www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Steel ribbed dome structural

performance with different node
connections and bracing system
Katarzyna Jeleniewicz 1*, Jacek Jaworski 2, Mariusz Żółtowski 1, Izabela Uziębło 1,
Anna Stefańska 1,4* & Saurav Dixit 3,5,6

The conventional design of steel structure objects relies on a first-order elastic analysis, where
the entire object is treated as a set of individual structural elements requiring time-consuming,
semi-empirical design calculations. Such an approach leads to inefficient design time and excessive
material consumption and may additionally result in designing on the verge of structural safety. The
AEC sector’s technological and digitization advancement process forces designers to use advanced
design methods. Hence, it is necessary to indicate the benefits of using effective optimization. The
paper presents a comparative analysis of steel domes using two design approaches: traditional first-
order analysis and an advanced second-order analysis. The latter method considers the influence of
structural deformation on the magnitude of internal forces. Eight models were developed, varying in
terms of the connection’s stiffness. The work results identify the differences between the two selected
design approaches and present opportunities for further structural performance of steel structures.

A dome is a closed vault shaped like a bowl, most often over a room with a circular plan. It arises through the rota-
tion of a curve about a central axis. Domes are one of the oldest structural roof forms used in architecture. Domes
are particularly interesting to engineers as they achieve maximum space with relatively small cross-sections of
structural elements. Moreover, because of the aesthetic potential, the structure has a valuable architectural aspect.
As new materials were introduced into the Construction Sector, new interpretations of domes were visible in
architectural design, from stones, concrete, wood, and steel to many contemporary pavilion materials such as
bamboo or 3D printing ­materials1. New technological possibilities, such as rapid prototyping and form finding,
bring those structures back to designing as one of the most rigid and bearing the span at the long span without
internal supports. The bionic approach to parametric designing improves the ability for more in-depth structural
analysis using different ­software2. From the point of view of building mechanics, domes with a steel load-bearing
structure are double-curved bar shells. Designing such a structure requires the development of a computational
model in which appropriate geometrical, material, and structural assumptions are made and whose task is to
reflect the actual behavior of the structure under the influence of loads acting on it. The traditional design of
this type of object is based on the first-order elastic analysis and the principle of superposition, i.e. treating the
object as a set of individual structural ­elements3. A linear-elastic model of the material and a geometrically linear
model of the structure are adopted, applying the system stiffening principle. Such an approach does not take
advantage of the current level of technological advancement and digitization of processes that are taking place
in the field of construction.
More advanced methods take into account geometric and material non-linearities of structural elements
and imperfections, which results in taking into account the interactions between structural ­elements4–6. They
are based on the most accurate reflection of the distribution of forces and moments in the structure, including
the redistribution of these ­forces7,8. A geometrically non-linear model applies here, in which the influence of
structure deformation on the magnitude of internal forces (second-order effects) is considered. According to
Eurocode ­39, we should test the structure’s sensitivity to second-order effects each time we start designing. This
susceptibility can be measured using the critical load multiplier, which is the quotient of the critical load value
(load corresponding to the global form of elastic instability) and the design load of the structure. According

1
Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159, 02‑776 Warsaw,
Poland. 2Faculty of Architecture, University of Ecology and Management in Warsaw, Olszewska 12,
02‑792 Warsaw, Poland. 3Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India. 4Division of Research and
Innovation, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, India. 5Woxsen School of Business, Woxsen University, Hyderabad,
Telangana 502345, India. 6Centre of Research Impact and Outcome, Chitkara University, Rajpura 140417, Punjab,
India. *email: katarzyna_jeleniewicz@sggw.edu.pl; anna_stefanska@sggw.edu.pl

