployed
and deployed position the contribution of each subsequently added
module becomes less.

The top module in the linkage is the determining factor for the deployment
range. Units with sharp kink angles tend to quickly reach their maximal de-
ployment, therefore halting the deployment of the remaining modules. So if a
substantial expansion in height is desired, it would be a better option to
choose a blunt kink angle in combination with a higher number of modules:
the blunt kink angle makes the undeployed configuration more compact and
increases the deployment interval (0 to
max
). A choice will have to be made
concerning the optimal number of modules that will suit the design, taking all
relevant parameters into consideration.

270
9.4 From mechanism to architectural structure
9.4.1 Mobility analysis

Figure 9.15 shows a schematic representation of an undeployed and an inter-
mediate deployment position of the same linkage. As the deployment pro-
gresses, the angulated SLEs of each module tilt inward at the top. The dotted
lines are imaginary fold lines around which mobility has to be allowed in order
to complete the deployment. Through connection of the end nodes, each scis-
sor unit can be represented by a trapezoid, of which the contour changes con-
stantly during deployment. Between quadrilaterals ABDC and CDFE and be-
tween CDFE and EFHG there is a relative rotation which causes them not to
remain coplanar. The joints connecting the end nodes of the units will have to
take into account all aspects of this mobility. In Figure 9.16 a proposal for
such a joint is pictured, showing the seven rotational degrees of freedom
needed for the deployment, as well as for the linkage to be compactly folded
(Figure 9.17).

Figure 9.15: A schematic representation of the relative rotations of the quadrilaterals around
imaginary fold axes during deployment

C
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
271

Figure 9.16: Kinematic joint connecting the angulated elements at their end nodes

Figure 9.17: The kinematic joint and the axes of revolution for the seven rotational degrees of
freedom

In order for the mechanism to be usable as a structure, the mobility will have
to be constrained. Analogous to the previous case studies, an equivalent
hinged plate model is presented. Figure 9.18 represents the linkage with the
rotational degree of freedom of the scissor linkage removed. After removal of
this D.O.F. the remaining mobility determines to what extent constraints have
to be added. Due to triangulation of the modules, there is no additional mobil-
ity which means it is basically a single D.O.F.-mechanism. Therefore, it is suffi-
cient to constrain the movement of the rotational degree of freedom of the
272
scissor units. As usual, fixing two appropriately chosen nodes is enough to re-
move the rotational D.O.F from the scissor linkage. But for using the tower as
a load bearing structure, all three lower nodes have to be fixed to the ground
by pinned supports.

Figure 9.18: The scissor linkage in its deployed state and its equivalent hinged plate structure for
mobility analysis (left) Fixing the structure by pinned supports (right)

9.4.2 The erection process

Figure 9.19: Deployment of proof-of-concept model

A proof-of-concept model has been constructed to verify the deployment be-
haviour (Figure 9.19). A short description is given of how the erection process
could be executed, as shown in Figure 9.20:

273
A: the tower is in its undeployed form. The membrane elements are
attached to the nodes of the mechanism and fixed by their low points
to the ground

B: As the tower gradually deploys, the membranes are raised. When
sufficient height is achieved, the additional masts are inserted and
gradually put in their right location. Then, the cables fixing the secon-
dary masts to the ground are brought under tension.

C: Finally, the tower is slightly deployed further to add pre-tension in
the membrane. Then, the tower is fixed to the ground by pinned sup-
ports and additional horizontal ties (cables or struts) can be inserted
at the appropriate level.

274

Figure 9.20: Deployment sequence (A, B and C) for the tower with the membrane elements at-
tached

After deployment horizontal ties are added to enhance structural stiffness (see
structure analysis). Several solutions are possible: cable ties could be used,
275
which are already present before deployment and are shortened as the struc-
ture deploys and becomes narrower. Struts could be added afterwards to brace
the structure. An active cable can run over appropriately chosen nodes along a
path and can be shortened to aid in the deployment. This needs to be further
investigated.

9.4.3 Alternative configuration

As mentioned earlier, deployable towers with a base polygon of more than
three sides are possible. Shown here is an alternative configuration with hex-
agonal modules (Figure 9.21). The upper two modules are identical, but mir-
rored versions of the two modules located just below. Figure 9.22 shows how
the six-unit modules can be compacted for transport and Figure 9.23 shows
three stages in the deployment.

Figure 9.21: Design for a deployable hexagonal tower with angulated elements
276

Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 (ready to deploy)

Step 6 (Undeployed) Step 7 Step 8
Figure 9.23: Three stages in the deployment of a hexagonal tower with 5 modules: elevation and
top view
277
9.4.4 Simplified concept: prismoid versus hyperboloid

The previously described geometry is an exact translation of the static hyper-
boloid geometry of the tower, as originally proposed by The Nomad Concept
[2007], into a deployable version. In its undeployed state the scissor linkage
has a prismatic shape and all angulated elements per vertical row (or lateral
face of the prism) are coplanar. During deployment the shape gradually
changes into a hyperboloid, which means that the angulated elements per ver-
tical row are no longer coplanar, i.e. they experience relative rotation, as can
be seen in the triangular example of Figure 9.15. As a consequence, the articu-
lated hinges (Figure 9.17) will have to allow an extra rotational D.O.F around
the horizontal axes between modules to cope with this movement which adds
to the complexity of the joint design.

The described deployment behaviour is caused by the particular geometry of
the angulated elements which - as explained in Figure 9.8 and Figure 9.9 - is
such that in its undeployed state the linkage can be further compacted by
folding along the vertical fold axes. This means that the angulated elements
consist of two differently sized semi-bars a and b, turning the angulated ele-
ments non-symmetrical. The overall geometry of this solution shall be referred
to as hyperboloid.

