You are on page 1of 106

Analysis of segmented

shell structures

submitted by
Sushant Goel
in
November, 2014

Master
thesis

Analysis of segmented shell structures

by

Sushant Goel

May, 2014 to November, 2014


under the supervision of

MSc. Anne-Kathrin Schuble, IBB


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.

Stuttgart, November 5, 2014

Institut fr Baustatik
und Baudynamik
Baustatik und Baudynamik

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. M. Bischoff

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.

segmented glass shells in architecture (images: T. Fildhuth, ITKE)

In particular, the following tasks ought to be performed:


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:

Dipl.-Ing. Thiemo Fildhuth, ITKE and MSc. Anne-Kathrin Schuble, IBB

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.

Stuttgart, in November, 2014

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. Boundary conditions and model verification


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. Results for segmented dome


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. Bending moment . . . . . . . .


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. Results for segmented barrel


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. Conclusions and recommendations


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

Appendix A. MAPDL script for method 1

81

Appendix B. Grasshopper script for hexalock pattern

83

Appendix C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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.

Figure 1.1.: Channelling of loads to the ground

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.

The Pantheon, Rome, Italy

Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence, Italy

Figure 1.2.: Domes of historic importance (Florence, 2008), (Pantheon, 2013)

Orvieto Hangars, Terni, Umbria, Italy


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.

1.3. Form and material: Glass shell

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)

1.3. Form and material: Glass shell


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.

1.3.1. Glass on steel grid


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.

1.3.2. Glass bonding


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).

1.3. Form and material: Glass shell

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 1.5.: Possible joint types in a glass shell

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

Meeting point of glass segments

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).

Figure 1.8.: Frameless glass dome, ILEK, Stuttgart, Germany

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

Figure 1.9.: Examples of pattern in nature (Dsktpbckgrnd, 2013), (Blogspot, 2011)

Electron microscope image of sea urchin shell

Spider web

Figure 1.10.: More patterns in nature (Robbin, 1996)

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).

1.4.2. Patterns in built environment


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).

1.5. Thesis objectives

Osaka Maritime Museum, Japan (Dallard u. a.,


2001)

Museum of Hamburg History, Germany (SBP)

Eden Project, Cornwall, UK (ArchHello)


Schubert Club Band Shell, Minnesota, USA (SBP)

Figure 1.11.: Examples of patterns in built environment

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?

1.5. Thesis objectives


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?

1.6. Thesis outline

How do the membrane forces vary for different patterns?


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?

1.6. Thesis outline


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).

2.2. Shell classification

2.2. Shell classification


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

Table 2.1.: Gaussian curvature

2.3. Evolution of shell formulations


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

2.4. Membrane momentless theory

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

Figure 2.1.: Evolution of shell formulations

2.4. Membrane momentless theory


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.

2.5. Structural behaviour


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

11

2.5. Structural behaviour

2.5.1. Spherical dome


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.

Figure 2.2.: Robert Hookes anagram (Adriaenssens u. a., 2014)

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

2.5.2. Cylindrical roof


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

2.5. Structural behaviour

Longitudinal beams
Transverse arches

Figure 2.4.: Barrel

a behaviour similar to that of a beam which is curved in cross-section. Being a developable


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

Table 2.2.: Classification of barrels

2.5.3. Hypar

Cable
Arch

Cable tension

Shear
Arch thrust

Figure 2.5.: Hypar

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

2.6. Linear stability analysis

2.6. Linear stability analysis


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.

3.1. Shell dimension


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.

Figure 3.1.: Dimensions of built glass domes (Belis u. a., 2007)

Number

Year

Design and concept

Location

1998

University of Stuttgart, Seele GmbH and Co. KG

Duesseldorf

2002

Delft University of Technology

Delft

2003

ILEK, University of Stuttgart

Stuttgart

2006

Richard Rogers Partnership, ABAA

Barcelona

Table 3.1.: Examples of glass dome projects (Belis u. a., 2007)

15

3.2. Modelling

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

3.2.1. Method 1: Only MAPDL


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

Figure 3.2.: Smooth shell surface in relation to Cartesian coordinate system

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

3.3. Discussion on modelling methods

Figure 3.3.: Synclastic, anticlastic and developable surfaces in MAPDL

3.2.2. Method 2: Rhinoceros and Grasshopper


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:

Construct pattern lines on plane surface.


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

The Grasshopper script used for steps 5 to 7 is shown in Figure 3.4.

3.2.3. Method 3: Only Rhinoceros


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.

3.2.4. Method 4: Rhinoceros and ANSYS DesignModeler


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.

