WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Index 351733 DOI: 10.24425/ace.2023.

146067
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL AND WATER ENGINEERING
ARCHIVES OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ISSN 1230-2945 Vol. LXIX ISSUE 3 2023
© 2023. Dominika Bysiec, Tomasz Maleska. pp. 65 –78
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided that the Article is properly cited, the use is non-commercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Research paper

Influence of the mesh structure of geodesic domes

on their seismic response in applied directions

Dominika Bysiec1 , Tomasz Maleska2

Abstract: The paper presents the determination of the impact of earthquakes of varying intensity on
the structure of geodesic domes. The structures of the analyzed domes were designed on the basis of the
regular octahedron according to two different methods of creating their topology. The use of four seismic
records of different intensity and duration of the record made it possible to subject 8 models to numerical
analysis. The designed spatial structures are domes with a steel cross-section, thanks to which they are
undoubtedly characterized by their lightness and the possibility of covering very large areas, without the
need to use internal supports. Designing steel domes is currently a challenge for constructors, as well as
architect, who take into account their aesthetic considerations. The paper presents the seismic response
of geodesic domes in applied different directions (two horizontal “X” and “Y” and one vertical “Z”),
using the Time History method. The values of forced vibrations and recording intensity were shown,
and on this basis, an attempt was made to determine which seismic record may be more unfavorable
for the designed geodesic domes created according to two different methods of shaping the topology of
their structures. For this purpose, the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) method was used. The maximum
accelerations and displacements of the structures were also analyzed. The conducted analysis shows the
influence of seismic excitations on geodetic dome structures, depending on the applied method (method
1 and 2) of shaping their topology. This paper will undoubtedly be useful in designing a geodesic
dome structure in a seismic area. In addition, this analysis can be helpful in assessing the effects of an
incidental earthquake.
Keywords: forced vibrations, geodesic dome, lightweight structures, numerical analysis,
seismic analysis

1 PhD., Eng., Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Katowicka 48,
45-758 Opole, Poland, e-mail: d.bysiec@po.edu.pl, ORCID: 0000-0001-7679-7085
2 PhD., Eng., Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Katowicka 48,

45-758 Opole, Poland, e-mail: t.maleska@po.edu.pl, ORCID: 0000-0002-5594-0572

66 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

1. Introduction
Geodesic dome structures made of light construction material such as steel can be
found in various parts of the world. It often happens that geodesic dome structures consti-
tute a reference point for a given city. An example of such a structure is a dome located in
Montreal, Canada (Fig. 1a). Sometimes, however, structures of this type can be found in
typical buildings, e.g. in a residential building (in Milan, Italy – Fig. 1b). These construc-
tions have numerous advantages: (i) the possibility of building structures covering large
surfaces without the use of internal supports, (ii) reliability, (iii) good acoustics, (iv) exem-
plary ventilation of the interior of the structure, or (v) unique appearance thanks to a light
load-bearing structure, often trying to deny the laws of physics.

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Geodesic dome located in: a) Montreal, Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_

Biosphere, by Ralf Roletchek: www.roletschek.at), b) Milan, Italy

Research on the construction of domes has been carried out for years. The main research
area for these types of structures was their weight optimization [1–10].
The influence of the topology of geodesic dome structures was also investigated. In
the papers [11–14] the influence of the topology of mesh shaping of geodesic domes was
investigated with the use of two different methods. A regular octahedron was used as the
basis for generating the analyzed geodesic domes, resulting in innovative, so far unexplored
structures. It was found that the use of a particular method to create their mesh influences the
weight of the structure by optimizing the cross-sections of strut elements in each specified
group of struts. The conducted analyzes were guided by the fact that the use of steel struts
was at a high level and amounted to about 90% according to Eurocode 3 [15]. In addition,
these tests were carried out under the influence of a static load that was applied at individual
nodes of the tested structures.
There is relatively little research on dynamic geodetic structures of strut domes. It
has been assumed that such objects, despite their large size, are resistant to dynamic
forces due to their unique structure. In fact, one may doubt this claim. Especially when
 INFLUENCE OF THE MESH STRUCTURE OF GEODESIC DOMES . . . 67

