Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Sensitivity analysis of double layer Diamatic dome space structure collapse T

behavior
⁎
R. Vaezi Vaznaa, M. Zarrinb,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Collapse behavior of double layer dome space structures depends on different factors such as load pattern,
Epistemic Uncertainty material mechanical properties, and member’s physical characteristics, which have a random nature that makes
Probabilistic Investigation it difficult to predict accurate behavior of this type of structure. In this paper, in order to comprehensively assess
Tornado Diagram Analysis the double-layer dome space structure behavior, different uncertain parameters such as the mechanical char-
FOSM method
acteristics of steel material, mass and applied gravity load, and also structure’s and members’ geometric im-
Snow Load
perfection are taken into account in nonlinear static pushover analysis. Different models with rise to span (R/S)
ratios of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 under incremental symmetric and asymmetric snow loads are investigated. In order to
determine the importance of these uncertain parameters and rank them according to their effects on the
structural response parameters, two different methods of Tornado Diagram Analysis (TDA) and First-Order-
Second-Moment (FOSM) are utilized. Using these methods enables the sensitivity analysis of the collapse be-
havior of the structures to the considered random variables. The results of the analyses reveal that there is a close
agreement between the TDA and FOSM analyses results in ranking the random variables according to their
importance. In addition, these methods highlight the high sensitivity of the structural response parameters to the
various sources of uncertainty, and indicate the necessity of applying these uncertainties in the analysis and
design of this type of structure.

1. Introduction is very difficult even in well-fabricated steel construction. Thus, there

One of the common types of curved shape latticed structures is the
dome space structure. This type of structure is successfully adopted for
specialized utilizations, such as the 21 distant Early Warning Line dome
built in Canada in 1956 and the 1958 Union Tank Car Company dome
near Baton Rouge [1]. Nowadays, double-layer dome space structures
are extensively utilized in the construction industry. Double-Layer
space trusses are efficient for covering large areas. They are usually
more redundant than the typical single-layer space structures, and may
remain stable once a member fails. Therefore, the main focus of this
study is on the double layer dome structural behavior evaluation.
Accurate prediction of structural response is a very problematic
issue, since there are various sources of uncertainty in the modeling and
loading parameters. It is necessary to have a clear understanding of how
these uncertainties affect the performance of the structures. Obtaining a
predefined sufficient degree of accuracy during the manufacturing
process of a space frame, and producing its members perfectly straight
will be a great potential for a space structure to be built with numerous
imperfections. Geometrical imperfection such as initial curvature of the
members, node position deviation, and also mechanical imperfection
such as initial stress or strain due to rolling and welding, and lack of fit
[2,3] can be considered as the most common types of imperfection in
space structures. The effects of these kinds of imperfection have been
widely investigated by the researchers both probabilistically and de-
terministically. Borri and Spinelli [4] investigated the effect of two
types of joint (eccentric axial force in the members) and surface geo-
metry (or schemes) random imperfection on buckling and post-buckling
behavior of single-layer reticulated shell. They concluded that the
structure’s behavior is greatly sensitive to the structure’s out-of-scheme
imperfection. Analysis of the ultimate limit state of a single-layer re-
ticulated vault structure has been conducted by Tegola [5] with con-
sideration of the non-rectilinearity of geometric axis of the bars and also
variation of diameter with respect to its mean value as the two types of
geometric imperfection. The study conducted by El Sheikh [6] on