3.3. Discussion on modelling methods


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

3.4. Monolithic shell construction

Figure 3.4.: Grasshopper visual script with output in yellow box

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. Monolithic shell construction


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

3.4. Monolithic shell construction

2m

7.25 m

10 m
43.6

Figure 3.5.: Dome geometry

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

3.5. Segmentation of monolithic shell

2m

10 m

10 m
Figure 3.7.: Hypar geometry

3.5. Segmentation of monolithic shell


1.5 m

1.5 m

0.23 m
0.2 m
0.93 m
SQUARE

DIAMOND

HEXAGON

0.93 m
HEXALOCK

Figure 3.8.: Repeating glass unit of each pattern

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

3.5. Segmentation of monolithic shell

SQUARE

DIAMOND

HEXAGON

HEXALOCK

20 mm

20 mm

PIE
Figure 3.9.: Patterns used for segmentation

3.5.2. Model accuracy


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

3.5. Segmentation of monolithic shell

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.

Figure 3.10.: Unequal size panes due to vertical projection

20.11 mm

1502 mm
1541 mm
1679 mm

21.06 mm

Figure 3.11.: Size deviation in glass panes and adhesive joints

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

Figure 3.12.: Segmented domes

22

3.5. Segmentation of monolithic shell

Figure 3.13.: Segmented barrels

Figure 3.14.: Segmented hypars

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.

4.1. Material properties and loads


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 ]

Youngs modulus E [MPa]

Poissons ratio

Shear modulus G [MPa]

Glass
Epoxy
Silicone

2500
1100
1100

70000
1500
10

0.23
0.35
0.46

28455
556
3.4

Table 4.1.: Glass and adhesive material properties

24

4.2. Shell finite elements

4.2. Shell finite elements


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

4.2.1. Membrane shell element


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).

4.2.2. Kirchhoff-Love shell element


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.

4.2.3. Reissner-Mindlin shell element


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

4.3. Element properties

SY
SX

SX(TOP)
SX(MID)
SX(BOT)

3-LEVEL SURFACE OUTPUT

FOUR CORNER NODES

2-direction
Q13
M11

3-direction
M12

N11
M11-axis

Q23
M22

N12

M21

M22-axis

1-direction

N12

N22

STRESS RESULTANTS

Figure 4.1.: SHELL181 element technology (ANSYS, 2009)

4.3. Element properties


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

4.3. Element properties

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

Hoop stress at dome edge (MPa)

-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)

Figure 4.3.: Hoop stress convergence at bottom of spherical dome

4.3.2. Element coordinate systems


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

4.4. MAPDL script

70000
60795

Number of elements

60000
50000
39646

40000
30000
18871

20000
10926
10000

3205

5347

0
200

150

100

75

50

40

Element size (mm)

Figure 4.4.: Total number of elements in FE model

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.

Spherical coordinate system

Cylindrical

Cartesian

Figure 4.5.: Element local directions and coordinate systems

4.4. MAPDL script


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.

5.1. Extensional deformations

Extensional deformation

Inextensional deformation

Figure 5.1.: Deformations in a small spherical cap (Hoogenboom)

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

5.2. Shell boundary layer

to supporting the cap edge with vertical supports. This clearly shows that the boundary
conditions influence the deformation behaviour of shell.

5.2. Shell boundary layer


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. Boundary conditions


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. Boundary conditions

Figure 5.3.: Boundary conditions for segmented dome

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

Figure 5.4.: Support options tested for barrel traverses

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

5.3. Boundary conditions

Simple support

Circumferential support

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

Simple support

Circumferential support

Figure 5.6.: Bending moments in transverse direction [in Nmm/mm]

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

5.3. Boundary conditions

Simple support

Circumferential support

Figure 5.7.: Bending moments in longitudinal direction [in Nmm/mm]

Figure 5.8.: Boundary conditions for segmented barrel

deformations and unsymmetrical behaviour. Therefore, two more vertical hinge supports were
added at the lower corners, see Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9.: Boundary conditions for segmented hypar

33

5.4. FE model verification

5.4. FE model verification


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

5.4.1. Effect of discretization


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.

Dome with square pattern

Dome with pie pattern

Dome with hexagon pattern

Dome with hexalock pattern

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

34

5.4. FE model verification

Barrel with square pattern

Barrel with diamond pattern

Barrel with hexagon pattern

Barrel with hexalock pattern

Hypar with square pattern

Hypar with diamond pattern

Hypar with hexagon pattern

Hypar with hexalock pattern

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

35

5.4. FE model verification

5.4.2. Membrane stress verification


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 = 25000 109 7250(


11t = 0.0906MPa
11b = R(

1
cos )
1 + cos

11b = 25000 109 7250(


11b = 0.0261MPa

Figure 5.12.: Hoop membrane stress (11 ) in monolithic glass dome

36

5.4. FE model verification

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

5.4. FE model verification

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

5.4.3. Linear buckling verification


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

5.4. FE model verification

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

6.1. Vertical deflection

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.

