Conceptual Design of Modular Bridges Including Layout Optimization and Component Reusability
Conceptual Design of Modular Bridges Including Layout Optimization and Component Reusability
Abstract: Modular or panelized bridges, comprised of stacked rectangular panels forming girder-type bridges, are the most widely used
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approach for rapidly erectable bridging. Limitations of these systems, however, include inefficient material distribution of both panels and lat-
eral bracing. This research addresses this challenge by implementing structural optimization for the conceptual design of modular bridges,
including module topology and spatial orientation optimization. This contribution generalizes an existing formulation for optimizing modular
trusses to include (1) reusability of modules among multiple structures and (2) practical considerations in design, such as multiple types of
modules, multiple load cases, the capability to compute the displacements in an elastic design formulation, and limitation on stresses. This
methodology is demonstrated for the conceptual design of single- and double-story simply supported bridges. Further studies find that (1)
incorporating module reusability results in a trade-off between constructability and material efficiency and (2) better designs can be obtained
by modifying the module configuration. This research culminates in guidelines to assist designers during preliminary design phases. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001138. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Modular design; Structural optimization; Topology optimization.
a1 a3 a4 a4 a3 a1 a4 a3 a1
a2 a2 a5
(a)
a1 a2 a3
(b)
ðs Þ
where Np = number of coefficients λm;p in the mth module of struc- X
Ne;s
ðsÞ ðsÞ
X
Ne;s
te;k cðesÞ ¼ f k þ r ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ lðesÞ gðesÞ
ture s, which depends on the ground structure node distribution and
ðs Þ e¼1 e¼1
connectivities of the module. For clarity, the coefficients λm;p are
concatenated in a spatial orientation design variable vector kðsÞ for 8k ¼ 1; …; Nc ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (5a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ðsÞ
te;k ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ Uy Fy 0 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s (8e)
Compute v totalwith Eq. (8a)
and constraints with Eq. 8(b-g)
8k ¼ 1; …; Nc ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax
Update
Check optimality using a(0), uk(s), t(s)
k ,λ
(s)
X
Np
sÞ
λðm;p 1 ¼ 0 8m ¼ 1; …; MðsÞ ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (8f ) a Lagrangian formulation using a line-search
p¼1 or a trust-region
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
X
Np
Convergence?
No
sÞ
1 ¼ 0 8m ¼ 1; …; MðsÞ ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax
2
λðm;p (8g)
p¼1
yes
in which Eqs. (8b) and (8c) ensure equilibrium, Eqs. (8d) and (8e) End
limit the stresses in compression and tension respectively, and Eqs.
(8f) and (8g) allow the algorithm to converge toward a configuration Fig. 3. Flowchart summarizing the iterative resolution of Eqs. (8a)–(8g)
in which all of the modules are correctly assembled.
