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
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|
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.
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
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.
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
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
…...........……….. 2.2
……......………... 2.3
6|
N N
+ = pr …………………… 2.5
r2 r1
These are the expression for the membrane stress in the spherical dome.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
M = M ………………...4.27
2 a
wh = − C1e − t (sin(o − ) sin( + C2 − / 4)) ………………...4.28
Et
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
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.
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
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:
N1 = − 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.
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
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
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
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
8. In simply supported edge the positive bending moment increases in the edge region.
40 |
REFERENCES
1. Timoshenko, S., & Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1952). Theory of plates and shells, 1959.
3. Ramaswamy, G. S. (1968). Design and construction of concrete shell roofs. New York:
4. Zingoni, A. (2017). Shell Structures in Civil and Mechanical Engineering: Theory and
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
8. kanta, N. (2015). Design of a thin concrete shell roof. TU delft university of technology,
Germany.
10. Ameen, H. A. (2011). Finite Element Analysis of Large Diameter Concrete Spherical
11. Girish G M, Mahadevan Iyer, Dr. Neeraja. D, & VIT University. (2015). Parametric
41 |
12. Grigolyuk, E. I., & Lopanitsyn, Y. A. (2003). The non-axisymmetric post buckling
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
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
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
19. Pietraszkiewicz, W., & Szymczak, C. (2005). Shell Structures, Theory and Applications:
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Shell Structures (SSTA 2005), 12-14
42 |