Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Structural optimization and dynamic analysis for double-layer spherical

reticulated shell structures
L.J. Li a,∗ , Z.H. Xie b , Y.C. Guo a , F. Liu a
a Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510640, PR China
b Guangzhou Maritime College, Guangzhou, 510725, PR China

Received 19 September 2005; accepted 13 January 2006

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the geometrical optimum design and the aseismic analysis of double-layer reticulated shell structures. The
characteristic of free vibration of reticulated shell structures, with respect to geometric parameter, is investigated. The variations of the
eigenfrequency of shell structures, with respect to the ratio of height-to-span, span, grid division frequency and thickness of shell, are discussed.
The Newmark method is used to calculate the stresses and displacements of the reticulated shell structure under earthquake action. The analysis
results show that under a specified span, the eigenfrequency of the structure increases with the increase of the height-to-span ratio and then
decreases afterwards. Therefore, there exists an optimum height-to-span ratio resulting in an optimum stiffness at the specified span. The optimum
value of the ratio is found to be between 1/3 and 1/4 from the simulation study presented in this paper. At a specified height-to-span ratio, the
increase of the value of structural span greatly reduces the eigenfrequency of the structure and then decreases the global stiffness of the structure.
At the specified span and the specified height-to-span ratio, the eigenfrequency of the structure has a minor increase with the increase of the
thickness and the grid division frequency of the reticulated shell structure. The partial double-layer reticulated shell structures have less stability
compared with double-layer reticulated shell structures, but more stability in comparison with single-layer reticulated shell structures. The 1/6
partial double-layer reticulated shell structure has a best performance-to-price ratio. In other words, it has a higher buckling load, with smaller
material consumption, compared with other partial double-layer reticulated shell structures. It is proposed to adopt the 1/6 partial double-layer
reticulated shell structure in engineering if a double layer reticulated shell structure is required.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reticulated shell; Optimization; Aseismic analysis; Spacial structure; Dynamic analysis

1. Introduction that influence its responses to earthquake motion. Damage

Large span special reticulated shell structures are being
increasingly built, as stadiums, gymnasiums and exhibition
halls across the world. The design for these structures
is emphasized more on architectural aesthetics than on
structural reliability and economical efficiency [1–4]. Research
work for large span special reticulated shell structures was
mainly focused on stability analysis [5–7], buckling and path
tracking [8–10] and elastoplastic large deformation simulation.
Only a few researchers investigated structural optimization, and
they concentrated on minimum weight optimization [11,12].
Stiffness and configuration of a structure are important aspects
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lilj@scnu.edu.cn (L.J. Li).
of an earthquake to structures depends not only on the
magnitude and duration of the earthquake, but also on the
dynamic characteristic of structures [13]. Field inspection and
analyses of the performance of structures during earthquake
shaking of their foundations [14,15] have clearly shown
that building designs, which simply follow seismic code
regulations, do not guarantee safety against collapse or serious
damage. In order to obtain an effective seismic resistant
design, it is necessary to follow two main guidelines; one
is that soil–foundation–superstructure should have an integral
action, so that the structure has a large integral stiffness, and
the other is that a proper system configuration should be
selected for superstructures [16] so that the structure has an
excellent comprehensive performance. An earthquake-resistant
structure is required to be light, avoiding unnecessary masses.

