See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358741907

Analysis of Structural Layouts of Geodesic Dome Structures with Bar Filler

Considering Air Transportation

Article in Buildings · February 2022

DOI: 10.3390/buildings12020242

CITATIONS READS

2 193

1 author:

Андрей Колпаков
Moscow Aviation Institute
7 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Андрей Колпаков on 21 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 buildings
Article
Analysis of Structural Layouts of Geodesic Dome Structures
with Bar Filler Considering Air Transportation
Andrey Kolpakov 1, * , Oleg Dolgov 1 , Vladislav Korolskiy 1 , Semen Popov 1 , Vyacheslav Anchutin 1
and Vadim Zykov 2






Citation: Kolpakov, A.; Dolgov, O.;
Korolskiy, V.; Popov, S.; Anchutin, V.;
Zykov, V. Analysis of Structural
Layouts of Geodesic Dome Structures
with Bar Filler Considering Air
Transportation. Buildings 2022, 12,
242. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12020242
Academic Editor: Pierfrancesco
De Paola
Received: 21 January 2022
Accepted: 16 February 2022
Published: 19 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020242
1 Moscow Aviation Institute, National Research University, Volokolamskoe Shosse, 4, 125993 Moscow,
Moscow Region, Russia; dolgov@mai.ru (O.D.); korolskijvv@mai.ru (V.K.); semen-popov-2001@mail.ru (S.P.);
vyacheslav.anchutin@mail.ru (V.A.)
2 All-Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence,
Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, mkr. VNIIPO, 12,
143903 Balashikha, Moscow Region, Russia; otdel-15@vniipo.ru
* Correspondence: a.kolpakov@mai.ru
Abstract: The results are presented from a study of three-layer geodesic dome structures with bar
fillers under their own weight. An algorithm was developed for selecting the type of structural
layout used and the reference parameters chosen in terms of the technological, strength, and weight
characteristics. The results of this analysis aim to make it easier for designers to determine the
optimal reference parameters in the initial stage of the designing of geodetic hemispherical dome
structures, the construction of which is planned to be carried out in remote areas with harsh climatic
conditions. Due to the lack of sufficient ground transport infrastructure, cargo delivery to these
regions is currently possible only with the help of air transport. The importance of this study rests
on the lack of adequate methods for the determination of the reference parameters for geodesic
hemispherical dome structures at an early stage of design. In particular, it is common for the issues
regarding the transportation of structural elements as well as those that involve ensuring the strength
and the technological characteristics of the structure to not be considered simultaneously. This study
owes its relevance to the rapid development of the uninhabited territories of the Russian Federation
in the context of the global ecological crisis caused by anthropogenic impact on the environment.
Keywords: geodesic dome; technological design; structural layout; finite element method; stress-
strain state; weight analysis
1. Introduction
This article is a continuation of the research cycle devoted to the geodesic dome
structures featured in a previous article that was published in the journal Quality and Life in
December 2021 [1].
The Russian Federation ranks first in the world in terms of its area, which is 17,130,000 km2 .
At the same time, only about 12% of this area is mastered, while there are no traces of
human activity in the rest of the territory. As part of the “Strategy for the long-term
development of the Russian Federation with low greenhouse gas emissions until 2050”
project implementation, by 2030, there is a plan to reach a level of carbon emissions equal
to 67% of 1990 levels, and by 2050, to decrease emissions further to 20% of 1990 levels.
At the same time, there is a plan to build new cities in Siberia, which was officially
announced by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, S.K. Shoigu, on 5 August
2021. According to this statement, three scientific and industrial centers with a population
of three hundred thousand to one million people are planned to be built in Siberia between
Bratsk and Krasnoyarsk, as well as in the area of Kansk and Lesosibirsk.
The creation of settlements in the Russian Federation is also considered within the
framework of the comprehensive scientific and technical program “Connectivity of the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 2 of 12

territory of the Russian Federation”, selected by the Council for the Priority of Scientific
and Technological Development.
In the context of these two initiatives, the general task of ensuring the ecological preser-
vation of the territories not affected by anthropogenic impact along with their development
is highlighted.
This area has a sharply continental climate, which can be characterized by a long winter
with a temperature drop as low as −50 ◦ C and a short, hot summer with a temperature
high of +30 ◦ C. The hot season in the nearest cities lasts from 240 to 250 days a year, and
in summer, there is a high load on the power grid because of the high energy costs of air
conditioning. Thus, one of the steps necessary to achieve this task is to increase the energy
efficiency of the capital buildings. Salosina, Alifanov, and Nenerokomov in their work [2]
researched high-porosity open-cell foam in terms of its levels of thermal protection.
It is known that dome buildings in such climatic conditions have up to a one and a half
times higher level of energy efficiency when compared to classical rectangular buildings.
In the work of Pogosyan, Strelets, and Vladimirova [3], the communication gap in the
spatial development of the country is highlighted; transport and electronic accessibility is
limited. However, in the work of Lutovinov, Pogosyqn, and Lupyan [4], a solution to the
communication gap is proposed.
The use of dome geodesic structures can provide an alternative solution to this prob-
lem, since this can simplify the rapid construction of reliable long-term shelters without the
need for special construction equipment because of the added possibility of transporting
the assembly elements by air to areas that lack a developed transport infrastructure.
At the same time, reducing the mass of such structures will also significantly increase
the maximum range of air transportation. The problems involved in the increasing of the
maximum range of aircraft were previously dealt with by Dolgov and Aruvelli [5].
Additionally, another advantage of these kinds of structures is their high stability
in the event of natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes because of their
geometric shape.
All of these factors taken together allow us to speak about the relevance of a deeper
study of dome structures.

