ON KINEMATIC STABILITY OF DOUBLE-LAYER GRID SPACE STRUCTURES

W. Savassi
(+)
, R. M. Gonalves, A.S.C.de Souza
Department of Structural Engineering, So Carlos School of Engineering -The University of SoPaulo,
Avenida Trabalhador SoCarlense, 400, So Carlos, SP, 13566-590 Brazil
savassi@sc.sup.br, goncalve@sc.usp.br, ascsouza@hermes.sc.usp.br


ABSTRACT

The main concern of this paper is to show, both geometrically and mathematically, how to check if a
three-dimensional truss (or space structure, SS) is always kinematically stable (geometrically
determinate), irrespective of the number of support bars. Investigations were made on the so-called
square-on-square double-layer grid [MAK81], but different layouts may be similarly analysed as well.
A few of such structures have collapsed recently in Brazil, and the second and third authors have been
investigating the causes of those collapses. On the other hand, the first author has been more concerned
about the conceptual model of truss designing and it seems that one of the reasons for those collapses
could be related to this paper subject.


1. INTRODUCTION

Suppose a set of support bars whose positions, orientations and minimum quantity are capable to avoid
any possibility of rigid body displacements of the structure, or a solid, as a whole to occur. Let this set
of support bars be named basic, in this paper. If, in addition, that structure is geometrically
determinate, it will be able to receive any loading. On the other hand, if that structure is not
geometrically determinate, it may allow mechanism type displacements to occur. It is also known that
geometrically indeterminate structures may carry loading if a proper number of support bars, different
from the basic set described above, is supplied. This situation will not be considered in this paper. For
interested people there is the excellent paper of Pellegrino [PEL86].
In this paper it is shown that most of the three dimensional truss structures, of the square-on-square
layout, are not geometrically determinate. So, they may not be able to receive loading if support bars
are in the situation of the basic set described above.
It is also shown how to modify these structures, by adding only one extra truss bar, in order to
transform them into geometrically determinate structure. From the point of view of the overall
kinematical behaviour, geometrically determinate structures may be viewed like equivalent solids,
when free of support restraint bars.


2. GEOMETRICALLY DETERMINATE PLANE SIMPLE TRUSSES

The final goal of this paper is related to the three dimensional geometrically determinate trusses, with
the square-on-square layout. But let us start with the plane simple truss case. It is possible to prove,
following two distinct ways, [SCH84], that the truss must obey to the following necessary condition
n 2 b =
(1)

between the number of b bars and n nodes (joints), excluding support bars, so not considering as nodes,
by definition, support points like A and B, of Figure 1:
a - Figure 1 shows the simplest plane truss where one node n has its position defined by two
intersecting bars that have each of their other ends linked to support points A, B. From this situation,
each new n node may be defined with two new b bars.
b - Let us assume that support point coordinates and bar lengths are known. Each bar will connect two
points i, k of the node set or one node to a support point. The truss will be geometrically determinate if,
given lengths, one can calculate all the node coordinates.
In fact, the length of a generic bar is such that
2
i k
2
i k
2
ik
) y y ( ) x x ( + =
(2)

so one may set up a system of 2n equations like (2) in the 2n unknown node coordinates. It may happen
that some of the equations in (2) are not linearly independent, as will be shown. That is condition (1) is
only necessary but not sufficient to guarantee that the truss is geometrically determinate. If condition
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER

(1) is obeyed but there are linear dependencies among equations of (2), we call that truss case as an
exceptional one.
A
x
y
1
B

Figure 1 - Two bar plane truss


2.1. EXCEPTIONAL CASES

If relation (1) is verified but system of equations (2) do have linearly dependent equations, the truss is
called geometrically determinate but it is an exceptional case. This situation means that nodal
displacements of the mechanism type, at least infinitesimal, may occur.
How to detect that situation? The search, by using equations like (2) is not convenient, due to it squared
nature. An alternative way is to suppose that nodal coordinate variations are free to occur without
changing the bar length and that the total differential of (2) must be zero, that is
0 dy
y
dy
y
dx
x
dx
x
d
k
k
ik
i
i
ik
k
k
ik
i
i
ik
ik
=

=


(3)

The first derivative in (3) is, with the use of (2)
ik
k i
i
ik
x x
x

=

Evaluating the other three derivatives, of similar form, substituting them in (3), and canceling out the
common factor
ik
/ 1 will give
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 dy y y dy y y dx x x dx x x
k i k i k i k i k i k i
= + + +
(4)

