Buckling of Shallow Spherical Concrete Domes under

Gravity and Earthquake Loads

Mehdi S. Zarghamee, Ph.D., F.ASCE 1; and Andrew T. Sarawit, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: Buckling analysis of spherical concrete domes constructed over prestressed concrete tanks subjected to gravity and earthquake
load combinations is complex due to the sensitivity of spherical dome buckling to geometric imperfection, the effect of creep and shrinkage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on amplifying the deflection of the dome (increasing the radius of curvature of the deformed dome and reducing the buckling resistance), and
the geometric and material nonlinearity of the concrete dome. Study of imperfections has shown that imperfections that increase the average
radius of curvature in an area the size of an elastic buckle have the highest impact in reducing buckling strength; thus, the problem of buckling
of the concrete dome is reducible to the snap-through buckling of a shallow cap equal in size to an elastic buckle of the dome. In this paper, the
buckling of a shallow cap subjected to gravity and seismic load combinations is determined using nonlinear geometry, material nonlinearity of
concrete (accounting for softening and cracking in tension and microcracking and crushing in compression), and time-dependent creep and
shrinkage of concrete. The analysis is performed in three steps: in the first step, the cap is analyzed for gravity loads; in the second step, the
cap is analyzed for the effects of creep and shrinkage strains; and in the third step, the earthquake load is applied until the snap-through
buckling occurs. The analysis was carried out on a set of domes designed for gravity load combinations alone. These domes cover the
extremes of size and rise of the domes that are currently constructed over prestressed concrete tanks. The results show that the majority
of existing domes that are not in high-seismicity zones and are designed for gravity load combinations have capacity for earthquake loading.
The results are also of value in the design of new domes for load combinations that include earthquake loading. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0002595. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Buckling; Concrete; Creep; Imperfection; Earthquake; Nonlinear analysis; Spherical domes.

Introduction
Spherical concrete domes are used as covers over prestressed
concrete tanks. They are typically cast in place or precast using dou-
bly curved panels. These domes range in diameter up to 91.4 m
(300 ft), with a rise-to-diameter ratio from 1∶8 to 1∶16 with 1∶10
being typical, and in thickness from a minimum of 76 mm (3 in.)
to about 508 mm (20 in.). The thickness of these domes increases
near the base of the dome, where the dome ends in a ring beam that is
prestressed (Fig. 1). The prestress of the ring beam is designed to
produce a radial force equal to the horizontal component of the
meridional membrane stress resultant at the edge of the dome when
the dome is subjected to dead load. These domes are lightly rein-
forced with not less than 0.25% of the concrete cross section in both
circumferential and meridional directions; the reinforcement is
placed at the middepth of the dome wall. Additional reinforcement
exists in the thickened part of the dome near the base.
The spherical domes are currently designed against buckling by
selecting the thickness of the dome of a given geometry, D and H,
for gravity loads alone, i.e., dead and live or snow loads, consid-
ering both imperfection and creep effects, both of which influence
the state of stress in the dome. In addition to design against
1
Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 480 Totten Pond
Rd., Waltham, MA 02451. Email: mszarghamee@sgh.com
2
Senior Project Manager, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 480 Totten
Pond Rd., Waltham, MA 02451 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-4411-6956. Email: atsarawit@sgh.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 24, 2018; approved
on October 7, 2019; published online on February 22, 2020. Discussion
period open until July 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
buckling, the design criteria include the ACI 318 (ACI 2014) re-
quirements for stress limits in shear and bending in the edge region
of the dome. (The design of the domes includes a prestressed ring
beam with enough prestressing to counteract the horizontal com-
ponent of the meridional membrane stress resultant and a taper in
the thickness of the dome in the edge zone to handle the remaining
shear and bending in the dome.) Load combinations that include
earthquake have often been ignored or have been considered with-
out the ability to predict the ultimate capacity of the dome account-
ing for material nonlinearity (including cracking, compression
nonlinearity, and crushing of concrete) and the significant changes
in stress distribution in the dome that result from time-dependent
shrinkage and creep deformations.
In this paper, the initial designs selected meet all design criteria
when subjected to load combinations that do not include earth-
quake. The paper’s focus is placed on predicting the ultimate
strength of the dome when subjected to the design earthquake load-
ing after time-dependent effects of creep and shrinkage under the
gravity loads of the design load combinations that include earth-
quake. Although an earthquake can occur at any time during the
service life of the structure, in this paper, the earthquake load is
conservatively applied after allowing the dome to undergo creep
and shrinkage deformations that tend to reduce the curvature and
increase the stresses in the dome.
The buckling strength of spherical domes is very sensitive to
imperfections, and the strength of the dome cannot be evaluated
without consideration of imperfections that are likely to occur in
construction. Hutchinson and Koiter (1970) published a review of
extensive research performed on buckling of spherical shells with
imperfections. Huang (1964) performed a geometrically nonlinear
analytical study of symmetric and asymmetric elastic buckling of
thin shallow spherical shells. The results of snap-through buckling