2. Literature Review
A large number of domestic and foreign scientists are currently engaged in research
on the strength and the functional characteristics of dome structures. The current research
was inspired by the work of the following authors:
• Gritsenko, who was engaged in research on the history of the lattice geodesic dome’s
creation [6].
• Maria, Esipova, Vintural, and Shabanov, who, in their works, investigated the possibil-
ity of using geodesic domes in various economical fields [7–10].
• Granev, Kodysh, Mamin, Bobrov, Reutsu, and Kuznichenko, who studied the existing
lattice structures in terms of their reliability and manufacturability [11].
• Gorkoltseva, Demidov, Olshanchenko, Shiryaeva, Romanovich, Shanko, Shishkina,
and Kaloshina in their works [12–16] investigated the advantages of dome structures
in comparison to those of classical buildings, according to the criteria of energy
efficiency, weight, materials cost, air exchange, seismic resistance, wind resistance, and
environmental friendliness.
• Zhuravlev, Glushko, and Lakhov in their works [17–20] studied the strength character-
istics of geodetic structural layouts.
• Lakhova, Gorkoltseva, Miryaeva, and Pilarska in their works [21–24] described various
ways of designing lattice domes.
• Chepurnenko conducted a comparative analysis of various designs of wavy domes in
order to identify their advantages and disadvantages [25].
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

• Lakhova, Gorkoltseva, Miryaeva, and Pilarska in their works [21–24] described

• Lakhova,
various Gorkoltseva,
ways of designing Miryaeva, and Pilarska in their works [21–24] described
lattice domes.
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 • various ways of designing lattice domes.
Chepurnenko conducted a comparative analysis of various designs of wavy domes 3 of 12
• in Chepurnenko conducted a comparative analysis
order to identify their advantages and disadvantages [25]. of various designs of wavy domes
• in order to
Barbieri, identify their
Machado, advantages
Barbieri, and disadvantages
Lima, Rossot, Guan, Virgin, [25].
and Helm calculated the
• strength
Barbieri, characteristics
Machado, Barbieri, of dome Lima, Rossot,
structures Guan,
and Virgin,
compared and with
them Helmthe calculated
results from the
• Barbieri, Machado, Barbieri, Lima, Rossot, Guan, Virgin, and Helm calculated the
strength
the characteristics
experimental of dome structures and compared them with the results from
data [26,27].
strength characteristics of dome structures and compared them with the results from
• the the experimental
Jihong, Mingfei, datadata
Kaveh, [26,27].
and Talatahari were engaged in the study of dome struc-
experimental [26,27].
•• Jihong,
Jihong,
tures Mingfei,
inMingfei, Kaveh,
terms ofKaveh,
their and
strength
and Talatahari were
characteristics,
Talatahari were engaged
as well
engaged intasks
in as
the the study
study related oftodome
of dome design struc-
structures op-
intures in
timization terms of
[28,29].
terms of their their strength characteristics, as well as tasks related
strength characteristics, as well as tasks related to design optimiza- to design op-
timization
tion [28,29].
Such[28,29].
a wide interest in the subject of the study, as well as the lack of a comparative
Suchofaawide
analysis
Such wide
the interestof
varieties
interest ingeodesic
in thesubject
the subject ofthe
thestudy,
hemispherical
of study, aswell
wellas
three-layered
as asthe
the lackofofjustifies
domes,
lack aacomparative
comparative
the rel-
analysis
analysis of
of the
the varieties
varieties of
of geodesic
geodesic hemispherical
hemispherical three-layered
three-layered
evance of the study. In regions with a mild climate, a single-layer structural layout domes,
domes, justifies
justifies therele-
the rel-
(Fig-
evance
vance of
ure 1)ofisthethe study.
study.used.
usually In regions
In regions
Most with with
often,a milda mild
natural climate,
climate, a single-layer
a single-layer
materials are used structuralstructural layout
layout (Figure
in the structural (Fig-
elements, 1)
ure 1) is the
isnamely,
usually usually
used. used.
Most
structural Mostnatural
often,
frame often, natural
of the materials materials
are used
dome structure isare used
in the
made in the structural
structural
of wooden boards. elements,
elements, Innamely,
such a
namely,
the
case, the the
structural structural
frame of
geometric frame
the dome of the
characteristics ofdome
structure structure
is ofiswooden
made of
made insulation
the thermal wooden
boards.
material Inboards.
are such
always Inlimited
such
a case, thea
case,
geometricthe
by the wood geometric characteristics
characteristics of the thermal insulation material are
of the thermal insulation material are always limited by the wood
blanks’ parameters. always limited
by the wood
blanks’ blanks’ parameters.
parameters.

Figure 1. Single-layered dome structure without thermal insulation.

Figure1.1.Single-layered
Figure Single-layereddome
domestructure
structurewithout
withoutthermal
thermalinsulation.
insulation.
As a rule, standard rectangular boards are chosen as the material of structural frame
Asaarule,
As
elements rule, standard
standard
(Figure rectangular
rectangular
2), which boards
boards
have the arechosen
are
following chosen asthe
as thematerial
geometric materialof
ofstructural
structural
characteristics frame
frame
“L”—length,
elements
elements (Figure
(Figure 2),2), which
which
“h”—height, and “b”—width. havehave
the the following
following geometric
geometric characteristics
characteristics “L”—length,
“L”—length, “h”—
“h”—height,
height, and “b”—width.
and “b”—width.