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

to Eurocode 3­ 9, in the case of elastic analysis, structures are sensitive to second-order effects if the critical load
multiplier does not reach the value of 1­ 010. Studying Eurocode 3, we get the impression that this requirement
applies mainly to frames because the procedure for calculating the critical factor is given in the standard for
this type of structure. The Eurocode does not specify a separate procedure for calculating the factor for other
structures, such as domes.
Due to the complexity of the problem of designing dome structures, they are the subject of many scientific
studies. The analyses concern the choice of the computational model, node stiffness, shape optimization or a
combination of bracing to ensure the system’s ­stability11. Advanced computer programs, based mainly on the
Finite Element Method (FEM), are usually used to analyze the domes. One example is a paper by Chacko et al.12,
where ANSYS software modeled a ribbed spherical dome with rigid joints. In ­Ameen13, the same software was
used to investigate the finite element analysis for the large concrete dome. Another software used to analyze
dome structure is ABAQUS, used in Zeinoddini et al.14 to study the global stability of an innovative dome com-
prising double-layer space frame sections and curved flexural members. The paper by Merilmol et al.15 analyzed
Schwedler’s spherical dome with rigid joints.
The issues of creating the dome’s geometry are also analyzed, and this problem is mainly related to geodesic
domes. A paper by Pilarska and M ­ aleska16 presents two different methods for the triangle subdivision to design
geodesic domes under seismic analysis. The geodesic dome was also the subject of the paper by Pilarska et al.17,
in which authors developed an algorithm for selecting the type of structural layout and the reference parameters
regarding the technological, strength and weight characteristics. In contrast, the article by Sałapa and J­ aworski18
compares different kinds of parabolic steel domes with a diameter of 46 m and a height of 8 m. Moreover, the
paper used two connection types between structural elements (pin and fix).
Computational models showed that depending on their dimensions and member connectivity, in conjunction
with material and geometrical non-linearities (due to imperfections), these structures under combined condi-
tions—mainly dead, snow and wind loads—may exhibit numerous different progressive collapses and various
local and global instability p­ henomena19–21. Hence, p ­ aper20 proved that a non-linear finite element procedure is
necessary. Another s­ tudy22 analyzes the impact of earthquakes on geodesic domes designed based on a regular
octahedron using two different methods to create their topology. In this work, the authors demonstrated the
influence of seismic vibrations on the structures of geodesic domes, depending on the method used to shape their
topology.Another issue addressed in scientific publications is the minimization of cross-sections and optimiza-
tion of the structure, which has also been discussed in numerous articles. In ­paper23, Jadhav and Patil studied the
optimization problem of constructing double-layered domes with different span-to-height ratios and supporting
conditions. Grzywiński24 reviewed layer optimization braced domes, where a mass reduction reached 46.6%.
Various methods have been developed or adopted to optimize the structure, indicating the importance of the
­problem25–28. Sometimes the methods of structural optimization can be quite surprising, as in paper Kaveh at
­all29 where the Forensic-Based Investigation algorithm, which is a criminal investigation process in criminology,
was utilized. In another ­publication30 the same author utilizes chaotic algorithms for structural optimization.
The paper presents a comparative analysis of steel domes using two design approaches: traditional first-order
analysis and an advanced second-order analysis. Although there is much research on the design of domes, it is still
challenging to find any standards regarding the choice of design method, as well as the impact of this method on
the results obtained. Despite the increasing popularity of these structures, there is a lack of up-to-date research
on a comprehensive approach to dome design, not only in public and industrial buildings but also in residential
­construction31. An additional problem is using advanced computer programs for modeling or structural per-
formance of the domes. This research checks the possibility of using the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis
Professional 2022 (ARSAP) software, commonly used in engineering, to model the ribbed dome structure. A
critical aspect is the utilization of this particular software, as it is well-known and widely used in the design of
bar structures. However, it appears that the software’s advanced capabilities are often disregarded, leading to inef-
ficient design of such structures. To substantiate the above assertions, eight models were created, differing in the
stiffness of the joints between the main structural elements and the use or lack of bracing. Then, each model was
calculated assuming the first linear statics and using a non-linear analysis that considered the second-order effects
and imperfections. Analysis results were generated through internal forces, displacements and stresses. Based
on the results, conclusions were formulated, confirming the thesis that the ARSAP program is a tool enabling
advanced structure analysis. The research presented here illuminates the influence of the design approach on
the structural performance of ribbed domes, thereby possessing the potential to propel advancements in dome
design and engineering and to promote the widespread adoption of that kind of structure.

Material and methods

The subject of this article is the analysis of the ribbed dome, consisting of 20 ribs spaced every 18°—meridians,
connected by a top ring. There are circumferential purlins between the meridians—parallels on which the roof
panels are based. The structure on which this dome is inspired is known as the "Blue Dome" and is the roofing of
the main pool at a swimming pool complex in Vichy, France. The dome’s diameter is D = 41 m, and the highest
height is H = 7 m. The analyzed object with its main dimensions is presented in Fig. 1.
The dome has a parabolic shape. IPE I-sections were used for the meridians, HEA I-sections for the parallels,
and C 280 U-sections for the upper ring. Twenty ribs spaced every 18° were designed. Meridians are fixed to the
foundation. All sections are made of steel S355. This material is characterized by the following physical proper-
ties: young modulus E = 210 GPa, Poisson ratio 0,3, shear modulus G = 81 GPa, and mechanical properties: yield
strength 355 MPa, reduction factor for shear 1,54 and limit strength for tension 470 MPa.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  The analyzed object with the structure elements dimensions.

