12 views

Original Title: Goel_2014

Uploaded by Carlos Américo

Goel_2014

Ansys guide

© All Rights Reserved

- Design-Examples-1-2-of-Circular-Silo(1).pdf
- Book-11_FM
- Stability Analysis of Single and Double Steel Girders During Cons
- steel design parameters used in staad
- Design of Burried Pipe Design.pdf
- Problem 1 001
- LRFD Steel Design
- Promotion of Plastic Design for Steel and Composite Cross Sections
- Problem 1-001.pdf
- Thermal Bending
- A Continuum Constitutive Model for the Mechanical
- Design of Lifting Beams.pdf
- L1 Course Introl1
- 19970022623_1997032389
- Final Thesis Completed New
- Front
- Groove
- Plates and Shells_Chapter_Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering_2010
- Bending and Extension of Thin Plates
- An Efficient and Simple Refined Theory for Bending and Vibration

You are on page 1of 106

shell structures

submitted by

Sushant Goel

in

November, 2014

Master

thesis

by

Sushant Goel

under the supervision of

and

Dipl.-Ing. Thiemo Fildhuth, ITKE

Declaration

This thesis is a presentation of my original work.

Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort has been made to indicate

this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative

discussions and research.

The submitted thesis was and is not part of any other examination procedure neither

completely nor in parts.

Thesis was published neither in whole nor in parts before.

The electronic copy is identical to the written, bound ones.

Institut fr Baustatik

und Baudynamik

Baustatik und Baudynamik

Institut fr Tragkonstruktionen

und Konstruktives Entwerfen

Prof. Dr.-Ing. J. Knippers

Master Thesis

Analysis of segmented shell structures

Monolithic shells made from concrete or other, appropriate materials have known many innovations

and widespread use particularly in between 1920 and 1970. Since then, rising costs for labour and

formwork as well as the shape and feasibility limits imposed by concrete material lead to a significant

decline of realizations in architecture. Fluent, curved glass facade or roof shapes are increasingly

demanded in recent free-form architecture. However, typical envelope materials such as glass, fiberreinforced polymers or metals can only be produced and shaped in limited size. Thus, assembly of

individual curved segments is necessary to obtain a larger, modular shell. Segmentation offers high

potential not only for application of new materials, but could also allow high-quality pre-fabrication of

shell segments and fast assembly on site without formwork.

The topic of modular or segmented shells is not yet well covered by research and necessitates

principal considerations concerning the interaction of joints, geometrical shape and load-bearing

behaviour. Based on the state of research, studies of these complex interdependencies focusing on

three basic shell shapes of a spherical dome, a cylindrical roof and a hyperbolic paraboloid (hypar) is

the main aim of the master thesis.

Literature review.

Description of the load bearing behaviour of the three basic shapes as monolithic shells.

Review and elaboration of procedures for establishing joint patterns.

Developing finite element model of segmented shells for the three basic shapes, using MAPDL.

Systematic investigation of the load bearing behaviour, in particular in view of basic shape, joint patterns (both geometry and topology) and mechanical properties of joints.

Advisors:

Abstract

Abstract

Monolithic glass shells can be constructed in limited sizes. Segmented shells allow coverage of larger spans. Three shell systems - spherical dome, cylindrical roof and hypar were

constructed. Four different segmentation patterns were made on these shell systems using

Rhinoceros, Grasshopper and MAPDL. Three joint materials were analysed- glass, silicone

(soft adhesive) and epoxy (hard adhesive). A Reissner-Mindlin finite element has been used

in ANSYS to discretize the shell geometry. The boundary conditions were setup keeping in

mind the favourable membrane behaviour of shell structures. It was found out that segmentation significantly influences the shell behaviour. Optimal patterns show similar behaviour

in comparison to monolithic glass shell. Others show a significant increase in the deflection or

stress resultant values and fall in critical buckling load values which is unwanted. The in-plane

membrane forces remain mostly unaffected. The bending moment and shear force values show

jumps at the joints due to a drop in material stiffness.

Keywords: Segmented shell, glass, MAPDL, Reissner-Mindlin, silicone, epoxy

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Prof. Bischoff and Prof. Knippers for providing me an opportunity to get

associated with their institutes for this thesis project. I would like to thank my thesis advisors

Anne-Kathrin Schuble and Thiemo Fildhuth for their continuous support and feedback. The

two group meetings held with Prof. Bischoff, Anne-Kathrin Schuble and Thiemo Fildhuth

were very crucial for giving the right direction to this research work. I would also like to thank

Anne Bagger for her responses to my email queries about glass shells and her insistence on

using Rhinoceros-Grasshopper tools to construct segmented shell geometry.

Sushant Goel

ii

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2. Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3. Form and material: Glass shell . . .

1.3.1. Glass on steel grid . . . . . .

1.3.2. Glass bonding . . . . . . . . .

1.4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4.1. Patterns in nature . . . . . .

1.4.2. Patterns in built environment

1.5. Thesis objectives . . . . . . . . . . .

1.6. Thesis outline . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

1

2

3

3

3

5

5

6

7

8

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

14

3. Geometry modelling

3.1. Shell dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

15

2. Shell structures

2.1. Some definitions . . . . . . . .

2.2. Shell classification . . . . . . .

2.3. Evolution of shell formulations

2.4. Membrane momentless theory

2.5. Structural behaviour . . . . . .

2.5.1. Spherical dome . . . . .

2.5.2. Cylindrical roof . . . . .

2.5.3. Hypar . . . . . . . . . .

2.6. Linear stability analysis . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

iii

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Contents

3.2. Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.1. Method 1: Only MAPDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.2. Method 2: Rhinoceros and Grasshopper . . . . . .

3.2.3. Method 3: Only Rhinoceros . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.4. Method 4: Rhinoceros and ANSYS DesignModeler

3.3. Discussion on modelling methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4. Monolithic shell construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4.1. Spherical dome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4.2. Barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4.3. Hypar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5. Segmentation of monolithic shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5.1. Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5.2. Model accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. FE model

4.1. Material properties and loads . . . . .

4.2. Shell finite elements . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.1. Membrane shell element . . . .

4.2.2. Kirchhoff-Love shell element . .

4.2.3. Reissner-Mindlin shell element

4.3. Element properties . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.1. Element size . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.2. Element coordinate systems . .

4.4. MAPDL script . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

16

16

17

17

17

17

18

18

19

19

20

20

21

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

24

24

25

25

25

25

26

26

27

28

5.1. Extensional deformations . . . . . . . .

5.2. Shell boundary layer . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3. Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3.1. Dome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3.2. Barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3.3. Hypar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.4. FE model verification . . . . . . . . . .

5.4.1. Effect of discretization . . . . . .

5.4.2. Membrane stress verification . .

5.4.3. Linear buckling verification . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

29

29

30

30

30

31

32

34

34

36

38

.

.

.

.

40

41

41

41

41

6.1. Vertical deflection . . . .

6.2. In-plane forces . . . . . .

6.2.1. Meridian direction,

6.2.2. Hoop direction, N1

. .

. .

N2

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

iv

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Contents

6.3.1. Meridian direction, M2 .

6.3.2. Hoop direction, M1 . . .

6.4. Transverse shear forces . . . . .

6.4.1. Meridian direction, Q23

6.4.2. Hoop direction, Q13 . .

6.5. Linear buckling . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

7.1. Vertical deflection . . . . . . . . .

7.1.1. Longitudinal path . . . . .

7.1.2. Transverse path . . . . . . .

7.2. In-plane forces . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2.1. Longitudinal direction, N2 .

7.2.2. Transverse direction, N1 . .

7.3. Bending moment . . . . . . . . . .

7.3.1. Longitudinal direction, M2

7.3.2. Transverse direction, M1 . .

7.4. Transverse shear forces . . . . . . .

7.4.1. Longitudinal direction, Q23

7.4.2. Transverse direction, Q13 .

7.5. Linear buckling . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Results for segmented hypar

8.1. Vertical deflection . . .

8.2. In-plane shear force, N12

8.3. Bending moment . . . .

8.4. Transverse shear forces .

8.5. Linear buckling . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9.1. Dome . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.2. Barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.3. Hypar . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.4. Recommendations . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

42

42

42

43

44

44

51

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

53

54

54

54

54

54

55

55

55

56

57

57

58

66

.

.

.

.

.

68

69

69

70

70

75

.

.

.

.

77

77

78

79

80

81

83

84

Bibliography

94

1

Introduction

Columns, beams, trusses, cables, arches and shells are the possible structural forms. Principally speaking, a structure channels loads to the ground (Adriaenssens u. a., 2014). A

smooth channelling of loads is shown by cables, shells and arches. This report focusses on

shell structures.

1.1. Form

Shell structures are intriguing, efficient and moody.

A shell personifies the dictum - Less is more (Robbin, 1996). They exist all around us- eggs,

car bodies, aircraft fuselage, beer cans, blood vessels, bones, human skull, roof coverings, etc.

Shell roofs exude lightness due to their slender form and can spread over large areas. A thin

curved roof providing shelter without any obstructing verticals or sharp corners gives a sense

of freedom to the inhabitant.

Shell structures are inherently optimised due to their shape. Each material fiber has equal

contribution in the transfer of transversal loads by in-plane (membrane) action. Shells are

1.2. Material

bendophobic structures and restrain from the disadvantageous state of bending (Ramm und

Wall, 2004).

Well-designed shells are mostly loaded in compression. The combination of compressive forces

and slender form is bad for shells as this can lead to stability failure without any warning.

Augustinuspark, Amstelveen, Netherlands

Figure 1.3.: Other forms of shell roof - cylindrical and hypar (Paaskerk, 1963), (Structurae,

1935)

1.2. Material

Glass is fascinating, underused structurally and brittle.

Structural materials like steel, aluminium, wood make their presence felt unlike glass which

diffuses into the surrounding environment. It allows complete transfer of light and gives a

sense of lightness even though its density is same as concrete.

Glass has double the strength of mild steel in compression and five times more rigid than wood

but its not widely used as a structural material because of brittleness. One solution for this

is laminating thin glass sheets together (Wester, 1997).

Figure 1.4.: Apples iconic fifteen glass panel cube store in Manhattan, USA (Apple, 2012)

Glass shell combines the strength of glass and efficiency of a shell (Aanhaanen, 2008).

During shell construction, it is not feasible to have a large continuous glass surface as glass

can be produced in limited sizes and curvature. Thus, assembly of individual glass segments

is necessary to construct a larger size shell. Glass segments can be assembled using joints.

There are eight basic types of possible joints in a glass shell, see Figure 1.5. The line joint is

considered to be the most effective of all (Veer u. a., 2003). In practice, the segmented shell

with steel supporting structure is widely used. A few built examples of glass gluing have also

emerged which is very encouraging.

Steel grids cladded with glass and connected by steel nodes form this structural system, see

Figure 1.6. In a monolithic shell, infinite number of load paths are available but here force

channels through discrete finite grid members. Glasss role is reduced to mere cladding.

Glass should be put to broader use by making it a load bearing component in a structure.

Forces can be transmitted by bonding glass segments together. One option is glass to glass

welding though its not very feasible because of uneven distribution of temperature stresses

(Schittich, 2007).

Line joint

Point joint

Fixed joint

Hinged joint

Joint in-between the plates

Joint over the plates

Joint under the plates

Joint on both sides of the plates

Figure 1.6.: Dome of the Reichstag building, Berlin, Germany (Nytimes, 2014)

Another option is gluing of glass segments with adhesives. Adhesives are monomer compositions which can join material surfaces together by forming polymers (Blandini, 2005). In

2002, designers at Delft University of Technology built a structural glass dome using flat glass

segments. A linear joint system was used with free edges to allow for tolerances. The joint

system is composed of aluminium strips glued onto the glass edges using a thick flexible adhesive. The aluminium strips are clamped together using two more strips and very small bolts

(Veer u. a., 2003), see Figure 1.7.

Lucio Blandini had the idea of constructing a frameless glass dome using only adhesive joints

without any discrete metallic clamping systems. This research project was undertaken at the

Institute for Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK), University of Stuttgart,

Germany. Numerous tests were conducted under tensile, shear and bending loads to choose an

optimal adhesive for a butt joint (Blandini, 2005). The end result of this research was a built

prototype in the year 2004, see Figure 1.8. It is a spherical calotte with a span of 8.5 meter,

curvature radius of 6 m and 1 cm thick laminated glass. The width and thickness of adhesive

butt joint is 1 cm. The prototype, though planned as a temporary structure, has stood for ten

1.4. Motivation

Overhead view

Figure 1.7.: Structural glass dome at TU Delft, Netherlands (Veer u. a., 2003)

years under the action of wind, symmetrical and asymmetrical snow loadings (Weller und

Tasche, 2014).

1.4. Motivation

1.4.1. Patterns in nature

Every natural structure has a pattern on a macro or micro level, see Figure 1.9. The pattern

on a giraffes skin or turtle shell have the same principle. Natural structures continuously

evolve (optimisation process) and adapt to the surroundings to reach an ideal performance

state (Dimcic, 2011).

