Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No.

1, 2011

Finite Element Analysis of Large Diameter Concrete Spherical Shell Domes

Hani Aziz Ameen*

ABSTRACT
Shell domes are largely applied nowadays for their aesthetic shape, architectural aspect, covering large
spans, and high strength capacity to apply loads and low costs like domes of mosques, industrial building,
auditoriums, nuclear reactors, space vehicles etc. Modern concrete shell domes can be built to the ratio
(thickness -to- radius) of 1: 800 constructed with concrete and wire mesh, and they are safe and beautiful.
The main aim of this study was to investigate the behavior and strength of modern thin spherical shell
domes made of concrete with and without ribs, using finite element method via ANSYS software.
The work includes erection of spherical domes with large diameter (50, 70, 100) m with and without ribs
with different thickness (5, 7, 10) cm.
All models were analyzed by using finite element method, and design program ANSYS V.9 was used to
consider the influence of the large diameter and thickness of shell dome on stress distribution.
Keywords: Finite Element Method, Concrete, Spherical Shell , ANSYS, Dome.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years thin shell structures have found wide

applications in many branches of technology such as
space vehicle, nuclear reactor, pressure vessels, roofs of
industrial building and auditoriums (Chandrashekhra,
1995 and Tony, 1996). From the point of view of
architecture, the development of shell structures offers
unexpected possibilities and opportunities for the
combined realization of functional, economic and
aesthetic aspects (Chandrashekhra, 1995). Chen et al.
(1979) studied and tested conical concrete-shell
specimens with widely varying material properties and
traced their load-deformation response, internal stresses
and crack propagation through the elastic, inelastic, and
ultimate stress ranges.
Zweilfel (1997) presented a small diameter concrete
dome with an alternate forming system. He built a dome of
16 Fts in diameter and 8 Fts in height. It covered 200
square feet. Manasrah (1998) investigated the effectiveness
of connection elements of the segmental cylindrical shell
units subjected to knife-edge load at the crown of the shell.
A total of eight full scale shell unit models with four types
* Technical College, Baghdad, Iraq. Received on 8/9/2009 and
Accepted for Publication on 23/5/2011.

of connections was constructed and tested. All the models

were of 450 mm width, 35 mm thickness, 1000 mm head
of the crown and 4000 mm covered span. Ford (2001)
studied the stress-strain and fracture behavior for both
reinforced and unreinforced concrete which is tailored to
range from strong linear elastic but brittle to tough and
ductile by various combinations of rubbery methyle
methacrylate. Such composite specimens are found ideal
for the purpose of comparison with various material
models now available in the extended NONSAP program.
Mississippi, 2002, reported the finding of a structural
evaluation of the 5 meter diameter observatory dome
structure constructed by Observa-Dome laboratories, Inc.
Regarding literature review, it should be emphasized
that no investigation related to the analysis of large
concrete thin shell domes is found. So this work can be
represented as a first one in the field of the study of
concrete domes.
Concrete Models Adopted in the Present Study
In the current study, concrete material models that
deal with the nonlinear three dimensional analysis of
reinforced concrete members under static increasing load
are considered. These models treat the concrete as being a
linear elastic-perfectly plastic-brittle-fracture material as
shown in Fig.(1). The concrete under a triaxial stress state
is assumed to crush or crack completely once the fracture
surface is reached. The complete stress-strain relationship

- 85 -

2011 DAR Publishers/University of Jordan. All Rights

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

{} = [D c ] {}

for a perfectly plastic-brittle fracture model is developed

in three parts (Chatterjee, 1998): (1) Before yielding, (2)
During plastic flow, and (3) After fracture. This stressstrain relationship is expressed by a single value of
Youngs modulus, E, and a constant poissons ratio, .
So this relation can be written in matrix form as:

(1 )

E
0
[D c ] =
(1 + )(1 2)
0

where:
The matrix D c
be defined by[8]

[ ] for uncracked elastic concrete can

(1 )

(1 )

0
0
0
(1 2)
2

h =

The equivalent uniaxial stress-strains in the various

stages are given by:

=
1) For

fc then

2) For

f
c
E

= E
then

= fc

(3)

Determination of the Model Parameters

A total of five strength parameters are needed to
define the failure surface as well as an ambient
a
hydrostatic stress state ( f c , ft, fcb, f1, f2 and h ); these
are shown in Fig. (2). f c and ft can be specified from
two simple tests. The other three constants can be
determined from:

fc fc

fcb = 1.2

(4)

f1 = 1.45

(5)

f2 = 1.725 f c

(6)

(1 2)
2
0

(1 2)

hydrostatic

1
( xp + yp + zp )
3

0
0
0

(2)

stress

state
(8)

Reinforcement Idealization:
In developing a finite element model for reinforced
concrete members the author suggested three alternative
representations of reinforcement which can usually be
used; these are given as follows:
1. Distributed Representation:
In this approach, the reinforcement is assumed to be
distributed in a layer over the element in any specified
direction. To construct the constitutive relation of a
composite concrete-reinforcement element, perfect bond
is assumed as shown in Fig. (4.a).

However, these values are valid only for stress states

where the following condition is satisfied:

h 3 f c

0
0
0

Condition (7) applies to stress situations with a low

hydrostatic stress component. In Fig. (2) the lower
curve represents all stress states such that ( = 0 ),
while the upper curve represents stress states for
( = 60 ). Here is defined as the angle of
symmetry. The axis () represents the hydrostatic
length. The materials properties of this research are
listed in table(1).
Finite Element Model of Concrete:
In the current study, three dimensional 8-node solid
elements are used to model the concrete. The element has
eight corner nodes, and each node has three degrees of
freedom u, v and w in the x, y and z directions,
respectively, as shown in Fig. (3). (Solid element 65 in
ANSYS).

The incremental stress-strain relationship can be

expressed as:

{d} = [D c ] {d}

(1)

(7)

where:

- 86 -

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

2. Discrete Representation:
One dimensional bar element may be used in this
approach to simulate the reinforcement. Discrete
representation has widely been used due to its versatility
and capability to account adequately for the bond-slip and
dowel action phenomena, Fig. (4.b).
3. Embedded Representation:
The embedded representation is often used with high
order isoparametric elements. The bar elements are
assumed to be built into the brick elements. In this
approach perfect bond is assumed between the reinforcing
bars and the surrounding concrete. The stiffness of steel
bars is added to that of the concrete to obtain the global
stiffness matrix of the element. It is assumed that the bars
are restricted to be parallel to the local coordinate axes ,
and of the brick element, Fig.(4.c).
In the present work, the reinforcement is included
within the properties of the 8-node brick elements
(embedded representation) to include the reinforcement
effect in the concrete structures, excluding the
reinforcing bars that are crossing the joint, and are
represented by using bar elements (Discrete
representation) (Link8 in ANSYS). In the two manners.
The reinforcement is assumed to be capable of
transmitting axial forces only (Fig.(4-b)), and perfect
bond is assumed to exist between the concrete and the
reinforcing bars.
Bar Element (Link8) (ANSYS help V.9, 2006)
The element has three degrees of freedom at each
node, (nodal translation in x, y and z-directions). The
elements used to represent shear connectors are also used
in resisting uplift separation. The axial normal stress is
assumed to be uniform over the entire element. The bar
elements have been used in the current study.
Beam Element (beam188) (ANSYS help V.9, 2006 )
BEAM188 is suitable for analyzing slender to
stubby/thick moderately beam structures. This element is
based on Timoshenko beam theory. Shear deformation
effects are included. BEAM188 can be used with any
beam cross-section defined via SECTYPE. The crosssection associated with the beam may be linearly tapered.
Section Type of Beam188
The command SECTYPE is associated with element
beam188; it has several sections (Fig.(5)), and section
type RECT-shaped is used in our research.
ANSYS Computer Program:
The computer program ANSYS (ANalysis SYStem)
has been used in the present work.