0143-974X/$ - see front matter 

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.01.010
944 L.J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949
A building, with its superstructure, ought to be simple,
symmetric, and regular in plan and elevation to prevent
significant torsional forces, avoiding a large height–width ratio
and large plan areas. It also requires a uniform and continuous
distribution of mass, stiffness, strength and ductility, avoiding
the formation of soft stories. The superstructure should be
provided with balanced stiffness and strength between its
members, connections and supports. A spacial reticulated shell
structure has the properties of light, symmetric, regular and
simple, in order to obtain effective earthquake resistant design
impacts. A proper system configuration must be selected
for spacial reticulated shell structures. In this paper, the
stiffness, system and configuration optimization is obtained
by simulation analysis for reticulated shell structures. The
response of a reticulated shell structure to earthquakes is
investigated by calculating the optimized shell structure.
2. Free vibration study of shell structures with different
parameters
Free vibration frequency is one of the most important
dynamic properties of reticulated shell structures, and it
influences the dynamic response of structures under earthquake
actions. The stiffness of a structure is one of the main factors
that affect the vibration characteristic of a structure [17]. The
study of free vibration frequency of reticulated shell structures
can be used as an effective method to inspect whether the
stiffness of different parts of reticulated shell structures is
evenly distributed.
Basic assumptions are made as follows when the
free vibration study is carried out by the finite element
method [18] for double-layer aluminum spherical reticulated
shell structures.
(1) Joints are assumed to be hinged;
(2) Masses are concentrated only on joints;
(3) Bars have only axial stresses;
(4) Viscosity is not considered.
The bars of spherical reticulated shell structures taken for
analysis examination are perfect elastic–plastic materials with
a cross section of Φ140 × 6, and were designed according
to Chinese criteria of steel structure design [19]. A subspace
iterative method is used to analyze the modes of double-layer
reticulated shells shown in Fig. 1 which have 4 different spans
(L = 50 m, 100 m, 150 m, 200 m), 13 different height-to-
span ratios ( f /L = 1/2, 1/2.5, 1/3, 1/3.5, 1/4, 1/4.5, 1/5,
1/5.5, 1/6, 1/6.5, 1/7, 1/7.5, 1/8) and 6 different grid division
frequencies (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) as stated in Ref. [20]. In view
of spherical reticulated shells having many vibration modes in
closer frequencies, the first 20 free vibration frequencies and
modes have been calculated so that their eigenvalues cannot
be missed. Fig. 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) illustrate the variations
of frequency versus height-to-span ratio, span, grid division
frequency and shell thickness, respectively.
It can be seen from Fig. 2(a) that, at different spans, the
frequency increases with the increase of height-to-span ratio
when this ratio is small (1/8–1/4), then frequency decreases
Fig. 1. Double-layer spherical reticulated shell in rib ring type square
reciprocal prism.
with the increase of height-to-span ratio when this ratio is large
(1/3–1/2). Since the stiffness of a structure increases as its
frequency increases, therefore there is a maximum frequency
and consequently a maximum stiffness exists in the range of
these ratios. In other words, there is an optimum height-to-span
ratio for a structure at a given span, and the calculation results
show that the optimum ratio is between 1/3 and 1/4.
Fig. 2(b) demonstrates that eigenfrequency decreases greatly
with the increase of span at the specified height-to-span
ratio, when span increases from 50 to 200 m, eigenfrequency
decreases almost linearly with the increase of span. In this
case, the stiffness of structure decreases significantly with the
increase of span at the specified height-to-span ratio.
Fig. 2(c) shows the influences of grid thickness on the
eigenfrequency of a shell with spans of 50 m, 100 m and 150 m
respectively at a specified height-to-span ratio of 1/4. It can be
seen from Fig. 2(c) that eigenfrequency almost does not change
while the grid thickness changes from 0.8 to 2 m, which shows
the grid thickness has little influence on grid stiffness.
Fig. 2(d) illustrates the variations of eigenfrequency versus
grid division frequency for the reticulated shells with different
spans respectively, i.e. 50 m, 100 m and 150 m at the specified
height-to-span ratio of 1/4. It can be seen that grid division
frequency has only a slight influence on eigenfrequency for the
specified reticulated shell. That is to say, at a specified span
and a height-to-span ratio, the grid division frequency does
not influence the eigenfrequency greatly, which shows that the
grid dimension has only a small influence on the stiffness of a
structure that has a specified shell.
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that, for
double-layer reticulated shells, under the satisfactory use of
span, grid division frequency and grid thickness do not affect
the aseismic property of structures greatly. It is important to
select an appropriate height-to-span ratio for a structure to
obtain effective aseismic performance.
3. Variation of dynamic property of reticulated shell with
grid parameters
There are two methods that can be used for structural
seismic response analysis. One is the imitative static method,
i.e., vibration mode decomposition method, and the other is
the direct dynamic method, i.e., time ordered method. When
the vibration mode decomposition method is used to solve
the seismic response of structures, free vibration analysis
is carried out at first for these structures. Because there
 L.J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949
(a) Variations of eigenfrequency versus height-to-span ratio.
(c) Eigenfrequency versus grid thickness.
Fig. 2. Variations of eigenfrequency versus different parameters.
are many similar frequencies for reticulated shell structures,
it is difficult to estimate exactly the truncation frequency.
Meanwhile there are many frequencies which require accurate
calculation analysis. Indeed, the time ordered method is
usually used to study aseismic properties of large structures if
possible. This direct dynamic analysis method can be adopted
to calculate seismic response of a structure to earthquake
motion and obtain the displacement, velocity and acceleration
of the node of the structure with a step-by-step integration.
When a really strong earthquake impacts on structures, it
is necessary to undertake elastoplastic analysis for these
structures using the time ordered analysis method which
includes the Direct Integral Method, Finite Difference Method,
Linear Acceleration Method, Houbolt Method, Wilson-θ
Method and Newmark Method. The first two methods are
conditional stable, if the time step meets the demand of t ≤
Tn /π. The last three methods are unconditional stable.
The Newmark method was used to carry out dynamic
analysis for reticulated shell structures. Rib and ring type
aluminum reticulated shell structures were calculated as
examples. In the calculation, structural damping was chosen
945
(b) Variations of eigenfrequency versus span.
(d) Eigenfrequency versus grid division frequency.
as 0.02, earthquake intensity was given as degree 8, the
ground condition was considered as the third kind, El Centro
earthquake motion was considered and the lasting time of the
earthquake was assumed as 4 s. The peak point and bottom rib
member of reticulated shell structure were analyzed.
3.1. Influences of spans on dynamic responses
Fig. 3 shows the maximum displacements at peak point
and maximum axial stress at the bottom bar versus span
(50 m, 100 m, 150 m, 200 m) at the specified height-to-span
ratio (1/4) and grid division frequency (10). From Fig. 3(a)
it can be seen that, at this specified height-to-span ratio, the
maximum displacement in the horizontal direction is slightly
larger than that in the vertical direction. The displacement of the
structure under an earthquake action increases obviously with
the increase of the span. The displacement increases almost
linearly with respect to the increase of the span from 50 to
200 m, which shows that the stiffness of the structure changes
greatly within this range. Fig. 3(b) shows that the axial stress
increases greatly with the increase of span.
946 L.J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949