Sea urchin shell is an example of a natural plate structure. The shell is composed of calcite

plates and three plates meet at a vertex. The plates transfer shear forces using the hinged

teeth along plate edges, see Figure 1.10 (Robbin, 1996).

The shape of a spiders web is governed by its functioning. The web absorbs the kinetic

energy of a flying insect by allowing large elongation of threads (strain energy). The multiple

1.4. Motivation

Leaf

Giraffe

Turtle

Spider web

redundancy of radial threads ensures that the web will function even if many radials break.

The load travels from the spirals to the supports via the radials (Rice, 1998).

The Osaka Maritime Museum in Osaka, Japan is a spherical dome with diameter of 70 m and

height of 35 m. The dome structure is a diagrid of straight tubular members butt-welded to

cast steel nodes and braced by high strength rods. The grid members form flat quadrilateral

planes which enables the glazing system to use flat glass panels (Dallard u. a., 2001).

The cylindrical shell roof over Museum of Hamburg history in Hamburg, Germany consists of

a square grid 1.17 x 1.17 m braced by prestressed diagonal cables. The roof also consists of

rhombi grid at some locations (SBP).

The double curved glass roof of Schubert Club Band Shell in Minnesota, USA has a saddleshaped surface. The roof consists of a quadrangular mesh of stainless steel pipes. These meshes

are stiffened by stainless steel rods in diagonal direction and thus form triangular segments

(SBP).

2001)

Schubert Club Band Shell, Minnesota, USA (SBP)

The Eden project was built in 2001 in Cornwall, United Kigdom. The two greenhouses are

giant domes built up from steel structure which is filled in with EFTE foil air cushions. The

purpose of using hexagonal segments was to allow more light inside the dome. The domes

showed large deformations and a second structural layer was added to avoid this problem

(Aanhaanen, 2008).

The choice of segment shapes (square, rhombus, hexagon, etc.) usually depends on the aesthetics, feasibility of construction and cost effectiveness. Structurally speaking, which shape

is suitable for optimal shell behaviour?

The topic of segmented shells is yet not well covered by research. This thesis report is an

attempt to answer the following questions within a strict time frame of six months.

How can the joint patterns be constructed?

How can the FE model be setup for segmented shells?

How is behaviour of segmented shell different from monolithic glass shell?

How do the bending moments vary for different patterns?

How do the shear forces vary for different patterns?

How shell stability gets affected by segmentation?

How does a lower joint stiffness influence the segmented shell behaviour?

This thesis can be broadly divided into three parts - geometry modelling, finite element analysis

and post-processing to draw conclusions.

Geometry modelling

The geometry modelling of segmented shells was a challenging task. A number of methodologies were tried to create a working geometry. CAD tools like Rhinoceros and Grasshopper

proved to be the most effective for modelling segmented dome, cylindrical roof and hypar.

Four different segment patterns were constructed on each shell system resulting in a total of

twelve models. For details, see Chapter 3.

Finite element analysis

FEA was done using the software package ANSYS 13.0. A Reissner-Mindlin element has been

used for the analysis. The boundary conditions were setup keeping in mind the favourable

membrane behaviour of shell structures. FE models were verified for selective results. Three

joint materials were analysed- glass, silicone (soft adhesive) and epoxy (hard adhesive). This

resulted in a total of thirty-six FE models to be analysed. For details, see Chapter 4 and 5.

Post-processing

With so many models to analyse, it was important to automate the whole FEA process,

especially post-processing. A 528 line script was written in MAPDL for dome analysis. The

same script was later modified so as to use it for other shells. MAPDL offers special postprocessing tools like path plots along random paths and SMISC (Summable Miscellaneous)

quantities for extracting element forces, moments and stresses. These tools have been used to

extract and compare results for different patterns and joints. For details, see Chapter 6, 7, 8,

9.

2

Shell structures

2.1. Some definitions

Shell

Shell structures are form-passive 3-D curved surfaces which have one dimension significantly

smaller compared to the other two.

Form-passive

A form-passive structural system does not actively change its shape under varying load conditions. Cables and membrane structures are form-active systems (Adriaenssens u. a., 2014).

Thin shells

A shell is regarded as thin if the ratio of thickness to radius of curvature at any point is less

1

than 20

(Novozhilov, 1959).

Slenderness ratio

The ratio of shell thickness to a typical length measure (edge length or radius of curvature) is

called slenderness ratio.

Gaussian curvature

The Gaussian curvature is defined by the fraction R11R2 where R1 and R2 are the radii of

curvature in shell principal directions (Bischoff u. a.).

Stress resultants

There are total 8 stress resultants in shell theory. The total forces acting per unit length of

shell middle surface, N1 , N2 , N12 , Q1 , Q2 and the total moments acting per unit length of shell

middle surface, M1 , M2 , M12 . These are all integrals of stress over the thickness (Billington,

1965).

Shells are primarily classified on the basis of their Gaussian curvature. For a general shell, the

Gaussian curvature could be positive, negative or zero.

If the centres of curvature in both the principal directions lie on the same side of shell surface,

the Gaussian curvature is positive. If the centres of curvature in both the principal directions

lie on the opposite side of shell surface, the Gaussian curvature is negative. If one radius of

curvature is equal to infinity, the Gaussian curvature is zero, see Table 2.1 (Kumar, 1989).

Positive

Negative

Zero

Surface

Doubly curved

Doubly curved

Singly curved

Name

Synclastic

Anticlastic

Developable

Example

Sphere

Hyperbolic paraboloid

Cylinder

Developability

Non-developable

Non-developable

Developable

Modern shell theory is based on the Kirchhoff plate theory concerning the deformation of plates.

In 1874, Aron made the first attempt to extend the plate theory to shells. In 1888, Augustus

Love derived the basic equations governing the behaviour of thin elastic shells. This theory is

known as Kirchhoff-Love shell theory or Loves first approximation. The main assumptions of

this theory are as follows:

Shell thickness is negligible compared to the least curvature of middle surface.

Straight lines normal to middle surface of the undeformed shell remain straight and

normal after deformation and experience no change in length.

Strain and displacements are small so that the quantities containing second and higher

order terms are neglected in the strain displacement equations.

The direct stress acting in the shell thickness direction is negligible.

In 1934, Flgge presented a set of shell equations which used all the above assumptions except

the first one concerning shell thickness. This is known as Loves second approximation or LoveFlgge theory in literature. From 1948 to 1958, Reissner and Mindlin refined the shell theory

by incorporating transverse shear strains. In 1963, Naghdi made the shell theory invariant

under different coordinate systems. After 1990, research intensified in the direction of 3-D

shell finite elements. One important outcome was the 7-parameter formulation which takes

into account the stretching of shell surface in the thickness direction. New shell models like

10

multi-layer (for laminates) and multi-director were also presented. The multi-director model

takes into consideration the fact that shell normal doesnt remain straight during deformation

(Zingoni, 1997)(Bischoff u. a.).

Kirchhoff-Love

Reissner-Mindlin

7-parameter

Multi-director

A truss system primarily carries the applied loads by axial tension or compression. A small

part of this load is carried by the transverse shear force in the members which is related to

the bending moments at joints. To make the analysis simpler, it is assumed that the joints

are frictionless pins and there is no bending moment and transverse shear forces. However,

if there are substantial bending moments at the joints, the assumption of negligible bending

moments is not justified and the whole structure should be reanalysed.

There is a close analogy between trusses and shells. Shells carry applied loads by a combination

of stretching and bending action. If the bending action is very small, it is convenient to use

an analysis procedure similar to trusses where bending is completely ignored in calculations.

It is assumed that applied load is carried only by in-plane stress resultants. This is known as

membrane theory (Calladine, 1989).

In practice, bending moments and transverse shear force do occur in shells which makes the

analysis very complicated. Also, there is no analytical theory in literature which can be directly

used for segmented shells with non-uniform material. Therefore, numerical solution method

(FEA) has been used to analyse segmented shells.

This section explains the structural behaviour of all three shell systems.

11

In 1676, English scientist Robert Hooke published ten inventions. In order to protect his

inventions, he used anagrams of Latin phrases. The second anagram is shown in Figure 2.2.

In 1705, Richard Waller gave the solution to this anagram - Ut pendet continuum flexile, sic

stabit contiguum rigidum inversum (As hangs the flexible line, so but inverted will stand the

rigid arch). A hanging chain is in pure tension and without any bending moment. If it is

inverted, we get an arch shape which is under pure compression. This is a case of chain under

self-weight for which the ideal arch shape is a hyperbolic cosine (catenary). For a constant

load, the arch shape is a quadratic parabola. Thus, in case of arches, it is possible to attain

equilibrium without bending. But this works only for specific combinations of applied load

and arch geometry.

A dome can be thought of as a combination of arches along the meridian and hoop lines.

The meridian arches can carry any arbitrary (sufficiently smooth) load without bending. This

is made possible by the other set of hoop arches which act as stiff rings and dampen the

meridional bending (Adriaenssens u. a., 2014)(Bischoff u. a.).

Meridian arches

Hoop arches

Figure 2.3.: Spherical dome

A cylindrical shell or barrel can be considered as a curved slab which has been cut from a

full cylinder. It has two straight longitudinal edges parallel to the axis of the cylinder and

two curved transverse edges (traverses). Barrel works as a series of arches interconnected

by straight longitudinal beams. These longitudinal beams play the role of load distributors

among the neighbouring arches. The distribution of arch (in-plane) and beam action (bending)

is governed by the R/L ratio where R is the transverse radius and L is the longitudinal length.

Barrels are usually classified as long, intermediate or short, see Table 2.2 (Billington,

1965). The favourable membrane behaviour is predominant in short barrel. Long barrel shows

12

Longitudinal beams

Transverse arches

surface, barrel can be deformed to a flat plane without developing any distortion (Bischoff

u. a.). This property makes the barrel weaker than synclastic and anticlastic surfaces.

Number

Name

R/L

1

2

3

Long barrel

Intermediate barrel

Short barrel

< 0.4

Between 0.4 and 2.0

> 2.0

2.5.3. Hypar

Cable

Arch

Cable tension

Shear

Arch thrust

The hyperbolic paraboloid or hypar can be thought of as a combination of arches and cables

which are placed at right angles to each other. Arches carry loads in pure compression and

cables carry loads in pure tension. Along the entire edge of hypar, the normal components of

tension in the cable and compression in the arch are equal and opposite. Hence, these cancel

each other and the tangential components add up to give shear along edges. This shear force

needs edge members which can be loaded axially (Ramaswamy, 1984).

13

Buckling of structures is an important branch of structural mechanics. It is particularly important in shells because shells buckle without any warning (Calladine, 1989).

A shell structure carries the applied loads mainly by membrane action until the load reaches

a critical level. Energy is stored in the shell as membrane strain energy and the corresponding

displacements are small. This is the pre-buckling state of a shell. When the applied load

is equal to the critical buckling load, the shell structure shows large displacements without

adding any load. The membrane strain energy is converted to bending strain energy and this

leads to buckling phenomenon.

Two types of buckling can occur in a shell - global and local buckling. When the whole shell

buckles inward due to applied loads, global buckling takes place. Local buckling is limited to

a portion of the shell. The linearized model of elastic stability gives a good approximation

of the critical buckling load for a shell without any imperfections. In practice, geometric and

material imperfections significantly reduce the critical buckling load. The real buckling load

1

th of the value calculated from linear stability analysis (Bagger und

can be as small as 10

DTU Byg, 2010).

14

3

Geometry modelling

Geometry represents the design and is the starting point of all engineering simulation. The

goal is to construct three segmented shell systems- dome, barrel and hypar.

Using some recent glass dome examples shown in Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1, a span of 10 m

x 10 m, rise of 2 m and joint width of 20 mm was fixed for all shells.

Number

Year

Location

1998

Duesseldorf

2002

Delft

2003

Stuttgart

2006

Barcelona

15

3.2. Modelling

3.2. Modelling

Four different modelling approaches were tried to get the required shell geometry.

This method of geometry creation is based on shell surface equations. In Figure 3.2, P is any

point on a general smooth shell surface. A local Cartesian coordinate system is set up with

point P as its origin and the X-Y plane is tangential to the shell surface at point P. Z-axis has

a unique direction as its normal to the surface. The X and Y axes can be rotated about the

Z-axis. The smooth surface of a general shell can be described by Z as a quadratic function of

X and Y in the form of Taylor series. Only a small portion of the shell near origin (point P) is

considered where X and Y are sufficiently small and thus the higher order terms are ignored

(Calladine, 1989).

Z

P

Y

X

Z = Z (X ,Y )

1

1

Z = k11 X 2 + k12 XY + k22 Y 2 + Higher order terms

2

2

1

k11 =

R1

1

k22 =

R2

(3.1)

This method was implemented in MAPDL using a script file which is given in Appendix

A(Ramos und Hoogenboom, 2013). Amongst the various input parameters, k11 and k22

are the most important ones. As shown in Figure 3.3, same sign numerical values for these

parameters yield a synclastic surface, opposite sign values yield an anticlastic surface and if

either of the two values is zero, then the resulting surface is developable. The joint patterns

can be constructed on the shell surface by connecting the nodes in a sequence relevant to the

particular segmentation pattern.