6.1. Vertical deflection


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. In-plane forces


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.

6.2.2. Hoop direction, N1


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

6.3. Bending moment

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

Epoxy joint (Figure 6.12)


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. Bending moment


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.

6.3.2. Hoop direction, M1


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

42

6.4. Transverse shear forces

Hexagon

Pie

Figure 6.3.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Contour plot of meridional bending moment,
M2

Silicone joint (Figure 6.15)


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

6.4. Transverse shear forces


Hexagon and hexalock patterns showed comparatively higher values. Therefore, they were
removed from the graph to have an effective comparison of other patterns.

43

6.4. Transverse shear forces

6.4.1. Meridian direction, Q23


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

6.4.2. Hoop direction, Q13


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

6.4. Transverse shear forces

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

Meridian length (mm)

Figure 6.7.: Segmented dome with silicone joints: Deflection values

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

Meridian length (mm)

Figure 6.8.: Segmented dome with epoxy joints: Deflection values

45

10000

11000

6.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

3
2.5

n22 , Meridian force per unit length (N/mm)

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

Meridian length (mm)

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

-0.2

n22 , Meridian force per unit length (N/mm)

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Meridian length (mm)

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

46

11000

6.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

-0.3
-0.4

n11 , Hoop force per unit length (N/mm)

-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

Hoop length (mm)

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

-0.45

n11 , Hoop force per unit length (N/mm)

-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

Hoop length (mm)

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

47

20000

6.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

m22 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

-1

-2

-3

-4
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Meridian length (mm)

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

0.3

m22 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Meridian length (mm)

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

48

11000

6.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Glass

Hexagon

Pie

Hexalock

2.5

m11 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

1.5

0.5

-0.5

-1
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Hoop length (mm)

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

0.3

m11 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Hoop length (mm)

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

49

20000

6.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Glass

Pie

0.0025

q23 , Transverse shear force per unit length (N/mm)

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

Meridian length (mm)

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

0.0004

q13 , Transverse shear force per unit length (N/mm)

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

-0.0001

-0.0002

-0.0003

-0.0004

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Hoop length (mm)

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

50

20000

6.5. Linear buckling

6.5. Linear buckling

Figure 6.19.: Monolithic glass dome: BLF = 277.2

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

6.5. Linear buckling

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. Vertical deflection

7.1. Vertical deflection


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.

7.1.2. Transverse path


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. In-plane forces


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

7.3. Bending moment

Silicone joints

Epoxy joints

Figure 7.2.: Diamond pattern barrel: Longitudinal in-plane force, N2

7.2.2. Transverse direction, N1


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. Bending moment


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

7.3. Bending moment

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

7.3.2. Transverse direction, M1


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

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Diamond

Hexalock

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

7.4. Transverse shear forces


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

7.4. Transverse shear forces

7.4.2. Transverse direction, Q13


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

7.4. Transverse shear forces

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

Longitudinal length (mm)

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

Longitudinal length (mm)

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

59

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

20

15

Deflection (mm)

10

-5

-10

-15

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Transverse length (mm)

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

Transverse length (mm)

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

60

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Monolithic

Square

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

0.5

n22 , Longitudinal force per unit length (N/mm)

0
-0.5

-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Longitudinal length (mm)

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

n22 , Longitudinal force per unit length (N/mm)

-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

Longitudinal length (mm)

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

61

10000

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

n11 , Transverse force per unit length (N/mm)

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Transverse length (mm)

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

n11 , Transverse force per unit length (N/mm)

-1

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6

-1.8

-2
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Transverse length (mm)

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

62

11000

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Monolithic

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

m22 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Longitudinal length (mm)

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

0.6

m22 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Longitudinal length (mm)

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

63

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Monolithic

Hexagon

Diamond

Hexalock

10

m11 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Transverse length (mm)

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

m11 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Transverse length (mm)

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

64

11000

7.4. Transverse shear forces

Monolithic

Square

Hexagon

Diamond

q23 , Transverse shear force per unit length (N/mm)

0.006

0.004

0.002

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Longitudinal length (mm)

Figure 7.20.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse shear force along longitudinal path,
Q23

0.009

q13 , Transverse shear force per unit length (N/mm)

0.006

0.003

-0.003

-0.006

-0.009

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Transverse length (mm)

Figure 7.21.: Segmented barrel with epoxy joints: Transverse shear force along transverse path,
Q13

65

7.5. Linear buckling

7.5. Linear buckling

Figure 7.22.: Monolithic glass barrel: BLF = 8.62

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

7.5. Linear buckling

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

8.1. Vertical deflection

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.

