Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Discussion of the role of geometry, proportion and construction techniques

in the seismic behavior of 16th to 18th century bulbous discontinuous
double shell domes in central Iran
Arezu Feizolahbeigi a, *, Paulo B. Lourenço b, Mahmoud Golabchi c, Javier Ortega b,
Mojtaba Rezazadeh c
a
Department of Architectural Conservation, University of Tehran, Tehran, 14155-6619, Iran
b
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Guimar~
aes, Campus de Azur�em, 4800-058, Guimar~
aes, Portugal
c
Department of Architectural Conservation, University of Tehran, Tehran, 14155-6619, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Discontinuous double shell domes (DDDs) are a construction typology commonly used in Iranian architecture.
Discontinuous double shell dome They are very diverse in terms of geometry and construction techniques. The preservation of these domes, which
Geometry often represent the most vulnerable parts of the buildings, requires adequate structural analysis. However, this is
Seismic response
still an insufficiently researched topic. Geometric principles, such as proportion and symmetry, are the most
Finite element modeling
important parameters affecting the structural behavior of these domes. The main goal of the present work is to
Pushover analysis
Iran numerically assess the influence of geometry and construction techniques on the seismic behavior of these
domes. With that purpose, the paper presents the results of a detailed numerical study based on finite element
modeling and nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. Four real case studies with distinct geometric characteristics,
representative examples of historic Iranian architecture from the Safavid era (16th to 18th century), were
selected for the numerical study. Results were systematically compared and they show that the proportions of the
domes play an important role in the seismic behavior. The ratio between their height and diameter is a parameter
that determines the ability of the system to transfer loads and to tolerate displacements, and also affects the
failure mechanism. The position and dimensions of stiffeners contribute to ensure the monolithic behavior of the
whole system. In the smaller domes, stiffeners control the crack pattern and evolution, but they are not much
influential in the load capacity of the system. In larger domes, stiffeners were proven to be essential for the
structural behavior under gravitational loads and for the seismic response of the system. The ratio of the dome-
drum system height to the stiffeners height was found to be typically based on the golden ratio.

1. Introduction techniques had to be developed to successfully create basic and complex

Historic buildings are the result of craft and empiric knowledge and
reappraisal over time, which have been altered over the centuries by
degradation phenomena on materials and time effects [1]. Restoration,
repair, conservation, strengthening and other interventions intended to
protect monuments must respect their authenticity. Making decisions
about any of these actions require comprehensive knowledge about the
original design process and construction techniques. Geometric princi­
ples, such as proportion and symmetry, have been used to shape
buildings throughout history. As a result, different construction
geometries. One of the most fascinating structural elements within the
history of architecture and construction is the dome. The problem of
stability of domes has ancient roots [1] and, over the centuries, the
understanding of their structural behavior increased by the observation
of domed structures and, especially, by analyzing their crack pattern.
Still, the seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry (URM) domes is
an insufficiently researched topic, while they represent vulnerable and
impactful parts of buildings. In general, the seismic performance of URM
structures is mainly determined by: the material properties of masonry
(high-specific mass, low tensile and shear strength, quasi-brittle

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.feizolahbeigi@ut.ac.ir (A. Feizolahbeigi), pbl@civil.uminho.pt (P.B. Lourenço), Golabchi@ut.ac.ir (M. Golabchi), javier.ortega@civil.uminho.
pt (J. Ortega), mrezazdh@ut.ac.ir (M. Rezazadeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101575
Received 21 January 2020; Received in revised form 16 May 2020; Accepted 11 June 2020
Available online 18 June 2020
2352-7102/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
response), the geometrical configuration, the mass and stiffness distri­
bution, and the type and quality of the connections between the
different structural components [2]. In addition, the global response of
this type of construction is difficult to characterize, since URM structures
dissipate energy by the propagation of damage, namely cracks, which
consequently lead to isolated mechanisms and local failure modes [3].
The research synthesized in this paper focuses on the role of the ge­
ometry, proportion and construction techniques on the stability and
seismic safety of masonry discontinuous double shell domes (DDDs) in
central Iran, by means of numerical analysis.
2. Literature review
In the past decades, research on the structural behavior of masonry
domes has mainly dealt with the correct geometry [4–7], dimensional
ratios [8,9], construction techniques [10–14] and analysis methods
[15–21], as well as parameters related to their historical development
[22–24]. The most ancient studies on masonry domes, from Vitruvius
[25], in 25–23 BC, Palladio in 1570 [26], Leon Battista Alberti in 1472
[27], to Scamozzi in 1615 [28], focus on methods for the definition of
the geometry and the construction techniques. Regarding more recent
structural studies, Huerta [10] presented a comprehensive investigation
of the historical evolution of theories on vaulted structures. The first
stability analysis of masonry domes carried out by means of collapse
mechanisms are referred to three mathematicians: Le Seur, Jacquier,
and Boscovich [29], who were appointed by Pope Benedict XIV to
investigate the stability of St. Peter’s dome in Rome. These studies were
then followed by other contributions using different approaches, such as
the catenary concept [30], the limit analysis [31–40], and the mem­
brane theory [31,41], up to the study of three-dimensional collapse
mechanisms [42,43].
The preservation of the masonry architectural heritage requires
adequate structural analysis [10]. The use of numerical analysis based
on the finite element method to study historical masonry constructions
could be an efficient and powerful tool for understanding their behavior.
Still, possible limitations of this approach exist, namely the complex
detection of the actual mechanical properties and the variety of pa­
rameters required in the most recent models make it difficult to attain a
unique result [44]. Ochsendorf [45] also stated that numerical models
are still unable to consider the capability of ancient structures to evi­
dence severe damages without collapsing, due to the progressive adap­
tation to new geometrical shapes, which leads to a new equilibrium
state. Keeping in mind this limitation, a clear need for a combination of
numerical methods and empirical observations is needed, particularly in
the case of dome structural behavior assessment [46]. Nevertheless,
even though the results are often bound to be an estimation of the
response, owing to the uncertainties of the constituent materials and the
dependence of the results from the constitutive models [47], FE
modeling has been extensively and successfully applied for the numer­
ical analysis of historical vaulted masonry constructions [2,48,49].
3. Discontinuous double shell domes
Discontinuous double shell domes are a construction typology very
commonly used in Iranian architecture. These domes can be very diverse
in terms of geometric form and construction techniques. This section
details some geometric, structural, and architectural concepts that are
characteristics of this unique dome typology. The whole system under
study consists of two masonry domes and a drum, which in this research
is called the dome-drum system. The components of the dome-drum
system are not separate structures simply transferring loads one to the
other, but form an interconnected and integrated structure. Two key
aspects in this system are: (a) geometry, which refers to the design
process and deals with forms and proportions; and (b) construction,
which refers to the constructive techniques and materials used. There is
a strong aforethought relationship between these two components [50].
2
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
The use of geometry in architecture is not only for the creation of de­
signs, but it is also necessary for the integrity and stability of structural
systems [51]. The complex dome-drum structure highlights that past
architects considered geometry as a determinant factor within the whole
construction process, from the architectural design phase to construc­
tion [7]. This work represents an improvement to the technical and
scientific literature on this issue by looking at the dome and drum as a
compound structural system.
3.1. Rules of construction: architectural and structural solutions
The dome represents one of the most fascinating and complex
structures within the history of architecture and has always enchanted
researchers and designers. The dome has special features that distin­
guish it from the arch. Among these, its symbolism can be highlighted as
one of the most important features. Domes are intended to be seen from
long distances, being a prominent element of the building and shaping
the skyline of the city. Therefore, size is a key element that governs the
construction of domes [11]. Typically, the use of large domes also affects
the plan and the proportions of the whole building [50]. The main
structural elements within the dome-drum system are: (1) the external
and interior domes; (2) the drum that holds the external dome; and (3)
the stiffeners between two domes (Fig. 1a). Stiffeners are thin brick walls
[12] that are linked to the shells and the drum as well. In some cases, the
connection is made just by interlocking bricks, but sometimes there are
also timber elements connecting different brick masonry elements
(Fig. 1b). The stiffeners are structural components of the system that are
mainly responsible for connecting the two shells and the drum, intended
to achieve a monolithic behavior of the system, particularly when the
system is subjected to lateral forces [11]. At the same time, they serve as
stiffening elements that counteract the radial thrusts of the dome.
Master builders have, in some cases, considered the structural and
seismic behavior in construction, adopting different strategies to protect
them from natural disasters [52]. Among the construction solutions that
show the great ingenuity of ancient architects is the use of stiffeners in
domes. Stiffeners help to balance the dome-drum system and can be
considered as a seismic-resistant construction technique in Iran [11],
which is a country located in a highly seismic hazard zone. It seems that,
in Safavid architecture, stiffeners were always part of the DDD systems,
as just a limited number of small domes do not have stiffeners.
3.2. Structural concepts
Domed structures exercise radial thrust forces that create hoop ten­
sile stresses. Domes, as bearing structures that transfer vertical and also
horizontal forces, tend to open radially. The load transfer generates
tensile stresses and, often, cracks, which may cause a lack of stability in
time [53,54]. The loads (including self-weight) induce meridian (arch)
and parallel (circumferential or hoop) stresses in a dome [55]. In ma­
sonry domes, the place where the maximum tensile stresses develop
depends on their shape.
In bulbous domes of Iranian architecture, the base of the dome may
be constructed using two different construction techniques. The first
technique is called Sholal and, in this case, the external dome at the
springing follows the direction of the drum with no curvature outside
the base orbit, up to a height defined by a 22.5� angle with the base [12].
After that, the curvature of the dome gradually increases up to the top
(Fig. 2a). In this case, the maximum hoop tensile forces develop at the
base of the dome. The second construction technique is called Avgoon
(Fig. 2b) and, in this case, the dome originates on top of the drum and
gradually increases in diameter, protruding outside the base orbit and
forming a corbelled curve at the center (spanning distance A in Fig. 2b)
[12]. For these domes, the maximum hoop tensile forces develop at this
lower area, within which tensile forces should be controlled. The hoop
tensile forces generate meridian cracks, which concentrate in an area
called Shekargah, 22.5� angle, (Fig. 2b), up to the azimuth angle at which
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 1. (a) Example of components of a dome-drum system (Beytlahm church in Isfahan, Iran); (b) Interlocking of stiffeners with interior shell and drum by brick
units and wooden elements (Source: A.F. Beigi).