these objects are located in seismic areas [16–22]. The seismic forcing aspect has also
been investigated in other studies. The aforementioned theory may be true in the case of
dynamic loads originating from wind, then thanks to its streamlined structure, the geodesic
dome construction is able to ensure safety.
Therefore, the aim of this work is to determine the impact that an earthquake of varying
intensity may have on the structure of geodesic domes, which were built according to two
different methods of creating a mesh structure of steel elements, and the basis of their
creation is a regular octahedron. The paper was forced into three directions simultaneously
(horizontal X, Y and vertical Z). In addition, the study also analyzed the response of the
structure in three different directions, both for displacements, accelerations and forced
vibrations.

2. Methodology
2.1. Description of geodesic domes
To create the structures of the analyzed geodesic domes, two different methods of
dividing a spherical triangle, which is the initial face of a regular octahedron, were used.
By interpolating a flat, triangular face of the octahedron, the division points were obtained,
which were projected by radial rays onto the surface of the sphere concentric with the
polyhedron. In method 1 a mesh of steel struts of the dome was created by dividing each
triangular side into 𝑛 parts and drawing three families of lines parallel to the sides of the
initial face of the regular octahedron. However, in method 2, three families of parallel
lines were drawn to the height line. In the first method, after dividing the initial triangle
of the regular octahedron into 19 frequencies, 2888-hedron was obtained, i.e. a structure
consisting of 761 nodes and 2204 struts (Figure 2a). The analysed dome is 49.97 m wide
and 25.0 m high and weighs 58 tons. Using the second method, after dividing the initial
triangle of the regular octahedron into 22 frequencies, 2904-hedron was modelled. This
dome consists of 749 nodes and 2156 struts (Figure 2b), with a width of 50.0 m and
a height of 25.0 m. It weighs 43 tons. A detailed analysis of the topology of geodesic
domes is presented in [11–14, 16].

Fig. 2. Geodesic dome made of: a) method 1 and b) method 2

68 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

Fig. 2 shows the meshes of the domes analyzed in this paper, taken from the numerical
program Dlubal RFEM.
Two geodesic domes with the same parameters were used in the paper: (i) span 50 m and
(ii) height 25 m. Steel struts were modelled from S235 steel in accordance with Eurocode 3.
The properties of this type of steel are following:
(i) Poisson’s ratio (𝜈) 0.3,
(ii) Kirchhoff module (G) 80.76 GPa,
(iii) Young’s modulus (E) 210 GPa,
(iv) thermal expansion coefficient (𝛼) 1.2 × 10−5 ,
(v) volumetric weight (𝛾) 7850 kg/m3 , and
(vi) partial safety factor (𝛾 𝑀 ) 1.0 [16].
Taking into account the above assumptions and the number of seismic records, 8
numerical models were created (models I–VIII). The struts in numerical models were
modelled as pinned joints.

2.2. Numerical analysis

In order to determine the seismic response of the domes to the given load in different
directions, an analysis was performed over time. In this respect, the Time History method
was used, where the time step for each of the applied excitation was 0.02 s. As a result,
about 1000 time steps were obtained depending on the given record (Ancona, Denizli,
Friuli, Kilini). The FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) method was used to determine the value
of forced vibrations and the intensity of the record as well as its harmfulness for the
structure. This method is known and widely used in the analysis of structures [23–26]. In
addition, the maximal length of finite element was 0.5 m.