Figure2.2.Geometric
Figure Geometriccharacteristics
characteristicsof
ofaarectangular
rectangularboard.
board.
Figure 2. Geometric characteristics of a rectangular board.
Since,
Since,ininorder
ordertoto
achieve greater
achieve greaterstructural strength,
structural the boards
strength, are positioned
the boards in such
are positioned in
asuch Since,
wayathat in
waythe order
narrow
that to achieve
and long
the narrow greater
andside
long“J” structural
looks
side “J” out strength,
of the
looks the
out structure, boards are positioned
there isthere
of the structure, a limitation in
on
is a limita-
such
the a way that
thickness thethermal
of the narrow insulation
and long side “J” looks
material layer.out
Theof layer
the structure,
thicknessthere is aexceed
cannot limita-
the width “b” of the boards used because it is necessary to install the inner skin to fix it. At
the same time, the use of very wide boards has the potential to significantly increase the
cost and mass characteristics of the structure, while the use of more affordable materials
with smaller overall dimensions is more effective.
 tion
tion on
on thethe thickness
thickness ofof the
the thermal
thermal insulation
insulation material
material layer.
layer. The
The layer
layer thickness
thickness cannot
cannot
exceed
exceed the the width
width “b”
“b” ofof the
the boards
boards used
used because
because itit is is necessary
necessary toto install
install the
the inner
inner skin
skin to to
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 fix it. At the same time, the use of very wide boards has the potential to significantly4 of in-
12
fix it. At the same time, the use of very wide boards has the potential to significantly in-
crease
crease the
the cost
cost and
and mass
mass characteristics
characteristics ofof the
the structure,
structure, while
while the
the use
use of
of more
more affordable
affordable
materials
materials withwith smaller
smaller overall
overall dimensions
dimensions is is more
more effective.
effective.
InInregions
In regionswith
regions with
witha harsh
aa harsh
harshclimate, where
climate,
climate, where
whereit isititnecessary
is to increase
is necessary
necessary to the distance
to increase
increase the between
the distance
distance be-
be-
the external
tween
tween the and theand
the external
external internal
and the skin of skin
the internal
internal the
skindome,
of themultilayer
of the dome, structures
dome, multilayer
multilayer are used
structures
structures forused
are
are laying
used for
for
thermal
laying insulation
thermal material,
insulation in which
material, insectional
which structures
sectional are used
structures
laying thermal insulation material, in which sectional structures are used as structural as
arestructural
used as elements
structural
instead
elements
elements of instead
conventional
instead of boards (Figure
of conventional
conventional boards3).(Figure
boards (Figure 3). 3).

Figure
Figure3.3. Geometrical
3.Geometrical characteristics
Geometricalcharacteristics of
characteristicsof the
ofthe sectional
thesectional structural
sectionalstructural element.
structuralelement.
element.
Figure

In
In this
Inthis case,
thiscase, the
case,the elements
theelements
elementsof of the
ofthe inner
theinner and
innerand outer
andouter layers
outerlayers
layersofof the
ofthe dome
thedome “X”
dome“X” are
“X”are connected
areconnected
connected
using
using the
the structural
structural elements
elements in
in “Y”,
“Y”, which
which keep
keep the
the layers
layers at
at a
a certain
certain
using the structural elements in “Y”, which keep the layers at a certain distance, thereby distance,
distance, thereby
thereby
providing
providingthe
providing the necessary
thenecessary
necessary thickness
thickness
thickness for
forfor holding
holding
holding a thicker
a thicker
a thicker layer
layer
layer of thermal
of thermal
of thermal insulation
insulation
insulation mate-
mate-
material.
rial.
rial.
An An example
An example
example of
of such such
of asuch a structural
a structural
structural layout
layoutlayout is shown
is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure
in Figure 4. 4.
4.

Figure
Figure4.4.
Figure Two-layer
4.Two-layer geodesic
Two-layergeodesic dome
geodesicdome structure.
domestructure.
structure.

The disadvantage
Thedisadvantage
The disadvantageof of using
ofusing such
usingsuch modular
suchmodular structural
modular structural elements
structural elements
elements is is their
is their
their lowlow rigidity,
low rigidity,
rigidity,
owing
owingto
owing to the
tothe fact that
the fact that they
they are
are aa set
setof
set ofrectangles
of rectanglesthat
rectangles thathave
that havefour
have foursides.
four sides.
sides.ItIt is
is possible
It possible
is possibleto
to in-
in-
to
crease
crease the
increase therigidity
the rigidity by using
usingaaastructural
byusing structural
structural layout
layout consisting
consisting
layout of
of triangular
of triangular
consisting elements.
elements.
triangular elements.ThereThere
are
There
are
two two
two variants
are variants of
of geodesic
of geodesic
variants domedome
geodesic structures
structures
dome structural
structural
structures layoutslayouts
structural that
that consist
that consist
layouts only ofonly
consist of
of tri-
triangular
only tri-
angular
elements. elements.
They are They
known are known
and used and
in used
many in many
countries.
angular elements. They are known and used in many countries. countries.