Fig. 2. (a) Sholal shaped dome; (b) Avgoon shaped dome; and (c) camber ratio in stable arcs: AB/CD � 0.5.

the hoop forces change from tension to compression (67.5� angle), in the present study.
within an area called Ivargah (Fig. 2b) [56].
The passage from tensile to compressive forces occurs between 45�
4.1. Selection of case studies
and 60� angle with respect to the vertical axis [57,58]. In many cases,
the cracks extend to the drum and upwards along meridians. This pro­
For the research carried out and presented in this paper, 98 discon­
cess is not instantaneous, taking a significant time for cracks to develop
tinuous double shell domes (DDDs) distributed in the whole country of
and to define an unsafe structural condition [55]. In order to avoid a lack
Iran were considered through literature review. These domes belong to
of stability, radial thrust forces have to be counteracted. In the past, one
different eras and present different shapes and architectural styles.
of the construction techniques applied to restrain thrust forces and
Given the impossibility of studying all varieties of DDDs, the research
control hoop tensile stresses in domes was to add the mentioned stiff­
was limited to a specific historical era, geographical area, and geometric
eners between two shells. Additionally, some wooden elements were
shape. The historical Safavid era (16th to 18th century) was considered,
used to increase the global tensile strength of the system. In terms of
as it is known as a glorious era of Iranian architecture. Regarding the
stability, in vernacular Iranian architecture, there is an ancient rule that
geographical area, the domes located in the central area of Iran were
states that the stability of an arch or dome is defined by a proportion
selected (Fig. 3a). Moreover, from the two general forms which are
between height and span. This factor is called Khiz, which means camber
bulbous and conic, the bulbous type was chosen as the geometric form
[59]. The higher the dome or arc, the less failure will occur [14]. As long
due to the larger number of cases observed belonging to this typology
as the Khiz is equal to or greater than 0.5 the arch or dome is considered
(Fig. 3b). The resulting list included 41 DDDs. From fieldwork carried
stable against lateral forces (Fig. 2c) [56].
out on these cases, 14 DDDs showed that either the entire dome or parts
of it had been rebuilt in past works. For authenticity reasons, these cases
4. Methodology
were ignored. In 4 other cases, the entrance window to the space be­
tween shells had been closed in previous works, and it was impossible to
In this research, four cases belonging to Safavid era (16th to 18th
go inside the space between shells. As there was no detailed survey for
century) and Isfahani architectural school, with different geometrical
these domes, they were also ignored. The remaining 23 DDDs were
properties, were chosen as case studies to investigate the role of geom­
investigated in situ and through literature review. Accurate digital
etry and construction techniques in the seismic behavior of DDDs. This
surveys based on laser measurements were prepared and, by comparing
section firstly presents the selection process carried out to finally decide
the surveys with past drawings, the geometric characteristics were
on these four case studies, which are also briefly introduced afterward.
detailed. The 23 DDDs were categorized based on geometric charac­
The comparison of the seismic performance of the different cases will be
teristics. Finally, four domes were selected as representative of each set
performed in terms of numerical analysis. Thus, this section secondly
to discuss the role of the geometry and construction techniques, as
presents the numerical strategy adopted and the four reference finite
heritage character-defining elements, on providing stability to this type
element models prepared for each case study. The details of the nu­
of historic constructions. The four considered cases are: Shah Mosque
merical campaign that has been carried out are discussed in detail.
and Beytlahm church in Isfahan, Emamzadeh Abolala tomb in Tafresh,
Finally, a preliminary sensitivity analysis carried out for one of the case
and Emamzadeh Hasan tomb in Tehran. Table 1 points out the main
studies is presented to decide on the material properties that will be used
characteristics based on which the cases have been selected.

3
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 3. (a) Geographical area of the studied cases in central Iran (in yellow); and (b) examples of different shapes of double shell discontinuous domes of Iran, namely
bulbous and conic.

4.1.1. Shah Mosque
The Shah Mosque was built by the order of Shah Abbas Safavid
during 1612–1631. This building symbolizes the peak of a thousand
years of building mosques in Iran [60]. The elaborate architectural
layout, fine masonry, exquisite tile works, and magnificent dome and
minarets place the building among the masterpieces of 17th century
Iranian architecture, see Fig. 4. The Shah mosque is a fundamental
example of Safavid’s architecture. The magnificent DDD of the mosque
is flanked by two lofty minarets. The outer dome stands out from the
prominent drum and reaches an overall height of almost 47 m. The
interior height of the inner dome is about 35 m (See Table 1 for detailed
dimensions of the system). Throughout its history, the structure has been
subjected to seismic events. Historical documents report damage due to
the earthquake of 1844, which caused the collapse of a portion of the
main iwan (half-dome portico at the entrance, also eyvan in Persian). The
iwan was strengthened with steel profiles in 1937 [61].
The form of the dome-drum system of the Shah Mosque is complex in
elevation and plan. The two shells have bulbous profiles and the ma­
sonry thickness reduces from the abutment to the top, see Fig. 5a. Shells
are connected with 32 stiffeners of three different sizes, but with the
same global shape (Table 1 and Fig. 5b). Typically, stiffeners were
distributed symmetrically, but in Shah Mosque, the distribution of
stiffeners is not totally symmetric (Fig. 5c). Today, a widespread pattern
of cracks is evident, which can be attributed to seismic and other actions.
The cracks at the outer shell partially extend to the stiffeners. De­
formations of the outer shell are also evident, especially at the top part,
connecting the stiffeners (Fig. 6), which are likely caused by self-weight.
4.1.2. Beytlahm Church
The Beytlahm Church (17th century) is an Armenian Apostolic
church in Isfahan, Iran, and one of the most important historical
churches of the city belonging to Safavid era (Fig. 7a). The Church has a
DDD which is 25 m in height and 14 m in diameter. The outer shell is
over a drum which is 2.8 m in height and 0.85 m thickness on average.
The global proportion of the church is 32/26.2 ~ 1.2 (Fig. 7b), which is a
symbolic ratio in Iranian architecture and known as a rule called Rishe
Panj Rastgushe. In the space between the inner and outer shells there are
16 stiffeners with the same shapes but two different heights, which are
distributed symmetrically alternatively (Table 1 and Fig. 7c).
From the geometrical point of view, the general geometric propor­
tion is based on the golden ratio, and the dome-drum system has equal
height and diameter (Fig. 7b).
4.1.3. Emamzadeh Hasan tomb
The Emamzadeh Hasan tomb (Fig. 8a), is located in the city of
Tehran (17th century). The tomb has a DDD with a total height of 18 m

Table 1
Main geometrical characteristics for the four cases of double shell discontinuous domes selected, including vertical cross section, plan and stiffeners types.
Shah Mosque (17th Beytlahm Church (17th Century) Emamzadeh Hasan Tomb (16th Emamzadeh Abolala Tomb (16th
Century) Century) Century)

Design Asymmetric plan. Stiffeners height is lower than inner dome Simple outer shell. Corbelled outer shell.
characteristics Biggest dimensions. height. One type of stiffener. Sholal shape. One type of stiffener.
Three types of stiffeners. Two types of stiffeners.
Dimensions H ¼ 46.7 m H ¼ 25 m H ¼ 18 m H ¼ 19 m
D ¼ 27 m d ¼ 22.5 m D ¼ 14 m d ¼ 11.8 m D ¼ 8.5 m d ¼ 7 m D ¼ 9.5 m d ¼ 6 m
h ¼ 25.5 m h ¼ 14 m h ¼ 11.5 m h ¼ 11 m
Stiffeners ¼ 32 Stiffeners ¼ 16 Stiffeners ¼ 8 Stiffeners ¼ 8
Cross section

System plan

Stiffeners section

4
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 4. Shah Mosque: (a) Plan; (b) section [60]; and (c) general view (Source: A.F. Beigi).

Fig. 5. (a) Bulbous shape of the shells in section [60]; (b) space between two shells including stiffeners [62]; and (c) distribution of stiffeners in plan, highlighting
asymmetric parts in gray shading (Source: A.F. Beigi).

Fig. 6. (a) Distribution of cracks and deformations of the outer shell; (b) Zooming area A for better visualization of cracks and deformations [62].