© ASCE 04020053-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Schematic of a section through a cast-in-place concrete dome,
the prestressed edge ring, and the prestressed concrete tank.
Fig. 2. Geometry of critical imperfection.
analysis of shallow spherical shells were expressed as the ratio of
their critical buckling pressure to the classical linear elastic buck-
lingppressure as a function of a shallowness parameter λ ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
α · 4 12ð1 − ν 2 Þ Ro =t, where Ro is the nominal radius of curva-
ture of spherical dome, ν is the Poisson’s ratio of the material, t is
dome thickness, and α is one-half of the subtended angle of im-
perfection area (Fig. 2). The shallowness parameter can also be
expressedpinffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
terms of rise, H, and thickness, t, of the shallow shell
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
as λ ¼ 2 4 3ð1 − ν 2 Þ H=t by substituting for Ro the expression
Ro ¼ H=ð1 − cos αÞ ≈ Hðα2 =2Þ.
The classical buckling pressure is defined as pclassic ¼
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
½2= 3ð1 − ν 2 ÞEc ðt=Ro Þ2 , where Ec is modulus of elasticity of
concrete. Huang (1964) performed calculations for the axisymmet-
ric mode of buckling and asymmetric modes with n circumferential
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053
Fig. 3. Nonlinear elastic buckling pressure of shallow spherical cap
without consideration of such long-term effects as fraction of classical
elastic buckling pressure and experimental results versus shallowness
parameter λ. [Republished with permission of American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, from “Unsymmetrical buckling of thin shallow
spherical shells,” N.-C. Huang, 31 (3), 1964; permission conveyed
through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.]
waves with n ¼ 1, 2, 3, : : : Fig. 3 shows the results obtained by
Huang, showing the minimum predicted critical pressure, pcr ¼
0.66Ec ðt=Ro Þ2 for λ ¼ 4, with a corresponding diameter of the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
shallow shell of d ¼ 4.3 Ro t. Asymmetric buckling governs the
strength of the shallow shell with λ ≥ 5.5. The experimental test
results shown in Fig. 3 indicate that the critical buckling pres-
sures are less than the theoretical results by as much as 50% for
shells with shallowness parameters in the neighborhood of λ ¼ 4.
This difference is most likely due to unavoidable imperfection of
the test specimens. Material nonlinearity can also contribute to the
difference.
The results of many analytical and experimental studies per-
formed on the effect of imperfection on buckling of spherical
domes showed that buckling strength of domes is very sensitive to
certain forms of imperfection and not sensitive to other forms of
imperfection (Hutchinson and Koiter 1970). Imperfections are in
the form of either local departure of geometry from a spherical
shape or local variation in thickness or modulus of elasticity of con-
crete. Imperfections in thickness or modulus of elasticity of con-
crete domes constructed over water tanks are less likely due to
construction procedure and thickness control during construction,
and are thus excluded from discussion of imperfection in this paper
for brevity. Snap-through buckling of shallow shells is sensitive to
geometric imperfections that reduce the curvature of the dome
over an area comparable to the buckle size, corresponding to the
critical buckling pressure. This critical mode shape controls the
nonlinear buckling strength of the imperfect shell. Appendix I
shows that for a concrete dome subjected to horizontal acceleration
and analyzed using nonlinear geometry, buckling occurs at a
minimum pressure corresponding to λ ¼ 4 over a region with
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
d ¼ 4.3 Ro t. As a result, the buckling strength of the dome re-
duces to the snap-through buckling strength of the imperfection
region.
Because the critical buckling load of an imperfect region with
shallowness parameter, λ, equal to 4 provides the lowest critical
buckling pressure, the critical buckling strength of a concrete dome
with imperfection can be conservatively assumed to be initiated by
04020053-2 J. Struct. Eng.
 the snap-through pressure of a shallow shell with λ ¼ 4. In a survey
of the geometries of constructed concrete domes of water tanks re-
ported by Zarghamee and Heger (1983), the largest imperfection
area was due to settlement of a column supporting the formwork
and was found to have an affected area comparable to the buckle for
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
λ ¼ 4 with d ¼ 4.3 Ro t and an average pffiffiffi radius of curvature over
the imperfection region of less than 2Ro . Such an imperfection
results in buckling pressure which is 50% of the predicted critical
pressure, Pcr .
In this paper, a critical imperfection is assumed to exist in the
dome (as shown schematically in Fig. 2) with λ ¼ 4 and an average
pffiffiffi
radius of curvature of 2Ro that would result in an imperfection
factor of 0.5. The snap-through buckling of this imperfection region
initiates and conservatively estimates the buckling strength of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the dome.
For design of spherical concrete domes subjected to the gravity
(dead and live) load combinations, the Zarghamee and Heger
(1983) design approach was based on the assumption that the dome
includes a shallow cap of imperfection with reduced curvature that
can snap through and initiate the buckling process of the dome.
These authors presented a design equation for buckling strength
of the dome subjected to static loading, creep, and imperfection
in the following form:
 2
t and accounts for cracking of concrete in tension and microcracking
ðpcr Þdesign ¼ 0.66Ec ϕβ i β c
Ro
where ðpcr Þdesign = critical buckling pressure for design accounting
for creep of concrete and imperfection; ϕ = resistance factor; β i =
