Mike Lyle wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:

Greetings, fellow urglers ;-)

I've made a page about triaxial polytunnels.

In particular I've created the following pages:

Triaxial index : http://hexdome.com/triaxial/
Weaving : http://hexdome.com/triaxial/weaving/
Polytunnel : http://hexdome.com/triaxial/polytunnel/
Sphere : http://hexdome.com/triaxial/sphere/

[...]

Thus, I consider polytunnels to have significant economic
importance.

It's my hope that I can contribute to making many of them
cheaper.

OK: that makes structural sense, given cheap enough materials.
But have you put _time_ into your calculations?

My model took me an hour and forty minutes to construct - and
twenty minutes to dismantle.

Basically, triaxial weaving is simple - to the point of being
trivial.

The construction process is a bit different to the building of
a conventional tunnel, though.

The structure is typically constructed flat on the ground -
and then gradually pushed/lifted into shape.

If the structure is of any size, the lifting would be a
progressive process - using a mixture of ropes from the outside,
stakes to pin in the far edge - and perhaps props from the inside.

I think it even makes sense put the polythene in place (and
hold it there using pegs along the edges) while the structure
is lying flat - only battoning it down after erection.

This avoids any need to clamber up onto the top of the
structure while positioning the polythene - i.e. these
steps:

http://www.murcrusto.eclipse.co.uk/p...2/page_02.html

....and makes adding an insulation layer in the process a
more practical proposition.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.