2.3. Seismic excitations

In order to find out about the seismic response of the studied domes, four seismic
records of different intensity and recording duration were selected. In addition, the records
were selected in such a way as to check, based on the forced vibration, whether a recording
with a lower intensity is more harmful than a recording with a higher intensity. Therefore,
for this seismic analysis, records from Italy, Turkey and Greece were used. The weakest
one from Greece (Kilini) was characterized by ground acceleration equal to 0.714 m/s2
(Fig. 3d) and duration of 16.18 seconds. The two records from Italy had different parameters.
The Ancona record was characterized by an acceleration of –3.740 m/s2 and a duration
of 7.76 seconds (Fig. 3a). In turn, the second recording (Friuli) from Italy lasted 16.30
seconds and was characterized by an acceleration of –1.870 m/s2 (Fig. 3c). On the other
hand, the Denizli (Turkey) record had an acceleration equal to –3.387 m/s2 (Fig. 3b) and
lasted 17.31 seconds.
 INFLUENCE OF THE MESH STRUCTURE OF GEODESIC DOMES . . . 69

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3. The particular component (directions) of seismic excitations: a) Ancona (Italia),

b) Denizli (Turkey), c) Friuli (Italia), d) Kilini (Greece)
70 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

2.4. Validation of numerical model

The numerical model of the domes was built on the basis of assumptions known from the
buildings mechanics and steel structures. The domes were designed as skeletal structures
using a steel cross-section under a static load of 90% (as in the papers [11–14]). It should
be added that conducting a real-scale experiment on this type of domes is impossible due
to the size of the analyzed structures and their topology. Hence, in order to determine
the impact of seismic excitations, it was decided to make numerical models in DLUBAL
RFEM using the dynamic analysis module. Experimental tests could be made to reduced
scale modes, but other problems would be associated. It could be a next subject to study,
though.
Table 1. Maximum values from numerical analysis
Seismic record
Ancona (Italia) Denizli (Turkey) Friuli (Italia) Kilini (Greecce)
Method
Directions 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Model
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Accelerations [m/s2 ]
X 64.14 29.34 33.77 26.48 10.67 5.88 8.90 4.78
Y 81.71 30.19 55.78 27.44 13.50 6.66 4.89 3.49
Z 39.21 32.42 28.06 –34.35 6.26 6.01 4.51 3.79
Displacements [mm]
X 17.4 6.8 8.3 6.6 3.9 2.3 –1.9 1.1
Y 23.4 –7.6 13.3 –6.9 3.6 2.1 1.1 0.9
Z 10.2 4.5 6.7 5.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.6

3. Results and discussion

3.1. General remarks
The paper analyzes the effect of seismic excitations on the structure of geodesic domes
built according to two different methods of dividing the initial octahedron mesh (method 1
and 2). In addition, the study considers the maximum values that were recorded in in-
dividual directions (horizontal X and Y, vertical Z) for accelerations and displacements.
Additionally, forced vibrations based on acceleration data were taken into account. It should
be added that the load was applied to the structure supports simultaneously in all directions,
i.e. horizontal (X and Y) and vertical (Z), as well as the self-weight was set at the same
time. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained from the numerical analysis for maximum
accelerations and displacements.
 INFLUENCE OF THE MESH STRUCTURE OF GEODESIC DOMES . . . 71

3.2. Accelerations
When analyzing the maximum accelerations (Fig. 4 and 5), it can be observed that
the maximum value was recorded in the horizontal direction Y (81.71 m/s2 – Fig. 4a) in
model I, and therefore in the model whose dome was constructed on the basis of method 1.
This value was obtained in the model that was subjected to the strongest excitation, but at
the same time the shortest (Ancona). In method 2 (model II), for the same excitation, the
obtained value was much lower and it amounted to 32.42 m/s2 (Fig. 5a), therefore it was
lower by 60% compared to model I. It can therefore be observed how important the value
of the ground acceleration of the seismic record during an earthquake is.