⁎
Corresponding author. Cell: +98 9127903571.
E-mail address: mo_zarrin@yahoo.com (M. Zarrin).
URL: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohamad_Zarrin/research (M. Zarrin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110511
Received 20 June 2019; Received in revised form 26 January 2020; Accepted 9 March 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
collapse capacity of 52 single-layer barrel vaults with 13 different kinds
of configuration revealed that the 0.001 length amount of member’s
lack of fit and 100 mm joint misplacement in the central nodes of the
vaults result in notable capacity reduction. Yadollhi et al. [7] have
carried out thirty analysis cases to estimate the load capacity of a
double-layer barrel vault by considering the initial curvature of the
critical members as the imperfection in the structure. This study re-
ported that the structure's capacity decreases by 41 percent due to the
member’s initial curvature imperfection. Rudsari and Gordini [8] have
examined the effect of initial curvature of the members on a double-
layer grid space structure’s behavior. They deduced that this structure
with different types of support conditions is completely sensitive to the
member’s initial curvature imperfection. Xin Chen and Shi-Zhao [9]
have used random and conformable imperfection mode method to in-
vestigate the effect of structure geometric imperfection (nodal devia-
tion) on single-layer dome collapse behavior. They came to the con-
clusion that even a small amount of imperfection might hugely impact
the structure’s behavior in single layer dome structure. Feng Fan et al.
[10] has compared the buckling behavior of seven types of commonly
used single-layer reticulated domes via applying various buckling mode
shapes as the structure geometric imperfection to the perfect model.
In addition to the geometrical imperfection uncertainty, other cru-
cial sources of uncertainty are in regard to the element’s mechanical
and material properties, and also the value of applied gravity load. The
effects of these sources of uncertainty on various types of steel struc-
tures are widely investigated. The steel frame structures collapse be-
havior has been early recognized to be highly sensitive to the afore-
mentioned parameters. Asgarian and Ordoubadi [11] investigated the
effect of structural uncertainties on the seismic performance of steel
moment frames. Jalali et al. [12] have used a number of modeling
parameters that best reflected the structures’ variability due to the lack
of knowledge for performing the modeling uncertainty analysis on steel
moment frames with a generic locally reinforced connection. Also,
Pirmoz and Marefat [13] worked on the reliability assessment of a
compression column in seismic EBFs by considering uncertainty in
gravity dead and live load. In another research, Zarrin et al. [14]
evaluated the variability of seismic demand and capacity of a case study
jacket platform considering different sources of uncertainty. To this
end, the sensitivity analysis was conducted not only in the particular
earthquake level, but also in other ranges of intensity using Incremental
Dynamic Analysis (IDA) [15]. Recently, the probabilistic performance
of four Steel Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) were investigated in
[16] using the IDA method, and the stochastic seismic performance of
one of them (5 story frame) was investigated considering the aleatoric
and epistemic uncertainties. Furthermore, the effects of the mass and
gravity load uncertainties were pursued in [11,14,16]. These studies
showed that the material’s mechanical properties and the value of ap-
plied gravity load intensely affect the structure’s behavior. Therefore,
considering these sources of uncertainty in the snow-load capacity
evaluation of the dome space structure stands at the core of this study.
It can be concluded from the above-reviewed research studies that
the prediction of the response of real-life structural systems is inevitably
associated with the aforementioned uncertain parameters. Given that
space structures are usually used to cover the places with a large
number of people such as stadiums, halls, etc., therefore their collapse
imposes a drastic loss of life and assets to the community. In order to
prevent the occurrence of these kind of damages, it is necessary that the
space structure's response sensitivity to be assessed comprehensively.
Thus, for finding out the most important uncertain parameters which
play a pivotal role in these structures’ behavior, a holistic sensitivity
analysis with the consideration of various sources of uncertainties have
to be done. There are several methods to conduct sensitivity analysis
and determine the significance of the uncertain parameters. Two of the
most well-known methods are called Tornado Diagram Analysis (TDA)
[17] and First-Order-Second-Moment (FOSM) method. TDA is a tech-
nique that is used to address the effect of different sources of
2
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
uncertainties on the structural response. In this procedure, the struc-
tural response parameters corresponding to the upper and lower bounds
of the random variables are estimated. The interval of these response
demands, referred to as swing, is a sensitivity measurement. Sensitivity
analysis makes it possible to identify the most important uncertain
variable of the structure. The topic of sensitivity analysis of steel and
concrete structures against different types of load patterns has been
studied by different researchers. Hezarjaribi et al. [18] has conducted
sensitivity analyses of jacket type platforms against extreme wave loads
to recognize the most important parameters affecting nonlinear re-
sponse of jacket platform. In a study conducted by Haselton [19] on a 4-
story reinforced concrete frame, the result of sensitivity analysis has
been used to compute the relationship between the model random
variables and the structural response for the derivation of the gradient
needed in the FOSM calculation. However, this method has been rarely
used by other scholars on space frame structures so far. Hui Jun et al.
[20] performed sensitivity analyses on double-layer cylindrical re-
ticulated shells to evaluate the effect of random variable’s variation on
structures’ response. Zhong et al. [21] performed a sensitivity analysis
on single-layer reticulated domes to examine the sensitivity of typical
seismic responses to the uncertainties in structural modeling para-
meters. They concluded that the variability in structural damping,
yielding strength, steel ultimate strain, dead load, and snow load has
significant effects on the seismic responses.
FOSM method is another approach to determine the structure’s
stochastic response considering random input variables. The FOSM
approach is derived from mathematical calculations, which uses a first-
order Taylor series along with the first and second moments of the in-
puts variables [22]. Through using this method, it would be possible to
rank random variables according to their importance, and also to cal-
culate the standard deviation of the limit state functions. Hezarjaribi
et al. [18] have used FOSM method in order to estimate the mean and
standard deviation of jacket structure response. Nour El-Din and Kim
[23] have studied the seismic sensitivity of a fixed type steel offshore
platform. They have used FOSM method to investigate the effect of each
random variable on some demand parameters. Haselton [19] examined
the effects of modeling uncertainties on the collapse capacity of re-
inforced concrete frames using the FOSM reliability method.
The main objective and goals of this paper are: firstly, a holistic
assessment of the effect of some key factors such as rise to span (R/S)
ratio, different vertical snow load patterns, and structure geometric
imperfection (node deviation) on collapse behavior of double-layer
dome space structures. The main motivation for this assessment is that
the simultaneous influence of these factors has not sufficiently been
examined in double-layer dome space structures. Secondly, the sensi-
tivity analysis of collapse behavior of double-layer dome structure to
various sources of uncertainty via using both TDA and FOSM methods
to evaluate the effect of each random variable on the nonlinear static
response of the structure. The main purpose for this sensitivity analysis
is that according to the previous probabilistic and deterministic studies
in the scope of space structures, it appears that in most of the studies,
the effect of just members’ geometric imperfection (initial curvature
and lack of fit), and also structures’ geometric imperfection (node de-
viation), mostly in single-layer space structures, have been assessed. In
addition, the effect of other sources of uncertainty in material me-
chanical properties, gravity load, and also ranking of the random
variables according to their importance by using TDA method has not
been adequately addressed in previous research works. Furthermore,
calculation of standard deviation of limit state function and importance
of uncertain parameters through the utilization of the FOSM method
have not yet been performed on space structures. Finally, the results of
the TDA and FOSM methods are compared in order to gain a good
judgment about the accuracy of TDA method for recognizing the un-
certain parameters that play a pivotal role in double-layer dome space
structures’ collapse behavior. To this end, in this paper the collapse
behavior of the double-layer dome space structure with three different
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
R/S ratios of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 under both symmetric and asymmetric
snow loads, in two different geometrically perfect and imperfect states
(conditions) are examined in order to comprehensively investigate the
effects of the aforementioned key factors.
2. Imperfection in space structures
The two important and influential types of imperfection in the do-
main of construction of space structures are the nodal deviation
(structure’s geometric imperfection) and the member’s initial curvature.
The effect of nodal deviation on double-layer space structures has been
scarcely assessed. For this type of imperfection to be allocated to the
designed dome space structure, different methods are currently avail-
able. Some scholars categorized these methods into three cases [24,25].
The first method is called the random imperfection mode method, the
second is called the Consistent Imprecation Mode Method (CIMM), and
the last one is the Eigen-mode Imperfection Method (EIM). Using the
first aforementioned method is time-consuming and computational
expense, while most of the scholars reported that the EIM method is
able to predict the critical load-bearing capacity of the structure accu-
rately [24,26,27].
According to the [4,9], it is noted that the maximum capacity of a
dome space structure depends not only on the size of the imperfection
but also, to a greater degree, on the pattern of the imperfection dis-
tribution. By all means, there are two vital issues that should be paid
more attention when EIM method is being used. First and foremost, in
order to model the initial geometric imperfections of a double layer
dome space structure in nonlinear analysis, it is necessary to choose a
proper buckling mode. As will be discussed further ahead, the proper
buckling mode could be considered as the mode resulting in the lowest
buckling load of the structure. Secondly, an appropriate amplitude for
the chosen buckling mode shall be determined to apply to the original
structure configuration. Buckling mode is the deflection tendency or the
mode of deflection increment of a structure at the critical point. The
buckling mode corresponding to the first critical point is called the
lowest gradient buckling mode. The major principle of the EIM method
presented here is to model the initial imperfection of the structure with
the lowest gradient buckling mode. Some research works on space
structures [24,25] have shown that in the EIM method, using the first
eigenmode for considering the nodal deviation, in most cases, results in
lowest buckling load of the structure. Mohammadi et al. [27] deduced
that the first buckling mode of a single-layer barrel vault eventuates the
lowest capacity of the structure. Zhi-Hua and Yang Li [28] have used
the lowest linear buckling mode in order to modify the nodal coordinate
of the suspended dome for making the structure imperfect.
The imperfection amplitude is considered as the maximum devia-
tion from the perfect geometry along the direction normal to a re-
ference surface. In the previous researches, different values have been
chosen for the magnitude of deviation that is scaled with respect to the
span length (L) of the structure. Gengbo Chen et al. [29] assessed the
effect of geometric imperfection on single-layer reticulated shell
structure and found that the value of L/700 for initial geometric im-
perfection appears to be more reasonable. Mohhamadi et al. [27] sug-
gested that the difference between limit point and the bifurcation point
load level is a good criterion for geometric imperfection and re-
commended L/500 for the amplitude. Through holistic investigation on
various types of dome space structures, Feng Fan et al. [24] reported
that applying the maximum initial geometrical imperfection of L/300,
the value of influence coefficient would be minimum. According to the
specification of the Chinese lattice shell code [26], the maximum geo-
metric imperfection that is caused during the construction stage should
be restricted within span/300 ratio. In this paper, according to the goal
of investigating the effects of geometrical construction errors on
structural behavior, it is considered to follow the Chinese code for
obtaining the worst case of imperfection mode. Consequently, the value
of L/300 is considered for the amplitude of geometric imperfection.
3
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
Another common type of geometric imperfection in space structures
is the initial curvature of the members. In order to accurately estimate
the behavior of the structure, it is mandatory to consider this type of
imperfection in the modeling procedure. Several investigations have
been deterministically and probabilistically carried out to assess the
effects of this type of imperfection [5,7,8,10]. The Gamma distribution
function has been utilized in [5,7,8] for the initial curvature of the
members in probabilistic assessments of the single and double layer
space structure. On the other hand, for evaluating the behavior of a
single-layer dome space structure with imperfect members, Feng fan
et al. [10] has assumed that the initial curvature of the member obeys
an extreme I distribution function. In that study, it was also assumed
that the maximum amplitude of the initial curvature is 0.001 of the
member’s length with the exceedance probability of 2.5 percent. From
the cited papers, it can be inferred that there is not any specific rule to
determine the appropriate type of distribution function for probabilistic
modeling of initial curvature of the members. Consequently, in order to
assess the sensitivity of the response to the probability distribution
function itself, it is intended to use two different types of Gamma and
Extreme distribution function for modeling the members’ initial cur-
vature. The probability density function and probability distribution
function of δ in the Gamma functions are:
1 δ
f (δ ) = k
x k − 1e− θ
Γ(k ) θ (1)
1 δ
F (δ ) = γ (k . )
Γ(k ) θ (2)
δ
where kandθ are the Gamma function’s parameters and γ (k . is the
θ
)
lower incomplete Gamma function.
The probability density function and probability distribution func-
tion of δ in the Extreme functions are:
f (δ ) = υ ∗eυ (δ − q) − e
υ (δ − q)
(3)
υ (δ − q)
F (δ ) = 1 − e−e (4)
where the υ and q are the parameters of the Extreme function. In order
to determine these parameters, it is assumed that the maximum am-
plitude of the initial curvature δmax is 1/1000 of the members’ length;
the exceedance probability is 2.5 percent, and the probability of the
δ = 0 is 1 percent [10].
3. Uncertain variables
The main sources of uncertainty modeled in this paper consist of
two different categories. The first category is element-level uncertainty
associated with the member’s geometric imperfection and the material’s
mechanical properties. The second source of uncertainty is associated
with the structural level uncertainty including value of mass and ap-
plied gravity load (MaL) on the structure, and the node deviation un-
certainty discussed in the previous section. Member’s geometric im-
perfection uncertainties include initial curvature of the member (δ ),
thickness (t ) and diameter of member’s section (D ). Uncertainties as-
sociated with material include yield stress (Fy ), ultimate stress (Fu ) and
Young’s modulus (Es ). Eventually, for comprehensive probabilistic as-
sessment of the double layer dome space structure, seven random
variables are taken into account. Table 1 represents quantitative in-
formation regarding the studied uncertainties, including the mean or
median values of the input random variables, their Coefficient of Var-
iation (COV), and the type of distribution along with the references
used to quantify each of the uncertainties. It has to be noted that the
correlation coefficient of 0.75 is considered between Fy and Fu para-
meters [25], and other random variables are assumed to be non-cor-
related.
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Table 1
The statistical characteristics of random variables.
Random variable Symbol Mean or median COV Type Reference

Vertical load and mass M aL Computed 0.10 Normal [30]

Yielding stress fy 240MPa 0.07 Lognormal [31]
Ultimate stress fu 370MPa 0.04 Lognormal [31]
Modulus of elasticity Es 2 ∗ 105MPa 0.05 Normal [32]
Member diameter D Computed 0.02 Normal [21,33,64]
Member thickness t Computed 0.064 Normal [32]
Members initial imperfection ImpG 0.001 ∗ memberlength 0.8164 Gamma [5,7,8]
Members initial imperfection ImpE 0.001 ∗ memberlength 0.24 Extreme [10]

4. Design and modeling of the dome
4.1. Configuration of the dome
Double layer Diamatic dome can be described as a pie-shaped sector
repeated radially around the crown of a dome [34,35]. Herein, the joint
co-ordinates and member’s connectivity data required for generating
the structure configuration is obtained through configuration proces-
sing capabilities of formex algebra [36]. Fig. 1 shows the characteristics
of the double layer Diamatic dome space structure, which is in-
vestigated in this study. In Fig. 1 (a), [T] represents top layer elements,
[B] represents bottom layer elements, and [W] shows web members of
the dome. Fig. 1(b) shows the span, height (rise) and thickness of the
double-layer dome space structure.
(0.143). They have found that the collapse behavior of the structures is
directly related to the R/S ratio of the dome, and also concluded that
the generalized conformable imperfection mode method in the domes
with the R/S ratios of 1/4 and 1/5 is necessary to be considered. In
order to optimize the aerodynamic performance of single-layer re-
ticulated cylindrical shells, San et al. [40] evaluated the behavior of
these structures with different values of R/S ratio, and deduced that the
cylindrical shells with R/S ratio in-between 1/6.25 and 1/5.5 are cap-
able of keeping good aerodynamic and mechanical performance. In this
study, to evaluate the sensitivity of the double-layer dome space
structure response to different values of R/S ratio, models are designed
with R/S ratio of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3.
4.3. Different load patterns