278

Undeployed Partially deployed
Figure 9.24: Hyperboloid geometry (as proposed in previous sections) angulated elements do
not remain coplanar during deployment

Now, an alternative concept is proposed, which is similar in setup to the hy-
perboloid version, but has simplified joints for interconnecting the modules. If
the angulated elements within a vertical row can be kept coplanar, then the
hinges between modules would not have to allow an extra rotational D.O.F.
around the horizontal axes between modules, effectively decreasing the me-
chanical complexity. Also, the end nodes of the angulated elements remain
collinear, as shown in the triangular example of Figure 9.25. The effect on the
overall shape is that it resembles a prism before, during and after deployment.
More precisely, such a shape is known in geometry as a prismoid [Mathworld,
2007].

Module edges
Non-symmetrical
angulated elements
Axis of rota-
tion between
modules
279

Undeployed Partially deployed
Figure 9.25: Prismoid geometry (simplified alternative to the previously described geometry) -
angulated elements remain coplanar during deployment

The particular geometry of Figure 9.25 can only be achieved if symmetrical
angulated elements are used. Figure 9.26 and Figure 9.27 show the difference
between non-symmetrical and symmetrical elements. As described earlier,
non-symmetrical elements have differently sized semi-bars a and b and are
used for the hyperboloid solution.

Non-symmetrical and identical angulated elements

Figure 9.26: Non-symmetrical identical angulated elements result in a fully compactable con-
figuration: hyperboloid solution

The symmetrical elements used for the prismoid solution consist of two identi-
cal semi-bars a, as Figure 9.27 shows.

Symmetrical
angulated elements
End nodes are
collinear
a
b
280
Symmetrical and identical angulated elements

Figure 9.27: Symmetrical identical angulated elements cannot be fully compacted

In both cases the angulated elements are identical throughout the entire
structure. An angulated scissor linkage built from non-symmetrical identical
elements is fully compacted in its undeployed position, as Figure 9.26 shows.
But a linkage consisting of symmetrical identical elements (Figure 9.27) is not
fully compactable: when the bottom most SLE is fully compacted, the above
SLE is still partially deployed.

To overcome this issue, an extra condition is imposed on the scissor geometry,
as Figure 9.28 shows. The angulated elements become smaller near the top
and their geometry is such that their lower end nodes and intermediate hinge
are collinear in the undeployed condition. This configuration ensures the high-
est degree of compactness.
a
a
281

Symmetrical and non-identical angulated elements

Figure 9.28: Symmetrical and non-identical angulated elements
result in a fully compactable configuration: prismoid solution

The relationship between the lengths of semi-bars of consecutive angulated
elements is depicted in Figure 9.29. The length of the semi-bar a
1
can be ex-
pressed in terms of a
0
as follows:

( ) = cos
0 1
a a
(9.72)

With the kink angle and the length of the semi-bar of the bottom most
angulated element a
0
chosen as design parameters, the length semi-bar of the
n
th
element can be written as:

( ) ( )
n
n
a a = cos
0
(9.73)

a
0
a
0
a
1
a
1
Lower end nodes and intermediate
hinge are collinear
282

Figure 9.29: Symmetrical and non-identical angulated elements
result in a fully compactable configuration: prismoid solution

To demonstrate what happens during deployment, three consecutive stages -
undeployed, partially deployed and fully deployed - are shown in Figure 9.30.
During the course of the deployment, a constant angle (marked by the red
lines), is subtended by each vertical linkage. This characteristic is precisely
what makes the design of radially deployable closed loop structures possible.
To illustrate this, Figure 9.31 shows the corresponding closed loop structure
which uses the same vertical linkage, but arranged radially in a common plane.

Undeployed Intermediate Fully deployed
Figure 9.30: Three consecutive stages in the deployment of a prismoid geometry

a
0
a
0
a
1
a
1

a
1
283

Corresponding closed loop structures
Figure 9.31: Three consecutive stages of the corresponding planar closed-loop structure

Figure 9.32 shows a three-dimensional model of a triangular prismoid tower in
three deployment stages, while Figure 9.33 shows a top view and a side eleva-
tion.

Figure 9.32: Perspective view of the deployment of a triangular tower

284

Figure 9.33: Top view and side elevation of the prismoid tower

The simplified solution for the articulated hinge - which connects four bars at
once - is shown in Figure 9.34.

Figure 9.34: Detailed view of the simplified hinge connecting four scissor bars

Note that the rotational D.O.F. around the vertical axis - marked with the
dashed line in Figure 9.34 - is not necessary during the deployment of the
tower. Its purpose is to allow the structure to be further compacted in the un-
deployed position, by means of folding, analogous to the method described in
Figure 9.9 and Figure 9.22.
285

In Figure 9.18, an equivalent hinged-plate structure for the hyperboloid ge-
ometry was introduced, which has shown that the only D.O.F. in the system is
the rotational D.O.F. of the scissors. When the same method is applied to the
prismoid solution, it can be seen that this holds no longer true. Figure 9.35
shows a triangular and a quadrangular geometry and their equivalent hinged-
plate structure. The triangular shape cannot be folded along the vertical axes
between neighbouring plates, while the quadrangular solution can be flatly
folded. It can be concluded that the prismoid solution is apart from the tri-
angular geometry a multiple D.O.F.-mechanism. To turn the mechanism into
a structure, and therefore removing all D.O.F.s, all lower nodes are fixed to the
ground by pinned supports.

