Project Report on

TENSEGRITY BASED TOWER

STRUCTURES

Submitted by:

APURVA PRAKASH
2003CE10243

Under the Guidance of:
PROF. ASHOK GUPTA & DR. SURESH BHALLA

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Bachelor of Technology
to the
Department Of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi
April, 2007
 CERTIFICATE
I do certify that this report explains the work carried out by me in the Course

CED411 Project-Part 1 & CED412 Project-Part 2 under the overall supervision of

Prof. Ashok Gupta and Dr. Suresh Bhalla. The contents of the report including text,

figures, tables, computer programs, etc. have not been reproduced from other sources

such as books, journals, reports, manuals, websites, etc. Wherever limited

reproduction from another source had been made the source had been duly

acknowledged at that point and also listed in the References.

Himanshu Pande

2003CE10251

i
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the report submitted by Himanshu Pande describes the work

carried out by him in the course Courses CED411 Project-Part 1 & CED412 Project

Part 2, under my overall supervision.

Dr. Suresh Bhalla

Assistant Professor

Prof. Ashok Gupta

Professor

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude to the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT

Delhi for providing me with the opportunity to work on this challenging project as my

B.TECH Project. I would especially like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Ashok Gupta

and Dr. Suresh Bhalla, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Delhi, for their

guidance. Their constant support and encouragement and my frequent discussions

with them have helped me to gain a lot of insight and knowledge which in turn has

helped me greatly in my work for this project. Working under them has been a

rewarding experience and without their enthusiasm and help, this work would not

have been possible.

I would also like to thank my fellow batch mate, Apurva Prakash along with structural

lab and workshop staff for their help in various parts of this project.

A special thanks to M.tech Student Mr.Vijaykumar for his constant support in

carrying out the project.

Himanshu Pande

2003CE10251

iii
 ABSTRACT
The qualities of the tensegrity structures, which make the technology attractive for

human use, are their resilience and ability to use material in a very economical way.

Thus the construction of the structures using tensegrity principle will make them

highly resilient and reasonably economical at the same time. Though a lot of research

has focused on the theoretical aspect such as form finding, only a few practical works

have been done on how to use these structures. Hence this project aimed at

fabrication, experimentation and analysis of tensegrity grid structures using the

tensegrity prototype half-cuboctahedron. The purpose of this project was to study the

behavior of grid structure based on tensegrity by comparing the theoretical results

with experimental results using the technique of model updating. Focus of the project

was on new fabrication techniques and overcoming the previous flaws.

- New kind of joints are designed

More material efficient

Require less labour

Lighter in weight

Improve Connectivity of cable and struts

- Layered Fabrication

Structures have been constructed in layers

Fabrication made very easier

Higher Precision

Once the fabrication was completed, non-destructive static and dynamic testing of

the structure was done in the lab and the appropriate model updating was done.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE..................................................................................................... i

CERTIFICATE..................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. vii

List of Tables......................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................... 1

Principle of Tensegrity................................................................................ 1

The Benefits of Tensegrity.......................................................................... 3

Some Disadvantages................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER TWO: PROTOTYPE AND MODEL DETAILS.......................... 8

2.1 Description of the model prototype............................................................ 8

2.2 Description of the model............................................................................. 8

CHAPTER THREE: ANSYS MODELING....................................................... 10

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Assumptions taken while modeling the structure....................................... 10

3.3 ANSYS tensegrity grid model.................................................................... 11

3.4 Material Properties and Characteristics...................................................... 12

3.5 Analysis of the grid structure using ANSYS.............................................. 12

CHAPTER FOUR: FABRICATION OF THE STRUCTURE........................ 19

4.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 19

4.2 Joints Description........................................................................................ 20

v
 4.3 Design and detailing of joints...................................................................... 24

4.4 Fabrication of joints.................................................................................... 26

4.5 Fabrication and erection of structure........................................................... 29

CHAPTER FIVE: TESTING OF THE STRUCTURE..................................... 31

CHAPTER SIX: MODEL UPDATING & COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS..... 33

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 40

RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 41

REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX A Newton Raphson Method.............................................................. 43

APPENDIX B Comparison of Various Joints........................................................ 45

APPENDIX C Dynamic Testing............................................................................ 47

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Tensegrity a balance of continuous pull and discontinuous push.... 3

Figure 1.2 Complexity in construction for large tensegrity structures................... 7
Figure 2.1 Half-cuboctahedron............................................................................... 8
Figure 2.2 Top View of the Grid Structure to be fabricated.................................. 9
Figure 3.1 Top View in Ansys............................................................................... 11
Figure 3.2 Perspective view in Ansys.................................................................... 12
Figure 3.3 Convergence graph............................................................................... 13
Figure 3.4 Numbering of Nodes............................................................................. 14
Figure 3.5 Vertical displacement variations for nodes 12, 13 & 14....................... 14
Figure 3.6 General Load vs. Vertical displacement Graph.................................... 15
Figure 3.7 Deformed shape of the Structure.......................................................... 15
Figure 3.8 Member Forces in the Grid Structure at failure load............................ 17
Figure 3.9 Variation of reaction force for node 2 and node 3................................ 18
Figure 4.1 Eye bolt Joint........................................................................................ 20
Figure 4.2 Box-type Joint....................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.3 Circular plates Joint.............................................................................. 20
Figure 4.4 Cable hydraulic pressed joint................................................................ 20
Figure 4.5 Cable bolt joints.................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.6 Proposed cable joints............................................................................ 21
Figure 4.7 Proposed Main Joint............................................................................. 22
Figure 4.8 Proposed Strut Connections with a Groove.......................................... 22
Figure 4.9 Adopted side joint (a) Top View (b) Front view.................................. 23
Figure 4.10 Adopted mid-joint (a) Top View (b) Front View............................... 23

vii
Figure 4.11 Side Joint Details................................................................................ 24