4.2. Rise to span ratio of the models 4.3.1. Symmetric loads

The R/S ratio is an important factor that influences the design of
space structures from various aspects. The intensity of applied dead
load, symmetric and asymmetric snow loads, and also wind load are
greatly sensitive to the R/S ratio variations. Previous studies have
shown that increasing the R/S ratio from approximately 0.1 to 0.3, not
only affects element’s design sections, but it also might changes the
collapse behavior of the structure. Chen [37] has used wind tunnel to
examine the effects of wind pressure on various types of the roof system
with R/S ratios from 0.0625 to 0.5. He found that the low R/S ratio roof
building is suffered by the instantly peak pressures and this factor
changes the magnitude of design wind pressure. For evaluating buck-
ling behavior of different types of dome space structures, Feng fan et al.
[24] modeled a large numbers of space structures with various values of
R/S ratio ranging from 1/5 (0.2) to 1/8 (0.125). They concluded that
the buckling of space dome structures is very sensitive to the R/S ratio.
To examine the geometric imperfection sensitivity of single-layer
double-dome free form space structure, Mousavi et al. [38] have used
models with different R/S ratio values between 1/4 (0.25) and 1/7
Symmetric loads of the dome space structure include the dead load
(the load derived from cladding weight) and the live load. The dead
load is established on the basis of the actual load which may be ex-
pected to act on the structure constantly. Dead load mainly consists of
self-weight of the steel structure, supporting purlin, roof slab, ceiling
board, hoisting equipment and berm. Live load, either snow or rain
load, is specified by the ASCE7-10 [41] code. The larger value of the
snow and rain load should be used in design. Each space frame is de-
signed with a uniformly distributed snow load and further allowed for
drifting depending upon the shape and slope of the structure. Both the
dead and snow loads are applied as a distributed load on the outer
surface of the space structure.
4.3.2. Asymmetric snow load
In some cases, unbalanced snow load might pose a greater risk of
failure to the roof structural systems than a uniform snow load. Some
scholars have assessed the effect of different load patterns on space
structure’s behavior. Gallego et al. [42] experimentally and theoreti-
cally worked on the effect of different snow load patterns on steel silo

ss
[T] k ne
Thic
Height

[W]

Span

[B]

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) Plan view of a double layer Diamatic dome, (b) Characteristics of the dome [39]

4
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
Fig. 2. (a) Description of the numerical model (b) Experimental behavior [55] (c) Numerical behavior.
roof. They compared the normal stresses of the members and the dis-
placement produced in a conical steel silo roof structure by applying
symmetric and asymmetric load. They found that the asymmetric load
pattern produces higher normal stresses and displacements than the
balanced loads. Kato and Iwamoto [43] examined the buckling beha-
vior of a grid single layer dome with diagonal braces under uniform and
non-uniform snow load. In order to apply the non-uniform load, they
subjected half of the structure to the snow load. They reported that the
diagonal braces impact the buckling behavior of the dome under dead
and non-uniform load. Cai et al. [44] have used different load patterns
including symmetric and asymmetric load to carry out nonlinear sta-
bility analysis of single layer hybrid grid shell.
4.3.3. Procedure of applying asymmetric snow load
According to the ASCE7-10 [41], unbalanced snow load shall be
applied to the downwind 90° sector in plan view. At both edges of this
sector, the load shall decrease linearly to zero over the sector of 22.5°
each. There shall be no snow load on the remaining 22.5° upwind
sector. There are various factors that affect the value of the snow load
such as snowfall intensity, redistribution of snow load by wind, the
geometry of buildings and all surrounding buildings, and etc. In this
paper, symmetric and asymmetric snow loads are calculated according
to ASCE7-10 code [41] of structural design. These symmetric and
asymmetric snow loads are also used for evaluating the effect of dif-
ferent load patterns on structure’s behavior. More details about the
procedure of calculating symmetric and asymmetric snow loads are
presented in Appendix.
4.4. Structure design
The design of the archetype domes is carried out in compliance with
the provisions in ASCE 7-10 [41] and AISC 360-10 (LRFD) [45] codes.
As is highlighted in the previous section, the design loads for the dome-
shaped structure are computed based on ASCE 7 load combinations
[41]. In addition to the aforementioned snow and dead loads, the nu-
meric values of wind and thermal load, the earthquake in both × and y
directions are also applied during the design phase. Member sections
are selected from standard pipe sections constructed from st37 steel
material. The Young modulus, the Yield stress, and the Poison ratio are
assumed to be 2.1 × 105 a , 240MPa and 0.3, respectively. The char-
acteristics of all design member sections are reported in the Appendix.
4.5. Numerical modeling
A numerical model of the aforementioned dome space structure has
been developed using OpenSees software [46]. A very well formulated
nonlinear distributed plasticity beam-column element model within the
OpenSees software has been used to model the dome structure ele-
ments. The element is based on the force formulation [47], a method
that introduces profound advantages over the very common displace-
ment beam-column element formulation. This method has been proven
numerically reliable, even in the case of softening behavior of buckled
elements. The inelastic beam-column element with small deformation
theory in the present study relies on the co-rotational theory to
5
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
represent the moderate to large deformation effects of inelastic buck-
ling of the elements. The corotational formulation separates rigid body
modes from local deformation using, as reference, a single coordinate
system that continuously translates and rotates with the element as the
deformation proceeds [48]. The fiber discretization approach has been
utilized for modeling the cross section of each segment. The assumed
material for the fibers is considered uniaxially, and the strain in each
fiber is calculated based on the strain at centroid strain and curvatures
at the sections, considering Bernoulli’s assumption that plane sections
remain plane and normal to element axis after bending. The assigned
stress-strain relationship for the steel material of the members is the
Menegotto-Pinto model [49]. One of the advantages of this type of
material is the gradual transition from linear region to nonlinear range
of response. Furthermore, the cyclic behavior of this material is fairly
consistent with experimental tests including Bauschinger effects. The
Fatigue uniaxial material command in OpenSees has been used to
consider the ultimate stress and strain. The material has the ability to
trigger failure based on a maximum or minimum strain. In order to
include global buckling in the brace response, it is modeled with eight
force-based elements, and an initial camber equal to 1/1000 of element
length is applied to the mid node of the element (see Fig. 2a). Utilizing
this technique along with using co-rotational formulation for co-
ordinate transformation [48], buckling and post-buckling behavior of
braces can be taken into consideration accurately.
The efficiency of the force-based beam column element, for the
tubular structural components modeling of the steel members, has been
verified in some previous studies. Asgarian et al. [50] modeled the post
buckling and also hysteretic behavior of pinned and fixed tubular struts,
which were subjected to cyclic loading, by using the forced based fiber
beam column element. In addition to this, the results were verified by a
comparison with experimental tests. Asgarian et al. [51] and Honarvar
et al. [52] used the same element in their studies to predict the seismic
response of experimentally tested X-braced jackets. Moreover, Alanjari
et al. [53] and Uriz et al. [54] worked on the seismic performance of
individual tubular strut tested by black et al. [55] upon buckling in
compression, as well as their capability in dissipating energy in con-
secutive cycles utilizing the same element as the case here. Previous
studies using a Fiber-type beam–column element models [56,57] have
verified the benefits of using this type of brace model in the simulation
of special concentrically braced frames. The same element is recently
used by Yang et al. [58] to investigate the Seismic response and failure
mechanism of single-layer latticed domes. All the aforementioned stu-
dies confirmed the efficiency of force-based beam column element, in
case of modeling the structural components.
In order to evaluate the accuracy and validity of the finite element
modeling procedure, the experimental and numerical strut model tested
by Black et al. [55] have been assessed in this study. A fiber brace
model was constructed in OpenSees using the fiber-based, beam-
column model to mimic this previously-tested strut [55]. The strut se-
lected consisted of an extra-strong 4-in. diameter steel pipe. The strut
was welded to physical clevises at both ends to represent pin connec-
tions, and the distance between the centers of the clevises was 118.4 in.,
giving the member a slenderness (kl/r) ratio of 80. The numerical
model consists of eight force-based elements with the consideration of
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

the non-rectilinearity of the strut member as shown in Fig. 2(a). F

n
Fig. 2(b) and (c) respectively show the experimentally and numerically 1 ∂g 1
obtained axial force–axial displacement hysteresis loops for this spe- = g (μ X1 . μ X2 . ⋯...μ Xn ) + ∑ (Xi − μ X1 ) +
1! i=1 ∂Xi 2!
cimen. From Fig. 2, it is obvious that there is an excellent agreement n n
∂ 2g
between the results of the tests and force-based brace model. ∑ ∑ (Xi − μ X1)(Xj − μ Xj )
i=1 j=1 ∂Xi ∂Xj (6)
5. Probabilistic assessment methods Considering only the first order terms of equation (6) and ignoring
higher order terms, F can be approximated as:
5.1. Procedure for probabilistic evaluation
n
1 ∂g
F ≈ g (μ X1 . μ X2 . ⋯⋯μ Xn ) +
1!
∑ (Xi − μ X1 ) ∂X
Consideration of different sources of uncertainties is accounted via i=1 i (7)
nonlinear static pushover analysis, in which both geometrically and
materially nonlinear behavior are considered, and the structure is By taking expectation from both sides, the mean of F , μF , can be
subjected to incrementally-increasing snow load. A displacement-con- expressed as:
trol analysis procedure is adopted for pushover analysis, in which the μF ≈ g (μ X1 . μ X2 . ⋯..μ Xn ) (8)
largest increment of the displacement is 0.00001 m, which resolves
some convergence problems. To obtain the response curve, the amount Utilizing the second moment of F as expressed in (7) and after some
of Load Proportionality Factor (LPF), which is increased in each step, is algebraic calculations, standard deviation of F can be derived as:
plotted versus the dome apex point vertical displacement. In order to n 2 n
∑ σX2i ⎛ ∂g (X1. X2 . ⋯..Xn ) ⎞ ∑ ∑ j≠1 ρ Xi Xj ⎛ ∂g (X1. X2 . ⋯..Xn) ⎞
n
examine the structure’s behavior more accurately, three different re- σF2 ≈ ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟

