Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 92

Are Geodesic Dome Homes More Energy Efficient and Wind Resistant Because They Resemble a Hemisphere?

by Taralyn Fender

Presented to THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Mathematics

JACKSONVILLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES April 2010

ii Master of Arts in Mathematics Department of Mathematics Jacksonville University

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Taralyn Fender, titled Are Geodesic Dome Homes More Energy Efficient and Wind Resistant Because They Resemble a Hemisphere? defended on March 24, 2010 .

___________________________________________ Dr. Paul Crittenden Thesis Advisor

___________________________________________ Dr. Michael Gagliardo Committee Member

Approved on: ____________________________

_____________________________________________ Dr. Pam Crawford Chair, Department of Mathematics

iii ABSTRACT Geodesic domes resemble hemispheres, which are considered to be one of the most efficient geometric shapes. For this reason, it is said that geodesic domes are more energy efficient and wind resistant than typical rectilinear homes. That hypothesis is tested in this thesis using simple mathematical models, one for heat transfer and one for wind pressure. Various geodesic domes are included in this study and were constructed from the platonic solid, octahedron. The surface area and volume for various geodesic domes and rectilinear homes were used to compute their sphericity, a measure of their roundness. The heat flux ratio, a value that determines the relative energy efficiency of the models, was computed. Finally, the wind resistance ratio, a value that determines the relative wind resistance of each model was found. Once the computations of sphericity, heat flux, and wind resistance ratios are found, an attempt will be made to show that as the frequency of the dome increases, the sphericity of the geodesic dome approaches the sphericity of the hemisphere. As the sphericity, ratio of the investigated home models approach the sphericity ratio of the hemisphere, the data will show that the dome home is the most spherical, most energy efficient, and on average most wind resistant structure of the models investigated.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Investigating the geodesic dome has been an eye opening experience to encounter all of the mathematics that surrounds us on a daily basis. Thanking those of you who have helped me with this endeavor seems so inadequate. I must first thank Jesus for giving me wisdom on a moment by moment basis. There were days when I came to a dead end in my research, but I would ask God to give me some of the wisdom that he gave King Solomon, He always heard my plea, and gave me the thought that I needed to complete the task at hand. Thank you, Jesus, for being my personal Savior. My husband, Paul, is my biggest supporter and the love of my life. He relinquished his hold on me and allowed me to spend numerous hours in front of the computer day after long day without complaining. I can always count on him for his support, which included but was not limited to cooking our meals, washing dishes, vacuuming, and washing clothes during the time spent on the research and then the writing of this paper. He truly takes care of me. He is my prayer warrior, a true gift from God. Honey, God has richly blessed me by allowing you to be a very big part of my life. I am so thankful to call you husband and best friend. My daughters, Christee and Joye have been wonderful supporters and cheerleaders during this time. You are true blessings from God and I thank you for all that you do for me. You allow me to tell you all about this paper at any time. I am so very proud of you and the wonderful women that you have become. I love you so much My grandchildren are the best in this world. Tyler and Sara helped me build a geodesic dome model that I purchased from American Ingenuity, Inc. while Timothy,

v Nathan, Noah, Logan, Dylan, and Megan thought they were playing with the geo-sticks but they were really helping me with various dome constructions. They helped me visualize the different frequencies of various domes by constructing different models. Your G.G. loves you for all of your help in making this study a visual success. Dr. Paul Crittenden, my thesis advisor, has been a fountain of knowledge and this study would not have come to fruition without his vast knowledge and expertise. Your unending patience, tireless hours of reading submission after submission, thinking, editing, guiding, and directing are to be commended. You are truly a brilliant mathematician and I am very thankful to have been assigned to you through this learning process. I know that this paper would not be what it is today without you. You are truly a gift from God and I will forever be grateful for the time spent with you. I know I will never be able to repay you for all that you have done for me. Thank you for taking me under your wing and never giving up on me. My dear friend, Michael Vasileff, has spent many tireless hours reading and checking for any grammatical errors that I may have missed prior to each submission. Although the statistical information was not readily available for geodesic dome homes and their ability to withstand hurricane force winds, you continued to spend many hours searching. Thank you for always being my true and steadfast friend. God has again blessed me with your valuable friendship. I am so thankful for you and your valuable input.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SIGNATURE PAGE ......................................................................................................................................ii ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Definition Comparison of the Geodesic Dome to the Rectilinear Home ................6 Domes to Geodesic Domes .......................................................................................................6 Geodesic Dome .............................................................................................................................9 Structure ..........................................................................................................................9 Aerodynamic Strength ................................................................................................10 Energy Efficiency ..........................................................................................................12 Sphericity..........................................................................................................................14 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ....................................................................................................................15 Forming the Geodesic Dome ...................................................................................................17 Surface Area ...................................................................................................................................20 Volume .............................................................................................................................................28 Sphericity ........................................................................................................................................33 Energy Efficiency .........................................................................................................................37 Heat Loss...........................................................................................................................37 Wind Resistance.............................................................................................................42 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................51 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................57 Appendix A: Calculations for the One-Frequency Dome ...........................................................58 Appendix B: Calculations for the Two-Frequency Dome ..........................................................59 Appendix C: Calculations for the Four-Frequency Dome ..........................................................60 Appendix D: Calculations for the Six-Frequency Dome .............................................................64 Appendix E: MATLab Computer Program .......................................................................................72 Appendix F: Email permission to use photographs .....................................................................80 American Ingenuity Domes, Inc. .............................................................................................80 Natural Spaces Domes ................................................................................................................81 FEMA .................................................................................................................................................82 References ....................................................................................................................................................83

1 Are Geodesic Dome Homes More Energy Efficient and Wind Resistant Because They Resemble a Hemisphere? INTRODUCTION In this paper, various geodesic dome homes are investigated and compared to rectilinear homes to determine which home more closely resembles a hemisphere. Geodesic domes are created by connecting a mesh of triangular panels together in order to closely resemble a hemisphere. It has been said that the hemisphere is considered the most efficient geometric shape (Geodesic Dome, 2008, pg. 1), because it has the minimum surface area for a given volume. Both Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic dome, and Busick, CEO of American Ingenuity, said that the geodesic dome home is more energy efficient and wind resistant than typical rectilinear homes because of this fact. The hypothesis to be tested is that because the geodesic dome more closely resembles the hemisphere, then it is more energy efficient and wind resistant than typical rectilinear homes. Sphericity, the ratio of the volume to surface area, gives a measure of the roundness of the object. Thus to test this hypothesis, simple mathematical models are used on various geodesic domes, rectilinear homes, and the hemisphere. Heat flux and wind pressure are computed and compared to that of a hemisphere. In order to make these comparisons the surface area and volume for each of the various models must be computed. To determine energy efficiency of homes with the same volumes, the investigator applies a simple mathematical model for heat transfer by comparing various geodesic domes to model rectilinear homes and to hemispheres. Using these computations, the investigator determined that when the sphericity ratio of various models was close to the hemisphere, then the structure was also more energy efficient.