Figure 9.35: Triangular and quadrangular prismoid solution and their respective equivalent
hinged-plate structure, providing an insight in the kinematic behaviour

Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 contain a comparison between the hyperboloid and the
prismoid solution in terms of the geometry of the angulated elements, the
D.O.F. during deployment and the mechanical complexity of the hinges be-
tween modules.
286

Hyperboloid geometry
- Identical, non-symmetrical angulated elements
- Deployed shape is hyperboloid: angulated elements per vertical row do not
remain coplanar
- End nodes of angulated elements are not collinear during deployment: 1
D.O.F.-mechanism
- Articulated hinges between modules require extra D.O.F.: increased mechani-
cal complexity
Table 9.1: Characteristics of the hyperboloid geometry

Prismoid geometry
- Non-identical, symmetrical angulated elements
- Deployed shape is prismoid: angulated elements per vertical row are copla-
nar
- End nodes of angulated elements remain collinear during deployment: multi-
ple D.O.F. (except for triangular geometry)
- Articulated hinges between modules do not need an extra D.O.F.: decreased
mechanical complexity
Table 9.2: Characteristics of the prismoid geometry

287

For this case study, a nominal wind load of 0.6 kN/m
2
is combined with a snow
load of 0.5 kN/m
2
, applied on the whole surface, so no load zones are defined.
For this analysis, only a transverse direction is considered for the wind load.
The alternative wind direction at 60 was not included in the analysis. The re-
sulting load vectors are calculated automatically by EASY, the snow load is
treated analogously. The considered load combinations are given in Table 9.3.

Load combination Permanent Main solicitation Secondary
ULS/SLS 1 pre-stress + snow
ULS/SLS 2 pre-stress + snow + wind
ULS/SLS 3 pre-stress + wind
ULS/SLS 4 pre-stress + wind + snow
Table 9.3: Load combinations for wind and snow

Figure 9.36: Top view and perspective view of the structure with indication of the global co-
ordinate system and the vector components of the wind action

288
The approach discussed in Chapter 5 is used for determining the actions of the
membrane on the structure under wind and snow load. Shown in Figure 9.36
are the load vectors in the global coordinate system. Figure 9.37 and Figure
9.38 show the equilibrium form of the membrane calculated in EASY-software.

Figure 9.37: Side elevation of the equilibrium form of the membrane

Figure 9.38: Top view of the equilibrium form of the membrane

First, a finite element model of the tower with additional cable ties (steel ca-
ble d=8 mm, design strength = 1500 MPa) is analysed under the specified load
289
combinations. The resulting section is 120603.2 mm, with a weight of 187
kg (Figure 9.39). For a height of the tower of 8.43 m, the weight ratio (the
weight of the membrane itself is neglected as in the previous case studies) is
23 kg/m.

Element type Section [mm] Weight
[kg]
Tension cable d=8 7
Total weight 194
Weight/m 23

Figure 9.39: Horizontal cable ties to improve structural performance

When the horizontal cable ties are replaced by aluminium bars, the structural
performance increases. Figure 9.40 shows the results for which ULS 4 (pre-
stress + wind + snow) is the governing load combination (Figure 9.41). The
section is decreased to 90x50x3.2 mm and the additional struts are assigned a
tubular round section of 42x2.6 mm. The total weight drops to 160 kg which
results in a weight ratio of 2.2kg/m
2
. Although ULS 4 is the determining load
combination for the strength as well as the stability, the greatest displace-
ments are a result of SLS 2 (pre-stress + snow + wind). The displacements are
290
of an acceptable magnitude, especially when the nature of the structure is
considered. The deflections (not shown) do not exceed 1/200.

Section hxbxt, d[mm] Total
weight/section
[kg]
Weight/m [kg/m]
TREC 90x50x3.2 144

TRON 42x2.6 16
Total weight: 160 19
Figure 9.40: Perspective view, top view and side elevation of deployable mast

291

RESULTS for Case study 4
STRESS [MPa]
Section [mm]
S max
S max
(My)
S max
(Mz)
S max
Fx/Ax
Load
comb.
TREC 90x50 x3.2 85 13.5 22.8 62.1 ULS 4
TRON 42x2.6 -129.3 -5.7 0 -123.4 ULS 4
FORCE
TREC 90x50 x3.2 53.3 0.3 -0.32 ULS 4
TRON 42x2.6 -40.4 0 0 ULS 4
REACTIONS [kN]
27 ULS 1 78.5 ULS 4 59.45 ULS 4
DISPLACEMENTS [cm]
0.3 SLS 4 -4.5 SLS 2 -1.1 SLS 4

of case study 4
Ux
Uy
Uz
292
9.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, a novel idea has been put forward for a deployable hyperboloid
tower, used for the deployment of a membrane canopy, without the need for
additional lifting equipment. The two-fold purpose of the tower, namely hold-
ing up the membrane elements in the deployed position and serving as an ac-
tive element during the erection process, has been demonstrated.

It has been found that the proposed linear structure offers an advantage over
existing solutions: using angulated elements instead of polar units for the
same deployed geometry, has lead to a significant reduction of the number of
scissor members and connections.

Figure 9.42: Case 4 A temporary canopy and its deployable tower with angulated units

A geometric design method has been proposed for which the equations were
derived and expressed in terms of relevant design parameters, such as the
shape of the base polygon, the bar length or the kink angle of the angulated
element. Although the equations were derived for a two-module geometry, the
design method is equally applicable to configurations with a higher number of
modules. However, it was found that the number of equations to be solved
simultaneously was equally raised, therefore significantly increasing the com-
plexity of the calculation. Also, the method has been devised such, that by
293
simply changing the kink angle to 180, a polygonal tower with translational
units is obtained.