3. Materials and Methods

To determine the advantages and the disadvantages of two-layer hemispherical
geodesic dome structural layouts with a triangular structure, a series of strength cal-
culations for different variants using the finite element method was carried out.
The finite element method makes it possible to analyze the stress-strain state of
structures with a high degree of accuracy. Aabid, Zakuan, Khan, and Ibrahim [30] claimed
that this method allows the analysis of the structures of different scales, which makes this
method universal.
 3. Materials
To determineand Methods
the advantages and the disadvantages of two-layer hemispherical
To determine
geodesic dome structural the advantages
layouts with and the disadvantages
a triangular structure, of two-layer
a series hemispherical
of strength calcula-
geodesic dome structural layouts with a triangular structure,
tions for different variants using the finite element method was carried out. a series of strength calcula-
tionsThe
for different variants
finite element using the
method finite
makes it element
possiblemethod was the
to analyze carried out.
stress-strain state of
The finite
structures with element methodofmakes
a high degree it possible
accuracy. Aabid,toZakuan,
analyze Khan,
the stress-strain
and Ibrahim state
[30] of
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 5 of 12
structures
claimed thatwith
this amethod
high degree
allows of theaccuracy.
analysis of Aabid, Zakuan, of
the structures Khan, and scales,
different Ibrahim which[30]
claimed
makes that
this this method
method universal.allows the analysis of the structures of different scales, which
makes this method universal.
The strength and weight parameters were jointly considered, depending on the
The
Thestrength andandweight parameters were jointlyjointly considered, depending on the amount
amount ofstrength
change in theweight
thickness parameters
of the bar were considered,
filler and the number depending
of structural on the
elements.
ofamount
changeof in change
the thickness of the bar filler and the number of structural elements.
Four variants in of the
the thickness
geodesic of the bar
domes’ filler andlayout
structural the number of structuralThe
were considered. elements.
struc-
Four variants of of
thethegeodesic domes’ structural layout werewere
considered. The structures
tures Four
undervariants
consideration geodesic domes’
were spatial structural
three-dimensional layoutthree-layerconsidered.
structures The struc-
consist-
under
tures consideration
under were spatial
consideration were three-dimensional
spatial three-dimensional three-layer structures
three-layer consisting
structures of
consist-
ing of load-bearing layers in the form of polygonal grids and a bar filler. The structural
load-bearing layers
ing of load-bearing in the form
layers in wereof polygonal
the form grids
of polygonal and a bar filler. The structural layouts
layouts under consideration divided into two grids types,andwhicha barwere
filler. The structural
further divided
under consideration
layouts were divided into two types, which were further divided into two
into two under
variants.consideration were both
In the first type, divided into layers
bearing two types, which were
are polygonal gridsfurther divided
consisting of
variants. In the first type, both bearing layers are polygonal grids consisting of triangles
into two (Figure
triangles variants.5),Inand the in
first
thetype,
secondbothtype,
bearing the layers are polygonal
first layer consists ofgrids consisting
triangles and the of
(Figure 5), and in the second type, the first layer consists of triangles and the second of
triangles
second of (Figure
hexagons 5), (Figure
and in the second
6). In additiontype, to the first layer
hexagons, consistswere
pentagons of triangles and the
also present in
hexagons (Figure 6). In addition to hexagons, pentagons were also present in the model,
second
the model,of hexagons
since this (Figure
condition 6).was
In addition
necessary toforhexagons,
the closure pentagons werestructure
of the dome also presentat the in
since this condition was necessary for the closure of the dome structure at the pole.
the
pole.model, since this condition was necessary for the closure of the dome structure at the
pole.

Figure 5. First variant of the structural layout.

Figure 5. First variant of the structural layout.
Figure 5. First variant of the structural layout.

Figure 6. Second variant of the structural layout.

Figure6.6.Second
Figure Secondvariant
variantofofthe
thestructural
structurallayout.
layout.
In the first type of structure, two variants differ regarding the orientation of the fill-
er. InInIn
the the
the first
first
first typeofofstructure,
type
variant structure, two
the first type two ofvariants
variants differ
differ
structure regarding
regarding
(Figure the
thefiller
7), the orientation
orientation
is connectedof of the
theonly fill-
filler.
to
In er.
the In
the the first
first
nodal variant
variant
points ofofthe ofouter
the the
firstfirst
type type
bearing of structure
of structure
layer, in(Figure
and(Figurethe 7), 7),
thethe
second filler
filler
variant is is
ofconnected
connected
the firstonlyonlyto
type ofto
thethe nodal
nodal points
points ofof the
the outer
outer bearing
bearing layer,
layer, andand inin the
the second
second variant
variant
structure (Figure 8), the filler is connected to the nodal points of the inner bearing layer. ofof the
the first
first type
type ofof
structure
structure
In the first (Figure
(Figure
variant8),8),
ofthe
the the filler
filler is connected
is connected
second to the
type oftostructure(
the nodalnodal points
points
Figure of the
9), of the
the inner
layerinner bearing
bearing
consistinglayer.layer.
of In
tri-
theIn first
the is
angles first variant
variant
external,of the ofsecond
the the second
layer type of type
consisting of hexagons
structure(isFigure
structure(Figure
of 9), the 9),
internal,layertheconsisting
and layer
in theconsisting of tri-
of triangles
second variant
isofexternal,
angles thetype
layerof
is external,
the second consisting
the of hexagons
layer consisting
structure (Figure is internal,
of hexagons
10), vice versa. and in the
is internal, andsecond
in the variant of the
second variant
second
of theHeretype
second of some
are structure
type of (Figureof10),
structure
examples vicestructures,
(Figure
dome versa.
10), vice versa.
parts of which were transported by air:
Here are some examples ofofdome structures, parts ofofwhich were transported byby air:
• The metal geodesic dome of the US Antarcticparts
Here are some examples dome structures, Station which were
Amundsen–Scott transported
is located air:
at
• • The The metal
metal geodesic
geodesic dome
dome ofofthe US
the US Antarctic
Antarctic Station
Station Amundsen–Scott
Amundsen–Scott
the South Pole of the Earth. It was built in 1975 and used to be the main shelter of the is located
is located at at
the
the South
South Pole
Pole ofofthe
the Earth.
Earth. It was
It was built in
built 1975
in 1975 and
and used
used toto
research station. Its service life in the extreme climatic conditions of the South Polebebethethe main
main shelter
shelter ofofthe
the
research
research station.
station. ItsIts
service lifelife
service in the extreme
in the extremeclimatic conditions
climatic conditionsof theofSouth Pole was
the South Pole
more than 30 years. This dome structure was built from elements premanufactured in
the factory and delivered by air transport.
 was more than 30 years. This dome structure was built from elements premanufac-
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW tured in the factory and delivered by air transport. 6 of 13