The sheathing of the dome was made of single-chamber composite glass panels with selective glass (Effector
Sun Effect solar panels). Due to the type of sheathing, the maximum horizontal displacement of the structure
was assumed: H/150 = 4.67 cm and the maximum vertical displacement: D/300 = 13.67 cm.
When calculating the dome, external impacts were taken into account in the form of permanent structural
loads (self-weight of steel elements) and non-structural loads—glass panels—1.4 kN/m2, snow loads on the sec-
ond snow zone in Poland according to Eurocode 1, and the impact of wind with a speed of 22 m/s, in the form
of loads automatically generated in the ARSAP 2022 calculation program (Fig. 2).
The computational model of the structure includes two ways of connecting meridians with parallels in the
form of pin and fixed node connections. The structure was modeled within a three-dimensional coordinate
system, providing six degrees of freedom (three translations and three rotations relative to each X, Y and Z
axe). All degrees of freedom are blocked in rigid connections, whereas rotation about the local Y and Z axes is
allowed in pinned connections.
In the first stage, a first-order analysis was performed based on which cross-sections of structural elements
were selected. These calculations used automatic load combinations (all possible combinations were considered
following Eurocode 0). Then, those load combinations that cause the largest values of internal forces in structural
elements and the largest displacements of structure nodes were selected. Subsequent calculations were performed
on such selected combinations of loads. Then, a buckling analysis was performed by checking the value of the
critical index. After receiving the result indicating the need to complete a second-order analysis, the calculations
were repeated considering the non-linear analysis (material non-linearity + sway effect P-Δ) and local imperfec-
tions for meridian elements. The model, considering bow (local) imperfections, is shown in Fig. 3.
The procedure described above was applied to the dome without bracing and to the dome with the adopted
bracing system (see Fig. 3), intended as flaccid bars carrying only tensile loads. To rationally dimension the
structural elements, they were divided into four groups: meridians, R1 parallels, R2 parallels and R3 parallels
(and possibly braces), according to the diagram shown in Fig. 4. The cross-sections of each group of bars were
selected so that after meeting the conditions ULS and SLS their mass was as small as possible.

Figure 2.  Wind load on the analyzed structure—two selected cases, (a) direction " − X" representing the west
wind, (b) direction " + X" representing the east wind.

Figure 3.  View of the analyzed ribbed dome, taking into account the bow imperfections.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4.  The analyzed object with visible components of the computational model.

Calculations were made using the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2022 (ARSAP) program.
Where feasible, caution was exercised to refrain from altering the default program settings to evaluate the depth
of user involvement required to achieve accurate calculations. ARSAP employs the Finite Element Method to
calculate internal forces and stresses. In the study, a standard grid size was adopted. For bar elements, the grid
is generated by dividing each element into five parts, with each part not exceeding 1 m in length. If the elements
are longer than 1 m, the program divides the structural element into more finite elements.
Non-linear analysis is conducted using the incremental method. In this method, the load vector is segmented
into n equal parts, referred to as increments. Subsequent load increments are applied to the structure only after
equilibrium is attained for the preceding increment. A modification during the structural modeling stage involved
updating the stiffness matrix after each load subdivision and iteration, thus implementing the Newton–Raphson
method. This adjustment ensured the convergence of the calculation p ­ rocess32. ARSAP automatically assumes
rigid connections between members, i.e. compatibility of displacements and rotations is ensured for all members
converging at a given node. These connections have been modified at the modeling stage by release options,
where it is possible to release the displacement or rotation of one member relative to another at a node. The
method of assuming the releases is described above. By Eurocode 3­ 33, to obtain a complete 2nd-order analysis
of the structure, it is necessary to adopt bow (local) imperfections. Such imperfections were incorporated into
the structure using a specialized function within ARSAP. This function introduces imperfections halfway along
the length of a single member, resulting in alterations to the member’s geometry by generating a design element
representing the deformed s­ hape32.
The results of the analysis were divided according to the adopted eight computational models of domes,
including the absence or presence of bracings, different ways of connecting between meridians and parallels
and analysis type.

1. without bracing, hinge connections, 1st order analysis

2. without bracing, hinge connections, 2nd order analysis
3. without bracing, fix connections, 1st order analysis
4. without bracing, fix connections, 2nd order analysis
5. with bracing, hinge connections, 1st order analysis
6. with bracing, hinge connections, 2nd order analysis
7. with bracing, fix connections, 1st order analysis
8. with bracing, fix connections, 2nd order analysis

The results obtained for each model were compared regarding internal forces, displacements, and stress
distribution.

Results
Internal forces
The maximum values of internal forces that occur in the meridians of the structure are shown in the diagrams
in Fig. 5. Axial forces, shear forces and bending moments relative to the y and z axes are presented there.
In all models, comparable values of normal forces were obtained. However, the values of shear forces and
moments differ depending on whether the structure is braced or not and the type of analysis performed. The most
significant differences occur in the case of the bending moments, where the moments increase significantly in
the second-order analysis, especially in structures without bracing. When calculating the structure with pinned
nodes without bracing, the program generated an error indicating that the critical load value of the crucial force
for axial compression was exceeded. This error also occurred after increasing the meridian cross-section to IPE
550. The analysis results were generated. However, limited confidence should be placed in the accuracy of the
obtained results. The study included this case to demonstrate that calculations performed with first-order analy-
sis showed no error. In contrast, analysis of the same structure accounting for second-order effects revealed an
exceeding of the critical load. It should also be noted that in the second-order analysis, the size of the internal
forces depends on the size of the displacements, i.e., the assumed cross-sections. The internal force that increases
the most is the bending moment about the y-axis.
The internal force diagrams exhibited similar characteristics in all analyzed cases but had varying values, as
illustrated in Fig. 5. Therefore, exemplary internal force diagrams are below in Figs. 6 and 7.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 5.  Maximum value of internal forces in every analyzed case: (a) normal forces; (b) shear forces; (c)
bending moment ­My; (d) bending moment ­Mz.