16

The shells are constructed in Rhinoceros 5. Grasshopper visual scripting is used to segment

these shells and extract the MAPDL input code. This method includes the following steps:

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

Create three shells at a location suitable for vertical projection of patterns.

Project pattern lines onto the shell surface.

Create nodes at intersections on the shell surface.

Extract X,Y,Z coordinates of all nodes.

Create MAPDL input code for all nodes in the form N ,Node number,X ,Y ,Z

Create MAPDL input code for all elements in the form E,I ,J ,K ,L

This method involves use of IGES file format. Repeat steps 1 and 2 of method 2. The

projected pattern curves are used to split the smooth shell surface. This split operation results

in segmented areas which are then exported to SolidWorks surfaces type IGES file format

with a tight tolerance of 0.001 mm. This IGES file is directly imported in MAPDL to get the

required geometry.

This method uses the ANF file format. Repeat all steps mentioned in method 3 except the

last one. Here, the IGES file is not directly imported in MAPDL. This file is opened in

DesignModeler which is a part of ANSYS Workbench platform. The ANF file is created in

DesignModeler which is then imported into MAPDL.

Method 1 is very complicated as it includes controlling thousands of nodes which have to

be connected in a particular sequence to generate segmented shell surface. Also, the surface

17

equation needs to be modified to have bottom of shell structure flat. Method 2 involves

creation of nodes and elements (meshing operation) in Rhinoceros. Thus, the user cannot

explore flexible meshing options provided by MAPDL and any change in elements or nodes at

a later stage would mean reworking the whole CAD file. Method 3 leads to significant data

loss due to incompatibility issues between IGES file format and MAPDL.

Method 4 is the suitable method to create segmented shell or other complicated geometries.

There is no data loss as MAPDL is highly compatible with ANF format.

3.4.1. Spherical dome

The spherical dome or calotte is a portion of sphere cut off by a plane. A sphere having

curvature radius of 7.25 m was cut by a plane such that the base radius of resulting dome is

5 m, height is 2 m and cutting angle (angle between normal of sphere and edge of dome) is

43.6 . The slenderness ratio of dome is 1:725.

18

2m

7.25 m

10 m

43.6

3.4.2. Barrel

Barrel was created by moving a straight line (generatrix) over an arc of a circle (directrix).

The curvature radius of this arc is 7.25 m and height is 2 m. Longitudinal span is 10 m, chord

length (projection of circular arc) is 10 m and cutting angle is 43.6 . The slenderness ratio of

barrel is 1:725.

2m

Traverses

7.25 m

Span=10 m

43.6

Chord length= 10 m

Figure 3.6.: Barrel geometry

3.4.3. Hypar

The hypar is formed by running a set of lines, which are parallel on plan, across two edge

lines which are also parallel on plan but not coplanar. Such a surface contains another set of

lines parallel on plan to the two edge lines. These two set of lines are known as straight line

generators (Orton, 2013). In Rhinoceros, a 10 m x 10 m surface was constructed on a plane.

Two opposite corners of this surface were raised by 2 m while the other two corners remained

at the original level. The ratio of thickness to edge length is 1:1000.

19

2m

10 m

10 m

Figure 3.7.: Hypar geometry

1.5 m

1.5 m

0.23 m

0.2 m

0.93 m

SQUARE

DIAMOND

HEXAGON

0.93 m

HEXALOCK

3.5.1. Patterns

Four symmetric patterns were chosen for segmenting the shells and each pattern comprises of

repeating glass units, see Figure 3.8. These have been named as square, diamond, hexagon

and hexalock patterns. The hexalock pattern was constructed using a Grasshopper visual

script given in Appendix B. The projection of square and diamond patterns on dome resulted

in similar segmentations. Therefore, the pie pattern was additionally constructed for the

dome. Each repeating unit (glass pane) has 20 mm wide rectangular strips (adhesives) along

the edges. The joints between glass panes should not be continued around the pane vertices

(Aanhaanen, 2008). Local damage and subsequent repair or replacement of any joint should

not affect the neighbouring joints. The triangular areas (in red) at pane vertices have been

removed from the geometry model, see Figure 3.9.

The size of glass pane can influence the membrane behaviour of shell as a very big pane can

develop high local bending stresses. This was taken into consideration while choosing the pane

size. The planar surface area of each glass unit is 2.25 m 2 .

20

SQUARE

DIAMOND

HEXAGON

HEXALOCK

20 mm

20 mm

PIE

Figure 3.9.: Patterns used for segmentation

All pattern lines were constructed on a plane surface and projected straight up (perpendicularly) on the surface of shell. This was done in Rhinoceros using the Project command. The

resulting glass panes are of unequal size as this is dependent on the shell curvature, see Figure

3.10. As an alternative, the Pull command was tried. It pulls the curve to the nearest portion

of surface but didnt result in equal size panes. The only way of getting equal size panes is to

21

draw all patterns directly on curved shell surface using OffsetCrvOnSrf command. This process is very complicated for hexagon and hexalock patterns. Therefore, the vertical projection

method was chosen. Figure 3.11 shows the size deviation in glass panes and adhesive strips.

These size deviations are spread symmetrically on the shell surface.

20.11 mm

1502 mm

1541 mm

1679 mm

21.06 mm

The twelve segmented shells with symmetric patterns are shown in Figure 3.12 - 3.14.

22

23

4

FE model

Over the past sixty years, numerical solution methods (notably the finite element method) have

become more popular as compared to finding analytical solutions of rigorous shell formulations.

It is of utmost importance to understand the properties and behaviour of a finite element

making up the whole structure (Zingoni, 1997). The goal is to set up a FE model of segmented

shell geometry constructed in the previous chapter. FE package ANSYS Mechanical 13.0 has

been used for the analysis.

The segmented shell comprises of glass panes joined with glass (monolithic glass shell), epoxy

(hard adhesive) and silicone (soft adhesive) joints. All materials are assumed to be isotropic

and linearly elastic. The material properties are listed in Table 4.1 (Dillard, 2010).

The shell structure is subjected to self-weight. The strength properties of materials have not

been considered in this report. The shear modulus is calculated by ANSYS using the formula:

G=

E

2(1 + )

(4.1)

Material

Density [kg/m 3 ]

Poissons ratio

Glass

Epoxy

Silicone

2500

1100

1100

70000

1500

10

0.23

0.35

0.46

28455

556

3.4

24

Many types of shell finite elements are available in the ANSYS element library. Following is

an overview of relevant shell elements.

SHELL41 is a 3-D shell element with membrane stiffness and no bending stiffness. There

are three translational degrees of freedom at each node. It is suitable to model fabric tent

structures (ANSYS, 2009).

SHELL63 is a 3-D shell element with membrane and bending stiffness. It is a shear rigid

element based on the Kirchhoff-Love shell theory, see section 2.3. The element has six degrees

of freedom at each node: three in translation and three in rotation. The rotational degrees of

freedom describe rotations of shell surface or the tangent (Bischoff u. a.). This element is

suitable to model thin shells.

SHELL181 (four noded) and SHELL281 (eight noded) are shear-deformable shell elements

with membrane and bending stiffness. These elements have six degrees of freedom at each

node: three in translation and three in rotation. The rotational degrees of freedom describe

rotations of cross-sectional material fibres or the normal (Bischoff u. a.). These elements are

based on first order shear-deformation theory which is usually referred to as Reissner-Mindlin

shell theory (ANSYS, 2009). They are suitable to model moderately thick shells. For this

study, SHELL181 element has been used.

SHELL181 element is designed to be in a plane stress state and the through thickness stress

is always zero. Out-of-plane moments are computed with respect to the shell reference plane

which is set as mid-plane in ANSYS. The eight element stress resultants with directions are

shown in Figure 4.1. The red dashed lines are drawn to avoid confusion about moment

rotation axis.

25

SY

SX

SX(TOP)

SX(MID)

SX(BOT)

2-direction

Q13

M11

3-direction

M12

N11

M11-axis

Q23

M22

N12

M21

M22-axis

1-direction

N12

N22

STRESS RESULTANTS

4.3.1. Element size

The element size is an important issue in all FE analyses. A mesh convergence study was done

to select the optimal size. FE model of spherical dome with shell elements of size 200, 150,

100, 75, 50 and 40 mm were run. The results were compared for maximum deflection, von

Mises stress and hoop stress near dome edge. All mesh sizes converged with same maximum

deflection value of 0.0123 mm. The result for maximum von Mises stress is shown in Figure

4.2. Mesh size 75, 50 and 40 show same stress values. The result for hoop stress at edge of

dome is shown in Figure 4.3. Once again, element size 75, 50 and 40 show convergence. It

is sensible to choose element size of 75 mm as the number of elements would be more than

double if 50 mm size is considered, see Figure 4.4. However, the joint width in segmented shell

is 20 mm and choosing a 50 mm element size gives a very good aspect ratio of 2.5. Therefore,

element size of 50 mm has been used in all FE models.

It is important to take the meshing sequence into consideration for segmented shells. If we

mesh glass panes first, then the element shapes in joint areas rely on mesh generated for glass.

26

This could result in bad element shapes and there is only one element in the joint width

direction. Therefore, the joints were meshed first followed by glass panes.

0.0942

0.094

Max. von Mises stress (MPa)

0.0938

0.094

0.0936

0.0937

0.0934

0.0932

0.093

0.0931

0.0928

0.0929

0.0929

0.0929

50

40

0.0926

0.0924

0.0922

200

150

100

75

Element size (mm)

Figure 4.2.: Maximum von Mises stress convergence for spherical dome

-0.017

-0.0178

-0.018

-0.019

-0.02

-0.0214

-0.021

-0.022

-0.023

-0.024

-0.024

-0.0249

-0.025

-0.025

-0.0251

50

40

-0.026

200

150

100

75

Element size (mm)

Three different coordinate systems were used for aligning element local directions, see Figure

4.5. Black line indicates element direction 1 and green line indicates element direction 2. This

allowed retrieval of results in the principal directions of each shell system.

It is necessary to place the dome and barrel at the correct location in 3-D FE environment.

The local element directions were found to be rotated by 90 for elements near the shell edge.

This happened because in ANSYS, the element x-axis is determined from the projection of

local x-axis on the shell surface and if the projection is a point, the local y-axis direction is

27

70000

60795

Number of elements

60000

50000

39646

40000

30000

18871

20000

10926

10000

3205

5347

0

200

150

100

75

50

40

used for the element x-axis direction (ANSYS, 2009). This error was corrected by placing the

topmost centre point of shell surface at coordinates 0,0,7250 (in mm). This is in accordance

with the curvature radius of dome or barrel and facilitates application of boundary conditions

that are tangential to shell mid-surface.

Cylindrical

Cartesian

The MAPDL script used for FE analysis and plot generation is given in Appendix C. The

ANF file should be imported into MAPDL before running the script. The selection of areas

and nodes is done by graphical picking option.

28

5

Boundary conditions and model

verification

Thin shells should be designed to carry loads primarily through membrane forces. Bending

due to boundary conditions should be avoided by selecting an optimal support system for the

shell, although in practice it is not possible to completely ignore bending (Bischoff u. a.).

The goal is to set up such boundary conditions for dome, barrel and hypar.

Extensional deformation

Inextensional deformation

In Figure 5.1, a small plastic spherical cap is loaded with a force. In case of extensional

deformation, the shell mid-surface is extending and load is carried mostly by membrane forces.

In case of inextensional deformation, the load is mostly carried by bending. It is important

to avoid inextensional deformations in thin shells as large bending deformation can lead to

damage (Hoogenboom). The flat surface on which the cap is placed in first case is equivalent

29

to supporting the cap edge with vertical supports. This clearly shows that the boundary

conditions influence the deformation behaviour of shell.

The bending stresses (secondary) in a shell are assumed to be trivial as compared to membrane

stresses (primary), see Section 2.4. The secondary stresses come from bending near shell edge

called the boundary layer (Bischoff u. a.). The boundary layer is very localized in dome

and extensional deformations dominate in the dome interior. In barrel, the boundary layer is

localized to a reduced extent whereas in hypar, the boundary layer isnt localized and it can

extend deep into the hypar interior (Zingoni, 1997).

5.3.1. Dome

Figure 5.2 shows the usual practice of supporting a dome with vertical supports and ring beam.

The reaction force R cannot be equilibrated by the meridian force Nm near the shell edge. This

gives rise to a shear force F and thus bending is inevitable for maintaining equilibrium. A ring

beam is provided at the shell edge to give horizontal support and counter the tensile forces

(Johnson, 2000).

F

Nm

Ring beam

R

Figure 5.2.: Usual practice of supporting domes

Another option is to provide tangential hinge support to shell mid-surface, see Figure 5.3.