i=1 ⎝ ∂Xi ⎠ i=1 ⎝ ∂Xi ⎠

sponse quantities of the structure have been considered to be in-
vestigated via sensitivity analyses. These quantities are maximum value
of LPF, vertical displacement of the dome apex point corresponding to
the max LPF, and the LPF value when apex point reaches to 0.05 m (in
the 0.2 and 0.3 R/S ratio structures) and 0.1 m (in the 0.1 R/S ratio
structure). The values of 0.05 m and 0.1 m correspond to the point
where the mean parameter model (base case structural model) ap-
proximately loses 50 percent of its maximum capacity (referred here-
after to “residual capacity”).
5.2. Tornado diagram analysis (TDA)
In the present study, the TDA method is adopted to identify the
relative importance of the uncertain model parameters by means of
incremental nonlinear static analyses. As stated before, maximum value
of the LPF, vertical displacement of the dome apex point, and the value
of LPF corresponding to 0.05 m (0.1 m in 0.1 R/S ratio model) dome
apex point displacement are utilized as three different types of response
parameters (limit states) in sensitivity analysis. TDA is a common tool
used to depict the sensitivity of a response parameter to changes in the
selected model random variables. In the TDA method, in order to de-
termine the prominent uncertain parameters affecting these limit states,
each random variable is perturbed individually, while all the others are
kept at their mean (best estimate) value. For perturbing a specific
random variable, two extreme values corresponding to 5th and 95th
percentiles of its probability distribution are assigned to that random
variable in the model, and the structure’s response is extracted each
time. This procedure is repeated for all the random variables. The re-
sults are then displayed as a special type of bar graph, with bar for each
input random variable displaying the variation of the response para-
meter from the nominal value. Finally, a tornado diagram can be uti-
lized to demonstrate the sensitivity of demand parameters to each
random variable [17].
5.3. First order second moment method (FOSM)
In this method, the target function, g, which relates the different
random variables in demand estimation is written as:
F = g (X1 . X2 . ⋯...Xn )
(5)
where X1 . X2 . ⋯..Xn are random variables and F denotes the demand
parameters. Tylor series expansion of the response function g around
random variables mean value need to be derived in order to determine
the mean and standard deviation of response function. Therefore, the
following can be employed:
⎛ ∂g (X1 . X2 . ⋯..Xn ) ⎞
⎜ ⎟
∂Xj (9)
⎝ ⎠
where ρ Xi Xj is the correlation coefficient between two random variables
Xi and Xj , and ∂g (X ) is the gradient of the F with respect to the random
∂xi
variablei , which is approximately calculated by using a finite difference
approach. Herein, for perturbing the g function, two extreme values
corresponding to 5th and 95th percentiles have been considered [14]. It
should be noted that in order to calculate the numeric value of ∂g (X ) ,
∂xi
the subtraction of the upper and lower percentiles of the Xi random
variable is calculated and denoted as h. Moreover, the subtraction of the
calculated value of g function corresponding to these percentiles of Xi
random variable is supposed to be Δg . Therefore, the numeric value of
∂g (X )
is obtained using the following equation:
∂xi
∂g (X ) Δg
= lim
∂x i h→0 h (10)
6. Results of the analyses
6.1. The effect of models’ R/S ratio on the value of design load
The total magnitude of different types of load depends on the dome's
configuration characteristics such as the value of R/S ratio. The total
dead load excluding the self-weight is applied to the outer surface of the
dome as a gravitational load, thereupon, the more outer surface area
increases, the greater the total applied dead load will be. On the other
hand, as highlighted in the Appendix, the entire value of symmetric and
asymmetric snow load decreases by increasing the R/S ratio. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the designed dome space structure’s self-weight
is utterly tied to its configuration, and the model with lower self-weight
can be considered as an optimum designed model. It is noteworthy that
from the economical point of view, the final construction cost of the
dome space structure is highly dependent to the self-weight of the
structure, which is the total weight of the steel used in the dome space
structure. Therefore, a lower self-weight value is preferable for an op-
timum design.
Tabulated in Table 2 are the total values of self-weight, dead load,
symmetric and asymmetric snow loads of the models. According to this
table, the dome with the R/S ratio of 0.1 has the lowest dead load value.
On the other hand, the 0.3 R/S ratio dome has the lowest symmetric
and asymmetric snow loads. However, this table illustrates that the
domes with the R/S ratios of 0.2 and 0.1 have an almost equal dead
load value. The variability of the total asymmetric snow load values in

6
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
Table 2
Design outputs of the models.
R/S ratio Models’ self- Self-weight Design loads
weight (KN) difference
(percent) Dead load Dead loaddifference
(KN) (percent)
0.1 78.49 37.11 214.20 −3.77
0.2 57.24 ––––– 222.60 –––––
0.3 63.70 11.27 262.65 17.99
accordance to the R/S ratios is more than the symmetric snow load
values in this table. As stated in the appendix, the calculation of
asymmetric snow load totally depends on the slope at eaves of the
domes, and this is directly dependent on the configuration (R/S ratio) of
the dome. Moreover, the values of symmetric and asymmetric snow
loads are approximately close to each other in the domes with the R/S
ratios of 0.2 and 0.3. These facts along with the geometric configuration
of the dome with the R/S ratio of 0.2 make it to has a lower self-weight
than the other two domes. The relative difference between self-weight,
dead load, symmetric and asymmetric snow loads of the domes with the
R/S ratio of 0.1 and 0.3 with respect to the dome with R/S ration of 0.2
are also tabulated in Table 2. The symmetric and asymmetric snow
loads of the model with 0.3 R/S ratio are approximately 9 percent lower
than the model with 0.2 R/S ratio, while its dead load is 18 percent
more than the dome with R/S ratio equal to 0.2. This fact also leads to
the lower self-weight of the 0.2 R/S ratio model compared to the model
with R/S ratio of 0.3. Furthermore, the symmetric and asymmetric
snow loads of the dome with the R/S ratio of 0.1 are significantly higher
than the other two models, which leads to a much more self-weight of
this model. All in all, regarding the structures’ self-weight, the 0.2 R/S
ratio dome is the most optimum configuration.
6.2. Result of nonlinear static analyses
In order to evaluate the nonlinear collapse behavior of the double-
layer dome space trusses and having an estimation of different response
parameters such as maximum capacity, collapse displacement, residual
capacity, and initial stiffness of the models, the nonlinear static analyses
have been performed subjecting the models to a monotonically in-
creasing pattern of uniform and non-uniform snow loads. Fig. 3(a, b)
shows the load proportionality factor versus apex point displacement
curve of the perfect structure’s behavior when all the random variables
have been set to their mean values. The numeric values of the afore-
mentioned response parameters are presented in Table 3. In this table,
the absolute value of maximum capacity of the models is also presented
as a multiplication of LPF by the designed symmetric and asymmetric
snow loads. Assessing Fig. 3 and Table 3, the effect of some basic key
factors such as R/S ratio, symmetric and asymmetric loading pattern on
the behavior of double-layer dome space structures can accurately be
examined.
As an example description of the characteristics of the response
curves, according to Fig. 3 (a) for the dome with the R/S ratio of 0.2,
the structure behaves linearly up to 0.012 m displacement of the dome
apex point. However, after buckling of a set of compressional members
in 2.524 value of LPF (max capacity of the structure) and correspond-
ingly 0.013 m of apex point displacement, the structure experiences a
sudden drop in its capacity. Thereafter, it regains its ability to withstand
the applied forces up to 0.02 m displacement. Finally, due to buckling
of other members, the structure would not be able to keep its stability
state in new deformed shape, and would accelerate toward collapse.
From post buckling area of response curve, it is apparent that the
structure loses approximately half of its capacity in 0.05m displacement
of apex point.
According to Fig. 3(a, b, c), it is obvious that the value of LPF is
almost similar in all the domes with three different R/S ratio values
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
Symmetric snow Symmetric snow Asymmetric snow Asymmetric snow
(KN) difference (percent) (KN) difference (percent)
439.02 52.2 248.53 61.97
288.46 ––––– 153.44 –––––
264.52 −8.29 139.60 −9.01
under asymmetric snow load. In addition, the values of LPF in different
models are very close to each other under the symmetric snow load.
However, the value of LPF slightly increases by rising the R/S ratio. The
reason behind this lies in the optimum [59] design procedure of these
structures. The models were designed in such a way to return the same
elements’ stress ratio in different parts of the dome such as the top,
bottom and web layers in the three different R/S ratio domes
For investigating the effect of structure geometric imperfection
(nodal deviation) of the double-layer dome space structure, the re-
sponse behavior of the perfect and imperfect structure should be
compared. Previous researches have shown that the geometric im-
perfection could has remarkable effect on maximum capacity of the
single-layer space structures. Mousavi et al. [38] have shown that im-
plementing the buckling mode of the single layer double-dome free
form space structure as the geometrical imperfection can strikingly
reduce structure capacity. Cai et al. [44] imposed imperfection in the
positive and negative vertical direction (+Z and –Z direction) on the
perfect hybrid single-layer space structure, and deduced that applying a
small value of imperfection in these structures may lead to a remarkable
change of the failure load.
To evaluate the maximum capacity of the domes, the total absolute
value of snow load presented in Table 3 is pursued. This table shows
that although the designed domes under asymmetric snow load shows a
larger value of maximum LPF than the domes under symmetric snow
load, the absolute capacity value of the models decreases when they are
subjected to the asymmetric snow loads. The differences in perfect
models' absolute value of capacity under symmetric and asymmetric
snow loads are 27, 35, and 43 percent in the dome with R/S ratio of 0.1,
0.2, and 0.3, respectively. This means that, as an example in the dome
with the R/S ratio of 0.1, the asymmetric loading pattern decreases 27
percent of the dome's capacity under the snow load. Initial stiffness of a
dome is another key factor that can influence the structures’ response.
As it turns out from Fig. 3(d, e), both of the R/S ratio and load pattern
affect the initial stiffness of the double-layer dome space structure.
Despite using stronger design sections in the dome with the R/S ratio of
0.1, Fig. 3(e) indicates that this dome is more flexible than the two
other domes, because of its lower initial stiffness which is attributed to
its low R/S ratio configuration. In addition to this, the initial stiffness of
the domes under asymmetric snow load is higher than its value under
symmetric snow load. According to Table 3 and Fig. 3(d), the domes
under asymmetric snow load show a lower value of collapse displace-
ment than the domes under symmetric snow load, which results in
larger initial stiffness for the domes under asymmetric snow load.
As mentioned before, the first buckling mode is used in this paper to
apply geometric imperfection both positively and negatively. Fig. 4 il-
lustrates the response curve of the perfect and imperfect models under
symmetric and asymmetric snow loads. According to Fig. 4(a)–(c), the
effect of geometric nodal imperfection on the maximum capacity are
more than its effect on the post-buckling behavior of the considered
domes (compare the response near 0.1 m displacement). Further, these
figures reveals that in contrast to single-layer space structure [9,25,27],
double-layer dome space structures are relatively less-sensitive to the
geometric nodal imperfection. For instance, Zugasti et al. [60] in-
vestigated the influence of geometrical imperfections on the behavior of
squared plan-form single-layer dome space structures, and reported that
7
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Fig. 3. Collapse behavior of the domes and comparison of response parameters (The “Sym.” represents symmetric and the “Asym.” represents asymmetric).