(a) Displacement at peak point versus span. (b) Stress of bar versus span.

Fig. 3. Variations of displacement and stress versus span.

(a) Node displacement versus height-to-span ratio. (b) Axial stress versus height-to-span ratio.

Fig. 4. Structural responses versus height-to-span ratio.

(a) Displacement versus grid division frequency. (b) Axial stress versus grid division frequency.

Fig. 5. Structural responses versus grid division frequency.

3.2. Influences of height-to-span ratios on structural dynamic
responses
Fig. 4 illustrates the maximal displacement of the node and
maximal stress of the bar with respect to height-to-span ratio at
the specified grid division frequency of 7 and span of 50 m. It
can be seen that vertical displacement controls stabilization of
the structure dynamic response to earthquake when the height-
to-span ratio is small i.e. between 1/8 and 1/4, while horizon-
tal displacement will control the structural response when the
height-to-span ratio is large i.e. between 1/3 and 1/2. The ver-
tical and horizontal displacements have a same degree at the
height-to-span ratio range of 1/4–1/3. It can be seen that struc-
tural dynamic response changes gently within the height-to-
span ratio range of 1/4 and 1/3, which implies that the structure
has larger stiffness and consequently the displacement of the
structure is smaller within this height-to-span ratio range than
in the other ratio ranges. It can be concluded that there is an op-
timum value of height-to-span ratio for a specified double-layer
reticulated shell structure as for an effective aseismic system.
3.3. Effects of grid division frequencies on structural dynamic
responses
The peak displacements and bottom rib bar stress, with
respect to grid division frequency at the specified span of 100 m
and the height-to-span ratio of 1/7 under both vertical and
horizontal earthquake motions, are shown in Fig. 5. It can be
seen that the vertical displacement is significantly larger than
the horizontal one when the structure has a smaller height-to-
span ratio. The displacement at the peak point and the stress
at the bottom bar decreases gently with the increase of the
 L.J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949 947

(a) Displacement versus bar section. (b) Bar axial stress versus bar section.

Fig. 6. Structural responses with respect to bar section.

(a) Double-layer reticulated shell. (b) 5/6 partial double-layer (c) 4/6 partial double-layer reticulated (d) 2/6 partial double-layer grid shell.
reticulated shell. shell.