Figure 4.12 Middle Joint Details............................................................................ 24

Figure 4.13 Cutting of angles into pieces (a) cutter one (b) cutter two.................. 26

Figure 4.14 Edge Smoothening.............................................................................. 27

Figure 4.15 Marking of holes................................................................................. 27

Figure 4.16 Drilling of holes.................................................................................. 27

Figure 4.17 Grooving of Struts.............................................................................. 28

Figure 4.18 A Cable Joint...................................................................................... 28

Figure 4.19 A Turn Buckle................................................................................... 29

Figure 4.20 Turn Buckle attached to top rope........................................................ 29

Figure 4.21 A single prototype............................................................................... 29

Figure 4.22 Top view of tensegrity grid structure fabricated in lab....................... 30

Figure 4.23 Front view of the same grid structure................................................. 30

Figure 5.1 Strain Gauges applied to ropes............................................................. 31

Figure 5.2 Strain Gauges applied to struts............................................................. 31

Figure 5.3 Static testing of structure...................................................................... 32

Figure 5.4 Monitoring System............................................................................... 32

Figure 6.1 Post- testing Ansys Model (updated).................................................... 33

Figure 6.2 A loaded ANSYS model with DOF constraints................................... 34

Figure 6.3 Side cable and strut for which analysis was done................................. 35

Figure 6.4 Top cable and bottom cable for which analysis was done.................... 35

Figure 6.5 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a strut........................... 36

Figure 6.6 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a top cable................... 37

Figure 6.7 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a side cable.................. 38

Figure 6.8 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a bottom cab................ 39

viii
Figure C.1 Accelerometer...................................................................................... 47

Figure C.2 Digital multimeter................................................................................ 47

Figure C.3 Hammering the structure...................................................................... 47

Figure C.4 Dynamic response of the structure....................................................... 48

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Material Properties and Characteristics............................................ 12

Table B.1 Disadvantages of previously used nodal joints................................ 45
Table B.2 Comparison of different nodal joints............................................... 45
Table B.3 Disadvantages of previously used cable joints................................ 46
Table B.4 Comparison of different cable joints............................................... 46

x
________________________________________ CHAPTER ONE
LITERATURE REVIEW
Tensegrity is a portmanteau of tensional integrity. It refers to 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 cablestrut configurations which one

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

different shape. Only cablestrut configurations in a stable equilibrium will be called

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

structure will deform it 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 structures 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 pattern 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 and 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
If one pushes a ping-pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil, the

ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then

the other. Push is divergent. On the other hand, if a string be attached to the ping pong

ball with tape, then pulling it leads to convergence. So Pull is convergent [2].

Another example from common experience occurs when pulling a trailer with a car.

When driving uphill, one is pulling against gravity, and a trailer will converge toward

the same course behind the car. If the trailer begins to sway, increasing pull by

increasing acceleration can dampen the swaying motion. Driving downhill, however,

the trailer may begin to push, and the trailer will begin to sway from side to side [5].

Two tensegrity are easily recognizable in the systems of the human body. The

muscular-skeletal system is a tensegrity of muscles and bones, the muscles provide

continuous pull, the bones discontinuous push. This forms the basis for all human

physical mobility. The central nervous system can also be seen as using the analogy

of tensegrity where motor neurons and sensor neurons, complement the other in a

balance [5].

A more common example of a tensegrity is in a child's balloon. When examined as a

system, the rubber skin of the balloon can be seen as continuously pulling (against the

air inside) while the individual molecules of air are discontinuously pushing against

the inside of the balloon keeping it inflated. All external forces striking the external

surface are immediately and continuously distributed over the entire system, hence the

balloon is quite strong despite its thin material [2].

2
 The image cannot be display ed. Your computer may not hav e enough memory to open the image, or the image may hav e been corrupted. Restart y our computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, y ou may hav e to delete the image and then insert it again.

Molecules of air discontinuously

pushing against the continuously
pulling rubber skin of the balloon.

Figure 1.1 Tensegrity a balance of continuous pull and discontinuous push

The automobile tire works the same way. It is the tensional integrity in the tire that

yields a low failure rate despite the wear of high speeds and long miles [7]. Thus a

tensegrity is any balanced system composed of two elements, a continuous pull

balanced by discontinuous push. When these two forces are in balance, it results in a

stabilized system that is maximally strong [1].

