Anda di halaman 1dari 45

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Need of study ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Research Objectives: ............................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Scope and limitation.............................................................................................................. 2
2 Spherical shell (DOME) .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Classical shell theories .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Membrane theory of shells of revolution ....................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Moment theory of shells of revolution ........................................................................... 7
3. Literature review..................................................................................................................................... 10
4. Methods of analysis ................................................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Geometrical description: ..................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Loading details .................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Boundary conditions ........................................................................................................... 13
4.4. Analysis procedure:............................................................................................................ 13
4.4.1 Membrane theory in spherical shell ............................................................................. 13
4.4.2 Moment theory in spherical shells ............................................................................... 14
4.3 Geckeler’s approximation theory: ....................................................................................... 17
4.4 Hytenyi’s improved approximation .................................................................................... 17
4.5 Billington approximation for edge beam analysis .............................................................. 20
5 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
6. Discussions : ........................................................................................................................................... 39
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS

A MID-TERM THESIS REPORT


ON

EFFECT OF CENTRAL RISE ON THE SPHERICAL SHELL ROOF

SUBMITTED TO
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS

SUBMITTED BY
Surendra Bhatta (073/MSST/118)

Date: 2075/11/21
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS

This is to certify that this thesis work entitled “the effect of central shell roof on spherical shell
roof” is being supervised and it is in progress for the fulfillment of the academic requirement
towards the completion of the Master’s Degree in structural engineering.

……………………………………
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Hikmat Raj Joshi
1. Introduction
1.1 General
Shells are the curved surfaces whose thickness is very small in comparison to other dimensions.
Shells are capable of resisting the applied load by the membrane stresses which are mostly
compressive in nature but, in some cases, it can be tensile even and also by the combined action
of bending and membrane action. Thus, the shells are more effective in resisting the load over the
large spans without supports and the required thickness is also less as compared to flat plates. From
the economic point of view to the aesthetic viewpoints, shell structures are advantageous. Despite,
the difficulties in the analysis and construction, the popularity of the shell structures worldwide is
very prominent.
From the time immemorable the dome has been the major structures in any civilization across the
world. The capability of dome to resist by the membrane stresses with its doubly curved surface
makes it more stable. The symmetrical geometry enables the dome internal stresses cancel each
other making it less deformable. The conversion of the normal stresses to the in-plane stresses is
the mechanism of resisting the loads in dome thus unlike flat plates, it requires smaller thickness.
Dome shell consists of different geometrical shapes. When segment of a circular curve revolves
about vertical diameter, a spherical dome is obtained. Similarly, elliptical dome is obtained by the
revolution of an elliptical curve. In this paper, only spherical dome with different rise and span are
analyzed.

1.2 Need of study


Shell structures truly aligns with the nature of the material which is widely used all over the world,
as we all know concrete is good in resisting the compressive stress but in case of other structures
bending stresses is prominent and the compressive strength of concrete in not fully utilized. Thus,
from point of view of the optimum utilization of the material, the shells structures are the first
choices. Beside this the shell structures are thin and can withstand large spans without any support,
makes them light in weight which play a great role in minimizing the base shear of the structures
for lateral loads like earthquake, thus it can be predicted that the shell structures functions
satisfactorily in seismic zones like Nepal. Also, for the country like Nepal where there is a great
possibility of tourism, the aesthetic of the city is very important and shell structures are very
aesthetic in appearance. Thus, to build the structures, various codes and literature needs to be
formulated.
In this paper dome is taken for the analysis and the effect on the stresses for different rise to span
ratio is investigated as it is a prominent factor in optimizing and increasing the efficiency of the
dome design and construction. From a flat roof to the dome roof the main thing changing is the
rise of the structure, as we increase the rise the membrane stresses become more and more
prominent and bending stresses decreases. This behavior makes the structure utilize both the
strength of the dome making it more efficient. Beside this the dome can be constructed for various
edge restraints and the behavior of dome at the edges changes significantly with the change in the
restraints. This change need to be addressed in analysis and design as at the edges the bending

1|
becomes prominent and the influence of the bending is present in some part in the edge this needs
to be determined. Thus, the domes with different rise to span ratio with different edge condition
has been studied.

1.3 Research Objectives:


The main objective is to the address the effect of change in rise to span ratio for different domes
sizes on the bending stresses and membrane stresses for different edge restraints. Further this thesis
aims to compare the different method of analysis done using classical method, approximate
method and finite element analysis.
1. To obtain the optimal rise to construct a dome.
2. To provide a criterion for governing the design of the spherical shells based on the principle
of design.
3. To determine the edge effect on the stress distribution on the shell.
4. To determine the influence width for fully clamped edge.
5. To analyses the effect of the stiffness of edge beam on the membrane stress of dome.

1.4 Scope and limitation


The studies and literature review showed that very little work has been done in the comparison of
the comparison of the analytical methods with the finite element method of dome while the effect
of rise to the span has been done in some papers.
The present study involves the main effect of rise to span change on the stresses on the dome with
different system of the edge restraints and the typical sizes of span of dome have been varied with
different rise to span ratio and then has been analyzed with both analytical method and finite
element method. Analytical methods of with different approaches was done with the aid of
MATLAB and finite element analysis will be done with ANSYS. Only dead load was considered
and the analysis was linearly elastic.

