2017 Baltic Geodetic Congress

Geometry Design and Structural Analysis of Steel

Single-Layer Geodesic Domes

Robert Szmit
Faculty of Geodesy, Geospatial and Civil Engineering
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
Olsztyn, Poland
robert.szmit@uwm.edu.pl

Abstract—The research paper presents the results of a static
analysis of selected geodesic domes. Geodesic domes are spherical
architectonic structures formed by triangular, presenting great
sturdiness while keeping the structure very light. Geodesic
domes, especially single-layered, due to their small mass
compared to the applied loads must be carefully analysed, not
only with respect to statistics, but also subject to modal analysis.
The basis for generating geodesic domes rod can be polyhedra
shapely such as octahedron or icosahedron. In the first part of
the paper presented the historical development of geodesic
domes. The last issue showed in the work is the presentation of
the results and conclusions of the analysis carried out on geodesic
domes with the base of octahedron and icosahedron, depending
on the density of geodetic division. Domes were loaded with its
own weight and the effect of the wind.
Keywords—structural engineering; numerical analysis;
algorithm design and analysis; load modeling; geodesic domes.
I. INTRODUCTION
The geodesic domes, also known as geodesic spheres, are
among the most common types of truss domes and belong to
the broadly defined group of light constructions. The designers
of domes are committed to the idea of creating an ultra-light
construction with high rigidity of the cover, characterised by
very low wear of steel per unit of the covered surface, making
it possible to cover very wide ranges without using
intermediate supports, which would at the same time be easy
to assemble and possibly disassemble. Geometric optimisation
of geodesic domes results in the factual wear of the steel in
them reaching several kg/m2, which is several to even about a
dozen times lower than in standard steel covers. The world’s
first construction of this type, designed by the German
engineer Walther Bauersfeld, was the cover of the planetarium
in Jena, constructed in 1923. Over 20 years later truss domes
fascinated Richard Buckminster Fuller, who patented and
popularised such constructions and called them “geodesic”
[6,7].
Of all of Fuller's domes, the Biosphere is perhaps the most
spectacular. At a diameter of seventy-six meters, the
expansive sphere reaches an astounding sixty-two meters into
the sky and thoroughly dominates the island on which it is
located.
Fuller domes built nowadays can span even up to over 200
metres. There are of course other types of truss domes.
However, for comparison, with the bearing capacity of a
geodesic dome amounting to 100 %, the bearing capacity of a
Lamell dome is approximately 75 %, with the bearing capacity
of a spiral-latitudinal dome amounting to 50 %, and the
bearing capacity of a Schwedler dome being only 30 % [8].
This suggests that geodesic domes may be the optimal covers
for certain buildings.
II. METHOD OF GENERATING 3-WAYS GEODESIC GRIDS
The basal surface of a geodesic dome is a sphere, and
because most used construction elements are flat, Fuller
proposed the previously unseen method of splitting a sphere
into flat triangular fields. The starting points for creating the
grid of a dome are Platonic polyhedra inscribed in a sphere,
being regular convex polyhedra. In practice, two Platonic
polyhedra are used most frequently: an octahedron or an
icosahedron, with a tetrahedron and dodecahedron being less
common (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Some Platonic solids used to construct for geodesic domes.
The larger the area of the basal polyhedron, the more
similar it is to the sphere circumscribed about it, and hence the
icosahedron is the best solution [2].
In the case of a regular octahedron we have 12 edges, 8
faces (equilateral triangles) and 6 vertices. The length of the
edge is:
a = 2 R = 1.41521R (1)