2 Similarly, a simple mathematical model for straight line wind impact on various geodesic domes and rectilinear homes is applied to determine if more spherical models were more wind resistant. The projected area of the hemisphere, geodesic dome, and three different views of one and two-story rectilinear home models with the same volumes are computed and compared to determine the wind resistance. On average, the geodesic dome homes are shown to be more energy efficient and wind resistant during a hurricane than the rectilinear home because of their near hemispherical shape. Building a geodesic dome home is financially and environmentally efficient because less building materials are needed to construct a dome home (Busick, 2008). The National Dome Council commissioned Knauer, author of the article, The Futurist, to do a study that compared the energy efficiency of geodesic dome homes with rectilinear homes and the results showed that geodesic domes were more energy efficient (October 2008). According to investigators from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Diamond and Moezzi (July 2009), electrical energy consumption in the United States for the years of 1949 to 2001 has steadily increased to almost double the amount it was in 1949. The importance of conserving energy has been on the minds of many consumers and the data shows that some make a concerted effort to limit their consumption. However, those who desire instant comfort continue consuming energy in ever increasing amounts. Energy consumption changes in the home when normal weather conditions change. When the outside temperature changes, the inside temperature reflects that change unless an intervention occurs to achieve a level of comfort for its residents. For the home to be deemed energy efficient, the transfer of heat must be minimized while maintaining a

3 desired level of comfort. Home design, construction methods, insulation, and the correct heating and cooling unit are essential for any home to be labeled as energy efficient. Since the early 1900s, data about hurricane history has been recorded by the National Hurricane Center. This data includes the human death toll and property damage due to hurricanes and other natural phenomena (Hurricane History, March 2009). From that time through 2005, there have been 35 major hurricanes and tropical storms that made landfall on the United States and surrounding countries. These natural disasters have claimed the lives of approximately 30,000 people and injured numerous others. Property devastation from these storms has been estimated to cost the homeowner and government more than $200 billion. To reduce the cost of devastation after a severe storm or hurricane, it is essential for the affected residents to live in more wind resistant homes. According to Smith, Physicist at the University of Munich (November 2008), research to determine the severity of a storm and estimate its location is necessary to offer assistance to residents in a timely manner in areas most prone to the ensuing hurricane. Offering timely information to residents that a severe storm is going to occur at a particular location and showing its projected path would result in fewer lives lost. Given this information, residents can prepare their homes for the severe wind and tornadoes which accompany a severe storm or hurricane. As residents prepare for their safety, it may require evacuation of their homes. However, some residents are not willing to evacuate their homes. A geodesic dome home could provide residents an alternative to evacuation, given its lower profile to the wind.

4 When severe weather occurs such as a hurricane or other natural phenomena, changes in energy output occur as a result. Physical human energy is also expended and battery or gasoline engines are used to power various tools necessary to clear debris from devastated areas. After a disaster, electrical crews spend extra hours replacing downed power lines to restore electricity to consumers as soon as possible. Wherever hurricanes are more prone to occur, alternative methods to reduce energy consumption and natural resources must be explored by reviewing the history of energy efficient homes. Historically, humans have lived in domed caves, coned shaped tepees, rounded igloos, and a myriad of traditional, rectilinear structures which are the stereotypical choice for homes today. The need to build more homes increases when the population increases. As of August 2009, the United States Census Bureau recorded in US and World Population Clock that there are around 300 million people living in the United States and that number continues to increase. An increase in population indicates that the need to build quality homes is also increasing. By designing and building homes that are energy efficient and wind resistant, the environment and its precious natural resources will be protected and ultimately the loss of human life would be greatly reduced during natural disasters. Public dome structures could also be provided to keep residents safe during a natural disaster. After the hurricane Katrina disaster, several television stations reported that the Louisiana Superdome was the shelter to which the devastated public was transported for safety. For this study, the following terms are defined here and will be developed further during the course of the paper. A geodesic dome is a mesh of triangular panels connected to closely resemble a hemisphere. A more precise definition of a geodesic dome can be defined as a geometric construction. Every geodesic dome can be created by the following

5 procedure. Choose a platonic solid. Next, each edge of the solid will be sub-divided into equal parts. The number of times the sides are sub-divided is called the frequency of the geodesic dome. Each face of the solid will be sub-divided into equilateral triangles using the new vertices. The new vertices, which are defined after the sub-division, are stretched using vector algebra to be equidistant (one unit) from the center of the base. This creates the geodesic dome. The side of each triangular panel is called a strut. Sphericity is a ratio of volume to surface area which measures the roundness of a geometric shape. These ratios will be computed on various geodesic dome models, rectilinear models, and a hemisphere to provide a measure of roundness on each model. It will be shown that as the frequency of the dome increases the sphericity of the geodesic dome approaches the sphericity of the hemisphere. Energy efficiency is the reduction of the consumption of energy and will be approximated by computing the transfer of heat of various models contained in this study using a simple mathematical model, the heat transfer is then compared to a hemisphere with the same volume. Similarly, the ratio of wind resistance is defined by comparing the projected area of the models that are directly impacted by the wind. Once the transfer of heat and wind resistance ratios are computed, then they are compared to the ratios of sphericity to determine if the most energy efficient and wind resistant models are also the models which most closely resembles the hemisphere. For the purpose of this study, the octahedron is the platonic solid chosen to construct the geodesic dome. The original vertices of the octahedron are taken to be one unit from the origin along the coordinate axes. When constructing the dome from this platonic solid, the triangular faces are subdivided by the frequency and the original vertices are stretched to be equidistant (one unit) from the center of the dome.

6 LITERATURE REVIEW Definition Comparison of the Geodesic Dome to the Rectilinear Home Kenner, author of Geodesic Math and How to Use It (1976), defines the geodesic dome as a domicile, shell-like structure that holds itself up without supporting interior columns. Both Fuller (Introduction to Geodesic Domes and Structure, November 2008), inventor of geodesic domes, and Knauer (October 2008) agree that the geodesic dome is defined as an approximate hemisphere formed by connecting a mesh of triangles, which provide a self-supporting structure, which offers an open interior for maximum space and light. Self supporting is defined as a structure that requires no load-bearing interior walls to bear the weight of the roof or dome. The dome structure is both stable and strong when compared to a rectilinear shaped structure. Fuller (2008) was convinced that by applying modern technology to the design and construction of homes, that geodesic dome homes could also be built to ensure comfort, as well as economic and energy efficiency. Domes to Geodesic Domes During the Roman Empire, arches were used to strengthen a structure, whereby a keystone was placed in the center of the arch (Kenner, 1976, p.3). This is seen on the Arch of Severus, a famous Roman structure (Great Buildings Online, August 2009). The keystone in the center of the archway makes the entire structure stronger and allows for a wider opening than buildings with a horizontal crossbeam which limits the distance of the opening as gravity pulls downward. The Pantheon, dedicated around 120 A.D., is the largest domed building ever created out of concrete and is still considered a magnificent building (Great Buildings

7 Online, March, 2009). Its age indicates its resilience. Fuller recognized that the gravitational force on the archs keystone designed by the Romans caused the arches to stay in place. He used that idea to create the design for the geodesic dome. However, his dome was built by connecting triangular panels and he is thereby credited with the invention of the geodesic dome in the late 1940s. In Baldwins book, he calls Fuller a missionary in the design revolution, and science fiction writer, Clark remarked, Fuller may be our first engineering saint (1996, p.65). Geodesic structures have been built in the modern age for a variety of purposes. The Climatron at the Missouri Botanical Gardens was built in 1961 and was the first geodesic dome with a transparent covering to admit light and heat (November 2008). It contains a temperature and humidity controlled atmosphere for some 1200 species of plants in a natural tropical setting. In addition to the numerous plants, the Climatron is home to tropical birds and waterfalls. In 1954, the USAF built fiberglass plastic domes for the Distant Early Warning (DEW) stations because the domes were assembled quickly, invisible to microwave radar, and capable of withstanding the brutal weather conditions in Canada and Alaska (Massey, 1997). During the Cold War, the United States relied on these stations to detect enemy aircraft and dispatch fighter planes to intercept them. The geodesic dome at Epcot in Disney World in Orlando, Florida, was designed by Fuller and opened in October 1982 shortly before his death in July 1983 (Epcot, November 2008). This is the geodesic dome for which he is most famous. Fuller was convinced that a geodesic dome home was the most energy efficient and structurally sound structure, so in

8 1960, he designed and built a dome home for himself and his wife in Carbondale, Illinois (Introduction of Geodesic Domes and Structure, November 2008). His dome home was constructed on a cement pad on the ground with no exterior vertical riser wall to support the dome. Since that time, other dome home companies have used his dome idea, but have added a 4 ft exterior vertical riser wall to increase the functionality of the home and thereby limiting the amount of wasted space in the home. In 1976, Busick became founder and CEO of America Ingenuity, Inc. He agreed with Fuller about the safety and efficiency of the dome home. Currently, he and his team of engineering experts build custom dome homes in many parts of the United States. Figure 1 is a picture of a geodesic dome home under construction which clearly shows the triangular panels of the dome as they are joined together. Since 1976, Busick has expanded his designs to include homes with adjoining dome garages and patios as well. While Fuller was the original design engineer, dome home manufacturing companies are constantly making changes to meet the needs of consumers. Their goal is to create the best design for the most efficient structure and to customize it to suit the need of the consumer. Busicks dome home manufacturing company offers their homeowners a full replacement guarantee if their home is destroyed by a tornado or a hurricane. Mandel (2008, pg. 1) reported that the geodesic dome home plan is best unless you want to see your home gone with the wind after a hurricane. In a telephone interview in December, 2008 with Mara, a builder for Natural Spaces Domes, Mara stated that geodesic dome homes are the safest and most energy efficient
Figure 1. Construction of a concrete geodesic dome home. Used by permission.

