Proceedings of the International Conference on “Advances in Concrete Technology, Structural Engineering

and Design: Dedicated to Helarisi Abeyruwan”, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, August 13, 2019.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF DEDIGAMA KOTA VEHERA

L.D.G.M. Gunawardhane 1*, M.P. Ranaweera 1
1
Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, SLIIT Malabe Campus, New Kandy Road, Malabe.
*Correspondence E-mail: gayantha.m@outlook.com
Abstract: Dedigama Kota Vehera is one of the stupas built by the King Parakramabahu the
Great. The stupa has a diameter of 76.2 m at base of the first basal ring and 12.7 m in height at
present. The stupa was built as a Kota Vehera stupa dome shape, and the building material of
the stupa is burnt clay bricks. The research was conducted to create a design to restore the stupa
up to its full height. To achieve that a Paddy-Heap dome-shaped solid stupa is proposed with a
total height of 71.8 m. The 3D finite element model with solid elements was created to analyze
the proposed model under dead load, wind load, and response spectrum analysis of the stupa
at serviceability limit state using SAP2000. The axial shortening and maximum vertical stress
were observed as 5.89 mm and 423 kPa respectively under dead load, and 7.47 kPa and 4.55 kPa
circumferential and radial tensions were observed under dead load at cylinder and spire. The
results showed no tensile stresses in the dome. To take up the tensile stresses biaxial geogrid
reinforcement is proposed based on the analysis results. The wind analysis showed a maximum
vertical compression of 572 kPa. The response spectrum analysis with an acceleration of 0.05g
showed a maximum vertical tension of 293 kPa.
Keywords: Dedigama Kota Vehera; paddy-heap dome; dead load analysis; wind
load analysis; response spectrum analysis; biaxial geogrid

1.Introduction and tensile stresses generated (Ranaweera,

2018).
Thuparamaya in Anuradhapura was the
first stupa build in Sri Lanka after the
arrival of Buddhism from India. Jetavana
stupa was the third tallest structure in the
world at that time with a height of 122 m
and is the world’s largest brick structure in
volume wise (Ranaweera, 2018). There are
significant unfinished ancient stupas
referred to as Kota Veheras. Dedigama Kota
Vehera is one of Kota Vehera stupas in Sri
Lanka built by King Parakramabahu the
Great (1153-1186AD). It was reconstructed Figure 1: Dedigama Kota Vehera (Dilruksha,
by Department of Archaeology up to 2018)
present state of the stupa. This research was
conducted to collect the historical data of In a stupa, vertical stresses are primarily
the stupa, test the building materials of the compressive stresses. Circumferential
stupa, create a 3D model to reconstruct the (Hoop) and Radial stresses can be
stupa to its full height, analyze the created compressive or tensile stresses (Ranaweera,
3D model of the stupa, and propose a 2018). When considering the structural
design. stability of the stupa dome, there will be
some hoop tensions in the dome except the
2. Literature Review Paddy-Heap shape dome. Hence, the
Dedigama Kota Vehera (Figure 1) was built Paddy-Heap shape of the dome was
by King Parakramabahu the Great. identified as the best shape for a dome
According to relics found in Dedigama Kota structure. Hence builders in the ancient
Vehera the stupa was planned to be built in times used the Paddy-Heap shape dome for
Lotus shape. The Lotus shape cannot the giant stupas (Ranaweera, 2018).
withstand its own weight due to its shape,
1
2 Gunawardhane and M.P. Ranaweera