geometric imperfection reduction factor; and β c ¼ 0.44 þ 0.063S
is the creep factor for gravity load combinations per the current
design procedure, where S is snow load (kPa) and β c is limited
to a maximum of 0.53. Based on a survey of constructed domes
with imperfections, strict control of the thickness of domes, the
quality of concrete, and the geometry of the dome, an imperfection
factor of β i ¼ 0.5 was selected for design.
Hamed et al. (2011a, b) performed analytical and experimental
studies of failure behavior of thin-walled shallow unreinforced con-
crete domes, including the long-term effects of creep and shrink-
age. The experimental study was performed on a dome that had a
3 m diameter with a rise of 100 mm (resulting in a radius of cur-
vature of 11.3 m), a nominal thickness of 30 mm, and a concrete
strength of 58 MPa and modulus of elasticity of 31.4 GPa at the
time of loading on the 20th day after casting of the dome. The
actual casting proved to have an imperfection in thickness that var-
ied between 25 mm at the base of the dome and 32 mm at its center.
A short-term test was first conducted (Hamed et al. 2011a), result-
ing in buckling pressure of 85 kPa that was between 33.7% (for
32 mm thickness) and 55.2% (for 25 mm thickness) of Pcr . This
knockdown factor is due to imperfections in the test specimen
(consisting of thickness nonuniformity and curvature imperfections
that are most likely present in most constructed concrete domes).
In addition, two tests were conducted, presumably with the same
imperfection: Dome D1 was subjected to 49% of the short-term
buckling pressure, 42 kPa, and failed after 62 days (Hamed et al.
2011a); Dome D2 was subjected to 43.5% of the short-term buck-
ling pressure, 37.5 kPa, and failed after 240 days (Hamed et al.
2011b). During the testing process, the domes were subjected to
the standard laboratory environment. The analytical model used
by Hamed et al. (2011b) accounted for the creep and shrinkage
using direct measurements taken on samples of concrete, as well
as for changes in the stress state during the creep and shrinkage
process.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053
Research Significance
The purpose of this paper is to study the ultimate buckling strength
of spherical concrete domes subjected to the combinations of grav-
ity loads and earthquake, considering geometric nonlinearity for
buckling instability analysis, geometric imperfection of the con-
structed dome, concrete creep under gravity loads, concrete shrink-
age, and material nonlinearities of concrete (including crushing in
compression and cracking in tension).
The significance of this research is that it provides a procedure
to extend the method developed by Zarghamee and Heger (1983)
for design of concrete domes subjected to gravity loads alone to
domes subjected to gravity and earthquake. Furthermore, this pro-
cedure can be used to evaluate the safety of existing domes sub-
jected to earthquake loading. The scope of the work is limited
to cast-in-place and precast spherical concrete domes with pre-
stressed ring beams constructed on prestressed circular tanks.
Method of Approach
The method of approach for analysis of buckling of spherical
concrete domes subjected to combined effects of gravity and earth-
quake loads accounts for geometric imperfection, time-dependent
creep and shrinkage of concrete, as well as nonlinearity of materials
ð1Þ and crushing of concrete in compression. The analysis is performed
in three steps. In the first step, the cap is analyzed for gravity loads,
in the second step, the cap is analyzed for the effects of creep and
shrinkage strains, and in the third step, the earthquake load is ap-
plied until the snap-through buckling occurs.
Because snap-through buckling of the imperfection region ini-
tiates and conservatively estimates the buckling strength of the
dome, the analysis is performed on a shallow cap of critical size
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffi diameter equal to d ¼ 4.3 Ro t with a radius of curvature of
with
2Ro subjected to long-term gravity loading followed by short-
term earthquake loading. The earthquake loading is consistent with
the requirements of ASCE 7 (ASCE 2016) for combined vertical
and horizontal seismic loading, expressed in the form of maximum
acceleration normal to the plane of the shallow cap of critical size
centered at the point of maximum normal acceleration. The maxi-
mum acceleration represents the combined horizontal and vertical
response spectral acceleration of the spherical cap. Additional dis-
cussion on the horizontal and vertical seismic loading is provided
in Appendix II. The shallow cap acceleration is increased until
snap-through buckling occurs. The analysis is repeated for different
tank diameters, rise-to-diameter ratios, snow loads, and concrete
strength values, including extremes of existing tank designs as well
as some more typical designs.
Analysis
A nonlinear finite-element model is developed for analysis of
snap-through buckling of the shallow cap of the concrete dome.
The finite-element software ABAQUS version 6.14-1 is used to
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
perform the analyses. The shallowpffiffiffi cap has a diameter of 4.3 Ro t,
thickness t, radius of curvature 2Ro , and clamped boundary con-
ditions. The finite-element model is axially symmetric, consisting
of multilayer axisymmetric shell elements, with each layer having
a stress–strain relationship of concrete. This uniaxial stress–strain
relationship of concrete material model is the Darwin and Pecknold
(1974) model, shown in Fig. 4.
The material model is orthotropic to capture both radial- and
hoop-direction material responses. Poisson’s ratio is initially set
04020053-3 J. Struct. Eng.
 30
τ ∈ ½to ; ∞ mapped onto the pseudotime interval [0, 1]. The sub-
routine calls the preceding equation at all element integration points
25 at every analysis increment, and the equation is solved using total
time, size of the time increments, and stress history data, which are