1.2. The Benefits of Tensegrity

A large amount of literature on the geometry, art form, and architectural appeal of

tensegrity structures exists, but there is little on the dynamics and mechanics of these

structures. Form finding results for simple symmetric structures appear and show an

array of stable tensegrity units is connected to yield a large stable system, which can

be deployable. Several reasons are given below why tensegrity structures should

receive new attention from mathematicians and engineers.

(a) Tension stabilizes

A compressive member loses stiffness as it is loaded, whereas tensile member gains

stiffness as it is loaded. Stiffness is lost in two ways in a compressive member. In the

absence of any bending moments in the axially loaded members, the forces act exactly

through the mass center, the material spreads, increasing the diameter of the center
cross section; whereas the tensile member reduces its cross-section under load. In the

presence of bending moments due to offsets in the line of force application and the

center of mass, the bar becomes softer due to the bending motion. For most materials,

the tensile strength of a longitudinal member is larger than its buckling strength.

Hence, a large stiffness-to-mass ratio can be achieved by increasing the use of tensile

members [2].

(b) Tensegrity Structures are efficient

The geometry of material layout is critical to strength at all scales, from nano-scale

biological systems to mega-scale civil structures. Traditionally, humans have

conceived and built structures in rectilinear fashion. Civil structures tend to be made

with orthogonal beams, plates, and columns. Orthogonal members are also used in

aircraft wings with longerons and spars. However, evidence suggests that this

orthogonal architecture does not usually yield the minimal mass design for a given

set of stiffness properties. Bendsoe and Kikuchi, Jarre, and others have shown that the

optimal distribution of mass for specific stiffness objectives tends to be neither a solid

mass of material with a fixed external geometry, nor material laid out in orthogonal

components. Material is needed only in the essential load paths, not the orthogonal

paths of traditional manmade structures. Tensegrity structures use longitudinal

members arranged in very unusual (and non orthogonal) patterns to achieve strength

with small mass. Another way in which tensegrity systems become mass efficient is

with self-similar constructions replacing one tensegrity member by yet another

tensegrity structure [4].

4
(c) Tensegrity Structures are deployable
Materials of high strength tend to have a very limited displacement capability. Such

piezoelectric materials are capable of only a small displacement and smart

structures using sensors and actuators have only a small displacement capability.

Because the compressive members of tensegrity structures are either disjoint or

connected with ball joints, large displacement, deployability, and stowage in a

compact volume will be immediate virtues of tensegrity structures. This feature offers

operational and portability advantages. A portable bridge or a power transmission

tower made as a tensegrity structure could be manufactured in the factory, stowed on

a truck or helicopter in a small volume, transported to the construction site, and

deployed using only winches for erection through cable tension. Erectable temporary

shelters could be manufactured, transported, and deployed in a similar manner [5].

(d) Tensegrity Structures are easily tunable

The same deployment technique can also make small adjustments for fine tuning of

the loaded structures, or adjustment of a damaged structure. Structures that are

designed to allow tuning will be an important feature of next generation mechanical

structures, including civil engineering structures [3].

(e) Tensegrity Structures can be more reliably modeled

All members of a tensegrity structure are axially loaded. Perhaps the most promising

scientific feature of tensegrity structures is that while the global structure bends with

external static loads, none of the individual members of the tensegrity structure

experience bending moments. Generally, members that experience deformation in

two or three dimensions are much harder to model than members that experience

deformation in only one dimension. The Euler buckling load of a compressive

5
member is from a bending instability calculation, and it is known in practice to be

very unreliable. That is, the actual buckling load measured from the test data has a

larger variation and is not as predictable as the tensile strength. Hence, increased use

of tensile members is expected to yield more robust models and more efficient

structures. More reliable models can be expected for axially loaded members

compared to models for members in bending [4].

(f) Tensegrity Structures Facilitate High Precision Control

Structures that can be more precisely modeled can be more precisely controlled.

Hence, tensegrity structures might open the door to quantum leaps in the precision of

controlled structures. The architecture (geometry) dictates the mathematical properties

and, hence, these mathematical results easily scale from the nano-scale to the mega-

scale, from applications in microsurgery to antennas, to aircraft wings, and to robotic

manipulators [8].

(g) A Paradigm that Promotes the Integration of Structure and Control

Disciplines
A given tensile or compressive member of a tensegrity structure can serve multiple

functions. It can simultaneously be a load-carrying member of the structure, a sensor

(measuring tension or length), an actuator (such as nickel-titanium wire), a thermal

insulator, or an electrical conductor. In other words, by proper choice of materials and

geometry, a grand challenge awaits the tensegrity designer: How to control the

electrical, thermal, and mechanical energy in a material or structure? For example,

smart tensegrity wings could use shape control to maneuver the aircraft or to optimize

the air foil as a function of flight condition, without the use of hinged surfaces.

Tensegrity structures provide a promising paradigm for integrating structure and

control design [7].

6
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 domical structures are complex, which can lead to

problems in production. [1]

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 TWO
________________________________________

PROTOYPE AND MODEL DETAILS

2.1 Description of the model prototype

The tensegrity prototype to be used in this project for fabrication of the grid structure

was half cuboctahedron. It comprises of 12 cables (4 top cables, 4 bottom cables and

4 side cables) and 4 struts in all. The diagrammatic representation of the prototype is

as shown in figure 2.1 with perspective view and top view.