It has been found that the deployment behaviour is heavily influenced by the
kink angle of the angulated element: the blunter the kink angle, the larger the
expansion range is before the fully deployed position is reached. The influence
of these parameters on the geometry and the deployment process has been
discussed.

It has been shown that the hyperboloid shape of the tower causes the angu-
lated units, per vertical row, not to remain co-planar during deployment. A
novel articulated joint which allows this relative rotation has been proposed
and found to work well.

Further, an alternative shape, called a prismoid geometry, has been proposed.
This has proven to be a simpler solution compared to the hyperboloid geome-
try in terms of kinematic behaviour, therefore allowing the use of greatly sim-
plified joints. Through the use of an equivalent hinged-plate model, the mobil-
ity of both the hyperboloid and prismoid geometry has been assessed. It was
found that the hyperboloid configuration is always, regardless of the polygonal
shape, a one-degree-of-freedom mechanism. The prismoid solution, on the
other hand, is always, apart from the triangular geometry, a multiple-D.O.F.-
mechanism.

Finally, the structural feasibility has been checked under wind and snow ac-
tion. The resulting structure has a weight/height ratio of 19 kg/m, excluding
the weight of the joints, which have not been structurally designed.

This fourth case study has made innovative use of angulated elements in an
original application. Although the concept has been proven to work, more de-
tailed analysis, including structural design of the joints, is needed.

294

Chapter 10 - Conclusions

295
Chapter 10
Conclusions

The aim of the work presented in this dissertation was to develop novel con-
cepts for deployable bar structures and propose variations of existing con-
cepts, leading to architecturally and structurally viable solutions for mobile
applications. Equally, it was the objective to provide the designer with the
means for deciding on how to cover a space with a rapidly erectable, mobile
architectural space enclosure, based on the geometry of foldable plate struc-
tures or employing a scissor system.

By presenting a review of previous research on scissor structures and foldable
plate structures, an insight is given in the wide variety of possible shapes and
configurations. The design principles behind scissor structures have been ex-
plained and it has been shown that using geometric constructions is a
straightforward way of designing deployable scissor linkages of any curvature.
The design of scissor structures, as well as foldable plate structures, has been
advanced by proposing novel geometric design methods based on parameters
which are relevant to the designer, such as the rise and span of the structure.

These principles were then used in four case studies, which cover the key as-
pects of the design, including a kinematic and preliminary structural analysis
of novel concepts for deployable bar structures.


296
10.1 Novel concepts for deployable bar structures

10.1.1 Case study 1: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Translational Units on
a Three-way Grid

(a) OPEN structure

(b) CLOSED structure
Figure 10.1: Case study 1 (Chapter 6) Translational barrel vault

With the first case study, an advance has been made by developing a stress-
free deployable scissor structure of single curvature with translational units on
a three-way grid. It has been shown that the curved triangulated grid can be
uniquely composed of single scissor units, therefore avoiding the integration
of double scissor units. By doing so, the number of connections could be kept
to a minimum and the grid demonstrated an inherent triangulation, therefore
providing in-plane stability. It has been shown that, as a consequence, the
deployed configuration does not require additional cross-bracing of the grid
cells to prevent the structure from swaying.

297

The geometric design method developed for this case study is not limited to
circular base curves only, but it has been devised such, that it can be extended
to structures of any curvature. It has been proven possible to provide the open
barrel vault with suitable end structures, providing a fully closed envelope and
greatly enhancing the architectural applicability of the concept.

10.1.2 Case study 2: A Deployable Barrel Vault with Polar and Translational
Units on a Two-way Grid

(a) OPEN structure
(b) CLOSED structure
Figure 10.2: Case study 2 (Chapter 7) Polar barrel vault

For the second case study, a deployable barrel vault with polar and transla-
tional scissor units on an orthogonal two-way grid, has been proposed. This
case study is an illustration of how a basic stress-free deployable single curva-
ture structure can be obtained by putting the construction methods and the

298
proposed geometric design methods into practice. It has been shown that the
geometric design equations can be used for studying the configuration in vari-
ous stages of the deployment, allowing to determine the maximum span
reached during the erection process. An innovative way of rendering the open
structure fully closed by providing it with doubly curved end structures has
been proposed. This was proven possible by adapting the geometry of a lamella
dome in such a way, that when attached to the open structure, a fully closed
stress-free deployable configuration is formed.

10.1.3 Case study 3: A Deployable Bar Structure with Foldable Articulated
Joints

(a) OPEN structure

(b) DOME structure
(c) CLOSED structure (combined)
Figure 10.3: Case study 3 (Chapter 8) Deployable bar structure with foldable joints

299
Case study 3 has successfully shown that a novel type of deployable bar struc-
ture can be designed, based on the geometry and kinematic behaviour of fold-
able plate structures. The versatility of the design method proposed in Chapter
4, has been demonstrated by producing a single curvature (barrel vault) and a
double curvature (dome) space enclosure with high element uniformity. As a
consequence, it was shown possible for both shapes to be combined into a
closed doubly curved foldable geometry, effectively increasing the range of
possible applications. For connecting the bars, an innovative foldable articu-
lated joint has been developed, which has proven to preserve the kinematic
properties of the plate structure it is derived from.