MPa
20 stored and tracked throughout the analysis.
The shrinkage strain is calculated and imposed as a temperature

Stress
15 change, along with creep during each increment of analysis. After
Compression imposing strain increments corresponding to the combined incre-
ment of creep and shrinkage, the new deformed geometry and the
10
stresses in the concrete dome are computed from mechanical
strains, and the total strain is the sum of creep, shrinkage, and
5 mechanical strains. Both creep and shrinkage strains result in addi-
tional deformations that increase the radius of curvature, cracking,
0 and maximum compressive stress in the shell, which in turn result
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006

Strain in an increase in the rate of creep.
Tension
-5 In the third phase, the deformed shallow cap with nonlinear
geometry and material properties is subjected to incrementally
Fig. 4. (Color) Nonlinear stress–strain relationship of concrete in com- increasing external pressure resulting from seismic response accel-
pression and tension for f c0 ¼ 27.6 MPa. eration until the critical buckling pressure corresponding to the
seismic response of the dome alone, pe , is reached. Earthquake
can occur at any time during the service life of the structure. It
is most conservative to apply the earthquake load after the comple-
at 0.13 but is allowed to decrease when softening or cracking
tion of time-dependent deformations from creep and shrinkage
occurs. The model is implemented through ABAQUS as an elastic
because both creep and shrinkage result in increased deformation,
material model with modulus depending on mechanical strain.
reduced curvature, and reduced resistance of the shallow cap to
Neglecting the hysteretic behavior of concrete is justified because
snap-through buckling. The effect of concrete maturity on time-
for the cases studied here, any stress reversal from compression to
dependent concrete properties, i.e., strength and modulus, is con-
tension at the bottom fiber occurs well below fc0 and the concrete
servatively neglected.
plasticity strain range.
To validate the model, the snap-through buckling strength of
The analysis is performed for concrete compressive strengths of
Dome D2 tested by Hamed et al. (2011b) was calculated using
f c0 ¼ 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi) and 37.9 MPa (5,500 psi) with corre-
the aforementioned procedure with both surfaces of the dome sub-
sponding tensile strengths of 2.8 MPa (400 psi) and 3.1 MPa
jected to the 50% relative humidity environment of the laboratory, a
(550 psi), and a stress–strain relationship as shown in Fig. 4. Steel
creep factor and shrinkage strain calculated using the procedure of
reinforcement is conservatively not modeled in this study. Creep
ACI 209, and a modulus of elasticity of concrete of 27.4 GPa
and shrinkage strains are calculated incrementally; the incremental
(4.0 msi) loaded 22 days after casting. This dome has a diameter
calculation accounts for the creep and shrinkage strains from the
D ¼ 3 m, a rise of H ¼ 100 mm (H=D ¼ 1=30), and a thickness
initial loading of the concrete dome as well as the effect on the
that varies along the meridian by the formula provided by Hamed
creep resulting from changes in the concrete stress. The ultimate
et al. (2011b), t ¼ to ½1 − Δt sinðπϕ=2ϕo Þ, where to is dome thick-
creep and ultimate shrinkage calculations follow the ACI 209
ness at the center or 32 mm and t̄ is thickness change from the
(ACI 1992) guide.
The analysis is performed in three phases. In the first phase, center to the edge of the dome or 7 mm; ϕ is meridional angle; and
the external pressure pgs representing the factored gravity load ϕo is meridional angle of the edge of the dome. The dome was
(1.2D þ 0.2S) and the stresses, strains, and deformations are com- assumed to be simply supported along the boundary and was sub-
puted accounting for both geometric and material nonlinearity. In jected to an external pressure of 37.5 kPa.
the second phase, the concrete is allowed to creep and shrink. The Fig. 5 shows the load-deflection diagram, indicating snap-
ultimate creep and the ultimate shrinkage are computed using the through buckling strength at a time of 540 days that corresponds
ACI 209 procedure, accounting for relative humidity (which is as- to a creep factor of 81% of the ultimate creep factor of 2.32, or
sumed to be 70% outside the dome and 100% inside the tank), a
volume-to-surface-area ratio equal to the thickness of the dome,
and time at first loading of 7 days. The creep material model is
implemented by writing a user subroutine in ABAQUS. The sub-
routine computes the creep strain by superimposing upon the creep
from initial stress in concrete the creep from incremental changes in
stress in concrete during its time history from the time of loading
using the following equation:
Z
σðt Þ t dσðτ Þ
ϵcr ðtÞ ¼ ϕðt; to Þ o þ ϕðt; τ Þ ð2Þ
Ec to Ec
Fig. 5. (Color) Deflection versus time for the concrete dome tested by
Hamed et al. (2011b) with diameter D ¼ 3 m, rise H ¼ 100 mm
where t = concrete age when creep is calculated; to = age of con-
(H=D ¼ 1=30), and a thickness that varies from 25 mm at the edge to
crete at first loading; σðτ Þ = stress in the concrete at time τ > to ;
32 mm at the center subjected to the test pressure of 37.5 kPa. The test
ϕðt; τ Þ = ACI 209 creep coefficient at time t for a load applied at
specimen experienced snap-through buckling after 240 days when
time τ ; and Ec = elastic modulus of concrete. The total creep and
deflection was at 31 mm.
shrinkage are imposed incrementally, with the real time of creep

© ASCE 04020053-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 1.88, and a shrinkage strain of 94% of ultimate shrinkage of
700 micro m=m ðmicroin:=in:Þ, or 658 micro m=m ðmicroin:=in:Þ
Hamed et al. (2011b) derived the creep factor from tests prisms
loaded after 22 days and measured creep periodically up to about
160 days from which an ultimate creep factor of 3.1 was deter-
mined. Shrinkage was also tested on prisms up to 160 days from
which an ultimate shrinkage of 650 micro m=m ðmicroin:=in:Þ was
determined. At the time of failure, the calculated creep factor was
2.25, greater than the value of 1.88 calculated in this paper, and the
shrinkage strain was 567 micro m=m ðmicroin:=in:Þ, less than the
value of 658 micro m=m ðmicroin:=in:Þ calculated in this paper.
The results show that at failure, the deflection of the center of
the dome is about 32 mm, compared with the 31 mm recorded
by Hamed et al. (2011b). The strain magnitudes were small enough
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
91.4 m (100, 250, and 300 ft); typical dome rise-to-diameter ratios
in the range of 1=8 to 1=16; and typical snow loads of 0.57 kPa
(12 lb=sq ft) and 2.87 kPa (60 lb=sq ft) (Table 1). The selected
domes for this study cover the range of domes that are currently
designed and constructed in the US. The minimum thickness of
the domes analyzed is determined from the gravity load alone
[Eq. (1)] without consideration of earthquake.
The results of calculations for all cases analyzed are given in
Table 2 where the critical buckling pressure of the dome subjected
to gravity and seismic response acceleration, ðpcr Þgse , the pressure
resulting from combined gravity loads, pgs , and the pressure cor-
responding to seismic response acceleration, pe , are shown. The
seismic spectral response accelerations, av , calculated as the ratio
of pe and the gravity pressure pgs , are also given in Table 2.