MODEL GENERATION
The ultimate purpose of a finite element analysis is to
re-create mathematically the behavior of an actual
engineering system. In other words, the analysis must be
an accurate mathematical model of a physical prototype.
In the broadest sense, the model comprises all the
nodes, elements, material properties, real constants,
boundary conditions and the other features used to
represent the physical system. In ANSYS terminology,
the term model generation usually takes on the narrower
meaning of generating the nodes and elements that
represent the special volume and connectivity of the
actual system. Thus, model generation in this discussion
will mean the process of defining the geometric
configuration of the model's nodes and elements. The
program offers the following approaches to model
generation:
a) Creating a solid model
b) Using direct generation
c) Importing a model created in the computer-aided
design CAD system.
Two different methods are used in current study to
generate a model: Solid model and direct generation. In
solid modeling, someone can describe the boundaries of
the model and establish controls over the size and desired
shape elements automatically. By contrast, in the direct
generation method are determined the location of every
node and size, shape and connectivity of every element
prior to defining these entities in ANSYS model are
determined. In this study the dome with large diameter
(50,70,100) m is analyzed with and without rib; firstly,
the dome is plotted and meshed using solid65 with
different thickness (5,7,10) cm as shown in Fig. (6). Then
the dome is reinforced using steel element (link8) as
shown Fig. (7). The study is concerned with the effect of
the ribs on the deflection of the dome and stresses. The
section of the rib is taken as a square- section. Two cases
are studied: the first one is the dome with one rib, the
second is the dome with two ribs. In the case of one rib,
the rib is located half on the dome, and in the second case
the two ribs were crossed as shown in Fig.(8). The rib is
meshed using BEAM188.
Several difficulties were attacked in building the
model. There are two major cases studied: the first one is
the rib embedded in the dome, and in this case the rib is
done by using direct generation using beam188 with
square-section while in the second case the squaresection is plotted as an area and then dragging with path

- 87 -

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

to form the rib; this steps are done for one and two ribs.
The connection of the rib with dome was via the dowel
represented by link8 as shown in Fig. (9).

curve at the crown of the dome with different diameters;

the selected value were (50, 100 and 150 m).With respect
to the original diameter =100m , the effect of diameter
=50m, caused a decrease in the ultimate load by about
(45.6%).Similarly, the effect of diameter =150 m caused
an increase in the ultimate load by about (54%). Fig.(20)
shows the response of deflection for various thicknesses
of cover for concrete dome. Based on the results of the
analysis. with respect to the original cover thickness
(70mm), when the thickness t= 50 mm is used, the
ultimate load is decreased by (6.5%). Similarly when
t=100 mm is used, the ultimate load is increased by
(17.8%). Fig. (21) shows the load-deflection curve at the
crown of the dome with different number of ribs. The
selected (0 without rib, 2 and 4 ribs).With respect to the
original number of rib =2, the effect without ribs, caused
a decrease in the ultimate load by about (24.4%).
Similarly, the effect with four ribs caused an increase in
the ultimate load by about (25.5%).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The behavior of the structure of a dome from the
beginning of loading down to its ultimate is shown in Fig.
(10).
The present work covers the finite element analysis of
reinforcement concrete rib dome; two cases were used to
calculate the stresses distribution. The first case was
embedded ribs, and the second case was interface
between rib and cover. All models are concrete dome
with different thickness and with one and two ribs. The
ANSYS finite element program is used to analyze the
above case studies to determine the ultimate load at
reinforcement concrete dome. The ANSYS results are
compared with theoretical results (Billington, 1990) and
was obtained good agreement.
Figs. (11), (12) and (13) show the stresses distribution
for the dome with diameter 100 m. without rib, with one
rib and with two ribs, respectively. Table (2) shows effect
of rib on the value of max. stress and max deflection and
ultimate load. Also it can be shown that the ANSYS
results have discrepancy about 10% from the theoretical
result published in (Billington, 1990).
Figs.(14), (15) and (16) show the effect of thickness
on the distribution of max. stress, max. deflection and
ultimate load, respectively. And Table(3) shows the
results of dome with interface between rib and cover
(Dowel rib). Table (4) explains the comparison of stresses
between finite element analysis (FEA) and theory from
crown to bottom edge of Dome (without rib). And Fig.
(17) explains the comparison of FEA and shell theory
with angle vs. meridion stress. And Fig. (18) explains the
comparison of finite element analysis and shell theory
with angle vs. hoop stress, good agreement is evident
between the theoretical analysis and finite FEA via
ANSYS software. Fig.(19) shows the load-deflection