9 homes and extended an invitation to anyone who would like to participate in the construction of a current dome home construction, as seen in Figures 2 and 3. Geodesic Dome Structure Knauer (October 2008) states that geodesic dome structures are returning to the design table as more people consider their efficiency and wind resistance during a hurricane or natural disaster when considering building the family home. Kenner (1976) discusses several aspects of the structure of the geodesic dome that must be investigated to understand its design and determine the efficiency of the structure. They include the strut length, frequency, and faces, which are concrete triangular panels that form the surface of the dome. The joints or seams determine the strength of the dome, which is necessary to ensure that the geodesic dome will be able to more resistant to the fierce, horizontal winds associated with hurricanes and other natural phenomena. During a natural disaster, trees may be uprooted and then fall at a tremendous force, landing on the nearest object or structure that is in their path. When trees hit the roof of a rectilinear home during a hurricane with an 8-foot vertical wall, the house can be severely damaged. However, damage to the dome home will be minimal because the near hemispherical shape of the geodesic dome will gradually break the fall of the tree in varied increments of degrees. The picture of the dome home in Figure 4 is from the gallery of Natural Spaces Domes (March 2009) that shows a tree which has fallen on the dome home.
Figure 3. A completed dome home. Used by permission. Figure 2. Construction of a geodesic dome made of wood. Used by permission.

10 The tree looks as if it is merely leaning on the home. However, this investigative study does not include (treat) the amount of damage trees may cause to any home during a hurricane. Geodesic domes are constructed with struts,
Figure 4. A tree has fallen on a dome home. Used by permission.

which are the sides of the equilateral and isosceles triangular faces or panels. A strut is the brace which connects two adjacent vertices of the triangular face or panels which eventually form the geodesic dome (Kenner, 1976), as seen in Figure 5. As these struts are connected, the resulting geodesic dome is very strong and resembles the most efficient geometric shape, the hemisphere (Geodesic Dome, November 2008). Typically, the triangular panels consist of reinforced concrete enveloping a polystyrene insulation. A galvanized steel mesh interlocks the
Figure 5. A geodesic dome model.

two adjacent panels. Hornas (2000) states that concrete is his favorite building material because it is fireproof, waterproof, and termite proof. Aerodynamic Strength For the geodesic dome to remain intact given an external force, triangles are designed, connected, and strategically placed to create a more hemispherical and smooth surface. As the number of triangles increase, the stability of the structure increases and the shape becomes more hemispherical (Kenner, 1976). Hornas (2000) also states that a

11 round dome is so aerodynamic that strong destructive winds have nothing to directly push against and is therefore resistant to hurricane force winds. Hurricane winds swirl in a slightly upward spiral fashion according to Encyclopedia Britannica, during a tropical cyclone (February 2009). The impact is most severe when the wind is at an angle where the projected area of the structure is greatest. Since a geodesic dome home has a low profile, the areas exposed to the wind forces are minimal compared to a rectilinear home. The damage sustained as a result of the impact from the wind is minimized. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2008), a Category 4 hurricane would have winds between 131 and 155 mph, thereby destroying poorly constructed buildings. The pictures of the homes that are shown in Figures 6 and 7 were destroyed by Hurricane Ivan in Pensacola Beach, Florida, in September, 2004 (FEMA, 2008). Figure 8 shows a dome home built in Pensacola Beach, Florida, in 2003 that withstood the wrath of Hurricane Ivan as reported by J. Reynolds (2004). The homeowner said
Figure 7. Another demolished house after Hurricane Ivan. Used by permission. Figure 6. A demolished house after Hurricane Ivan. Used by permission.

that while the waves washed around his home, their strength was not sufficient to totally demolish his home as it did to other homes in his neighborhood. Parker, a reporter for the Post and Courier in Charleston, SC, (October 2006) reported that a local builder
Figure 8. A dome home with little damage after Hurricane Ivan. Used by permission.

12 built a dome home and called it his safe haven from hurricane winds of 300 miles per hour and earthquakes of up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. He stated that the triangular panels for his dome home are made from layering and bonding wood chips, then surrounding the panel with a thick slab of polystyrene foam before sealing it with an exterior layer of concrete. This creates a dome home that is considered to be very strong and resistant to hurricane-force winds. One feature that gives geodesic dome homes an advantage in high winds over the rectilinear home is their lower vertical profile. The wind resistance ratio will be computed for the geodesic dome home of various frequencies and compared with the ratio of various rectilinear homes. Mathematically, it will be shown that the lower profile home with similar volume will be more resilient to the forces of wind that accompany hurricanes. Energy Efficiency Rourke (October 2000) reported that Khalili, an engineer, built environmentally sound dome homes in the desert because the construction of adobe domes was fairly simple and the materials used were native to their land. During the construction process, strategically placed ventilation openings were inserted to ensure the home was energy efficient. Those openings kept the domes interior cooler than conventional houses. In January 2005, Dulley, a reporter for the Post and Courier in Charleston, SC, stated that the spherical dome shape is very energy efficient. However, he also stated that as changes are made to the spherical shape, energy efficiency of the structure decreases. In Palm Beach, Florida, Dolan (October 2005, pg. 1) reported that hurricane resistant dome homes cost about 50% less to heat and cool than traditional rectilinear homes of approximately the same size. Dolan also reported that Safe Harbor Dome Home

13 Company was awarded the Build Smart Certificate for building an energy efficient dome home. Parker (October 2006) also reported that an energy efficient three story geodesic dome home requires a two and one-half ton heating and cooling unit to adequately keep the home at a comfortable temperature which is the typical size unit required for a much smaller rectilinear home. He stated that according to the homeowner, the electric power bill for this dome home was approximately $61 per month, which was considerably less than his smaller rectilinear home. The American Ingenuity Company describes their dome homes as being very energy efficient (Busick, 2008). They achieve this efficiency by building their homes with triangular panels that are created by enveloping polystyrene insulation with a concrete outer layer that will not degrade over time. The near hemispherical shape of these homes means reduced exposed surface area. Less energy escapes through the roof because the dome is virtually airtight. The only insulation breaks are around the doors and windows, unlike the insulation breaks between the load bearing walls and the wooden studs of the traditional, rectilinear home. Since the surface area of a geodesic dome home is less than that of a rectilinear home of similar volume, the geodesic dome would require less exterior maintenance. Maintenance costs of a concrete dome home will be minimal because the amount of materials necessary will be less than that of a rectilinear home. The external concrete construction on any structure ensures that rotting wood, mold, and mildew will not be a problem. Since every geodesic dome home will not be built with a concrete roof, regular

14 maintenance is required on the exterior and interior to ensure that the above contaminants are kept to a minimum. This ensures that the home is a healthier, allergy-free place to live. Thermal behavior or heat loss must be considered when designing and building a home. Only the efficiency gained from the geometry of the dome is treated here. The heat loss is proportional to the difference between the inside and outside temperature. According to an article written for Comfortable Low Energy Architecture (CLEAR) in July 2009, the home is considered to be more energy efficient if the heat loss ratio is minimized. A heat transfer model will be used to show heat loss is proportional to surface area and since the surface area of a geodesic dome is less than the surface area of a rectilinear home with the same volume, then the heat loss will be less for a geodesic dome compared to a rectilinear home. Sphericity Sphericity is defined as the ratio of volume to surface area and determines the roundness of a geometric shape (June 2009). As the frequency of the geodesic dome increases, the sphericity ratio of the dome gets closer to that of a hemisphere (Kenner, 2003). As the sphericity ratio gets closer to that of a hemisphere, the heat loss is less for the geodesic dome due to the lower surface area for similar volume of a rectilinear home. According to Beals, Gross, and Harrell (2009), heat loss in animals is proportional to their size and volume, their sphericity. They said that a small animal will lose heat faster due to its volume to surface area ratio, so they need a higher metabolism to reduce the effects of heat loss. In this study, the sphericity will be used as a measure of how closely the models resemble a hemisphere.