Eqs. (8a)–(8g) present attractive outcomes compared with the
state of the art in optimization of modular structures. First, it inte-
grates the simultaneous optimization of the module rotation and
spatial orientation, making the strategy competitive with respect to
any other approaches neglecting the module rotation (Huang and
Xie 2008; Chen et al. 2010). Second, it generalizes the existing plas- Deck Abutment
tic design formulation already reported in Tugilimana et al. (2017)
to a more general framework corresponding to the preliminary D Girders
design of truss systems. Finally, this methodology includes the reus- L
ability of the modules among multiple structures, with each one
4.572
subjected to different load cases. m
From a practical viewpoint, Eqs. (8a)–(8g) can be efficiently
solved by an interior-point method coupling line-search and trust- Fig. 4. Simply supported bridge case studies (Note: Single-story struc-
region methods. This strategy iteratively updates the design variables ture: span L = 24.5 m, depth D = 1.52; double-story structure: span L =
ðsÞ ðsÞ
a(0), uk , tk , and kðsÞ using a gradient-based method. At each itera- 48.7 m; depth D = 3.05 m)
tion, the objective function vtotal and constraints [Eqs. (8b)–(8g)] are
evaluated. The convergence criteria are based on a Lagrangian for-
mulation, which exploits the stationarity of the objective function Conventional Bailey bridges use a through-type deck. In this
and the feasibility of the constraints [Eqs. (8b)–(8g)] with respect to paper, a configuration involving a deck on the top of the girders
the design variables. The update scheme uses a combination of a line (Fig. 4) is investigated as an improvement on the state of the prac-
search and a trust region, depending on the positive semidefiniteness tice because it (1) prevents vehicular collisions with the load
of the Hessian of the Lagrangian. A flowchart summarizing the nu- bearing structure and (2) enables more efficient lateral bracing
merical procedure is depicted in Fig. (3). More details can be found between the girders (because these no longer conflict with vehicu-
in Byrd et al. (1999) and Byrd et al. (2000). Note that the simultane- lar traffic). Each bridge carries one lane of vehicular traffic on a
ous analysis and design in Eqs. (8a)–(8g) does not require any deck supported by two girders spaced at 4.572 m (15 ft), to allow
analysis
explicit structural ðsof the truss structures [i.e., resolution of a 3.658-m (12-ft) design lane as prescribed by AASHTO (2012).
Þ ðsÞ
the system K að0Þ ; kðsÞ uk ¼ f k ]. The algorithm iteratively con- As a simply supported bridge, one extremity of each girder is
verges toward a solution respecting Eqs. (8b) and (8c). At this point, restrained in translation in all directions, whereas the other one is
for a cross-sectional vector a(0) and module rotations kðsÞ , the struc- free to translate along the longitudinal axis.
ðs Þ All elements are assumed to be ASTM A36 steel (AASHTO
ture is at equilibrium under the applied loads f k .
2012), characterized by a yield strength Fy of 248 MPa (36 ksi), a
Young’s modulus E of 200E3 GPa (29,000 ksi), and a density r of
Case Studies 7,800 kg/m3 (0.28 lb/in3).The dead load (DL) includes the self-weight
of the structure and the deck [a lightweight deck is assumed with a
The conceptual design strategy proposed in this paper is demon- self-weight of 13.1 kN/m (900 lb/ft)]. For the live load, the optimiza-
strated for two simply supported bridge case studies spanning 24.38 tion procedure is implemented for the worst loading on a simply sup-
m (80 ft) and 48.77 m (160 ft). These spans are representative of ported span. The vehicular loads are those prescribed by AASHTO
single- and double-story Bailey systems, respectively (Department (2012) and correspond to a uniformly distributed lane load (LA) of
of the Army 1986), offering the opportunity for comparison with a 9.34 kN/m (640 lb/ft) on the full span, and a design truck load (TL) of
state-of-the-practice system. A depth of 1.524 m (5 ft) and 3.048 m 35.58/142.3/142.3 kN (8/32/32 kip) positioned at midspan [Fig. 5(a)].
(10 ft), respectively, were selected to represent the depth of these The tandem loads are not considered because the design TL governs
Bailey systems and to ensure that both structures exhibit the same for this simply supported system. Wind loads (WLs) of 2.39 kPa (50
span-to-depth ratio (Fig. 4). psf) are applied separately in two opposite directions orthogonal to
LC2 : 1:25 DL þ 1:35 1:2 LA þ 1:35 1:2 1:33 TL Module Type 4 [Fig. 7(f)], which is a single transverse element.
Module Type 4 is inspired by conventional panelized systems, in
þ 0:4 WL2 (10) which the deck is supported by transverse beams (transoms) every
3.048 m (10 ft). Module Types 2 and 3 offer the opportunity for
ðsÞ
where DLs, TLs, and WLs are concatenated in the force vectors f k ; improved lateral bracing strategies for these systems. Figs. 7(g and h)
and the load factor of 1.25 is applied to the self-weight in Eq. (8b). depict the position of each type of module in the single- and double-
story bridges, respectively. The corresponding number of modules
in each structure and their number of elements in each type are
Definition of Module Configurations indicated in Table 1.