tested to obtain mechanical properties of the

bricks.
3. Methodology
To test the mechanical properties of the
The steps followed during the research are
bricks, cylindrical brick specimens were
given below.
prepared using the core cutting machine.
3.1 Existing Dimensions of Dedigama Kota
The brick specimens were tested for
Vehera
longitudinal ultrasonic pulse velocity test.
Existing dimensions of the stupa were Dynamic Young’s modulus value was
obtained from a field visit to the Dedigama calculated for the bricks according to IS
Kota Vehera. The heights of the first, 13311 (1992) by using longitudinal
second, and third basal rings were ultrasonic pulse velocity test results. Due to
measured as 1.03 m, 1.22 m, and 1.45 m. The limitations of the cylindrical specimen’s
horizontal width of the first, second, and shear pulse velocity was not obtained.
third basal rings were measured as 1.32 m, Hence Poisson’s ratios were assumed from
1.605 m, and 1.41 m. The circumference of 0.2 to 0.25 and the calculations were done to
the first basal ring and the circumference of find Dynamic Young’s modulus.
the upper level of the dome measured as
To obtain ultimate compressive strength
239.5 m and 168.3 m. The inclined length of
and ultimate tensile strength of bricks, the
the dome was measured as 11.4 m. The
brick specimens were tested for
dimensions of the existing bricks were
compression strength test and cylindrical
measured as 300 mm × 170mm × 45 mm
splitting tensile strength test.
(Top of the first Basal ring).
3.4 FEM Model of the Proposed Stupa
3.2 Dimension Calculations for the Proposed
Stupa The proposed stupa (Figure 2) was modeled
as a 3D solid model in SAP2000 (2009),
The dimension calculation for the proposed
(Figure 3). When creating the model half of
model was done by taking proportions from
the stupa was considered. The 3D FEM
the existing dimensions obtained from the
mesh was created entirely manually in
field visit to Dedigama Kota Vehera and
SAP2000 (2009).
dimensions obtained from the Jetavana
Stupa (Silva, 2004). The Paddy-Heap dome
was taken as Paraboloid and derived the
following equation for the shape of the
dome (Equation 1).
2
Z=35.549−0.28 R−0.0226 R (1)
Where Z = Vertical height of the stupa (m),
R = Radius of the dome at a given section of
the dome (m).
3.3 Material Testing of the Stupa
Dedigama Kota Vehera is made from bricks
of two eras. First one is the ancient bricks
used to construct the stupa during king Figure 2: Detailed drawing of the proposed
Parakramabahu’s era. The second one is the Paddy-Heap shape solid stupa
modern bricks used to reconstruct the stupa According to proposed dimensions
during the late 90’s by the Department of diameter of the cylinder was equal to 7.07 m
Archaeology. Brick samples from the above and diameter of the spire was equal to 7.48
two types were collected during the second m. The variation between cylinder and spire
field visit to the Dediama Kota Vehera and is mainly used as an esthetical feature.
Hence above variation was neglected when
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF DEDIGAMA KOTA VEHERA
creating the FEM model and diameter of the
spire was also taken as 7.07 m. Moreover,
the minaret was not modeled in the FEM
model. The minaret is a metal shell
structure, and it was comparatively small.
Hence it was neglected in this analysis.
The proposed 3D FEM solid model was
mainly made by using three elements;
Eight-node solid elements (hexahedron
element/brick element), Six node solid
element (pentahedron element / wedge
element), and Four node solid elements
(tetrahedron element / tet element). When
creating the model eight node solid element
was used as the main element of the model.
Six node solid element was used when
creating the curvatures. Finally, four node
solid element was used when creating the
curvature of the top part of the dome.
Joint restrains of the model were set as
restrained in all the translations and
rotations in the global XY plane at bottom
and translations are allowed in global Z and
global X directions and restrained all other
translations and rotations in global XZ
plane.
Figure 3: 3D solid FEM model of the proposed
stupa
3.5 Different Poisson’s Ratios
Poisson’s ratio of the brick was taken as 0.2
to 0.25. Hence six FEM models were
analyzed by using the Poisson’s ratio values
of 0.2, 0.21, 0.22, 0.23, 0.24, and 0.25.
3
3.6 FEM Analysis of The Proposed Stupa
First analysis: The proposed 3D FEM solid
model was analyzed for serviceability limit
state considering only the dead load of the
structure. The analysis was performed as a
linear static analysis.
Second analysis: The proposed 3D FEM
solid model was analyzed for serviceability
limit state considering wind load acting
around the stupa. The analysis was
performed using the wind pressure
calculations based on AS/NZS 1170.2 (2011)
and Regional wind speeds of Sri Lanka
(Maduranga and Lewangamage, 2017).
Cylinder and Spire are the most vulnerable
components of the stupa due to wind
loading. Hence wind pressure was applied
only to Cylinder and Spire. Wind pressure
was applied to the FEM model by
considering the wind direction as negative x
direction to positive x direction of the FEM
model.
Third analysis: The proposed 3D FEM solid
model was analyzed for serviceability limit
state considering Earthquake loads. Sri
Lanka is considered an aseismic country.
Hence a peak ground acceleration of 0.05g
was applied to the proposed stupa and
Response Spectrum Analysis was
performed based on AS 1170.4 (2007).
4. Results and Discussion
Detailed dimensions of the existing stupa
and proposed stupa were calculated as
follows (Table 1 and Table 2).
4.1 Existing Details of the Stupa
Table 1: Detailed dimensions of the existing
stupa
Vertical Measurements
Basal rings Dome
3.7 m 9m
Horizontal Measurements
Basal rings Dome Dome (upper level)
76.24 m 67.57 m 53.57 m
Inclined Measurements
Dome
4 Gunawardhane and M.P. Ranaweera