CONCLUSIONS
The behavior of thin spherical domes composed of
concrete subjected to uniform static load on the outer face
is investigated.
1- Uniformily and symmetrically meshing the domain
will provide well distributed force, moment and stress
resultants.
2- Comparison of the results between theory, and the
finite element model indicate that finite element
results are reliable and they can be used in analysis
and design of these structures with confidence.
3- Domes are the best in strength and ductility for high
content of reinforcement and smallest in crack width.
Besides, saving costs needs less materials with high
strength as a result of its membrane characteristics.
4- Finite element modeling and analysis could be used
for more complicated geometry and loadings where
hand calculations are impossible or hard to perform.
Symbols

{}

stress vector

Youngs modulus

[D c ]

constitutive matrix for concrete

poissons ratio

strain vector

f cb

ultimate biaxial compressive strength

stress increment vector

fc

ultimate uniaxial compressive strength.

{}

{d}
{d}
h

strain increment vector

hydrostatic stress

ft

ah

- 88 -

ultimate uniaxial tensile strength.

ambient hydrostatic stress state.

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

f1

ultimate compressive strength for a state of

biaxial

f2

compression

superimposed on
a
hydrostatic stress state ( h ).
yp
zp principal stresses in principal directions

xp , ,

ultimate compressive strength for a state of

uniaxial compression superimposed on
a
hydrostatic stress state ( h )

Table (1): Material properties used Reinforcing Concerted Ribbed Domes

Concrete
Ec*
'

f c
f t **

***

Youngs modulus (MPa )

Compressive strength (MPa )

25800
30.36

Tensile strength (MPa )

3.1

Poissons ratio

0.2

Youngs modulus (MPa )

200000

Yield stress (MPa )

344.8

Poissons ratio

0.3

Reinforcing steel

Es***

fy

***

Interface properties

Kn

Normal stiffness (kN/m)

1638.3

Ks

Tangential shear stiffness (kN/m)

Coefficient of friction

1638.3 x 10-2

1 ***
2 ***

60

Tension stiffening parameters

***

0.6
0.3

Shear transfer parameters

c***
(*) Ec= 4700

f c

Thickness of the
Dome=5cm
Without rib
With one rib
With two ribs

(**)

f t = 0.55 f c

Diameter of
dome(m)
100
100
100

Radius of dome =50m , thickness

of the dome=5 cm
One rib
Two rib

0.7
(***) Assumed value

Table(2) Effect of Ribs on the Dome

ANSYS Max.
Theoretical stress
Stress MPa
[10] MPa
1.51
1.65
1.55
1.66
1.68
1.82

Max, deflection
mm
1.49
1.82
1.87

Table(3) Effect the Dowel on the Dome

ANSYS Max.
Max. deflection
Stress MPa
Mm
2.47
2.76
1.60
2.11

- 89 -

Ultimate load
KN
184
245
269

Ultimate load
kN
137
146

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

Table (4):Comparison of Stresses Between FEA and Theory from Crown to Bottom Edge of Dome (without rib).

degrees
0
15
30
45
60
75
90

,KPa Theoretical

,KPa FEA

(Billington,1990)
-0.575
-0.585
-0.616
-0.673
-0.766
-0.913
-1.15

-0.573
-0.576
-0.595
-0.642
-0.773
-0.934
-1.32

,KPa

,KPa Theoretical

FEA
-0.580
-0.530
-0.413
-0.185
0.149
0.592
1.122

(Billington,1990)
-0.575
-0.525
-0.379
-0.139
0.191
0.615
1.15

'c
E
1

Fig.(1) Uniaxial Stress-Strain Relationship used for Concrete.

= 60

f2

r2
fc

c
cb

= 0

f1

r1

f cb

Fig.(2) A profile of the Failure Surface as a Function of

Five Parameters.