10.1.4 Case study 4: A Deployable Tower with Angulated Units

Figure 10.4: Case study 4 (Chapter 9) Deployable mast

300
For case study 4, a novel idea has been put forward for a deployable hyperbol-
oid tower, as part of a temporary tensile surface structure. It has been shown
possible for the tower to be employed as an active element during the erection
process, therefore eliminating the need for additional lifting equipment. By
using angulated elements instead of polar units for the same deployed geome-
try, it was shown that a significant reduction of the number of scissor mem-
bers and connections could be realised. A novel geometric design method has
been proposed allowing the design of a tower with any polygonal shape. Al-
though the equations were derived for a two-module geometry, the design
method is equally applicable to configurations with a higher number of mod-
ules. The method has been devised such, that by simply changing the kink an-
gle to 180, a polygonal tower with translational units can be obtained. Also, it
was shown possible to design an alternative geometry with greatly simplified
connections, by imposing a specific condition on the angulated elements.

10.2 Comparative evaluation of the proposed concepts

10.2.1 Architectural evaluation

Easily transportable structures require a compact shape in their undeployed
configuration and a subsequent high volume expansion during the erection
process, which provides a basis for comparison. Although the first three case
studies (open barrel vaults and doubly curved closed structures) reach a similar
overall shape and volume in the deployed configuration, the way they achieve
that final deployed state differs. It was found that the scissor structures of
case study 1 and 2, being a tight bundle of bars, demonstrate the highest vol-
ume increase between the undeployed and fully deployed state, where all
structures reach a volume of approximately 140 m
3
. Case study 1 was found to
demonstrates the greatest expansion, having an initial volume of only 0.6 m
3

for both the open and closed structure. A slightly higher initial volume was
found for case study 2, with 1 m
3
for the open structure and 1.8 m
3
for the
closed structure.


301
The lowest volume expansion was, not surprisingly, found with case study 3,
having an initial volume of 17 m
3
. Its characteristic folding movement leads to
a significant expansion in the longitudinal direction only , while in the trans-
verse direction almost no expansion occurs.

For case study 4, which has a linear, vertical expansion, it was shown that its
geometry is designed such, that in the undeployed configuration it can be fur-
ther compacted by releasing one row of joints. The tower expands to a final
height of 8.5 m, 5 times its initial height of 1.7 m.

Apart from the structural system employed, another factor has been found to
influence the compactness in the undeployed configuration. The higher the
amount of members to be connected in a single joint, the larger the radius of
that hub becomes, in order to accommodate all elements without hindering
the deployment. This explains the aforementioned difference in size of the un-
deployed configurations of case studies 1 and 2.

10.2.2 Kinematic evaluation

By constructing several 1/10 scale proof-of-concept models of the proposed
designs, the validity of the concepts has been successfully demonstrated.
These models have significantly aided in understanding the deployment behav-
iour and have given an idea of the connections needed to guarantee a com-
plete and stress-free deployment. By introducing the concept of an equivalent
hinged-plate model, an interesting way of gaining insight in the kinematic
behaviour of the mechanisms has been offered.

Case study 1 has been found to be a single-D.O.F.-mechanism. It was shown
that the geometry is subject to angular distortion, an effect associated with
the introduction of curvature in translational units during the deployment. As
a consequence, the joints are designed such, that this in-plane rotation is al-
lowed.


302
Case study 2 is also a single-D.O.F.-mechanism, but by closing the open barrel
vault with doubly curved end structures, the mobility of this particular geome-
try was augmented to 4 D.O.F.

It has been shown that both the single curvature and double curvature struc-
ture from case study 3 are multiple D.O.F.-mechanisms. By appropriately in-
corporating scissor linkages, it has been shown that the mobility can be re-
duced to 1 D.O.F., allowing for a more controlled deployment

The deployable tower from case study 4 has been found to possess a single
D.O.F. during deployment, due to its hyperboloid geometry. Its simplified
counterpart, the prismoid tower, has 1 D.O.F. in case of a triangular tower, but
multiple D.O.F.s for any other polygonal shape. It has been shown that this
extra mobility is introduced by intersecting fold lines inherent to the prismoid
geometry.

In order to remove all mobility from the mechanisms in the fully deployed po-
sition and to effectively employ them as a structure, it has been suggested to
fix all lower nodes to the ground by pinned supports.

10.2.3 Structural evaluation

For case studies 1, 2 and 4 it has been found from the preliminary structural
analysis that, due to high in-plane bending stress in the scissor members, the
strength is the governing design criterion. Compared to case study 3, these
structures have significantly shorter bars, leading to a decrease in buckling
sensitivity. By adding a continuous cable between nodes, a positive effect on
the structural performance and a reduction in weight has been achieved. For
case study 3 however, it has been found that the governing design criterion is
buckling of the bars. due to their relatively great length compared to the span
of the structure.

The open and closed configuration from case study 1, both covering 65 m
2
,
achieve a weight ratio of approximately 7.5 kg/m
2
. Case study 2 is a heavier

303
solution, reaching 10 kg/m
2
and 13.3 kg/m
2
for its open and closed structure
respectively, while case study 3 is by far the lightest solution of the three bar-
rel vaults with 4 kg/m
2
for single curvature structure, 4.5 kg/m
2
for the dome
and 5 kg/m
2
for the combined shape. The 8.5 m high tower from the fourth
case study achieves a weight-per-metre ratio of 19 kg/m. It is noted that the
joints have not been included in the structural design and therefore no state-
ment has been done concerning their weight.

It is unclear at this stage what the influence is of fatigue, caused by fluctuat-
ing wind loads, on the erected structure. Although a detailed calculation was
out of the scope of this dissertation, the consecutive steps to determine all the
necessary parameters needed for the calculation have been discussed.