The results indicate that ancient bricks have

better mechanical properties in compressive
11.4 m
strength and weak in tensile strength (Table
The total height of the existing stupa = 12.7 3). Moreover, according to the above results,
m Dynamic Young’s modulus decreased with
the increment of Poisson’s ratio (Table 4).

4.2 Details of the Proposed Stupa

4.4 FEM Analysis Results Under Dead Load –
Table 2: Detailed dimensions of the proposed
Maximum Values
Paddy-Heap stupa
Six FEM models were analyzed for the
Vertical Measurements Poisson’s ratio values of 0.2, 0.21, 0.22, 0.23,
0.24, and 0.25. The unit weight was assigned
Basal Dome Square Cylinder Spire Minaret
rings chamber as 15.35 kN/m3. Models were analyzed
under serviceability limit state only for dead
3.7 m 29.82 m 6.31 m 5.44 m 21.98 m 4.57 m
load. Every analyzed model showed similar
Horizontal Measurements type displacements and stress variations.
Basal Dome Square Cylinder Spire Minaret Maximum displacement occurred at the top
rings chamber center of the Spire. The displacement was
76.24 m 67.57 m 15.8 m 7.07 m 7.48 m 1.25 m vertically downward (Figure 4).
Maximum vertical compression occurred at
The total height of the proposed stupa =
the bottom center of the basal rings (Figure
71.8 m (Figure 2).
5).
4.3 Material test results
Maximum circumferential (hoop) tensile
Table 3 gives a summary of material testing stress occurred in between plane of
results. Cylinder and Spire. The maximum value
Table 3: Unit Weight, Compressive and Tensile occurred at the outer surface of this plane
strengths (Figure 6).
Maximum radial tensile stress occurred in
Type Unit Weight Compressive Tensile
(kN/m3) strength strength
between plane of Cylinder and Spire. The
(MPa) (MPa) maximum value occurred at the center of
this plane (Figure 8).
15.81 3.20 0.20
Ancient The variation of the above parameters are
Bricks shown in graphical form in the following
Modern
14.89 2.24 0.35 Figures.
Bricks

Mean Value 15.35 2.72 0.25

Table 4: Calculated results of Dynamic Young’s

modulus

Poisson's
0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25
Ratio

E (Mean
Value) 2.01 1.99 1.96 1.93 1.90 1.86
(GPa) Figure 4: Maximum vertical displacement - top
center of spire
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF DEDIGAMA KOTA VEHERA 5