15 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES The superior wind resistance and energy efficiency of geodesic domes when compared to rectilinear homes is said to be due to their near hemispherical shape. In this section, that hypothesis is tested using two simple mathematical models. One model is used to determine the ratio of the force imparted by a straight line wind upon a geodesic dome versus that imparted by an equal wind upon a rectilinear home. The other model is used to find the heat transfer ratio between the two structures under some assumptions. The hypothesis is tested by comparing the sphericity ratios of the structures to see if they correspond to the wind resistant and heat flux ratios. The terms geodesic dome and dome will be used synonymously throughout this paper. The geodesic dome is defined by a geometric deformation of a platonic solid. To better understand what a geodesic dome is, this section will demonstrate the procedure for several domes. The length of the struts, the volume, surface area, and sphericity will be computed for domes of various frequencies. Also included are computations which compare the heat loss and wind resistance of geodesic domes to model rectilinear homes with the same volume.
P11(0,0,1)

For this study, only geodesic domes formed from octahedrons are investigated. Due to symmetry, only oneeighth of the octahedron needs to be considered as seen in Figure 9. The calculations are initially performed using a radius of one and later scaled to typical house sizes. The vertices are labeled as for the upper most vertex and and
P21 (1,0,0) (0,0,0)

P22 (0,1,0)

Figure 9. A one frequency dome, one-eighth of the octahedron.

for the lower most

vertices of a one frequency dome, where the first digit in

represents the row of the

16 point and the second digit represents the position in that row from left to right. A one frequency dome will be denoted by 1v. This notation will be used throughout this paper with the number representing the frequency. Each time the frequency of the dome, , increases, a new row of points is added which will be labeled in the same fashion. The labeling of the points on the bottom row of the dome will always begin with a digit one greater than the domes frequency. Since frequency affects the geometric properties of the dome, its effect on the sphericity is investigated. To determine energy efficiency, the exterior of the structures, the thickness of the exterior wall, and the R-value of the insulation of the structures are said to be identical for the models with the same volume. This comparison does not include building materials, construction methods, or the internal physics of the structures. The computation of the heat flux ratio is the ratio of the heat used by a geodesic dome to that which is used by a rectilinear home. It will also be shown that geodesic dome homes have a lower profile to wind and are more spherical when comparing the projected area of the various models included in this study. Three different views of each rectilinear home are investigated and compared with two different geodesic domes with the same volume and then compared to a hemisphere. The wind speed is identical for all of the models. The ratio of the force from a wind imparted on a geodesic dome to the force imparted on a rectilinear home will be used to determine which structure is more resistant to wind.

17

Forming the Geodesic Dome Starting with a platonic solid, the edges of each face are subdivided by the desired frequency, . For example, a frequency of four,
1

4v, means that the sides of the original faces


0.8

are divided into four equal parts. Next, these new points along the edges are connected into a mesh of equilateral triangles. One face of

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

an octahedron, the 4v dome, is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. A 4v dome with equilateral triangles before movement.

Next, the new points are moved radially outward until they are one unit from the center of the base. As the vertices are moved outward, the triangular mesh is deformed into a more spherical shape. In Figure 11, a
1

dome shape begins to appear after the original points have been moved to be equidistant from the center of the base. If the frequency is increased, the dome appears to more closely resemble a hemisphere. This will be shown to be true using the sphericity of each dome.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.5 1 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.2

Figure 11. A 4v dome after movement.

A strut length is the length of one edge of the triangular panel which connects two vertices. These triangular panels create a mesh of triangles that forms the geodesic dome. As the frequency increases, the number of struts increase and their lengths decrease. Recall Figure 1, which shows the struts of the triangular panels as they are joined together during the construction of the dome.

18 Figure 12 is a drawing of an equilateral triangular face of a one frequency 1v dome. For a 1v dome, the edges or sides of the equilateral triangular face are not subdivided. Therefore, the strut length of each side of the dome is equal to . Since this is a 1v
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 1

0.5

dome, then the number of triangular panels on one face is .


1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 12. A 1v dome.

In Figure 13, the equilateral triangular face has been subdivided into two equal parts at the midpoints of the edges. Since this a 2v dome, there will be four equilateral triangles on each face of the dome, .

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 0.8 0.8 1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

Figure 13. A 2v dome.

Table 1 Vertex Points for the 2v Dome Point Original Coordinate Magnitude Stretched Coordinate

19 The magnitude, the distance from the center of the base (the origin) is computed for each of the original points by finding the square root of the sum of the squares of the coordinates. The coordinates of each original point are then divided by this magnitude to determine the coordinates of the stretched point. The original points, the magnitude, and the stretched points are listed in Table 1 and in Appendix B for the 2v dome. Once the original points have been stretched to ensure the distance from the center of the base is one unit, the distance formula can be used to determine the strut lengths. Figure 14 shows the 2v dome after the original points have been moved outward. For example, the length of the strut from the vertex at
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 1 1

Figure 14. A 2v dome after movement.

to the vertex at

units. This process can be used to find all of the strut lengths on one face of the dome. Through the use of symmetry, the strut lengths can be determined on the other faces. While there may be many different strut lengths for the given frequency, in practice only a few of them are used to physically construct the dome. This may cause the dome to be somewhat distorted. For the purpose of this study, all of the lengths are used. There are only two different strut lengths for the 2v dome which are listed in Table 2. There are four triangles on one face and the middle triangle is the only one that is equilateral with the other three being isosceles.

20 Table 2 Strut Lengths for the 2v Dome Vectors with the same strut length Strut Length 0.7654 1.0000

Table 3, on the next page, contains the coordinates of the original points, the magnitude, and the stretched coordinates for the 4v dome. Since this is a 4v dome, there are triangular faces on one side of the dome. Using the same procedure as the 2v

dome, the strut lengths are found for the 4v dome, which are listed in Table 4. The central triangle is equilateral and the others are isosceles. An EXCEL spreadsheet was created for all of the vertex points for all of the triangular faces of one side of the dome for a limited number of dome frequencies. Magnitude was computed for each point and the stretched points were listed. Additionally, a MATLab computer program was created to compute the original points, magnitude, and stretched points for any frequency. The MATLab computer program is listed in Appendix C. Surface Area The total surface area of a dome is the sum of the surface areas of the triangular faces determined by the frequency of the dome. To compute the surface area, the vectors defining two sides of the triangular face are computed by finding the difference between each of the , , and coordinates of the vertices.

21 Table 3 Vertex Points of the 4v Dome


Point Original Coordinate Magnitude Stretched Coordinate

22 Table 4 Strut Lengths for the 4v Dome Vectors with the same strut length , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Strut Length 0.3204 0.4472 0.4595 0.4389 0.5176 0.5774

Stewart, author of Calculus Concepts & Contexts (2004), defines the cross product of two vectors to be a new vector with a magnitude equal to the product of the magnitude of the two vectors and the sine of the angle between them. For example:

Geometrically, this is the area of the parallelogram defined by the two vectors. Thus the area of the triangle given by the would be that value. Algebraically, the cross product is also

matrix determinant.

where the coeff c e t

a d are g ve by

23

. The cross product, as a vector, is also a normal vector to the plane containing the triangular panel, the surface area of which is one-half the magnitude of the cross- product. (1)

. The total surface area computations for the 1v, 2v, and 4v domes are shown in this section. The total surface areas for the 6v and 12v domes are listed in this section and the detail for the computations of the 6v dome can be found in Appendix D. The computations for the 12v dome are not listed in the Appendix, due to their length, but can be quickly computed using the MATLab computer program, which is in Appendix E. Figure 15 shows a 1v dome. Using the points at the vertices, from and to the other two points are: and Their cross product is: . the vectors
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 1 1

Figure 15. A 1v dome.