2|
2 Spherical shell (DOME)
2.1 Introduction
The spherical shell is a doubly curvature shells with positive Guassian curvature with two
principal radii of curvature comes under the category of synclastic shells. It is formed by
revolving the circular curve about its central axis passing through the apex of the shell. The main
constructive elements of the spherical dome are:
• Spherical shells are nondevelopable surfaces.
• It is generated by revolving surface of revolution of a circular curve called the meridional
curve about the axis called axis of revolution and the circular curves intersected by the
plane passing perpendicular to the axis of revolution are called parallels

Figure 2.1 Parts of spherical shell


Shell model
The spherical shell is defined by its span and rise. The top of the dome is the apex of the shell and
base ring of the dome is called the edge of the dome. The angle subtended at the center of the shell
by its edge of meridional curve is called the apex angle.
Assumptions
1. The dome is closed without any opening in the top.
2. The shell thickness is constant throughout of the dome.
3. The middle surface of the shell is the geometrical characteristics of the shell for analysis.
Edge beam:
The edge of the shell is restrained at the support by the ring beam called the edge beam. There will
be bending near the shell edge, that it may be necessary to increase the thickness of the shell.
Therefore, the assumption is made that thickness of the shell will be constant and equal to the
actual thickness at a certain distance from the shell edge. It should be noted that the when the
thickness of the shell is increased than the dome will be stiffer than the ring and hence, would take
more horizontal thrust by hoop tension. Likewise, if the ring is stiffer, by comparison to the dome,

3|
then the hoop tension and bending moment in the dome become smaller, but the tension in the ring
increases.
The edge beams have the following function
I. At the end of the edge the meridional stresses have large horizontal thrust which can be
taken care of by providing edge beam.
II. Steel is generally placed at the center of the meridional and parallel curves thus to
provide the proper anchorage of the steel the edge beam is generally provided.
III. Edge beams are provided to increase the stiffness of the shell body.

Types of the connections in the edge.

figure 2.2 Edge restraints

4|
a) Shell edge with built-in edges
b) Pinned edge on tangentially reacting rollers
c) Pinned edge on vertically reacting rollers
d) Pinned edge fully restrained against translation

2.2 Classical shell theories


The study of spherical shell is divided into two separate theories; membrane theory and bending
theory. The two theories describe the in-plane membrane forces and the effects of edge
disturbances, respectively. In certain cases, the stress and deformation states of the shell can be
determined solely by the membrane solution. However, membrane theory cannot, in all instances,
provide solutions compatible with the actual conditions of deformation. For most practical
purposes both theories are required to capture the total load-carrying behavior of the shells. Hence
a total analytical solution consists of a combination of the two theories.

2.2.1 Membrane theory of shells of revolution


The membrane state of shell is defined to be a state in which membrane state only occurs, no
bending or twisting occurs. Thus, it is a momentless state. Generally, this theory is permissible
only for the shells that cannot be bent in extensionally, or for the shell that experience very small
bending moment. For the following condition the membrane shell theory can be applicable
1. The boundaries of the shell are free from transverse shear forces and moment. The load
applied to the shell boundaries must lie in the plane that are tangent to the middle surface
of the shell.
2. The normal displacement and rotation of the shell edges are unconstrained this means
these edges can displace freely in the direction of the normal to the middle surface.
3. A shell must have a smoothly varying and continuous surface without abrupt change in
the shell thickness.
4. The component of the surface and edge load must be also smooth continuous function of
the coordinates.

5|
If these conditions are violated, fully or partially, flexure stress occurs. If the designer do not
succeed in eliminating these stresses completely they must aim at localizing them and limiting
their magnitude. Therefore, the solution given by
the pure membrane theory must be supplement by
the solution of the equation by bending theory in
those part where the bending proves to be
important. Such a concept of combination of the
bending and membrane is important in the
majority of the problem in the shell theory.
Membrane field = Nx, Ny, Nxy, Nyx

Figure 2.3 Membrane stresses in an element of a shell

Basic equations of equilibrium are:


....………………... 2.1

…...........……….. 2.2

……......………... 2.3

For spherical dome


All the stresses and forces are independent with respect to  thus putting wall the differentiation
with respect to  is 0. Thus putting
P = 0
N = N = 0
Thus, the equation of equilibrium thereby reduces to

(rN ) − r1 cos( ) N + P rr1 = 0 …………………… 2.4


6|
N N
+ = pr …………………… 2.5
r2 r1
These are the expression for the membrane stress in the spherical dome.

2.2.2 Moment theory of shells of revolution


when the membrane analysis alone cannot accommodate all the loads, support condition and
geometries of the actual shell, then the moment theory is introduced for the complete analysis of
the shells. Thus, in general the shells of revolution experience both the bending and stretching the
resist the applied loading which distinguishes the significantly the bending of shell from the
elementary behavior of plates. The moment theory in shell is applied under the following
conditions:
• The shell is subjected to the concentrated load at the apex then the bending exerts a
crucial effect on its strength.
• In places of junction of a shell with its support or other structural members (shells of
another geometry, ring beam, etc.) or in the places of change in the radii of curvature.
• If the material of the shells is brittle then the bending deformation remains proportional to
the applied loads until failure. In such cases the bending stress sufficiently reduces the
strength of the shell structure.
• In case of the opening or any geometrical discontinuities the shell experiences bending
stresses.