Fig.(3) Three Dimensional 8-node Brick Element (Solid65).

- 90 -

ft

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

Fig. (4) Reinforcement Representation Type

- 91 -

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

Fig.(5) Section Type of Element Beam188

Fig.(6) ANSYS Model of Dome

Fig.(7) Reinforcement of Dome

- 92 -

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

Fig.(8) Dome with One Rib and Two Ribs

Fig.(9) Dowel Case

Failure mechanism
Plastic
Behaviour

Failure
stage
First yield line

load
Elasto plastic
behaviour

Plastic
stage

Reduction of
dome rigidity

C-1 elesto-plastic
C-2
stage

Elastic
behaviour

Dome project
at elastic behavior stage

Deflection
Fig (10) Dome Behavior under Loading

- 93 -

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

Fig.(11) Stress Distribution when Radius of Dome = 50 m

Fig.(12) Stress Distribution when Radius of Dome = 50 m with One Rib

- 94 -

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

Fig.(13) Stress Distribution when Radius of Dome = 50 m with Two Ribs

Fig.(14) Variation of max. Stress with Thickness of Dome

- 95 -

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

Fig.(15) Variation of max. Deflection with Thickness of Dome

Fig.(16) Variation of Ultimate Load with Thickness of Dome

- 96 -

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

1.20

Hoop Stress,MPa

0.80

0.40

Stress,FEA

0.00

Stress,Theory

-0.40

-0.80
0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Meridion Angle (Deg.)

Fig.(17) Comparison of FEA (ANSYS) and Shell Theory with Angle vs. Meridian Stress

-0.40
Stress ,FEA
Stress ,Theory

Meridion Stress MPa

-0.60

-0.80

-1.00

-1.20

-1.40
0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Meridion Angle (Deg.)

Fig.(18) Comparison of FEA (ANSYS) and Shell Theory with Angle vs. Hoop Stress

- 97 -

Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

800.00

Load Kn

600.00

400.00

Diameter = 50m
Diameter = 100m
Diameter = 150m

200.00

0.00
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Deflection (mm)

Fig.(19) Effect of (Diameter) on Load-Deflection Curves

500.00

400.00

Load kN

300.00

200.00
Thickness cover=50 mm
Thickness cover=70 mm
Thickness cover=100 mm

100.00

0.00
0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

Deflection (mm)

Fig.(20) Effect of the Cover Thickness

- 98 -

2.00

Dirasat, Engineering Sciences, Volume 38, No. 1, 2011

800.00

Load kN

600.00

400.00

Without Ribs
Two Ribs
Four Ribs

200.00

0.00
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Deflection (mm)

Fig.(21) Effect of Number of Rib on Load-Deflection Curves

REFERENCES
ANSYS help V.9, 2006.Theory, Analysis and Element
Manuals.
Billington, D.P. 1990. Thin Shell Concrete Structure. 2nd
edition, Mc Graw Hill Publishing Company.
Chandrashekhra, K. 1995. Analysis of Thin Concrete
Shells. New Age International Publishers, 2nd edition,
India.
Chatterjee, B. 1998. Theory and Design of Concrete shells.
Oxford and IBH Publishing, 3rd ed., New Delhi.
Chen,W.F. 1979. Experiments on Axially Loaded Concrete
Shells. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceeding of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.105,

No.ST8.
Ford, E. 2001. The Theory and Practice of Impermanence.
Report from website. " Harvard Design magazine",
number 3, Harvard College.
Manasrah, A.1993. Ferrocement Segmented Shell
Structures. M.Sc. Thesis University of Technology,
Building and Construction Department. Baghdad Iraq.
Mississippi, J. 2002. The Finding of Structural Evaluation of
the 5 meter Diameter Dome. Report.
Tony, R. 1996. Engineering a New Architecture. Quebecor Eusey, Leominster, Massachusetts, USA.
Zweilfel, CH. 1997. Harvard Design Magazine. Harvard
College.

- 99 -

 Finite Element Analysis

Hani Aziz Ameen

... . )
( : .

ANSYS
) ( ) (
.
: .

________________________________________________

* . // .//

- 100 -