Fig. 4. Accelerations for method 1: a) Ancona (Italia), b) Denizli (Turkey), c) Friuli (Italia),
d) Kilini (Greece)

It can also be noticed that in method 1 (models I, III, V, VII) the highest acceleration
values were obtained in the horizontal directions (X and Y), so the vertical direction was
not the dominant one. In the case of method 2, there was no such clear trend. In the II and
IV models, the maximum acceleration values were recorded in the vertical direction, i.e.
in the models where the input with higher acceleration was applied (Ancona, Denizli). In
VI and VIII models, where the forcing was lower, the maximum acceleration was recorded
in the horizontal directions (X and Y). The maximum accelerations were observed around
half the height of the tested domes for both methods 1 and 2.
72 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

Fig. 5. Accelerations for method 2: a) Ancona (Italia), b) Denizli (Turkey), c) Friuli (Italia),
d) Kilini (Greece)

With regard to other papers [17–23] relating to dynamic analyzes, the influence of
the excitation on the maximum acceleration values depending on the direction of their
occurrence has not been investigated. Efforts were only made to assess the impact of the
forcing on structures. This analysis shows that the geodesic dome structure behaves a bit
differently than typical skeleton structures.

3.3. Forced vibrations based on acceleration

As mentioned earlier, the paper also attempts to determine which seismic record may
be more unfavorable for the surveyed geodesic domes built according to two methods
(1 and 2) of creating their structure. This aspect is extremely important from the point of
view of the mechanics of the structure, because the engineer designing the structure must
know the conditions under which the structure will work, and therefore what type of load
is the worst. Moreover, the fact that the seismic load is unlikely to repeat 100% increases
the importance of determining the most unfavorable seismic record.
For this purpose, the values of forced vibrations from the acceleration of the structure
were determined, and the FFT (Fast Fourier Fransform) method was used as a tool. This
method is known and widely used in the analysis of building structures, where it is important
 INFLUENCE OF THE MESH STRUCTURE OF GEODESIC DOMES . . . 73

to know about the significant intensities for structures originating from dynamic excitations.
In addition, one of the ways to determine the stiffness of a structure under seismic excitation
is to determine the significant frequencies. These frequencies can be determined from the
nodal data coming from acceleration. In order to determine the significant frequencies,
the acceleration data was obtained for the eight models analysed under a given seismic
excitation. SeismoSignal software was used, which allows for proper signal processing
(from accelerations) and the determination of significant frequencies in the tested models.
From Fig. 6, it can be seen that the significant frequency range is influenced by the
method (method 1 or 2) of shaping the strut dome structure. In models II, IV, VI and
VIII, where method 2 was used to generate the structures (Fig. 6b), the range of significant
frequencies was greater and ranged from 8.87 Hz to 22.02 Hz. For comparison, in the
models based on method 1 (models I, III, V and VII), the range was from 8.40 Hz to
16.89 Hz (Fig. 6a). When analysing the obtained values of significant frequencies in the
domes, it can be seen that, for high-intensity excitations (model I, II, and IV) the range of
these frequencies was greater than in the models III, V–VIII, where the intensity of the
excitation was lower. Moreover, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the dominant

Fig. 6. Forced vibrations of: a) method 1, b) method 2

74 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

frequencies in the analysed models were 8.45 Hz (method 1), 11.04 Hz (method 1), 8.87 Hz
(method 2) and 10.35 Hz (method 2).
On the basis of Fig. 6, it can first of all be noticed which notation is the most unfavorable
for the analyzed geodesic dome structures. The analyzes show that the most important
record is the Friuli record (Italy), i.e. the record with a relatively low ground acceleration
in relation to the Ancona (Italy) and Denizli (Turkey) record. However, if you look at its
characteristics, you can see that if you repeat this notation with an increased force, e.g. with
a force similar to that of El Centro (Benchmark in the seismic analysis of a structure), then
we can see that its intense zone may be more destructive than in the other studied seismic
records (Ancona, Denizli, Kilini).