24 After finding the coefficients, the surface area is the magnitude of the cross product. .

. This is the surface area of one quarter of a 1v, one-frequency dome. Thus, the total surface area of the 1v dome is 3.4641 square units.

The same procedure is followed as above with the 1v dome to determine the
1

surface area for a 2v dome. Figure 16 shows one face of the 2v dome after the original points have been stretched. Table 1 lists the coordinates of one face of the dome. Since this is a 2v dome, there are four triangles on each face of the original octahedron. The surface area is computed for , and

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 1 1

Figure 16. A 2v dome after movement.

using the points at the vertices, . The vectors and are:

and

25 Their cross product is:

The surface area of this triangular panel is then

square units. By symmetry, and have the same surface area. using the points at the vertices, . The vectors and Their cross product is: and . are:

The surface area is computed for , , and

26 The surface area of this triangular panel is then

square units. Adding the surface areas for all of these triangles gives one fourth of the total surface area the dome, which is approximately equal to 1.302218 square units. After multiplying that value by four, the total surface area of the 2v dome is 5.2088758 square units. The EXCEL spreadsheet containing these computations and calculations can be found in Appendix B. The same procedure is used to compute the surface area for all of the triangular faces of the 4v dome as was used with the 1v and 2v domes. The total surface area for this 4v dome was computed using an EXCEL spreadsheet. The points used to determine the vectors, the computations, and calculations are included in Appendix C. Since this is a 4v dome, there will be 16 triangles on each face of the original octahedron. The total surface area of the 4v dome is approximately equal to 5.9733266 square units. Continuing the same procedure as for the previous domes, the total surface area for this 6v dome was computed using the EXCEL program. The points used to determine the vectors, the computations, and calculations are included in Appendix D. Since this is a 6v dome, there will be 36 triangles on each face of the original octahedron. The total surface area for the 6v dome is approximately equal to 6.1405485 square units. The total surface area for this 12v dome was computed using the EXCEL program. Due to its length, the table of points used to determine the vectors, the computations, and calculations are not included in the appendix section. However, using MATLab, a computer

27 program was written to compute the total surface area for a dome of any frequency, which is more efficient and effective to use. The MATLab program is included in Appendix E. This is a 12v dome, so there will be 144 triangles on each face of the original octahedron. The total surface area for the 12v dome is approximately equal to 6.2467332 square units. To summarize, the area of each triangular panel was calculated by taking one half of the magnitude of the cross product of the two vectors. The EXCEL spreadsheet program was used to calculate the surface area and volumes for domes with 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 frequencies. Using EXCEL made the tedious computations easier to calculate for these frequencies. However, there are infinitely many different frequencies of geodesic domes, so a MATLab computer program was written to determine the surface area for any frequency. The MATLab program can be found in Appendix E. A generic algorithm was written to compute the surface area of any dome of any frequency. As the frequency of the dome increases, as shown in Table 5, the surface area gets closer to that of a hemisphere of radius one, which is 2 . Table 5 Summary of Surface Area of Various Frequency Domes Frequency
1v 2v 4v 6v 8v 10v 12v 16v 20v Hemisphere

Surface Area
3.4641 5.2088 5.9733 6.1406 6.2019 6.2309 6.2467 6.2626 6.2700 6.2832

28 Volume The volume of the geodesic dome is the sum of the areas under each triangular panel. Recall from calculus, that the integral of a surface is used to find the volume under that surface and over its projection in the -plane. Each triangle is contained in a plane

with the specific equation defined by the normal to the plane. Each triangular face consists of three vertices connected by struts. For one face, let the points be defined as , and . is the equation for components of the vector normal

From Calculus Concepts and Contexts (2004), the plane, where , , and correspond to the , , and to the plane. The value for

is determined by substituting any point on the plane into the and solving

above equation. After substituting a point into the equation,

for , the resulting equation for the surface is to be integrated. Since the distance from the base of the solid to each of the vertices is not equidistant, a double integral from calculus is used to determine the area under the triangular panel. The computer program Maple was used to determine the volume under a generic triangular panel. Generic values, , were used for the vertices to get the formula for , , and , while

the plane. The three vertices of the triangle are labeled . The vector from to is to is

. The normal, , is the cross product of the

vectors.

29

As stated earlier, the coefficients , , and , for the vectors , , and

are:

. Using the point , . The equation of the plane is then


(x3, y3) x

is given by
(x1, y1)

y (x2, y2)

. The notation of other point , in the

Figure 7. A projected region.

is used for the slope of the line from the point

, to the

-coordinate plane. Hence, the following slope formulas are

used to determine the slopes of the boundaries of the projected region of each face of the triangular panel onto the -plane (see Figure 17). (2) (3) . The double integral for the volume under the triangular surface is as follows: . Using Maple these double integrals were simplified to: . (5) (4)

30 Now, Eq. (5) can easily be used in any spreadsheet program. For this paper, the EXCEL spreadsheet was used to record the specific vertex points, input the above formula, and compute the volume under each triangular face of the geodesic dome. After computing the volume under each face, the volumes are then added to determine the total volume under the dome for the given frequency. The original points of a 1v geodesic dome do not get stretched because no division has occurred. The original points are , , and

. Using Eq. (5) the volume under this one panel is

. Since this is only one fourth of the 1v dome, then after multiplying that volume by four, the total volume of the 1v dome is cubic units.
y (x3, y3)

To verify Eq. (5), the slopes were found to determine the boundaries of the projected region of the sides of the triangle onto the -plane, as defined above. Using the above points and

Eqs. (2), (3), and (4), the calculated slopes of the edges in the projected region, as shown in Figure 18, are:

x (x2, y2) (x1, y1)

Figure 8. A boundary of a projected region.

The coefficients , , and , of the normal vector to the plane of the triangular face are calculated for the given points of the 1v dome:

31

. To find the constant value, , the point . then was used in Eq. (6): (6)

.
and is:

After solving Eq. (6) for , the equation to be integrated with respect to . The integral for the volume is . Since one side, zero. Integrating Eq (7):

(7)

and is aligned with the -axis, the second integral in Eq. (7) is equal to

32 This is the same value as given by Eq. (5). The volume was found using the vertices in a spreadsheet for a limited number of dome frequencies. Since other frequencies must be considered, a MATLab computer program was written in which the formula for volume was coded to compute the volume for any frequency dome. The total volumes found are listed in Table 6. As the frequency of the dome increases, the volume of the dome gets closer to the volume of a hemisphere of radius one unit which is 2.094395 cubic units. The graph in Figure 19 shows that as the frequency of the geodesic dome increases, the volume of the dome gets very close to the volume of a hemisphere, defined by the horizontal asymptote of 2.094395. Table 6 Volume of the Geodesic Dome
Frequency 1v 2v 4v 6v 8v 10v 12v 16v 20v 32v Volume .666667 1.471404 1.909744 2.008834 2.045532 2.062900 2.072440 2.082000 2.086446 2.091300

Hemisphere 2.094395

33

Figure 19. Graph of volume given the frequency of the dome.