Figure 6.  Example of ­Fx force diagrams: braced structure with articulated joints.

Figure 7.  Example graphs of moments M

­ y; structure with rigid nodes, without bracing.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Critical factor
For the analyzed structure, a buckling analysis was carried out, and the values of the critical multiplier were
generated, which are shown in Fig. 8. For each of the analyzed structures, the value of the multiplier was lower
than 3, which, following Eurocode 3, indicates the need to perform a full second-order ­analysis34. It can be
noticed that the multiplier values are lower for structures with pinned joints. A shallow value was obtained for
structures without bracing. The buckling analysis was performed for cross-sections selected based on the results
of the first-order analysis. Therefore, the critical multiplier for a braced structure with rigid nodes is lower than
for an unbraced structure, which could indicate a lower stiffness. However, the size of the adopted cross-sections
should be considered here, which, in the case of unbraced structures, are larger, according to Tables 1 and 2.

Displacements and deflections

The diagrams in Fig. 9 show the size of the horizontal and vertical displacements of the nodes of the analyzed
structure. On their basis, it is possible to determine the tendencies of the structure’s behavior. We can see that
the displacements of structures with pinned joints (models 1, 2, 5, and 6) strictly depend on the type of analysis
performed and are larger for the second-order analysis. However, in the case of structures with rigid nodes, the
type of analysis slightly affects the size of the displacements obtained.
The structure with rigid nodes also differs in the form of deformation. The stiffness of the connections
between the meridians and parallels significantly stabilizes the beam elements (parallels), which causes more
significant displacements on the meridians. In the case of pinned joints, the main displacements are on paral-
lels. Chosen examples of deformation of both types of structures are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. In the figures,
deformations for various load combinations are presented to illustrate the nature of the phenomenon. Cases with
the highest absolute values of horizontal displacement were selected. The greatest deformations of the structure
occur when strong winds combine with snow loading.

Stress analysis
Stress analysis was carried out each time for the analyzed model. Calculations were made for a structure dimen-
sioned according to a given type of analysis following Tables 1 and 2. Reduced stresses (von Mises stresses) and
Normal stresses (relative to the element’s x-axis) were considered in the analysis. Reduced stresses were used to

Figure 8.  Critical factor value for every analyzed model structure.

Normal min. [MPa] Normal max. [MPa] τxy max. [MPa] τxz max. [MPa] von Mises max. [MPa]
Case 11: SGN/150 = 1*1.15 + 2*1.15 + 4*1.50
Extreme value − 187.81 234.04 16.24 26.15 234.04
Section position 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Members 422 332 255 354 332

Table 1.  Stress analysis (structure is shown in Fig. 8).

Normal min. [MPa] Normal max. [MPa] τxy max. [MPa] τxz max. [MPa] von Mises max. [MPa]
Case 11: SGN/150 = 1*1.15 + 2*1.15 + 4*1.50
Extreme value − 190.13 220.06 16.92 23.21 220.06
Section position 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00
Members 271 271 46 270 271

Table 2.  Stress analysis (structure is shown in Fig. 9).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 9.  Maximum value of global displacement of the structure: (a) vertical; (b) horizontal.

Figure 10.  Example of structure deformations: (a) without bracing, with fixed connections; (b) with bracing,
with hinge connections.

Figure 11.  Example of joint displacements: (a) without bracing, with fixed connections; (b) with bracing, with
hinge connections.

determine the structure’s general condition; the yield point was assumed as the allowable value of these stresses.
In no case did the structure plasticize. The stress distribution varies depending on the type of structure and
reflects the adopted support assumptions for individual structural elements.
In the case of a braced structure, an evident influence of adopting the bracing system on the main elements
(meridians) can be observed. Every second meridian shows lower stresses in the support zone. In addition, the
structure is fastened in each case, and stress reduction in the support zone is visible in the middle part. Selected
stress analysis results are presented in Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15 and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 below.

Cross‑section design—limit states of the structures

The procedure for selecting the cross-sections of structural elements was carried out for the analyzed models
following Eurocode 3. Tables 5 and 6 below present the results of the dimensioning of structural elements. Table 5
applies to models 1–4, i.e., unbraced structures, while Table 6 applies to models 5–8, i.e. braced structures. In
the case of an unbraced structure, the condition resulting from the serviceability limit state (SLS) was decisive
in selecting such a section. In contrast, in the case of a braced structure, it was the condition of the ultimate
limit state (ULS).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 12.  Stress analysis of the structure—model 2 (pin connections, second-order analysis)—reduced

stresses.

Figure 13.  Stress analysis of the structure—model 4 (fix connections, second-order analysis)—normal stresses.

Figure 14.  Stress analysis of the structure—model 5 (pin connections, 1st order analysis)—normal stresses.

The primary condition affecting the size of the cross-section of the meridians is the interaction of the axial
force and the bending moment, considering the buckling about the y-axis. At the same time, in the case of paral-
lels, it is the interaction of the axial force and the bending moment considering the buckling about the z-axis.
Figure 16 contains a comparison of the masses of the bar structure of the domes for various construction
solutions, which is of particular interest to us. Calculations using full second-order analysis show that the small-
est mass of the structure occurs with a braced structure, with rigid connections of meridians with parallels. The
difference between the weight of the sections in model 2 and model 8 is about 45%.