(e) 1/6 partial double-layer grid shell. (f) Single-layer grid shell.

Fig. 7. Different partial double-layer reticulated shell structures.

grid division frequency, which shows that, at the specified span a small height-to-span ratio and the bar axial stress (which
and height-to-span ratio, the increase of grid division frequency decrease 5.6%) are used in the design. However the influence of
induces the increase of the stiffness of the structure, but the the bar section on structural responses under earthquake action
increase extension is limited. is very small.

3.4. Effects of bar sections on structural dynamic responses
The reticulated shell being of 150 m span, 1/8 height-
to-span ratio and 10-grid division frequency was analyzed
for comparison. Fig. 6 shows the variations of the peak
displacement and the bottom bar stress with respect to bar
diameter under the earthquake action. The bar section does
not influence the horizontal displacement as greatly as that
for the vertical displacement (which decreases 16.8%). It can
therefore be concluded that the increase of the bar diameter can
reduce the vertical displacement. At this time, it is the vertical
displacement that controls the structural response, because
4. Stability analysis of reticulated shells with different
geometric configurations
It is the stability of the structure [21–24] that controls the
design of reticulated shell structures. Double-layer reticulated
shell structures, compared with single-layer reticulated shell
structures, have better stability performance and larger span
but more material consumption. In order to investigate the
influences of the layer on the structural performance, a
structure that has a 100 m span and 1/7 height-to-span ratio
and changes gradually from a double-layer one to a single-
layer one shown in Fig. 7 is analyzed. Fig. 8 shows the
948 L.J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949
Table 1
Comparison between the buckling loads and the material consumption among single-layer, partial double-layer and double-layer reticulated shell structures
Reticulated shell Single- 1/6 partial 2/6 partial
structures layer double-layer double-layer
Material consumption W 1.30W 1.53W
Buckling loads P 4.67P 5.33P
Performance/price ratios 1 3.60 3.49
Fig. 8. Buckling loads with respect to structural configurations.
variation of buckling loads of these structures with structural
configurations.
Fig. 8 shows that the buckling load decreases by 87.5%
when the double-layer reticulated shell changes to the single-
layer reticulated shell, and the buckling load decreases by
6.6% when the double-layer reticulated shell changes to the
5/6 partial double-layer reticulated shell. The buckling loads
continue to decrease with the decrease of double-layer area
and decrease by 41% when the double-layer reticulated shell
changes to the 1/6 partial double-layer reticulated shell. The
buckling loads decrease by 46.5% when the partial 1/6 double-
layer reticulated shell changes to the single-layer reticulated
shell. The calculation results show that partial double-layer
reticulated shell structures have less stability compared with
double-layer reticulated shell structures but greater stability
compared with single-layer reticulated shell structures. Fig. 8
also shows that partial double-layer reticulated shell structures
can greatly increase the stability of single-layer reticulated shell
structures and of these the 1/6 partial double-layer reticulated
shell structures have the best performance-to-price ratio.
Table 1 lists the comparison between the material con-
sumption and buckling loads when reticulated shell structures
change from a single-layer one to a double-layer one. It can
be seen from Table 1 that the 1/6 partial double-layer reticu-
lated shell structure has a good performance-to-price ratio. In
other words, the 1/6 partial double-layer reticulated shell struc-
ture has higher buckling load and smaller material consump-
tion compared with other partial double-layer reticulated shell
structures. It is proposed to introduce the partial double-layer
reticulated shell structure for designs.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, numerical analysis of double-layer reticulated
shell structures has been performed. Based on the results, the
following conclusions may be drawn:
(1) Structural configurations influence the dynamic properties
of structures, and hence also influence the dynamic
4/6 partial 5/6 partial Double-layer
double-layer double-layer
1.90W 2.38W 2.62W
5.60P 7.47P 8.00P
2.95 3.13 3.05
responses of structures. Reticulated shell structures have
high stiffness at the height-to-span range of 1/3–1/4,
and consequently have good aseismic performance when
seismic condition only is considered. For different loading
conditions, the optimal height-to-span ratio of reticulated
shell structures may be different from the above.
(2) The vertical earthquake actions control the structural
responses when the height-to-span ratio of the structure
is smaller than 1/4, while for structures whose height-
to-span ratios are larger than 1/3, it is the horizontal