In this case, the inclined rollers permit free movement of shell edge in radial direction, the

hinge allows free rotation of edge in the meridional plane. The shear forces do not eminate

and bending is not needed for equilibrium (Zingoni, 1997). Ring beam is not required and

the dome is in an ideal membrane state. This type of boundary condition has been used for

the dome FE models. Three additional hinge supports are provided at shell edge (parallel to

hoop direction) to avoid rigid body modes.

30

5.3.2. Barrel

Along the longitudinal edge of barrel, tangential hinge support is provided to shell mid-surface.

Such supports are not effective along the traverses. It is usually assumed that thick barrels are

simply supported (vertical hinge) at the traverses (Ramaswamy, 1984). For monolithic glass

barrel, two types of boundary conditions for traverses were implemented in the FE model for

comparison- simple support and circumferential hinge support, see Figure 5.4.

Simple support

Circumferential support

The FE plots show top view of barrel with traverses on left and right side.

Deflections (Figure 5.5)

The maximum deflection value of -0.26 mm is spread over a large portion of simply supported

traverses. The same value is localized in case of circumferentially supported traverses and

major portion shows a deflection value of -.079 mm. This observation points towards making

use of circumferential supports at the traverses.

Bending moment in transverse direction, M1 (Figure 5.6)

In simply supported traverses, significantly higher moment values ranging from -8.5 Nmm/mm

to 4.6 Nmm/mm are observed. The four corners of barrel show high bending moments. Using

the circumferential supports, the four corners show moment values of -1.17 Nmm/mm which

is much lower. This observation shows the compatibility of circumferential supports with

tangential supports at corners of barrel.

Bending moment in longitudinal direction, M2 (Figure 5.7)

In simply supported traverses, the moment value at the traverses vary from -17.3 Nmm/mm

(hogging) at centre to 23.2 Nmm/mm (sagging) at corners. This change of moment sign is

31

Simple support

Circumferential support

Figure 5.5.: Deflection values for different traverse supports [in mm]

Simple support

Circumferential support

not observed in the other barrel and it shows a much lower value of -0.03 Nmm/mm at the

traverses.

From these observations, it is evident that barrel with simply supported traverses shows higher

bending moments. This stress state is undesirable and thus circumferentially supported traverses are chosen for barrel FE models. Two additional hinge supports are provided at the

centre of each longitudinal edge (parallel to longitudinal direction) to avoid rigid body modes,

see Figure 5.8.

5.3.3. Hypar

The choice of most suitable boundary conditions for hypar is based on its loading behaviour,

see Section 2.5.3. Shear supports along all the four edges were set up in FE model. The

analysis did not converge due to insufficiently constrained model. Vertical hinge supports were

added at the two upper corners. This made the solution converge but hypar showed large

32

Simple support

Circumferential support

deformations and unsymmetrical behaviour. Therefore, two more vertical hinge supports were

added at the lower corners, see Figure 5.9.

33

Before using the FE model results to draw any conclusions, it is important to verify them.

Considering the group of dome FE models with square, pie, hexagon and hexalock patterns;

the mesh on each of these is different as the shape of segmented areas vary. This difference in

FE mesh should not have any influence on results. Figure 5.10 and 5.11 show the deflection

results for segmented glass shells with glass joints. It is clear from these plots that the results

in all twelve shells are independent of discretization. This conclusion validates the comparison

of segmented shells with adhesive joints.

Figure 5.10.: Deflection values for segmented glass dome with glass joints [in mm]

34

Figure 5.11.: Deflection values for segmented glass shell with glass joints [in mm]

35

Monolithic glass dome

The hoop membrane stress is calculated according to the membrane theory, see Equation 5.1

and 5.2 (Flgge, 1962). The calculated stress values match with the values in stress plot

shown in Figure 5.12. 11t is hoop stress at top of dome and 11b at dome edge.

- Density of glass

- Angle between dome top/bottom and edge

R - Radius of curvature

11t = R(

1

cos )

1 + cos

1

cos 0)

1 + cos 0

(5.1)

1

cos 43.6)

1 + cos 43.6

(5.2)

11t = 0.0906MPa

11b = R(

1

cos )

1 + cos

11b = 0.0261MPa

36

Barrel

Using equilibrium equations of barrel, the membrane stress in transverse direction is calculated,

see Equation 5.3 and 5.4 (Ramaswamy, 1984). The values from FE model are matching

and shown in Figure 5.13. 11t is stress at top of barrel (dark blue in plot) and 11b is at

longitudinal edge (light blue).

11t = R cos

11t = (25000 109 ) 7250 cos 0

(5.3)

11t = 0.1812MPa

11b = R cos

11t = (25000 109 ) 7250 cos 43.6

(5.4)

11b = 0.1312MPa

Figure 5.13.: Transverse direction membrane stress (11 ) in segmented barrel with glass joints

Hypar

The in-plane shear stress (12 ) in hypar is calculated using Equation 5.5 (Ramaswamy, 1984).

This formula is valid when one corner of hypar is pulled down and other three corners remain

at original level.

a - Projected length of hypar

b - Projected width of hypar

f - Distance between upper and lower corners

37

ab

2f

25000 109 10000 10000

=

2 2000

= 0.625MPa

12 =

12

12

(5.5)

When two corners are pulled down, the shear stress is halved. This is in agreement with shear

stress plot shown in Figure 5.14.

12 =

0.625

= 0.312MPa

2

(5.6)

Figure 5.14.: In-plane shear stress (12 ) in segmented hypar with glass joints

According to ANSYS, 277.1 is the BLF (critical buckling load factor) for segmented glass dome

with glass joints, see Figure 6.19. The expression for ideal buckling stress of spherical shells

with uniform wall thickness is given in Equation 5.7 (DIN-18800). For supports tangential

to shell mid-surface, Ck (conditions of support) equal to 0.4 is a suitable value. The analytical

BLF value of 252.2 is close to FE results.

cr - Critical buckling stress

g - Stress due to applied loads

t

- Shell thickness

38

2

t2

p

2

2

R

3(1 2 )

102

2

= 0.4 70000

p

2

2

7250

3(1 0.222 )

cr = Ck E

cr

cr = 0.06306MPa

g = 25000 108 MPa

cr

BLF =

g

63060 106

BLF =

25000 108

BLF = 252.2

39

(5.7)

6

Results for segmented dome

The FE results for segmented domes are presented in this chapter. Different patterns and

joints have been compared using graphs for paths along meridian and hoop directions. Four

paths were constructed out of which results from two have been presented, see Figure 6.1.

Square

Pie

Hexagon

Hexalock

Figure 6.1.: Meridian (marked in green) and hoop (marked in black) paths of segmented dome

40

In some graphs, the plotted curves are discontinuous. These discontinuities occur when the

constructed path passes over the glass pane vertices where no material exists. The curve in

black colour represents the monolithic glass dome.

Maximum deflection with glass joints is -0.012 mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 6.7)

Maximum deflection of -1.03 mm is shown by square pattern. Hexalock pattern shows the

least maximum deflection of -0.73 mm. The graph curves show a jump in values when the

path passes over low stiffness silicone joints.

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.8)

All patterns show similar deflection values. The hexagon pattern shows the least maximum

deflection of -0.019 mm.

6.2.1. Meridian direction, N2

Maximum force value with glass joints is -0.889 N/mm at top of dome and -1.03 N/mm at

dome edge. The compressive force is increasing from dome top to edge.

Silicone joint (Figure 6.9)

The square pattern shows high tensile forces in glass panes at the dome edge. All other patterns

show favourable compressive forces. The hexagon pattern shows the least force value of -1.09

N/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.10)

The square pattern doesnt show tensile forces at the dome edge. The much stiffer epoxy joint

hold the dome edge glass panes in position unlike silicone joint. The four jumps shown by

square pattern curve are not at the joints but at the glass pane vertices over which the path

passes. The square and hexagon pattern show the least force value of -1.02 N/mm in glass

panes.

Monolithic glass dome shows a constant force value of -0.65 N/mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 6.11)

The hexalock pattern shows six peak force values of -1.28 N/mm. These peak forces develop

41

in the joints as shown in Figure 6.2. The hexagon pattern develops least compressive force of

-0.65 N/mm in glass panes.

Hexagon

Hexalock

Figure 6.2.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Contour plot of hoop in-plane force, N1

The hexalock pattern shows six peak force values of -0.82 N/mm at the joints. The hexagon

pattern develops least compressive force of -0.65 N/mm in glass panes.

6.3.1. Meridian direction, M2

Monolithic glass dome shows maximum bending moment of -0.012 Nmm/mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 6.13)

The pie pattern shows maximum moment value of -3.48 Nmm/mm in two glass panes near top

of segmented dome, see Figure 6.3. The square and hexagon pattern show similar moments

in the segmented dome interior but the boundary layer is smaller in hexagon pattern. The

hexagon pattern shows least bending moment value of -1.05 Nmm/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.14)

The hexalock pattern shows maximum moment value of -0.27 Nmm/mm at joints. The hexagon

pattern shows least bending moment value of 0.109 Nmm/mm.

Monolithic glass dome shows maximum bending moment of -0.005 Nmm/mm.

42

Hexagon

Pie

Figure 6.3.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Contour plot of meridional bending moment,

M2

The hexalock pattern shows maximum moment value of 2.23 Nmm/mm. The pie pattern

shows least moment value of -0.20 Nmm/mm, see Figure 6.4.

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.16)

The hexalock pattern shows maximum moment value -0.27 Nmm/mm. The pie pattern shows

least bending moment value of -0.018 Nmm/mm.

Hexagon

Pie

Figure 6.4.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Bending moment in hoop direction, M1

Hexagon and hexalock patterns showed comparatively higher values. Therefore, they were

removed from the graph to have an effective comparison of other patterns.

43

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.17)

Monolithic glass dome shows maximum shear force value of 0.0002 N/mm. The pie pattern

shows maximum shear force value of 0.0021 N/mm. The square pattern showed least shear

force value of -0.0007 N/mm. The jumps in shear force values occur at the joint interface, see

Figure 6.5.

Square

Pie

Figure 6.5.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Meridional transverse shear force, Q23

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.18)

Monolithic glass dome shows negligible shear force value. The square pattern shows maximum

shear force value of 0.00036 N/mm. The pie pattern shows least shear force value of 0.00019

N/mm, see Figure 6.6.

Square

Pie

Figure 6.6.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Hoop transverse shear force, Q13

44

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

0.2

Deflection (mm)

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

0.01

0.005

Deflection (mm)

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

45

10000

11000

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 6.9.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Meridional in-plane force, N2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 6.10.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Meridional in-plane force, N2

46

11000

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9

-1

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Figure 6.11.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Hoop in-plane force, N1

-0.45

-0.5

-0.55

-0.6

-0.65

-0.7

-0.75

-0.8

-0.85

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Figure 6.12.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Hoop in-plane force, N1

47

20000

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

-1

-2

-3

-4

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 6.13.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Meridional bending moment, M2

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 6.14.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Meridional bending moment, M2

48

11000

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

2.5

1.5

0.5

-0.5

-1

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Figure 6.15.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Hoop bending moment, M1

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Figure 6.16.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Hoop bending moment, M1

49

20000

Square

Glass

Pie

0.0025

0.002

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015

-0.002

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 6.17.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Meridional transverse shear force, Q23

0.0004

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

-0.0001

-0.0002

-0.0003

-0.0004

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Figure 6.18.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Hoop transverse shear force, Q13

50

20000

Monolithic glass dome has a BLF of 277.2, see figure 6.19. The BLF for segmented dome with

silicone and epoxy joints is shown in Figure 6.20.

For silicone joints, the square pattern shows global buckling with highest BLF of 29.8. The

glass panes govern buckling in square pattern and hence give maximum BLF. All other patterns

show local buckling of silicone joints. The hexalock pattern shows the least BLF of 5.9.

For epoxy joints, the pie pattern undergoes global buckling with highest BLF of 240.6. The

hexagon pattern shows the least BLF of 172. Most patterns show buckling near dome edge and

the epoxy joints do not govern buckling. This behaviour is comparable to the edge buckling

shown by monolithic glass dome.

51

Square, 29.8

Square, 206.3

Pie, 19.6

Pie, 240.6

Hexagon, 20.0

Hexagon, 172.0

Hexalock, 5.9

Hexalock, 186.0

Figure 6.20.: BLF for segmented domes with silicone (left) and epoxy (right) joints

52

7

Results for segmented barrel

The FE results for segmented barrels are presented in this chapter. Different patterns and

joints have been compared using graphs for paths along longitudinal and transverse directions.

In all graphs, the black colour curve represents monolithic glass barrel. Three paths were

constructed out of which results from two have been presented, see Figure 7.1.

Square

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

Figure 7.1.: Longitudinal (marked in green) and transverse (marked in black) paths of barrel

53

7.1.1. Longitudinal path

Monolithic glass barrel shows maximum deflection of -0.018 mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 7.8)

The diamond pattern shows maximum deflection of -7.3 mm. The hexalock pattern shows the

least maximum deflection of -4.3 mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.9)

All patterns except the square show an upward deflection. The square pattern shows the least

deflection value of -0.024 mm.