Buildings 2022, 12, 242 6 of 12

was more than 30 years. This dome structure was built from elements premanufac-
tured in the factory and delivered by air transport.

Figure 7. Metal geodesic dome of the US Antarctic Station Amundsen–Scott.

The geodesic dome of the DYE-2 station of the missile strike early detection system
in Greenland, with a diameter of more than 20 m, the construction of which began in the
late 1950s. The construction of this structure was carried out from parts transported ex-
Figure 7. Metal geodesic dome of the US Antarctic Station Amundsen–Scott.
clusively by air transport.
The geodesic dome of the DYE-2 station of the missile strike early detection system
in Greenland, with a diameter of more than 20 m, the construction of which began in the
late 1950s. The construction of this structure was carried out from parts transported ex-
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Metal
Metal geodesic
geodesic dome
dome of
of the
the US
US Antarctic
Antarctic Station
Station Amundsen–Scott.
Amundsen–Scott.
clusively by air transport.
The geodesic dome of the DYE-2 station of the missile strike early detection system
in Greenland, with a diameter of more than 20 m, the construction of which began in the
late 1950s. The construction of this structure was carried out from parts transported ex-
clusively by air transport.

Figure 8. Geodesic dome of the DYE-2 station of the missile strike early detection system in
Greenland.

• As a close analogue to the first type of structure, we may mention the lighting dome
of the Research Institute of Building Physics (NIISF), which was built in Moscow in
Figure 8.8.Geodesic
Figure Geodesic dome
dome of DYE-2
of the the DYE-2 station
station of the strike
of the missile missile strike
early early system
detection detection system in
in Greenland.
1981.
Greenland.

• As a close analogue to the first type of structure, we may mention the lighting dome
of the Research Institute of Building Physics (NIISF), which was built in Moscow in
Figure 8. Geodesic dome of the DYE-2 station of the missile strike early detection system in
1981.
Greenland.

• As a close analogue to the first type of structure, we may mention the lighting dome
of the Research Institute of Building Physics (NIISF), which was built in Moscow in
1981.

Figure 9.
Figure 9. The
The Lighting
Lighting dome
dome of
of the
the NIISF,
NIISF,outside
outsideview.
view.

The geodesic dome of the DYE-2 station of the missile strike early detection system in
Greenland, with a diameter of more than 20 m, the construction of which began in the late
1950s. The construction of this structure was carried out from parts transported exclusively
by air transport.
Figure 9. The Lighting dome of the NIISF, outside view.
• As a close analogue to the first type of structure, we may mention the lighting dome of
the Research Institute of Building Physics (NIISF), which was built in Moscow in 1981.
• As a close analogue to the second type of structure, we may mention the geodesic
Figure 9. The Lighting dome of the NIISF, outside view.
dome of the museum dedicated to the environment and water resources in Mon-
treal (Canada), built of steel rods in 1967, with a height of 62 m and a diameter
of 76 m, designed by American engineer and architect Richard Buckminster Fuller
(Figures 11 and 12).
Buildings 2022, 12,
Buildings 2022, 12, 242
x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of
of 12
13

Figure 10. The Lighting dome of the NIISF, inside view.

• As a close analogue to the second type of structure, we may mention the geodesic
dome of the museum dedicated to the environment and water resources in Montreal
(Canada), built of steel rods in 1967, with a height of 62 m and a diameter of 76 m,
designed by American engineer and architect Richard Buckminster Fuller (Figures
Figure 10.
Figure11 The12).
and
10. The Lighting dome
Lighting dome of
of the
the NIISF,
NIISF, inside
inside view.
view.

• As a close analogue to the second type of structure, we may mention the geodesic
dome of the museum dedicated to the environment and water resources in Montreal
(Canada), built of steel rods in 1967, with a height of 62 m and a diameter of 76 m,
designed by American engineer and architect Richard Buckminster Fuller (Figures
11 and 12).

Figure11.
Figure 11. Montreal
Montreal“biosphere,”
“biosphere,”general
generalview.
view.

