CHAPTER ONE

LITERATURE REVIEW
Tensegrity is a portmanteau of tensional integrity. It refers 10 the integrity of

structures as being based in a synergy between balanced tension and compression

components. Tensegrity structures are built of struts and cables. The struts can resist

compressive force and the cables cannot. Most cable-strut configurations which one

might conceive are not in equilibrium. and if actually constructed will collapse to a

different shape. Only cable-strut configurations in a stable equilibrium will be called

tensegrity structures. If well designed, lhe application of forces to a lensegrity

structure will defonn ii into a slightly different shape in a way that supports the

applied forces. Tensegrity structures are very special cases of trusses, where members

are assigned special functions. Some members are always in tension and others are

always in compression. A tensegrity structure's struts cannot be attached to each other

through joints that impart torques. The end of a strut can be attached to cables or ball

jointed to other struts.

1.1. Principle of Tensegrity

' Tensegrity' is a panem that results when ' push' and 'pull' have a win-win

relationship with each other. Pull is continuous where as push is discontinuous. The

continuous pull is balanced by the discontinuous push, producing the integrity of

tension aud compression. These fundamental phenomena do not oppose, but rather

complement each other. Tensegrity is the name for a synergy between a co-existing

pairs of fundamental physical laws of push and pull, or compression and tension, or

repulsion and attraction [7].

1.3. Some Disadvantages

• Tensegrity arrangements suffer the problem of bar congestion. As some designs

become larger (thus, the arc length of a strut decreases), the struts start running into

each other [3].See figure 1.2

• The same author stated, after experimental research, "relatively high deflections and

low material efficiency, as compared with conventional, geometrically rigid

structures" (3 ].

• The fabrication complexity is also a barrier for developing the floating compression

structures. Spherical and domicaJ structures are complex, which can lead to

problems in production. [ l]

• In order to support critical loads, the pre-stress forces should be high enough, which

could be difficult in larger-size constructions [6].

Figure 1.2 Complexity in construction for large tensegrity structures

7
 CHAPTER THREE
ANSYS MODELLING
3.1 lntroduction

A characteristic feature of the tensegrity structures is the presence of geometric

nonlinearities due to the clbanging geometry as they deflect under loads. That is the

stiffness matrix [k] is a function of the displacement (u). There are four types of

geometric non-linearity - large strains, large rotations, stress stiffening and spin

softening (Cook et al 2003).

In tensegrity structures, stress stiffening is more prominent. In this type of non

linearity both strains and rotations are small. Stress stiffening effect nonnally needs to

be considered for thin structures, such as cables, thin beams and shells that have very

small bending stiffness as compared to the axial stiffness. In such structures, the in

plane and the transverse displacements are coupled. This effect also augments the

regular non-linear stiffness matrix produced by large strain or large deflection effects.

Generating and then using additional stiffness matrix called as stress stiffness matrix

accounts for the effect of stress stiffening. lt may be used for static and transient

analysis.

So while modeling the tensegrity grid in ANSYS 9, geometrical non linearity and

large deformation effects are taken into account.

3.2 Assumptions taken while modeling the structure

(I) AJI elements are truss elements i.e. there are no bending moments developed. To

take this assumption into account, the elements are modeled as 3-D spar elements

10
 which are uniaxial tension-compression elements with three degrees of freedom at

each node i.e. translations in x. y and z directions.

(2) Each element is defined by two nodes, the cross sectional area, an initial strain and

material properties. The initial strain readings are taken from previous

experimental data and ,can be updated after the actual experiment.

(3) The materials are assumed to be isotropic and linear in nature

(4) At the bottom nodes degree of freedom in Z-direction is locked except for the

central node for which all the degree of freedom are locked and at the top nodes

all the degrees of freedom are released.

3.3 ANSYS tensegrity grid model

Taking the above assumptions into account the modeling for grid structure was done

in Ansys 9. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 shows the top view and perspective view of the model.

Too Cables

Struts

Bottom cables

Figure 3. I Top View in Ansys

11
 Too Cables
Side Cables

Struts
Bottom cables

Figure 3.2 Perspective View in Ansys

3.4 Material Properties and Characteristics

The material which will be used for fabrication of the grid structure is steel. Table 3.1

gives the properties which have been taken for the ini1ial analysis and can be changed

while model updating.