4 7
7(0.5,1,0.5)
6(0,1,0) 8(1,1,0)

2 5

5(1,0.5,0.5)
4(0,0.5,0.5)

1 8 1(0,0,0) 3(1,0,0)
2(0.5,0,
3

Figure 2.1 Half-cuboctahedron

Figure 2.1 also gives the co-ordinate system chosen to calculate the desired length of

all cables and struts. The length of the bottom cable is 1 m and that of the top and side

cables are 0.707 meter. The struts are1.224m in length and the height of the prototype

is 0.5 m. All the lengths are measured from centre to centre of joints.

2.2 Description of the model

A tensegrity grid structure is defined as a structure obtained by combining two or

more modules. This project aimed at fabrication, modeling and experimental analysis

of tensegrity grid structure made by combination of four modules of half-

cuboctahedron (details of which are given above). Figure 2.2 diagrammatically

represents the top view of the grid structure.

8
 2m

2m

Figure 2.2 Top View of the Grid Structure to be fabricated

In all there will be 16 struts and 40 cables in the grid structure with same dimensions

as the prototype half-cuboctahedron.

This grid structure is symmetrical in shape and is expected to show a symmetrical

behavior during analysis. The main purpose behind the fabrication and analysis of the

grid structure is to check whether the structure is a suitable choice for roofing

mechanism. For this purpose the testing of the grid structure will be done under

vertical loads and vertical displacement of the structure will be plotted against the

loads to study the response.

9
____________________________________ CHAPTER THREE
ANSYS MODELLING
3.1 Introduction

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

nonlinearities due to the changing 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 normally 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. It 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

(1) All 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.

Top Cables

Struts

Bottom cables

Figure 3.1 Top View in Ansys

11
 Top 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 initial analysis and can be changed

while model updating.

Table 3.1 Material Properties and Characteristics*

S.No Properties Steel Struts Steel Cables

2
1. Area 160.284 mm 6.53 mm2
2. Youngs Modulus 205000 N/mm2 95200 N/mm2
3. Poisson Ration 0.25 0.25
4. Initial Strain 0.64823E-04 0.17427E-02
*All these values have been taken from previous similar experiments

3.5 Analysis of the grid structure using ANSYS

Now since tensegrity 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 L/100

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 2000/100=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. All 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 vertical 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 Raphson method is used for the analysis of the

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

the analysis.

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 Numbering of Nodes

Figure 3.5 Vertical displacement variations for nodes 12, 13 & 14

It is found that following node undergo same vertical displacement:

(a) nodes 6, 12, 18, 20 (b) nodes 7, 13, 16, 21 (c) nodes 5, 8, 11, 17
It is observed that the variation of vertical displacement is linear for all the nodes. The

possible reason for this can be that the failure load as per the serviceability failure

criterion falls in the linear region of the actual load vs. vertical displacement graph as

depicted by figure 3.6.

Failure Load

Linear Region

Load
Displacement =L/100

Vertical Displacement

Figure 3.6 General Load vs. Vertical displacement Graph

The deformed shape of the structure is as shown in figure 3.7. As can be seen from

the figure 3.7 there are displacements in X and Y directions also.

Figure 3.7 Deformed shape of the Structure

After this a check for member forces is carried out to see whether any material failure

takes place.
(a) Allowable strength for struts
Assuming hinged-hinged conditions the effective length for strut is equal to the actual

length. So,

Effective length= l =1.224

Radius of gyration r = (I/A), where, I is the moment of inertia =7109.627x10-12 m4

and A is the area = 160.284x10-6m2. So we get

r= 6.66x10 3 m, l= 1.224 m, Slenderness Ratio=183.78

From table 5.1 of IS: 800-1984, for fy= 240 N/mm2 permissible stress of the strut

comes out to be 31.866 N/mm2. So allowable force in struts = 31.866x160.284 =

5107.61 N

Hence allowable load in the strut is 5107.61

(b) Allowable strength for cables

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

is 1119.575N/mm2

Maximum load the cable can carry is equal to 6.53x1119.575=7310.82N

Now the member forces which are obtained from the analysis are diagrammatically

represented in figure 3.8

16
 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 2198 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.

Figure 3.9 Variation of reaction force for node 2 and node 3

As can be seen from the figure 3.9 the variation of the of reaction forces with time or

applied load is also linear. All the reaction forces obtained are in positive Z-direction.

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

mentioned above is equal 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 along

with cable connections whereas strut connections were fabricated in the central

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

structure was fabricated in two layers: bottom layer and top layer and after that its

erection was done in civil engineering workshop. In all four turn buckles were used in

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 IIT 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 B.tech

Student.

(a) Proposed Cable Joint: A loop was formed 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 1.4 cm. from the top in the

semicircular plate.

Figure 4.7 Proposed Main 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

drilled so that a bolt could be fastened through it.