earthquake actions that control the structural responses. At
a specified height-to-span ratio, the earthquake response of
the structure increases with the increase of the span. At
specified span and height-to-span ratio, the increase of grid
division frequency induces the increase of the stiffness of
the structure as had been expected, while the bar section
has only a small influence on structural dynamic responses.
(3) The partial double-layer reticulated shell structures have
less stability compared with the double-layer reticulated
shell structures but more stability compared with the single-
layer reticulated shell structures. The 1/6 partial double-
layer reticulated shell structure has a good performance-to-
price ratio. The 1/6 partial double-layer reticulated shell
structure has higher buckling load and smaller material
consumption compared with other partial double-layer
reticulated shell structures. It is therefore recommended
to introduce the 1/6 partial double-layer reticulated shell
structure in engineering if the use of a double-layer
structure is inevitable.
(4) The dynamic investigation carried out in this paper is under
only El Centro motion, which limited the validity of the
outcomes obtained. More earthquake motion cases should
be considered if more practical results are desired.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Guangdong Natural Science
Foundation and Guangzhou Bureau of Science and Technology,
Peoples’ Republic of China, for partially supporting this project
(Project number 032489, 2003Z3-D0221).
References
[1] Mokowski ZS. Space structures—a review of the developments within the
last decade. In: The fourth international conference on space structures.
1993. p. 1–8.
[2] Morley S, King A, Ashfield M. Stadium Australia: For 2000 Olympics.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings
2000;307–14.
[3] Wang BB, Li YY. A theoretical study of super-span latticed shells. Journal
 L.J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 943–949
of Constructional Steel Research 1999;51:287–96.
[4] Simiu E, Sadek F, Whalen TM, Jang S, Lu LW, Diniz SMC et al.
Achieving safer and more economical buildings through database-
assisted, reliability-based design for wind. Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics 2003;91:1587–611.
[5] Shen SZ. Stability for reticulated shell structures. Journal of Civil
Engineering 1999;32:23–26 [in Chinese].
[6] Gosowski B. Spatial stability of braced thin-walled members of steel
structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2003;59:839–65.
[7] Gioncu V. Stability theory: Principles and methods for design of steel
structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2003;59:269–70.
[8] Borri C, Spinelli P. Buckling and post-buckling behavior of single
layer reticulated shells affected by random imperfections. Computers &
Structures 1988;30:937–43.
[9] Nie GH. On the buckling of imperfect squarely-reticulated shallow
spherical shells supported by elastic media. Thin-Walled Structures 2003;
41:1–13.
[10] Forman SE, Hutchinson JW. Buckling of reticulated shell structures.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 1970;6:909–32.
[11] Tashakori A, Adel H. Optimum design of cold-formed steel space
structures using neural dynamics model. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2002;58:1545–66.
[12] Deb K, Culati S. Design of truss-structures for minimum weight using
genetic algorithms. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 2001;37:
447–65.
[13] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames
949
under repeated earthquake ground motions. Engineering Structures 2004;
26:2021–35.
[14] Mazzolani FM, Montuori R, Piluso V. Performance based design of
seismic-resistant MR frames. In: Proceedings of the third international
conference. Rotterdam: STESSA; 2000. p. 611–8.
[15] Li L. Separating and damping earthquake technique, 40 years earthquake
resistant research for China. Earthquake Publication Company; 1989.
[16] Eurocode 3. Part 1.1, Design of steel structures, general rules and rules for
buildings. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, pr. EN 1993-
1-1; 1992.
[17] Lan T, Zhang YG. Seismic resistant design for great span roof structures.
Beijing: China Architecture Publishing Company; 2000.
[18] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1982.
[19] GB50017-2003. Criteria of steel structure design. Beijing: China Plan
Publishing Company; 2002.
[20] Xie ZH. Dynamic analysis of spherical reticulated shell structures.
Dissertation of Guangdong University of Technology; 2004.
[21] Gioncu V. Special issue on stability of space structures. International
Journal of Space Structures 1992;7(4):243–368.
[22] Chen WF, Lui EM. Structural stability theory and implementation. New
York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.; 1987.
[23] Bulenda Th, Knippers J. Stability of grid shells. Computers & Structures
2001;79:1161–74.
[24] Wang BB, Li YY. A theoretical study of super-span latticed shells. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 1999;51:287–90.