Considering a surface of revolution subjected to


axisymmetric loading as shown in figure 2.4
represents only the bending force field developed in
this shell element. Due to the axial symmetry of
geometrical and loading condition, all the variables
involved area independent of the hoop parameter, 
.
Now equilibrium equations are obtained by adding
all the forces in a direction as:
Along y direction,
 Fy = 0
We get,
d ( N r )
− N r1 cos  − Q r2 sin  + Yr1r2 sin  = 0
d
………2.6
Similarly, in positive z direction,
7|
We get,
d (Q r )
+ N r1 sin  + N r2 sin  + Zr1r2 sin  = 0 …….2.7
d
Equating over all moment about x- axis we get,
d (M  r )
− M  r1 cos  − Q r1r2 sin  = 0 …….2.8
d
Now the three equations of equilibrium (2.6) to (2.8) are insufficient to determine the resultants
N , N , Q , M  and M  . Thus, further equations must be found to allow the problem to be
solved. These further equations are the strain and curvature-displacement equations of the middle
surface.
Strain displacement equations of the middle surface are:
Meridional strain:
d 
 = − …………….2.9
r1d r1
Circumferential strain:
 = ( cot  − ) / r2 …………….2.10
The total rotation of the tangent to a point on the surface:
 d
= + …………….2.11
r1 r1d

Change of curvature in the meridional direction will be


d   d 
 =  +  …………….2.12
r1d  r1 r1d 
Change in curvature along circumferential direction is:

  d 
 = cot   +  / r2 ……………2.13
 r1 r1d 
Now the above strains relations may be used to derive the following stress resultants.
Membrane stress in meridian direction ( N ) is:
Et
N = ( + v ) ……………….2.14
1 − v2
Membrane stress in parallel direction ( N ) is:
Et
N = ( + v ) ……………….2.15
1 − v2

8|
Moment stresses in the meridian direction ( M  ) is:
M  = − D(  + v  ) ……………….2.16
Moment stresses in the parallel direction ( M  ) is:
M  = − D(  + v  ) ……………….2.17
Et 3
Where, D =
12(1 − v 2 )
D= flexural rigidity of the shell
E= modulus of elasticity
t= shell thickness
v= possion’s ratio

Now we have
Unknowns: 11 unknows ( M  , M  , N , N , Q ,   ,   ,  ,  ,  and  )
Equations: 11 equations (2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17)
Hence, the problem has been solved with the use of these equations. By eliminating we may derive
an ordinary differential equation in any selected one of these stress resultants or displacements.
The solution of these equations involves a number of arbitrary constants to be determined from
the boundary conditions.
For spherical shell under the axisymmetric load:
Now restricting analysis to a spherical shell of uniform thickness (t) and radius(a). further we may
assume that it is subjected to a uniform dead load (q)
Y= 0 and Z=q.
Now the shell is spherical and we have r1 = r2 = a and r = a sin 
Representing the equations in terms of Q and  only we get two 2nd order differential equations
as:
d 2 d
+ cot  −  (cot 2  + v) = −Q a 2 / D ………………….2.18
d 2
d
d 2Q dQ
+ cot  − Q (cot 2  − v) = Et …………………...2.19
d 2 d
The above equations are solved to determine the other stresses.

9|
3. Literature review

(Prabhapati. P, Dr. S. B. Vankundre and Veeresh Varur (2014) performed parametric study
of three domes of base diameter 6m, 20m and 45m and the rise of each dome is varied from on
fifth to one tenth. The membrane theory is applied to determine the membrane stresses and then
design is carried out using working stress method as per IS 800; 2007 using ETABS software.
From the analytical stress, dynamics optimization technique is carried out to optimize the weight
of steel and volume of concrete. Then considerable economy can be achieved using the
optimization method with very low amount of steel and concrete.

(Ameen, 2011) carried a finite element analysis of the spherical dome of large diameter
(50m, 70m and 100 m) with different uniform thickness (5, 7 and 10) cm respectively using
ANSYS. The rise to the span ratio has been changed and it was shown that the ANSYS results
have discrepancy about 10% from the theoretical result published in (Billington, 1990). As a
result, found that the finite element method is more reliable to design a dome.

(J. A. Abdalla and A. S. Mahommd(2008)) carries the parametric study of the various spherical
and paraboloidal dome varying their thickness span and rise and compare their dynamic
characteristics like frequency of vibration and found that with the increase of thickness of the shell
the frequency of vibration increases for both spherical and paraboloidal domes while the increase
in dome height decreases the frequency of vibration which is linear for the spherical dome and
nonlinear for paraboloidal dome. At large heights the frequencies of vibrations at all modes tend
to converge to similar values for paraboloidal domes while they remain distinct for spherical
domes. For large dome thickness, the frequencies of vibrations of spherical domes diverge from
each other while for paraboloidal domes they have the tendency to converge at certain values.