Although Configuration I follows a module distribution similar
This paper investigates the impact of the module definition (i.e., to the state-of-the-practice systems, Configuration II (Figs. 8 and 9)
ground structure) and distribution (i.e., position in the structure) on aims to improve a deficiency of the existing systems: a concentra-
the optimized design. This is performed by considering the follow- tion of material along the neutral axis of the girders. The module di-
ing two module configurations. vision for the lateral bracing remains the same as Configuration I
In Configuration I, four types of modules are considered (Figs. 6 (Fig. 7). The difference lies in the module girders, which are now di-
and 7). Each girder is comprised of rectangular modules: Module vided into a rectangular box [denoted Module Type 5, Figs. 8(a–d)]
Fig. 5. Live load distribution on the simply supported bridge shown in (a) elevation and (b) cross section
Module Type 1
1.524 m
1.524 m
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b)
0.600 m 1.524 m
(d)
0.600 m
(c)
(e)
(f)
Fig. 6. Module Type 1 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric views; these modules form the girders for Configuration I
in the (e) single-story and (f) double-story structures
1.524 m
4.5
3.05 m 4.572 m 72
m
(a) (b) 3.048 m
(e)
Module Type 4
4.572 m 1.524 m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
4.5
72 4.5
m 72
(c) 3.048 m m
(d) (f)
1.524 m Type 1
1.524 m
1.524 m Type 2
8 m
4.572 m 3.04 Type 3
m
48 Type 4
(g)
4.572 m 3.0
(h)
Fig. 7. Module Type 2 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric views; Module Type 3 shown in (e) isometric view;
Module Type 4 shown in (f) isometric view; module positions for Configuration I in the (g) single-story and (h) double-story structures
Table 1. Module Types for Configuration I A more advanced design step would require the consideration of
WL on live loads and WLs applied only on the surface of the truss
Number of modules elements.
Module type Number of bars Single-story Double-story
1 120 32 128 Results
2 4 8 32
3 2 16 48 Implementing the new optimization methodology [Eqs. (8a)–(8g)]
4 1 18 51 on the two case studies using Configurations I and II leads to opti-
mized designs that demonstrate (1) the capability of the methodol-
ogy to efficiently optimize module topology and spatial orientation
and a planar rectangular component [denoted Module Type 6, Fig.
including different types of module and practical design constraints,
8(e)]. Module Type 6 is only positioned at the bottom and the top of
(2) the impact of module reusability, and (3) the impact of the mod-
the girders and is not placed at midheight for the double-story struc-
ule configuration on the optimized designs. Results are summarized
ture (Fig. 9). A summary of the number of modules in each structure
and compared in Table 3.
is given in Table 2 for Configuration II.
Regarding the load implementation on the modules of
Configurations I and II, the self-weight of the deck and the live Demonstration of Methodology
loads are equally distributed on each girder. Because Module Type This paper first demonstrates the optimization strategy for the
4 mimics the transverse elements supporting the deck, these loads single- and double-story Configuration I structures because they
are applied every 3.048 m (10 ft) at the top chord, at the module most closely represent the state of the practice. Results do not
joints. This corresponds to the extremities of Module Type 1 for include component reusability.
Configuration I and Module Types 5 and 6 for Configuration II. Optimized Module Type I in single-story Configuration I [Figs.
