DOME-SHAPED BUILDINGS FOR REDUCING FOUNDATION LOADS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Keywords:
Dome structure; shell action; soil–structure interaction; foundation pressure; structural self-weight; settlement; sustainable structural design.Abstract
Increasing urban density and the expansion of construction into weak or deformation-sensitive ground have renewed interest in structural systems that can reduce foundation demand at the source. This study examines whether a dome-shaped building envelope can lower the gravity load transmitted to the ground relative to a conventional two-storey rectilinear building with comparable usable floor area. The work is a comparative analytical case study rather than a full structural or geotechnical design. Geometry reported in the source concept is retained: approximately 218 m² of external surface for the dome-shaped alternative and 324 m² for the conventional alternative, with an approximately 80 m² plan area and a comparable overall height. Using a common envelope unit weight of 0.5 kN/m², the corresponding envelope self-weights are 109 kN and 162 kN. The dome option therefore reduces this modeled component of gravity load by 53 kN, or 32.7%. If the same 80 m² effective foundation area is used only for a first-order comparison, average pressure associated with that envelope component decreases from 2.03 kPa to 1.36 kPa. A sensitivity analysis confirms that the percentage reduction remains controlled by geometric surface-area efficiency when identical unit weights are assumed.
References
1.3.
Wang, C. M., Vo, K. K., & Chai, Y. H. (2006). Membrane analysis and minimum weight design of submerged spherical domes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(2), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(253).
4.
Barsi, F., Barsotti, R., & Bennati, S. (2023). Admissible shell internal forces and safety assessment of masonry domes. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 264, 112082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2022.112082.
5.Ventsel, E., & Krauthammer, T. (2001). Thin Plates and Shells: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker.
6.Billington, D. P. (1982). Thin Shell Concrete Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Republic of Uzbekistan. ShNQ 2.02.01-24: Foundations of Buildings and Structures. Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2024.
8.Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Republic of Uzbekistan. QMQ 2.01.07-21: Loads and Actions. Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2024.
9.Masih, R. (1994). Foundation uniform pressure and soil–structure interaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(11), 2064–2068. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:11(2064).
10.Getzler, Z., Gellert, M., & Eitan, R. (1970). Analysis of arching pressures in ideal elastic soil. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 96(4), 1357–1372. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001443.
11.Getzler, Z., & Lupu, L. (1969). Experimental study of buckling of buried domes. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 95(2), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001267.
12.Kim, D. A. (2018). The role of dome buildings in the architecture of the future. Engineering Journal of Don, 1. [In Russian].European Committee for Standardization. EN 1997-1:2004, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules. Brussels: CEN, 2004.
2.Behr, R. A., Mehta, K. C., & Kiesling, E. W. (1984). Strength and stability of earth covered dome shells. Journal of Structural Engineering, 110(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1984)110:1(19).