Discussion
The dome structure offers numerous advantages, including structural efficiency, strength, durability and ease of
maintenance. These qualities have contributed to its rising popularity in industrial and residential ­construction31.
Dome structures can be designed using steel, wood, brick, or innovative materials. There have even been efforts
to utilize 3D printers to print dome s­ tructures35. Despite this, scientific articles remain scarce addressing an
effective method for modeling this type of structure. Only a few recent scientific papers provide insight into the
potential of parametrization in the design of ribbed ­domes30 or demonstrate the effectiveness of using different
­ omes36. Current advanced computer programs, mainly utilizing the Finite Element Method,
materials to design d

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 15.  Stress analysis of the structure—model 8 (fix connections, second-order analysis)—normal stresses.

Normal min. [MPa] Normal max. [MPa] τxy max. [MPa] τxz max. [MPa] von Mises max. [MPa]
Case 159: SGN/150 = 1*1.15 + 2*1.15 + 4*1.50
Extreme value − 83.44 160.71 6.48 24.90 160.71
Section position 0.5 0.5 0.00 0.0 0.5
Members 354 327 296 336 327

Table 3.  Stress analysis (structure is shown in Fig. 10).

Normal min. [MPa] Normal max. [MPa] τxy max. [MPa] τxz max. [MPa] von Mises max. [MPa]
Case 12: SGN/151 = 1*1.15 + 2*1.15 + 5*1.50
Extreme value − 350.40 218.08 8.99 25.92 350.40
Section position 1.0 0.0 0.76 0.00 1.00
Members 706 182 246 371 706

Table 4.  Stress analysis (structure is shown in Fig. 11).

2/ Hinge—second-order 4/fix—second-order
Model number/structure description 1/ Hinge—1st order analysis analysis 3/fix—first-order analysis analysis
Limit state ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS
Selected cross-section of meridians IPE 240 IPE 360 IPE 300 IPE 400 IPE 240 IPE 300 IPE 300 IPE 330
Selected cross-sections of parallels R1 HEA 160 HEA 160 HEA 180 HEA 180 HEA 160 HEA 160 HEA 180 HEA 180
Selected cross-sections of parallels R2 HEA140 HEA140 HEA 140 HEA140 HEA140 HEA 140 HEA 160 HEA 160
Selected cross-sections of parallels R3 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 140 HEA 140
Bracing – – – – – – – –
Decisive condition SLS SLS SLS SLS

Table 5.  Results of the analysis—structure without bracing.

allow for the modeling of such structures. However, their usage requires advanced knowledge and skills, making
them less user-friendly for the average designer.
The influence of wind and snow loads on the structural behavior of the ribbed dome is a critical aspect of its
analysis. The dome was subjected to various external impacts, including snow loads based on Eurocode 1 for the
second snow zone in Poland and wind loads with a speed of 22 m/s. The wind load analysis considered different
wind directions, such as west and east winds, to assess the structure’s response under varying conditions. The
computational model incorporated two types of connections between meridians and parallels: pin and fixed
node connections. The analysis revealed that the presence or absence of bracing significantly affected internal
forces, displacements, and stress distribution within the structure. Notably, the study highlighted that structures
without bracing exhibited higher displacements, emphasizing the importance of bracing systems in enhancing
stability. Additionally, the research emphasized the necessity of considering second-order effects in structural

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

6/ Hinge—second-order 8/fix—second-order
Model number/structure description 5/ Hinge—1st order analysis analysis 7/fix—1st order analysis analysis
limit state ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS
Selected cross-section of meridians IPE 220 IPE 220 IPE 220 IPE 240 IPE 220 IPE 220 IPE 220 IPE 220
Selected cross-sections of parallels R1 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120
Selected cross-sections of parallels R2 HEA120 HEA120 HEA120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120
Selected cross-sections of parallels R3 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 140 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120 HEA 120
Bracing φ 14 φ 14 φ 16 φ 16 φ 12 φ 12 φ 14 φ 14
Decisive condition ULS ULS ULS ULS

Table 6.  Results of the analysis—construction with bracing.

Figure 16.  Comparison of structure weights for various construction solutions of the dome.