978-1-5090-6040-5/17 $31.00 © 2017 IEEE 205205

DOI 10.1109/BGC.Geomatics.2017.9
where R is the radius of the sphere circumscribed about this
polyhedron.
In the case of a regular icosahedron we have 30 edges, 20
faces being equilateral triangles and 12 vertices. The length of
the edge is:
( )
a = 0.2 R 10 5 − 5 = 1.05146 R .
However, 20 faces is still too few, since it would mean that
with greater spans of domes the beams would be really long
and would have to transmit greater forces. A solution to this is
to divide each wall into a higher number of equilateral
triangles, for example 4, 9, 16, etc., thus creating a
characteristic tridirectional grid. There are three classes of the
geodesic division of a polyhedron’s faces into smaller
triangles (Fig. 2). In the class I system, the truss grid lines
extend parallel to the edges of the triangles of the polyhedra,
connecting the points splitting the given edge into any number
of equal segments. In the class II system, the dividing lines are
parallel to the angle bisectors of the given triangle, or in other
words, perpendicular to the base. There is also a class III
system, functioning as an intermediate one between the
previous division classes. However, in practice it is seldom
used. In the case of the first two classes, the number of
segments into which the edge is being split defines the
frequency (degree) of the division (e.g. 2V, 4V etc.) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Triangulation methods (Class I, II, III) and frequency of subdivision
(from 1V to 6V) [9].
generated grid onto the surface of the sphere [5,6]. This
method is presented using the example of a second degree 2V
dome based on a regular octahedron (Fig. 3a) and a third
degree 3V dome based on a regular icosahedron (Fig. 3b). In
the first case, each edge is divided into n = 2 equal segments,
and in the second case into n = 3. The resulting splitting points
on the edges generate the division of each face of the solid
into n2 equilateral triangles (Fig. 2). Upon projecting these
(2) grids of triangles onto a sphere we obtain the corresponding
number of spherical triangles on its surface, most of which are
no longer equilateral triangles. Based on them, a traditional
polyhedron is built, having the corresponding number of
vertices, edges and faces (Fig. 3 c,d).
Fig. 3. An example of triangulation and projection nodes on the sphere
When creating a dome grid based on a regular icosahedron
with class I division, the number of elements creating a
geodesic sphere is calculated from the following formulae:
• number of vertices: w = 10 · V2 + 2,
• number of edges: p = 30 · V2,
• number of faces: s = 20 · V2,
on the other hand, when using class II division the
corresponding values will amount to:
• number of vertices: w = 7.5 · V2 + 2,
• number of edges: p = 22.5 · V2,
• number of faces: s = 15 · V2,
where V is the frequency of subdivision.
TABLE I. NUMBER OF VERTICES, STRUTS AND FACES DEPENDING OF
THE FREQUENCY SUBDIVISION.

The advantage of class I triangulation is the fact that the Frequency subdivision (Class I)
degree of division may be either even or odd. Moreover, a 1V 2V 3V 4V 5V 6V
geometry is created in which the edges of the triangles lie in Octa 6 18 38 66 102 146
Vertices
latitudinal series, leading to a simpler design of the domes. Icosa 12 42 92 162 252 362
Class II triangulation results in lower diversification of the Edges
Octa 12 48 108 192 300 432
beam lengths. However, the differences in length are greater Icosa 30 120 270 480 750 1080
compared to class I with the same frequency of division. Octa 8 32 72 128 200 288
Faces
Icosa 20 80 180 320 500 720
It is easily noticeable that after the triangulation of the Chord Octa
1.41- 0.77- 0.46- 0.32- 0.24- 0.20-
faces of a regular polyhedron we still have flat surfaces, which 1.41 1,00 0.67 0.58 0.47 0.39
factor
is why the next stage, bringing the faces of the triangles closer 1.05- 0.55- 0.35- 0.25- 0.20- 0.16-
(šR) Icosa
1.05 0.62 0.41 0.33 0.26 0.22
to a sphere, is the central projection of the vertices of the