to avoid material nonlinearity, and the snap-through buckling was
nearly elastic. This is the same conclusion arrived at by Hamed et al.
(2011b). The difference in the time to failure is minor and is related
to the approximations in the calculation of creep and shrinkage,
the accuracy of the thickness variation formula, possible geometric
imperfections that were not noted in the test specimen, and concrete
maturing with time, which was neglected in this paper. The results
of this comparison validate the model of geometric nonlinearity and
creep and shrinkage, but not concrete nonlinearity due to cracking
in tension or crushing in compression.
Results
Using the aforementioned model, a parametric study is performed
by calculating the buckling strength for a range of dome geometries
and snow loads S, as indicated in Table 1, where D = tank diameter
and H = dome rise. The dome geometries selected for this study
included typical tank diameters in the range of D ¼ 30.5, 76.2, and
The results show that in general, the domes that are not in high-
seismicity zones and are designed according to the current design
procedure have capacity for earthquake loads. However, the calcu-
lated capacities for seismic spectral response need to be reduced by
the material resistance factor, ϕ. Obviously, there are concrete
domes that need to be thickened to meet the design spectral re-
sponse acceleration in high-seismicity zones.
The load-deflection diagrams and contour plots of the radial
strains through the thickness of the shallow caps for Case 2 are
shown in Figs. 6 and 7, for Case 7 in Figs. 8 and 9, and for Case
9 in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The load is expressed as the ratio
of pressure and the factored gravity load, pgs .
For each case, the deformation versus pseudotime t is also
plotted over three pseudotime intervals: in the first time interval
[0, 1], the shallow caps are subjected to gravity loads; in the
second time interval [1, 2], they are subject to ultimate creep and
ultimate shrinkage; and in the third time interval [2, 3], they are
subject to increasing pressure until snap-through buckling occurs.

Table 1. Properties of dome cases analyzed

Case Snow load, Ultimate Shrinkage strain at point of
number D (m) D=H t (mm) S (kPa) f c0 (MPa) d (m) h (m) Ec (GPa) creep factor instability [micro m=m ðmicro in:=in:Þ]
1 30.48 8 76 2.87 27.6 8.03 0.18 24.8 1.536 457
2 30.48 16 76 0.57 27.6 11.11 0.18 24.8 1.536 457
3 91.44 8 140 0.57 27.6 18.84 0.32 24.8 1.328 339
4 91.44 8 152 2.87 27.6 19.68 0.35 24.8 1.310 319
5 91.44 16 445 0.57 27.6 46.46 1.03 24.8 1.255 80
6 91.44 16 445 2.87 27.6 46.46 1.03 24.8 1.255 80
7 91.44 10 203 2.87 27.6 25.13 0.47 24.8 1.274 251
8 91.44 10 165 0.57 37.9 22.65 0.38 29.2 1.297 300
9 91.44 10 178 2.87 37.9 23.51 0.41 29.2 1.287 283
10 76.2 16 324 0.57 27.6 36.20 0.75 24.8 1.256 142
Note: 1 m ¼ 39.4 in:; and 1 MPa ¼ 145 psi.

Table 2. Earthquake pressure causing snap-through buckling for domes designed for gravity load combinations alone
Case Snow load,
number D (m) D=H t (mm) S (kPa) f c0 (MPa) ðpcr Þgse (kPa) pgs (kPa) pe (kPa) av (g)
1 30.48 8 76 2.87 27.6 21.5 2.7 18.8 7.1
2 30.48 16 76 0.57 27.6 4.1 2.2 1.9 0.8
3 91.44 8 140 0.57 27.6 7.6 3.9 3.7 0.9
4 91.44 8 152 2.87 27.6 8.5 4.7 3.8 0.8
5 91.44 16 445 0.57 27.6 27.6 12.3 15.3 1.2
6 91.44 16 445 2.87 27.6 27.4 12.7 14.6 1.2
7 91.44 10 203 2.87 27.6 12.3 6.1 6.2 1.0
8 91.44 10 165 0.57 37.9 8.6 4.6 4.0 0.9
9 91.44 10 178 2.87 37.9 10.6 5.4 5.2 0.9
10 76.2 16 324 0.57 27.6 18.0 8.4 9.5 1.1
Note: 1 kPa ¼ 0.145 psi.

© ASCE 04020053-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 6. (Color) (a) Deflection versus pseudotime; and (b) load versus deflection for Case 2 [D ¼ 30.5 m (100 ft) and H=D ¼ 1=16] with shallow cap
diameter d ¼ 11.11 m (36.44 ft), rise h ¼ 0.18 m (6.94 in.), thickness t ¼ 76 mm (3 in.), snow load S ¼ 0.57 kPa (12 lb=sq ft), and concrete
strength fc0 ¼ 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi), subjected to gravity during pseudotime interval [0, 1], creep and shrinkage during pseudotime interval
[1, 2], and earthquake load during pseudotime interval [2, 3].

Fig. 7. (Color) Radial strain contours plot just before snap-through buckling of Case 2 [D ¼ 30.5 m (100 ft) and H=D ¼ 1=16] with shallow cap
diameter d ¼ 11.11 m (36.44 ft), rise h ¼ 0.18 m (6.94 in.), thickness t ¼ 76 mm (3 in.), snow load S ¼ 0.57 kPa (12 lb=sq ft), and concrete
strength f c0 ¼ 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi). There is visible cracking strain on the outer surface and maximum compressive strain on the inner surface
at the boundary of the cap.