8.1. Vertical deflection


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

Figure 8.2.: Segmented hypar with silicone joints: Vertical deflection

Epoxy joint (Figure 8.5)


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.

8.2. In-plane shear force, N12


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

8.3. Bending moment

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.

8.3. Bending moment


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

Epoxy joint (Figure 8.9)


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.

8.4. Transverse shear forces


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

8.4. Transverse shear forces

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

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

Figure 8.4.: Segmented hypar with silicone joints: Deflection values

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

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

Figure 8.5.: Segmented hypar with epoxy joints: Deflection values

71

8.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

10

n11 , In-plane force per unit length (N/mm)

-2
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

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

5.5

n11 , In-plane force per unit length (N/mm)

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

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

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

72

14000

8.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Monolithic

Diamond

Hexagon

Hexalock

10

m11 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

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

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

Figure 8.8.: Segmented hypar with silicone joints: Bending moments

m11 , Bending moment per unit length (Nmm/mm)

-2

-4
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

Figure 8.9.: Segmented hypar with epoxy joints: Bending moments

73

8.4. Transverse shear forces

Square

Glass

Diamond

0.0006

q13 , Transverse shear force per unit length (N/mm)

0.0004

0.0002

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000 11000 12000 13000 14000

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

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

0.0006

q13 , Transverse shear force per unit length (N/mm)

0.0004

0.0002

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006

-0.0008
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000 11000 12000 13000 14000

Length of path between upper ends (mm)

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

74

8.5. Linear buckling

8.5. Linear buckling

Figure 8.12.: Monolithic glass hypar: BLF = 3.33

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

8.5. Linear buckling

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.

Table 9.1.: Optimal dome segmentation: Deflection

77

9.2. Barrel

In-plane force (N/mm)

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

Table 9.2.: Optimal dome segmentation: In-plane forces


Bending moment
(Nmm/mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Moment
increase
Pattern
factor
are independent

Moment
increase
factorwhen
stiffness

Epoxy

The meridian and hoop in-plane forces


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

Table 9.4.: Optimal barrel segmentation: Deflection

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

In-plane force (N/mm)

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

Table 9.6.: Optimal barrel segmentation: Bending moments

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

Path b/w upper corners

-0.725

-9.83

13.6

Hexalock

-0.97

1.3

Diamond

In-plane force (N/mm)

Monolithic

Force segmentation: Deflection Force


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

Path b/w upper corners


Deflection (mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Path
b/w force
upper(N/mm)
corners
In-plane

-0.725
Monolithic

-9.83
Silicone

Path b/w upper corners


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

Table 9.8.: Optimal


3.55
4.04
Monolithic
Silicone
5.94

6.58

Path
b/w upper
corners
Bending
moment
(Nmm/mm)

Monolithic

Silicone

Path b/w upper corners

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

Table 9.9.: Optimal hypar segmentation: Bending moments

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

k11 = 1/7250 ! 1/mm curvature in the x - MPDATA,EX,1E


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

MPTEMP ! material : isotropic

z3=0.5*k22*y*y

81

A. MAPDL script for method 1

z=z1+z2+z3

z=z1+z2+z3

Nx,y,z,

Nx,y,z,

*ENDDO

*ENDDO !upto here, script plots all the


nodes

*DO,i,0,nx

SHPP,OFF ! no warnings aspect ratio


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

E,k3,k3+2,k1+2,k1 !Element creation

z3=0.5*k22*y*y

*ENDDO

z=z1+z2+z3

*ENDDO

Nx,y,z,

*DO,i,1,2*nx+1,2 !Boundary conditions

*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

ASEL,S,P !select areas

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

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

NROTAT,ALL

FINISH

FINISH

/POST1

/SOLU

RSYS,12

ALLSEL
ANTYPE,STATIC

ETABLE,N11,SMISC,1
(per unit length)