Further work

The simplified approach used for the structural analysis was sufficient within
the framework of a preliminary design to test the feasibility of the concepts,
however, profound and detailed analysis is needed using a more accurate ap-
proach, preferably by using an integrated model which takes the mutual re-
sponse of the tensile surface and the bar structure into account. Since the
joints, which were currently excluded from the analysis, constitute a major
part of the design, a detailed study in which they are structurally designed and
analysed is needed.

For appreciating the full effect of fluctuating wind on the structure, experi-
mental data is needed, such as the resistance of the joints against fatigue or
wind tunnel testing to obtain a more realistic stress history due to fluctuating
wind loads. Also, the effects of thermal influences. tolerances, friction and
geometric imperfections on the structural performance of the structure re-
quires further study.

The current case studies were designed as small-scale shelters. Therefore, de-
termining the maximum span which can be reached with a certain configura-
tion could be the subject of further study. Also, configurations with a higher
number of units (for the same span), leading to shorter bars, should be investi-

304
gated. The expected beneficial effect of shorter bars on the buckling sensitivity
compared with the effect of the introduction of more joints.

By building a prototype, including the real size design of the joints, the ease of
erection, dismantling and transportation could be verified. Also, this would
allow to further investigate some aspects concerning the integration of the
membrane, the adjustment of the pretension and the detailing of the connec-
tions.

305
References

Asefi [2006], An architectural evaluation of transformable roof structures, in :
Adaptables 2006, Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptability
in Design and Construction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Vol 2, pp. 85-
89.

Barker, R.J.P. & Guest, S.D., Inflatable triangulated cylinders, Cambridge
University Engineering Department Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IPZ,
UK, In Pelligrino and Guest [2000], pp.17-26.

Gengnagel, C., Burford, N. [2006], Transformable Structures for Mobile Shelters,
In: Adaptables 2006, TU/e, International Conference on Adaptable Building
Structures Eindhoven, No.69, Vol.2, pp.10-280.

Cabri [2007], User Manual for Cabri Geometry II, Cabrilog.

Calladine, C.R. [1978], Buckminster Fullers tensegrity structures and Clerk
Maxwells rule for the construction of stiff frames, Int. Journal of Solids
Structures, Vol.14, No.3, pp.161-172.

Candela, F., Piero, E.P., Calatrava, S., Escrig, F. & Valcarcel, J.P. [1993],
Arquitectura Transformable, Publication de la Escuela Tecnica Superior de
Architectura de Sevilla, Sevilla.

Chilton, J.C., Choo, B.S. & Wilkinson, D. [1998], A parametric analysis of the
geometry of retractable reciprocal frame structures. In Proceedings of the
LSA98 Conference Lightweight Structures in Architecture Engineering and
Construction, Vol.1, 547-555, Sydney, Australia.

Clarke, R.C. [1984], The kinematics of a novel deployable space structure
system, Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference on Space Structures.

Decorte, W. [2007], http://www.wouterdecorte.com

De Temmerman, N., Mollaert, M., Van Mele, T., De Laet, L. [2006a],
Development of a Foldable Mobile Shelter System, in: Adaptables 2006,

306
Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptability in Design and
Construction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Vol 2, pp.13-17.

De Temmerman, N., Mollaert, M., Van Mele, T., De Laet, L. [2006b], A Concept
for a Foldable Mobile Shelter System, in Proc. of the IASS-APCS 2006 Int.
Symposium on the New Olympics & New Shell and Spatial Structures, 8, IASS-
APCS, Bejing.

Escrig, F., [1984], Expandable space frame structures, Proceedings of the 3
rd

International Conference on Space Structures, ed: Nooshin, H., University of
Surrey, Guildford, UK, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, pp.845-850.

Escrig, F. [1985], Expandable space structures, Space Structures Journal, Vol. 1,
No.2, pp.79-91.

Escrig, F., Valcarcel, J.P. [1987], Curved expandable space grids, Proceedings of
the international Conference on the Design and Construction of Non-
Conventional Structures, England, pp.157-168.

Escrig, F., Valcarcel, J.P., Gil Delgado, O. [1989], Design of expandable spherical
grids, Proceedings of the XXX IASS Congress, Madrid.

Escrig, F., Valcarcel, J.P. [1993], Geometry of Expandable Space Structures,
International Journal of Space Structures, Vol.8, pp.127134.

Escrig, F., Sanchez, J., Valcarcel, J.P. [1996], Two-way deployable spherical
grids, International Journal of Space Structures, 1 & 2, pp.257-274.

Escrig, F. [1996], General survey of deployability in architecture, In Escrig &
Brebbia 1996, pp.322.

Escrig, F. and Brebbia, C.A., eds. [1996], Mobile and rapidly assembled
structures, Proceedings of MARAS 96, the 2
nd
International Conference on
Mobile and Rapidly Assembled Structures, Seville, Computational Mechanics
Publications, Southampton.

307
Escrig, F. [1997], References on deployable and rapidly assembled structures,
STAR-Structural Architecture, Grupo de Investigacin Tecnologia
Arquitectnica de la Universidad de Sevilla, Vol.1, pp.71-82.

Escrig, F. [2006], New designs and geometries of deployable scissor structures,
in: Adaptables 2006, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Adaptability in Design and Construction, Eindhoven University of Technology,
pp.5-18, 5-22.

Eurocode 1, [2007], Actions on structures, European Standards.

Eurocode 3, [2007], Design of steel structures, European Standards.

Eyrolles, [1999], Fatigue et rupture brutale, Construction Mtallique et Mixte
Acier-Bton, Chapitre 7.