The results show monotonic increasing deformation of the shallow
cap during the creep and shrinkage time period and the increase in
the radius of curvature and stress resulting from such deformation.
The increase in stress results in increase in the rate of creep. At the
point of instability in the third time interval, the rate of increase of
deformation with time becomes quite large, and the center deflec-
tion of the cap is very roughly equal to its thickness.
The contour plots of radial strains through the thickness of shal-
low caps at the point of instability show that deep circumferential
cracks emanating from the top surface are formed all around the
boundary of the cap, and stress at the bottom surface of the cap
reaches the ultimate strength of compression. The final snap-
through buckling is accompanied by crushing of the small part
of the boundary that is in compression. The stresses in the interior
of the cap do not reach the capacity of concrete.
Conclusions
Snap-through buckling of shallow concrete caps subjected to load
combinations that involve gravity (dead and live or snow) and
earthquake loads has been calculated, accounting for imperfection

© ASCE 04020053-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 8. (Color) (a) Deflection versus pseudotime; and (b) load versus deflection for the shallow cap of Case 7 [D ¼ 91.4 m (300 ft) and
H=D ¼ 1=10], with a shallow cap of diameter d ¼ 25.13 m (82.45 ft), rise h ¼ 0.47 m (18.52 in), thickness t ¼ 203 mm (8 in.), snow load S ¼
0.57 kPa (12 lb=sq ft), and concrete strength fc0 ¼ 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi), subjected to gravity during pseudotime interval [0, 1], creep and shrinkage
during pseudotime interval [1, 2], and earthquake load during pseudotime interval [2, 3].

Fig. 9. (Color) Radial strain contours plot just before snap-through buckling of Case 7 [D ¼ 91.4 m (300 ft) and H=D ¼ 1=10] with shallow cap
diameter d ¼ 25.13 m (82.45 ft), rise h ¼ 0.47 m (18.52 in.), thickness t ¼ 203 mm (8 in.), snow load S ¼ 0.57 kPa (12 lb=sq ft), and concrete
strength f c0 ¼ 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi). There is visible cracking strain on the outer surface and maximum compressive strain on the inner surface at the
boundary of the cap.

effects, geometric and material nonlinearities, and time-dependent
creep and shrinkage of concrete. The method of analysis developed
in this paper has been partly validated by comparing the calculated
creep buckling performance of a shallow concrete dome with pub-
lished test results.
Bearing in mind that (1) buckling strength of spherical shells
is very sensitive to imperfections in their constructed geometry,
(2) the minimum snap-through buckling strength of shallow caps
occurs with shallowness
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi parameter λ ¼ 4 over an area with diam-
eter d ¼ 4.3 Ro t, and (3) the imperfections observed in the
constructed concrete domes are consistent with this imperfection;
the geometric imperfection considered in this study was in the
form of a shallow cap with λ p ¼ffiffi4ffi over an area with diameter
d and a radius of curvature of 2Ro . In this way, the buckling
strength of spherical concrete domes subjected to gravity and
earthquake load combinations was governed by the problem of
snap-through buckling analysis of a shallow spherical cap of
specific size and radius of curvature that represent the design
imperfection geometry. The imperfection was centered at a point
on the dome where the normal pressure from the combined effects

© ASCE 04020053-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 10. (Color) (a) Deflection versus pseudotime; and (b) load versus deflection for the shallow cap of Case 9 [D ¼ 91.4 m (300 ft) and
H=D ¼ 1=10] with a shallow cap of diameter d ¼ 23.51 m (77.13 ft), rise h ¼ 0.41 m (16.2 in.), thickness t ¼ 178 mm (7 in.), snow load S ¼
2.89 kPa (60 lb=sq ft), and concrete strength f c0 ¼ 37.9 MPa (5,500 psi), subjected to gravity during pseudotime interval [0,1], creep and shrinkage
during pseudotime interval [1, 2], and earthquake load during pseudotime interval [2,3].

Fig. 11. (Color) Radial strain contours plot just before snap-through buckling of Case 9 [D ¼ 91.4 m (300 ft) and H=D ¼ 1=10] with a shallow cap
of diameter d ¼ 23.51 m (77.13 ft), rise h ¼ 0.41 m (16.2 in.), thickness t ¼ 178 mm (7 in.), snow load S ¼ 2.89 kPa (60 lb=sq ft), and concrete
strength f c0 ¼ 37.9 MPa (5,500 psi). There is visible cracking strain on the outer surface and maximum compressive strain on the inner surface at the
boundary of the cap.

of horizontal and vertical earthquake acceleration response
spectra is maximum.
Snap-through buckling analysis was performed for a set of
shallow spherical domes derived from a range of typical spherical
concrete domes with diameters ranging from 30.48 to 91.44 m (100
to 300 ft) and rise-to-diameter ratios in the range of 1=8 to 1=16; for
each dome, the seismic capacity of the dome designed for static
loading only is determined.
The results of this study have shown that the majority of
the spherical concrete domes with a prestressed ring beam over
prestressed concrete tanks that are not very large in diameter and
are not in high-seismicity zones when designed for static loading
have the capacity needed for earthquake loading. The concrete
domes with large diameter, e.g., much larger than 30 m (100 ft)
in diameter in high-seismicity zones may need to be thickened
to meet the design spectral response acceleration. The results also
showed that the use of higher concrete strength can significantly
reduce the thickness of the dome for the same earthquake load;
inversely, the earthquake capacity of a dome can be increased sig-
nificantly by using higher concrete strength.