Monolithic glass barrel shows maximum deflection of -0.27 mm. Unlike deflection at the ends

of longitudinal path, the ends of transverse path show significant upward deflection.

Silicone joint (Figure 7.10)

The square pattern shows maximum deflection of -10.1 mm at the joints. The hexalock pattern

shows the least maximum deflection of -5.5 mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.11)

The square pattern shows the least maximum deflection of -0.39 mm.

7.2.1. Longitudinal direction, N2

Monolithic glass barrel shows the maximum in-plane force value of -0.56 N/mm at centre of

barrel and -0.006 N/mm near the traverses.

Silicone joint (Figure 7.12)

The diamond pattern shows the maximum force value of -3.6 N/mm in the two end glass

panes, see Figure 7.2. The hexalock pattern develops tensile forces near the traverses. The

square pattern shows the least maximum force value of -1.18 N/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.13)

The diamond and square pattern show force values similar to monolithic barrel in the path

interior. At the traverses, the diamond pattern shows comparatively higher forces. The square

pattern shows the least maximum force value of -0.57 N/mm.

54

Silicone joints

Epoxy joints

Monolithic glass barrel shows the maximum in-plane force value of -1.76 N/mm at the centre

of barrel and -1.38 N/mm at the path edges.

Silicone joint (Figure 7.14)

All patterns except the diamond pattern develop compressive forces. The diamond pattern

shows tensile forces near the path edges with maximum value of 0.92 N/mm. The square

pattern shows the least maximum force value of -1.82 N/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.15)

The diamond pattern shows jumps in force values at the the glass pane corners. The square

pattern shows the least maximum force value of -1.75 N/mm.

7.3.1. Longitudinal direction, M2

Monolithic glass barrel shows maximum bending moment of -0.025 Nmm/mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 7.16)

The diamond pattern shows maximum moment value of -11.2 Nmm/mm in the edge glass

panes, see Figure 7.3. The square pattern shows least bending moment value of 1.98 Nmm/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.17)

The hexagon and hexalock patterns show jumps in moment values for alternating glass panes,

see Figure 7.4. The ends of these glass panes are under high moments. The square pattern

shows the least maximum bending moment of -0.207 Nmm/mm.

55

Square

Diamond

Figure 7.3.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Longitudinal bending moment, M2

Hexagon

Hexalock

Figure 7.4.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Longitudinal bending moment, M2

Monolithic glass barrel shows significant maximum bending moment value of -3.85 Nmm/mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 7.18)

The hexalock pattern shows high localized bending moment value of -25.9 Nmm/mm in that

part of glass pane which projects out and locks with the neighbouring pane, see Figure 7.5.

The square pattern show the least bending moment value of -3.68 Nmm/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.19)

All patterns show similar bending moment values in the middle-third portion of the transverse

path. Overall, the square pattern shows the least bending moment value of -3.14 Nmm/mm.

56

Diamond

Hexalock

Figure 7.5.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Transverse bending moment, M1

7.4.1. Longitudinal direction, Q23

Monolithic glass barrel shows negligible transverse shear force value. Some patterns showed

comparatively higher values. Therefore, they were removed from the graph to have an effective

comparison of other patterns.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.20)

The diamond pattern shows higher force values at the traverses. The square pattern shows

the least force value of -0.002 N/mm. The six peak values in square pattern are located at the

joints, see Figure 7.6.

Square

Diamond

Figure 7.6.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse shear force in longitudinal direction,

Q23

57

Monolithic glass barrel shows transverse shear force value of 0.004 N/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 7.21)

The hexagon pattern shows comparatively higher transverse shear forces in two glass panes

near the path edge, see Figure 7.7. The square pattern shows the least force value of 0.004

N/mm. The jumps shown by square pattern are located at the joints.

Hexagon

Square

Figure 7.7.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse shear force in transverse direction,

Q13

58

Square

Monolithic

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

1

0

-1

Deflection (mm)

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.8.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Deflection values along longitudinal path

0.06

0.05

0.04

Deflection (mm)

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.9.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Deflection values along longitudinal path

59

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

20

15

Deflection (mm)

10

-5

-10

-15

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 7.10.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Deflection values along transverse path

0.8

0.6

Deflection (mm)

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 7.11.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Deflection values along transverse path

60

Monolithic

Square

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.12.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Longitudinal in-plane force, N2

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Figure 7.13.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Longitudinal in-plane force, N2

61

10000

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 7.14.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Transverse in-plane force, N1

-1

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6

-1.8

-2

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.15.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse in-plane force, N1

62

11000

Square

Monolithic

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.16.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Longitudinal bending moment, M2

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.17.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Longitudinal bending moment, M2

63

Square

Monolithic

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 7.18.: Segmented barrel with silicone joints: Transverse bending moment, M1

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.19.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse bending moment, M1

64

11000

Monolithic

Square

Hexagon

Diamond

0.006

0.004

0.002

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 7.20.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse shear force along longitudinal path,

Q23

0.009

0.006

0.003

-0.003

-0.006

-0.009

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Figure 7.21.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse shear force along transverse path,

Q13

65

Monolithic glass barrel has a BLF of 8.62, see Figure 7.22. The BLF for segmented barrel

with silicone and epoxy joints is shown in Figure 7.23.

For silicone joints, the square pattern shows instability with the lowest BLF of 0.59. This

means that the applied load already exceeds the estimated critical buckling load. The hexalock

pattern shows the highest BLF of 2.22 and hence the most stable of all patterns.

For epoxy joints, the square pattern shows the lowest BLF of 5.48. Unlike with silicone joints,

the square pattern with epoxy joints show stability. The hexalock pattern shows the highest

BLF of 6.88.

66

Square, 0.59

Square, 5.48

Diamond, 1.84

Diamond, 6.66

Hexagon, 1.86

Hexagon, 6.67

Hexalock, 2.22

Hexalock, 6.88

Figure 7.23.: BLF for segmented barrels with silicone (left) and epoxy (right) joints

67

8

Results for segmented hypar

The FE results for segmented hypar are presented in this chapter. Different patterns and

joints have been compared using graphs for paths along principal hypar directions. Two paths

were constructed - one connecting the upper corners and other connecting the lower corners

of hypar, see Figure 8.1.

Square

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

Figure 8.1.: Path between upper corners of hypar (marked with black arrow)

68

The two paths show same but opposite behaviour - one in tension and other in compression.

Results from the path connecting upper corners (in tension) have been presented. In all graphs,

the black colour curve represents monolithic glass hypar.

Monolithic glass hypar shows maximum deflection of -0.725 mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 8.4)

The square pattern shows very high deflection of -64.17 mm near the upper corners of hypar

compared to the hexalock pattern which shows the least maximum deflection of -9.83 mm, see

Figure 8.2 .

Square

Hexalock

The square pattern shows maximum deflection of -1.23 mm near the path ends. The diamond

pattern shows the least deflection value of -0.97 mm.

All forces are tensile. Monolithic glass hypar shows the maximum in-plane force value of 3.55

N/mm.

Silicone joint (Figure 8.6)

The hexalock pattern shows maximum tensile force of 9.62 N/mm. Unlike other patterns, the

square pattern doesnt show jumps in force values because the path doesnt pass through joint

location. The square pattern shows least tensile force value of 4.04 N/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 8.7)

The hexalock pattern showed very high force values and has been removed from the plot to

69

have a better comparison of other patterns. The hexagon pattern shows high tensile force

value of 3.98 N/mm in the glass panes. The square pattern show the least tensile force of 3.63

N/mm.

Monolithic glass hypar show absolute maximum bending moment of 5.94 Nmm/mm at the

upper corners of hypar. These moments could have been avoided by removing the corner

vertical supports. But these supports are required to counter large deformations.

Silicone joint (Figure 8.8)

The hexalock pattern shows high end moments of 10.2 Nmm/mm. The diamond pattern shows

the least end moment value of 6.58 Nmm/mm, see figure 8.3.

Hexalock

Diamond

Figure 8.3.: Segmented hypar with silicone joints: Contour plot of bending moment

The square pattern shows maximum end moment value of 7.37 Nmm/mm. The hexagon

pattern shows the least end moment value of 5.17 Nmm/mm.

Monolithic glass hypar shows maximum transverse shear force value of 0.0005 N/mm at the

upper corners. There is no transverse shear in the middle portion of hypar.

Silicone joint (Figure 8.10)

The square pattern shows the least force value of -0.0004 N/mm.

Epoxy joint (Figure 8.11)

The diamond pattern shows the least force value of 0.0005 N/mm.

70

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

15

-5

Deflection (mm)

-15

-25

-35

-45

-55

-65

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

13000

14000

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

Deflection (mm)

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

71

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

10

-2

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Figure 8.6.: Segmented hypar with silicone joints: In-plane shear force, N12

5.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

-0.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

Figure 8.7.: Segmented hypar with epoxy joints: In-plane shear force, N12

72

14000

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

10

7.5

2.5

-2.5

-5

-7.5

-10

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

13000

14000

-2

-4

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

73

Square

Glass

Diamond

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Figure 8.10.: Segmented hypar with silicone joints: Transverse shear forces

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006

-0.0008

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Figure 8.11.: Segmented hypar with epoxy joints: Transverse shear forces

74

Initial BLFs for monolithic and segmented hypar were less than -1 which implies buckling is not

expected even if the loads are reversed (SolidWorksHelp). This stability against buckling

is due to the tensile forces carried by hypar in one of the principal directions.

Monolithic glass hypar has the first positive BLF of 3.33, see Figure 8.12. The BLF for

segmented hypar with silicone and epoxy joints is shown in Figure 8.13. For silicone joints,

the hexalock pattern shows the highest first positive BLF. For epoxy joints, the hexagon

pattern shows the highest first positive BLF of 2.95.

75

Square, 0.108

Square, 2.33

Diamond, 0.37

Diamond, 2.66

Hexagon, 0.28

Hexagon, 2.95

Hexalock, 0.84

Hexalock, 2.57

Figure 8.13.: BLF for segmented hypar with silicone (left) and epoxy (right) joints

76

9

Conclusions and recommendations

Segmented shells with various patterns (square, diamond/pie, hexagon and hexalock) were

analysed in this report. CAD tools like Rhinoceros and Grasshopper were used to model

the geometry of segmented shells. ANSYS package was used for FE analysis and a ReissnerMindlin finite element was chosen to discretize the geometry model.

Segmentation does have an effect on the shell behaviour. Some patterns show similar behaviour

in comparison to monolithic glass shell. Others show a significant increase in the deflection

or stress resultant values which is unwanted. The in-plane membrane forces mostly remain

unaffected. The bending moment and transverse shear force values show jumps at the joints

due to a drop in material stiffness.

Conclusions have been drawn for each shell system separately. The tables given below show

Force results for segmented shell

Forcewith silicone joints

the results for monolithic glass shell and optimal

In-plane force (N/mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

increase

Pattern

Epoxy

increase

Pattern

and epoxy joints. The increase factor is thefactor

ratio of monolithic glass shellfactor

results to segmented

shell Meridian

results.direction

The recommendations

for continuation

of research -1.02

work on segmented

shells have

-1.03

-1.09

1.1

Hexagon

1.0

Square/Hexagon

Hoop direction

-0.65

1.0

Hexagon

-0.65

1.0

Hexagon

been made

at the end. -0.65

Monolithic

Silicone

Moment

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Moment

increase

factor

Pattern

Meridian direction

-0.012

-1.05

87.5

Hexagon

0.109

9.1

Hexagon

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Deflection

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Deflection

increase

factor

Pattern

Meridian direction

-0.012

-0.73

60.8

Hexalock

-0.019

1.6

Hexagon

moment

9.1.Bending

Dome

(Nmm/mm)

The epoxy joints show optimal deflection behaviour with hexagon pattern. The silicone joints

Hoop direction

-0.005

-0.2

40.0

Pie

-0.018

3.6

Pie

show much higher deflection, see Table 9.1.

77

9.2. Barrel

Monolithic

Silicone

Force

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Force

increase

factor

Pattern

Meridian direction

-1.03

-0.65

-1.09

-0.65

1.1

1.0

Hexagon

Hexagon

-1.02

-0.65

1.0

1.0

Square/Hexagon

Hexagon

Hoop direction

Bending moment

(Nmm/mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Moment

increase

Pattern

factor

are independent

Moment

increase

factorwhen

stiffness

Epoxy

of joint

Meridian direction

-0.012

-1.05

0.109

pattern

is used for segmentation,

see

Table 87.5

9.2. Hexagon

Hoop direction

-0.005

-0.2

40.0

Force

Pie

9.1

3.6

Force

-0.018

Pattern

the hexagon

Hexagon

Pie

TheIn-plane

low force

bending

values Silicone

of monolithic

dome show

it is in a Pattern

membrane

(N/mm) moment

Monolithic

increase glass

Pattern

Epoxy that

increase

factor

factor

state. The hexagon pattern is optimal for bending in meridian direction and the pie pattern

Meridian direction

-1.03

-1.09

1.1

Hexagon

-1.02

1.0

Square/Hexagon

is optimal for bending in hoop direction. Silicone joints are not suitable for maintaining the

Hoop direction

-0.65

-0.65

1.0

Hexagon

-0.65

1.0

Hexagon

membrane state of a segmented dome , see Table 9.3.