Figure 4.8 Proposed Strut Connections with a Groove

22
The proposed main joint was flexible but it was not easy to fabricate as well non-

economical. Hence slight modifications were done to make fabrication easier and

more economical. A T-Joint was adopted which had a similar structure as the

proposed main joint and was much economical and easy to fabricate. So in all twenty

one joints were fabricated and they were of two types:

(a) Side Joints (unidirectional)

(b) Mid Joints (multi-directional)

Figure 4.9 and 4.10 pictorial represents the joints which were used in the fabrication

of the structure in this project. These joints were found to be very flexible and

lightweight without any compromise in strength.

(a) (b)

Figure 4.9 Adopted side joint (a) Top View (b) Front view

(a) (b)

23
 Figure 4.10 Adopted mid-joint (a) Top View (b) Front View

On the other hand the cable and strut connections, as proposed, were adopted for the

real design. The cable connections were fabricated manually in the lab whereas the

strut connections were fabricated in IDDC lab of IIT Delhi. For a comparative study

of different joints one can refer to the appendix.

4.3 Design and detailing of joints

Design of joints and drilling of holes was done according to IS code

recommendations. As recommended by IS code an edge distance of 19 mm was given

for rough edges whereas an edge distance of 17 mm was given for rolled edges when

the hole drilling was done. Details for a side joint are shown in figure 4.11 and for a

middle joint in figure 4.12.

1.7 cm
Rolled Edge

1.9 cm 3 mm
Rough Edge

5 cm

Rough Edge 3mm

1.7 cm
Rolled Edge

Figure 4.11 Side Joint Details

Rough Edge
Rolled Edge

1.7 cm
1.9 cm 3 mm
1.9 cm
24
 1.9 cm

3mm
Rough Edge
1.7 cm
7.62 cm

Figure 4.12 Middle Joint Details

These minimum edge distances as recommended by IS codes provides a safe guard

against bursting and shearing. Bursting takes place when bolts are placed too near the

edge of the plate, the plate may burst out due to the pressure of the bolt or may shear

out. Now due to strut connections the force experienced by bolts and joints can be

calculated using the theory of steel structures.

(a) Bearing of plate or bolt

Resistance in bearing = Fbr * d * t

where,

Fbr = safe stress in bearing

d = diameter of the hole

t = thickness of plate in contact

so, resistance in bearing = 220 * 3 * 2 = 1320 N

(b) Shearing

Now the bolt connection will be in double shear so,

Resistance in double shear = (2 * Fs * 3.14 * d2)/4

where, Fs = Safe stress in shearing and d = diameter of the hole

hence, resistance in shearing = 2 * 80 * 7.07 = 1131.2 N

25
Now as seen from above calculations, the resistance in shearing is slightly less than

the resistance in bearing so shear strength is the governing factor for design

considerations. Since the shear strength of the bolt was coming out to be too low so

minimum edge distances were adopted from IS code recommendations to prevent the

failure due to shearing and bursting.

4.4 Fabrication of joints

(a) Main Joints

Fabrication of main joints was done in civil engineering workshop of IIT Delhi. It

involved the following steps and in all twenty one joints were fabricated out of which

twelve were side joints and nine were middle joints:

-Cutting of T-beam

The T-beam was cut into pieces of two lengths:

(1) Piece of length 5 cm for side joints

(2) Piece of length 7.62 cm for middle joints

Two kinds of cutters were used as shown in figure 4.13 to speed up the fabrication.

(a) (b)

Figure 4.13 Cutting of angles into pieces (a) cutter one (b) cutter two

-Welding

26
After the cutting of angles, required welding was done for the fabrication of middle

joints. Rectangular Strips of length 3.81 cm were cut and welded to T-sections of

length 7.62 cm. Welding done had throat thickness of 3 mm

- Edge smoothening

After the fabrication, smoothening of edges was done in order to improve the

appearance of joints and to make them harmless. The process of smoothening is

shown in figure 4.14.

Figure 4.14 Edge Smoothening

- Drilling of Holes

Once the smoothening of the edges was completed, holes were drilled using drill bits

of diameter 3 mm. Location of drilling depended upon the type of joint. First the

marking of holes was done as shown in figure 4.15 then the drilling was done as

shown in figure 4.16

27
 Figure 4.15 Marking of holes Figure 4.16 Drilling of holes

- Painting of joints

In the end, joints were painted with red oxide paint to prevent rusting and improve

their appearance.

(b) Strut Connections

For connections of struts a groove of length 3 cm was made on each end of the strut

and then holes of 3 mm diameter were drilled. All these connections were made in

central workshop of IIT Delhi as shown in figure 4.17

Figure 4.17 Grooving of Struts

(c) Cable connections

Cable connections were made manually and simultaneously during the fabrication of

the structure. A loop was formed at the end of each cable and joint was made by

winding a wire of diameter 1.5 mm around it with 30 turns. And then the joint was

soaked in Epoxy solution

(Fevitite) and left to dry for a day

as shown in figure 4.18.

28
 Figure 4.18 A Cable Joint

4.5 Fabrication and erection of structure

The fabrication of structure was done in civil engineering workshop of IIT Delhi. The

structure was fabricated in two layers: top layer and bottom layer to ease out the

process of fabrication. Once these layers ware completed, the erection of structure

was done and the ropes were tightened using turn buckles which were attached to top

ropes as shown in figure 4.19 and 4.20.

