Structural Performances of Single-layer Tensegrity Domes

Abstract

We consider here floating-compression tensegrity systems: prestressed spatial trusses, composed by cables and struts, such that struts are never connected to each other. In particular, we focus on single-layer systems: all the nodal positions are assumed to lie on a closed synclastic surface, such as a sphere or an ellipsoid. In this study we perform the form-finding and the structural design of a new tensegrity dome of small size; then we compare it to a conventional truss structure. Theoretically, floating-compression systems are not the best choice for carrying loads, a fact which is confirmed in this study. Nevertheless, our tensegrity design improves previous ones significantly. The structural performances evaluated here provide a reference point for assessing the feasibility of floating-compression systems.

Optimization of Footbridges Composed of Prismatic Tensegrity Modules

“…24 shows that for a span of 40 m, the tensegrity structure is always about three to four times heavier (83=27 ¼ 3.1 and 18=4 ¼ 4.5) than the lightest truss. Cadoni and Micheletti (2012) compared the structural performance of a singlelayer tensegrity dome with a conventional truss dome and got similar results. This important result is discussed in the conclusion and must be nuanced.…”

Seventy years of tensegrities (and counting)

“…On indulging to one of his frequent Pindaric flights, Buckminster Fuller dreamed of roofing all of a city by one of his spheres. 9 In fact, as was shown in [26], a small dome obtained from a Buckminster Fuller's tensegrity sphere weighs about three times more than a geodesic dome designed to bear the same loads. Another structural type devised by Buckminster Fuller was his A(scending su)spension Dome (Fig.…”

“…In[18], Skelton proposes to classify TS'es according to the maximum number of compression members connected in a node 4. There are two main reasons for this: one is that, struts being not contiguous, loads are not transferred to foundations in a continuous manner; the other is that to prevent buckling instabilities is an especially taxing job[24][25][26].…”

Structural design and control of modular tensegrity structures

“…This complexity and the fact that a few structural design studies exist at this time (Rhode-Barbarigos, Hadj Ali, Motro, & Smith, 2010;Safaei, Eriksson, Micheletti, & Tibert, 2013) certainly explain the low level of development observed. Another reason is attributable to the intrinsic low structural stiffness of these systems (Cadoni & Micheletti, 2012;Hanaor, 2012). Indeed, real applications should be envisaged with systems where the form maximises structural depth (Hanaor, 2002) and mobilises the least possible second-order rigidity or finite mechanisms (Wang, 1998).…”