ancient and modern bricks used for the

construction of the stupa have a higher
factor of safety in tensile stress.
In addition to circumferential stress in the
Cylinder and Spire comparatively small
tension occurred around the top surface of
the square chamber (Figure 7). The tensile
stress occurred close to the outer surface of
the square chamber. The stress variation in
the square chamber with the Poisson’s ratio
Figure 5: Maximum vertical compressive stress was different to previous stress variations.
- bottom center of basal rings However, variation of the value was small
as previous cases.
The maximum vertical compressive stress
occurred at the bottom center of the basal
rings. The vertical stress value decreased
after 0.23 Poisson’s ratio value from 433 kPa
to 422 kPa. When considering the
compressive strength of the bricks and
actual compressive stress of the model a
factor of safety can be defined. The factor of
safety for compression was calculated as
6.43. The factor of safety shows that the
ancient and modern bricks used for the
construction of the stupa have a higher
Figure 7: Maximum tensile stress - top surface
factor of safety in compressive stress.
of square chamber (S22)
The maximum circumferential (Hoop)
The maximum radial tensile stress occurred
tensile stress occurred at in between plane
in between plane of Cylinder and Spire. The
of Cylinder and Spire. The maximum value
maximum value occurred at the center of
occurred at the outer surface of this plane.
this plane.
The circumferential stress value increased
slightly with the Poisson’s ratio value.

Figure 6: Maximum hoop tensile stress – in
between cylinder and spire
When considering the tensile strength of the
bricks and actual tensile stress of the model
a factor of safety can be defined. The factor
of safety for tensile strength was calculated
as 33.47. The factor of safety shows that the
Figure 8: Maximum radial tensile stress - in
between cylinder and spire
4.5 FEM Analysis Results Under Dead Load –
Deformed Shape
The deformed shape obtained from the
model analyzed with 0.2 Poisson’s ratio is
6 Gunawardhane and M.P. Ranaweera
given in Figure 9. The total axial
deformation is 5.56 mm.
Figure 9: Deformed shape of the stupa under
dead load
4.6 FEM Analysis Results Under Dead Load –
Stress Contours
The Stress contours were obtained from the
model analyzed with 0.2 Poisson’s ratio. The
vertical stress variation has perfect
symmetry as expected across symmetrical
global Z axis (Figure 10). Compressive stress
concentrations occurred at the places where
geometry changes from one shape to
another. No tensions occurred in the stress
variation. Paddy-Heap dome shape does
not have tensions in the dome. In this
model, no tensions occurred in the dome of
the stupa.
Figure 10: Vertical stress (S33) through the
cross-sectional (global XZ) plane
Figure 11: Circumferential stress (S22) through
the cross-sectional (global XZ) plane
In the circumferential hoop stress, tensile
region occurred at the intermediate plane of
Cylinder and Spire (Figure 11). In addition
to that stress, concentrations occurred
where geometry changed from one shape to
another.
Radial stress tensile region occurred at the
intermediate plane of Cylinder and Spire
(Figure 12). In addition to that, stress
concentrations occurred where geometry
changed. However, much larger
compression stress concentration areas were
located where geometry changes.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF DEDIGAMA KOTA VEHERA
Figure 12: Radial stress (S11) through the cross-
sectional (global XZ) plane
4.7 Reinforcement for Tensile Stresses Under
Dead Load
Geogrid reinforcement details for maximum
circumferential stresses in Cylinder and
Spire (Figure 13);
The tensile strength of the required
reinforcement net was calculated as 14.94
kN/m
Type of the geogrid was selected as Biaxial
geogrid (Figure 19 and Figure 20).
Figure 13: Plan view of the circumferential and
radial stress reinforcement geogrids (Cylinder)
Circumferential tensile stresses were larger
than radial tensile stresses. Hence during
construction priority will be allocated to
circumferential tensile stress geogrids and it
would be laid first. Secondly, radial tensile
stress geogrids will be laid.
Geogrid reinforcement for maximum S22
stresses in Square Chamber (Figure 14);
The tensile strength of the required
reinforcement net was calculated as 2.36
kN/m
7
Figure 14: Sectional view of the S22 tensile
stress reinforcement geogrid (Square chamber)
4.8 SAP2000 FEM Analysis Results Under
Wind Analysis
The wind load analysis results obtained
from the model analyzed with 0.2 Poisson’s
ratio and basic wind speed of 42 m/s. The
vertical stress contours are shown in Figure
15.
Wind pressure was applied to the FEM
model by considering wind direction from
negative x direction to positive x direction.
Wind pressure was applied only for
Cylinder and Spire. No tensions occurred in
the stress variation from the Dead and Wind
load combination under serviceability limit
state. Maximum vertical compression of 572
kPa was observed at the bottom of the
Cylinder at leeward side (Figure 15). This
vertical compression is greater than 423 kPa
compression value observed at bottom
center of the basal rings. However, it has a
factor of safety of 4.8. At the bottom of the
Cylinder at Windward side 309 kPa vertical
compression was observed. Hence proposed
stupa can withstand the wind forces in
Dedigama area.
8 Gunawardhane and M.P. Ranaweera