Figure 11. Montreal “biosphere,” general view.

Figure12.
Figure 12. Montreal
Montreal“biosphere”
“biosphere”structure.
structure.

The general
The general views
views of of the
the geodetic
geodetic hemispherical
hemispherical structural
structural layouts
layouts considered
considered are
are
presentedin
presented inFigures 13–16.
Figures13–16.
For each of the four design versions, ten models were created with the division of the
main triangle edge into a different number of structural elements from 2 to 20 in increments
Figure
of two.12. Montreal
Each “biosphere”
structural element structure.
is a circular beam with a radius of 20 mm.
Next, a strength analysis of all forty models was carried out with a change in the
Thebetween
distance general the
views of the
bearing geodetic
layers from hemispherical
200 mm to 500 structural layouts of
mm in increments considered
50 mm. Asare
a
presented in Figures 13 – 16.
result, 280 calculations were carried out.
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 8 of 12
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

Figure13.
Figure 13.Type
Type1,1,variant
variant1.1.
Figure 13. Type 1, variant 1.
Figure 13. Type 1, variant 1.

Figure 14. Type 1, variant 2.

Figure 14. Type 1, variant 2.
Figure 14. Type 1, variant 2.
Figure 14. Type 1, variant 2.

Figure 15. Type 2, variant 1.

Figure 15. Type 2, variant 1.
Figure 15. Type 2, variant 1.
Figure 15. Type 2, variant 1.
Buildings
Buildings2022, 12,12,
2022, 242x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 ofof1213

Figure16.
Figure 16.Type
Type2,2,variant
variant2.2.

For eachcalculations
Strength of the fourwere design versions,
carried ten models
out using were
the finite created
element with the
method division
in the Hyper-of
the main
Mesh triangle
software edgeininto
package a different
a static solver. number
Four groups of structural
of modelselements
were createdfrom that
2 todiffered
20 in in-
increments
the number of two. Eachper
of edges structural
the sideelement is a triangle
of the main circularfrom
beam2 with
to 20.aThe
radius of 20
model mm.
parameters
Next, a
are given in Table 1.strength analysis of all forty models was carried out with a change in the
distance between the bearing layers from 200 mm to 500 mm in increments of 50 mm. As
a result,
Table 280 calculations
1. Parameters for FEM were
models.carried out.
Strength calculations were carried out using the finite element method in the Hy-
perMesh software Parameter
package in a static solver. Four groups of Value models were created that
differed in the Dome diameter,
number m per the side of the main triangle 10
of edges from 2 to 20. The model
Section view
parameters are of the structural
given in Table 1.elements Circle
Structural elements section radius, mm
As mentioned previously, 280 calculations were carried out20for each of the models
Material Steel
that was created manually.
Young’s Modulus, MPaThe use of the highly convenient HyperMesh software
2,100,000
package made it possible
Poisson ratio to significantly reduce the preparation 0.3 of the model.
time
Depending on the
Density, kg/m 3
geometric division of the main triangle, the
7700 number of structural
Element type B31—linear
elements (beams) changed, but regardless of the division, each beam was spatial beam finite elementinto 10
divided
finite elements. Thus, the structural elements had the same mesh density. This partition
wasAs dictated
mentionedprimarily by the requirement
previously, 280 calculationsof mesh
wereconvergence.
carried out for each of the models
The final elements of the Bar-type, instead
that was created manually. The use of the highly convenient of the Rod-type,
HyperMeshwere used in the
software model;
package
the elements of the Bar-type are able to work not only
made it possible to significantly reduce the preparation time of the model. in tension-compression, but also in
bending.
Depending on the geometric division of the main triangle, the number of structural
elements The(beams)
structurechanged,
under itsbut own weight was
regardless calculated.
of the division,For this,beam
each the gravity acceleration
was divided into
was set to 9.8 m/s 2. As boundary conditions, a restriction on all degrees of freedom for the
10 finite elements. Thus, the structural elements had the same mesh density. This partition
lower
was row ofprimarily
dictated nodes was by used, simulating of
the requirement themesh
presence of a foundation.
convergence.
The final elements of the Bar-type, instead of the Rod-type, were used in the model;
Table
the 1. Parameters
elements of the for FEM models.
Bar-type are able to work not only in tension-compression, but also
in bending. Parameter Value
The structure under its own weight was calculated. For this, the gravity acceleration
Dome diameter, m 10
was set to 9.8 m/s2 . As boundary conditions, a restriction on all degrees of freedom for the
Section view of the structural elements Circle
lower row of nodes was used, simulating the presence of a foundation.
Structural elements section radius, mm 20
4. Results and Discussion Material Steel
Young’s Modulus, MPa 2100,000
The stress-strain state of the structures was estimated by the values of stresses and
displacements. The Poisson ratiofor all models do not exceed the yield strength
stress values 0.3 of structural
steels. The peak values Density,ofkg/m 3
the displacements were systemized. Figure 7700 17 shows the
dependences of the Element displacementtype values on the massB31—linear spatial
of the structure andbeam finite
the wall element
thickness.

