An interesting type of shelter.

"Tension membrane structure that allows for the rapid construction, total flexibility, complete reliability and ultimate cost-effectiveness of any short or long-term building project."

Sprung company: http://www.sprung.com/

Sprung-type projects: http://www.thesheltercompany.com/S.htm



EDITED to add additional photos of large structures:

These should be good, but I suspect still relatively pricy.

The one thing I'd be concerned about is vandalism. Sprung notes their construction features 'vandal-proof' walls up to 8'6", but is that really high enough to deter the 'usual suspect' types?

I have also seen some issues with maintaining motion-detecting alarm systems in buildings,with tension-stabilized elements, as the tensioned membrane can flex with wind or inside/outside pressure changes, and there can be surprising fluctuations in internal air pressure and currents when that happens.


RME

These structures have one limitation when it comes to railroad rolling stock. As you can see by the photo, the interior height is limited. Generally speaking, they're not tall enough to accommodate a railroad car. EDIT (Should have added "...along the sides, so you end up with a lot of wasted space on the side before you get sufficient height for railcars. That space could be used for storage or viewing, but it's a consideration when choosing this type of structure.")

I was involved with one installation that used this type of structure to cover a railcar unloading pit. They used "ecology blocks" (those giant Lego blocks made of concrete) to build the lower walls up to about 6 or 8 feet tall in order to get sufficient height.

In many instances, it may be more economical to go with a traditional pole barn.

One big advantage to these structures is that they can be relocated easily. However, if you end up building large foundations to gain sufficient height, a lot of that advantage is lost.

You did not click on the links above! They have built airplane hangars for 737's, gymnasiums and concert halls with this technology -- in other words, HUGE buildings.

Please people, be open-minded.

Edit: I added a few photos to the original post showing large structures.

Think buildings like this are or should be at least a condideration depending on where and what is the use planned for it. Most of the time this type of construction would not fit most museum settings and long term restoration uses very well. On the other hand it might be an alternative in the right situation. I don't care for them personally, but it is a possible solution in certain uses

I scoffed at many new barns of similar design going up in my area that were nothing more than large greenhouses. After 5 years of use I asked one of my neighbors and he swore by them. He added to his farms capacity for a number of years until could afford more permanent construction. Storms had not caused any problems for the structure at that time. It worked for the uses they had. To me the long term use might not be there? Obviously the pleasing to the "eye" effect is not there. A five year plan maybe? I like considering options even if I choose not to use them, sometimes it can lead to new improved thoughts on old sujects. Sometimes not.

Have seen some that are high enough to put RR equipment into though not multiple tracks. I built a steel quanset building from kit form with only a two foot foundation above ground. I think my height is approx 14 or 15 ft in center, my thrower wagons are approx 12 ft high and have plenty of room in the center. Obvously not high enough for my gantry crane or an overhead crane. Have often thought I could fit a tank engine or smaller locomotive in it, not that it is going to happen? Definately not for all applications. My 30' x40' steel quaset building cost me about $2500 without the shipping and foundation. This was at least 8 years ago already, not the same but similar in concept. Worked for my application, I see it as very adaptable though.


Cheers, John.

I didn't need to. I've assembled a few of these structures for several clients, including disassembling one and relocating it to a new facility. So I'm already pretty familiar with them. They are quite nice for some applications.



Well sure, with huge prices and space requirements to go with them... And they still have low overhead at the edges. I'll grant you that if you can afford a carbarn the size of an airplane hangar, these might work OK. Got a tennis court to cover? Just the thing! They can also work well for temporary structures, like a gift shop at a Thomas event or a temporary exhibit.

However... The stated context was for carbarns, which tend to be long and narrow. For that type of construction, these structures have limitations due to the tent style roof. On a narrow structure, it's an issue. If your carbarn looks like the train shed at St Louis Union Station, then congrats and you can ignore my comments.

I can see where my original comment wasn't clear. They can be any height you want in the center. It's along the sides where the concern comes up. You end up having to move in from the edge quite a ways before you get sufficient height for a railcar. That's often a problem due to added space and cost issues.

Another question to consider. Is there any issue with the exhaust from locomotives in the structure? Will the heat and fumes eventually damage the fabric? When I did look at the website, they show a huge variety of uses, including "transportation", but they do not mention any rail related installations.

You were saying...

I'm sorry, had to laugh at that one............