© ASCE 04020053-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 The results of this study may be used to extend the current de-
sign of spherical concrete domes subjected to gravity loads alone to
loading conditions that include gravity plus earthquake load.
Appendix I. Critical Size of Imperfection in Buckling
of Concrete Spherical Dome
This appendix shows the buckling shape of a typical spherical
dome with linearly elastic materials and no imposed imperfection
when subjected to combination of gravity and horizontal seismic
acceleration. The dome selected for analysis is 91.4 m (300 ft)
in diameter, with a rise-to-diameter ratio of 1∶8, a wall thickness
of 146 mm (5.75 in.), a modulus of elasticity of 24.8 GPa
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
calculating the buckling strength of a shallow cap of the size of a
buckle, regardless of the direction of loading. This concept is central
to the current design method against snap-through buckling of con-
crete domes over circular prestressed concrete tanks subjected to
gravity dead and live loads (Zarghamee and Heger 1983). Further-
more, this concept allows physical interpretation of geometric im-
perfection of the dome. This design method has been incorporated
into various design standards, including AWWA D110 (AWWA
2013), ACI 372 (ACI 2013), and ACI 350 (ACI 2006), and has been
successfully applied to the design of hundreds of concrete domes
over prestressed concrete tanks in the last several decades.
Appendix II. Design Earthquake Loading and Critical

(3.6 × 106 psi), and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.17. It is subjected to
gravity load, a snow load of 0.57 kPa (12 lb=sqft), and a horizontal
earthquake load of increasing magnitude until buckling occurs. The
buckling occurs when the horizontal seismic acceleration reaches
18.5g and the buckle is near the base of the dome, as shown
in Fig. 12. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The size of the buckle is nearly equal to d ¼ 4.3 Ro t, i.e., equal
to the diameter of a shallow cap with shallowness parameter λ ¼ 4.
The pressure at buckling of 18.5g seismic acceleration is approx-
imately equal to the classical buckling strength of a shallow cap of
pcr ¼ 0.66Ec ðt=Ro Þ2 for λ ¼ 4. Obviously, if there were an imper-
fection in the concrete dome where the average radius of curvature
of Rimp over an area that is nearly equal to the buckle size is greater
than Ro , one would expect the buckling strength to be reduced by
the ratio of ðRo =Rimp Þ2 . In other words, the buckling strength of a
spherical concrete dome with imperfection can be approximated by
Location of Imperfection
ASCE 7 (ASCE 2016) defines earthquake load as the sum of the
effects of horizontal and vertical seismic forces but implicitly limits
the vertical seismic forces to only those that occur concurrently
with the maximum horizontal seismic forces. This appendix shows
how the critical pressure demand from the combined gravity and
earthquake loads can be determined from load combinations that
include both horizontal and vertical earthquake loads.
ASCE 7 provides load combinations that involve gravity and
earthquake loads in the form of 1.2D þ 0.2S þ E, where D is dead
load, S is snow load (no other live load is expected to exist on
such domes), and E is earthquake load. Earthquake ground motion
has three orthogonal components. For structures with nonparallel
system irregularities, ASCE 7 requires simultaneous application of
orthogonal ground motions with 100% of the force applied in one

Fig. 12. (Color) Vertical deflection of a buckled deep spherical dome with D ¼ 91.44 m (300 ft), D=H ¼ 8, t ¼ 146 mm (5.75 in.), Ec ¼ 24.8 GPa,
and υ ¼ 0.17, subjected to gravity dead load and snow load with S ¼ 0.57 kPa (12 lb=sq ft), and earthquake with primary seismic force being
horizontal.

© ASCE 04020053-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 direction and 30% in the other orthogonal directions. In addition,
ASCE 7 has specific requirements for vertical ground motion that
is proportional to the horizontal ground motion with a coefficient
that depends on site classes. In the examples presented in this paper,
the vertical spectral response acceleration is taken as 2=3 of the
horizontal spectral response acceleration.
Based on ASCE 7, the following equations govern the design of
spherical domes subjected to gravity and earthquake:
LC1∶ 1.2D þ 0.2S þ Eh1  0.3Eh2  0.3Ev
LC2∶ 1.2D þ 0.2S þ 0.3Eh1  0.3Eh2  Ev
where Eh = horizontal component of seismic forces; and Ev =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
corresponding to the maximum response acceleration in the direc-
tion normal to the surface of the dome as expressed by Eq. (9) or
Eq. (10) and conservatively assume that the geometric imperfection
is located over an imperfection area of critical size centered at θ1 or
θ2 , with horizontal shock in the direction that produces the maxi-
mum pressure.
Acknowledgments
ð3Þ
Special thanks are extended to Atis Liepins for many useful discus-
ð4Þ sions and to Sean Hsieh and Duncan McGeehan of Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. for assisting in performing the finite-
element analyses reported in this paper.

vertical component of seismic forces. The maximum horizontal

seismic force is determined from the 5% damped, spectral response
acceleration in the horizontal direction, SDS , as defined in ASCE 7,
Notation
i.e., Eh1 ¼ SDS D, applied in the horizontal direction. The combi-
nation of two orthogonal directions of response in the horizontal The following symbols are used in this paper:
plane, namely Eh1 and 0.3Eh2 in LC1, results in a maximum hori- av = vertical component of seismic spectral
zontal seismic force of 1.044Eh , and the combination of 0.3Eh1 and acceleration (g);
0.3Eh2 in LC2 results in a maximum horizontal seismic response of
D = tank diameter (m) or dead load;
0.424Eh . The maximum vertical seismic force is determined from
d = diameter of imperfection area (m);
site-specific 5% damped, spectral response acceleration in the ver-
tical direction or, in the absence of site-specific data, is defined as a E = earthquake load;
fraction of the spectral response acceleration in the horizontal di- Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete (GPa);
rection. For the examples analyzed in this paper, Ev ¼ ð2=3ÞSDS D Eh = horizontal component of seismic forces;
was assumed. Ev = vertical component of seismic forces;
For a point at a zenith angle of θ, the response acceleration in the f c0 = concrete strength (MPa);
direction normal to the cap surface can be expressed as follows: g = acceleration of gravity;
  H = rise of dome (m);
0.3 × 2
LC∶ 1.2D cos θ þ 0.2S þ SDS D 1.044 sin θ þ cos θ ð5Þ h = rise of shallow spherical area representing
3 imperfection area (m);
  LC1 = Load case 1;
2
LC2∶ 1.2D cos θ þ 0.2S þ SDS D 0.424 sin θ þ cos θ ð6Þ LC2 = Load case 2; pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 pclassic = classical buckling pressure, ¼ ½2= 3ð1 − ν 2 Þ
Ec ðt=RÞ2 (kPa);
LC1 and LC2 reach their maximum values at zenith angles of
pcr = nonlinear elastic buckling pressure of a shallow
θ1 and θ2 , determined by setting the derivatives of LC1 and LC2
cap ¼ 0.66Ec ðt=Ro Þ2 corresponding to shallowness
with respect to θ, respectively. Then
parameter λ ¼ 4 without consideration of long-term
 