David B. Fransworth Jr. (1998) provided an introduction to various methods of shell analysis,
and to examine the effects of certain parameters upon the occurrence of bending in shell structures.
The use of the approximate method and computer based finite element analysis were explained in
detail. The parametric analysis was intended to provide some insight as to the influence of certain
geometrical properties on the stress systems of shell structures. The stress resultants in the shell as
obtained by both the Membrane Theory, and the approximate method. Notice how the two
solutions are only different for the area of the shell near the edge. The edge effects are damped out
rapidly. The area effected by the edge forces is known as the edge zone.
Further the problem analyzed was a spherical concrete dome with a rigidly supported edge. A
uniform gravity load of 90 pounds per square foot was distributed over the entire shell surface.
The radius of curvature of the shell mid-surface was 94.5 feet. The radius of the circle that defines
the edge was 44.25 feet. The rise of the dome was roughly 11 feet. The shell thickness was only 4
inches. Then the comparison of above mention method of analysis was done then it was found that
the moment stresses from the finite element method and approximate method result are closer and

10 |
doesn’t depends on the number of finite elements and nodes. The meridional stress resultants of
both the ten and twenty element meshes generally followed the same trend as the approximate
method solution. Values for the FEM solutions were slightly lower though. The hoop stress
solution was roughly equivalent for the different meshes used and the approximate method. The
general trend in the hoop stress distribution was to increase radically from the edge and then
leveled off ft near the apex of the dome.

Niladri Kanta (2015) in his thesis titled “design of thin concrete shell roof for a basketball arena
of 20000 spectator” analyzed the dome varying the slenderness ratio and rise of dome under two
category named simple dome and ribbed dome. He used finite element to analyze the spherical
shell dome and also perform the nonlinear analysis to determine the effect of material nonlinearity
and geometrical nonlinearity on the buckling. The optimal dome was selected form all the
considered domes and comparison of stress and critical buckling load factor among the proposed
loads. Different load combinations and imperfections are introduced in the analysis of simple
equivalent shell and ribbed shells. It was found that the slight imperfection in the shell make it
more prone to the buckling while the addition of the ribs and stiffeners reduces the sensitivity of
the shell to imperfections. The shells are usually sensitive to the imperfections causing dramatic
loss to the load carrying capacity. In the ribbed vs simple comparison there is a snap back behavior
in the simple shells on the other hand the ribbed shell is protected against this phenomenon. The
nonlinear analysis lead to the conclusion that the designed shell roof performs well up to the load
factor of at least 2. For the designer’s point of view the shell is sound for the prescribed load both
for the sensitivity and ultimate limit state condition. Thus, the nonlinearity doesn’t seem to affect
the shell until extraordinarily large additional loads area applied, which the shell is not accepted
to carry anyway.

(Girish G M, Mahadevan Iyer, Dr. Neeraja. D, & VIT University, 2015) conducted a
parametric study of behavior of spherical dome of constant thickness of 0.12 m and span of 10m
using ANSYS. The rise to span ratio has been changed from 0 to 4 for comparing the stresses in
the dome and found that there is an exponential increase in the membrane stress in the mid-span
in every stress plot comparison and there is a significant change in membrane stresses as it
makes a transition from non-shallow shell to shallow shell. Also with the decrease in the rise the
dome extension ability of dome decreases and a suitable rise to span ratio in the range of 0.13 to
0.16 was suggested for an optimum behavior of shell.

11 |
4. Methods of analysis

4.1 Geometrical description:


For the analysis typical geometry considering spherical shell roof (dome) of varying span width
are taken of radii 6 m, 20 m and 45 m. Then the rise in these spherical shells are varied from one
forth to one tenth of the span of the roof. The thickness in proportional to the span has been
assigned.
The characteristic dimension of dome used for analysis are tabulated below
Diameter of Rise of angle at radius of adopted
dome dome center curvature thickness
(m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
6 1.2 33.56 4.35
1 33.56 5
0.857 31 5.68
125
0.75 28.96 6.38
0.667 27.27 7.08
0.6 23.56 7.8
20 4 36.87 14.5
3.334 33.56 16.66
2.858 31.01 18.92
150
2.5 28.96 21.25
2.222 27.28 23.61
2 25.84 26
45 9 36.87 32.63
7.5 33.56 37.5
6.429 31.01 42.59
200
5.625 28.96 47.81
5 27.28 53.13
4.5 25.84 58.5

4.2 Loading details


The spherical shell have been analyzed for self-weight only and the weight of the shell is
calculated considering the density of concrete as 25 KN/m3.

12 |
4.3 Boundary conditions
Following boundary conditions have been preferred for the analysis
a) Edges clamped rigidly
b) Pinned support with tangential reactions
c) Pinned support with vertical reactions’
d) Edges restrained with the ring beam

4.4. Analysis procedure:

1. Classical shell theory:


This theory is applied to the given geometry and the membrane stress as well as bending
stress are determined by solving different equilibrium equation and compatibility
conditions.

2. Approximate shell theory:


The solution to the complete formulation would consist of two parts: the homogeneous
solution and the particular solution. The particular solution includes all terms involving the
loading and can for many shells be reasonably approximated by the Membrane Theory.
The homogeneous solution then contains the relations that ensure the compatibility of the
boundary conditions with the conditions of equilibrium.