the model has maximum 293 kPa tension in

the outer surface of the Spire (Figure 17).
However, the rest of the stupa remains
under compression. Due to this tensile
stress, Spire could collapse under peak
ground acceleration of 0.05g.

Figure 15: Vertical stress (S33) through the cross

sectional (global XZ) plane for load
combination Dead+Wind
Maximum displacement occurred at the
leeward side top of the Spire (Figure 16).
The displacements are 5.69 mm in global
negative 3 (global negative Z) direction and
3.83 mm in global positive 1 (global positive
X) direction of the model.
Figure 17: Vertical stress (S33) through the cross
sectional (global XZ) plane for load
combination Dead+RS Case
Maximum displacement occurred at the top
of the Spire (Figure 18). The displacement is
10.5 mm in global positive 1 (global positive
X) direction of the model. The maximum
displacement due to RS Case is very large
for the Spire of the proposed stupa. Due to
this displacement, Spire could collapse
under peak ground acceleration of 0.05g.

Figure 16: Deformed shape of the stupa under

load combination Dead+Wind
4.9 SAP2000 FEM Analysis Results Under
Response Spectrum Analysis
The Response Spectrum analysis results
were obtained from the model analyzed
with 0.2 Poisson’s ratio. Response Spectrum
analysis was performed for peak ground
acceleration of 0.05g. The vertical stress in
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF DEDIGAMA KOTA VEHERA
Figure 18: Deformed shape of the stupa under
Dead+RS Case
4.10 Product Specifications of Selected Biaxial
Geogrid
Figure 19: Biaxial geogrid Terrafix TBX3000
(Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc, 2018)
Figure 20: Product specifications Biaxial
geogrid Terrafix TBX3000 (Terrafix Geosynthetics
Inc, 2018)
4.11 Volume of Brick Needed for the Proposed
Stupa
Dome : 54,702 m3
9
Square Chamber : 1,576 m3
Cylinder : 213 m3
Spire : 347 m3
Total brick volume : 56,838 m3
5. Conclusions
The analyzed results from six models for
dead load showed results with a similar
pattern with very small variations. The
unique thing about the results is that the
dome structure is entirely under
compression. The maximum displacement
of the stupa was obtained as 5.89 mm at the
top of the Spire. Moreover, the displacement
of the stupa increased with the increment of
the Poisson’s ratio. Maximum vertical
compression was observed as 423 kPa, and
it decreased to 422 kPa with the increment
of the Poisson's ratio. The value was
observed at the bottom center of the basal
rings. When comparing the above value
with compressive strength of the bricks, it
was noted that a factor of safety is 6.43.
Maximum circumferential tensile stress was
the maximum tensile stress observed in the
stupa. The maximum tensile circumferential
stress was observed as 7.47 kPa. The value
was observed at the outer most surface of
the intermediate plane of Cylinder and
Spire. The value increased with the
increment of Poisson’s ratio. When
comparing this value with the tensile
strength of brick, it was noted that a factor
of safety 33.47. The maximum radial stress
of the stupa was observed as 4.55 kPa. The
value was also observed at the outer most
surface of the intermediate plane of
Cylinder and Spire. However, the value
varied with the Poisson’s ratio. S22 stress
was observed at the top surface of the
Square Chamber. The maximum value was
2.36 kPa, and the variation with Poisson’s
ratio was different from all other variations.
In nature burnt clay bricks were identified
as a brittle material. Due to that reason in
design purposes, it was assumed that the
tensile capacity of the bricks is zero. By
following that practice, Biaxial geogrids
10
were provided as tensile reinforcement of
the stupa. The main reason for selecting