Table- 3. 1 Material Propcnie-s and Characteristics•

S.No Properties Sleet Struls Slee) Cables

I. Area )60.284 mm1 6.53 mm1
2. Young's Modulus 205000 Nlmm! 95200N/mm1
3. Poisson Ration 0.25 0.25
4. Initial Strain 0.64823E-04 0. I 7427E-02
. .
• All these values have been taken from pn:v1ous s1m1lar cxpcnmcnts

3.5 Analysis of the grid structure using ANSYS

Now since teosegrity structures are very flexible and undergo large deformation due

to which they experience geometric non linearity so generally serviceability failure

criterion is used for their analysis along with a check on member forces to see

whether there is any material failure or not

12
As per codes, permissible vertical deformation for the tensegrity structure is UI 00

where L is the length of the base which is 2 meters in this case. So permissible

displacement in vertical direction for this grid structure is 2000/ I 00=20mm. So at a

vertical displacement of 20mm the grid structures is considered to be failed as per

serviceability criterion.

Using the technique of trial and error, various vertical loads are applied and maximum

vertical deformation is obtained. AU the loads are applied on top nodes such that load

at the middle node is twice the load applied on the node at the periphery. It is found

that when a load of 2500N is applied on each node at the periphery and 5000N on

each middle node than the structure undergoes a maximum vertica l displacement of

19 mm. So it is concluded that the loading capacity of the structure will be 16•

2500N= 40000N i.e. 4000 kg. Newton Rapbson method is used for the analysis of the

structure (see appendix). .Figure 3.3 gives the convergence graph of obtained during

the analysis.

.
. •

I
J '
'
I .

... • - • - - ,. - -
'
•
-
-------- Figure 3.3 Convergence graph
•
Figure 3.4 shows node numbering. The variation of vertical displacement with time,

where every unit increase in time corresponds to a load increase of 4000N, is shown

in figure 3.5.

Figure 3.4 Nwnbcring of Nodes

... ~ .....
I

- -

-
-
"" " f""II,,. r"'oo,,,

"' '....... -......

...... -.,

-...... -
---.
""'-

&
•
•
•
•

-•
•
• .• - ....

Figure 3.S Vcn ical displacement variations for nodes 12. 13 & 14

It is found that following node undergo same vertical dis placement:

(a) nodes 6, 12, 18, 20 (b) nodes 7, 13, 16, 2 1 (c) nodes5, 8, II , 17
(a) Allowable strength for struts
Assuming hinged-hi nged condition s the effective length for strut is equal to the actual

length. So,

Effective length= I = 1.224

12 4
Radius of gyration r = ..[ (UA), where, I is the moment of inertia =7 109.627x t0· m

2
and A is the area = l60.284x l0-6m • So we get

r= 6.66x IO -3 m, I= 1.224 m, Slenderne ss Ratio= 183.78

From table 5. 1 of IS: 800-1984, for fy= 240 N/mni2 permissib le stress of the strut
2
comes out to be 31 .866 N/mm · So allowable force in struts = 3 I .866x 160.284 =

5l07.61 N

Hence allowable load in the strut is 5107 .61

(b) Allowable strength for cables

From previously conducted experimen ts it was found that the proof stress in the cable

2
is I I I 9.575N/ mm

Maximum load the cable can carry is equal to 6.53x 1119.575= 73 I 0.82N

Now the member forces which are obtained from the analysis are diagramm atically

represente d in figure 3.8

16
 ..... 1 •
...... &ti.Ill &IN
3.8 Member Forces in the Grid Structure at failure load
•-
As can be seen from figure 3.8 the maximum compression developed is 2356 N which

is much less than the allowable strength of struts. Similarly maximum tension

developed is 2 198 which is also much less than the allowable strength of the cables.

So there is no material failure for the load capacity of 4000 kg. It is also clearly

visible from the above figure that all struts are in compression and all cables are in

tension so no cable is acting as a redundant part.

The reaction forces were also calculated and obtained during the analysis. The

reaction forces obtained are 6135.74 N and 3864.26 N. Due to the symmetry of the

structure:

(a) Nodes 2, 4, 9 and 15 have same reaction forces equal to 6135. 74 N

(b) Nodes 3, 10, 14 and 19 have same reaction force equal to 3864.26 N
The variation of the reaction forces with time is as shown in the figure 3.9 for node 2

and node 3.