1.044SDS effects (kPa);
θ1 ¼ tan−1 ð7Þ ðpcr Þdesign = critical buckling pressure for design of concrete
1.2 þ 0.2SDS
domes accounting for creep of concrete and
  imperfection;
0.424SDS
θ2 ¼ tan−1 ð8Þ ðpcr Þgse = critical buckling pressure of a shallow cap with λ ¼ 4
1.2 þ 0.667SDS
resulting from gravity loads, creep, and shrinkage,
Then the maximum response acceleration in the direction nor- and pressure resulting from seismic response
mal to the surface of the concrete dome, corresponding to θ1 and acceleration of earthquake load (kPa);
Eq. (5) for horizontal main shock may be expressed pe = ðpcr Þgse − pgs (kPa);
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pgs = gravity load combination 1.2D þ 0.2S (kPa);
LC1max ¼ 0.2S þ D ð1.044SDS Þ2 þ ð1.2 þ 0.2SDS Þ2 ð9Þ Rimp = average radius of curvature of dome in imperfection
area (m);
Similarly, that corresponding to θ2 and Eq. (6) for vertical main Ro = nominal radius of curvature of dome (m);
shock may be expressed S = snow load (kPa);
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi SDS = design, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration
LC2max ¼ 0.2S þ D ð0.424SDS Þ2 þ ð1.2 þ 0.667SDS Þ2 ð10Þ parameter at short periods (g);
t = dome thickness (mm) or concrete age (days);
Shallow spherical caps subjected to maximum response accel- to = age of concrete at first loading (days);
eration in the direction parallel to the surface of concrete do not α = half-subtended angle of imperfection
have proclivity to buckling instability because the shallow cap is area (rad);
stiff in shear and transmits the acceleration-induced forces to the β c = buckling strength reduction factor due to creep;
boundary of the shell by in-plane action without significant deflec- β i = buckling strength reduction factor due to
tion. Therefore, it is sufficient to consider the load combinations imperfection;

© ASCE 04020053-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053

 Δt = thickness change from the center to the edge of the
dome (mm);
εcr = creep strain;
θ1 = zenith angle at point of maximum acceleration
normal to the dome surface with the main shock in
the horizonal direction;
θ2 = zenith angle at point of maximum acceleration
normal to the dome surface with the main shock in
the vertical direction;
λ = shallowness parameter;
σðτ Þ = stress in concrete at time τ ;
τ = time of creep (days);
ν = Poisson’s ratio of concrete;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ϕ = resistance factor, or meridional angle;
ϕðt; τ Þ = the ACI 209 creep coefficient at time t for a load
applied at time τ ; and
ϕo = meridional angle of the edge of the dome.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 1992. Prediction of creep, shrinkage,
and temperature effects in concrete structures (reapproved 2008). ACI
209R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2006. Code requirements for environ-
mental engineering concrete structures and commentary. ACI 350.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
© ASCE 04020053-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020053
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2013. Guide to design and construction
of circular wire- and strand-wrapped prestressed concrete structures.
ACI 372R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building code and commentary
on requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE/SEI 7. Reston, VA: ASCE.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). 2013. AWWA standard
for wire- and strand-wound circular, prestressed concrete water tanks.
AWWA D110. Denver: AWWA.
Darwin, D., and D. A. W. Pecknold. 1974. Inelastic model for cyclic biaxial
loading of reinforced concrete. Rep. on a Research Project Sponsored
by NSF Grant GI 29934. Urbana, IL: Univ. of Illinois.
Hamed, E., M. A. Bradford, R. I. Gilbert, and Z.-T. Chang. 2011a.
“Analytical model and experimental study of failure behavior of thin-
walled shallow concrete domes.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (1): 88–99. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000274.
Hamed, E., M. A. Bradford, R. I. Gilbert, and Z.-T. Chang. 2011b.
“Creep testing and analysis of shallow concrete domes.” In Incorporat-
ing sustainable practice in mechanics of structures and materials,
edited by F. Fragomemi, S. Venkatesan, N. T. K. Lam, and S. Setunge,
203–215. London: Taylor & Francis.
Huang, N. 1964. “Unsymmetrical buckling of thin shallow spherical
shells.” J. Appl. Mech. 31 (3): 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1115/1
.3629662.
Hutchinson, J. W., and W. T. Koiter. 1970. “Postbuckling theory.” Appl.
Mech. Rev. 23 (12): 1353–1356.
Zarghamee, M. S., and F. J. Heger. 1983. “Buckling of thin concrete
domes.” J. Am. Concr. Inst. 80: 487–500.
J. Struct. Eng.