Sphericity Sphericity is the roundness of any shape determined by the ratio of its volume to its surface area. It provides a measure the closeness a geometric shape or an object is to a sphere. The volume and surface areas are used to determine the sphericity of the dome for the various frequency domes. For a dome to have perfect sphericity, it would have the same ratio as that of the hemisphere. For a hemisphere, the sphericity is , where is the radius of the hemisphere. For this study, the radius used is one; therefore the sphericity of the domes of various frequencies should get closer to as the frequency increases. The sphericity was computed for the various frequency domes using the EXCEL spreadsheet program. However, by using the MATLab computer program, the computation of the sphericity ratio is possible for any frequency dome. Table 7 gives the frequency and

34 the sphericity of various domes of radius one, and shows that as the frequency of the dome increases, the sphericity ratio gets very close to the sphericity ratio of a hemisphere. Table 7 Sphericity of Geodesic Domes with Radius One Unit Dome Frequency 1v 2v 4v 6v 8v 10v 12v 16v 20v Hemisphere Sphericity ratio .19245 .28248 .31971 .32142 .32982 .33108 .33176 .33245 .33277 .33334 Times by 3 .57735 .84744 .95914 .96427 .98947 .99323 .99529 .99734 .99830 1.0

This study will include four rectilinear home


15

models with different volumes. There are one and


10

two-story models. The dimensions of the rectilinear


5

models are 30 ft by 30 ft and 30 ft by 15 ft. The wall height of the one-story home is 10 ft and 20 ft for the two-story home. The pitch of the roof is 8 12, so the roof height is 10 ft for the shows a one-story house and 5 ft for the
0 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15

Figure 20. A 30x15x10 Rectilinear home.

house. Figure 20

house with volume of 5625 cubic feet and surface area of

1515.83 square feet. The volume of the two-story house with the same length and width is

35 10,125 cubic feet with surface area of 2415.83 square feet. In Figure 21, this one-story rectilinear house
20

has length and width measurements of 30 ft and


15

height of 10 ft. The volume is 13,500 cubic feet and


10

the surface area is 2581.67 square feet. The volume of the two-story house with the same length and width is 22,500 cubic feet with surface area of 3781.67 square feet.

0 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 21. A 30x30x10 Rectilinear home.

Geodesic domes of various frequencies with and without 4 ft risers are included in this investigative study. To make the comparison as fair as possible, the same volume was used for the models compared. Table 8 shows the ratio of the sphericity of geodesic domes without risers compared to the sphericity of the hemisphere with the same volume. Four

Table 8 Dome Sphericity without Four Foot Riser Compared to Hemisphere Sphericity
Dome Volume 13500 5625 22500 10125 13500 5625 22500 10125 8v Freq 4v Radius 19.19 14.33 22.75 17.44 18.76 14.01 22.24 17.04 Surface Area 2200.20 1227.40 3092.80 1816.20 2182.10 1217.30 3067.40 1801.30 Sphericity 6.14 4.58 7.28 5.57 6.19 4.62 7.34 5.62 Radius 18.61 13.90 22.07 16.91 18.61 13.90 22.07 16.91 Hemisphere Sphericity 6.20 4.63 7.36 5.64 6.20 4.63 7.36 5.64 Dome to Hemisphere 0.9891 0.9891 0.9891 0.9891 0.9973 0.9973 0.9973 0.9973

36 and eight frequency domes with different volumes are included. The closer the ratio is to one, the more closely the 4v and 8v domes resemble the hemisphere. Similarly, Table 9 shows the ratio of the sphericity of the geodesic dome with risers compared to the sphericity of the hemisphere. As expected, all of the ratios of the 4v and 8v domes to the hemisphere are very close to one. The ratios for the domes without risers are independent of the volume, as all of the 4v domes without risers investigated have a ratio of 0.9891, while 8v domes without risers have a ratio of 0.9973. Since these values are closer to one than the corresponding domes with risers, they more closely resemble a hemisphere.

Table 9 Dome Sphericity with four foot riser compared to Hemisphere Sphericity
Dome Volume 13500 5625 22500 10125 13500 5625 22500 10125 8v Freq 4v Radius 17.28 12.49 20.81 15.55 16.93 12.24 20.38 15.23 Surface Area 2214.70 1243.30 3106.10 1831.40 2202.10 1236.90 3087.50 1821.30 Sphericity 6.10 4.52 7.24 5.53 6.13 4.55 7.29 5.56 Radius 18.61 13.90 22.07 16.91 18.61 13.90 22.07 16.91 Hemisphere Sphericity 6.20 4.63 7.36 5.64 6.20 4.63 7.36 5.64 Dome to Hemisphere 0.9826 0.9764 0.9849 0.9809 0.9882 0.9815 0.9908 0.9863

Table 10 shows the sphericity of the rectilinear home compared the hemisphere of the same volume. In this comparison, the one-story square, rectilinear home is closest to the hemisphere of the same volume.

37 Table 10 Sphericity of the rectilinear home


House Volume 13500 5625 22500 10125 Size 30x30x10 30x15x10 30x30x20 30x15x20 Surface Area 2581.67 1515.83 3781.67 2415.83 Sphericity 5.23 3.71 5.95 4.19 Hemisphere Radius 18.61 13.90 22.07 16.91 Sphericity 6.20 4.63 7.36 5.67 House to Hemisphere 0.8429 0.8009 0.8089 0.7436

The domes with risers have a wider ratio range and it is dependent on volume. The greater the volume of the dome with risers, the closer it resembles a hemisphere. While the ratios are close to one for the domes with and without risers, the ratio differences for the various domes investigated are minimal. The sphericity shows that whether the domes investigated had a riser wall or not, the geodesic domes more closely resemble a hemisphere than any of the rectilinear homes investigated. Energy Efficiency Heat Loss In this section, one measure of energy efficiency, the ratio of the conductive heat loss of geodesic domes to that of a rectilinear home is considered. Only conductive heat is considered, which means the air is not moving and there is no radiative heat transfer. Under these assumptions, the calculations show the percentage of heat savings. Since the geodesic dome closely resembles a hemisphere, the conjecture is that the heat loss ratio of the dome home to the rectilinear home will be less than one. If, for example, the ratio is 0.85, then the geodesic dome would use 85% of the heat that the rectilinear home uses or

38 15% less heat. For the comparison to be fair between the geodesic dome homes and the rectilinear homes, the volumes of the homes, the difference between the inside and outside temperatures of the homes, the R-values of insulation, and the exterior wall thicknesses are all taken to be the identical. The one dimensional steady state heat equation taken from Introduction to Heat Transfer (1990), assuming only conductive heat transfer is , where is the temperature and is the distance from the inside of the exterior wall. The

temperature equation after integrating twice is:

where

and are constants. If the temperature outside is 95 and the temperature inside

is 80 and the wall is 8 units thick, then

and

Therefore, the temperature is

Note that

degrees

per unit. This equation depends only on the thickness of the wall and temperature difference, so it will be the same for equal wall thicknesses. The heat flux through the wall is given by ,

39 where , where is the insulation value for the R rating, and is the surface area of

the structure. Let the heat flux for the rectilinear home be given as

and the heat flux for the geodesic dome be given as . Let equal the heat flux ratio or efficiency then

If the insulation value and thickness of the exterior walls are said to be identical, then , and . Therefore, the heat flux ratio simplifies to the ratios of the

surface areas of the dome and the rectilinear home is . (8)

Since the volumes are taken to be equal, Eq. (8) guarantees the most hemispherical homes, by this measure, will be the most energy efficient. This is because Eq. (8) is also the ratio of sphericities, if the volumes are equal. The following computations compare the heat flux values for a 4v and 8v geodesic domes with the model rectilinear homes. Table 11 records the computations of the heat flux ratios when comparing 4v and 8v geodesic domes with and without a 4-foot riser wall to rectilinear homes and a hemisphere with the same volumes. When looking at the dome to home results in Table 11, one case to be considered is the comparison of the 4v dome to the 8v dome to the same rectilinear home. The lower the ratio value, the more energy efficient the dome is said to be. The table shows that the most