establishment of span/300 nodal imperfection can reduce the ultimate
load factor (the collapse load for the structure given as a factor of the
applied load) of the imperfect dome to 0.4 of its perfect counterpart.
Quiet similar results was observed by [61] for suspended dome systems.
It was reported that at the value of maximum nodal imperfection, the
buckling capacity of the system reduces by almost 50 percent.
As shown in Fig. 5, the total collapse of the models occurs through
buckling of the black color members in bottom layer, which play a key
role in transferring the applied loads to the supports. As an exception, in
the dome with the R/S ratio of 0.2, the geometric imperfection changes
the collapse-initiation location from support area to the top layer of the
dome (red color members in Fig. 5). The effect of this change of failure
initiation location is also discernable in the pushover curve in Fig. 4(b).
This finding implies that the nodal geometric imperfection could
change the response of the dome in some cases. Consequently, it may
not be recommended to ignore this issue in the double layer dome space
structure design. Comparing the effect of positive and negative im-
perfection on the model’s behavior, it appears that the positive im-
perfection increases the value of LPF, while negative imperfection de-
creases the LPF value. Thereupon, for examining the model's sensitivity

Table 3
The results of nonlinear static analyses of the models.
No. model Model’s type Maximum LPF Collapse displacement (m) Maximum snow load (KN)

1 R/S = 0.1, sym. snow, perfect 2.3298 0.0246 1022.833

2 R/S = 0.1, sym. snow, negative imperfection 2.2622 0.0256 993.155
3 R/S = 0.1, sym. snow, positive imperfection 2.3836 0.0234 1046.453
4 R/S = 0.1, asym. snow, perfect 3.0057 0.0136 747.023
5 R/S = 0.1, asym. snow, negative imperfection 2.8880 0.0141 717.771
6 R/S = 0.1, asym. snow, positive imperfection 3.1330 0.0133 778.662
7 R/S = 0.2, sym. snow, perfect 2.5243 0.0123 728.165
8 R/S = 0.2, sym. snow, negative imperfection 2.3932 0.0130 690.348
9 R/S = 0.2, sym. snow, positive imperfection 2.5745 0.0112 742.646
10 R/S = 0.2, asym. snow, perfect 3.0730 0.0057 471.537
11 R/S = 0.2, asym. snow, negative imperfection 2.9311 0.0059 449.764
12 R/S = 0.2, asym. snow, positive imperfection 3.3262 0.0054 510.390
13 R/S = 0.3, sym. snow, perfect 2.7966 0.0121 739.762
14 R/S = 0.3, sym. snow, negative imperfection 2.7477 0.0131 726.827
15 R/S = 0.3, sym. snow, positive imperfection 2.8579 0.0113 755.977
16 R/S = 0.3, asym. snow, perfect 3.0189 0.0052 421.463
17 R/S = 0.3, asym. snow, negative imperfection 2.9261 0.0053 408.508
18 R/S = 0.3, asym. snow, positive imperfection 3.1807 0.0049 444.052

8
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

(a) R/S ratio of 0.1 (b) R/S ratio of 0.2

(c) R/S ratio of 0.3

Fig. 4. The comparison of collapse behavior under symmetric and asymmetric snow loading and the collapse initiation area (The “NegImp” and “PosImp” in the
legends represent imperfection in negative (inward) and positive (outward) vertical direction, respectively).

6.3. Results of sensitivity analyses

6.3.1. Evaluating pushover sensitivity analyses

Fig. 5. The location of buckled members.
to the variation of random variables in the following sections, it is
preferred to use negative imperfection in order to capture the most
critical response.
Due to space limitation, only the pushover sensitivity analysis re-
sults of the perfect dome with the R/S ratio of 0.2, as the optimal
configuration, under the symmetric snow load have been chosen to be
presented in more detail in this section. At first, the random variables
are set to their mean values in order to extract the mean behavior of the
models, and then, they are set to their upper and lower bound quantiles
for obtaining the perturb behavior of the models.
As seen in Fig. 6(a), the yield stress random variable indicates a
greater effect on models’ response than the modulus of elasticity. The
upper and lower bound quantile of the yield stress random variable
change the whole response symmetrically around the mean model re-
sponse, while the variation of the modulus of elasticity just perturbs the
response at the collapsing point, and its curve tends to the mean model
curve in post-failure region. In other words, the variation in modulus of
elasticity does not have any effect on the residual response. In contrast,
the initial stiffness of the dome seems insensitive to the yield stress
variation, but the alternation of elastic modulus changes the initial
stiffness remarkably. According to the Fig. 6(b), considering the initial
stiffness, the maximum and residual capacity, it can be concluded that
in all these response parameters, the thickness uncertain parameter
changes the response behavior more than the diameter random vari-
able. Both variables alter the whole response symmetrically from the
pre to post-failure region. Weighing their influence on the model’s re-
sponse against the influence of the other random variables, it can be