Fig. 7. (a) General view of the church and dome; and (b) Section [63] and overall proportions of the church and dome-drum system; and (c) space between shells
(Source: A.F. Beigi).

and 8.5 m diameter. The average thickness of the drum is 0.7 m. In terms except for the covering tile works, which have been added in the time of
of dimensions, this dome is smaller when compared with the previous Qajar dynasty (18th century). From the geometric proportion point of
two studied domes (See Table 1). The dome-drum system is original, view, the ratio between overall dimensions of this example is the largest

5
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
Fig. 8. (a) General view of Emamzadeh Hasan tomb; (b) Dome-drum system in section; (c) Interior view of the stiffeners (Source: A.F. Beigi).
of all case studies, h/D ¼ 1.35 (Fig. 8b). The study of the geometry of the
dome-drum system shows that the system is symmetric in section and
plan, see Fig. 8b and c. In between the two shells, there are 8 stiffeners
with the same shape and dimensions that are distributed symmetrically
and reach Ivargah area (Table 1 and Fig. 8c).
4.1.4. Emamzadeh Abolala tomb
The Emamzadeh Abolala tomb (16th century) is located in the city of
Tafresh, in the center of Iran (Fig. 9a). The building has an octagonal
plan supporting its DDD. Similarly, to the Emamzadeh Hasan case, the
dome-drum system shows again a symmetrical configuration in plan and
section. Between the two shells, there are 8 stiffeners that have the same
shape and dimensions (Table 1 and Fig. 9b). The most particular char­
acteristic of the dome is that the outer shell is corbelled, see Fig. 9c. It
means that the outer shell expands outward gradually in three levels at a
height of 13.4 m, which provides the peculiar shape of the dome. Since
the stiffeners have interlocking connections with the drum they also
follow the corbeled shape of the outer shell. The average thickness of the
drum is 0.8 m (See Table 1 for more details on dimensions).
4.2. Numerical strategy adopted
Detailed finite element (FE) modeling and nonlinear static analysis
are the main tools selected to study the influence of geometry and
construction solutions on the structural behavior of DDDs. FE modeling
is a useful tool for URM structures because, it allows for an accurate
simulation of the overall structural behavior under different scenarios
[64]. DIANA software [65] was used for numerical analysis. One
three-dimensional numerical model was prepared for each case study,
considering the geometric and constructive characteristics, and limited
to the dome-drum system. To assess the structural role of the stiffeners in
Fig. 9. (a) General view of Emamzadeh Abolala tomb; (b) Internal view of the space between shells and stiffeners; and (c) Details of the corbelled dome (Source: A.
F. Beigi).
6
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
the seismic performance of the system, two scenarios have been
considered: (a) with stiffener status (WSS), which assesses the structural
behavior of the system in its existing condition; and (b) without stiffener
status (WOSS), which assesses the structural behavior of the system
assuming that the stiffeners are not present. This can reveal the role of
the stiffeners from the technical and structural point of view. Therefore,
a total number of 8 FE models were developed. The capacity curves,
deformations and crack patterns resulting from the analyses were used
to discuss the structural response and failure mechanisms of each dome
and each scenario (WSS and WOSS). Finally, the results were compared
among them for a better understanding of the structural behavior of the
different geometries.
In the modeling step, the main idea behind the approach followed
was to create simple models, in order to reduce the computing time and
focus on the main geometric features (e.g. height, shape, diameter,
number and shape of stiffeners, etc.), instead of detailed models, which
require extensive resources to ensure an accurate representation of each
case study. In particular, in all cases, the models were built without
considering the effect of the timber elements that exist between two
shells, because they do not have a structural function and just work as
scaffolding [67,68] (Fig. 10a). Also, the windows located in the drum (if
present as in the Shah Mosque) were ignored (Fig. 10b). Finally, one of
the main decisions made was to model the domes using shell elements,
which led to the need of transforming three-dimensional volumes into
representative three-dimensional surfaces. The dome-drum system was
modeled by defining a mean surface for each element (Fig. 10c). It is
noted that fully three-dimensional models are usually very time
consuming with respect to the preparation of the model, to perform the
actual calculations, and to analyze the results. They would be more
appropriate if a single case study was under investigation, for example.
The use of shell elements to successfully reproduce the nonlinear
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
Fig. 10. (a) Typical timber scaffoldings between shells; (b) Windows of the drum and Chapire; and (c) Mean surface adopted.
behavior of masonry walls has been validated in previous works
[69–73].
As stated above, two models were prepared for each case, namely
with and without stiffeners (WSS and WOSS), as shown in Fig. 11 and
Fig. 12, keeping the remaining characteristics of the models the same. In
terms of dimensions, to take into account the varying thickness of the
domes along the height, tapered sections were considered. The variation
in thickness is identified using different colors in Figs. 11 and 12. Table 2
indicates the color used to represent the thickness of each element in
each model. Since the dimensions of the models vary, the elements have
been divided into different heights and the colors do not refer to the
same values in all models.
In Iranian construction techniques there is an element between dome
and lower part of building, which acts as a transitional zone to convert
the square plan to a circle plan, allowing to start inner dome and drum
(Fig. 10b). This element which is constructed by masonry and wooden
elements is called Chapire, and it also helps to fix the dome-drum system
against displacement and rotation [11]. To simulate the effects of Cha­
pire on dome-drum system, the base of the system is assumed as fixed,
restraining translations and rotations in all directions. It is noted that for
a few of the models, complementary analyses, with free rotations at the
base were made and the differences found were negligible.
Regarding modeling specifications, the different parts (shells, drum,
and stiffeners) are simulated with three-node isoparametric curved shell
Fig. 11. External (top) and internal (bottom) view of the complete models (WSS), colored based on thickness. Note that parts of the structure are hidden for a better
visualization of the elements.
7
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
FE elements (T15SH). Curved shell elements are particularly appro­
priate for the analysis of curved structures and they were considered
more appropriate than volume elements, given the large number of
analyses made. Shell elements allow faster modeling and much lower
computation times than fully three-dimensional models. These elements
have a triangular shape and are modeled with an average size of 50 cm.
In order to appropriately capture the nonlinear bending response of the
masonry along its thickness, given by its low tensile strength, 7 inte­
gration points through the thickness of the shell elements were
considered.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
The main constituent material of the studied domes is brick masonry.
The material properties were defined according to data and recom­
mendations available in the literature. In particular, the prescription of
the Iranian code [74] was used to determine the elastic properties of the
masonry. The nonlinear behavior of the masonry was simulated by
considering the Total Strain Rotating Crack Model (TSRCM), which is a
popular model used to simulate the failure of brittle materials, such as
masonry and concrete, and describes the tensile and compressive
behavior of the material with one stress-strain relation. Within this
approach, the stress-strain relationship is evaluated in the principal di­
rections of the strain vector, which, at the same time, define the
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
Fig. 12. Internal view of the models without the stiffeners (WOSS), colored based on thickness. Note that parts of the structure are hidden for a better visualization of
the elements.
Table 2
Colors based on the thickness (in cm) of different parts of the dome-drum system for each case study.
directions of the crack openings [65]. An exponential function was
considered for the tensile softening and a parabolic curve was assumed
for compression. The tensile and compressive behavior of masonry is a
complex phenomenon defined by the strength and fracture energy. That
is why it was decided to perform a preliminary sensitivity analysis to
understand the influence of these parameters on the structural behavior
of DDDs. Table 3 shows the linear and nonlinear material properties
assumed as reference for the sensitivity analysis. The nonlinear material
properties of the masonry were defined based on recommendations
proposed by Lourenço [75].
The sensitivity analysis was performed using the numerical model
that simulates the Shah Mosque dome-drum system, which is the largest
case under consideration and has an asymmetric configuration in plan.
The influence of the material properties was studied through nonlinear
static (pushover) analysis with a distribution of forces proportional to
the mass. Pushover analysis is a non-linear static analysis carried out
under conditions of constant gravity loads and consist of monotonically
increasing horizontal loads [76]. Thus, to carry out the analysis, the
self-weight load was first applied. Then, the seismic loading was simu­
lated as horizontal forces that were applied incrementally to the struc­
ture until collapse. Pushover analysis takes into consideration material
nonlinear behavior and the seismic action is simulated by horizontal
forces [21]. This analysis allows to determine the ability of a structure to
resist horizontal loading and has been gaining significance over recent
years as a tool for the assessment of complex unreinforced masonry
structures [2,18–21,76–82]. It is a generalized and widespread proced­
ure that has been introduced into current seismic codes, such as the Euro
code [83] and the Italian Seismic Code [84]. Pushover analysis is often
preferred because it helps to reduce the computational costs and avoids
the complexity inherent to time history dynamic analysis. The equilib­
rium of the system of equations in each step is guaranteed by an iterative
method and a convergence norm. In this case, the regular New­
ton–Raphson iterative method and an energy-based convergence norm
Table 3
Linear elastic and nonlinear reference properties of the material.
Material Density, Modulus of Poisson’s ratio,
ρ elasticity, E ν strength, fc
(kg/m3) (MPa) (-)
Brick masonry 1600 2000 0.15
(BRM)
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
with 10-3 of tolerance were used. In case of difficulties to get conver­
gence, the analyses continued by changing the method to the Secant
iteration method. In addition, the Line-search algorithm and Arc-length
method were used to improve the convergence and to obtain the
post-peak response of the structure.
A preliminary analysis was run using the material properties
assumed in Table 3 named Mat1. The direction for the horizontal
loading that simulates the seismic action (þY) is shown in Fig. 13f. The
results obtained from the first analysis of the Shah Mosque dome-drum
system are shown in Fig. 13, plotting the crack width. It is noted that
DIANA software [65] calculates the crack width as the product of the
crack bandwidth and the crack strain, which is the difference between
the maximum principal strain and the maximum principal stress divided
by the modulus of elasticity (i.e. the elastic part). It is also noted that the
values plotted refer to the maximum value of the seven layers of the shell
element. Layers are numbered from outside (front) to inside (back) of
the element [65]. The results obtained from the model considering
stiffeners show that, by applying the horizontal load, cracks started to
develop gradually up to the peak (Fig. 13a), widespread throughout the
stiffeners and the outer dome. After the structure reaches its maximum
load capacity, a failure occurs in the outer dome at the connection with
the stiffeners in the half of the dome opposite to the loading direction,
which leads to a drop of 44% in its load capacity (Fig. 13b) and to
extensive crack propagation. After this drop, the structure shows a sig­
nificant residual resistance and the load capacity starts to increase again,
with increasing damage.
In the case of the model without stiffeners, there is a decrease of
15.4% of the maximum load capacity in comparison with the model with
stiffeners. After the structure reaches the peak, there is a drop of 94% in
the load capacity of the system, which is significantly greater than the
one observed in the model with stiffeners and already shows the sig­
nificant role of the stiffeners as a resisting mechanism of the system
(Fig. 13e). With respect to the crack pattern, as it can be observed in
Compressive Compressive fracture Tensile Mode-I fracture
energy, Gfc strength, ft energy, GfI
(MPa) (N/mm) (MPa) (N/mm)
3.6 5.76 0.17 0.016
8
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 13. (a) and (c) Crack width at maximum load for WSS (Top) and WOSS (Down); (b) and (d) Crack width at post-peak for WSS (Top) and WOSS (Down); and (e)
capacity curves obtained for the reference (Ref) material properties for the Shah Mosque in both WSS and WOSS; (f) loading direction, highlighting asymmetric parts.