3.4. Displacements
In the case of displacements (Fig. 7 and 8), the situation is similar to that of accelerations.
The largest displacements were recorded for model I (23.4 mm – Fig. 7a), built according
to method 1 (Ancona record). For the same record (Ancona) according to method 2 (model
II), the obtained value was much lower, i.e. 7.6 mm (68% lower than in model I – Fig. 8a).
In the other models, the displacement values were lower, so it can be concluded that only the
force of the maximum ground acceleration during an earthquake has a significant impact
on the displacement value.

Fig. 7. Displacements for method 1: a) Ancona (Italia), b) Denizli (Turkey), c) Friuli (Italia),
d) Kilini (Greece)
 INFLUENCE OF THE MESH STRUCTURE OF GEODESIC DOMES . . . 75

Fig. 8. Displacements for method 2: a) Ancona (Italia), b) Denizli (Turkey), c) Friuli (Italia),
d) Kilini (Greece)

It should also be emphasized that for all analyzed models of geodesic domes (models
I–VIII), the maximum displacements were recorded in the horizontal directions (X and Y).
Moreover, it can be seen that in method 1 (models I, III, V, VII) the maximum values
were significantly higher than in the case of method 2 (models II, IV, VI, VIII). Additionally,
it can be observed that the displacement values increased with the increase in the value of
the maximum acceleration of a given recording. Thus, the trend is as linear as possible.
In addition, it should be added that the maximum values for both domes were recorded
in the side sectors of the domes as a result of the maximum horizontal seismic excitation.
It was a place located around mid-height for the domes constructed according to both
methods of shaping their sphere.

4. Conclusions

After the numerical analysis, it can be concluded that the effect of seismic excitations
on the geodesic domes is visible. In addition, it depends on the method of topological
structure shaping that was used to design the geodesic dome. In method 1, higher values of
76 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

displacements and accelerations were obtained than in the case of method 2. Additionally,
it was noticed that:
– displacement values increased with an increase in the value of the maximum accel-
eration of a given recording. Therefore, the length of the record is not important, but
the maximum value of the record,
– higher values of displacements and accelerations were recorded in the horizontal
direction than in the vertical direction,
– based on the FFT analysis, it can be concluded that the most destructive record for
the structure of the geodesic dome is the one from Fruila (Italy),
– The forced vibration frequency range ranged from 8.45 Hz to 22.02 Hz, with a greater
frequency range reported for method 2.
The conducted assessment of the impact of seismic excitations on geodesic dome in
the individual directions will be helpful for designers during the constructing of a geodesic
dome in a seismic area. In addition, this analysis can be helpful in assessing the effects of
an incidental earthquake. In the future, it is still planned to seek the answer to the question
“what is the impact of seismic excitations on the structure of geodesic domes”. The aspect
of locating the additional masses seems interesting. The mentioned masses can disrupt the
apparently ideal structure of the domes and lead to completely different responses.