206206
 Table I presents a list of the number of vertices, beams and
faces forming a dome constructed based on an octahedron and
an icosahedron with the degrees of division ranging from 1V
to 6V; in addition to this, the beam length range is presented in
proportion to the dome radius R.
It is easiest to generate vertices and perform all
calculations related to the topology of the grid using the
spherical coordinates in a mathematical system [4, 9], in
which the location of any vertex is determined by the
azimuthal length and the zenith distance θ (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Spherical coordinates used to describe the topology structure of the
dome.
The following formulae are used when switching from the
spherical coordinates to the Cartesian coordinates x, y, z of
point PK:
x = R sin θ cos ϕ , y = R sin θ sin ϕ , z = R cos θ .
In order to determine the lengths of the elements forming
the given dome, it is also convenient to use the so-called beam
length coefficient CF, which is a dimensionless quantity
determined from the following formula:
α
C F = 2 sin
2
where α is the central angle between the radiuses extending to
the ends of any segment AB, whose ends are placed on the
sphere.
Using the spherical coordinates defining the beginning and
the end of the given beam, assuming that R = 1, the beam
length coefficient adopts the following form [3]:
CF = 2 − 2 ª¬ cos θ1 cos θ 2 + cos (ϕ1 − ϕ 2 ) sin θ1 sin θ 2 º¼
Therefore, the length of any beam forming the dome may
be calculated based on the following formula:
L = CF R .
It is obvious that the CF coefficients must be determined
for all types of geodesic domes, taking into account the type of
the basal regular polyhedron, the method of division, the class
of division and the degree of division.
Because the process of modelling the geometry of
geodesic domes in the calculating software by manually
inputting the coordinates of the subsequent vertices is tedious,
and with more complex structures indeed ineffective, one may
use ready-made generators of truss structures or develop one’s
own algorithm based on the above-mentioned guidelines.
III. EXAMPLES OF ANALYSIS
The analysis involved domes with radiuses of R = 10 m
and R=20 m, in which the grid of vertices was generated based
on a regular octahedron and icosahedron, using the degree of
division ranging from 1V to 8V. The authors’ own algorithm
generated in MathCad software was used to form the grids of
the domes based on an octahedron, while the domes based on
an icosahedron were generated in R3D3-Rama3D software,
which was also used to perform static strength calculations.
Comparative analyses were also conducted using ANSYS
Workbench 14.5R software. During the calculations it was
assumed that the beams forming the structure would be made
of round steel pipes of S355 steel, whose cross-sections were
chosen so that the maximum truss tensions for the analysed
domes would be comparable and fall within the range of 88-
90 %.
In the domes with radiuses of R = 10 m the load was
interpreted as the specific weight and the wind affecting the
(3) walls of the domes for two options (Fig. 5): a) option I – the
distribution of the external pressure coefficient cpe,10 according
to the American ASCE 7-05 quality standard [11] and b)
option II - the distribution of the cpe,10 coefficient derived
from experimental tests with a Reynolds number of
Re = 1.6x106 acc. to [1].
(4)
Fig. 5. External pressure coefficients cpe,10 according to the ASCE 7-05
Standard [10] and obtained from experimental research [1] for domes in a
(5) circular projection [9].
Based on the above-mentioned distributions and
superimposing the grids of the analysed domes over them, the
average value of the cep,10 coefficient was determined for each
face, and subsequently the value of the surface load affecting
(6)
207207
the individual triangular faces was calculated using the Differences in the length of the struts
standardised formulae [12].

Number of different struts [pcs]

40
39
Octaedr Icosaedr
In the domes with radiuses of R = 20 m the load caused by 35

the wind was adopted according to the guidelines of 30

Eurocode 1 [12]. Figure 6 presents the way in which the push 25 23

20
and suction caused by the wind are distributed according to 20
16
the authors’ own developed methodology. 15 12 11
10
9
4 6
5 2 3
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Geodesic V-frequency subdivision

Fig. 8. Differences in the length of the struts in geodesic domes based on the
octahedron or icosahedron depending on the V-frequency subdivision.

The test would not be complete without taking into

account the maximum stress in the beam depending on the
density of division. The stress values are strictly related to the
Fig. 6. The wind load of the dome, according to the adopted methodology for
number of beams and their lengths. The values decrease along
octahedron (8V). with an increase in the number of beams.
A number of numerical analyses were also conducted in
The static strength calculations involved a whole group of order to investigate the behaviour of the spatial constructions
structures, for which the point of reference was the regular of geodesic domes with radiuses of R = 10 m involving the
octahedron as well as the regular icosahedron. Class I division static strength, and numerous results were obtained, including:
was used when generating the domes, while the degree of
cross-sectional forces, displacements, and normal stresses σ
division ranged from 1V to 8V.
(Figs. 9÷10).
Analysis showed that the total length of all bars depending
on the degree of division of surveying increases linearly
(Fig. 7), does not include here the size of the nodes. The
following chart provides a quick estimate of the weight of the
structure depending on the cross section bars.
Total length of the struts
1600 1472,2
Octaedr Icosaedr
1400
Total length [m]

1200 1110,3
1000 935,5
747,3 821,3
800 707,1
592,4
600 477,3
380,3 361,1
400
242,5 Fig. 9. Example of maximum and minimum normal stresses ı [MPa] in the
200 113,1
struts (for Octa 5V subdivision, R = 10 m).
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Geodesic V-frequency subdivision

Fig. 7. Total length of the struts in geodesic domes based on the octahedron
or icosahedron depending on the V-frequency subdivision.

The calculations showed that with the increase in the value

of the frequency subdivision variation bar length grows. Note
that in the case of domes based on the icosahedron diversity
bar length is about twice as large for the density distribution
than in the case of the octahedron (Fig. 8).

Fig. 10. Example of deformations of the structure of the dome (for Octa 5V
subdivision, R = 10 m).