Fig. 13c and d, cracks start in orbital direction at Shekargah in the outer
dome and after the peak, cracks also develop in the vertical direction. In
general, the damage is less widespread compared to WSS and accumu­
lates at the outer shell.
As stated above, a sensitivity analysis was carried by changing the
nonlinear properties of the material. Since the tensile properties (tensile
strength, ft, and fracture energy, GfI) are expected to be the main pa­
rameters controlling the seismic response of the structure, the sensitivity
analysis was carried out by modifying only these parameters. Table 4
shows the five variations in the material properties considered for the
sensitivity analysis, which are noted as Mat1 (Ref), Mat2, Mat3, Mat4,
Mat5. The other parameters are kept the same, using the values in
Table 3.
4.3.1. Capacity curves
A comparison between all analyses considered is given in the next
section. The first variation involved increasing the tensile fracture en­
ergy up to 3 times, to a value of 0.05 N/mm, which replicates better
interlocking of the units and, thus, softer response of the structure. As it
is shown in Fig. 14a, due to the increase in GfI, there is a 20% increase in
maximum load capacity for the model with stiffeners (WSS), and a 7.5%
increase for the model without stiffeners (WOSS). Increasing GfI led to an
increase in load capacity, but there is still a significant drop in the load
capacity after reaching the peak load of 50%, in the WSS, and 90% in the
WOSS. Mat3 considers a further increase in GfI. The results show that
there is another increase in the load capacity, a total of 30% for WSS and
24% for WOSS when compared with Mat2. After the peak point, there is
a 45% and 95% reduction in load capacity for WSS and WOSS,
Table 4
Variations in the material properties assumed to perform the sensitivity analysis.
Material Mat1 Mat2 Mat3 Mat4 Mat5
type (Ref)
Property see GfI ¼ 0.05 GfI ¼ 0.10 ft ¼ 0.02 ft ¼ 0.05
Table 3 N/mm N/mm MPa MPa
respectively (Fig. 14b). The results indicate that, as fracture energy in­
creases, also the peak load and residual capacities increase. Still, an
abrupt loss of capacity is always found when the external dome cracks,
given the very large energy stored in the structure and suddenly
released.
The variation considered for Mat4 aims to simulate an almost null
tensile strength of the masonry due to deterioration of the masonry bond
due to long term effects or poor execution. A value of 0.02 MPa was
assumed for ft. The results show that considering the stiffeners (WSS) the
maximum load capacity reaches the first peak at 0.18 g, followed by a
drop of 25% in the load capacity. Then, the load capacity starts to in­
crease again until a value of approximately 0.27 g (Fig. 15a). Consid­
ering no stiffeners, the structure could not even undergo the full self-
weight (i.e. collapse was found) and, thus, it was not possible to run
the pushover analysis. The ft assumed for Mat4 is extreme and Mat5
considers a value of 0.05 MPa. The results show that in WSS the
maximum load capacity reaches 0.4 g and, after the peak, there is 30%
reduction in the load capacity, followed by the progressive increase in
the capacity (Fig. 15b). Concerning the model with no stiffeners, the
maximum load capacity reaches 0.36 g and, after the peak, there is a
70% reduction in the load capacity. The results indicate that the tensile
strength controls the peak response of the structure, which should be
possibly considered very carefully in safety assessment, while the re­
sidual capacity is far less affected.
4.3.2. Comparison and determination of nonlinear material properties
Fig. 16 and Table 5 show, as a summary, the capacity curves and
values obtained from all analyses with and without stiffeners. The
highest peak load capacity, for both WSS and WOSS, is reached for Mat3,
which assumes a significant increase of the Mode-I fracture energy (6
times the original value of GfI considered for Mat1). The structure then
presents an increased seismic capacity in terms of both strength and
ductility. The cracks require more time to fully develop and open and
thus the structure can undergo higher loads and displacements. The
results obtained when changing the value of ft show that, when it is
considered very low, it significantly reduces the peak capacity of the

9
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 14. (a) Capacity curve for Mat2 in WSS and WOSS; and (b) capacity curve for Mat3 in WSS and WOSS.

Fig. 15. (a) Capacity curve for Mat4 in WSS; and (b) capacity curve for Mat5 in WSS and WOSS.

Fig. 16. Capacity curves for all Materials in WSS (Left); and WOSS (Right).

structure, which no longer has the initial resisting mechanisms and
cracks arise for early stages of loading. On the other hand, when
assuming a value of ft of 0.05 MPa for Mat5, the differences in terms of
maximum load capacity and structural response are lower when
compared with the results using the reference material properties (ft ¼
0.17 MPa). This shows that, within a reasonable range of parameter
values, the response of the structure is not so significantly influenced by
the variability of the parameters, see results from Mat1 (Ref), Mat2 and
Mat5 in Fig. 16. It is also noted that in Mat1 and Mat5 the residual
response after the initial capacity drop shows that the ultimate response

10
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Table 5 control point. The results are analyzed in terms of displacements in the
Changes in material properties given in Table 3 and the results of sensitivity seismic loading directions and crack patterns in three singular load
analysis. stages from the capacity curves (the uppercase letter indicates the dome
Material type Mat1 Mat2 Mat3 Mat4 Mat5 with stiffeners while the lowercase indicates the dome without stiff­
Property see GfI ¼ GfI ¼ ft ¼ ft ¼
eners): (1) A-A0 -a, at the peak load; (2) B–B0 -b, right after the peak, after
Table 3 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.05 the load capacity drop; and (3) C–C0 -c, also at the post-peak after a
Maximum load WSS 0.4 g 0.50 g 0.64 g 0.17 g 0.40 g displacement of 150 mm, which is the maximum displacement assumed
capacity WOSS 0.33 g 0.37 g 0.46 g – 0.36 g (at which the structural integrity is lost and the adequacy of the adopted
Load capacity WSS 44 50 45 24 32
formulation for structural analysis starts to be compromised). The ana­
drop (%) WOSS 94 90 95 – 70
Load capacity reduction 15 25 28 – 9 lyses performed in both X and Y directions, despite the slight differences
due to removing in the post-peak behavior are very similar. The peak load is similar, as
stiffeners (%) well as the drop percentage in load capacity but, the residual resistance
of the system is slightly lower in X direction until load stage C’. The
comparison of the capacity curves shows that the asymmetric distribu­
is, in general, similar. A key issue seems to be the definition of the
tion of the stiffeners does not seem to affect greatly the overall seismic
maximum deformation capacity of these structures.
behavior of the system. Also results in terms of cracks and displacements
With the exception of Mat5, there is a high reduction in the load
are very similar. Thus, only results from Y direction are discussed in
bearing capacity of the system after removing the stiffeners for all cases,
detail here.
which shows the significant role of the stiffeners in the seismic response
Fig. 18 shows the evolution of maximum displacements in the
of the dome-drum system and their contribution to the general stability
seismic loading direction for WSS and WOSS at the previously defined
of the whole system. Based on the results obtained for the variations in
load stages. At peak, Fig. 18a shows a smooth distribution of displace­
the material properties and the comparisons made in this preliminary
ments still much controlled by gravity loading. After the peak, Fig. 18b
study, the reference properties considered (Mat1) were adopted to
shows that the maximum displacement in WSS is near the neutral axis
continue the analyses for the other case studies. Moreover, they are more
(Fig. 19a) between Shekargah (22.5� ) and Ivargah (67.5� ) areas, being
in agreement with the values observed in the literature.
subjected to the highest tensile stresses. Fig. 18c shows that in load stage
C, the maximum displacement moves up due to the damage installed and
5. Numerical results and discussion
happens in Ivargah area. For Fig. 18d and e, in the configuration with no
stiffeners, the maximum displacements occur in the area of Shekargah,
This section firstly shows the results obtained for each case study
where the maximum tensile hoop stresses concentrate. In point c, see
individually. The numerical results obtained are thoroughly discussed to
Fig. 18f, the maximum displacement again happens in Shekargah area
withdraw conclusions and to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the
but expands in a larger area. The comparison between the displacements
influence of geometry and construction details on the seismic behavior
in WSS and WOSS shows that stiffeners lead to a shift of displacements
of different types of discontinuous double shell domes.
from the maximum tensile hoop stress area (Shekargah) to the neutral
axis and to the maximum compressive stress area (Ivargah), which
5.1. Shah mosque partially avoids the expected collapse mechanism consisting of the for­
mation of a plastic hinge at the Shekargah area (Fig. 19b and c). In Ira­
Taking into account the asymmetric plan of the system, the hori­ nian traditional architecture Ivargah is known as an area in which,
zontal loading that simulates the seismic action was considered in two because of self-weight, the dome tends to move inwards. This part acts as
directions (þY and þX) which is shown by arrows in Fig. 17b. Fig. 17a a pre-stressed part. Therefore, when the displacements transfer to Ivar­
shows the capacity curves obtained from the pushover analyses per­ gah area, the compressive stress helps to resist lateral loading and re­
formed for the Shah mosque dome-drum system in both directions. The duces the tensile stresses resulting from the lateral loading.
capacity curves are plotted using the highest position of the dome as the

Fig. 17. (a) Capacity curves and points selected for the analysis in (þY) direction in WSS and WOSS and in (þX) direction in WSS; (b) Seismic loading directions in
asymmetric plan.