4.4.1 Membrane theory in spherical shell


Considering the constant thickness of spherical dome of radius ‘ a ’ acted upon by it
own dead load of intensity ‘q’.
Solving by method of section
The membrane force is in the form:
R
N = − ………….…4.1
2 r2 sin 2 
R
N = + pr r2 …………….4.2
2 r1 sin 2 
The resultant, R, of applied dead load projected along the
vertical axis of revolution is:

R = 2  a 2 q sin  d = 2 a 2 q(1 − cos  ) …….……….4.3
0

Substituting R from 4.3 in 4.1 and 4.2 we get the membrane solution of spherical dome
as:

13 |
aq
N = − …….……….4.4
1 + cos 
1
N = aq( − cos  ) …….……….4.5
1 + cos 

4.4.2 Moment theory in spherical shells


Form the relation of the governing equation of the moment theory we have:
d 2 d
+ cot  −  (cot 2  + v) = −Q a 2 / D ………………….2.18
d 2 d
d 2Q dQ
+ cot  − Q (cot 2  − v) = Et …………………...2.19
d 2
d

Both the equations are solved simultaneously to get the value of Q and α. But for most of the
practical problem these two equations are very cumbersome to solve. Timoshenko (Timoshenko
and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959) showed that a rigorous solution of equations 1 and 2 results in
expressions for α and Q that contain the terms e and e −  where  is a function of R/t. These
terms have a large numerical value for thin shells with
large R/t ratios. Substituting the value of these term in
equation in 1 and 2 for the larger value of 𝜙 the values of
d 2Q d 2
and have larger value than that of other terms
d 2 d 2
in the equation. Thus, neglecting the other differential
terms, we obtain
d 2 QR 2
= − …………….4.6
dx 2 D
d 2Q
= Et ……………4.7
d 2
Substituting 3 in 4 we get figure 4.2 section showing angle
4
d Q
+ 4  4Q = 0 ...…………4.8
d 4
Where,
 = shell slenderness parameter and given by:
 4 = 3(1 − v2 )*(a / t )2
The solution to this equation is given by
Q = exp [C1 Cos  + C2 sin  ] + exp(−) [C3 Cos  + C4 sin  ] …………4.9
Where C3 and C4 are 0 for shells without holes and subjected to the edge forces. Thus, the solution
becomes

14 |
Q = exp [C1 Cos  + C2 sin  ] ………….4.10
This equation can be written in a more compact form by substituting for  the quantity o − 
shown in Fig. The solution to the equation is given by
These equations are the general solution for the spherical shells and C1 and C2 are determined form
the boundary condition for the different types of support at the edge. Various approaches are taken
for the solution of the stresses in hemispherical shell roof and few widely used methods are used
here for here for the analysis of spherical shell.
Solution 1
From equation 2.13 we proceed as:
pa
N = Q cot  − ………………4.11
2
dQ pa
N = −  −
d 2

pa
N = −  exp [(C1 + C2 ) cos  + (C1 − C2 )sin  ] − ……………….4.12
2
d 2Q
= / Et = 2  2 exp [C2 cos  − C1 sin  ] / Et ……………….4.13
d 2

D d
M = −
a d
2 D 3
M = exp [(C2 − C1 ) cos  − (C1 + C2 ) sin  ] .……….….…4.14
Eta

sin  pa
H = −a {exp [  (C1 + C2 ) cos  +  (C1 − C2 )sin  ] − (1 − v)} = 0 ……….4.15
Et 2

A. Bending theory for the spherical dome with rigidly fixed dome
Boundary conditions
1. there is no rotation at the shell edge, thus at 𝟇= α1, α=0

From equation 2.23, we get


 = 2*  2 exp  [C2 cos 1 − C1 sin 1 ] = 0

C2 = C1 tan 1 ………………4.16


2. The horizontal displacement at the shell edge, hence at 𝟇= α1, H=0
From equation 2.25, we get

15 |
sin  pa
H = −a {exp [  (C1 + C2 ) cos  +  (C1 − C2 )sin  ] − (1 − v)} = 0
Et 2
And on substituting C2 from equation 2.26 on above condition we get,

1
C1 = - pa(1 − v) exp(− 1 ) cos( ) ………………….4.17
2

Substituting C1 from 2.27 in equation 2.26 we get,

1
C2 = - pa(1 − v) exp( − 1 ) exp(-1 ) sin( ) ………………...4.18
2

B. Bending theory for the spherical dome with simply supported edge dome
Boundary conditions:
1. As the edge is simply supported allowing rotation there can be no rotation there can be no
moment at the edge thus at  = 1 , M  = 0
From equation (2.24)
2 D 3
M = exp [(C2 − C1 ) cos  − (C1 + C2 ) sin  ] = 0
Eta
We get,
C2 − C1 = (C1 + C2 ) tan 1 …………………4.19
2. The horizontal displacement at the shell edge, hence at  = 1 , H = 0
From equation 2.25 we get,
sin  pa
H = −a {exp [  (C1 + C2 ) cos  +  (C1 − C2 ) sin  ] − (1 − v)} = 0
Et 2
hence,
(C1 + C2 ) cos 1 + (C2 − C2 ) sin 1 = − pa(1 − v) exp(− 1 ) / 2 
On solving,
C1 = − pa(1 − v) exp(−1 )(cos 1 − sin 1 ) 4 ………………….4.20