References
[1] J.P.G. Carvalho, A.C.C. Lemonge, P.H. Hallak, and D.E.C. Vargas, “Simultaneous sizing, shape, and layout
optimization and automatic member grouping of dome structures”, Structures, vol. 28, pp. 2188–2202,
2020, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.10.016.
[2] A. Kaveh, M. Rezaei, and M.R. Shiravand, “Optimal design of nonlinear large-scale suspendome using
cascade optimization”, International Journal of Space Structures, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2018, doi:
10.1177/ 0266351117736649.
[3] J. Ye and M. Lu, “Optimizations of domes against instability”, Steel and Composite Structures, vol. 28,
no. 4, pp. 427–438, 2018, doi: 10.12989/scs.2018.28.4.427.
[4] W. Szaniec and K. Zielinska, “Harmonic analysis of the wind loaded bar dome at the Satellite Services Centre
in Psary”, Archieves of Civil Engineering, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2016, doi: 10.1515/ace-2015-0050.
[5] M.P. Saka, “Optimum topological design of geometrically nonlinear single layer latticed domes using
coupled genetic algorithm”, Computers and Structures, vol. 85, no. 21-22, pp. 1635–1646, 2007, doi:
10.1016/ j.compstruc.2007.02.023.
[6] A. Kaveh and S. Talatahari, “Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged
system search”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 215–229, 2011, doi:
10.1007/s00158-010-0566-y.
[7] S. Carbas and M.P. Saka, “Optimum topology design of various geometrically nonlinear latticed domes
using improved harmony search method”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 45, no. 3,
pp. 377–399, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s00158-011-0675-2.
[8] S. Gholizadeh and H. Barati, “Topology optimization of nonlinear single layer domes by a new metaheuris-
tic”, Steel and Composite Structures, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 681–701, 2014, doi: 10.12989/scs.2014.16.6.681.
[9] A. Kaveh and M. Rezaei, “Optimum topology design of geometrically nonlinear suspended domes using
ECBO”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 667–694, 2015, doi: 10.12989/sem.
2015.56.4.667.
[10] A. Kaveh and M. Rezaei, “Topology and geometry optimization of single-layer domes utilizing CBO and
ECBO”, Scientia Iranica, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 535–547, 2016, doi: 10.24200/sci.2016.2137.
 INFLUENCE OF THE MESH STRUCTURE OF GEODESIC DOMES . . . 77

[11] D. Pilarska, “Octahedron – based spatial bar structures – the form of large areas covers”, presented at 3RD
Scientific Conference Environmental Challenges in Civil Engineering, Opole, Poland, 23-25 April 2018,
Opole, Poland, 2018.
[12] D. Pilarska, “Comparative analysis of various design solutions of octahedron – based spatial bar structures”,
presented at The XXIV Conference of Lightweight Structures in Civil Engineering, 7 December 2018, Lodz,
Poland, 2018.
[13] D. Pilarska, “Two subdivision methods based on the regular octahedron for single-and double-layer spher-
ical geodesic domes”, International Journal of Space Structures, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 160–173, 2020, doi:
10.1177/0956059920956944.
[14] D. Pilarska, “Optimization approach for dome structures”, presented at The XXVII Conference of Lightweight
Structures in Civil Engineering, 2021, Lodz, Poland, 2021.
[15] EN 1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardiza-
tion, 2005.
[16] D. Pilarska and T. Maleska, “Numerical analysis of steel geodesic dome under seismic excitations”, Mate-
rials, vol. 14, no. 16, art. no. 4493, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14164493.
[17] T. Takeuchi, T. Ogawa, and T. Kumagai, “Seismic response evaluation of lattice shell roofs using ampli-
fication factors”, Journal of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures, vol. 48, no. 3,
pp. 197–210, 2007.
[18] S. Nakazawa, S. Kato, T. Takeuchi, S. Xue, and C. Lazaro, “State of the art of seismic response evaluation
methods for metal roof spatial structures”, Journal of the International Association for Shell and Spatial
Structures, 2012, vol. 53, no. 2, 172, pp. 117–130, 2012.
[19] S. Kato and S. Nakazawa, “Seismic risk analysis of large lattice dome supported by buckling restrained
braces”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computation of Shell and Spatial Structures
IASS-IACM 2008, New York, USA, 28-31 May 2008, J.F. Abel and J.R. Cooke, Eds. New York, USA.
[20] H. Li, J. Li, F. Zhi, F. Ma, and D. Qin, “A parameter study on dynamic buckling of spatial arch trusses under
seismic action”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computation of Shell and Spatial
Structures IASS-IACM 2008, New York, USA, 28-31 May 2008, J.F. Abel and J.R. Cooke, Eds. New York,
USA.
[21] J. Qin, B. Shen, and G. Li, “Dynamic field test on elliptical suspen-dome”, in Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Computation of Shell and Spatial Structures IASS-IACM 2008, New York,
USA, 28-31 May 2008, J. F. Abel and J. R. Cooke, Eds. New York, USA.
[22] J. Li and J. Xu, “Dynamic stability and failure probability analysis of dome structures under stochastic
seismic excitation”, International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, vol. 14, no. 5, 2014, doi:
10.1142/S021945541440001X.
[23] T. Maleska and D. Beben, “Behaviour of soil-steel composite bridge with various cover depths under
seismic excitation”, Steel and Composite Structures, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 747–764, 2022, doi: 10.12989/
scs.2022.42.6.747.
[24] T. Maleska, J. Nowacka, and D. Beben, “Application of EPS Geofoam to a soil-steel bridge to reduce seismic
excitations”, Geosciences, 2019, vol. 9, no. 10, art. no. 448, 2019, doi: 10.3390/geosciences9100448.
[25] T. Maleska, D. Beben, and J. Nowacka, “Seismic vulnerability of a soil-steel composite tunnel – Norway
Tolpinrud Railway Tunnel case study”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 110, art.
no. 103808, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103808.
[26] T. Maleska, P. Bonkowski, D. Beben, and Z. Zembaty, “Transverse and longitudinal seismic effects on soil-
steel bridges”, in Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures III. Springer,
2020, pp. 23–36, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-33532-8_3.
78 D. BYSIEC, T. MALESKA