Their magnitudes are taken proportionally to the area of the deck 10(a–d)] is composed of large horizontal elements on the bottom
supported by each transverse element. For the WL, the horizontal and top, forming the chords that resist flexure in the global bridge
pressure of 2.39 kPa (50 psf) is projected at the four corners of each structure. These are joined by diagonal elements for shear resist-
Module Type 1 for Configuration I and Module Type 5 for ance. The optimized spatial orientation of the modules along the
Configuration II, assuming the entire plain vertical square surface girder is such that there is a 180° rotation about the axis perpendicu-
of the 1.524-m (5-ft) side is exposed to the wind. This conservative lar to the span [Fig. 11(a)] for one of every two modules. This spa-
application of the WL enables its easier implementation for the pre- tial orientation ultimately results in a Warren truss type system [Fig.
liminary design stage. This implementation procedure, coupled 10(j)], which is conventionally known for its economy because it
with the definition of load cases LC1 and LC2 [Eqs. (9) and (10), does not include vertical members. For lateral bracing, the optimi-
ðsÞ
respectively], enables the definition of the external force vector f k . zation procedure has removed Module Type 4 (i.e., the transverse
1.524 m
1.524 m
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b) 1.524 m
0.600 m
0.600 m 1.524 m (e)
0.600 m (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(c)
Type 5 Type 6
(f)
(g)
Fig. 8. Module Type 5 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric views; Module Type 6 shown in (e) isometric view; these
modules form the girders for Configuration II in the (f) single-story and (g) double-story structures
Type 2
Type 5
Type 3
Type 6
Type 4
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Module positions for Configuration II in the (a) single-story and (b) double-story structures
Table 2. Module Types for Configuration II topology and spatial orientation optimization. The optimized
rotations of Module Type 1 in the bottom layer of the girder are
Number of modules
identical to that in the single-story structure, whereas the compo-
Module type Number of elements Single-story Double-story nent in the top layer has rotated 180°[(Fig. 11(b)]. This orienta-
1 — — —
tion, coupled with the optimized Module Type 1 in Fig. 12(d),
2 4 8 32 enables the elimination of material at the neutral axis, solving the
3 2 16 48 issue of material inefficiency imposed by module topology perio-
4 1 18 51 dicity. Also, in Fig. 12(i) the optimized material distribution in
5 64 32 128 the girders exhibits strong similarities with the Howe truss sys-
6 28 64 128 tem, in which the diagonal members are subjected to compression
and the vertical elements are in tension (under the loads consid-
ered here). The large top and the bottom chord ensure sufficient
elements) by enforcing its cross section to be zero. Module Type 2 bending resistance. The simultaneous spatial orientation and
[Figs. 10(e–h)] only includes two diagonal members with the same module topology optimization enables the definition of a Module
orientation in half of the structure. The symmetry with respect to Type 1 that is lighter for the double-story structure than for the
midspan is ensured by the spatial orientation optimization. Module single-story system (Table 3). For lateral bracing, Module Types
Type 3 is composed of two crossing members [Fig. 10(i)]. Coupled 3 and 4 have been removed. Module Type 2 is composed of four
with Module Type 2 and the crossing elements in the diagonal of crossing members with two thicker elements in the diagonal plane
Module Type 1, these modules enable the transmission of the WL of the rectangular prism defining the module [Figs. 12(e–h)]. The
to the supports and maintain the internal forces below the maximum optimized orientation of the lateral bracing modules follows that
allowable value. of Module Type 1: one of every two modules along the bottom
The optimized Module Type 1 in double-story Configuration layer is rotated 180° around the vertical axis, and the modules on
II [Figs. 12(a–d)] exhibits topological characteristics similar to the top layer are also rotated 180° around the longitudinal axis.
that of the single-story structure, except that no large elements are This enables the generation of a bracing system linking the top
generated at the top side of the component. This topological dif- and the bottom chords, as well as the neutral axis, for the trans-
ference results from the simultaneous optimization of module mission of the WL to the supports.