Substituting C1 from 2.27 in equation 2.26 we get,

C2 = − pa(1 − v) exp(−1 )(cos 1 + sin 1 ) 4 ………………...4.21

16 |
4.3 Geckeler’s approximation theory:
This equation can be written in a more compact form by substituting for  the quantity o − 
shown in Fig. The solution to the equation is given by
Q = C1e −  t sin(  − C2 ) / sin(e − ) ………………...4.22

N = −C1e−  t sin(  + C2 ) cot(e −  ) ………………...4.23


N = − 2 C1e− t sin(  + C2 −  / 4) ………………...4.24
2 2
 =− C1e − t cos(  + C2 ) ………………...4.25
Et
R
M = C1e −  t sin(  + C2 ) +  / 4) cot(e −  ) ………………...4.26
2

M  =  M ………………...4.27

2 a
wh = − C1e −  t (sin(o −  ) sin(  + C2 −  / 4)) ………………...4.28
Et

Where  = rotational deformation and wh = horizontal displacement.

4.4 Hytenyi’s improved approximation


New variables are introduced as:
Q = Q sin 
V = V sin 
Proceeding as above we get,
Q = C1e −  t sin(  − C2 ) / sin(e − ) ………………...4.23

N = − cot(e − )C1e −  t sin(  − C2 ) / sin(e − ) ………………...4.24


N = C1e−  t (2cos(  + C2 ) − ( K1 + K 2 )sin(  − C2 )) / sin(e − ) ………………...4.25
2

a e− 
wh = {sin(e − )} C{cos(  + C2 ) − K 2 sin(  + C2 )} ………………...4.26
Et sin(e − )

17 |
r e− 
M = C1{K1 cos(  + C2 ) + sin(  + C2 )} ………………...4.27
2 sin(e − )

r e − 
M = C1{[(1 + v 2 )( K1 + K 2 ) − 2 K 2 ]cos( + C2 ) + 2v 2 sin( + C2 )} ……...4.28
4v sin( − )

2 2 e− 
 =− C1 cos(  + C2 ) ……………...4.29
Et sin(e − )
Where
1 − 2v
K1 = 1 − ( ) cot(e − ) ………………...4.30
2

1 + 2v
K1 = 1 − ( ) cot(e − ) ………………...4.31
2

Calculation of the constant and edge deformation


The constants in the above equations are derived from the edge deformation resulting from the
application of Me or He. separately applying end moment and end horizontal thrust to obtain the
boundary deformation.
On applying Me only the relevant boundary condition are
( M  )edge = M e , ( N b )edge = 0

Considering the above boundary condition:


Theories C1 C2
Geckler’s Approx. 2 0
Me
a
Heteny’s 2 0
sin e M e
aK1
1 − 2v
Where K1 = 1 − ( ) cot e
2
Similarly, by applying He only we get,
( M  )edge = 0, ( N b ) edge = − H e sin e
Then,

18 |
Theories C1 C2
Geckler’s Approx. − 2 H e sin e - / 4
Hetenyi’s (1 + K 12 )1/2 − tan −1 (k1 )
−{ }{sin(e )} H e
3/2

K1

1 + 2v
Where, K 2 = 1 − ( ) cot e
2
For the simultaneous application of Me and He the net deformation wh and  at the edge of the
shell are obtained by superimposing the effect of Me and He. The result in the matrix form are:
Geckeler approximation:

 4 3 2 2 
 − sin e 
  Eat Et M 
  = 2 * e  ………………….4.32
 wh edge  2 2 a 2   H e 
 sin e − sin e 
 Et Et 

Hetenyi’s approximation

 4 3 2 2 
 − sin e 
  EatK1 Et * Me 
  = ………………….4.33
 wh edge  2 2 a 1   H e 
 sin e − ( K 2 + ) sin e 
2

 EtK1 Et K1 

The 2*2 matrix in the left-hand side may be regarded as the flexibility matrix, since they link to
the edge deformation (α and wh) to the edge action (Me and He) causing them. These elements of
flexibility are often referred as influence coefficient.
Now we may rewrite the above equation in the generalized form as:

   I11 I12   M e    
  = * + 
 wh total  I 21 I 22   H e   wh  membrane

Where,

19 |
 qa 
 − (2 + v) sin e 
  Et
  = 2  ………………….4.33
 wh membrane  qa 1+ v 
 Et (1 + cos  − cos e ) sin e 
 e 
I11 , I12 , I 21 , I 22 are flexibility matrix.
Applying the compatibility condition at the edge the constants C1 and C2 are derived.
1. For clamped edge

  0
  = 
 wh total  0 

Thus, applying these condition edge moment and edge horizontal thrust are determined and then
the constants can be calculated.