9
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
(a) The yield stress and elastic modulus variation’
effect
(c) The Gamma and Extreme imperfection variation’
effect
Fig. 6. Comparison of random variable’ influence on structures’ pushover response behavior (The “Up” and “Low” in the legends represent the upper and lower
extremes of the uncertain parameters, respectively).
deduced that these random variables can be counted as the influential
uncertain parameters in the dome with R/S ratio of 0.2. Fig. 6(c)
compares the response behaviors in which the Gamma and Extreme
imperfection random variables are set to their upper and lower bound
quantiles. This figure reveals that applying the upper bound quantile of
Gamm imperfection strikingly changes the maximum capacity of the
model, and the potential for changing the collapse mechanism can be
seen, while implementing the Extreme imperfection’s upper bound
quantile do not change the response behavior at all. The reason lies in
the shape of the Extreme probability density function (PDF), where the
upper bound quintile of the Extreme imperfection is only 11 percent
larger than its mean value in this paper case study. The results also
show that increasing the value of imperfection decreases the initial
stiffness of the dome. The lower bound quantile of both types of the
imperfection random variables changes the structure’s behavior simi-
larly, and it causes the structure to show more post-failure strength,
which results in the more residual capacity of the model.
Based on Fig. 6(d), having the greatest impact on the double-layer
dome space structure’s response, the mass and load random variable
can be considered as the most influential uncertain parameter. The
upper bound quantile of this random variable decreases the initial
stiffness and maximum capacity of the model, while its lower bound
quantile increases them. Although the upper and lower bound quantiles
10
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
(b) The diameter and thickness variation’ effect
(d) The MaL and ultimate stress variation’ effect
of this parameter are obtained from a normal distribution function, it is
seen in this figure that the structure shows asymmetric behavior with
respect to the mean response. On the other hand, the ultimate stress
uncertain parameter has a negligible effect on the response curve. This
figure illustrates that, in the whole response curve, the models with
perturbed ultimate stress values show approximately the same response
as the model with the mean values of random variables.
6.3.2. Evaluating TDA results
The investigation of the response statistics sensitivity to the con-
sidered uncertain parameters is summarized below. First, all para-
meters of the finite element model were set equal to their respective
mean values, and the dome response were extracted using incremental
nonlinear static analysis. Next, this procedure was repeated one-para-
meter-at-a-time, setting each parameter to its 5th and 95th percentile
while holding the remaining parameters at their mean values. The re-
sponse variation can be displayed through a tornado diagram, and the
absolute difference between the two extremes is called the swing [62].
As is seen in Fig. 7, in the tornado diagram, the swings due to the
various random variables are displayed in the descending order of the
swing size from top to bottom. A larger swing size implies a larger effect
of the corresponding random variable on the dome maximum capacity.
By counting the total number of times each random parameter has been
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
Fig. 7. Tornado diagram for the maximum capacity of domes with three different R/S ratios.
ranked in the top first among all models, it can be found that in all the
models, the mass and load (MaL) random variable is the most important
uncertain parameter. Fig. 7 shows that in all cases, in spite of con-
sidering symmetric normal distribution function for MaL random vari-
able, the model structures show a somewhat asymmetric behavior
around the mean models at the collapsing (buckling) point. The
thickness, diameter, and Gamma imperfection are considered as the
second important group of random variables. According to Fig. 7, im-
plementing the upper and lower bound quintiles of the thickness, dia-
meter, yield stress and modulus of elasticity random variables sym-
metrically change the maximum capacity with respect to the mean
model maximum capacity at the point of failure. However, the Gamma
imperfection has an asymmetrical effect on the maximum capacity of
the models. This might be attributed to this fact that the ratio of the
upper bound quintile of the Gamma imperfection to its mean value is
2.6, while the ratio of the lower bound quintile of this variable to its
mean value is 0.11. Furthermore, as will be explained further ahead,
the change of failure initiation position in the structure (as a result of
the asymmetrical PDF of this random variable) might have caused this
asymmetrical behavior. In addition, in the models with the R/S ratio of
0.2 under asymmetric snow load, the diameter random variable shows a
somewhat asymmetrical effect.
As seen in Fig. 7, in all the models, the importance of the thickness
random variable is greater than the diameter parameter. However, the
key issue that should be noticed here is that although the thickness
random variable has approximately four times greater COV than the
diameter uncertain parameter, it appears that the sensitivity of the
11
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
maximum capacity of the domes to these random variables is ap-
proximately close to each other. Moreover, the Gamma imperfection
with the largest value of COV among the random variables is considered
within the second important group of uncertain parameters. Therefore,
it might be concluded that the COV value does not necessarily have
direct impact on the significance of the variables. The yield stress, Ex-
treme imperfection, and modulus of elasticity uncertain parameters
approximately have the same effect on the maximum capacity of the
double-layer dome space structure, and are supposed to be considered
as the third important group of random variables. Furthermore, it can
be seen that the ultimate stress has virtually no impact on the struc-
ture’s response. Consequently, the uncertainty in these four parameters
could be neglected without leading to a significant loss of accuracy.
The random variables that their upper bound quantile decrease
structure’s capacity are called demand parameters. On the other hand,
the random variables that their upper bound quantile increase the
models’ capacity are called capacity random variable [22]. Therefore,
in this study, the MaL and member’s imperfection are demand para-
meters while the other random variables are capacity parameters. It is
noteworthy that the identification of the demand or capacity random
variables is done based on inspecting the pushover curves of the models
with the upper and lower bound quantiles of the random parameters.
For instance, according to Fig. 6(d), the MaL random variable is a de-
mand parameter for the model with the R/S ratio of 0.2. The same
conclusions can be made in regard to the pushover curves of the other
models, which are not presented herein due to the space limitation.
Total failure in double-layer space structure occurs when the structure
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
(a) R/S ratio 0.2
Fig. 8. The collapse behavior of perfect models under symmetric snow load (The “Up” and “Low” in the legends represent the upper and lower extremes of the
uncertain parameter, respectively).
could not carry the re-distributed load due to buckling of the first set of
compression members and the structure undergoes a progressive col-
lapse. In this study, buckling of support-connected members in almost
all the models causes total failure in double-layer dome space structure.
But in the domes with the R/S ratio of 0.2 and 0.3 with perfect geo-
metry (under symmetric snow load), as is shown in Fig. 8, im-
plementing the lower bound quantile of imperfection parameter causes
the domes to show a different type of behavior, which results in a
gentler slope in the post-failure area of response curve. This observation
is attributed to the change of the initial buckling members’ location
from support area in the bottom layer to the members in the top layer.
This modified post-failure behavior leads to a one-sided swing in the
TDA diagram of the residual capacity (see Fig. 10) in these two models.
Additionally, when the upper bound quantile of imperfection is im-
plemented to the members as an initial curvature, in spite of a re-
markable decrease in capacity, the double-layer dome shows a notice-
able potential for changing the collapse mechanism from total collapse
to local collapse with a dynamic snap through. Comparing the swing of
the Gamma and Extreme imperfection in Fig. 7, a major finding re-
garding the importance of member’s imperfection on double-layer
dome space structures can be observed that the distribution function of
imperfection random variable plays a pivotal role on their importance.
It is interesting to note that the snow load pattern, R/S ratio and
being geometrically perfect or imperfect are not influential factors in
ranking the random variables according to their importance. But, ir-
respective to these factors, the mass and load, Gamma imperfection,
thickness, and diameter are the random variables that can be con-
sidered as the key uncertain parameters which have the potential to
remarkably change the structure capacity.
According to Fig. 9, the sensitivity of dome apex point collapse
displacement to uncertain parameters is investigated too. Based on this
figure, it appears that the Fy and Es are the most important random
variables which cause a great deal of variation on collapse displace-
ment. In addition, this figure shows that except for the aforementioned
random variables, the importance ranking of other random variables
differs in the different models, and finding a specific trend for the im-
portance of uncertain parameters is very difficult. Fig. 9 shows that, in
most cases, the Gamma and Extreme imperfection random variables do
not have a noticeable effect on collapse displacement of double-layer
dome space structures and can be considered as a random variable with
moderate importance. Similar to the capacity TDA, the ultimate stress
random variable has much less impact on the collapse displacement of
double-layer dome space structures.
It can be well seen in the Tornado Diagram presented in Fig. 10 that
12
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
(b) R/S ratio 0.3
the residual capacity is totally sensitive to the MaL uncertain para-
meter. The thickness, yield stress, and diameter variables could be
considered as the second influential group of uncertain parameters. As
it turns out from this figure, more or less the same random variables,
which were important corresponding to the sensitivity of maximum
capacity, are also dominant when the residual capacity of the models is
examined. The only exception is the yield stress parameter. Fig. 10 il-
lustrates that, in most cases, the thickness parameter is more important
than the yield stress except in the model with the R/S ratio of 0.2 under
asymmetric snow load and the model with the R/S ratio of 0.3 under
symmetric snow load. The remaining random variables have negligible
effect on residual capacity of the case study double-layer dome space
structures.
Although the Gamma imperfection uncertain parameter was con-
sidered within the second vital group of random variables in the ca-
pacity TDA, according to Fig. 10, it is obvious that this parameter does
not have a striking effect on the residual capacity of the models except
in the perfect dome with the R/S ratio of 0.2 under symmetric snow
load. In this model, the Gamma and Extreme imperfection parameters
play a key role in changing the residual strength of the dome because,
as previously mentioned, applying upper bound quantile of the im-
perfection alters the collapse initiation location from the support area
to the top layer of the dome.
By evaluating both the maximum and residual capacity TDA dia-
grams, such a strong influence of mass and load, thickness, and dia-
meter uncertain parameters can be understood. Moreover, through si-
multaneous examination of Figs. 7 and 10 and assessing the variation of
these three uncertain parameters in these figures, it can be inferred that
variation of these uncertain parameters changes the whole response
curve in pre and post-failure area. In contrast, the remaining random
variables do not show a remarkable effect on the residual capacity of
double-layer dome space structures.
6.4. Result of the FOSM analysis
Table 4 summarizes the results of FOSM approach providing the
coefficient of variation of the capacity LPF and the LPF value in 0.05 m
(0.1 m in 0.1 R/S ratio model) apex point displacement (residual ca-
pacity) in all the models. Tabulated in this table suggest that different
types of load pattern and some specific characteristics of the dome such
as R/S ratio and geometric imperfection do not have a remarkable ef-
fect on the COV of the maximum capacity of double-layer dome space
structures. Based on the results presented in this table, an average COV
of 0.2 is proposed for double-layer dome space structure capacity under
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
Fig. 9. Tornado diagram for the collapse displacement of domes with three different R/S ratios.
snow loading. On the other hand, the residual capacity of the domes
with the R/S ratio of 0.3 have a greater value of COV than the two other
domes. On average, the COV value of 0.25 is proposed for the residual
capacity of this type of structure.
The first term in Eq. (9) shows the direct contribution of random
variable variations on the computed variance of the limit state function
(response parameters), and also shows which random variable mostly
affect it [63]. According to this part of the equation, the random vari-
∂g
able with the largest value of ∂X σXi has the greater effect on the limit
i
state function’s variance. Consequently, according to Eq. (11), im-
∂g
portance vector (ω ) which is a normalized form of σ
∂Xi Xi
may rank the
random variables according to their importance:
∂g
σ
∂Xi Xi
ωi =
∂g
‖ ∂X σXi ‖
i (11)
The importance factor of the random variables in the TDA method is
calculated by dividing the swing value of the individual random vari-
able to the norm of all swing values. The importance factor of each
random variable is a value between 0 and 1. According to this value, the
most influential uncertain parameter is a random variable with a
greater value of importance factor. These importance factors for the
maximum capacity of the models in both the FOSM method (ωi ) and the
TDA method are compared in Fig. 11. In this figure, the red and blue
13
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
lines show the importance factor of the random variables in the TDA
and FOSM methods, respectively.
As seen in Fig. 11, there is a close similarity between the results of
the TDA and FOSM methods, and it can be concluded that alike to the
results of the TDA analysis, the MaL random variable with the im-
portance factor of 0.7 is considered as the most effective uncertain
parameter. Likewise, the thickness, Gamma imperfection, and diameter
of the member’s section are the other three high-rank random variables.
These three random variables have importance factor of 0.35 to 0.45 in
the domes with the R/S ratios of 0.2 and 0.3, while their importance
factor is around 0.3 to 0.45 in the dome with the R/S ratio of 0.1.
The importance factor of the random variables for residual capacity
using both the TDA and FOSM methods are demonstrated in Fig. 12.
This figure indicates that the uncertain parameters in both the TDA and
FOSM methods almost have the same importance. As highlighted in the
TDA sensitivity section, the parameter which influences the residual
capacity most considerably is the MaL parameter with a higher value of
importance factor than the other random variables. The yield stress,
thickness, and diameter of members’ section are nearly the most
dominant parameters in this response limit state parameter. As men-
tioned in the previous section, when the lower bound quantile of
Gamma imperfection random variable is implemented to the member’s
as the initial curvature, the collapse-beginning area in the dome
changes, and as a result, the residual capacity increases in the perfect
domes with the R/S ratios of 0.2 and 0.3 under symmetric snow load.
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Fig. 10. Tornado diagram for the residual strength of domes with three different R/S ratios.