11
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
Fig. 18. Total displacements in seismic loading direction (þY) at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and
(f) c from the WOSS capacity curve. DSF for points C and c: 10.
Fig. 19. (a) Three important force distribution areas on the dome; (b) maximum displacement in WSS based on Fig. 18c; and (c) Maximum displacement in WOSS
based on Fig. 18f.
In WOSS (Fig. 18d–f), in all the three load stages, the maximum
displacements happen in Shekargah with large tensile strains in this area.
This shows that, by using stiffeners, the stresses are more evenly
distributed, and stress concentration is partially avoided by balancing
tensile and compressive forces. Therefore, the presence and suitable
dimension of stiffeners can help the system to be more resistant. In
analysis results of the case studies, to allow better visualization, the
deformation scale factor (DSF) at the end of the analysis is 10.
Fig. 20 measures the evolution of the crack pattern in terms of crack
width in the system for maximum values over seven layers. According to
the analysis, in WSS cracks started before applying the entire self-weight
in the structure (at approximately 80% the self-weight). Extensive
cracking rapidly expanded throughout the whole system. In WSS the
first cracks arise in the stiffeners. At the peak load (Fig. 20a), cracks are
extensive at the connection area between the outer shell and the stiff­
eners as well as very small cracks at the base. After the peak load, cracks
develop in the vertical direction, originated at the connection area
12
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
between stiffeners and shells (Fig. 20b). As previously observed, after
load stage B the structure found a new system of equilibrium and the
load capacity started to increase. As it is shown in Fig. 20c, in load stage
C, cracks are widespread throughout the whole structure but, in the
opposite direction of the load cracks are mostly widespread in between
the stiffeners, which shows the important role they have on resisting the
horizontal loading. In the other half of the dome, smaller cracks follow
diagonal directions, as shear cracks that develop due to bending of
structure.
The study of the damage evolution in WOSS shows that the first
cracks originated at approximately 20% the lateral force at the outer
shell, at Shekargah area and follow the horizontal direction. At peak
load, cracks were expanded from Shekargah on the outer shell (Fig. 20d).
Then, cracks progressed upward and downward to the drum, which
caused a load capacity reduction up to load stage point b (Fig. 20e). At
load stage c, severe vertical cracks were fully developed in half of the
dome in the opposite direction of the load, resulting in the dome being
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
Fig. 20. Crack width at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity curve for
maximum values over seven layers.
sliced along the meridians. Also small diagonal cracks developed on the
other half of the dome due to bending of the dome-drum system, see
Fig. 20f. The comparison of cracks shows that in both cases, after the
peak, vertical and diagonal cracks develop in whole structure but larger
vertical cracks are able to develop in WOSS because there are no stiff­
eners that arrest crack development.
5.1.1. Failure mechanism
In the WSS, lateral loading in both X and Y directions firstly gener­
ated a network of meridional cracks, distributed over the entire system,
accompanied by diagonal shear cracks. In the second phase, more sig­
nificant damage appeared by expanding the cracks at the connection
zones with the shells. The results show that in WSS, the failure mecha­
nism occurs after the detachment of stiffeners from the inner and outer
shell, which leads to the failure of the outer shell. Also, the results prove
that the slight asymmetric plan of the structure does not play a main role
in seismic response of the system. In the WOSS, the failure mechanism
takes place due to severe orbital cracks which develop in Shekargah in
the opposite direction of loading and, subsequently, expand to the entire
perimeter. It can be concluded that the structural integrity of the system
must certainly rely on the confining effect of its circular shape, which
means the restraining of Shekargah and Ivargah areas. The larger the
curvature in Shekargah, the larger confinement will be needed in this
area, unless stiffeners are present. It is again noted that no cracks
developed in the inner shell.
5.2. Beytlahm Church
The considered direction for loading, in this case, is not important,
since the structure has a symmetric configuration, but is marked in
Fig. 21b. The capacity curves for this dome are shown in Fig. 21a. The
13
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
maximum load capacity for WSS was reached for a load factor of 0.76 g,
which caused a maximum total displacement of 2.0 mm at peak load
(Fig. 22a). After the peak, the load capacity decreased 46% (Fig. 22b)
and caused a large displacement at the Shekargah area (22.5� ). After­
ward, the system shows again a significant residual resistance until load
stage C, at which the maximum displacement of the system shifts to the
Ivargah area (67.5� ), see Fig. 22c.
For the WOSS, see Fig. 22d–f, the maximum load capacity is reached
at 0.8 g, which is similar to the one obtained for WSS. The maximum
displacement at this point is 2.2 mm at the top point (Fig. 22d). In the
next step, the load capacity decreased 56% (Fig. 22e) and caused a large
displacement at the Shekargah area, followed by the development of a
residual capacity until load stage c. In general, the capacity curves ob­
tained in both cases are similar. The comparison in terms of displace­
ments in WSS and WOSS shows that, in both cases, at the peak load, the
maximum displacements occur at the top part of the dome. After the
peak, in both cases, the maximum displacements occur at the Shekargah
area, despite the presence of stiffeners. This can be explained because of
the height of the stiffeners, which is below the Shekargah area. At load
stages C and c, the maximum displacements shift up towards the neutral
axis and Ivargah area, which is not in agreement with WOSS in Shah
Mosque. The difference can be due to the geometric form and pro­
portions of the new dome. As noted before, the overall proportion of the
system is 1 (H/D ¼ 1). In both cases, WSS and WOSS, a rocking and
bending failure mechanism originates from the base.
Regarding the crack pattern evolution, again there is no significant
difference between the WSS and WOSS conditions. For the WSS, cracks
started for a load factor of 0.3 g in the middle part of the taller stiffeners
and at the base (Fig. 23a). After the peak load, cracks expanded
throughout the drum and the outer shell in the vertical direction
(Fig. 23b). At load stage C, the most severe cracks occurred through the
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 21. (a) Capacity curves and points selected for the analysis in WSS and WOSS; (b) Seismic loading direction.

Fig. 22. Total displacements at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity
curve, DSF for points C and c: 10.

width of the stiffeners in the opposite direction of the load and also
expanded to the inner shell through the stiffeners. At the outer shell and
the drum, the direction of cracks is mainly diagonal, showing the shear
stress (Fig. 23c). For the WOSS, the crack evolution is shown in
Fig. 23d–f. Cracks started for a load factor of 0.8 g, which is the
maximum load capacity. The first cracks take place at the outer shell, at
the Shekargah area in an orbital direction and at the base (Fig. 23d).
After the peak load, cracks expanded vertically throughout the dome
and the drum (Fig. 23e). At load stage c (Fig. 23f), orbital, and vertical
cracks developed in the whole system. Severe diagonal cracks appeared
showing also the in-plane failure of the surfaces of the dome in positive
direction of the seismic load. Hence, the failure mechanism is finally due
to diagonal cracks caused by rocking and bending of the structure from
the base, which cause shear cracks propagation throughout the dome.

14
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 23. Crack width at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity curve for
maximum values over seven layers.

The small differences between WSS and WOSS in Beytlahm church show
that the height of existing stiffeners does not help the stability of the
system against lateral forces.
5.2.1. Failure mechanism
The results show that there is not a big difference in the failure
mechanism and crack propagation between the two cases, WSS and
WOSS. In terms of cracks, for the WSS, the main cracks do start in the
stiffeners and develop along them vertically for a lower load factor (0.3
g), in comparison with the load factor of 0.8 g that causes the first cracks
for the WOSS. After the peak load, there is a big drop in the load capacity
and shear diagonal cracks develop with the incipient rocking and
bending mechanism that occur from the base of the dome. Since the
stiffeners do not reach and cover the Shekargah area, they do not protect
the system, which is weak in this area.

Fig. 24. (a) Capacity curves and points selected for the analysis in WSS and WOSS; (b) Seismic loading direction.

15
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
5.3. Emamzadeh Hasan tomb
Given the symmetrical configuration of the system, the direction of
the loading is not relevant but is marked in Fig. 24b, which is in X di­
rection. Fig. 24a shows the capacity curves obtained from the analysis
for both configurations, with and without stiffeners. In the case of WSS,
the maximum load capacity was reached for a load factor of 0.76 g,
which caused the displacement of 6.8 mm at the top of the dome, see
Fig. 25a. After reaching the peak load, there is a minimal drop in the
load capacity (3%) and then the response is characterized by a plateau
that demonstrates the high residual resistance of the dome (Fig. 24a).
The response obtained for the WOSS is very similar, the maximum load
capacity is slightly lower (12%), reaching a load factor of 0.67 g, which
caused the displacement of 2.8 mm at the top part of the dome
(Fig. 25d). The post-peak is again characterized by a drop in the capacity
and a significant incremental steady residual strength of the dome, even
more than WSS until load stage c (Fig. 25f). Comparing the displace­
ments in WSS and WOSS it can be seen that displacements in all three
points in WSS are larger which shows that in this case, stiffeners facili­
tate displacements of the system particularly up to the peak point. In
both WSS and WOSS the displacements in all three points happen on the
top part of the dome, evidencing a rocking mechanism with the rotation
initiating around the base.
The rocking is more evident when looking at the crack propagation.
Fig. 25. Total displacements at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity
curve, DSF for points C and c: 10.
16
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
The results show that in the WSS, cracks arise for a load factor of 0.4 g, at
the connection between the inner shell and the stiffeners, but cracking is
also relevant at the base of the system and at the connection between the
outer shell and the stiffeners (Fig. 26a). After the peak load, cracks
progressively develop along the stiffeners at their connection with the
shells (Fig. 26b). At load stage C, see Fig. 26c, the whole structure shows
widespread cracks. Vertical cracks are extensive along stiffeners in the
half of the dome in the opposite direction of the load, showing the active
role of stiffeners against horizontal forces. In the other half of the dome,
shear cracks following diagonal direction arise between stiffeners,
resulting from the overturning and rocking mechanism that occurs at the
dome. Severe cracks also develop at the connection area between the
inner shell and the stiffeners, illustrating again the rocking of the drum
and stiffeners. In the WOSS, cracks started at 0.6 g at the base of the
drum and progress around its diameter (Fig. 26d) until the peak. Then,
after the peak, vertical cracks started propagating at the drum (Fig. 26e).
At load stage c, damage at the base is extensive, and vertical and diag­
onal cracks have developed in the whole system (Fig. 26f). This crack
pattern shows again a clear rocking mechanism and the overturning of
the whole system, from the base.
5.3.1. Failure mechanism
The results have shown that in both WSS and WOSS, the main failure
mechanism is due to the rocking of the dome-drum system from the
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 26. Crack width at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity curves for
maximum values over seven layers.

base. This means that the stiffeners do not have a major influence on the considered, the rocking mechanism consists of a common overturning,
load capacity. The main difference between the both conditions is in showing that the main cracks start at the base, at the half of the dome
terms of crack pattern and propagation. When no stiffeners are that is opposite to the direction of the load (Fig. 26f). On the other hand,

Fig. 27. (a) Capacity curves and points selected from the analysis in WSS and WOSS; (b) Seismic loading direction.