Considering all the 2n bars, a system of 2n homogeneous equations is obtained to calculate the
coordinate changes.
Let the system be indicated, in matrix notation, as
| |{ } { } a d C =
(5)

where | | C has coordinate dependent elements, (and may be named the kinematic matrix) { } d is a
collection of nodal infinitesimal displacements (to which only free nodes contribute; prescribed support
displacement have no variations) and { } a is a collection of the bar length differentials, that must be
made equal to zero in our case.
Then
| |{ } { } 0 d C =
(6)

In order to evaluate the type of solutions for (6), as is known, the value of the determinant of the
| | C matrix is calculated. That matrix is of the same order as the structure stiffness matrix, referred to a
displacement vector related to the number of the restrained structure degrees of freedom.
One may have the two situations:
0 = - Any solution is a possible one. Nodal displacements may occur, without bar length
modifications. Then, the structure, geometrically determinate, is an exceptional case.
0 - Only the trivial solution is possible, that is, the geometrically determinate structure will not
have nodal displacements unless bar length changes occur. That is the regular case, of the well
behaved structure.


2.2. EXAMPLE
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER


For simplicity, let us consider again the two bars truss of Figure 1.
By using Eq. (4) for each of the two bars (A1 and B1) and already dropping dx
A
, dy
A
, dx
B
, dy
B
, which
are all zero, one has (by changing signs on both sides of the two equations):
0 dy ) y y ( dx ) x x (
0 dy ) y y ( dx ) x x (
1 1 B 1 1 B
1 1 A 1 1 A
= +
= +

(6)

or, in matrix notation Eq. (6)
)
`

=
)
`

0
0
dy
dx
) y y ( ) x x (
) y y ( ) x x (
1
1
1 B 1 B
1 A 1 A

(7)

The determinant is
) y y )( x x ( ) y y )( x x (
1 A 1 B 1 B 1 A
=
(8)

As already stated, when
0 = (9)

there will be the non-trivial solution, that is the geometrically determinate structure may be affected by
nodal displacements without having bar length variations. That is an exceptional case. In what follows
this situation will be discussed in a very much interesting format.
On the other hand, if
0 (10)

the system will have only the trivial solution. Then, no nodal displacements are allowed to occur. This
is the regular case.
)
`

=
)
`

0
0
dy
dx
1
1

(11)

Recalling the exceptional case situation, corresponding to a geometrically determinate structure, by
using Eq.(8), one may search under what situations it will be equal to zero. The simple example
structure of Figure 1 allows us to build a very illustrative approach.
As is well known twice the area (2S) of triangle AB1equals the value of the following determinant (as
can be shown by using the definition of the vector product of two vectors)
1 y x
1 y x
1 y x
S 2
1 1
B B
A A
=
(12)

But, by using one of the properties of determinants
) y y ( ) x x (
) y y ( ) x x (
x 1
1 y x
0 ) y y ( ) x x (
0 ) y y ( ) x x (
1 y x
1 y x
1 y x
1 B 1 B
1 A 1 A
1 1
1 B 1 B
1 A 1 A
1 1
B B
A A


=

=
(13)

It is easy to see that area S will be zero only if points A, B, and 1 belong to a straight line (degenerate
truss). Note that if two of the three points are coincident all the three will belong to the same straight
line. In this situation system (6) will have solutions different from zero. The truss, geometrically
determinate, is an exceptional case. Note, also, that if the determinant value is zero the coefficient
matrix in (6) is singular.
Finally, points A, B and 1, may be very much close to a straight line. In this situation the coefficient
matrix in (6) will be ill conditioned (the determinant value will be very small).


2.3. TRUSSED SLABS

Consider a simple truss isolated from the supports. The most elemental such a case is the truss with
three nodes and three bars, resulting in a triangle. New nodes may be added by using new pairs of bars.
As far as geometry is concerned, such a truss, with triangular layouts, will have equivalent global
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER

behavior as that of a solid slab (two dimensional structure with a very large in-plane stiffness and
negligible transverse stiffness).
For that situation, expression (1) becomes
3 n 2 b =
(14)

for three is the minimum number of support bars in order to suppress rigid body movements of a plane.
For the two-dimensional case, these are the structures that would be considered in this paper. As regular
cases, they would be able to receive any loading.
But our main concern is about three-dimensional trussed structures.


As is known, the problem may be considered under its dual mechanical nature. Suppose the structure is
considered in order to check if it is statically determinate. By using the tools of the structural matrix
analysis, the restrained structure stiffness matrix eigenvalues are calculated. By examining their values
it is possible to know if the stiffness matrix is singular (one or more zero eigenvalues) or ill conditioned
(one or more very small eigenvalues). The case of a singular stiffness matrix may reveal the situation of
an exceptional case of a geometrically determinate structure. Additionally, the magnitude of the
eigenvalues may also be used to find the rank of such stiffness matrix [PEL86].