1.524 m 1.524 m
3.048 m 4.572 m
1.524 m 0.600 m (f)
(e)
(a) (b)
0.600 m (d)
(c)
4.572 m
Module Type 3
4.57 (h)
2m 8m
3.04 (g)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
Fig. 10. Single-story structure without module reusability for Configuration I; optimized Module Type 1 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section,
(c) plan, and (d) isometric view; optimized Module Type 2 shown in (e) elevation, (f) cross section, (g) plan, and (h) isometric view; isometric view
of the optimized Module Type 3 in (i); the optimized single-story structure is shown in (j) elevation, (k) plan view, and (l) isometric view
The efficiency of these two systems is demonstrated through a the self-weight because the bending moment of a simply supported
comparison with the state-of-the-practice Bailey bridges. This pa- bridge is proportional to the span squared. The self-weight of the
per uses the material efficiency metric introduced in Gerbo et al. Bailey bridge is based on data available from the Department of the
(2016), which is defined to be the span length squared divided by Army (1986) and includes the panels [2.566 kN (577 lb)], the end
3.048 m 4.572 m
1.524 m (e) (f)
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b)
4.572 m
0.600 m (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(c)
(h)
(g)
(i)
(j)
(k)
Fig. 12. Double-story structure without module reusability for Configuration I; optimized Module Type 1 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section,
(c) plan, and (d) isometric view; optimized Module Type 2 shown in (e) elevation, (f) cross section, (g) plan, and (h) isometric view; the optimized dou-
ble-story structure shown in (i) elevation, (j) plan view, and (k) isometric view
stays close to the solution without reusability. However, the mate- II strongly limits the deterioration of the material efficiency for the
rial efficiency of the double-story structure significantly decreases double-story structure (0.46% of decrease compared with the solu-
because of topology periodicity of Module Type 1 coupled with the tion without reusability), whereas the single-story sees its material
consideration of reusability, leading to the generation of material at efficiency decreasing a little. This evolution is followed by addi-
the neutral axis. However, measuring the impact of reusability on tional small elements in the optimized topology of the girder mod-
the design cannot only rely on the material efficiency. Indeed, ules. Therefore, selecting an appropriate module configuration for a
allowing structures to share a common set of modules (1) decreases given problem is a challenge for designers. Indeed, finding a module
the time required for designing multiple structures because only one definition that ensures material efficiency requires large modifica-
optimization process has to be performed; (2) decreases fabrication tions to the project, which can only be applied at preliminary design
cost because mass production can be implemented, which also stages. Moreover, module definition involves a trade-off between ef-
results in a higher quality product; and (3) improves the on-site ficiency (i.e., minimizing the impact of topology periodicity), low
erection because the modules can be stockpiled for future use, are manufacturing cost of the modules, and simple assembly of the com-
transportable, and are easily assembled because few connections ponents (through a small number of connections and a simple mod-
need to be made. ule topology). In the case studies presented in this research, Module
The comparison between Configurations I and II emphasizes the Configuration I uses only four different types of modules, limiting
sensitivity of the optimized design to the module definition and dis- the manufacturing cost and the number of connections required for
tribution. Including module reusability in Configuration I results in erection. However, these advantages result in a low material effi-
a decrease of the material efficiency of 27 and 31% for the single- ciency when module reusability is introduced. On the other hand,
story and double-story structures, respectively. Using Configuration Module Configuration II improves the efficiency by considering five
1.524 m
0.600 m
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Fig. 13. Optimized Module Type 1 in Configuration I with reusability shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric view; opti-
mized single-story structure shown in (e) elevation and (f) plan view; optimized double-story structure shown in (g) elevation and (h) plan view; only
Module Type 1 is depicted in detail (a–d) because most topological modifications occur in the girders and not in the lateral bracing
types of modules, but it exhibits a more complex topology. This neg- Guidelines for the Design of Modular Structures
atively impacts the erection cost and time because more connections
are required between the modules. This discussion highlights a challenge for designers: selecting a
Finally, these lightweight modular structures are obtained due to modular configuration at early design stages. However, this paper
the well-adapted mathematical structure of the optimization problem shows that preliminary decisions can help isolate module defini-
formulation [Eqs. (8a)–(8g)]. The relevant assumptions brought to tions and distributions that maintain a good compromise between
the initial design problem enable the derivation of the objective func- efficiency and constructability. These decisions are summarized by
tion and constraints written explicitly in terms of all of the design the following guidelines:
variables. This allows the application of sparse interior-point algo- • Defining module types: The module types should follow the
rithms coupling Newton step and trust-region methods, which are division of the structure into its different subsystems (e.g.,
well-known for the handling of large-scale optimization problems. girders that carry gravity loads in bending and lateral bracing
In the present application, Configuration I double-story structure that transmits WLs to the supports), and their ground structures
without reusability involves 39,077 design variables and 38,360 should be adapted to the load path they have to carry.