Figure 4.19 A Turn Buckle Figure 4.20 Turn Buckle attached to top rope

In all four turn buckles were used. Erection of structure was done in steps i.e. first a

single prototype was erected (as shown in figure 4.21) and then the adjacent ones.

29
 Figure 4.21 A single prototype

The completely fabricated structure is as shown in figure 4.22 and 4.23

30
 Figure 4.22 Top view of tensegrity grid structure fabricated in lab

Figure 4.23 Front view of the same grid structure

CHAPTER FIVE
________________________________________
TESTING OF THE STRUCTURE

After completion of fabrication, the static and dynamic testing of the structure was

conducted in the lab. Though the aim of the project was to fabricate the structure and

to conduct static testing but due to availability of time dynamic testing of the structure

was also done and response was captured using an accelerometer. For further details

on dynamic testing refer to appendix C.

The static testing of the structure was done in the civil engineering workshop of IIT

Delhi. To get the member forces, it was necessary to obtain strain in member elements

due to applied loads and hence the strain of the structural elements was recorded using

electrical strain gauges as shown in figure 5.1 and 5.2.

Figure 5.1 Strain

Gauges applied

to ropes Figure

5.2 Strain Gauges

applied to struts

Electrical strain gauges are based on the principle that under a mechanical stress, the

electrical resistance of a conductor varies in proportion to the load induced strain. Due

to the symmetry of the structure, in all nine strain gauges were applied, four 4mm

strain gauges were bonded along the circumference of the pipe in order to avoid the

bending effects, two 2mm strain gauges were bounded to the top and bottom cable

each and one 2mm strain gauge on side cable.

Non-destructive static testing of the structure was done i.e. loads were not applied till

failure because the purpose of the testing was not to fail the structure but to record the

structural response so as to compare it with the theoretical model. The structure was

loaded by using wooden planks as shown in figure 5.3 and then the loads was applied

at equal intervals of time.

32
 Figure 5.3 Static testing of structure

All the strain gauges were connected to the data logger which in turn was connected

to the computer having the software strain smart version3.1 installed in it to monitor

the strains at different loading as shown in figure 5.4

Figure 5.4 Monitoring System

A total load of 105 kg i.e. 1050 N was applied on the structure including the weight of

the planks and the results obtained have been discussed in next section

__________________________________________ CHAPTER SIX

MODEL UPDATING AND COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS

As discussed in previous section, static and dynamic testing was done on the structure

and the results obtained have been compared with the theoretical results obtained by

analyzing the structure on ANSYS.

The ANSYS model which was used for Pre-testing analyses was updated

appropriately by making the following changes and is as shown in figure 6.1:

33
(a) The material properties in simulated model were updated according to the

properties of the materials actually used.

(b) The slight change in the configuration of the model was done so as to match the

actual configuration.

(c) The degree of freedom constraints were updated appropriately as per the actual

experimental constraints.

Figure 6.1 Post- testing Ansys Model (updated)

Once the theoretical model was updated so as to resemble the actual model, then the

simulated analysis was carried out. Loads were applied in stages as was done in actual

experimentation and for each load application member forces were obtained and

tabulated. A loaded ANSYS model with degree of freedom constraints is as shown in

figure 6.2.
 Figure 6.2 A loaded ANSYS model with DOF constraints

As can been seen from the figure above, it was assumed that the load distribution on

the mid joints will be double the load on the corner joints. Once the member force

variation was obtained for the theoretical model, then the analysis of experimental

results was done.

Since strain gauges were used to capture the response of the structure so the results

obtained after experimentation were strains in micro units for members on which

these strain gauges were applied. But for the analysis of the experimental results

member forces were required, so strain readings obtained were used for calculating

the same. Once the member force data from the experimental results was tabulated

then a comparison of theoretical results with experimental results was done in

graphical format. The analysis was done for four different structural members.

(a) Strut (b) top cable (c) bottom cable (d) side cable

The elements for which theoretical and experimental analysis was done are shown in

figur

e 6.3

and

6.4

Side Cable (node 1 and 6)

 Figure 6.3 Side cable and strut for which analysis was done

Top Cable (node 6 and 10)

Bottom Cable (node 1 and 9)

Figure 6.4 Top cable and bottom cable for which analysis was done
- Strut
The strut member corresponding to node 9 and 7 was the one used for the

comparative analysis. The graphical variation for the force in this strut for both

theoretical and experimental results is as shown in figure 6.5. Negative values indicate

that the member is in compression

Memeber Force Vs. Load Diagram for Strut

Load Applied
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-200

-400
Member Force

Theoretical Results
Experimental Results
-600

-800

-1000

-1200

Figure 6.5 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a strut

As can be seen from the above graph the experimental results are slightly higher than

the theoretical results but the trend for both the results is same i.e. the force in strut

varies linearly with the loads applied under given range. This similarity is there

maybe because of the use of greater number of strain gauges (four strain gauges were

applied along the circumference of the strut to nullify the effect of bending and to get

more accurate results).

37
- Top Cable

The top cable corresponding to node 6 and 10 was used for the comparative analysis.