40 Table 11 Heat Flux Ratios of Geodesic Domes to Rectilinear Home Dome Frequency 4v 4v 4v 4v 4v 4v 4v 4v 8v 8v 8v 8v 8v 8v 8v 8v 30x15x20 10125 30x30x20 22500 30x15x10 5625 30x30x10 13500 30x15x20 10125 30x30x20 22500 30x15x10 5625 Rectilinear Home 30x30x10 Volume Riser Wall No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Dome Surface Area 2200.20 2214.70 1227.40 1243.30 3092.80 3106.10 1816.20 1831.40 2182.10 2202.10 1217.30 1236.90 3067.40 3087.50 1801.30 1821.30 Rectilinear Surface Area 2581.67 2581.67 1515.83 1515.83 3781.67 3781.67 2415.83 2415.83 2581.67 2581.67 1515.83 1515.83 3781.67 3781.67 2415.83 2415.83 Dome to Home 0.8522 0.8579 0.8097 0.8202 0.8178 0.8214 0.7518 0.7581 0.8452 0.8530 0.8031 0.8160 0.8111 0.8164 0.7456 0.7539

13500

energy efficient dome, when compared to the rectilinear home with the same volume, is the 8v dome without a riser wall. For example, the ratio for the 8v dome to the rectilinear twostory home is 74.56% which shows that the geodesic dome uses 74.56% of the heat that the two-story, rectangular, rectilinear home uses. The ratios in Table 11 also show that the

41 4v dome without a riser wall when compared to the same house uses 75.18% of the heat that the rectilinear home uses and is 24.82% more energy efficient. Between the two domes without a riser wall, the ratios show that the 8v dome is more energy efficient. Therefore, the conclusion in this case is that the greater the frequency of the dome, the more energy efficient it is. When comparing the 8v dome without a riser wall to the 8v dome with a riser wall with the same volume, the ratios show that all of the domes without a riser wall are more energy efficient than the domes with a riser wall for all of the volumes included in this study. The greater the ratio the more heat the model loses and the less energy efficient it is. The data shows similar results for the 4v dome with and without a riser wall. Therefore, in this comparison, domes without a riser wall are more energy efficient. When looking at the different rectilinear models included in this study and recorded in Table 11, the square rectilinear one-story home is more energy efficient than the square two-story home. Comparing the surface area of the one-story surface area of the two-story home with the

home, the ratio shows that the one-story home

is more energy efficient because it uses 68.268% less heat than the two-story home uses. Comparing the surface area of the one-story the two-story home with the surface area of

home, the ratio shows that the one-story home is more energy

efficient because it uses 62.746% less heat than the two-story home uses. Therefore, the one-story, , rectilinear home is said to be more energy efficient.

In conclusion, the ratios in Table 11 show that since the heat flux ratio is a value less than one, the 8v geodesic dome home without a riser wall is said to be more energy efficient than the rectilinear homes. Mathematically it is shown that as the frequency of the

42 dome increases, the more energy efficient the geodesic dome. It has also been shown that as the frequency increases, the sphericity ratio of the dome approaches the sphericity ratio of the hemisphere. As the frequency of the dome increases, the geodesic dome becomes more spherical and more energy efficient. Wind Resistance The force imparted on a structure by a straight line wind is approximated by using the formula:

where

is the force imparted on the home,

is the force per unit area of the wind, and

is the projected surface area of the structure perpendicular to the wind. For this paper, the wind speed is said to be equal for both structures. Let the rectilinear structure and equal the force imparted upon

equal the force on the geodesic dome then and .

The ratio of the force on the dome to the force on the rectilinear home is then . (9)

A ratio value of less than one indicates that the geodesic dome home is more wind resistant while a ratio value of greater than one indicates that the rectilinear home is more wind resistant. This study will limit the projected area computations to that of three views of one and two-story rectilinear homes with a height of ten units per story. Since the visual view of the one and two-story models are similar, only the one-story model is shown in the figures. The frontal and left side view is shown in Figure 22 of the rectilinear home.

43 View 1, shown in Figure 23, is at an angle perpendicular to the diagonal of the rectangular base of the home. View 2 is the front of the house with the triangular gable end visible (see Figure 24). View 3 is the side of the house and
20

lengthwise view of the roof and can be seen in


15

Figure 25. The figures show the height of 10


10

feet for the one-story house. Using the models


5

in the different views, the angle for each size


0 30 20

home is the same for each view, but the height of the two-story house is 20 ft. While it is necessary

10 0 0 5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 22. A 30x30x10 Rectilinear home.

to consider multiple views of the rectilinear homes, only one view is necessary when viewing the geodesic dome home. While there may be some variations to the geodesic dome structure, the geodesic dome in this study closely resembles a hemisphere and will produce approximately the same projected area at any angle. The projected area of the geodesic dome will be computed with and without the four-foot riser wall. To measure the wind resistance ratio, the projected area of the structure is the visible area seen at a fixed angle, like taking a picture. The projected area of the geodesic dome is calculated using the MATLab program which computes the projected area for the dome with a specific radius either with or without a riser wall.
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30 20 10 0 10 20 30

Figure 23. View 1: A 30x30x10 Rectilinear home.

The radius is chosen so that the volume is the same as the rectilinear home.

44 Figure 22 shows a drawing of a one-story model rectilinear home used in this paper with outside dimensions in feet, volume of this one-story home equals and with a roof pitch ratio of 8:12. The cubic feet.

View 1 in Figure 23 is the left and front sides of the home visible at an angle perpendicular to the diagonal of the rectangular base. The projected area of the home is computed by adding the surface area of the two faces with lengths 30 ft, multiplying by and adding that value to the area of the roof, which appears

trapezoidal at this angle. The height of the roof is 10 ft and lengths of 60 feet and 30 feet multiplied by cosine of the angle ( One-story: square feet. Two-story: square feet. The projected area of this view for the one-story house equals projected area of this view for the two-story house equals square feet. The square feet. ).

Using View 1 in Figure 23, the left and front sides of the home are visible at a 45 degree angle, but for the a rectilinear home the projected area of the roof is visible at

degree angle. At this angle, the roof appears to be trapezoidal. The projected

area is computed by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the length, 30 ft and width, 15 ft and multiplying that value by the height of 10 added to the area of the trapezoidal roof. At this angle, the trapezoidal roof has lengths of the square root of the sum of the squares of the length, 30 ft and width, 15 ft plus length, 30 ft multiplied by . After adding the base lengths together, divide by two and multiply by the

45 roof height of 5. One-story: square feet. Two-story: square feet. The projected area of this view for the one-story house equals 486.344756 square feet. The projected area of this view for the two-story house equals 821.75495 square feet. View 2, as seen in Figure 24, is the frontal view of the home. The projected area equals 450 square feet for the one-story square house which includes the rectangular wall and the triangular gable end. The projected area of this view for the two story house equals 750 square feet. One-story: Two-story: The projected area of the one-story
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 40 20

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 24. View 2: A 30X30X10 Rectilinear home.

square feet. square feet. rectilinear home in Figure 24 is 187.5

square feet and the projected area of this view for the two-story house equals 337.5 square feet. Since the gable end is on the side of the home where the length is 15 ft, the roof height is only 5 feet. One-story: Two-story: square feet. square feet.

46 View 3 in Figure 25 shows the projected area of the left side of the home which includes the left side of the home and the lengthwise side of the roof. The projected area of this view for the one-story house equals 600 square feet and 900 square feet for the two-story house. One-story: Two-story: The projected area of the One-story: Two-story:

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20 40

Figure 25. View 3: A 30x30x10 Rectilinear home.

square feet. square feet. rectilinear homes from this view are square feet. square feet.