208208
 The next step was the performance of comparative
analyses for the maximum displacements of the vertices
within the individual domes in the wind load option for the
distribution of the cpe,10 coefficient according to [11, 12]
(option I), and in the wind load option for the distribution of
cpe,10 according to [1] (option II). Figure 11 presents the course
of the changes in the maximum displacement values vz
determined for 24 domes.
Comparision of maximum displacements vz
30
Displacement vz [cm]
25
20
15
10
5 the distribution resulting from experimental tests. This is
0
1V 2V 3V 4V 5V
Degree of division of the geodesic dome
Octa - option I Octa - option II
Icosa - option I Icosa - option II
Fig. 11. Comparison of the maximum vertical displacements vz for two wind
load options.
From the charts it can be observed that along with an
increase in the rigidity of the structure the displacements
decrease with an increasing division of the grid, while the
differences in displacements between the wind load according
to the standardised distribution (option I) and the wind load
according to an experimental distribution (option II) are not
major and generally does not exceed 10 %. One interesting
conclusion is that the standardised wind load with
predominant “suction” combined with the specific weight
result in smaller maximum displacements vz than when
subjecting the same dome to wind load according to the
experimental distribution. The increases in the rigidity of the
structures of the analysed domes observed on the charts with
an odd degree of division, and therefore relatively smaller
displacements, are caused by the fact that 5/8 of domes were
chosen for the analyses instead of 1/2. This results from the
fact that with an odd degree of division the beams do not align
along the circle of latitude.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Nowadays, one of the most important tasks faced when
designing widely spanning covers is the use of the lowest
possible amount of material, which would make the
construction as light as possible, at the same time providing
high bearing capacity as well as the ease of assembly and
disassembly of the individual elements. The paper describes
the creation of a dome grid based on triangular tessellation.
However, there are also other types of grids for geodesic
domes. Among the most common ones is the Bucky grid,
consisting of pentagons and hexagons spread over the sphere,
in the simplest form generating a cut icosahedron, identical to
the structure of a fullerene particle C60. Along with the change
in the main parameters defining the topology of a dome we
obtain structures with varying bearing capacities and
architectonic qualities, and therefore it seems appropriate to
analyse domes with various geometric layouts, and the
resulting outcomes of the calculations will constitute a basis
for the designer to choose the desired form of cover. Geodesic
domes, especially single-layered, due to their small mass
compared to the applied loads must be carefully analysed, not
only with respect to statistics, but also subject to modal
analysis.
The conducted analyses have proven that maximum
vertical displacements of the vertices in a structure affected by
wind load according to the quality standards PN-EN 1991-1-4
are slightly lower (up to 10 %) than the wind load according to
caused by the fact that in spite of an overall higher
6V standardised wind load affecting the spherical surface of a
dome, a considerably larger area is subject to suction, which
relieves the construction. These small differences in the
obtained results suggest that adopting a standardised wind
load is definitely safe in most cases. However, for widely
spanning structures and for those of considerable significance
it is recommended to conduct experimental tests in a wind
tunnel, since the distributions of the external pressure
coefficient with different values of the Reynolds number can
much more considerably deviate from the distribution
indicated in Eurocode 1 [12] or the American standard [11].
References
[1] C.M. Cheng, C.L. Fu, and Y.Y. Lin, “Characteristic of wind load on
a hemispherical dome in smooth flow and tubulent boundary layer
flow,” BBAA VI International Colloquium on: Bluff Bodies
Aerodynamics & Applications, Milano 2008.
[2] T. Davies, “Geodesic domes,” [Last access: 17.01.2016], 2007.
http://mathcircle.berkeley.edu/BMC6/ps0405/geodesic.pdf.
[3] H. Kenner, “Geodesic Math and How to Use It,” University of
California Press, Berkeley, California 1976.
[4] M. Kubik, “Structural Analysis of Geodesic Domes,” Durham
University School of Engineering, Final Year Project, Durham 2009.
[5] T.T. Lan, “Space Frame Structures” (Chapter 24). In W.F. Chen, E.M.
Lui: Handbook of Structural Engineering (Second Edition), CRC Press
2005.
[6] M. Lewis, “Architecture. Elements of architectural style,” Arkady,
Warsaw 2010.
[7] R. Motro, “Review of the development of geodesic domes. Analysis,
Design and Construction of Braced Domes,” pp. 387–412, 1984.
[8] G.S. Ramaswamy, M. Eekhout, and G.R. Suresh, “Analysis, design and
construction of steel space frames,” Thomas Telford Publishing, London
2002.
[9] R. Szmit, „About designing and static analysis of geodesic domes,”
InĪynieria i budownictwo, No. 6/2016, pp. 310-312, (in Polish).
[10] T. Tarnai, “Spherical Grid Structures: Geometric Essays on Geodesic
Domes,” Hungarian Institute for Building Science, 1987.
[11] ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures.
[12] PN-EN 1991-1-4:2008 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-4:
general actions - Wind actions, (in Polish).
209209