1111..1
IV

-
--
- ~

- /
- ~~
, ~
- ~ ~

-- .,.,,,
, ...,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,..-- ---
~

- ~ ....--
--
• &
• • • • '11111•
'I

f igure 3.9 Variation of reaction force for node 2 and node 3

• • --
As can be seen from the figure 3.9 the variation o f the of reaction forces with time or

applied load is al.so linear. All the reaction forces obtained are in positive Z-clirection.

And as a check for equilibrium the summation o f these reaction forces on all nodes

mentioned above is eq ual to total applied load of 40000N in the final step.

So as seen from the theoretical analysis., all the variations obtained are linear in nature

hence from pre-experiment theoretical work it can be concluded that structure is

expected to show a linear response.

 CHAPTER FOUR
FABRICATION OF THE STRUCTURE

4.1 Methodology

From the previous experimentation and experiences it was observed that the main

problem which is encountered during the fabrication of these structures is the

fabrication of the appropriate joints. The joints of these structures are subjected to

following constraints:

- must be as much flexible as possible

light in weight so that light weight advantage of tensegrity over other

conventional structures is maintained

Easy to fabricate and require less labour

- Strong enough so that structure should not fail due to failure of these joints

So before the fabrication of the actual structure, fabrication of joints was done. Joints

were basically divided into three kinds of categories:

- Main joints

- Cable connections

- Strut connections

Main joints were fabricated using a T-section in civil engineering workshop aJong

with cable connections whereas strut connections were fabricated in Lhe centraJ

workshop of IIT Delhi. Once the fabrication of joints was completed, then fabrication

of structure was done. Layered fabrication approach was adopted i.e. the whole

stru.cture was fabricated in two layers: bottom layer and top layer and after that its

erection was done in civil engineering workshop. In all four tum buckles were used i.n

the top layer to facilitate the deployment of the structure.

19
4.2 Joints Description

The earlier joints which were fabricated in the lab were less flexible, heavier, and

difficult to fabricate as they required technical labour and used to fail before the

failure of the structure. Apart for this, from economic point of view also those joints

were not desirable as they required hired technical labour and involved more

dependence on machines which were not available in UT labs. Figure 4. 1 to 4.5

depicts joints used in previous projects and experimentation.

figure 4.1 Eye bolt Joint figure 4.2 Box-type: Joint

 Figure 4.3 Circular plates Joint Figure 4.4 Cable hydraulic pressed joint

Figure 4.5 Cable bolt joints

To overcome the weaknesses of previously mentioned joints, new kind of joints were

fabricated in the lab, which were based on the design proposed by a fellow 8.tech

Student.

(a) Proposed Cable Joint: A loop was fonned at the end of the cable and joint was

made by winding a ' winding wire ( 1.5mm dia)' around it with 30 turns. It was

then soaked in Epoxy solution (Fevitite) and left to dry for a day.

21
 Figure 4.6 Proposed cable joints

(b) Proposed Main Joint: A circular Plate (of diameter 10 cm. and thickness 5

mm.) was taken and a semicircular plate (of same dimensions) was welded at 90

degrees on its diameter. A hole (of 8mm) was made at l.4 cm. from the top in the

semicircular plate.

Figure 4.7 Proposed Maio Joint

(c) Proposed Strut Connection: A GI pipe was taken and a groove was made along

the length so that the pipe could be fitted into the plate. A bore of 8mm was also

driJJed so that a bolt could be fastened through it.

Figure 4 .8 Proposed Strut Connections with a Groove

22
 REFERENCES

I.Chu, R., Tensegrity, Journal ofSynergetics. 2(1), 1988.7.

2. Fuller, 8 ., Tensile-integrity structures. US Patent, 3, 063. 521 , 1962.

3. Hanaor, A., Double-layer tensegrity grids as deployable structures, International

Journal of Space Structures, 8, 1992.

4. Motro, R., et al., Form finding numerical methods for tensegrity systems. IASS-

ASCE International Symposium, Atlanta, GA, April 24-28. 70<r713 , 1994.

5. Pugh, A., A11 Introduction to Tensegrity. University of C alifornia Press, Berkeley,

1976.

6. Pellegrino, S., Analysis of prestressed mechanisms, International Journal of Solids

and Stmctures, 26( 12), 1329-1350, 1989.

7. Snelson, K., Continuous tension, discontinuous compression structures, US Patent

3, 169,611, 1965.

8. Williamson, A., and Skelton, R.E., A general class of tensegrity systems:

Equilibrium analysis, Engineering Mechanics for the 21st Century, ASCE

Conference, La Jolla, 1998.

43