Table 4 7. Conclusion
Results of the FOSM analyses for the double layer dome space structures.
R/S ratio Load pattern COV
The present work studies the influence of some key factors such as
the rise to span ratio, snow load pattern, and structure’s geometric
Maximum capacity Residual capacity imperfection on design and collapse behavior of double-layer dome
space structure. The effect of different sources of uncertainty in mate-
0.1 Symmetric snow, Perfect 0.195 0.208
Symmetric snow, Imperfect 0.198 0.210
rial mechanical behavior, member’s geometric imperfection, and the
Asymmetric snow, Perfect 0.179 0.216 applied gravity dead load on the nonlinear static collapse behavior of
Asymmetric snow, 0.181 0.217 the dome space structure are investigated. Moreover, the most influ-
Imperfect ential uncertain parameters on model’s response parameters are re-
0.2 Symmetric snow, Perfect 0.194 0.326 cognized by using the TDA and FOSM analyses. The most notable
Symmetric snow, Imperfect 0.187 0.207 findings can be summarized as follows:
Asymmetric snow, Perfect 0.215 0.248

• The value of R/S ratio plays a pivotal role in determining the total
Asymmetric snow, 0.222 0.248
Imperfect
value of the applied dead, symmetric and asymmetric snow loads.
0.3 Symmetric snow, Perfect 0.201 0.301
The R/S ratio of 0.2 is recommended as the optimum configuration
Symmetric snow, Imperfect 0.197 0.405
Asymmetric snow, Perfect 0.204 0.300 for designing double-layer dome space structures, since the dome
Asymmetric snow, 0.209 0.296 with R/S ratio of 0.2 has the minimum value of self-weight com-
Imperfect pared to the domes with R/S ratios of 0.1 and 0.3.
• In case of designing the domes with different R/S ratios in such a
way to return the same elements’ stress ratio in different parts of the
The two later figures reveal that the ultimate stress random variable dome structure, the collapse capacity LPF values of the domes with
with the lowest value of importance factor is an insignificant uncertain different R/S ratios under both symmetric and asymmetric snow
parameter. load patterns are approximately close to each other. On the other
hand, asymmetric snow load decreases the absolute value of the

14
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
Fig. 11. The importance factor of random variables in TDA and FOSM methods (maximum capacity).
maximum capacity of the domes for carrying the snow load. Indeed,
comparing the dome's maximum capacity value when they are
subjected to the symmetric and asymmetric snow loads, it is obvious
that the domes are able to carry less asymmetric snow load than the
symmetric one.
• Double-layer dome space structures are far less sensitive to the
structure's geometric imperfection (node deviation) than single-
layer one. Nevertheless, in some cases (for instance the imperfect
dome with R/S ratio of 0.2 under symmetric snow load), the node
deviation changes the collapse initiation area, and shows the po-
tential for changing the collapse mechanism of the dome. Therefore,
it is not recommended to ignore the node deviation in double layer
space structures at all.
• The results of the TDA method for the maximum capacity show that,
in all cases, the mass and load random variable is the most influ-
ential uncertain parameter. This is in general agreement with the
reported results of some other studies for other types of structures
[14,23]. The thickness, diameter, and Gamma imperfection are
considered as the second important group of random variables.
Consequently, the variation in these four random variables is re-
commended to be considered in static response evaluation of the
double-layer dome space structure.
• The sensitivity of the maximum capacity to the variation of the
members’ thickness and diameter in all the models are approxi-
mately equal, while the thickness random variable COV value is
15
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
approximately four times greater than the diameter’s COV. In ad-
dition, in spite of having the largest value of COV among the random
variables, the Gamma imperfection is not the most influential
random variable. Therefore, it might be concluded that the COV
value does not necessarily have a direct impact on the significance
of the variables.
• The yield stress, Extreme imperfection, and modulus of elasticity
uncertain parameters can be considered as the third influential
group of random variables with far less impact on structural capa-
city than the other parameters. Moreover, the ultimate stress para-
meter almost has no influence on the response parameters.
Therefore, in probabilistic assessments of the capacity of this type of
structure, the uncertainty in these four parameters could be ne-
glected without leading to a significant loss of accuracy.
• The apex point collapse displacement value shows a remarkable
sensitivity to the variation of the yield stress and modulus of elas-
ticity parameters. Therefore, these uncertain parameters are sug-
gested as the most influential random variables in determining the
apex point collapse displacement of the dome space structure. On
the other hand, the residual capacity of the models are mostly
sensitive to the mass and load uncertain parameter, and the thick-
ness and diameter uncertain parameters are considered as the
second crutial group of random variables.
• The results of the FOSM analyses show that, in all the models, the
COV value of the maximum capacity is approximately equal to 0.2,
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Fig. 12. The importance factor of random variables in TDA and FOSM methods (residual capacity).

while some differences between the COV values of the residual ca-
pacity of the domes with R/S ratio of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 are observed.
However, on average, COV values of 0.2 and 0.25 are proposed for
the maximum and residual capacity of the domes, respectively.
• Based on the results of the FOSM method for ranking the random
variables according to their contribution in calculating the COV
value of the response parameters, it is observed that there is a close
similarity between the results of the TDA and FOSM methods.
Therefore, it is inferred that the TDA method is able to accurately
recognize the most influential random variables.
• Since the results of the TDA and FOSM methods are almost the same,
considering the simplicity and ease of implementation, the TDA
method is recommended for sensitivity analysis of this type of
structure. On the other side, when the computation of the variation
(standard deviation) of the response parameters is of interest, the
FOSM method is proposed as the simplest method of probabilistic
assessments.
• Ranking of the random variables does not depend on some specific
key factors such as the symmetric and asymmetric snow load pat-
terns, rise to span ratio of the dome, and being imperfect while these
parameters are very important in designing the double-layer dome
space structure. Actually, almost the same trend of the random
variables’ ranking for each response parameter can be seen in all the
models.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix

Design and details of the models

Based on the ASCE7-10 [41], the ground snow load determination for a site is based on an extreme value statistical analysis of data available in
the vicinity of the site using a value with a 2 percent annual probability of being exceeded. There are two different types of snow load patterns that
the dome structures have to be designed for i.e. balanced and unbalanced snow loads. For obtaining the numeric values of snow load on the sloping
roof, it is mandatory to calculate snow load on a flat roof at first. The Eq. (A.1) shows the way of calculating flat roof snow load.
Pf = 0.7 ∗ Ce ∗ Ct ∗ Is ∗ Pg (A.1)

16
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Fig. A1. The top layer slope.

Table A1
applied snow loads on the models.
R/S ratio 0.1 R/S ratio 0.2 R/S ratio 0.3

a (Degree) Cs Snow Load a (Degree) Cs Snow Load a (Degree) Cs Snow Load

N / m2 N / m2 N / m2

Sym. Asym. Sym. Asym. Sym. Asym.

Ring 1 2.8 1 1132.0 565.5 3.6 1 1132.0 565.5 4.6 1 1132.0 565.5
Ring 2 4.3 1 1132.0 833.0 10.9 0.9 1029.1 838.4 13.7 0.86 980.1 830.1
Ring 3 7.1 0.96 1094.8 1099.7 18.2 0.79 901.7 1110.0 22.9 0.72 819.4 1093.8
Ring 4 9.9 0.92 1045.8 1367.2 25.4 0.68 776.2 1382.0 32.1 0.58 660.0 1358.4
Ring 5 12.8 0.88 995.8 1633.8 32.7 0.57 648.8 1382.0 41.2 0.44 500.8 1020.3
Ring 6 15.6 0.83 946.8 1901.4 40 0.46 522.4 1044.8 50.4 0.3 341.0 682.1

Fig. A2. Asymmetric snow load pattern (this figure is taken from ASCE 7–10, (a) R/S ratio 0.1, (b) R/S ratio 0.2 and 0.3.

Table A2
Design section of the members.
Element color R/S ratio of 0.1 R/S ratio of 0.2 R/S ratio of 0.3

Section type D.out (mm) Thick. (mm) Section type D.out t Section type D.out t
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

D33.7T3.2 33.7 3.2 D26.9T2.6 26.9 2.6 D26.3T2.6 26.9 2.6

D33.7T3.2 33.7 3.2 D33.7D2.6 33.7 2.6 D33.7D3.2 33.7 3.2

D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2 D33.7T2.6 33.7 2.6 D33.7D3.2 33.7 3.2

D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2 D33.7T2.6 33.7 2.6 D33.7T2.6 33.7 2.6

D48.3T3.2 48.3 3.2 D42.4T2.6 42.4 2.6 D42.4T2.6 42.4 2.6

D52T3.2 52 3.2 D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2 D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2

D52T3.2 52 3.2 D42.4T2.6 42.4 2.6 D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2

D52T3.2 52 3.2 D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2 D42.4T3.2 42.4 3.2

In which:
Ce is exposure factor that is determined from Table 7-2 of ASCE7-10. In this study, based on terrain category (C) and being partially exposed, the
amount of Ce is considered to be equal to 1.
Ct is thermal factor that is determined from Table 7-3 of ASCE7-10 and is assumed to be equal 1 in this paper.
Is is importance factor that is extracted from Table1.5-2 of ASCE7-10. Since the structure’s failure poses substantial risk of human life, the value of
importance factor is supposed to be equal 1.10.

17
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511

Fig. A3. (a) Top layer of the dome, (b) Bottom layer of the dome, (c) Web layer of the dome.

Pg is ground snow load which is considered to be 1.5 KN2

m
The sloped roof balanced snow load, Ps , is obtained by multiplying the flat roof snow load, Pf , by the roof slope factor, Cs :
Ps = Cs ∗ Pf (A.2)
In which: Cs is slope factor determined from Fig. 7-2 of ASCE7-10. In this study, as is shown in Fig. A.1, the domes are formed with six different
sloped rings. Each ring has its own Cs factor according to its slope with respect to the horizon. The a1 to a6 in this figure represents the degree
between the specific sloped ring and the horizon line. Tabulated in Table A.1 are the slope values of each ring and its corresponding Cs parameter in
the domes with different R/S ratios.
Based on ASCE7, the calculation of asymmetric snow load totally depends on the slope at eaves of the domes. According to the Fig. A.2, two
different methods are used in order to calculate the asymmetric snow load of the models. The dome with the R/S ratio of 0.1 has eaves slope of fewer
than 30°, therefore its asymmetric snow load pattern follows the Fig. A.2(a) method, while having the eaves slope greater than 30°entails the
asymmetric snow load of the domes with the R/S ratio of 0.2 and 0.3 follow the Fig. A.2(b) method. The calculated numeric values of symmetric and
asymmetric snow load of the models have shown in Table A.1.
The AISC 360–10 code has been used for designing models under different aforementioned types of loads. The elements’ design section of the
models and their position in the structure has shown in table A.2 and Fig. A.3, respectively.
In Table A.2, sections’ characteristics are tabulated according to the elements’ color in the Fig. A.3.