17
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

the results in the WSS illustrate the active structural behavior of the dome, showing the rocking mechanism that occurs at the base. Also, the
stiffeners, by showing how the main cracks develop along them. At the maximum displacements in both cases (WSS and WOSS) for corre­
end of the analysis, the separation of the base is not as evident (Fig. 26c) sponding points are similar.
and cracks are more widespread throughout the system. With respect to the crack distribution and evolution, in the case of
the WSS, cracks start to develop for a load factor of 0.4 g, at the
connection between stiffeners and inner shell as well as the base
5.4. Emamzadeh Abolala tomb
(Fig. 29a). After the peak load, cracks in connections and base start to
develop (Fig. 29b). Then the rocking mechanism starts to develop and
The considered direction for loading is shown in Fig. 27b. Fig. 27a
severe diagonal shear cracks appear at the drum in half of the system in
shows the capacity curves for the two conditions, WSS and WOSS. In the
the opposite direction of the load. At load stage C, the damage is again
case of WSS, the maximum load capacity was reached for a load factor of
widespread throughout the structure, but the most severe cracks appear
0.67 g, causing a displacement of 2.6 mm at the top part of the dome
at the connection between the stiffeners and inner shell, as well as in the
(Fig. 27a). The post-peak behavior shows a similar pattern to the one
drum, following the characteristic diagonal direction (Fig. 29c). In the
obtained for the Emamzadeh Hasan dome, likely due to the similar
WOSS, the crack evolution is similar to the WSS, except for the cracks
characteristics in terms of dimensions. After the peak load, there is a
that develop along the stiffeners. However, cracks start at the base of the
very small drop in the load capacity, followed by steady residual
drum for a higher load factor of 0.5 g and developed around the drum
strength of the dome up to the load stage C, characterized by the plateau
(Fig. 29d). After the peak load, vertical cracks appear in drum (Fig. 29e).
shown by the capacity curve. In the case of WOSS, the maximum load
At load stage c (Fig. 29f), diagonal shear cracks appear in the areas of the
capacity was also reached for a load factor of 0.67 g, which is equal to
drum that are in positive direction of loading and at the base, where
the WSS case, and caused a similar displacement of 2.4 mm at the top of
damage is extensive.
the dome (Fig. 28d). After the peak load there is a small drop in load
capacity followed by steady residual strength of the dome up to the load
5.4.1. Failure mechanism
stage c. Similar behavior is again shown after the drop when assuming
The results previously discussed, again evidence that the failure in
that there are no stiffeners within the dome. As it is shown in Fig. 28c
both cases (WSS and WOSS) is due to the rocking of the dome-drum
and f, in both cases the maximum displacements take place at top of the

Fig. 28. Total displacements at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity
curve, DSF in point C and c:10.

18
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
Fig. 29. Crack width at load stages: (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C from the WSS capacity curve; and at load stages: (d) a; (e) b; and (f) c from the WOSS capacity curve for
maximum values over seven layers.
system at the base. The corbelled upper part of the dome does not seem
to have a significant influence on the failure mechanism when compared
with the behavior observed in the Emamzadeh Hasan dome. However,
the shear crack development is arrested at the corbelled area and is not
continuous, which means that the increased section of this area im­
proves the resistance. The rocking mechanism observed in both situa­
tions illustrates that the stiffeners do not play a major role in the seismic
behavior of the structure.
6. Comparative analysis between the domes and general
discussion
In general, the domes showed different structural responses among
themselves when subjected to horizontal loads, which could be expected
given the clear differences in size, proportions and construction tech­
niques, including stiffeners dimension and configuration, etc. However,
there were common aspects such as the stiffeners showed, in general, a
moderate role in resisting horizontal loading. In the smaller domes,
stiffeners do not have an important influence in the load capacity of the
system, but the crack pattern and evolution was determined by their
position and dimensions. In large cases, they were proven to be essential
for the correct seismic response of the system. Thus, the stiffeners are
effective in connecting the two shells and the drum, ensuring the
monolithic behavior of the whole system. It is noted that the role of the
stiffeners for vertical loading, thermal loading, instability, and other
effects are not considered here.
19
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
As expected, the displacement at maximum load capacity occurs at
the top part of the domes. After the peak and because of the drop in load
capacity in Shah Mosque and Beytlahm Church that are Avgoon shape,
the maximum displacement occurs in the Shekargah area. In the domes
with the Sholal shape, the maximum displacement after the peak occurs
still on top. After this point, the system finds a new state of stability and
equilibrium, which leads to a steady increase in the load capacity, and in
this case, the maximum displacement normally moves to Ivargah.
The Shah mosque showed the greatest relevance of the stiffeners in
terms of load capacity, displacements, crack pattern, and failure mech­
anisms. This is the largest among the four domes and also of Avgoon
shape, so the stiffeners proved essential for the correct seismic behavior
of the dome. Also, in this case, the results of the numerical analyses were
discussed in terms of the traditional architectural knowledge of master
builders and confirmed that the position and the size of the stiffeners
helped the structure to perform better by transferring high tensile
stresses from the Shekargah to the Ivargah area. This had a favorable
effect due to partial counteraction of the stresses that led to a significant
increase in the load capacity. When no stiffeners are considered, tensile
cracks arise along the orbits in the opposite direction of the load, from
the Shekargah area. The stiffeners make the structure behave in an in­
tegral way and, instead of local cracks, diagonal shear cracks are formed
at the areas of the dome in positive direction of the horizontal load.
Tensile cracks appear at the connection between stiffeners and outer
shell, leading to the separation of the outer shell and its partial
overturning.
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
In the case of the Beytlahm Church, the seismic response of the dome
did not show a notable difference whether including or not the stiff­
eners. In both cases, the maximum displacements occur at the Shekargah
area, which shows the deficiency of the stiffeners to protect this area
from being subjected to additional tensile stresses under seismic loading.
This can be attributed to the low height of the stiffeners. In this case, the
failure mode is similar also in both cases, diagonal shear cracks arise at
the outer shell and there is a partial overturning of the outer shell,
rocking around the base.
In the cases of the Emamzadeh Hasan and Emamzadeh Abolala, the
results show that, considering or not the stiffeners, the failure mode
consists of rocking around the base, showing tensile flexural cracking at
the base area opposite to the loading direction. The lower dimensions of
the domes make the stiffeners less influential in the overall seismic
behavior. The geometrical proportion also seems not to favor the
beneficial effect of the stiffeners, as when the drum is high, rocking al­
ways occurs at the base. When stiffeners are used, cracks arise along the
stiffeners, especially at the connection between stiffeners and shells. In
Emamzadeh Abolala tomb, the shear crack development is arrested at
the corbelled area and is not continuous, which means that the increased
section of this area as a constructive technique improves the resistance
of the system.
Results show that in all case studies, except for the Shah mosque in
the presence of stiffeners, cracks do not arise for the self-weight. In the
case of Shah Mosque, thin cracks start at 0.8 g in the stiffeners but, not in
connections and the outer dome. Fig. 30 shows the response of the
structures under total self-weight, plotting the maximum principal
strains over all shell layers. In all cases, stiffeners help the system to
Fig. 30. The response of the systems under total self-weight for Shah Mosque, Beytlahm Church, Emamzadeh Hasan and Emamzadeh Abolala tombs. (a), (b), (c), (d)
in WSS and (e), (f), (g), (h) in WOSS for maximum values over seven layers.
20
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
manage hoop tensile stresses particularly in Shekargah area. Fig. 30b
indicates the inadequacy of stiffeners height in Beytlahm Church.
Fig. 31a and b show a comparison between the capacity curves ob­
tained for all four cases in terms of drift. In all cases, the system shows a
relatively ductile post-peak behavior which is followed by significant
residual capacity, despite the different behaviors observed in each of the
cases. In the case of Beytlahm Church, the stiffeners do not play a sig­
nificant role in preventing rocking and relative displacements of the
system but they do have a big influence on the Shah mosque. In the case
of the tombs, the difference of their response is not significant and the
stiffeners also play a minor role in the case of seismic actions (Fig. 31b).
Fig. 31c and d show that the initial stiffness and also the maximum load
capacity are higher in Beytlahm Church and the tombs but, they are
minimum in the Shah mosque. The difference can be mostly explained
by the dimensions of the systems, being the Shah Mosque the clearly
largest dome.
It is stressed that the influence of proportions cannot be neglected
and they have been taken into consideration by ancient Iranian builders.
Table 6 shows dimensions and proportions that have been considered in
case studies. The ratio of overall dimensions (Q) is an unwritten Iranian
architectural rule, obtained by decoding of the geometry of studied
DDDs, that relates the height and diameter of the system. For the case
studies investigated, this ratio in the Beytlahm Church is equal to 1 while
the tombs have a ratio larger than 1. The Shah Mosque has the minimum
overall ratio among cases (0.95). The values for Q in the studied cases
show that the geometry based on Q � 1 helps the structure to have better
initial load bearing behavior. In the case of the Beytlahm Church (Q ¼
1), since the height of stiffeners (H2) does not reach Ivargah, the drop in
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

Fig. 31. Capacity curves for (a) WSS; and (b) WOSS; (c) and (d) Scaled initial part of (a) and (b).