PSTRES,ON

ETABLE,N22,SMISC,2

NSEL,S,P!graphical pick of all supports

ETABLE,N12,SMISC,3

!In-plane

forces

D,ALL,UZ,0!tangential supports/ primary ETABLE,M11,SMISC,4 !Out-of-plane moments (per unit length)


shell supports
ALLSEL

ETABLE,M22,SMISC,5

NSEL,S,P !3 additional to avoid RBM

ETABLE,M12,SMISC,6

D,ALL,UY,0

ETABLE,Q13,SMISC,7 !Transverse shear


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

ETABLE,Sb11,SMISC,37 !Bending stresses

/PLOPTS,FRAME,1

ETABLE,Sb22,SMISC,38

/PLOPTS,TITLE,0

ETABLE,Sb12,SMISC,39

/PLOPTS,MINM,1

!ETABLE,Sp11b,SMISC,40 !Peak stresses


(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

!ETABLE,Sp11t,SMISC,43 !Peak stresses


(shell top)

/TRIAD,OFF

!ETABLE,Sp22t,SMISC,44

ALLSEL

!ETABLE,Sp12t,SMISC,45

ACEL,9810

ETABLE,St13,SMISC,46 !Averaged transverse shear stresses

SOLVE

85

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

PATH,Syn1,2,30,2000, !horizontal path

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

PATH,Syn2,2,30,2000, !vertical path

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

!elm 1 direction- theta (hoop)

PPATH,1,0,0,5000,5250

!elm 2 direction- phi (meridian)

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

!elm 3 direction- radial outward

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

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

Synpath1 !PATH MACRO FILENAME

/FORMAT,17,9

PATH,Syn2

Synpath2 !PATH MACRO FILENAME

AVPRIN,0, ,

PATH,Syn3

RSYS,12

AVPRIN,0, ,

PDEF, ,ETAB,N11,NOAVG

RSYS,12

87

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

Synpath3 !PATH MACRO FILENAME

/FORMAT,17,9

PATH,Syn4

!PRANGE0,4000

AVPRIN,0, ,

Synpath4 !PATH MACRO FILENAME

88

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

PASAVE,ALL,SynpathsPASAVE

PLESOL, S,3, 0,1.0

/POST1

PLESOL, S,EQV, 0,1.0

/UIS, MSGPOP,3

!elm 1 direction- theta (hoop)

/VIEW,1,1

!elm 2 direction- phi (meridian)

/AUTO,1

!elm 3 direction- radial outward

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

RSYS,12

/RGB,INDEX, 80, 80, 80,13

PLETAB,N11,NOAV

/RGB,INDEX, 60, 60, 60,14

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

!M11 is moment about 2-axis

/SHOW,PNG0

!M11 is Mtheta (moment about meridian(2) axis)

PNGR,COMP,1,-1
PNGR,ORIENT,HORIZ

!M22 is Mphi (moment about hoop(1) axis)

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

PLESOL, S,1, 0,1.0

PLNSOL,U,X

PLESOL, S,2, 0,1.0

PLNSOL,U,Y

89

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

PLESOL, S,1, 0,1.0

ALLSEL

PLESOL, S,2, 0,1.0

/TRIAD,ORIG

PLESOL, S,3, 0,1.0

/REPLOT

PLESOL, S,EQV, 0,1.0

/VIEW,1-1

RSYS,12

/ANG,1

PLETAB,N11,NOAV

/USER, 1

PLETAB,Sm11,NOAV

/FOC, 1, -43.3231503417 , -0.187541495507E03, 4684.16478390

PLETAB,N22,NOAV

/FOC, 1, -37.1341141515 , -0.187541495507E03, 4411.84719153

PLETAB,Sm22,NOAV
PLETAB,N12,NOAV

/FOC, 1, -37.1341141515 , -0.187541495507E03, 4096.20634583

PLETAB,Sm12,NOAV
PLETAB,M11,NOAV
PLETAB,Sb11,NOAV

/FOC, 1, -43.3231503417 , -0.187541495507E03, 3960.04754965

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

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

MXPAND,50,0,0,0,0.001, !50 modes will be


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

/RGB,INDEX, 80, 80, 80,13

/VIEW,1,1

/RGB,INDEX, 60, 60, 60,14

92

!50

C. MAPDL script used for FE analyses

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

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

/GRAPHICS,POWER

SET, , ,I

/SHADE,ALL,2

PLNSOL, U,Z, 0,1.0

/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

PLNSOL, U,Z, 0,1.0

/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]

ANSYS Element Reference Release 12.1. ANSYS, Inc., November 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]

Flgge, Wilhelm: Stresses in shells. Springer-Verlag, 1962

[Hoogenboom ] Hoogenboom, P.C.J.: CIE4143 Shell Analysis, Theory and Application.


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

Novozhilov, V. V.: The theory of thin shells. First Edition edition. P.

[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

Days, URL http://www.glass.bk.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Faculteit/BK/Onderzoek/


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