3. THREE DIMENSIONAL TRUSSES

As already stated, Pellegrino [PEL86], in an excellent paper, presents the results obtained for
geometrically and statically indeterminate three-dimensional trusses. But that author was not explicitly
concerned about how to transform the structures he considered into geometrically determinate ones.
The methodology he used may be employed to confirm the results that are now been presented in this
paper.

In this paper, the main intention is to find out what can be done in order to make that the usual square-
on-square three dimensional trusses become free of the possibility to experience mechanism type
displacements, irrespective of the number of support bars.
It has been found that the remedy to do that is very cheap and in most cases it means to add only one
more truss bar to the classical layout, originally geometrically indeterminate, in order to make it to be
geometrically determinate.
As an example, Figure 4 presents the three dimensional square-on-square truss with 3 x 3 modules in
plane. It will be geometrically determinate or not depending on the use of an extra horizontal diagonal
bar, (16-10), located, for example, in the diagonal position of the central lower chord square diagonal.
To prove this, the paper may use both the alternatives previously stated, by verifying if Eq.(1), adapted
to the three dimensional case, is obeyed together with the calculation of the determinant value, or by
analyzing the eigenvalues of the restrained structure stiffness matrix.

The compromise between b bars and n nodes, support bars included, for a three dimensional truss or a
trussed solid, geometrically determinate, is
n 3 b =
(15)


3.1. TRUSSED THREE DIMENSIONAL SOLID

Extending the previous considerations to the three-dimensional case, one may define a geometrically
determinate trussed solid. The most elemental of them is a simple tetrahedron, with six bars and four
nodes. For the unrestrained simple tetrahedron, and for other ones with a greater number of bars and
nodes, expression (15) becomes

6 n 3 b =
(16)

because six is the minimum number of support bars, needed to suppress rigid body motions of a solid
in three-dimensional space.
The length of a generic bar i,k is such that
( )
2
i k
2
i k
2
i k
2
ik
z z ) y y ( ) x x ( + + =
(17)

The total differential is
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER

k
k
ik
i
i
ik
k
k
ik
i
i
ik
k
k
ik
i
i
ik
ik
dz
z
dz
z
dy
y
dy
y
dx
x
dx
x
d

=


(18)

Calculating all the derivatives, substituting them into (18), and canceling out 1/
ik
, it results
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
ik k i k i k i k i k i k i k i k i k i
d dz z z dz z z dy y y dy y y dx x x dx x x = + + + + +
(19)

Using the same notation of the two dimensional case, Eq. (6), considering all 3n bars of the three
dimensional truss, assumed as geometrically determinate, the following condition will enforce no bar
elongation, even with infinitesimal nodal displacements existing.
| |{ } { } 0 d C =
(20)

Once again the homogeneous linear equation system will have a solution different from zero,
corresponding to an exceptional case, if
0 =

or, the only solution will be a null vector { } { } 0 d = , if
0

For this three dimensional situation it is also possible to analyze, in a very elegant format, the case of
the most simple truss, where three bars are concurrent at node 1, of Figure 2. Points A, B and C connect
the other bar ends to the foundation.
x
z
y
B
C
A
1

Figure 2 Simplest three-dimensional truss

Matrix equation (20), for this particular case, after changing signs on both sides, will look like

(
(
(

0
0
0
dz
dy
dx
) z z ( ) y y ( ) x x (
) z z ( ) y y ( ) x x (
) z z ( ) y y ( ) x x (
1
1
1
1 C 1 C 1 C
1 B 1 B 1 B
1 A 1 A 1 A

(21)

It can be shown that six times the volume of ABC1 tetrahedron is given by
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
( ) ( ) (
( ) ( ) (
1 C 1 C 1 C
1 B 1 B 1 B
1 A 1 A 1 A
1 1 1
1 C 1 C 1 C
1 B 1 B 1 B
1 A 1 A 1 A
1 1 1
C C C
B B B
A A A
z z y y x x
z z y y x x
z z y y x x
x 1
1 z y x
0 z z y y x x
0 z z y y x x
0 z z y y x x
1 z y x
1 z y x
1 z y x
1 z y x
V 6



=



= =

Then, the value of the | | C matrix determinant in (21) is proportional to the tetrahedron volume value.
That volume only will be zero if
a) Points A, B, C and 1 belong to the same plane (if three of them belong to a same straight line all the
four will be in the same plane). This situation corresponds to a degenerate truss. Although respecting
condition (16), it would be an exceptional case, because point 1 would be free to move, without any
change of the three bar length.