Bending moment

(Nmm/mm)

Meridian direction

In-plane

(N/mm)

Hoop force

direction

Meridian direction

Hoop direction

Monolithic

Silicone

-0.012

-1.05

Monolithic

-0.005

Silicone

-0.2

Moment

increase

factor

87.5

Force

increase

40.0

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Hexagon

Pattern

Pie

0.109

Epoxy

-0.018

Moment

increase

factor

9.1

Force

increase

3.6

factor

-1.09dome 1.1

Hexagon Bending

-1.02

1.0

Table-1.03

9.3.: Optimal

segmentation:

moments

-0.65

-0.65

1.0

Hexagon

-0.65

1.0

Pattern

Hexagon

Pattern

Pie

Square/Hexagon

Hexagon

The square pattern with epoxy joints shows the least transverse shear force value.

Moment

Moment

The pie

pattern

Bending

momentwith epoxy joints shows the highest BLF of 240.6. The buckling stability is

Monolithic

Silicone

increase

Pattern

Epoxy

increase

Pattern

(Nmm/mm)

highly dependent

on joint stiffness as the value

joints.

factor drops to 19.6 with silicone

factor

Meridian direction

Hoop direction

-0.012

-0.005

-1.05

-0.2

87.5

40.0

Hexagon

Pie

0.109

-0.018

9.1

3.6

Hexagon

Pie

9.2. Barrel

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone deflection

increase

Pattern the transverse

Epoxy

increase

Pattern

The monolithic

glass barrel

shows higher

along

direction compared

to

factor

factor

the longitudinal

direction. The hexalock pattern is optimal for silicone joints and the square

Meridian direction

-0.012

-0.73

60.8

Hexalock

-0.019

1.6

Hexagon

pattern is optimal for epoxy joints, see Table 9.4.

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Deflection

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Deflection

increase

factor

Pattern

Longitudinal direction

-0.018

-0.27

-4.3

-5.5

238.9

20.4

Hexalock

Hexalock

-0.024

-0.39

1.3

1.4

Square

Square

Transverse direction

The longitudinal and transversal in-plane forces remain unaffected with epoxy joints when the

`

square pattern is used. The forces increase in the longitudinal direction with silicone joints,

see Table 9.5.

78

Hoop direction

-0.012

-0.012

-0.005

-0.73

-1.05

-0.2

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Deflection direction

(mm)

Longitudinal

Monolithic

-0.018

Silicone

-4.3

Transverse direction

Meridian direction

-0.27

-0.012

-5.5

-0.73

Monolithic

Silicone

Deflection direction

(mm)

Longitudinal

Monolithic

-0.56

Silicone

-1.18

Meridian direction

Meridian direction

-1.76

-1.82

-0.018

-4.3

-0.27

-5.5

Table 9.5.: Optimal

Transverse direction

Longitudinal direction

Transverse direction

Bending moment

(Nmm/mm)

Monolithic

factor

60.8

87.5

40.0

Hexalock

Hexagon

Pie

Deflection

increase

Pattern

factor

Deflection

9.3.

Hypar

increase

Pattern

238.9

Hexalock

factor

20.4

Hexalock

60.8

Force

increase

factor

Deflection

increase

2.1

factor

-0.019

0.109

-0.018

Epoxy

Hexalock

Epoxy

-0.024

-0.39

-0.019

Pattern

Epoxy

factor

1.6

Hexagon

Hexagon

Pie

9.1

3.6

Deflection

increase

factor

Deflection

increase

1.3

factor

1.4

Pattern

Pattern

Square

Square

Hexagon

1.6

Force

increase

factor

Deflection

increase

1.0

factor

Pattern

Pattern

Epoxy

Square

-0.57

1.0

Square

-1.75

1.0

Hexalock

-0.024

1.3

` 238.9

20.4segmentation:

Hexalock In-plane

-0.39 forces

1.4

Moment

Moment

barrel

Silicone

increase

Pattern

factor

Force

Silicone

increase

Pattern

1.98

79.2

Square

direction

bending

moment

factor

Epoxy

Pattern

Square

Square

Square

Square

increase

factor

Force

increase

8.3

monolithic

factor

Pattern

forcedirection

(N/mm)the Monolithic

Epoxy of

Pattern

Longitudinal

-0.025

-0.207

Square

It isIn-plane

evident

from

transverse

values

glass

barrel

Transverse

direction

-3.85

-3.68

1.0

Square

-3.14

0.8

Square

thatLongitudinal

the barrel

is not in -0.56

a pure membrane

state.

TheSquare

bending moments

in1.0

transverseSquare

direction

direction

-1.18

2.1

-0.57

are not

affected

by joint-1.76

stiffness when

pattern

Transverse

direction

-1.82 the square

1.0

Square is used,

-1.75see Table

1.0 9.6. Square

`

Bending moment

(Nmm/mm)

Longitudinal direction

Transverse direction

Monolithic

Silicone

Moment

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Moment

increase

factor

Pattern

-0.025

-3.85

1.98

-3.68

79.2

1.0

Square

Square

-0.207

-3.14

8.3

0.8

Square

Square

The square pattern with epoxy joints shows the least transverse shear force value.

The BLF of monolithic glass barrel is very low as compared to the glass dome. The hexalock

pattern shows maximum buckling stability for both types of joints. In general, the hexalock

pattern is not suitable for segmented shells which show bending. The glass portion projecting

out from the pane sides attracts high bending moments.

9.3. Hypar

The diamond pattern with epoxy joints shows similar deflection values as the monolithic glass

hypar, see Table 9.7.

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Deflection

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

Deflection

increase

factor

Pattern

-0.725

-9.83

13.6

Hexalock

-0.97

1.3

Diamond

Monolithic

Table 9.7.: Optimal hypar

Silicone

increase

factor

Pattern

Epoxy

increase

factor

Pattern

ThePath

in-plane

of the joint

when square

see Table

b/w upperforces

corners are independent

3.55

4.04

1.1 stiffness

Square

3.63 pattern

1.0 is used,Square

9.8.

Moment

Moment

Bending is

moment

The hypar

not in a membrane

as it develops

moments.

The bendingPattern

moments

Monolithic state

Silicone

increase significant

Pattern

Epoxy

increase

(Nmm/mm)

factor is used with silicone joints

factor and the hexagon

remain unaffected when the diamond pattern

Path b/w upper corners

5.94joints, see

6.58Table 1.1

5.17

0.9

Hexagon

pattern

is used with epoxy

9.9. Diamond

The square pattern with epoxy joints shows the least transverse shear force value.

79

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Path

b/w force

upper(N/mm)

corners

In-plane

-0.725

Monolithic

-9.83

Silicone

In-plane force (N/mm)

Monolithic

Bending

moment

Path

b/w upper

corners

(Nmm/mm)

-0.725

3.55

Silicone

9.4.

-9.83

4.04

Silicone

3.55

4.04

Monolithic

Silicone

5.94

6.58

Path

b/w upper

corners

Bending

moment

(Nmm/mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

5.94

6.58

Deflection

increase

Pattern

Recommendations

factor

Deflection

13.6

Hexalock

increase

Pattern

factor

Force

13.6

Hexalock

increase

Pattern

factor

Force

1.1

Square

increase

Pattern

factor

Moment

hypar

segmentation:

1.1

Square

increase

Pattern

factor

Moment

1.1

Diamond

increase

Pattern

factor

1.1

Diamond

Epoxy

-0.97

Epoxy

-0.97

Epoxy

3.63

Epoxy

In-plane

3.63

Epoxy

5.17

Epoxy

5.17

Deflection

increase

factor

Deflection

1.3

increase

factor

Force

1.3

increase

factor

Force

1.0

increase

factor

Moment

forces

1.0

increase

factor

Moment

0.9

increase

factor

0.9

Pattern

Diamond

Pattern

Diamond

Pattern

Square

Pattern

Square

Pattern

Hexagon

Pattern

Hexagon

The hexagon pattern with epoxy joints shows maximum buckling stability.

9.4. Recommendations

The following recommendations for further analysis are suggested.

The glass pane and adhesive dimensions are not exactly same throughout the model

because the geometry has been constructed using vertical projection. Other construction

methods were tried but didnt result in same size panes and adhesives. This may have

an influence on the segmented shell results and should be checked.

Imperfections can have a significant effect on structural stability of shells. It is important

to identify the correct imperfection shape and do a geometrically non-linear (buckling)

analysis for segmented shells.

In this study, the only applied load is shell self-weight without any safety factor. Appropriate safety factors should be used and other loads like snow, wind suction and pressure,

maintenance need to be applied.

The effect of temperature on adhesives should be analysed as it could be a critical factor.

Ideal support conditions have been implemented in the shell FE models. In practice, such

conditions would not be achievable in built shells and additional stresses will develop near

the shell edges. Also, support settlement is another issue which can cause shell instability.

All materials are assumed to be linearly elastic and isotropic. Adhesives with non-linear

elasticity and anisotropic properties should be implemented in the FE model.

Stress resultants and deflections have been compared only for certain paths. More path

and global shell data should be analysed to make general conclusions about segmented

shells.

80

A

MAPDL script for method 1

!define variables

MPTEMP,1,0

direction

MPDATA,PRXY,1nu

k22 = 1/7250 ! 1/mm curvature in the yET,1,SHELL181

direction

R,1,t,t,t,t, , , ! element thickness

k12 = 0 ! 1/mm twist

gx=-2*nx*(nx-2)*(nx+2) !node

t = 10 ! mm thickness

gy=-2*ny*(ny-2)*(ny+2)

lx = 10000 ! mm in length in the x - direcmx=(4-nx*nx)*lx

tion

ly = 10000 ! mm in length in the y- direc- my=(4-ny*ny)*ly

tion

qx=2*nx*(lx-nx*h)

E = 70000 ! N/mm2 modulus of elasticity qy=2*ny*(ly-ny*h)

of glass

*DO,j,0,ny-1

nu = 0.22

*DO,i,0,2*nx

nx = 10 ! Number of elements in the xx=(i-nx)*((nx*h-lx)*i*i+qx*i+mx)/gx

direction ( must be even )

k=2*j

ny = 10 ! Number of elements in the ydirection ( must be even )

y=(k-ny)*((ny*h-ly)*k*k+qy*k+my)/gy

h = 1000 ! element mm size in the middle

z1=0.5*k11*x*x

/PREP7

z2=k12*x*y

z3=0.5*k22*y*y

81

z=z1+z2+z3

z=z1+z2+z3

Nx,y,z,

Nx,y,z,

*ENDDO

nodes

*DO,i,0,nx

k=2*i

*DO,j,1,ny

x=(k-nx)*((nx*h-lx)*k*k+qx*k+mx)/gx

*DO,i,1,nx

k=2*j+1

k1=1+(i-1)*2+(j-1)*(3*nx+2)

y=(k-ny)*((ny*h-ly)*k*k+qy*k+my)/gy

k2=1+i+(2+(j-1)*3)*nx+(j-1)*2

z1=0.5*k11*x*x

k3=1+(i-1)*2+j*(3*nx+2)

z2=k12*x*y

z3=0.5*k22*y*y

*ENDDO

z=z1+z2+z3

*ENDDO

Nx,y,z,

*ENDDO

D,(2*nx+1)*ny+(nx+1)*ny+i 0UX,UY,UZ

*ENDDO

D,i 0UX,UY,UZ,ROTX,ROTY,ROTZ

*DO,i,0,2*nx

*ENDDO

x=(i-nx)*((nx*h-lx)*i*i+qx*i+mx)/gx

*DO,j,2,ny

y=ly/2

D,1+(j-1)*(3*nx+2) 0UX,UY,UZ

z1=0.5*k11*x*x

D,1+(j-1)*(3*nx+2)+2*nx 0UX,UY,UZ

z2=k12*x*y

*ENDDO

z3=0.5*k22*y*y

FINISH

82

B

Grasshopper script for hexalock

pattern

83

C

MAPDL script used for FE analyses

!NOTE:ANF INPUT REQUIRED BE- MPDATA,DENS,22.5e-9

FORE RUNNING SCRIPT

SECTYPE,1,SHELLHardAdh

!NOTE:GRAPHICAL PICKING OF ARSECDATA,10,1,0,3

EAS AND NODES ACTIVE

SECOFFSET,MID

/PREP7

SECTYPE,2,SHELLGlass

SHPP,ON

SECDATA,10,2,0,3

LOCAL,12,2

SECOFFSET,MID

ET,1,SHELL181

MSHKEY,0

KEYOPT,1,1,0

AESIZE,ALL,50

KEYOPT,1,3,0

ASEL,S,P !select areas

KEYOPT,1,8,2

AATT,1, ,1,12,1

KEYOPT,1,9,0

ASEL,S,MAT1

MPTEMP,1,0

AMESH,ALL

MPDATA,EX,11500!HARD Adhesive

ALLSEL

MPDATA,PRXY,10.35

MPDATA,DENS,11.1e-9

AATT,2, ,1,12,2

MPTEMP,1,0

ASEL,S,MAT2

MPDATA,EX,270000!Glass

AMESH,ALL

MPDATA,PRXY,20.22

ALLSEL

84

NROTAT,ALL

FINISH

FINISH

/POST1

/SOLU

RSYS,12

ALLSEL

ANTYPE,STATIC

ETABLE,N11,SMISC,1

(per unit length)