calculations to ensure accurate and reliable results, especially in determining cross-sections and critical factors
for structural elements. The comprehensive analysis provided insights into how wind and snow loads impact the
structural behavior of ribbed domes, underscoring the importance of these considerations in designing resilient
and efficient structures.
The calculations that have been carried out above show that an available and widely used program support-
ing the structure design process, such as ARSAP, can be used to obtain the results of advanced computational
analysis. This program is based on the Finite Element Method, which is a simplified method, and the results
depend directly on the skills and understanding of the program by the d ­ esigner37. In the above example, the
default functions of the program were used, and the method of approximation of differential equations and the
size and shape of finite elements were not changed. Therefore, the obtained results may show certain inaccura-
cies, which were also not estimated in this work.
The presented results represent the initial phase of the research. In the subsequent steps, further analysis of
the results and more detailed investigations into the influence of various factors on the behavior of the dome
structure and the accuracy of results are warranted. It is advisable to repeat the calculations by dividing the
structural elements into parts, which would impact the size of the assumed finite elements, and to assess how
such a division affects the obtained results. At this stage of the research, the accuracy of the obtained results
was assumed based on the knowledge and experience of the article’s authors in engineering design. It should be
noted that these results are of the same order as the results available in the l­iterature38,39. The results have not
been verified by any other method or software. Nonetheless, some form of verification should be conducted. It
will be done using software dedicated to the Finite Element Method, such as ANSYS or ABAQUS. This would
allow us to assess the degree of accuracy of the calculations with the work needed to create the computational
model. The methods redefined in this work and will be further validated and refined in subsequent ones, which
may contribute to the development of further scientific issues, such as the prestressed steel domes, where initial
­ ndertaken40 or suspend-dome41,42. It should be noted that in these cases, the software used
research efforts were u
also provides specific capabilities that should be further tested and verified.

Conclusions
The ARSAP 2022 program is suitable for analyzing commercial projects’ dome structures. ARSAP 2022 allows
calculations considering the second-order effects in global imperfections (sway with the P-Δ effect) and local
imperfections. In each of the analyzed cases, the value of the critical multiplier was determined; in each case,
this value was lower than 3. According to Eurocode 3, it is necessary to consider the second-order effects when
calculating the structure. Critical factor values are higher for rigid nodes, which correspond with higher stiffness
of the whole system. In the case of structures without bracing, the analysis taking into account the second-order
effects did not allow the adoption of values similar to those of the cross-sections of structural elements as the
first-order analysis. The cross-sections of meridians have increased to a greater extent, and the cross-sections of
parallels have decreased to a lesser extent. The following permissible displacement values were adopted: vertical
D/300 and horizontal H/150. It was noticed that the displacement values of the structure nodes depend mainly
on the stiffness of the meridians. In the case of a less stable structure—a dome without bracing—the selection of

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

cross-sections was determined by the SLS condition. For a more stable structure—a dome with bracings—the
difference between the meridian cross-sections selected from the SLS and ULS condition did not occur or was
insignificant. The primary condition determining the selection of cross-sections in the ULS for meridional ele-
ments is the interaction of the axial force and the bending moment, considering the y-axis buckling.
In contrast, it is the interaction of the axial force and the bending moment for latitudinal elements, consider-
ing the z-axis buckling. Results are the same in all analyzed cases. In the braced structure, taking into account
the effects of the second order caused a slight increase in internal forces, which most often did not increase the
cross-sections of structural elements—meridians and parallels. Only the cross-sections of the bracings were
increased, which was caused by higher axial forces in the bracings. In the case of an unbraced structure, the choice
of the connection method at the nodes significantly impacts the magnitude of the internal forces and, thus, the
structure’s weight. In the case of a braced structure, the choice of the type of connection is less important, which
entails the possibility of making pinned connections, which are much simpler in execution.
The study innovates by systematically comparing two design approaches for steel domes—traditional first-
order and advanced second-order analyses. This provides valuable information on the effects of different methods
on the structural performance of ribbed domes. Moreover, Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2022
(ARSAP) software, widely used in engineering, demonstrated the potential of advanced computational tools
to model and analyze complex structures such as ribbed domes. This demonstrates the capabilities of modern
software in streamlining the design process and optimizing construction performance. The second aspect is that
the study performs a comprehensive analysis by considering various factors such as joint stiffness, stiffening, and
non-linear effects, including second-order effects and imperfections. This holistic approach provides a deeper
understanding of the behavior of ribbed domes under various conditions. By creating eight different models
and rigorous analysis, the study validates its findings regarding the impact of the design approach on structural
performance. This increases the credibility of the conclusions drawn and the credibility of the research results.
The research presented here illuminates the influence of the design approach on the structural performance of
ribbed domes, thereby possessing the potential to propel advancements in dome design and engineering and
to promote the widespread adoption of that kind of structure. By incorporating imperfections into the compu-
tational model, the analysis can more accurately simulate real-world conditions and predict how the structure
will behave. Imperfections affect the distribution of internal forces, displacements, and stress patterns within the
dome, highlighting areas of potential weakness or vulnerability. Also, imperfections can influence the critical load
multiplier, which is a key parameter in assessing structural stability against second-order effects like buckling.
The limitations and assumptions made during the analysis process, including potential inaccuracies in results,
are crucial considerations in understanding the reliability of the study on the steel ribbed dome’s structural per-
formance. The research acknowledges that the traditional design approach based on first-order elastic analysis
may lead to inefficient design time, excessive material consumption, and potential safety risks due to designing
close to structural limits. By transitioning to an advanced second-order analysis method that considers structural
deformation effects on internal forces, the study aims to address these limitations. However, it is essential to note
that the accuracy of results may be affected by simplifications or assumptions made in the computational model.
For instance, imperfections introduced into the structure for analysis may not fully capture real-world condi-
tions, potentially leading to discrepancies between simulated and actual behavior. Moreover, using software like
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2022 introduces complexities in modeling and analysis, which
could impact result accuracy. These factors underscore the need for a critical evaluation of assumptions, model
parameters, and software capabilities to ensure the validity and reliability of the analysis outcomes.
Based on the obtained results and discussion, some main concluding remarks can be drawn as follows:

• The analysis results confirm that the ARSAP program facilitates advanced structural analysis. In structures of
this type, it is necessary to conduct buckling analysis to assess the need for considering second-order effects
in calculations
• The performed calculations demonstrated the necessity of considering second-order effects in all cases.
• The case involving hinge connections without bracing revealed an error in exceeding the critical load, which
only occurred with second-order analysis. Based on this, it can be inferred that structural stability analysis
is necessary to estimate the requirement for considering second-order effects.
• In the case of an unbraced structure, the selection of cross-sections was influenced by the serviceability limit
state (SLS) condition. In contrast, in a braced structure, it was determined by the ultimate limit state (ULS)
condition.
• The meridian stiffness was observed to influence the structure nodes’ displacement values primarily. In the
case of a less stable structure—a dome without bracing—the selection of cross-sections was dictated by the
serviceability limit state (SLS) condition
• Comparable values of normal forces were obtained in all models. However, discrepancies in shear forces
and moments were observed depending on whether the structure was braced or not and the type of analy-
sis conducted. Significant differences were observed in bending moments, which increased notably in the
second-order analysis, particularly in unbraced structures.

A comparison of the masses of the bar structure of the domes for various construction solutions showed
notable differences, with variances of approximately 45%.

Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reason-
able request.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Received: 29 October 2023; Accepted: 13 June 2024