Biaxial geogrids was the stress variation
inside a solid structure. The required tensile
strengths for the above three tensile stress
cases were calculated as 14.94 kN/m for
circumferential tensile stress at the Cylinder
and Spire, 17.29 kN/m for the radial tensile
stress at the Cylinder and Spire, and 2.36
kN/m for the S22 stress at the top of Square
Chamber.
The analyzed results from Wind analysis for
0.2 Poisson’s ratio model showed maximum
vertical compression of 572 kPa. The value
was observed at the outer surface at the
bottom of the Cylinder at leeward side. It
has a factor of safety of 4.8 for the
compression. No tension was observed in
the model. Maximum displacement
occurred at the top leeward side of the
Spire. The displacements are 5.69 mm in
global negative 3 direction and 3.83 mm in
global positive 1 direction of the model.
The analyzed results from Response
Spectrum analysis with peak ground
acceleration of 0.05g for 0.2 Poisson’s ratio
model showed the maximum vertical
tension of 293 kPa in the outer surface of the
Spire. However, the rest of the stupa
remains under compression. Maximum
displacement occurred at the top of the
Spire. The displacement is 10.5 mm in global
positive 1 direction of the model. The
maximum displacement due to RS Case is
very large for the Spire of the proposed
stupa. Hence Spire could collapse under
peak ground acceleration of 0.05g.
The total brick volume for the newly
proposed stupa is 56,838 m 3. The value is
comparatively small when compared with a
mega stupas such as Jetavana.
According to performed tests and analysis
results, the stresses in the Stupa were
considerably lower than the compressive
and tensile strengths of the bricks found in
the stupa except for earthquake loading.
Hence proper reconstruction of the stupa up
to its full height is practically possible.
Acknowledgements
Gunawardhane and M.P. Ranaweera
Our thanks go to the research project
coordinator Dr. Sujeewa Herath for
providing every possible resource to
research students to carry out the research
projects.
References
Bureau of Indian Standards (1992). Method of
Non-destructive testing of concret, Part 1:
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test. New Delhi:
Bureau of Indian Standards, p.4.
Dilruksha, N. (2018). Parakramabahu raju upan
thana dedigama kota vehera - Dedigama Kota
Vehera (Suthigara Sthpa). [online]
Samakayawate.blogspot.com. Available
at:
http://samakayawate.blogspot.com/201
7/07/dedigama-kota-vehera-suthigara-
sthpa.html [Accessed 1 Mar. 2018].
Maduranga, W. and Lewangamage, C. (2017).
A statistical based approach for
demarcating a wind loading map for Sri
Lanka. In: Annual Sessions – 2017.: Society
of Structural Engineers Sri Lanka, pp.18-
24, Colombo.
Product Specifications TBX3000 Biaxial
Geogrid. (2018). 7th ed. [ebook]
terrafixgeo.com. Available at:
http://terrafixgeo.com/wp-content/upl
oads/TBX3000-Spec-
Sheet_Mtrc_May_2016_v7_4.pdf
[Accessed 27 Sep. 2018].
Ranaweera, M.P. (2018), Stupas of Sri Lanka: A
Technological Study.: S. Godage &
Brothers (Pvt) Ltd, Colombo.
SAP2000, V14 (2009). Computers & Structures,
Inc, Berkeley, California, USA.
Silva, R. (2004). Thūpa, thūpaghara and thūpa-
pāsāda.: The Departement of
Archaeology, Colombo.
Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind actions
AS/NZS 1170.2-2011. (2011). Sydney,
Australia: Standards Australia.
Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake
actions in Australia AS 1170.4-2007.
(2007). Sydney, Australia: Standards
Australia.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF DEDIGAMA KOTA VEHERA 11

Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc (2018). [image]

Available at:
http://terrafixgeo.com/wp-content/upl
oads/biaxial-geogrid.jpg [Accessed 27
Sep. 2018].