Foster, C.G., Krishnakumar, S. [1986/87], A Class of Transportable Demountable
Structures, International Journal of Space Structures, 2(3), pp.129137.

Gantes, C.J. [1996], Analytical predictions of the snap-trough characteristics of
deployable structures, Proceedings of MARAS 96, the 2
nd
International
Conference on Mobile and Rapidly Assembled Structures, Seville, Spain.

Gantes, C.J. [1996], Deployable structures for temporary sheltering following
natural disasters, Stop Disasters, A United Nations Publications, Number 28,
pp. 7-8.

Gantes, C.J. [1996], A creative aspect of a destructive phenomenon: Using snap-
trough buckling as a form of prestressing, IASS/IABSE International Symposium
on Conceptual Design of Structures, Vol.I, pp. 222-229, Stuttgart, germany.

Gantes, C.J. [2001], Deployable Structures: Analysis and Design. WIT Press,
Southampton, UK.

Gantes, C.J., Konitopoulou, E. [2004], Geometric design of arbitrarily curved bi-
stable deployable arches with discrete joint size. International Journal of Solids
and Structures 41, pp. 5517-5540, Elsevier.

308
Guest, S.D. and Pellegrino, S. [1994], The folding of triangulated cylinders, Part
I: Geometric considerations, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 61, pp.773-
777.

Guest, S.D. and Pellegrino, S. [1994], The folding of triangulated cylinders, Part
II: The folding process, ASME Journal of Applied mechanics, 61, pp.778-783.

Hanaor, A., Levy, R. [2001], Evaluations of Deployable Structures for Space
Enclosures. International Journal of Space Structures, Vol.16, No.4, pp.211-
229.

Hernandez, M., Carlos, H., Zalewski, W. [1991], Deployable Structures. In
Bulson [1991a], pp.237248.

Hernandez, M., Stephens, R., Development of folding aluminium sheet roofs,
Grupo de Arquitectura transformable, tensil y textile. Instituto de Desarrollo
Experimental de la Construccion, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas-
Venezuela.

M, Hiller, M. [1991], Computer Aided Kinematics and Dynamics of Multilink
systems. Chaire Franqui International. University of Lige.

Hoberman, C. [1990], Reversibly Expandable Doubly-Curved Truss Structure.
United States Patent No. 4, 942, 700.

Hoberman [2007], http://www.hoberman.com

Jensen, F.V. [2001], Cover elements for retractable roof structures. First-year
report, University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering.

Jensen, F.V. [2004], Concepts for retractable roof structures. Dissertation
submitted to the University of Cambridge for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Cambridge

Jensen, F.V. & Pellegrino, S. [2004], Expandable blob structures, extended
abstract. In Motro [2004], 44-45, (paper on cd-rom)

Kassabian, P.E. [1997], Investigation into a type of Deployable Roof Structure.
Masters dissertation, University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering.

309
Kassabian, P.E., You, Z. and Pellegrino, S. [1997], Retractable Structures based
on Multi-Angulated Elements. IASS Colloquium of Structural Morphology.

Kassabian, P.E., You, Z. and Pellegrino, S. [1999], Retractable Roof Structures.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings, 134,
45-56.

Kool, P. [2006], Kinematics of foldable structures, Proceedings of the 7
th

National Congress on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics NCTAM 2006, FPMs,
Faculty of Engineering, Mons, (paper on cd-rom)

Kronenburg, R. [2003], Transportable Environments. Architectural Press,
Oxford, UK

Langbecker, T. [1999], Kinematic Analysis of Deployable Scissor Structures,
International Journal of Space Structures, 14 (1), pp.1-16.

Langbecker, T., Albermani, F. [2001], Kinematic and Non-Linear Analysis of
Foldable Barrel Vaults, Engineering Structures 23, pp.158-171.

Llorens, J. [2006], Lightweight Recoverable Foundations for Structural
Membranes, in: Adaptables 2006, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Adaptability in Design and Construction, Eindhoven University of
Technology, pp.5-23, 5-27.

Mathworld, [2007], http://www.mathworld.wolfram.com

Mollaert, M. [1996], Retractable membrane roofs. In Escrig & Brebbia (1996),
pp.407417.

Realisation of Arch. Membrane Structures, 2, Technical University Berlin,
Germany.

Mollaert, M., Foster, B., eds. [2004], European Design for Tensile Surface
Structures, Tensinet.

Motro, R., ed. [2004], International Symposium on Shell and Spatial Structures
from Models to Realization, IASS.

310
Pellegrino, S. & Guest, S.D., eds. [2000], IUTAM-IASS Symposium on Deployable
Structures: Theory and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Southampton, UK.

Piero, E., P. [1961], A reticular movable theatre, The Architects Journal, Vol.
134, pp.299.

Piero, E., P. [1961], Project for a mobile theatre, Architectural Design, 12,
pp.570.

Piero, E., P. [1962], Expandable space framing, Progressive Architecture, 12,
pp.154-155.

Piero, E., P. [1965] (filed November 15, 1961), Three-dimensional reticular
structure, US Patent No. 3,185,164.

Raskin, I. and Roorda, J. [1996], Buckling force for deployable pantographic
columns, Proceedings of MARAS 96, the 2
nd
International Conference on
Mobile and Rapidly Assembled Structures, Seville, Spain.

Raskin, I. [1998], Stiffness and stability of deployable pantographic columns,
Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.

Robobat, [2007], User Manual for Robot Millennium, Robobat.

Robbin, T. [1996], Engineering a New Architecture, Yale University Press New
Haven and London.