Table 6
Proportions of the systems.
Dimension/proportions Shah Mosque Beytlahm Church Emamzadeh Hasan tomb Emamzadeh Abolala tomb
H1 7 2.8 4 5.6
H2 19.6-17.5-14.6 5 9 8.8
H 25.5 14 11 11.4
H3 18 10 6 5
2R3 26.5 13.6 8.6 10
2R2 24 12.5 7 7.8
2R1 25.2 12.5 7 7.8
2R 27.5 14 8.8 10.4
H/H1 3.6 5 2.7 1.96
H/H2 1.2-1.4-1.7 2.8 1.2 1.2
H2/H1 2.8-2.5-2 1.8 2.2 1.6
H1/2R3 0.27 0.2 0.46 0.56
H/2R 0.93 1 1.26 1.1
H/2R3 ¼ Q 0.95 1 1.3 1.14
*H3/2R2 0.75 0.76 0.85 0.64
H/2R2 1.06 1.1 1.6 1.4
H1/2R2 0.29 0.2 0.68 0.7
H4/2R1 0.7 0.76 0.85 0.64
H1/2R1 0.27 0.22 0.68 0.7
H4/2R 0.65 0.68 0.7 0.5
H1/2R 0.25 0.2 0.57 0.57
H3/H1 2.5 3.5 1.5 0.96

*Camber ratio(Khiz).

load capacity would be significant. In the case of the Shah Mosque (Q < close to zero.
1) in WSS there is a slight reduction in load capacity after the peak but, Most likely, during the Safavid era, these geometric rules were part
removing stiffeners, in this case, can reduce the capacity of the system of the construction knowledge that was applied by the past builders of

21
A. Feizolahbeigi et al.
the bulbous DDDs. Therefore, further studies can help to extrapolate
these geometric rules to other structures. The use of these rules in other
geographies and periods is an issue that also deserves further studies.
7. Conclusions
This work presented a numerical assessment of the role of geometry,
proportions, and construction solutions in the seismic behavior of
bulbous Discontinuous Double Shell Dome (DDD) systems in central
Iran, to which the present conclusions apply. The influence of the dif­
ferences in the geometrical characteristics was evaluated by means of
finite element modeling and nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. The
research has targeted four representatives of DDD systems from the
Safavid era (16th to 18th century).
From the design point of view, the geometry and proportions of the
domes play an important role in their seismic behavior. The study of the
geometry and proportions show that the ratio between the height and
the diameter is an important parameter in the design of bulbous DDDs
which determines the ability of the system to transfer loads and
accommodate displacements, and also affects the failure mechanism.
The most suitable proportion between the height and diameter of the
domes is approximately equal to 1, which is respected in the Shah
Mosque and Beytlahm Church. The tombs belong to the beginning of the
Safavid era and include some characteristics of previous periods, such as
the height. Thus the total proportion in these two cases is greater than 1.
This proportion is also important visually because if it is much lesser
than 1 then the visual proportion of the dome-drum system will be
negatively affected.
If the ratio between the height and the diameter is less than one
(Shah Mosque), then the system needs strengthening in Shekargah to be
able to transfer the displacements to Ivargah and decrease the hoop
tensile stresses, meaning that stiffeners are necessary. If the ratio be­
tween the height and the diameter is equal to or greater than one
(Church and the tombs), the system is already able to transfer the
maximum displacements to Ivargah, and in this case, stiffeners cannot
help in displacements but, they play a role in controlling cracks. In the
tombs, according to numerical analysis results, rocking around the base
takes place, showing a global overturning of the dome. However, in the
case of ratios equal to 1 this global overturning does not take place and
the failure mechanism is driven by combined shear and rocking.
The proportions used for all domes meet the Iranian traditional
design rules, which specify that arches and domes are stable if the ratio
of height to span is equal to or greater than 0.5. The height of the system
compared to the height of the stiffeners, the recommended proportion is
to divide by 1.2, which is based on the golden ratio. This is respected in
Shah Mosque and both tombs, in which, according to numerical anal­
ysis, the stiffeners managed to relieve the tensile stresses from the
Shekargah area. On the other hand, this proportion for the Beytlahm
Church is equal to 2.8 and, according to the numerical analysis, it
generates cracks in the Shekargah area. In this regard, the numerical
analysis results are in good agreement with the traditional geometrical
design.
From the technical point of view, the position and dimensions of
stiffeners are effective in ensuring the monolithic behavior of the whole
system. Results show that their incorporation into the structure has al­
ways a beneficial effect on these structures, even when their influence on
the seismic load capacity of the structure was not high. This is particu­
larly true in the large domes with Avgoon shape, such as the one from the
Shah Mosque, whose construction would have been almost impossible
without stiffeners.
The results of the present study can be beneficial in terms of con­
servation and interventions that are made to protect the structures. A
better understanding of the design geometry and construction tech­
niques is important, as well as their influence on the structural behavior
of the analyzed constructions. Understanding the geometry of DDD
systems, in addition to enhance the ability of engineers and architects to
22
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575
make more accurate decisions, can also help in the design and con­
struction of modern shell structures.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Arezu Feizolahbeigi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Data curation, Writing - original draft, Validation. Paulo B. Lourenço:
Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Mahmoud Golabchi: Super­
vision. Javier Ortega: Software, Validation. Mojtaba Rezazadeh:
Supervision.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was financed by University of
Tehran funds (Grant Number: 365105) through PhD research thesis and
with strong academic help of University of Minho, Portugal.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://do
i.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101575.
References
[1] F. Ottoni, Dome strengthening by encircling ties: a monitored experiment, Int. J.
Architect. Herit. 9 (1) (2015) 82–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15583058.2013.793436.
[2] P. Lourenço, N. Mendes, L.F. Ramos, D.V. Oliveira, Analysis of masonry structures
without box behavior, Int. J. Architect. Herit. 5 (2011) 369–382, https://doi.org/
10.1080/15583058.2010.528824.
[3] M. Angelillo, P.B. Lourenço, G. Milani, Masonry Behavior and Modelling in
Mechanics of Masonry Structures, vol. 551, Springer, Milan. Italy, 2014, pp. 1–26.
[4] M. Farshad, On the Shape of moment less tensionless masonry domes, Build.
Environ. 12 (1977) 81–85.
[5] C. Pesciullesi, M. Rapallini, A. Tralli, A. Cianchi, Optimal spherical masonry domes
of uniform strength, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (2) (1997) 203–209.
[6] N. Cavalagli, V. Gusella, A structural investigation on the ogival masonry domes of
the XVIII century: from Carlo Fontana to Bernardo Vittore, Int. J. Architect. Herit. 9
(3) (2014) 265–276, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2.013.771294.
[7] K. Navaee, K. Hajighasemi, Khesht Va Khiyal: Description of Iranian Islamic
Architecture, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran: Soroush, 2011.
[8] M. Bemanian, Application of Geometry and Proportions in Architecture, Tahan,
Tehran, Iran, 2011.
[9] S. Huerta, R. Aroca, Masonry domes: a study on proportion and similarity, in: 10
Years of Progress in Shell and Spatial Structures, 30 anniversaries of IASS, Madrid,
1989.
[10] S. Huerta, The analysis of masonry architecture: a historical approach, Architect.
Sci. Rev. 51 (4) (2008) 297–328, 9.
[11] G.H. Memarian, Persian Architecture: Construction, Naghme Nowandish, Tehran,
Iran, 2012.
[12] M.K. Pirnia, Dome in Persian architecture (Gonbad dar memari e Irani), Asar J. 20
(1991) 1–156.
[13] H. Zomarshidi, Dome and Elements of Architectural Coverings in Iran, Zaman,
Tehran, Iran, 2010.
[14] H. Zomarshidi, Vault and Arc in Iranian Architecture, Omran va behsazi shahri co,
Tehran, Iran, 2009.
[15] N. Cavalagli, Gusella V. Dome of the basilica of santa maria degli angeli in assisi:
static and dynamic assessment, Int. J. Architect. Herit. 9 (2) (2015) 157–175,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2014.951799.
[16] J. Zessin, W. Lau, J. Ochsendorf, Equilibrium of cracked masonry domes, Proc. ICE
- Eng. Comput. Mech. 163 (3) (2010) 135–145.
[17] A. Bacigalupo, A. Brencich, L. Gambarotta, A simplified assessment of the dome
and drum of the Basilica of S. Maria Assunta in Carignano in Genoa, Eng. Struct. 56
(2013) 749–765.
[18] Y. Endo, L. Pel�a, P. Roca, Review of different pushover analysis methods applied to
masonry buildings and comparison with nonlinear dynamic analysis, J. Earthq.
Eng. 21 (8) (2017) 1234–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632469.2016.1210055.
[19] M.P. Ciocci, S. Sharma, P.B. Lourenço, Engineering simulations of a super-complex
cultural heritage building: ica Cathedral in Peru, Meccanica (2018).
A. Feizolahbeigi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101575