PSTRES,ON

ETABLE,N22,SMISC,2

ETABLE,N12,SMISC,3

!In-plane

forces

shell supports

ALLSEL

ETABLE,M22,SMISC,5

ETABLE,M12,SMISC,6

D,ALL,UY,0

forces (per unit length)

ALLSEL

/PSYMB,CS,0

ETABLE,Q23,SMISC,8

/PLOPTS,INFO,3

ETABLE,Sm11,SMISC,34

stresses

!Membrane

/PLOPTS,LEG1,1

ETABLE,Sm22,SMISC,35

/PLOPTS,LEG2,1

ETABLE,Sm12,SMISC,36

/PLOPTS,LEG3,1

/PLOPTS,FRAME,1

ETABLE,Sb22,SMISC,38

/PLOPTS,TITLE,0

ETABLE,Sb12,SMISC,39

/PLOPTS,MINM,1

(shell bottom)

/PLOPTS,FILE,1

/PLOPTS,LOGO,1

!ETABLE,Sp22b,SMISC,41

/PLOPTS,WINS,1

!ETABLE,Sp12b,SMISC,42

/PLOPTS,WP,0

/PLOPTS,DATE,0

(shell top)

/TRIAD,OFF

!ETABLE,Sp22t,SMISC,44

ALLSEL

!ETABLE,Sp12t,SMISC,45

ACEL,9810

SOLVE

85

ETABLE,St23,SMISC,47

CSWPLA,17

/UIS, MSGPOP,3

WPOFF,0,0

/REPLOT,RESIZE

CSWPLA,18,2

WPSTYLE1

CSCIR,18,2

wprot,0,0,-90

PPATH,1,0,3535.534,3535.534,5250

/POST1

PPATH,2,0,-3535.534,-3535.534,5250

PMAP,UNI

CSWPLA,13

WPCSYS,1,17

WPOFF,0,0

CSWPLA,17

CSWPLA,14,2

WPSTYL,DEFA

CSCIR,14,2

WPOFF,0,0,6250

PPATH,1,0,-5000,0,5250

PATH,Syn4,2,30,4000,!hoop path

PPATH,2,0,5000,0,5250

CSWPLA,19

PMAP,UNI

WPOFF,0,0

WPCSYS,1,13

CSWPLA,20,1

CSWPLA,13

CSCIR,20,1

wprot,0,90,0

PPATH,1,0,3211.000001,0.1E-05,6500

PPATH,2,0,3210.999999,-0.1E-05,6500

CSWPLA,15

PMAP,UNI

WPOFF,0,0

WPCSYS,1,19

CSWPLA,16,2

CSWPLA,19

CSCIR,16,2

PPATH,1,0,0,5000,5250

PPATH,2,0,0,-5000,5250

PMAP,UNI

PATH,Syn1

WPCSYS,1,15

AVPRIN,0, ,

CSWPLA,15

RSYS,12

wprot,0,-45,0

PDEF, ,ETAB,N11,NOAVG

PATH,Syn3,2,30,2000,!inclined path

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm11,NOAVG

86

PDEF, ,ETAB,N22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,X,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,Y,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,X,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,Z,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,Y,NOAVG

RSYS,0

PDEF, ,U,Z,NOAVG

PDEF,UZCartesian,U,Z,NOAVG

RSYS,0

RSYS,12

PDEF,UZCartesian,U,Z,NOAVG

/STITLESyn1

RSYS,12

/HEADER,OFF,ON,OFF,OFFOFF

/STITLESyn2

/PAGE,200000200000

/HEADER,OFF,ON,OFF,OFFOFF

/FORMAT,17,9

/PAGE,200000200000

/FORMAT,17,9

PATH,Syn2

AVPRIN,0, ,

PATH,Syn3

RSYS,12

AVPRIN,0, ,

PDEF, ,ETAB,N11,NOAVG

RSYS,12

87

PDEF, ,ETAB,N11,NOAVG

RSYS,12

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,N12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sm12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb11,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb22,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,M12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Sb12,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St13,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,Q23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,X,NOAVG

PDEF, ,ETAB,St23,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,Y,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,X,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,Z,NOAVG

PDEF, ,U,Y,NOAVG

RSYS,0

PDEF, ,U,Z,NOAVG

PDEF,UZCartesian,U,Z,NOAVG

RSYS,0

RSYS,12

PDEF,UZCartesian,U,Z,NOAVG

/STITLESyn3

RSYS,12

/HEADER,OFF,ON,OFF,OFFOFF

/STITLESyn4

/PAGE,200000200000

/HEADER,OFF,ON,OFF,OFFOFF

/FORMAT,17,9

/PAGE,200000200000

/FORMAT,17,9

PATH,Syn4

!PRANGE0,4000

AVPRIN,0, ,

88

PASAVE,ALL,SynpathsPASAVE

/POST1

/UIS, MSGPOP,3

/VIEW,1,1

/AUTO,1

/RGB,INDEX,100,100,100, 0

RSYS,12

PLETAB,N11,NOAV

PLETAB,Sm11,NOAV

/RGB,INDEX, 0, 0, 0,15

PLETAB,N22,NOAV

/GRAPHICS,POWER

PLETAB,Sm22,NOAV

/SHADE,ALL,2

PLETAB,N12,NOAV

PLETAB,Sm12,NOAV

/REPLO

/SHOW,PNG0

PNGR,COMP,1,-1

PNGR,ORIENT,HORIZ

PNGR,COLOR,2

PLETAB,M11,NOAV

PNGR,TMOD,1

PLETAB,Sb11,NOAV

/GFILE,1200,

PLETAB,M22,NOAV

/EDGE,1,0,45

PLETAB,Sb22,NOAV

/GLINE,1,-1

PLETAB,M12,NOAV

SHELL,TOP

PLETAB,Sb12,NOAV

AVRES,4

PLETAB,Q13,NOAV

RSYS,0

PLETAB,St13,NOAV

PLNSOL,U,X

PLETAB,Q23,NOAV

PLNSOL,U,Y

PLETAB,St23,NOAV

PLNSOL,U,Z

ESEL,S,MAT2

PLNSOL,U,SUM

RSYS,0

PLNSOL,U,X

PLNSOL,U,Y

89

PLNSOL,U,Z

/PLOPTS,MINM,0

/GFORMAT,F,12,4,

EPLOT

PLNSOL,U,Z

ESEL,S,MAT2

/GFORMAT,F,12,3,

/PBC,PATH,1

PLNSOL,U,Z

/REPLOT

/GFORMAT,DEFA,12,4,

/PLOPTS,MINM,1

PLNSOL,U,SUM

/PBC,PATH,0

ALLSEL

/TRIAD,ORIG

/REPLOT

/VIEW,1-1

RSYS,12

/ANG,1

PLETAB,N11,NOAV

/USER, 1

PLETAB,Sm11,NOAV

PLETAB,N22,NOAV

PLETAB,Sm22,NOAV

PLETAB,N12,NOAV

PLETAB,Sm12,NOAV

PLETAB,M11,NOAV

PLETAB,Sb11,NOAV

PLETAB,M22,NOAV

/REPLOT

PLETAB,Sb22,NOAV

/TRIAD,OFF

PLETAB,M12,NOAV

/VIEW,1,1

PLETAB,Sb12,NOAV

/AUTO,1

PLETAB,Q13,NOAV

PATH,Syn1

PLETAB,St13,NOAV

PLPAGM,UX,20000,NODE

PLETAB,Q23,NOAV

PLPAGM,UY,20000,NODE

PLETAB,St23,NOAV

PLPAGM,UZ,20000,NODE

ALLSEL

PLPAGM,UZCartesian,20000,NODE

90

PLPAGM,ETABN11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM22,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb22,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN22,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM12,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm22,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb12,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN12,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ13,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm12,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSt13,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM11,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ23,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb11,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSt23,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM22,30000,NODE

PATH,Syn3

PLPAGM,ETABSb22,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,UX,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM12,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,UY,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb12,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,UZ,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ13,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,UZCartesian,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSt13,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ23,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSt23,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN22,20000,NODE

PATH,Syn2

PLPAGM,ETABSm22,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,UX,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN12,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,UY,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm12,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,UZ,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM11,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,UZCartesian,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb11,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM22,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb22,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN22,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM12,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm22,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb12,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN12,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ13,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSm12,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSt13,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM11,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ23,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSb11,30000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABSt23,30000,NODE

91

PATH,Syn4

/ANG,1

PLPAGM,UX,15000,NODE

/ZOOM,1,SCRN,0.304745,-0.320498,0.353033,0.352682

PLPAGM,UY,15000,NODE

/PBC,U1

PLPAGM,UZ,15000,NODE

/AUTO,1

PLPAGM,UZCartesian,15000,NODE

/REP,FAST

PLPAGM,ETABN11,15000,NODE

/ZOOM,1,SCRN,0.367126,-0.732219,0.393614,0.76664

PLPAGM,ETABSm11,15000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABN22,15000,NODE

/PBC,U0

PLPAGM,ETABSm22,15000,NODE

/SHOW,CLOSE

PLPAGM,ETABN12,15000,NODE

/DEVICE,VECTOR,0

PLPAGM,ETABSm12,15000,NODE

/SOLU

PLPAGM,ETABM11,20000,NODE

ANTYPE,1

PLPAGM,ETABSb11,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABM22,20000,NODE

BUCOPT,LANB,50,0,0,CENTER

modes will be generated

PLPAGM,ETABSb22,20000,NODE

SOLVE

PLPAGM,ETABM12,20000,NODE

FINISH

PLPAGM,ETABSb12,20000,NODE

/SOLU

PLPAGM,ETABQ13,20000,NODE

EXPASS,1

PLPAGM,ETABSt13,20000,NODE

PLPAGM,ETABQ23,20000,NODE

expanded

PLPAGM,ETABSt23,20000,NODE

SOLVE

/VSCALE,1,1,0

FINISH

/VIEW,1,1

/POST1

/AUTO,1

/UIS, MSGPOP,3

PLVECT,S, , , ,VECT,ELEM,ON,0

/VIEW,1,1

/ANG,1,-90,XS,1

/AUTO,1

/AUTO,1

/RGB,INDEX,100,100,100, 0

PLVECT,S, , , ,VECT,ELEM,ON,0

/VIEW,1,1

92

!50

/RGB,INDEX, 0, 0, 0,15

*DO,I,1,50 ! For I = 1 to 50

/GRAPHICS,POWER

SET, , ,I

/SHADE,ALL,2

/REPLO

*ENDDO

/SHOW,PNG0

/VIEW,1,1

PNGR,COMP,1,-1

/ANG,1

PNGR,ORIENT,HORIZ

/AUTO,1

PNGR,COLOR,2

/VIEW,1-1

PNGR,TMOD,1

/ANG,1

/GFILE,1200,

/ANG, 1 ,3.000000,XS,1

/EDGE,1,0,45

/ANG, 1 ,3.000000,XS,1

/GLINE,1,-1

/ANG, 1 ,3.000000,XS,1

SHELL,TOP

RSYS,0

AVRES,4

*DO,J,1,50 ! For J = 1 to 50

/VIEW,1,1

SET, , ,J

/AUTO,1

/DIST,1,1.08222638492,1

*ENDDO

/DIST,1,1.08222638492,1

SET,LIST

/DIST,1,1.08222638492,1

FINISH

/DIST,1,1.08222638492,1

/SHOW,CLOSE

RSYS,0

/DEVICE,VECTOR,0

93

Bibliography

[SBP ]

URL http://www.sbp.de/en#build/category/83-Roofs_and_Fa%C3%A7ades

[ArchHello ]

URL http://www.archello.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/

header_detail_large/96008N4.jpg

[SolidWorksHelp ]

URL http://help.solidworks.com/2012/English/SolidWorks/

cworks/Buckling_Load_Factor.htm

[DIN-18800 ] 7.2 Ideal buckling stresses. In: DIN 18800-4:2008-11 (E) Steel structures Part 4: Stability - Safety against buckling of shells

[Structurae 1935] Orvieto Hangars, Terni, Umbria, Italy. URL http://structurae.net/

structures/orvieto-hangars, 1935

[Paaskerk 1963]

Augustinuspark, Amstelveen, Netherlands.