Rodriguez, C. & Chilton, J.C. [2003], Swivel Diaphragm A New Alternative for
Retractable Ring Structures. Journal of The International Association for Shell
and Spatial Structures, 44, 181-188.

Rodriguez, C., Chilton, J.C. & Wilson, R. [2004], Kinetic grids with swivel
diaphragm, extended abstract. In Motro [2004], 316-317, (paper on cd-rom.)

Sastre, R. [1996], Expandable arches. In Escrig & Brebbia [1996], pp.123-131

Technet, [2007], User Manual for Easy, Technet Gmbh.

The Nomad Concept, [2007], http://www.nomadconcept.be

311

Tonon, O. [1991], Geometry of Spatial Folded Forms, International Journal of
Space Structures, 6(3), pp.227240

Tonon, O. [1993], Geometry of spatial structures 4, pp. 2042-2052, Thomas
Telford, London.

Valcarcel, J.P., Escrig, F. [1996], Recent advances in the analysis of expandable
structures. In Escrig & Brebbia [1996], pp.4554.

Wohlhart, K. [2000], Double-chain mechanisms. In Pellegrino & guest [2000],
pp. 457-466.

You, Z. and Pellegrino, S. [1993], Foldable ring structures, Proceedings of the
4
th
International Conference on Space Structures, Surrey, UK, eds Parke, G.A.R.
and Howard, C.M., Thomas Telford, London.

You, Z. and Pellegrino, S. [1996], New solutions for foldable roof structures. In
Escrig & Brebbia [1996], pp. 35-44.

You, Z. and Pellegrino, S. [1997], Foldable bar structures. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 34, pp. 1825-1847.

You, Z. [2000], A new approach to design of retractable roofs. In Pellegrino &
Guest [2000], 477-483.

Zanardo, A. [1986], Two-dimensional articulated systems developable on a
single or double curvature. Mecanica, 21, pp.106111.

Zeigler, T.R. [1976] (filed November 6, 1976), Collapsable self-supporting
structures, US Patent No. 3,968,808.

Zeigler, T.R. [1981], Collapsible self-supporting structures and panels and hub
therefore. United States Patent No. 4,290,244.

Zeigler, T.R. [1984], Collapsible self-supporting structures. United States Patent
No. 4,437,275.

312

313
List of Publications

De Temmerman, N., Mollaert, M. [2003], Construction Teaching Methods, Proc.
of ENHSA 2003 Second Workshop of Construction Teachers at Les Grands
Ateliers, Lyon, pp. 46-52, EAAE-ENHSA, Thessaloniki.

De Temmerman, N., Van Mele, T., Mollaert, M. [2004], Kinetic Structures:
Architectural Organisms as a Design Concept, Proc. of the IASS 2004 Int.
Symposium on Shell and Spatial Structures from Models to Realization, pp.
410-411, IASS Montpellier, (paper on cd-rom).

De Temmerman, N., Mollaert, M., Van Mele, T., De Laet, L. [2006], A Concept for
a Foldable Mobile Shelter System, Proc. of the IASS-APCS 2006 Int. Symposium
on the New Olympics & New Shell and Spatial Structures, pp. 240-241, IASS-
APCS, Bejing, (paper on cd-rom).

De Temmerman, N., Mollaert, M., Van Mele, T., De Laet, L. [2006], Development
of a Foldable Mobile Shelter System, Adaptables 2006: Proc. of the
International Conference on Adaptability in Design and Construction, vol. 2,
pp. 13-17, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.

De Temmerman, N., Mollaert, M., Van Mele, T., De Laet, L. [to be published],
Design and Analysis of a Foldable Mobile Shelter System, Special Issue on
Adaptive Structures of the International Journal of Space Structures,
Multiscience Publishing, Brentwood.

Mollaert, M., De Temmerman, N., Van Mele, T., Daerden, F., Block, P. [2003],
Adaptable Tensioned Coverings, Proc. of the IASS-APCS 2003 Int. Symposium
on New Perspectives for Shell and Spatial Structures, pp. 204-205, IASS-APCS
Taipei, (paper on cd-rom).

Mollaert, M., De Temmerman, N. [2003], (At) Large: To Scale: working with
bigger scale models has its advantages, Fabric Architecture, pp. 12-14, July-
August 2003.

Mollaert, M., De Temmerman, N., Van Mele, T. [to be published], Deployable
and Retractable Tensile Structures, Proc. of the 12th Int. Workshop on the

314
Design and Practical Realisation of Arch. Membrane Structures, Technical
University Berlin, (paper on cd-rom).

Mollaert, M., De Temmerman, N., Van Mele, T. [2006], The Development of a
Tensile Surface for a Non-Static Application, Proc. Of the 11
th
int. Workshop on
the design and Practical Realisation of Arch. Membrane Structures, Issue:
Textile Roofs 2006, published by: Technical University Berlin.

Mollaert, M., De Temmerman, N., Van Mele, T. [2006], Variations in Form and
Stress Behaviour of a V-shaped Membrane in a Foldable Structure, Proc. of the
HPSM 2006 Third International Conference on High Performance Structures
and Materials, pp. 41-50, Witpress, Oostende.

Van Mele, T., Mollaert, M., De Temmerman, N., De Laet, L. [2006], Design of
Scissor Structures for Retractable Roofs, Adaptables 2006: Proc. of the
International Conference on Adaptability in Design and Construction, vol. 2,
pp. 68-73, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.

Thesis Niels de Temmerman

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Thesis Niels de Temmerman

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Department of Architectural Engineering Sciences

Chapter 6 Case study 1

Anda mungkin juga menyukai