The graphical variation of the force in this cable for both theoretical and experimental

results is as shown in figure 6.6

Memeber Force Vs. Load for Top Cable

1400

1200

1000
Member Force

800

600
Theoretical Results
400 Experimental Results

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Load Applied

Figure 6.6 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a top cable

As can be seen from the above graph the experimental results are slightly higher than

the theoretical results and the variation trend in quite similar. The theoretical variation

is completely linear whereas the variation obtained from experimental results has

slight non-linearity and steeper slope. These inaccuracies are there maybe because of

the use of lesser number of strain gauges as compared to strut and other experimental

errors. Pre-tensioning effects also accounts for inaccurate results because for the

perfect erection of tensegrity structures the pre-tension in the cables must neither be

too high or too low from theoretically calculated pre-tensions.

38
-Side Cable

The side cable corresponding to node 1 and 6 was used for the comparative analysis.

The graphical variation of the force in this cable for both theoretical and experimental

results is as shown in figure 6.7

Memeber Force Vs. Load for Side Cable

1400

1200

1000
Memeber Force

800

600
Theoretical Results
400 Experimental Results

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Load Applied

Figure 6.7 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a side cable

As can be seen from the above graph the experimental results are quite high than the

theoretical results in the beginning, but with the application of load, this difference

decreases. The theoretical variation is completely linear whereas the variation

obtained from experimental results has slight non-linearity and steeper slope. It can

also be observed that the member force variation for this side cable is quite similar to

the force variation for the top cable which was discussed earlier, which practically

should be there because both of these cables have a shared node. And the possible

reasons for inaccuracies in experimental results are same as in the case of top cable.

39
- Bottom Cable

The side cable corresponding to node 1 and 6 was used for the comparative analysis.

The graphical variation of the force in this cable for both theoretical and experimental

results is as shown in figure 6.8

Memeber Force Vs. Load for Bottom Cable

1300

Theoretical Results
1200 Experimental Results
Member Force

1100

1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Load Applied

Figure 6.8 Theoretical and Experimental comparison for a bottom cable

As can be seen from the above graph the experimental results are quite different from

the theoretical results. Theoretically, the pre-tension in bottom cables is so high that

on application of load the variation in the member force is negligible, as matter of fact

under given load range there is no variation in the cable force. The force variation in

bottom cables takes place at higher loadings as seen from pre-test Ansys simulation.

But experimentally the pre-tension in this bottom cable was not high enough due to

fabrication errors, as result of which the member force variation obtained from

experimental data diverts a lot from the theoretical one.

40
 CONCLUSIONS

(1) The new joints developed are more flexible, easy to fabricate, economic, and

lighter than the joints used previously.

(2) The new nodal joints developed using T-section, are more economic, easy to

fabricate lighter but less flexible than the nodal joints, with the same conceptual

design, developed using circular plates.

(3) Due to the short length of nodal joints, their stability was affected i.e. they were

prone to rotation which made the deployment difficult.

(4) New joints fabricated are also material efficient as compared to previous joints as

very small amount of material is required for their fabrication.

(5) On having a comparative analysis between the experimental and theoretical

results, it was found that the trend of variation is almost similar but there is

difference in the theoretical and the experimental values.

(6) The possible reasons for observed disparities in the theoretical and experimental

results are:

- inaccuracies of the experimental equipment

- joints are not completely flexible

- pre-tension effect in cables

- fabrication errors

41
 RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Since most of the project work was dedicated to the conceptual design of the grid

structure so it is recommended that more thorough analysis should be done in future

projects.

(2) Due to malfunctioning of the accelerometer used for dynamic testing, an improper

response was recorded as result of which inaccurate results were obtained. Hence it is

recommended to perform again the dynamic testing and analysis of the structure as a

part of future projects (refer to appendix C for more details).

(3) After the fabrication of the structure it was found that the length of nodal joints

was slightly smaller because of which they used to get rotate when the loading was

applied. Thought this feature increased the flexibility factor but yet it also introduced

inaccuracies in the fabrication. So it is recommended to work on the length of these

joints.

(4) Non-destructive static testing of the structure was done and under the given load

range linear response was obtained. Hence it is recommended to perform a destructive

testing also, so that the loading capacity of the structure maybe obtained along with

the mode of failure.

(5) For fine tuning of the structure after the erection has been done, it is recommended

to use turn-buckle on each kind of cable rather than using all four of them on top

cables so that adjustments can be distributed over whole body of the structure and are

not just confined to upper layer.

42
 REFERENCES

1. Chu, R., Tensegrity, Journal of Synergetics, 2(l), 1988.7.

2. Fuller, B., 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 2428, 706713, 1994.

5. Pugh, A., An Introduction to Tensegrity, University of California Press, Berkeley,

1976.