References
1. Dixit, S., Stefańska, A. & Singh, P. Manufacturing technology in terms of digital fabrication of contemporary biomimetic structures.
Int. J. Constr. Manag. 1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15623​599.​2021.​20151​05 (2021).
2. Nowak, A. Architectural and structural optimization research of structural forms topologically transformed. Proc. Manuf. 44,
394–401 (2020).
3. Elghazouli, A. Y. & Castro, J. M. Design of Steel Structures. Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8, Second Edition. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1201/​97813​15368​221-​13 (2016).
4. Liu, W., Rasmussen, K. J. R. & Zhang, H. Systems reliability for 3D steel frames subject to gravity loads. Structures 8, 170–182
(2016).
5. Walport, F., Gardner, L., Real, E., Arrayago, I. & Nethercot, D. A. Effects of material nonlinearity on the global analysis and stability
of stainless steel frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 152, 173–182 (2019).
6. Gardner, L., Yun, X., Fieber, A. & Macorini, L. Steel design by advanced analysis: Material modeling and strain limits. Engineering
5, 243–249 (2019).
7. Chen, W. F. Advanced analysis for structural steel building design. Front. Arch. Civ. Eng. China 2, 189–196 (2008).
8. Trahair, N. S. & Chan, S. L. Out-of-plane advanced analysis of steel structures. Research Report—University of Sydney, Department
of Civil Engineering 1–26 (2002).
9. European Committee for Standardization. EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3 -Design of Steel Structures -Part 1–1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings. Final Document (2018).
10. Walport, F., Gardner, L. & Nethercot, D. A. A method for the treatment of second order effects in plastically-designed steel frames.
Eng. Struct. 200, (2019).
11. Handbook of Structural Engineering. (CRC Press, 2005). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1201/​97814​20039​931.
12. Chacko, P., Dipu, V. S. & Manju, P. M. Finite Element Analysis of Ribbed Dome. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) (2014).
13. Ameen, H. The impact of diameter, number of ribs, percentage of steel, compressive strength and cover thickness on the large
concrete dome. Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 1, 472–495 (2010).
14. Zeinoddini, M., Parke, G. A. R. & Disney, P. The stability study of an innovative steel dome. Int. J. Space Struct. 19, 109–125 (2004).
15. Merilmol, E., Rajesh, A. K. & Ramadass, S. Finite element analysis and parametric study of curved concrete box girder using abaqus
software. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 04, 425–429 (2015).
16. Pilarska, D. & Maleska, T. Numerical analysis of steel geodesic dome under seismic excitations. Materials 14, (2021).
17. Pilarska, D. et al. Analysis of structural layouts of geodesic dome structures with bar filler considering air transportation. Buildings
12, (2022).
18. Sałapa, P. & Jaworski, J. Comparison of different designs of steel domes. Acta Sci. Pol. Arch. 13, 13 (2014).
19. Sophianopoulos, D., Argyriou, A. & Papanikolaou, C. Second order plastic analysis and design of a steel schwedler dome by means
of special software. In 7th Hellenic National Conference of Steel Structures (2011).
20. Ramalingam, R. & Jayachandran, S. A. Postbuckling behavior of flexibly connected single layer steel domes. J. Constr. Steel Res.
114, 136–145 (2015).
21. Bysiec, D., Jaszczyński, S. & Maleska, T. Analysis of lightweight structure mesh topology of geodesic domes. Appl. Sci. 14, 132
(2023).
22. Maleska, T. & Bysiec, D. Influence of the support conditions on dynamic response of tensegrity grids built with Quartex modules.
Arch. Civ. Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​24425/​ace.​2023.​146102 (2023).
23. Jadhav, H. S. & Patil, A. S. Parametric study of double layer steel dome with reference to span to height ratio. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2,
2319–7064 (2013).
24. Grzywiński, M. Optimization of single-layer braced domes. Transactions of the VŠB – Technical Univ. Ostrava Civ. Eng. Ser. 17,
45–50 (2017).
25. Kaveh, A. & Javadi, S. M. Chaos-based firefly algorithms for optimization of cyclically large-size braced steel domes with multiple
frequency constraints. Comput. Struct. 214, 28–39 (2019).
26. Galeb, A., Yaseen, A. T. & Galeb, A. C. Optimum design of steel domes subjected to wind load. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Technol. 8,
2321–9009 (2020).
27. Pilarska, D. Two subdivision methods based on the regular octahedron for single- and double-layer spherical geodesic domes. Int.
J. Space Struct. 35, 160–173 (2020).
28. Obara, P., Solovei, M. & Tomasik, J. Genetic algorithm as a tool for the determination of the self-stress states of tensegrity domes.
Appl. Sci. 13, 5267 (2023).
29. Kaveh, A., Hamedani, K. B. & Kamalinejad, M. An enhanced Forensic-Based Investigation algorithm and its application to optimal
design of frequency-constrained dome structures. Comput. Struct. 256, 106643 (2021).
30. Kaveh, A. & Yousefpour, H. Comparison of three chaotic meta-heuristic algorithms for the optimal design of truss structures with
frequency constraints. Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3311/​PPci.​22594 (2023).
31. Sheth, P. & Shelar, V. Systematical structural analysis of monolithic domes. World J. Adv. Eng. Technol. Sci. 9, 358–363 (2023).
32. Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2010 Training Manual. (2009).
33. Giżejowski, M. & Ziółko, J. Budownictwo ogólne tom 5: Stalowe konstrukcjie budynków projektowanie według eurokodów z
przykładami obliczeń (2010).
34. EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3 -Design of Steel Structures -Part 1–1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Final Document (2018).
35. Demchyna, B., Vozniuk, L. & Surmai, M. Testing of the Ribbed Dome Which is Manufactured by 3D Printing. In Proceedings
of CEE 2023 (eds. Blikharskyy, Z., Koszelnik, P., Lichołai, L., Nazarko, P. & Katunský, D.) vol. 438, pp. 70–77 (Springer Nature
Switzerland, Cham, 2024).
36. Faleh, S. K., Saleh, I. S. & Chkheiwer, A. H. Comparison study between brick and ribbed dome by using F. E. analysis. in 020051
(Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2022). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/5.​01084​68.
37. Ambroziak, A. & Kłosowski, P. Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis. Dimensioning of Steel and Reinforced Concrete Structures. Cal-
culation Examples (in Polish: Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis. Wymiarowanie Konstrukcji Stalowych i Żelbetowych. Przykłady
Obliczeń). (Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej, Gdańsk, 2014).
38. Opatowicz, D., Radoń, U. & Zabojszcza, P. Assessment of the effect of wind load on the load capacity of a single-layer bar dome.
Buildings 10, 179 (2020).
39. Zabojszcza, P., Radoń, U. & Szaniec, W. Probabilistic approach to limit states of a steel dome. Materials 14, 1 (2021).
40. Zhang, J. Study on prestressed steel dome structure. HSET 75, 276–281 (2023).
41. Olofin, I. & Liu, R. Harmonic response of CFRP tensegrity system in a suspen-dome. Select. Sci. Papers J. Civ. Eng. 18, 20230011
(2023).
42. Tulloch, H., Ahmed, E. & El Damatty, A. Parametric study of a cable dome of geiger-type. In Proceedings of the Canadian Society
of Civil Engineering Annual Conference 2022 (eds. Gupta, R. et al.) vol. 359 263–273 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Acknowledgements
Please ensure that you acknowledge all funding sources that supported the work reported in your manuscript and
provide grant or contribution numbers in an Acknowledgments section after the references. Indicate what role the
funder(s) had in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript. If any of this information could be perceived as a competing interest, ensure that it is also included
in your competing interests statement. If the funder(s) have/had no role, please include the following statement:
"The funders have/had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of
the manuscript." If no specific funding supported the work, include the following statement: "The authors received
no specific funding for this work." Keep other acknowledgements brief and do not include effusive comments.

Author contributions
Conceptualization, KJ, AS and JJ.; methodology, JJ; software, KJ; validation, KJ, MŻ and JJ; formal analysis, KJ,
IU, MŻ and JJ.; investigation, KJ, IU, MŻ and JJ; writing—original draft preparation, KJ.; writing—review and
editing, JJ, AS, SD; visualization, KJ, JJ; supervision, AS and SD.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.J. or A.S.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:14013 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64811-0 13

Vol.:(0123456789)