URL http://www.

herein-system.eu/sites/dev-hkp/files/Paaskerk%20Amstelveen.jpg, 1963

[Florence 2008] Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence, Italy. URL http://photoartkalmar.

com/Photoart%20Kalmar%20high%20res/Florence_Pisa/slides/IMG_3844%20Santa%

20Maria%20del%20Fiore.html, 2008

[ANSYS 2009]

[Blogspot

2011]

URL

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EYkJ011EUkQ/TdV0_Tz9-CI/

AAAAAAAAsA0/ATNEBQQEp0Q/s1600/26%2BSkin%2Bof%2Bgiraffe%2B2.jpg, 2011

[Apple 2012] Apples iconic fifteen glass panel cube store in Manhattan, USA. URL http:

//jameshowephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DSC0538-Edit-full.jpg,

2012

94

[Dsktpbckgrnd 2013]

URL http://www.desktopbackgrounds.me/wp-content/uploads/

2013/11/Leaf-Pattern.jpg, 2013

[Pantheon 2013] The Pantheon, Rome, Italy. URL http://www.travelplusstyle.com/

wp-content/gallery/cache/10674__870x_pantheon.jpg, 2013

[Nytimes 2014]

The Reichtag building, Berlin, Germany. URL http://www.nytimes.

com/times-journeys/travel/two-spy-capitals-of-europe/?action=click&module=

history-and-context-viewer&version=Two%20Spy%20Capitals%20of%20Europe&

region=body-main, 2014

[Aanhaanen 2008] Aanhaanen, Jaap: The stability of a glass facetted shell structure, Masters

thesis, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Dissertation, 2008. URL http:

//repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:b3d35f24-c072-4bef-8b11-5872da7a72af/

The_stability_of_a_facetted_glass_shell_structure.pdf. Zugriffsdatum: 2014-1004

[Adriaenssens u. a. 2014]

Adriaenssens, Sigrid; Block, Philippe; Veenendaal, Diederik;

Williams, Chris (Hrsg.): Shell Structures for Architecture: Form Finding and Optimization. London ; New York : Routledge, Juni 2014. ISBN 9780415840606

[Bagger und DTU Byg 2010] Bagger, Anne; DTU Byg: Plate shell structures of glass:

studies leading to guidelines for structural design : Ph.D. Thesis. [Lyngby] : DTU Civil

Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2010. ISBN 9788778773005 8778773008

[Belis u. a. 2007] Belis, Jan; Verhegghe, Benedict; De Beule, Matthieu; Van Impe, Rudy:

Evaluation of Glass Domes using pyFormex. In: Shell and Spatial Structures: Structural

Architecture-Towards the future looking to the past (2007). URL https://biblio.ugent.

be/publication/383469/file/460813.pdf. Zugriffsdatum: 2014-10-20

[Billington 1965] Billington, D. P.: Thin Shell Concrete Structures. McGraw-Hill Inc.,US,

September 1965. ISBN 9780070052710

[Bischoff u. a. ] Bischoff, M.; Ramm, E.; von Scheven, M.: Modelling of shells with finite

elements. In: Computational Methods for Shell Analysis - lecture notes, COMMAS course

E3-03, Winter term 2013/2014. Institut fr Baustatik und Baudynamik, Uni Stuttgart

[Blandini 2005] Blandini, Lucio: Structural use of adhesives in glass shells. Grauer, 2005.

ISBN 9783861864868

[Calladine 1989] Calladine, C. R.: Theory of Shell Structures. Cambridge University Press,

Februar 1989. ISBN 9780521369459

[Dallard u. a. 2001] Dallard, Pat; Facer, Mark; Hikone, Shigeru; Hirose, Ryoichi; Oguri,

Arata; Sasaki, Jin: Osaka Maritime Museum. In: ARUP JOURNAL 36 (2001), Nr. 1, S. 21

27. URL http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download39.pdf. Zugriffsdatum:

2014-10-18

[Dillard 2010] Dillard, D.: Advances in Structural Adhesive Bonding. Elsevier, Mrz 2010.

ISBN 9781845698058

[Dimcic 2011] Dimcic, Milos: Structural optimization of grid shells based on genetic algorithms. Stuttgart : Inst. for Tragkonstruktionen u. Konstruktives Entwerfen, Univ., 2011.

ISBN 9783922302322 3922302327

[Flgge 1962]

In: Lecture notes, Handout 7b. TU Delft. URL http://homepage.tudelft.nl/p3r3s/

CT4143_handout_7b.pdf

[Johnson 2000] Johnson, D: Advanced structural mechanics: an introduction to continuum mechanics and structural mechanics. London : T. Telford, 2000. ISBN 0727728601

9780727728609

[Kumar 1989] Kumar, Pravin: Large deflection elastic-plastic analysis of cylindrical shells

using the finite strip method. The University of British Columbia, 1989

[Novozhilov 1959]

Noordhoff, 1959

[Orton 2013] Orton, Andrew: The Way We Build Now: Form, Scale and Technique. Taylor

& Francis, Juni 2013. ISBN 9781136737091

[Ramaswamy 1984] Ramaswamy, G. S.: Design and construction of concrete shell roofs.

R.E. Krieger, Oktober 1984. ISBN 9780898740011

[Ramm und Wall 2004] Ramm, Ekkehard; Wall, Wolfgang A.: Shell structuresa sensitive

interrelation between physics and numerics. In: International journal for numerical methods

in engineering 60 (2004), Nr. 1, S. 381427. URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1002/nme.967/abstract. Zugriffsdatum: 2014-10-13

[Ramos und Hoogenboom 2013] Ramos, Nathalie; Hoogenboom, P. C. J.: Concentrated

loads on anticlastic shells. In: Delft university of technology (2013). URL http://

homepage.tudelft.nl/p3r3s/BSc_projects/eindrapport_ramos.pdf. Zugriffsdatum:

2014-10-02

[Rice 1998] Rice, Peter: An Engineer Imagines. New edition edition. London : Ellipsis

London Pr Ltd, September 1998. ISBN 9781899858118

[Robbin 1996] Robbin, Mr T.: Engineering a New Architecture. 1ST edition. New Haven :

Yale University Press, April 1996. ISBN 9780300061161

[Schittich 2007] Schittich, Christian: Glass Construction Manual. 2nd, revised and expanded

ed. edition. Basel; London : Birkhuser Architecture, Juni 2007. ISBN 9783764382902

[Veer u. a. 2003]

Veer, F. A.; Wurm, J.; Hobbelman, G. J.: The Design, Construction and Validation of a Structural Glass Dome. In: Proceedings of Glass Processing

Projecten/Glass/Persons/doc/VEER_2003Glassdome.pdf. Zugriffsdatum: 2014-10-14,

2003, S. 1518

[Weller und Tasche 2014] Weller, Bernhard; Tasche, Silke: Glasbau 2014. John Wiley &

Sons, April 2014. ISBN 9783433030714

[Wester 1997] Wester, Ture: Innovative morphological design of glass plate structures. In:

Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World: Proceedings of the 1996 ACSA

European Conference, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, May 25-29, 1996, Copenhagen,

Denmark, The Association, 1997

[Zingoni 1997] Zingoni, Alphose: Shell Structures in Civil and Mechanical Engineering:

Theory and Closed-form Analytical Solutions. Thomas Telford, Januar 1997. ISBN

9780727725745

- Design-Examples-1-2-of-Circular-Silo(1).pdfUploaded byAnicet Vincent
- Book-11_FMUploaded byLê Ngọc-Hà
- Stability Analysis of Single and Double Steel Girders During ConsUploaded byHung Pham
- steel design parameters used in staadUploaded byGuessss..........!!!!!
- Design of Burried Pipe Design.pdfUploaded byVardhan
- Problem 1 001Uploaded byherix4444
- LRFD Steel DesignUploaded byAgustín Yáñez Quezada
- Promotion of Plastic Design for Steel and Composite Cross SectionsUploaded byAnonymous lEBdswQXmx
- Problem 1-001.pdfUploaded byLuis Lopez
- Thermal BendingUploaded byApichai Sukhtipyaroge
- A Continuum Constitutive Model for the MechanicalUploaded byRenato Vargas
- Design of Lifting Beams.pdfUploaded byAnonymous x9STa9
- L1 Course Introl1Uploaded bygopalbarathi
- 19970022623_1997032389Uploaded bySagar Kulkarni
- Final Thesis Completed NewUploaded byRaj Deep Tiwari
- FrontUploaded byAlessandro Signori
- GrooveUploaded bymapasabc
- Plates and Shells_Chapter_Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering_2010Uploaded byHemanth Rao
- Bending and Extension of Thin PlatesUploaded byParth Chopra
- An Efficient and Simple Refined Theory for Bending and VibrationUploaded byBoonme Chinnaboon
- ArticlePorto.pdfUploaded byAlfredo Ramirez Monares
- tutorial 2 2.pdfUploaded byAvish Gunnuck
- Al_sadder_2004_exact Secant Stiffness Matrix for NonprismaticUploaded byJuan Carlos Mosquera
- Experimental Research on Locally Pressed Patch LoadingUploaded byOskar Rojas Bedoya
- Expositions on the Variation of Torsional-Distortional Stresses and Deformations in Box Girder BridgesUploaded byIJERD
- STEEL STRUploaded bymrinal bhaumik
- CadUploaded byArjun Orcs
- Uplift With Large Moment ExampleUploaded byCY Lee
- Questions AmosUploaded byAshok Pradhan
- column_buckling.pdfUploaded by700spymaster007

- Soyuz Users Manual CSG June06Uploaded byPAULAMAS
- Zytel 70G50HSLA BK039B.pdfUploaded byCarlos Américo
- 2542x_05.pdfUploaded byCarlos Américo
- The Standard Desrete SystemUploaded bysmanoj354
- Zytel 70G50HSLA BK039BUploaded byCarlos Américo
- Explicit Dynamics With LS-DYNAUploaded byCarlos Américo
- Nijsse Jeff 201211 MASC ThesisUploaded byCarlos Américo
- 01Uploaded byJason Chiang
- Advanced Liquid Oxygen (LO2) Propellant Conditioning Concept TestingUploaded byCarlos Américo
- Hydrogen_Safety_871916Uploaded byBustaDrives
- Rocket Motors, Hybrid.pdfUploaded byCarlos Américo
- 115.pdfUploaded byCarlos Américo
- Hydrogen PeroxideUploaded byCarlos Américo
- AIAA-2005-4455 Hydrogen Peroxide Catalyst Beds Are Ligher Than Liquid InjectorsUploaded byCarlos Américo
- answerUploaded byCarlos Vega
- AM-Intro 13.0 L03 Global Mesh SettingsUploaded byCarlos Américo
- Cold Forging Using FEM SimulationUploaded byCarlos Américo
- Precision Forging - Tool Concepts and Process DesginUploaded byCarlos Américo
- LS-DYNA 971 R4 Manual K-beta-June2009Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- A 285Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- A 240Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- A 234Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- A 216Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- A 020Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- ASTM G 23Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- ASTM A 975Uploaded byCarlos Américo
- Caea Ansys Ls-dyna Customization ActUploaded bysgssgs1

- A Pcr Da BuildingUploaded byAnonymous 4g5grv33DZ
- TCR Operation and PartsUploaded byKito Canada
- B482-85 (Reapproved 2013).pdfUploaded bySyed Fadzil Syed Mohamed
- Section_IX_Customer_Details_and_Specification.pdfUploaded bymrtabieh
- Digital Media - SMM Panel IndonesiaUploaded byRina Auliya
- 34-SAMSS-118.pdfUploaded byCherukunnon Jubu
- Lex - A Lexical Analyzer GeneratorUploaded byВіталій Цибуляк
- 英文期刊摘要與導言實例解析Uploaded byJager Chen
- Aero CompaniesUploaded byBandaru Swetha
- CBI2410A_2.pdfUploaded bydinhvu
- 19890004111_1989004111Uploaded bymocon2008
- Ash Taka Varga Part 40 rUploaded byArjunvanneri Ashok
- Design and Construction of Bridge Embankment Using R.E. Wall PanelsUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Sipho Monze ProjectUploaded bygmwewa
- M.C. Escher - V4i2r17Uploaded bylightgreen26
- Airco inside engine comp.RHD aaamc29.pdfUploaded bynazar750
- total-polystyrene-compounds-gradesUploaded bycebez
- Dictionar de Teosofie Esoterism Metafizica MasonerieUploaded bynicolauscopernic
- ertosUploaded bysachinsomanna
- Lro Calendar 2011 - NasaUploaded bygiorpas
- Introduction to Drone MappingUploaded byRhea Celzo
- IT SS09D WL - White LightUploaded byIntellisystem Technologies
- 2013 - Tupinamba & Yao - Hegel, Lacan, ZizekUploaded byPedro Sobrino Laureano
- vigenèreUploaded bySebastian Sierra Loaiza
- Cognitive neuroscience of creativityUploaded byBliss Tamar Loladze
- Aircraft Flight SimulationUploaded byapi-78034634
- decc_nsycrnUploaded bykazishah
- La Visita Erudita Dell'Insigne Basilica Della Certosa Di Pavia (1817)Uploaded byferraghost
- PC BASICSUploaded byBritto Ebrington Ajay
- Theorizing DisasterUploaded byLucas Belmino Freitas