On the other hand, any other situation different from a) will give
0
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER


and the only possible solution will be the trivial solution, corresponding to the regular case of a
geometrically determinate truss.


3.2.EXAMPLES

3.2.1. SIMPLE TETRAHEDRON TRUSS

The simplest three-dimensional truss, totally unrestrained, is a non-degenerate tetrahedron. It is the
simplest trussed solid. Note that condition (16) is verified, with six bars connecting pairs of four nodes.
Considering previous considerations, it is clear that the | | C matrix determinant is different from zero.
This means that nodal displacements are only possible if bar elongations do take place. From three
nodes of any of its faces, three new bars will define a new node position. There results a new trussed
solid formed by two face-linked tetrahedra.
Extending such procedure, bigger trussed solids may be constructed. That procedure will be adopted, in
the following, to build the configuration of the square-on-square geometrically determinate three-
dimensional trusses. When the resulting trussed solid is restrained by at least six (fixed and roller)
support bars, that eliminate all possible rigid body motions, the structure will be able to receive any
loading, without showing any mechanism like displacement.


3.2.2. PYRAMIDAL TRUSS

As an example of structure that is not geometrically determinate, consider the square based pyramidal
truss of Figure 3. By expression (16) it results that the number of needed bars in order to have a three-
dimensional trussed solid is
9 6 5 x 3 b = =

C
B A
D
1
y
x
PLAN VIEW
C
B
1
A
PERSPECTIVE
z


Figure 3 Pyramidal truss
But there are only eight bars. Then it is not a three dimensional trussed solid. In fact, let that structure
be restrained by a minimum number of support bars, equal to six. Making use of the notation Nabc,
where N is the node name and a, b or c denote directions parallel to x, y or z, respectively, let us
suppose Axyz, Dxz and Bz the restraining situation.
Even without calculating the value of , it is ease to see that the adopted support bars do not hold
distances AC or BD constant. On the contrary these distances may change and as a consequence node
C may displace in the z direction. This confirms that the structure is not a three dimensional trussed
solid.
Now, the addition of a diagonal bar AC (or BD) in the base x, y plane, makes impossible to have those
relative displacements. The truss is now a three-dimensional trussed solid, as the determinant value
may confirm.


3.2.3. SQUARE-ON-SQUARE THREE DIMENSIONAL TRUSSES

Most of the square-on-square three-dimensional trusses already built do not obey relation (16). Then,
they are not three-dimensional trussed solids. In some cases there are missing bars. In others there are
more bars than it is necessary, but a more careful analysis shows that some of these extra bars may not
be necessary or are at the wrong position.
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER


Take as an example the case of Figure 4, with 3 x 3 square pyramidal modules in the lower chord.
Coordinate x, y plane is in the lower chord and z-axis is directed upward. Each chord square side is
2.5m in length. Distance between chords is 1.5m. Minimum set of six restraint bars is 22xyz, 1xz and
4z, according to previous definition. One downward 2.0kN force is applied at node 25. Youngs
modulus is E=20,500.0kN/cm
2
. Cross-sectional areas are, respectively, 4.65cm
2
for horizontal ones and
3.64cm
2
for diagonals.
22
15
23 24
8
1
9
10
2 3
25
18
11
4
17 16

Figure 4 3 x 3 modules square-on-square truss

There are 25 nodes and 72 bars in this structure. By condition (16), the number of necessary bars is
69 6 25 x 3 6 n 3 b = = =