equality and 76,428 inequality constraints. When module reusability Following these rules in the present application, Module Type
is included, these values increase up to 49,425, 48,898, and 97,740, 1 (and Module Types 5 and 6 in Configuration II) have been
respectively. To illustrate the processing of Eqs. (8a)–(8g), chosen to be able to generate rectangular prism girders, with a
Configuration I single- and double-story structures without reusabil- sufficiently dense ground structure for light optimized designs.
ity converge after 9,981 s (99 iterations) and 22,431 s (165 iterations) Module Types 2–4 have been selected to mimic existing brac-
CPU on a 2 12 core Intel Haswell processor with 256 GB RAM. ing systems used in the bridge industry, and they are associated
With reusability, 37,896 (131 iterations) is required on the same with less dense ground structures to avoid convergence toward
computer. Note that these performances are purely illustrative complex topologies between the girders.
because the convergence speed and the number of iterations depend • Number of module types: Selecting the number of different
on the starting point. types of modules is also a trade-off between efficiency and
1.524 m 0.600 m
0.60 4m
0m 1.52
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Fig. 14. Optimized Module Type 5 in Configuration II with reusability shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric view; opti-
mized Module Type 6 shown in isometric view in (e); optimized single-story structure shown in (f) elevation and (g) plan view; optimized double-
story structure shown in (h) elevation and (i) plan view; only Module Types 5 and 6 are depicted in detail (a–e) because most topological modifications
occur in the girders and not in the lateral bracing
ease of fabrication of components and erection. As shown in improve the total weight when module reusability is included.
the results, using few different types of modules (in Confi- However, this also results in more complex topologies with
guration I) can improve fabrication and erection, despite a numerous connections required between modules. Therefore,
decrease of material efficiency because of topology perio- module reusability should be used primarily for temporary
dicity when module reusability is included. At early design structures, in which the economy brought by reusability of the
stages, a relevant choice in the number of module types components can counterbalance the loss in material efficiency
could include the comparison of multiple possibilities as and the increase in fabrication complexity.
performed in this paper, with an ultimate decision according
to the technical specifications and particular demands of the
stakeholders. Conclusions
• Module dimensions: Dimensions of the ground structure of the
different module types should be mostly driven by constraints In this paper, a novel strategy for the design optimization of modular
related to transportation and on-site erection of the compo- structures is proposed, generalizing the existing formulation for mod-
nents. For structures composed of modules carried by individ- ule topology and spatial orientation optimization to (1) reusability of
uals (as opposed to using heavy lifting equipment), modules among multiple structures and (2) practical design consider-
conventional dimensions of 3.05 m (10 ft), used in precedents ations, such as multiple types of modules, multiple load cases, the
such as Bailey, Acrow, or Mabey-Johnson (Joiner 2001; capability of computing the displacements in an elastic design formu-
Russell and Thrall 2013), should not be exceeded. However, lation, and a limitation on the member stress. This contribution is
for projects using heavy lifting equipment, larger dimensions aimed at assisting engineers at early design stages, in which crucial
can be considered still within the constraints of transportabil- but complicated decisions have to be made about the module defini-
ity, and should be preferably transportable in ISO containers. tion, their distribution in the structures, and the possibility of includ-
• Module reusability: The effects of module reusability mostly ing the reusability of the modules. To address this challenge, the exist-
depend on the number of module types and their definition. ing plastic design formulation for optimizing module topology and
Increasing the number of module types can considerably module spatial orientation has been extended to include elastic