4. Results and Discussion

The stress-strain state of the structures was estimated by the values of stresses and
displacements. The stress values for all models do not exceed the yield strength of
 Buildings 2022, 12, 242 10 of 12
ngs 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13

Figure 17. Summary graph of the peak displacements and the mass of the structure on the reference
Figure 17. Summary graph of the peak displacements and the mass of the structure on the reference
parameters of the structural layout for geodesic hemispherical two-layer dome structures with a
core filler. parameters of the structural layout for geodesic hemispherical two-layer dome structures with a
core filler.
5. Conclusions
The parameters accepted in the finite element model correspond to the parameters
Based onthat
thecan
dependencies
be used in aobtained during
real design. the analysis
Changing of the and
the material different variants of of structural
the cross-section
geodesic hemispherical dome structures, an algorithm was determined for
elements would yield different results, but this is the topic of another separate selecting a study.
rational combination of strength and weight characteristics taking into consideration
In this paper, a comparative analysis of the structural layout of domes was carried out. the
limitations associated with manufacturability
After analyzing the graphs in Figure and the 17,choice of structural
a rational materials.
design can be chosen based on the
The algorithm developed
requirements set. for the selection of reference parameters during the initial
stage of the designIfofthe basic requirement is air transportation possibility, then it is the
geodetic hemispherical dome structures may also facilitate task to choose a
advisable
of transporting the elements of such structures by air in the future.
design that meets all other restrictions with a minimum weight. Judging by the graphs, the
The desired outcome
rational choiceofinthis
thisstudy is atotype
case is ensure the possibility
2 structure of building
with a division reliable,
of six elements per main
long-term shelters in asince
triangle, short
in time, withthe
this case, thedisplacements
help of only smallof the groups
structureof have
workers, and low values.
extremely
without the use
Theofwall
special construction
thickness should equipment,
be determined by based
ensuring a rational
on the requiredcombination of
type of insulation material.
the structuralSo,
and
whentechnological
using mineralparameters
cotton, the ofminimum
the structures is used
thickness wouldwith
be a350
minimum
mm; at the same time,
mass of material.
when using polyurethane, it is possible to limit the wall thickness to 200 mm.
Similarly, a design selection can be made that is guided by other requirements.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.K.; methodology, O.D.; validation, S.P.; formal anal-
ysis, V.K.; investigation, A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P.; writing—review and edit-
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 11 of 12

Two types of structures have been worked out in two variants. Structures of the second
type have better mass-stiffness characteristics, while structures of the first type are better
in terms of their manufacturability. In particular, structures of this type require less labor
intensity during assembly because of the presence of the horizontal rows of the structural
elements. As a result of our calculations, it became possible to quantify the gain in weight
of the second type of structure relative to the first one, which allows the designer to make
an optimal choice in favor of a design of one type over another.

5. Conclusions
Based on the dependencies obtained during the analysis of the different variants of
geodesic hemispherical dome structures, an algorithm was determined for selecting a
rational combination of strength and weight characteristics taking into consideration the
limitations associated with manufacturability and the choice of structural materials.
The algorithm developed for the selection of reference parameters during the initial
stage of the design of geodetic hemispherical dome structures may also facilitate the task of
transporting the elements of such structures by air in the future.
The desired outcome of this study is to ensure the possibility of building reliable,
long-term shelters in a short time, with the help of only small groups of workers, and
without the use of special construction equipment, by ensuring a rational combination of
the structural and technological parameters of the structures is used with a minimum mass
of material.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.K.; methodology, O.D.; validation, S.P.; formal analysis,
V.K.; investigation, A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P.; writing—review and editing, V.Z.;
visualization, V.A.; supervision, O.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dolgov, O.S.; Dolgova, T.V.; Kolpakov, A.M.; Korolskii, V.V. Ensuring the long-term quality of dome structures based on the use
of lattice high-resource structural layouts of a rational combination of structural and technological parameters with a minimum
mass of material. Qual. Life 2021, 4, 70–77.
2. Salosina, M.O.; Alifanov, O.M.; Nenarokomov, A.V. An optimal design of thermal protection based on materials morphology.
Comput. Assist. Methods Eng. Sci. 2019, 1, 47–60.
3. Pogosyan, M.A.; Strelets, D.Y.; Vladimirova, V.G. Territorial Connectivity of the Russian Federation: From the Statement of
Complex Problems to Drawing up Integrated Scientific and Technical Projects. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2019, 89, 179–184. [CrossRef]
4. Lutovinov, A.A.; Lupyan, E.A.; Pogosyan, M.A.; Shemyakov, A.O. Providing Information Connectivity over Russian Territory
Using Remote Sensing Systems of the Earth. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2019, 89, 190–195. [CrossRef]
5. Dolgov, O.S.; Aruvelli, S.V. A Method of Increasing the Electric Aircraft Flight Range by Reducing Weight during Flight. Russ.
Aeronaut. 2020, 63, 405–412.
6. Gritsenko, D.A. Fuller and his geodesic domes. In Science, Education and Experimental Design; Abstracts of the International
Scientific and Practical Conference of Teaching Staff, Young Scientists and Students; Moscow Architectural Institute (State
Academy): Moscow, Russia, 2014; p. 407.
7. Vrontissi, M.K. Designing and building a geodesic dome as a bearing structure for an ‘artificial sky’ ligthting installation. In
Proceedings of the Evolution and Trends in Design, Analysis and Construction of Shell and Spatial Structures [International
Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2009], Valencia, Spain, 1 March 2009.
8. Esipova, A.A. Application of geodesic domes in construction: Advantages and disadvantages. North Caucasus Branch of
Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov, Mineralnye Vody. Sci. Mod. 2015, 38, 8–11.
Buildings 2022, 12, 242 12 of 12