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

and Structures, 26(12), 13291350, 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
 APPENDIX -A
Newton Raphson Method

The finite element discretization process yields a set of simultaneous equations:

[K] {u} = {Fa}

(1)

where:

[K] = coefficient matrix

{u} = vector of unknown DOF (degree of freedom) values
{Fa} = vector of applied loads

If the coefficient matrix [K] is itself a function of the unknown DOF values (or their

derivatives) then Equation 1 is a nonlinear equation. The Newton-Raphson method is

an iterative process of solving the nonlinear equations and can be written as

{Kit}{ui} = {Fa}-{Finr}
(2)

{ui+1}= {ui} + {ui}

(3)

where:

{Kit}= Jacobian matrix (tangent matrix)

i = subscript representing the current equilibrium iteration
{Finr}= vector of restoring loads corresponding to the element internal loads

Both {Kit} and {Finr} are evaluated based on the values given by {ui}. The right-hand

side of Equation 2 is the residual or out-of-balance load vector; i.e., the amount the

system is out of equilibrium. In a structural analysis, {Kit} is the tangent stiffness

matrix, {ui} is the displacement vector and {Finr} is the restoring force vector

calculated from the element stresses. In a thermal analysis, {Kit} is the conductivity

matrix, {ui} is the temperature vector and {Finr} is the resisting load vector calculated

from the element heat flows. In an electromagnetic analysis, {Kit} is the Dirichlet

44
matrix, {ui} is the magnetic potential vector, and {Finr} is the resisting load vector

calculated from element magnetic fluxes. In a transient analysis, {Kit} is the effective

coefficient matrix and {Finr} is the effective applied load vector which includes the

inertia and damping effects.

More than one Newton-Raphson iteration is needed to obtain a converged solution.

The general algorithm proceeds as follows:

1.Assume {u0}. {u0} is usually the converged solution from the previous time step.

On the first time step, {u0} = {0}.

2.Compute the updated tangent matrix {Kit} and the restoring load {Finr} from

configuration {ui}.

3.Calculate {ui} from Equation 2

4.Add {ui} to {ui} in order to obtain the next approximation {ui + 1} (Equation 3).

5.Repeat steps 2 to 4 until convergence is obtained.

The solution obtained at the end of the iteration process would correspond to load

level {Fa}. The final converged solution would be in equilibrium, such that the

restoring load vector {Finr} (computed from the current stress state, heat flows, etc.)

would equal the applied load vector {Fa} (or at least to within some tolerance). None

of the intermediate solutions would be in equilibrium

45
 APPENDIX B
Comparison of Various Joints

A comparative study of various kind of joints used for fabrication of tensegrity

structures till date, has been presented in this appendix. Nodal joints which were

earlier used for the fabrication of these structures had many disadvantages as shown

in table B.1.

Table B.1 Disadvantages of previously used nodal joints

Nodal Joints

Eye- Bolt Type Box-Type Circular Plate Type

Disadvantages 1.Rigid 1.Very rigid 1.Breaks Easily

2.Bulky 2.Bulky

So the previously used nodal joints either had very bulky and rigid design or were

prone to structural failure. A comparison of the new joints fabricated and the old ones

is presented in the table B.2.

Table B.2 Comparison of different nodal joints

Similar was the case of previously used cable joints as shown in table B.3. Either they

were very expensive to make or were prone to failure.

Table B.3 Disadvantages of previously used cable joints

Cable Joints

Hydraulic Joint Bolt-Type

Disadvantages 1.Slips easily 1.Made in market

2.Made in market 2.Very Expensive

3.Expensive

A comparative study of previously used cable joints and newly developed joints has

been shown in the table B.4.

Table B.4 Comparison of different cable joints

Properties Bolt type Hydraulic Winding wire

Pressed with epoxy
(fabricated)
Average load 70 993.33 820
(kg.)
Manufactured in market In market In the lab
Cost Expensive Very expensive Very cheap

So as inferred from the above table, the newly fabricated cable joints are cheaper and

can easily be fabricated in lab without any compromise in strength as compared to

previously used joints.

 APPENDIX C
Dynamic Testing

For the dynamic loading case it is essential to obtain the resonance modes and modes

corresponding frequencies, for this purpose an accelerometer was used as shown in

figure C.1. The accelerometer was connected to digital multimeter (shown in figure

C.2) to collect the time-domain analysis data for the specified time interval at

excitation given by hammering the structure at a joint as shown in figure C.3.

Figure C.1 Accelerometer Figure C.2 Digital multimeter

Figure C.3 Hammering the structure

The time domain analysis data obtained was tabulated and its fast Fourier

transformation was done on MATLAB to obtain the frequency distribution. This

frequency distribution is used for obtaining the modes of vibration of the structure but

in this case due to the malfunctioning of the accelerometer used, the response was not

48
captured properly and as a result incorrect frequency distribution was obtained as

shown in figure C.4

Frequency Vs. FFT

1.4

1.2
Fast Fourier Transform

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Frequency

Figure C.4 Dynamic Response of the Structure

The above graph is for hundred frequency data obtained by FFT of thousand

frequencies. As can be seen from the graph the response is not clear as no mode shape

is visible from the distribution. Whereas when the theoretical analysis of the structure

was done then it was found that the fundamental frequency of the structure was

37.108 whereas the first overtone occurred at 61.889 and the second overtone at

71.803. But due to the inaccurate experimental results a comparative analysis of the

dynamic data was not possible. Hence it is recommended to perform again the

dynamic testing and analysis of the structure as a part of future projects.

49