2. Pinned edge with tangentially reacting rollers


M edge = 0
H s sin e = 0
Hence, both are zero no bending disturbance is present at and in the vicinity of the edge. Therefore,
the homogeneous solution or edge correction are not required for this support condition, the stress
with in the shell is given by the particular solution, which is the same as the membrane solution.

3. Pinned edge with vertically reacting rollers


M edge = 0
H s = ( N ) m edge cos(e )
Where, ( N ) m edge is the value of membrane stress at the edge of the shell and the moment stress at
the edge is always 0 for the pinned condition. The force redundant H s is obtained as:
cos s
H s = −qa ( ) ………………….4.34
1 + cos s
Which is true for both the Geckler’s approximation and Hetenyi’s approximation

4.5 Billington approximation for edge beam analysis


This theory is well introduced by Billington (1990). The solution procedure involves the following
steps:
1. The particular solution is found by assuming that the load is resisted entirely by the membrane
forces.

20 |
2. The resulting forces and deformation at the boundary condition will generally not be compatible
with the solution obtained for the particular solution.
3. Thus the additional forces and displacement need to be introduced at the boundaries such that
the total solution is compatible with the actual boundary conditions. The additional forces and
displacement are called as edge effects
4. The magnitude of the edge effect are introduced to eradicate the errors in the particular solution.
The computation of this approximate theory is based on the fact that the resulting bending stresses
decreases rapidly with the increasing the distance from the edge.

While considering the dead load of the shell the membrane stresses along the meridian curve (  )
and parallel circles(  )] from equation 4.4 and 4.5 are:
1
N = −aq ( )
1 + cos 
1
N = −aq ( − cos  )
1 + cos 
Where,
a = radius of curvature
q= dead load
𝟇 = angle measured from the apex of dome

The horizontal and rotational deformation at the edge is given by


a2q 1 + v
H = ( − cos  )sin  ………………….35
Eh 1 + cos 

aq
 = − (2 + v)sin  ………………….36
Eh
Now, applying the unit moment and horizontal deformation at the edge of the dome, the
horizontal deformation and rotational deformation are given by:
2*  2 sin 
D11M =  = * M ………………….37
Eh

4*  3
D12 M =  = * M ………………….38
Eha

2a *  2 sin 
D 21M =  = * H ………………….39
Eh

21 |
2a *  2 sin 
D 22M =  = * H ………………….40
Eh

Where,
α= angle measured from the apex of the dome.
a
 4 = 3(1 − v 2 )( )2
t
In applying these unit forces at the edge of the shell, then the forces are introduced in the shell,
they are:

N1 = − 2 cot( e − )(sin  )(e−  )sin( − )* H ………………….41
4


N 2 = −2 cot( e − )(e−  )sin(  )* M  ………………….42
a


N 1 = −2 (sin  )(e−  )sin(  − )* H ………………….43
2

2 2  2 −  
N 2 = − (e ) sin(  − ) * M  ………………….44
a 4

a
M 1 = − (sin  )(e −  ) sin(  ) * H ………………….45

Where,
Ψ=angle measured from the edge of dome
Sign conventions:
For a positive Mα, there is a positive rotation and positive (outward) translation and for an outward
thrust, H, there is a positive rotation and a positive translation.

There are four deformation at the edge:


I. Horizontal displacement of dome
II. Rotation of dome
III. Horizontal displacement of ring
IV. Rotation of ring

First two are due membrane stress resultant at the shell edge and the ring deformation
due to membrane stress resultant at the shell edge are:
 COS yo e  ro 2
 H R = D10 R =  +  N …………………...46
 AR IR  E 

22 |
ro 2
 R = D20 R = − N …………………...47
IR E 
Where,
IR =moment of inertia of the ring
AR = area of ring
e= eccentricity of N on ring
When the unit force is applied at the ring, then the horizontal displacement becomes:
 1 y 2 0  ro 2
D11R =  +
 AR I R  E
………………….48
 
ro 2 yo
D 21R = D12 R = − ………………….49
EI R
ro 2
D 22 R = − ………………….50
EI R

Compatibility
All the necessary information is now available to solve for the total stress resultants. Since there
is no consideration of ring beam, this will be a fixed edge solution. The sum of the horizontal
translation and the sum of the rotations must be zero as:
  = X 1D11 + X 2 D12 + D10 = 0
  = X D 1 21 + X 2 D22 + D20 = 0
Where, X1= moment correction forces
X2= horizontal correction force
D11, D12, D21 and D22 are the displacements obtained by adding deformation due to the membrane
stresses in the shell form equations 37 to 40 to the deformation in the ring beam due to membrane
stresses from equation 48 to 50.

These values of X1(Mα) and X2(Hα) can be multiplied by previous equations and then added to the
respective membrane condition to obtain actual stress resultant.

