# Analysis of Lightweight Structure Mesh Topology of Geodesic Domes
## 8 Conclusions  
The mesh topology of creating geodesic domes is a process that requires using an appropriate method of connecting nodes, creating a mesh of struts of the modeled structure. Figure 15: Vertical and horizontal displacements of nodes of domes generated from 4608-hedron and 4704-hedron. In this paper, two methods were used to create meshes of geodesic domes based on the division of the initial triangle, which is one of the faces of a regular octahedron. The design examples include a 4608-hedron geodesic dome modeled according to the first method and a 4704-hedron dome reflecting the second division method. Based on the preceding results and discussion, some concluding remarks can be drawn as follows:  
* The mesh of struts obtained in the structure shaped according to the first subdivision method allows us to work on the computational model in computer programs efficiently. Also, it facilitates the possibility of grouping struts during assembly. The mesh obtained according to the second method may cause problems during the task implementation and may also result in difficulties with modeling the structure. * To create the computational model of the first analyzed dome, it was necessary to divide it into \(n_{w}\) groups based on the same division rules. In the case of the second dome, this division had to consider the shifting of the nodes, which resulted in the need to divide it into three additional groups of struts. Such difficulties may cause mistakes and complicate the generation of the computational model. Creating the dome according to the first subdivision method is, therefore, much more straightforward and minimizes the possibility of making mistakes. * The model obtained according to the first method gives the impression of continuity of the mesh of struts at the connections of the initial faces of the regular octahedron, while these connections in the dome shaped according to the second method cause the illusion of discontinuity of the mesh of struts, which may make assembly difficult and create a feeling of lack of aesthetics. * In the first dome, a more even distribution of axial forces can be observed over the entire surface, and the values of extreme compressive forces are comparable to the maximum value of tensile forces. * Another argument for using the first method of creating a mesh topology is the number of supports and, therefore, the value of the support reactions. Due to the more distributed weight of the dome on the ground, the foundations can be designed more economically. The second division method has completely different characteristics of transferring forces from external impacts on the foundations. The accumulation of extreme axial forces is located within the vertical struts extending from the foundation, and their values are due to the smaller number of supports. After minor changes in the static scheme by adding vertical struts in the support zone and thus increasing the number of supports almost twice, this would reduce the values of the maximum compressive forces and lead to a reduction in the cross-section in the fourth group of struts and, consequently, a reduction in the weight of the structure. * In terms of usability, the first dome is less susceptible to vertical deflections, which indicates its greater stiffness in this direction. Using the first method of dividing the edges of the initial triangular face of a regular octahedron to create a geodesic dome mesh is more straightforward, safer, and requires less design experience. However, the division according to the second method should not be abandoned, because taking into account the specificity of the analyzed structure's operation and introducing minor changes to the static scheme, we can obtain a structure with similar, and possibly better, parameters. Therefore, further considerations in this area and further detailed analysis are necessary, taking into account not only the structure's weight but also the dynamic load.