9. Vintural, D.A. Structures on Mars. Actual problems of aviation and cosmonautics. In Proceedings of the Materials of the VI
International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the Cosmonautics Day, Tomsk, Russia, 6 April 2020; pp. 275–276.
10. Shabanov, Y.S. Application of dome construction technology in the construction of low-rise residential buildings. In Generation of
the Future: The View of Young Scientists—2020 Kursk; Don State Technical University: Rostov-on-Don, Russia, 2020; pp. 381–383.
11. Granev, V.V.; Kodysh, E.N.; Mamin, A.N.; Bobrov, V.V.; Reutsu, A.V.; Kuznechenko, S.A. Preservation of the Shukhov Radio
Tower—Current state and prospects. In Proceedings of the Collection of Scientific Works of the RAASN “Fundamental, Ex-
ploratory and Applied Research on Scientific Support for the Development of Architecture, Urban Planning and the Construction
Industry of the Russian Federation”, Moscow, Russia, 4 April 2018.
12. Gorkoltseva, D.S. Research and development of an energy-efficient dome structure. Tomsk State University of Architecture and
Civil Engineering, Russia, Tomsk. Prospects for the Development of Fundamental Sciences. In Proceedings of the scientific papers
of the XII International Conference of Students and Young Scientists, Tomsk, Russia, 21–24 April 2015; pp. 1263–1265.
13. Panova, Y.V.; Demidov, S.V. Effective construction system—Geodesic dome. In Proceedings of the Collection: Cherepovets
Scientific Readings—2014 Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference, Cherepovets, Russia, 3–5 November
2015; pp. 39–43.
14. Olshanchenko, A.A.; Shiryaeva, N.P. Energy saving in domed houses. In Proceedings of the Collection: Energy and Resource
Conservation. Energy Supply. Unconventional and Renewable Energy Sources, Materials of the International Scientific and
Practical Conference of Students, postgraduates and Young Scientists Dedicated to the Memory of Professor N.I. Danilov (1945–
2015)—Danilov Readings. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Ural Federal University Named after the
First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin. Ekaterinburg, Russia, 11–15 December 2017; pp. 299–303.
15. Romanovich, A.N. Geodesic domes. general information. features of application and calculation. Mod. Innov. 2016, 6, 22–23.
16. Shanko, P.S.; Shishkina, A.V.; Kaloshina, S.V. Construction methods and advantages of domed buildings. Mod. Technol. Constr.
Theory Pract. 2016, 2, 341–348.
17. Zhuravlev, A.A. Snapping the bar structure of lattice dome in the form of a 980-agon. News Univ. Constr. Archit. 1983, 6, 34–39.
18. Glushko, K.K. Study of shape stability of rod polyhedra of lattice domes. In Proceedings of the II International Scientific and
Technical Conference “Theory and Practice of Research and Design in Construction Using Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
Systems”, Moscow, Russia, 25–26 October 2018; pp. 33–42.
19. Glushko, K.K. Loss of local stability of lattice domes with rigid nodes. In Proceedings of the II International Scientific and
Technical Conference “Theory and Practice of Research and Design in Construction Using Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
Systems”, Brest, Belarus, 29–30 March 2018; pp. 24–33.
20. Lakhov, A.Y. Approximate method for determining the maximum tensile stresses in the rods of double-circuit geodesic domes of
the “R” system from the impact of its own weight. Bull. MGSU 2014, 1, 58–65.
21. Lakhov, A.Y. Two-contour geodesic shells with pentahedral pyramids. Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and
Civil Engineering. Eng. Bull. Don 2019, 6, 18.
22. Gorkoltseva, D.S. Design calculation and construction of a geodesic dome model. In Proceedings of the 1 Tomsk State University
of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Tomsk Youth Scientific Potential of the XXI Century: Stages of Cognition, Tomsk, Russia,
25–28 April 2017; pp. 70–74.
23. Miryaev, B.V. Optimization of the geometric scheme of lattice domes formed on the basis of an icosahedron. Reg. Archit. Constr.
2012, 3, 122–125.
24. Pilarska, D. Two subdivision methods based on the regular octahedron for single-and double-layer spherical geodesic domes. Int.
J. Space Struct. 2020, 35, 160–173. [CrossRef]
25. Chepurnenko, A.S.; Kochura, V.G.; Saibel, A.V. Finite element analysis of the stress-strain state of wavy shells. Constr. Technog.
Saf. 2018, 11, 27–31.
26. Barbieri, N.; Machado, R.D.; Barbieri, L.S.V.; Lima, K.F.; Rossot, D. Dynamic Behavior of the Geodesic Dome Joints. Int. J. Comput.
Appl. 2016, 40, 40–44. [CrossRef]
27. Guan, Y.; Virgin, L.N.; Helm, D. Structural behavior of shallow geodesic lattice domes. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2018, 15515, 225–239.
[CrossRef]
28. Ye, J.; Lu, M. Optimization of domes against instability. Steel Compos. Struct. 2018, 28, 427–438.
29. Kaveh, A.; Talatahari, S. Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search. Struct. Multidiscip.
Optim. 2011, 43, 215–229. [CrossRef]
30. Aabid, A.; Zakuan, M.A.M.B.M.; Khan, S.A.; Ibrahim, Y.E. Structural analysis of three-dimensional wings using finite element
method. Aerosp. Syst. 2021, 3, 1–17. [CrossRef]

View publication stats