23 |
5 Results
Membrane theory for different sizes of dome shell
1. Span: 6m and thickness:125 mm

24 |
2. Span: 20m and thickness:150 mm

25 |
3. Span: 45m and thickness:200 mm

26 |
4. Span: 6m Support: clamped at the edge

27 |
28 |
5. Span: 20m Thickness 150mm Support: clamped at the edges

29 |
30 |
6. Span: 45m Thickness 200mm Support: clamped on all edge

31 |
32 |
7. Span:6 m Thickness:125mm Support: Simply supported

33 |
34 |
35 |
36 |
37 |
38 |
6. Discussions :

For the analysis of the domes membrane theory was used assuming the compatibility

of the systems of domes of different sizes. After that for the moment theory classical

shell theories are employed to derive the approximated solution by various methods. I

have analyzed it with three theories namely Simplified approximation theory, Geckler’s

approximation theory and Hyeteni’s improved approximation theory. These theories

has been used for different supports. Currently I have used all of them for fixed support

and I have used simplified approximation theory for the analysis of dome with simply

supported edges. Based on the results provided by these theories following conclusions

can be derived:

1. In membrane analysis with the decrease of rise the membrane stresses increases and

vice versa.

2. The rate of change of meridional stresses is very less and it is always compressive in

nature but circumferential stress tends towards decreasing the compressive stress

moving form apex to the edge of the shell and with decrease in rise the value of

compressive stress become less.

3. From moment theory, the effect of bending moment is prominent in the edges only

but due to the moment effect the membrane stress also increases in magnitude

4. In the case of clamped support, while moving from the apex to the edge the value of

bending stress changes its sign form positive bending to negative moment at the edges.

5. N𝟇 is maximum at the edge and its magnitude didn’t show a significant change

in magnitude but NѲ in low rise domes tends to remain fully in compression but

with the increase in rise it behaves same as that of membrane analysis.

39 |
6. In low span 6m dome the effect of bending is not relevant as the membranes stress

are dominant over, he moment stresses. But at the edge region the effect of bending is

dominant.

7. The effect of the moment is more constricted to the edge region as the span increases

and the bending effect is concentrated to 10 -15 degree from the edge which decreases

with the increase in rise.

8. In simply supported edge the positive bending moment increases in the edge region.

Further work remaining:


To complete analytical solution for simply supported and edges with ring beam.
To perform the finite element method from ANSYS to compare it with analytical solution.
To determine a relation for a influence region on the edge of a dome depending upon (a/t) value
where a is radius of curvature and t is the thickness of dome

40 |
REFERENCES

1. Timoshenko, S., & Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1952). Theory of plates and shells, 1959.

Google Scholar, 68.

2. Redshaw, S. (1961). Stresses in Shells.Wilhelm Flügge. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 1960.

3. Ramaswamy, G. S. (1968). Design and construction of concrete shell roofs. New York:

McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from //catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001613404

4. Zingoni, A. (2017). Shell Structures in Civil and Mechanical Engineering: Theory and

Analysis, Second edition (2 edition). London: ICE Publishing.

5. Farshad, M. (1992). Design and Analysis of Shell Structures (Vol. 16). Dordrecht:

Springer Netherlands.

6. Gould, P. L. (1988). Analysis of Shells and Plates. New York, NY: Springer New York.

7. Ventsel, E., & Krauthammer, T. (2001). Thin plates and shells: Theory, analysis, and

applications. New York: Marcel Dekker.

8. kanta, N. (2015). Design of a thin concrete shell roof. TU delft university of technology,

Germany.

9. Abdul-Razzaq, D. K. S. (2016). Economic Design of Reinforced Concrete Conical

Shells. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 13(04), 89–95.

10. Ameen, H. A. (2011). Finite Element Analysis of Large Diameter Concrete Spherical

Shell Domes. Finite Element Analysis, 38(1), 16.

11. Girish G M, Mahadevan Iyer, Dr. Neeraja. D, & VIT University. (2015). Parametric

Study on Behavior of Concrete Shell under Uniform Loading. International Journal of

Engineering Research And, V4(03).

41 |
12. Grigolyuk, E. I., & Lopanitsyn, Y. A. (2003). The non-axisymmetric post buckling

behavior of shallow spherical domes. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics,

67(6), 809–818.

13. Hoggan, steven. (1982). Spherical water tank design (Shell structure). Brigham Young

University.

14. Jones, L. L., Base, G. D., & C & C A. (1965). test on a one-twelfth scale model of the

dome shell roof for Smithfield poultry market. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, 30(1), 109–130.

15. Kalnins, A. (1964). Analysis of Shells of Revolution Subjected to Symmetrical and

Nonsymmetrical Loads. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 31(3), 467.

16. Khakina, P. N., Ali, M. I., Zhu, E., Zhou, H., & Moula, B. H. (2011). Effect of the

Rise/Span Ratio of a Spherical Cap Shell on the Buckling Load. International Journal of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, 5(8), 7.

17. Mukhopadhyay, S. C., & Nag, A. (2015). Occupancy Detection at Smart Home Using

Real Time Dynamic Thresholding of Flexiforce Sensor. IEEE Sensors Journal, 15, 1–1.

18. Pai, B. H. V., & Baliga, B. D. P. (2018). COST ANALYSIS OF DOME STRUCTURE

WITH RING BEAM, 13(12), 8.

19. Pietraszkiewicz, W., & Szymczak, C. (2005). Shell Structures, Theory and Applications:

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Shell Structures (SSTA 2005), 12-14

October 2005, Jurata, Gdansk, Poland. CRC Press.

42 |

Anda mungkin juga menyukai