The state of NY has put up 100's of these buildings in the last 5 yrs for salt storage. with a 8 foot side wall, I can raise a 40 foot dump trailer to the top of the hoist....

$19,000 will buy you one like this....... (42' x 96' x 17' 3" )

http://www.farmtek.com/farm/supplies/prod1;ft1_tension_fabric_buildings;904f3b7f_PB03106R4W.html

Farmer,.

I actually first read about these structures in a historic trolley proposal. The structures are considered temporary, short-term solutions (20 years or so). But that might be just the solution for some groups that don't have a lot of money, and that need to get their wood cars under cover RIGHT NOW.

Quote from the proposal (bolding added for emphasis):

"You were saying"

I was saying there's a lot of space on each side before you get sufficient clearance, as you can see in your photo. That building is nearly wide enough for two tracks, but not tall enough.

It's also a slightly different (and better) design than what was originally being discussed, the bracing is on the exterior, and the sidewalls are vertical for a greater distance.

The "Sprung" design has the start of the curve of the wall very near the base, I think it's an integral part of the "sprung" design. To get more height, you go wider. I haven't seem that brand with the vertical sides like in your photo.

Let's forget about opinions and just look at the facts.

Here's the manufacturer's drawing for the Sprung brand structures, which is what was being discussed and also is the most common type.

To reach a clearance of 16' 11", you need to be 12 feet in from the side wall. (A total of 24 feet of width when you count both sides). That is a lot of space...

At the risk of pulling this thread off its nominal topic:

We might want to distinguish structures using tensioned-membrane or tensioned-fabric cover from those being provided by the Sprung company.

I would note that it should be possible to use slightly different construction of the aluminum framing members in the Sprung design to achieve some height improvement: have them curving outward at the base, then upward to the peak join, so the tension panels curve a bit like Metroliner or Amfleet sides when applied. You will still have some increased 'width' at the widest point, but your prepared foundation will still be small, and the added need to support non-vertical load moments not particularly difficult (I would note that haunch-loading, although Sprung doesn't seem to remember or recognize its applicability to their framing, is still a possibility here)

I would like to extend the discussion to the economics of using simpler framing -- e.g., post-and-beam side framing with fabricated trusses and longitudinal bracing -- optimized with pads or whatever to take the tensioned membrane cover. This wouldn't be as elegant as Sprung's continuous aluminum members that inherently accept all the stresses, of course, but should offer some economies and perhaps advantages over, say, conventional metal building construction. I do not see insurmountable difficulties in making up appropriate shoes or transition pieces to get the membrane around 'corners' in the framing without producing stress raisers when the membrane is tensioned or placed under environmental loads. Do we need a new thread to discuss these things?


RME

Oh, I suppose this would be a good place to interject this comment...

Last year an outfit over in the industrial park across town put up an interesting structure. They appear to be a pipeline contractor, and prepared a flat gravel lot so they could pre-fab complicated assemblies. Part of the area is covered by one of the arched fabric covered temporary structures, Span-Tech brand. Since they wanted more head room so a crane could work inside, they placed the base of the structure on two lines of ISO shipping containers, which gives them the effect of 8' high side walls.

Now I see that Span-Tech has "leg profile" units with decent head room, but I see the shipping containers as having additional merit. Given this is basically a temporary structure, I could see erecting one over a steam loco being restored outside, or a coach. The additional 8' gives more head room, and makes it possible to use a small crane to remove heavy items from the top of the boiler / roof. The containers provide secure dry storage where parts and sub assemblies can be laid out; one could even be fitted with heat and lights for winter work.

The ISO boxes apparently have sufficient weight to keep the giant sail from tipping over. Elburn has a pretty business unfriendly building department, and I did notice the erection was stopped for a while last year, but they must have been convinced, because it was finished up before cold weather, and survived the winter unscathed. The long axis of the structure is on a north-south orientation, so it presents the greatest possible area to the west wind.

Here is some more info on the Span-Tech fabric structures. Poke around on their web site a bit; they have dimensioned drawings.

http://www.span-techbuildings.com/

RME -
Please continue. A discussion about shelters is ultimately a discussion about economics. So I think any views you have about simpler framing are 100% relevant to this thread. Please share.

That's definitely a good idea, as they have some significant differences. While they all look the same at first glance, there are a variety of designs, with different strengths and weaknesses. Being specific (which the original poster did do) helps avoid confusion about which design does what.