Wpływ siatki struktur kopuł geodezyjnych na ich odpowiedź

sejsmiczną na zadanych kierunkach

Słowa kluczowe: analiza numeryczna, analiza sejsmiczna, drgania wymuszone, konstrukcje lekkie,
kopuła geodezyjna

Streszczenie:
Praca dotyczy określenia wpływu trzęsienia ziemi o różnej intensywności na konstrukcję kopuł
geodezyjnych. Struktury analizowanych kopuł, których podstawą kształtowania był ośmiościan fo-
remny, zaprojektowane zostały według dwóch różnych metod tworzenia topologii tego typu konstruk-
cji. Wykorzystanie czterech zapisów sejsmicznych o różnej intensywności i o zróżnicowanym czasie
trwania zapisu umożliwiło poddanie analizie numerycznej 8 modeli. Zaprojektowane przestrzenne
struktury to kopuły o przekroju stalowym, dzięki czemu niewątpliwie odznaczają się swoją lekko-
ścią i możliwością przekrycia bardzo dużych powierzchni, bez konieczności zastosowania podpór
wewnętrznych. Zaprojektowanie stalowych kopuł jest obecnie wyzwaniem zarówno dla konstrukto-
rów, jak i architektów, którzy kierują się również względami estetycznymi. W pracy przedstawiono
odpowiedź sejsmiczną kopuł geodezyjnych w zastosowanych różnych kierunkach (dwa poziome
“X” i “Y” oraz jeden pionowy “Z”) przy użyciu metody Time History. Wykazano wartości drgań
wymuszonych i intensywności zapisu i na tej podstawie podjęto próbę określenia, który zapis sej-
smiczny może być bardziej niekorzystny dla badanych kopuł geodezyjnych utworzonych według
dwóch różnych metod kształtowania topologii ich struktur. W tym celu posłużono się metodą FFT
(Fast Fourier Transform). Przeanalizowano również maksymalne przyspieszenia i przemieszczenia
konstrukcji. Przeprowadzona analiza pokazuje wpływ wstrząsów sejsmicznych na konstrukcje kopuł
geodezyjnych, w zależności od zastosowanej metody (metoda 1 i 2) kształtowania ich topologii.
Praca ta będzie niewątpliwie przydatna przy projektowaniu struktury kopuły geodezyjnej na ob-
szarze sejsmicznym. Ponadto analiza ta może być pomocna przy ocenie skutków spowodowanych
przypadkowym trzęsieniem ziemi.

Received: 2023-01-12, Revised: 2023-02-19