So, the structure has three bars in excess. But this do not means that the structure is geometrically over-
determinate, because those three bars are not necessary to define a three-dimensional trussed solid, as
will be demonstrated. Besides this, the more important fact is that, with a very careful analysis, based
on the procedure to construct a three dimensional trussed solid, it will be shown that there is a missing
bar in one of the diagonal positions of the chord squares. That bar may be placed, for example, in the
central lower chord square diagonal, where an arch segment symbolically represents it (bar 16-10).
Adding that bar and removing all the 2-3, 8-15, 11-18 and 23-24 bars (mid-sides of the lower chord)
there results a geometrically determinate structure with 25 nodes and 69 bars.
It is not difficult to trace how the complete structure is composed. Start with the four tetrahedra set (6-
9-10-13), (9-12-13-16), (13-16-17-20) and (10-13-14-17), which are face linked to the other two central
tetrahedra (9-10-16-13) and (10-16-17-13). This central part, with six tetrahedra, is a three dimensional
trussed solid. Then, the remaining positions of adjacent nodes will be defined by distinct sets of three
bars. For example, nodes 5, 7, 19 and 21 are defined, respectively, by the following bar sets: (5-6 5-9
5-12), (7-6 7-10 7-14), (19-12 19-16 19-20) and (21-20 21-17 21-14). Next, nodes 2, 3, 8, 15, 11,
18, 23 and 24 are defined by the bar sets (2-5 2-6 2-9); (3-6 3-7 3-10); (8-5 8-9 8-12); (15-12 15-16
15-19); (11-7 11-10 11-14); (18-14 18-17 18-21); (23-19 23-16 23-20); (24-20 24-17 24-21).
Finally, nodes 1, 4, 22 and 25 are defined by similar procedure, by using three bar sets. This gives the
(69 bars) structure situation 1, considered in Table 1. If the diagonal bar 16-10 is removed, this
corresponds to the (68 bars) structure situation 2 of Table 1. It is very important to observe that the bars
2-3, 8-15, 11-18 and 23-24 were not used during the procedure. Obviously, for other reasons, like
constructive ones, those bars may be added to the structure.
Table 1 presents illustrative results for the test structure. Structure situation 1 shows the values of
minimum and maximum eigenvalues for the geometrically determinate structure.
Table 1 results, for situations 1 and 2 were obtained with a usual Fortran matrix analysis computer
program, to which a routine to calculate the stiffness matrix eigenvalues was added. As it can be seen,
for the geometrically determinate structure situation 1, the relation between extreme eigenvalues is in
the normal range, as well as the value of maximum vertical displacement (node 25: -8.818 cm). For
the geometrically indeterminate situation 2, there is a substantially difference from situation 1, and
maximum displacement is a very, very large number, due to the fact that mechanism like displacements
do occur in this structure.


IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER

Structure Situation N. of
bars
Min eigen-
value
Max eigen-
value
Max. displacement
1-geometrically determinate 69 .06122 2090. -8.818 cm
2-geometrically indeterminate 68 .0001381 1930. -.2210x10
14
cm ( ! )
Determinant value
3-geometrically determinate 69 -1.019886565290307E+162 (*)
(*) Negative determinant value is due to the bar orientations (defined by the numbering order of the
truss nodes)

Table 1 Results for the 3 x 3 modules truss

Finally geometrically determinate structure situation 3 (the same as situation 1) was analyzed by
another Fortran program, which gives the value of the determinant (different from zero) of the
geometrically determinate structure | | C matrix. Note that the negative value is only a consequence of
the resulting bar orientations, which are dependent on the way the truss nodes are numbered in the
analysis procedure. The calculated determinant is a very large number, in this case, but it is only a
consequence of the use of cm as the length unit for the problem.


4. CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that a geometrically determinate structure will not have mechanism like
displacements (in the so-called regular case), if it obeys relation (16) and if determinant of the
| | C matrix is different from zero. By using that basic conclusion it was possible to show that, for
instance, the three dimensional truss with the square-on-square layout, with 3 x 3 modules, will only be
a regular case if it has an additional horizontal diagonal bar, like bar 16-10. As can be verified this bar
may be positioned at the diagonal of any of the nine chord squares. It has been shown also the complete
procedure that was followed, starting from a basic module composed by two face linked tetrahedra.
That conclusion can be extended to the cases of such trusses with m x m modules in the lower chord. In
other cases, m x n, with m different from n, it will also be possible to find out where to add diagonal
bars in order to build geometrically determinate structures. However, it is worth of noting that for the
cases of 1 x n modules, (which are so built as parts of bigger trusses, during the construction phase)
they do need temporary diagonals for all the consecutive squares, otherwise they will be highly
geometrically indeterminate structures, as can be proved with expression (16). Finally, it is interesting
to note that the use of the value of the determinant, in order to evaluate if the structure is a regular case,
assumes, a priori, that it is geometrically determinate (condition (16) is obeyed). This is because if the
structure is not geometrically determinate the | | C matrix is not square. Then, even more expensive,
the way that calculates the stiffness matrix eigenvalues, to find out if the structure is geometrically
determinate or not, may be preferable, for generality.

5. REFERENCES

[MAK81] Z.S. Makowski (1981), Analysis, Design and Construction of Double-Layer Grids, Applied
Science Publishers, London, UK.
[PEL86] Pellegrino S. & Calladine C.R., Matrix analysis of statically and kinematically indeterminate
frameworks, (1986), Int. J. Solids Structures, 22(4), pp. 409-428.
[SCH84] Schiel, F. (1984) Introduo Resistncia de Materiais, Harper & Row, So Paulo, Brasil.
IASS SYMPOSIUM 2004 MONTPELLIER