References [17] Porter KA. An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering

[1] Popko ES. Divided Spheres: geodesics and the orderly subdivision of the sphere.
CRC Press; 2012.
[2] El-Sheikh A. Effect of member length imperfections on triple-layer space trusses. J.
Eng. struct. 1997;19(7):540–50.
[3] Sheidaii MR, Gordini M. Effect of random distribution of member length im-
perfection on collapse behavior and reliability of flat double-layer grid space
structures. J. Advances in Struct. Eng. 2015;18(9):1475–85.
[4] Borri C, Spinelli P. Buckling and post-buckling behaviour of single layer reticulated
shells affected by random imperfections. Comput Struct 1988;30(4):937–43.
[5] Tegola AL. Ultimate limit states of space reticular structures with random behaviour
elements. J. Space Struct. 1992;7(4):345–52.
[6] El-Sheikh A. Effect of geometric imperfections on single-layer barrel vaults. J. space
struct. 2002;17(4):271–83.
[7] Yadollahi MM, Gül R, Polat R, Yadollahi BM, Gül MS. The effect of initial geometric
imperfection on the load bearing capacity of double layer barrel vault space
structures. In 3rd ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2011. p. 25–8. Corfu, Greece.
[8] Roudsari MT, Gordini M. Random imperfection effect on reliability of space struc-
tures with different supports. J. Struct. Eng. and Mech. 2015;55(3):461–72.
[9] Chen X, Shen SZ. Complete load-deflection response and initial imperfection ana-
lysis of single-layer lattice dome. J. Space Struct. 1993;8(4):271–8.
[10] Fan F, Yan J, Cao Z. Elasto-plastic stability of single-layer reticulated domes with
initial curvature of members. J. Thin-Walled Struct. 2012;60:239–46.
[11] Asgarian B, Ordoubadi B. Effects of structural uncertainties on seismic performance
of steel moment resisting frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2016;120:132–42.
[12] Jalali SA, Banazadeh M, Tafakori E, Abolmaali A. Seismic performance assessment
of steel moment frames with generic Locally Reinforced connections. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2011;67(8):1261–71.
[13] Pirmoz A, Marefat MS. Reliability assessment of compression columns in seismic
EBFs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015;104:274–81.
[14] Zarrin M, Asgarian B, Abyani M. Probabilistic Seismic Collapse Analysis of Jacket
Offshore Platforms. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng. 2018;140(3):031601.
[15] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 2002;31(3):491–514.
[16] Zarrin M, Abyani M, Asgarian B. A statistical study on lognormal central tendency
estimation in probabilistic seismic assessments. J. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1668813.
methodology. In Proceedings of ninth international conference on applications of
statistics and probability in civil engineering. 2003. Jul 6.
[18] Hezarjaribi M, Bahaari MR, Bagheri V, Ebrahimian H. Sensitivity analysis of jacket-
type offshore platforms under extreme waves. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013;83:147–55.
[19] Haselton CB. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frame
buildings, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Stanford University; 2006.
[20] Hui-Jun L, Xue F, Zhen-Xing CH, Ming-Fu L, Guang-De L. Sensitivity and correlation
analysis of double-layer cylindrical reticulated shell considering several perfor-
mance functions. J. Space Struct. 2015;30(1):13–26.
[21] Zhong J, Zhi X, Fan F. Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter
uncertainty of single-layer reticulated domes. J. Steel Struct. 2018;18(5):1607–16.
[22] Mahadevan S, Haldar A. Probability, reliability and statistical method in en-
gineering design. John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
[23] El-Din MN, Kim J. Sensitivity analysis of pile-founded fixed steel jacket platforms
subjected to seismic loads. J. Ocean Eng. 2014;85:1–11.
[24] Fan F, Cao Z, Shen S. Elasto-plastic stability of single-layer reticulated shells. J.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2010;48(10–11):827–36.
[25] Bruno L, Sassone M, Venuti F. Effects of the equivalent geometric nodal imperfec-
tions on the stability of single layer grid shells. Eng. Struct. 2016;112:184–99.
[26] JGJ61-2003 Technical specification for reticulated shells. Beijing: China
Architecture Industry Press, 2003.
[27] Mohammadi M, Abedi K, Taghizadieh N. Stability analysis of single-layer barrel
vault space structures. J. Space Struct. 2012;27(4):203–18.
[28] Chen ZH, Li Y. Parameter analysis on stability of a suspendome. J. Space Struct.
2005;20(2):115–24.
[29] Chen G, Zhang H, Rasmussen KJ, Fan F. Modeling geometric imperfections for re-
ticulated shell structures using random field theory. Eng. Struct. 2016;126:481–9.
[30] B. Ellingwood, T.V. Galambos, M. Gregor, C.A. Cornell, Development of probability-
based load criterion for American national standard A58. U.S. Government printing
Office, 1980.
[31] JCSS, Probabilistic Modal Code-Part 1: Basis of Design. (12th draft), Joint
Committee on Structural Safety, available from: 2001. http://www.jcss.
[32] ISO Fixed Steel Offshore Structures Code 19902, Component-based calibration of
North West European annex for environmental load factors, Research Report 088,
2003.
[33] Wang D. Probabilistic risk analysis of steel frame structures. Harbin Dissertation of
Harbin Institute of Technology; 2006. p. 18–9.
[34] Abedi K, Parke GA. Progressive collapse of single-layer braced domes. J. Space

18
R.V. Vazna and M. Zarrin
Struct 1996;11(3):291–306.
[35] Makkar A, Abbas S, Haslin SM. Finite Element Analysis of Diamatic, Schwedler and
Diamatic-Schwedler Hybrid Domes. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 2016;39:57–62.
[36] Nooshin H. Formex configuration processing in structural engineering. London:
Elsevier Applied Science; 1984.
[37] Chen J. A Study on the selection of optimal roof type for low-rise buildings group–in
a view of wind pressures action. J. Procedia Eng. 2012;31:1149–54.
[38] Mousavi Mehdi Abbasi, Abedi Karim, Chenaghlou Mohamadreza. Imperfection
sensitivity analysis of double domes free form space structures. Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn.
2015;15(04):1450067. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455414500679.
[39] Nooshin H. Space structures and configuration processing. Prog Struct Mat Eng
1998;1(3):329–36.
[40] San B, Xu C, Qiu Y. Three-dimensional aerodynamic optimization of single-layer
reticulated cylindrical roofs subjected to mean wind loads. Adv. Civil Eng.
2019:1–13. Article ID 4156319.
[41] American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, Published by N.Y. The Society.
[42] Gallego E, Fuentes JM, Ramírez-Gómez A, Ayuga F. Effects of different snow load
arrangements on steel silo roof structures. J. Adv. Struct. Eng.
2018;21(16):2507–17.
[43] Kato S, Iwamoto T. Buckling and reliability analysis of single layer grid dome with
diagonal brace under snow load. J. IASS. 2017;58(3):207–25.
[44] Cai J, Xu Y, Feng J, Zhang J. Nonlinear stability of a single-layer hybrid grid shell. J.
Civil Eng. Manage. 2012;18(5):752–60.
[45] American institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chicago, III. USA, 2010.
[46] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G. Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (OpenSEES) - OpenSEES Command Language Manual. Berkeley, Ca:
Uni. of California; 2007.
[47] Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF. Fiber beam column model for nonlinear analysis
of RC frames. I: formulation. J Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1996;25(7):711–25.
[48] De Souza R. Forced-based finite element for large displacement inelastic analysis of
frames Ph.D Thesis. California: University of California, Berkeley; 2000.
[49] Menegotto M, Pinto P. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete
plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic behavior of elements
under combined normal force and bending. Lisbon: IABSE Symposium; 1973.
[50] Asgarian B, Aghakouchak AA, Bea RG. Inelastic post buckling and cyclic behavior of
tubular braces. ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2005;127(3):256–62.
19
Engineering Structures 212 (2020) 110511
[51] Asgarian B, Aghakouchack AA, Bea RG. Non-linear analysis of jacket type offshore
platforms using fiber elements. ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng.
2006;128(3):224–32.
[52] Honarvar MR, Bahari MR, Asgarian B, Alanjari P. Cyclic inelastic behavior and
analytical modeling of pile leg interaction in jacket type offshore platform. Appl
Ocean Res 2008;29(4):167–79.
[53] Alanjari P, Asgarian B, Bahaari MR, Honarvar MR. On the energy dissipation of
jacket type offshore platforms with different pile–leg interactions. Appl Ocean Res
2009;31(2):82–9.
[54] Uriz P, Filippou FC, Mahin SA. Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces. J.
struct. eng. 2008;134(4):619–28.
[55] Black GR, Wenger WA, Popov EP. Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load
reversals, UCB/EERC-80/40. Berkeley, Calif: Earthquake Engineering Research
Center; 1980.
[56] Lai JW, Mahin SA. Steel concentrically braced frames using tubular structural
sections as bracing members: design, full-scale testing and numerical simulation.
Int. J. Steel Struct. 2014;14(1):43–58.
[57] Hsiao PC, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. A model to simulate special concentrically
braced frames beyond brace fracture. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2012;42(2):183–200.
[58] Yang D, Yun C, Wu J, Yao Y. Seismic response and failure mechanism of single-layer
latticed domes with steel columns and braces as substructures. Thin-Walled Struct.
2018;124:458–67.
[59] Song M, Chen D. An improved knowledge-informed NSGA-II for multi-objective
land allocation (MOLA). Geo Spat. Inf. Sci. 2018;21(4):273–87.
[60] Altuna Zugasti AM, Lopez-Arancibia A, Puente I. Influence of geometrical and
structural parameters on the behaviour of squared plan-form single-layer structures.
J Constr Steel Res 2012;72:219–26.
[61] Kitipornchai S, Kang W, Lam HF, Albermani F. Factors affecting the design and
construction of Lamella suspen-dome systems. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:764–85.
[62] Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to
major uncertain variables. Earthq. Spectra 2002;18(4):719–43.
[63] Heidary-Torkamani H, Bargi K, Amirabadi R, McCllough NJ. Fragility estimation
and sensitivity analysis of an idealized pile-supported wharf with batter piles. J. soil
dyn. and earthq. eng. 2014;61:92–106.
[64] Bai Yong, Hui-bin Yan Yu, Cao Younghoon Kim, Yang Yong-yan, Jiang Hua. Time-
dependent reliability assessment of offshore jacket platforms. Ships and Offshore
Structures 2015;11(6):1–12.