[20] S. Degli Abbati, A.M. D’Altri, D. Ottonellli, G. Castellazi, S. Cattari, S. de Miranda, Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
S. Lagomarsino, Seismic assessment of interacting structural units in complex Crete, Greece, 2019.
historic masonry constructions by nonlinear static analyses, Comput. Struct. 213 [50] L. Abolghasemi, The Norm of Shaping the Islamic Architecture of Iran: Persian
(2019) 51–71. Architecture in Islamic Era, Jahad e daneshgahi., Tehran, Iran, 2006.
[21] A. Araujo, P.B. Lourenço, D. Oliveira, J. Leite, Seismic assessment of St james [51] K. Hajighasemi, Hidden geometry in the Sheikh Lotfollah mosque façade, Soffeh J.
church by means of pushover analysis – before and after the New Zealand 21–22 (1996) 28–33.
earthquake, Civ. Eng. J. 6 (Suppl 1-M5) (2012) 160–172. [52] J. Ortega, G. Vasconcelos, H. Rodrigues, M. Correia, Assessment of the efficiency of
[22] E. Benvenuto, An Introduction to the History of Structural Mechanics, Springer, traditional earthquake resistant techniques for vernacular architecture, Eng. Struct.
New York, 1991. 173 (2018).
[23] M. Ashkan, Y. Ahmad, Discontinuous double-shell domes through Islamic eras in [53] A. Giuffr�e, La stabilit�
a delle strutture: I muri di sostegno, gli archi, le volte,
the Middle East and central Asia: history, morphology, typologies, geometry, and Edizione NIS, Rome. Italy, 1986.
construction, Nexus Netw. J. 12 (2) (2010) 287–319. [54] J. Heyman, Structural Analysis: A Historical Approach, Cambridge University
[24] M. Ashkan, Y. Ahmad, Persian domes: history, morphology and typologies archnet- Press, Cambridge. UK, 1998.
ijar, Int. J. Architect. Res. 3 (5) (2009) 95–115. [55] P. Foraboschi, Resisting system and failure modes of masonry domes, J. Eng.
[25] Vitruvius, The Ten Books in Architecture, Morris Morgan, Dover Publication V, Failure Anal. 44 (2014) 315–337.
New York, 1960. Chapter VI. Article 2. Chapter vol. II. [56] M.K. Pirnia, Arcs and vaults in Persian architecture, Asar J. 24 (1994) 8.
[26] A. Palladio, 1570. I Quattro Libri Dell’architettura Venice. English Trans. Robert [57] J. Heyman, The Masonry Arc, Hellis Horvud, Chichester, 1982.
Tavernor and Richard Schofield, the Four Books on Architecture, MIT Press, [58] M. Lucchesi, C. Padovani, G. Pasquinelli, N. Zani, Static analysis of masonry vaults,
Cambridge, Mass, 1997. constitutive model and numerical analysis, J. Mech. Mater. Struct. 2 (2) (2007)
[27] L.B. Alberti, L’architettura [De re aedificatoria]. Testo latino e traduzione a cura di 221–244.
G. Orlandi, introduzione e note di P. Portoghesi, Milan, Il Polifilo, 1966. [59] M.K. Pirnia, Dome: gift of Iran to the world architecture, J. Art Architect. 10–11
[28] V. Scamozzi, L’Idea dell’Architettura universale. Milano: tip. Borroni e Scotti, (1971) 19.
1838. [60] Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization Documentation Center, Naghsh-e-Ajab:
[29] T. Le Seur, F. Jacquier, R.G. Boscovich, Parere di tre mattematici sopra i danni che Architectural drawings collection of historical monuments of Iran, 2003.
sisono trovati nella cupola di S. Pietro sul fine dell’anno 1742, dato per ordine di N. [61] N. Ambraseys, C.A. Melville, History of Persian Earthquakes, 1, Agah, Tehran, Iran,
S. Benedetto, 1743. 1995, p. 188. In Persian).
[30] G. Poleni, Memorie istoriche della gran cupola del tempio vaticano e de’ danni di [62] M. Kalantari, G.H. Memarian, M. Mojabi, Pathology documentation and restoration
essa, ede’ ristoramenti loro, in: Historical Memories of the Great Dome of the plan of the discontinuous double shell dome of Isfahan Shah Mosque, J. Boom 7–8
Vatican Temple and of its Damages, and of its Restoration, Padua. Italy, 1748. (2016).
[31] I.J. Oppenheim, D.J. Gunaratnam, R.H. Allen, Limit state analysis of masonry [63] L. Minasian, Armenian Churches in Jolfa, Vank church press, Isfahan, Iran, 1992.
domes, J. Struct. Eng. 115 (1989) 868–882. [64] R. Ramírez, N. Mendes, P. Lourenço, Diagnosis and seismic behavior evaluation of
[32] M. Hejazi, in: C.A. Brebbia (Ed.), Seismic Vulnerability of Iranian Historical Domes. the church of S~ ao Miguel de Refojos (Portugal), Buildings 9 (2019) 138, https://
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Resistant doi.org/10.3390/buildings_9060138.
Engineering Structures (ERES 2003). Ancona, WIT Press, Southampton, 2003, [65] Diana Fea, User’s Manual. Release 10.3, DIANA FEA BV, Delft. The Netherlands,
pp. 157–165. 2019.
[33] M. Hejazi, M. Ghamari, H. Beheshti, Parametric study of failure load of Persian [67] M. Paknezhad, (Persian Traditional Architect). Interview. Isfahan. Iran, 2018.
brick masonry domes stiffened by FRP strips under concentrated monotonic loads, [68] A.T. Dinani, S. Sadeghi, P.B. Lourenço, A double dome through the ages, in:
J. Civ. Eng. 28 (1) (2016) 29–48. R. Aguilar, D. Torrealva, S. Moreira, M.A. Pando, L.F. Ramos (Eds.), Structural
[34] G. Destro Bisol, Safety Assessment of Shah Mosque in Isfahan, Iran, Master thesis, Analysis of Historical Constructions. RILEM Book Series, vol. 18, Springer, Cham,
University of Minho. Portugal, 2019. 2019.
[35] A.T. Dinani, Hybrid Double Dome: Building Performance and Cable-Net [69] P. Roca, J.L. Gonz� alez, E. O~
nate, P.B. Lourenço, Experimental and numerical issues
Strengthening of Esfahan Shah Mosque’s Dome, Ph.D. thesis, Politecnico di Milano, in the modelling of the mechanical behavior of masonry, in: Structural Analysis of
Italy, 2019. Historical Constructions II, CIMNE, Barcelona, 1998, pp. 57–91.
[36] A. Gholizad, S. Abdolahi Kheradmand, Dynamic Behavior of Discontinues Double [70] P.B. Lourenço, Anisotropic softening model for masonry plates and shells, ASCE J
Shell Domes and the Needs for Retrofitting, First national conference on Struct Eng 126 (9) (2000) 1008–1016.
geotechnich engineering, Ardebil. Iran, 2013. [71] R. Marques, J.M. Pereira, P.B. Lourenço, W. Parker, M. Uno, Study of the seismic
[37] A. Baratta, On the structural assessment of masonry vaults and domes, Int. J. Mech. behavior of the ‘‘old municipal chambers’’ building in Christchurch, New Zealand,
3 (7) (2013) 201–209. J. Earthq. Eng. 17 (3) (2013) 350–377.
[38] W. Lao, Equilibrium of Masonry Domes, Master thesis, Massachusetts institute of [72] N. Mendes, P.B. Lourenço, Seismic assessment of masonry ‘‘Gaioleiro’’ buildings in
technology, 2006. Lisbon, Portugal, J. Earthq. Eng. 14 (1) (2009) 80–101.
[39] M.N. Varma, S. Ghosg, Effects of tension rings on the stability of axisymmetric [73] Endo, et al., Comparison of seismic analysis methods applied to a historical church
masonry domes, in: Proceeding of 15TH International Conference on Civil, struck by 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2015.
Structural and Engineering Computing, civil comp-press Stirlingshire, Scotland, [74] National building constitution organization of Iran, Design Loads for Buildings
2015. (Code 6), Toosee. Tehran, Iran, 2013.
[40] M. Pavlovic, E. Reccia, A. Cecchi, A procedure to investigate the collapse behaviour [75] P. Lourenço, L. Ramos, In situ NDT and MDT for masonry structures, SAHC slides
of masonry domes: some meaningful cases, Int. J. Architect. Herit. 10 (1) (2016) SA4. Guimar~ aes. (2017).
67–83, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2014.951797. [76] Cen, EN 1998-3 Euro Code 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part
[41] J. Heyman, On shell solutions for masonry domes, Int. J. Solid Struct. 3 (2) (1967) 3: Strengthening and Repair of Buildings, 2005.
227–241. [77] A. Akhaveissy, M. Abbassi, Pushover analysis of unreinforced masonry structures
[42] P.B. Lourenço, Analysis of historical constructions: from thrust-lines to advanced by fiber finite element method, Res. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2 (3) (2014) 96–119.
simulations, Historical Construct. (2001) 7–9. [78] S. Antoniou, And non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures, J. Earthq. Eng. 8
[43] M. Attarabbasi, S. Hematzadeh Dastgerdi, G. Mahboobi, A survey of structural (4) (2004) 497–522.
behavior and stability of davazdah emam dome in Yazd against earthquake, [79] Management and Planning Organization of Iran, Office of Deputy for Technical
J. Struct. Anal. Earthquake Iran 12 (3) (2015) 25–32. Affairs. Technical Criteria Codification & Earthquake Risk. Instruction for Seismic
[44] P. Roca, M. Cervera, G. Gariup, L. Pel� a, Structural analysis of masonry historical Rehabilitation of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Building (Code 376), vol. 34,
constructions. Classical and advanced approaches, Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 17 2007.
(2010) 299–325. [80] P.B. Lourenço, F. Krakowiak, F.M. Fernandes, L.F. Ramos, Failure analysis of
[45] J.A. Ochsendorf, Collapse of Masonry Structures, University of Cambridge Doctoral Monastery of Jer� onimos, Lisbon: how to learn from sophisticated numerical
Thesis. Department of Engineering, Cambridge. UK, 2002. models, Eng. Fail. Anal. 14 (2007) 280–300.
[46] S. Huerta, Galileo was wrong: the geometrical design of masonry arches, Nexus [81] V. Mallardo, R. Malvezzi, E. Milani, G. Milani, Seismic vulnerability of historical
Netw. J. 8 (2) (2006) 25–51. masonry buildings: a case study in Ferrara, Eng. Struct. 30 (2008) 2223–2241.
[47] P. Lourenço, Computations on historic masonry structures, Prog. Struct. Eng. [82] M. Betti, A. Vignoli, Numerical assessment of the static and seismic behaviour of
Mater. 4 (2002) 301–319. the basilica of Santa Maria all’Impruneta (Italy), Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (12)
[48] L. Saloustros, S. Pel�a, P. Roca, J. Portal, Numerical analysis of structural damage in (2011) 4308–4324.
the church of the Poblet Monastery, Eng. Fail. Anal. 48 (2014) 41–61, https://doi. [83] Cen, Euro Code 8 Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistant Structures, Comite
org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.10.015. Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
[49] A. Asikoglou, O. Avsar, P.B. Lourenço, L.C. Silva, O. Kaplan, G. Karanikoloudis, [84] NTC Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D.M. Del ministero delle infrastrutture e
Finite element modeling and operational modal analysis of a historical masonry dei trasporti del 17/01/2018. Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le
mosque, in: Proc. Of COMPDYN 2019. 7th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on costruzioni.” G.U. 20/02/2018, vol. 42, 2018.

23