Tables 12 and 13 show the wind resistance ratios when comparing the projected area of 4v and 8v domes with and without risers to three different views of rectilinear homes, and then to hemispheres with the same volumes. The discussion of this study is limited to the following projected area ratio comparisons: the 4v dome compared to the different rectilinear views, the 8v dome compared to the different rectilinear views, the 4v dome compared to the hemisphere, the 8v dome compared to the hemisphere, the different views of the rectilinear home compared to the hemisphere of same volume, and rectilinear homes compared with one another. When comparing the 4v dome to the different views of the rectilinear home, Table 12 shows that the 4v dome without a riser wall is most wind resistant when compared to View 1 of the homes with volume 10,125 cubic feet, which results in a ratio of 0.565. Therefore, the 4v dome is 56.5% more wind resistant than the two-story

47 rectangular home. When comparing the 4v dome with a riser wall to the same rectilinear home in View 1, the ratio is 0.6003, which is slightly different, but greater than the ratio without the riser wall. The dome is 60% more wind resistant than the rectilinear home. Therefore, the 4v dome without a riser wall is slightly more wind resistant than the dome with a riser wall. When comparing the 8v dome to the different views of the rectilinear home, Table 13 shows that the 8v dome without a riser wall is most wind resistant when compared to View 1 of the homes with volume 10,125 cubic feet, which results in a ratio of 0.5512. Therefore, the 8v dome is 55.12% more wind resistant than the two-story rectangular home in View 1. When comparing the 8v dome with a riser wall to the same rectilinear home in View 1, the ratio is 0.58868. In general, not having a riser wall makes the dome more wind resistant. Also, it can be said that the 8v dome without a riser wall is more wind resistant than the 4v dome. To briefly mention View 2, Table 12 shows the ratios for the 4v dome without a riser wall and Table 13 shows the ratios for the 8v dome without a riser wall are similar and are close to but greater than one. The ratio for the 4v dome without a riser wall is 1.67328 and with a riser wall the ratio is 1.80295. The ratio for the 8v dome without a riser wall is 1.63260 and with a riser wall the ratio is 1.76934. This means that in this case for this view, the rectilinear home is more wind resistant because all of the ratios are greater than one. According to this comparison for this view, the best rectilinear home choice said to be more wind resistant is the rectangular, one-story rectilinear home with volume 5625 cubic feet.

48 Table 12 Projected Area Ratio Computations of 4v Domes to Rectilinear Homes.


Rectilinear Home 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 Volume Riser Wall No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes PA Dome Rectilinear Home View 1 View 1 View 1 View 1 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 3 View 3 View 3 View 3 View 1 View 1 View 1 View 1 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 3 View 3 View 3 View 3 PA Home PA Hemisphere 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 Dome to Home 0.7575 0.6776 0.6451 0.5650 1.2498 1.0541 1.6733 1.3756 0.9373 0.8784 0.6972 0.6190 0.8002 0.7094 0.6951 0.6003 1.3203 1.1036 1.8030 1.4617 0.9902 0.9197 0.7512 0.6578

13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125

562.40 790.58 313.74 464.26 562.40 790.58 313.74 464.26 562.40 790.58 313.74 464.26 594.13 827.69 338.05 493.33 594.13 827.69 338.05 493.33 594.13 827.69 338.05 493.33

742.46 1166.73 486.34 821.75 450.00 750.00 187.50 337.50 600.00 900.00 450.00 750.00 742.46 1166.73 486.34 821.75 450.00 750.00 187.50 337.50 600.00 900.00 450.00 750.00

49 Table 13 Projected Area Ratio Computations of 8v Domes to Rectilinear Homes


Rectilinear Home 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 Volume 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 13500 22500 5625 10125 Riser Wall No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes PA Dome 548.72 771.34 306.11 452.97 548.72 771.34 306.11 452.97 548.72 771.34 306.11 452.97 582.38 810.86 331.75 483.75 582.38 810.86 331.75 483.75 582.38 810.86 331.75 483.75 Rectilinear Home View 1 View 1 View 1 View 1 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 3 View 3 View 3 View 3 View 1 View 1 View 1 View 1 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 2 View 3 View 3 View 3 View 3 PA Home 742.46 1166.73 486.34 821.75 450.00 750.00 187.50 337.50 600.00 900.00 450.00 750.00 742.46 1166.73 486.34 821.75 450.00 750.00 187.50 337.50 600.00 900.00 450.00 750.00 PA Hemisphere 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 303.50 449.10 Dome to Home 0.7391 0.6611 0.6294 0.5512 1.2194 1.0285 1.6326 1.3421 0.9145 0.8571 0.6803 0.6040 0.7843 0.6950 0.6821 0.5887 1.2942 1.0812 1.7693 1.4333 0.9706 0.9010 0.7372 0.6450

50 The same conclusion is made about View 3 of the rectilinear home as was made about View 1 when comparing it to the domes investigated. When comparing the 4v dome to View 3, Table 12 shows that the 4v dome without a riser wall is most wind resistant when compared to View 3 of the homes with volume 10,125 cubic feet, which results in a ratio of 0.61902. With this ratio, the 4v dome is 61.9% more wind resistant than the twostory rectilinear home. When comparing the 4v dome with a riser wall to the same rectilinear home in View 3, again, the 4v dome without a riser wall is more wind resistant. Table 13 shows that the 8v dome without a riser wall is most wind resistant when compared to View 3 of the homes with volume 10,125 cubic feet. The 8v dome is 60.395% more wind resistant than the two-story rectangular home in View 3. With the riser wall, the dome is 64.5% more wind resistant than the rectilinear home. Again, the 8v dome without a riser wall is said to be more wind resistant than the 8v dome with a riser wall. Also, it can be said that the 8v dome with or without a riser wall is more wind resistant than the 4v dome for View 3. According to the ratios in Tables 12 and 13, the conclusion made is that the 4v dome without a riser wall is more wind resistant than the rectilinear homes as seen in views one and three, the 8v dome without a riser wall is more wind resistant that the 4v dome. Earlier, it was shown that the sphericity of the 8v dome is closer to the sphericity of the hemisphere than the rectilinear home which implies the dome is more spherical. Likewise, the same pattern is followed, so in general, it can be said that the more closely a structure resembles a hemisphere, the more wind resistant it is. However, this is only true on average since in one of the views (View 2) the rectilinear home was more wind resistant.

51 CONCLUSION Since verifiable statistical data do not exist, the investigator cannot make an inference that geodesic dome homes are more resistant to hurricanes and other natural phenomena. However, simulations and observations from hurricane disaster scenes do suggest that the geodesic dome structures suffer far less destruction than rectilinear structures. The hypothesis is that geodesic domes are more energy efficient and more wind resistant because they more closely resemble a hemisphere. The frequency of the geodesic dome was a very vital part of this study, it was revealed that by letting the frequency of the dome equal , and then the number of triangles on one face of the dome equals . As the frequency increased, the number of

triangles increased, and the dome becomes more hemispherical due to this increase. Sphericity ratios of various geodesic domes with and without a riser walls and rectilinear models were computed and compared with the sphericity ratios of various hemispheres. These ratios are listed in Table 14. The sphericity of the 8v dome without a riser wall is 99.7% and is closest to the sphericity of the hemisphere of 100%, which shows the 8v dome to be the most spherical of all of the models investigated. When the dome includes a riser wall, then volume is a factor that must be considered. The largest 8v dome with a riser wall is next closest with a ratio of 99.08%. The 8v domes with and without a riser wall are more spherical than the 4v dome, then this demonstrates that the greater the frequency of the dome, the more spherical it is. When volume is a factor, then the greater the volume of dome with the riser wall, and the more spherical the dome is. The data from this part of the investigation as shown in Table 14, shows that domes with or without riser walls more closely resemble a hemisphere than the rectilinear homes of the same volume.

52 Various rectilinear models were included in this investigation. The sphericity ratios of the rectilinear homes are recorded in Table 14 which shows the results that range from 74.36% to 84.29%. The one-story, square rectilinear home is shown to be most spherical than any of the rectilinear models investigated with a ratio of 84.29%. The least spherical is the , two-story rectangular home with a ratio of 74.36%.

Table 14 Most to Least Spherical Model Most spherical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dome Frequency 8v 8v 4v 8v 8v 4v 4v 8v 4v 4v 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 Volume/Riser Wall No 22500/yes No 13500/yes 10125yes 22500/yes 13500/yes 5625/yes 10125yes 5625/yes 13500 22500 5625 10125 Ratio to Hemisphere 0.9973 0.9908 0.9891 0.9882 0.9863 0.9849 0.9826 0.9815 0.9809 0.9764 0.8429 0.8089 0.8009 0.7436

All of the calculations to determine energy efficiency can be seen in Table 11, and Table 15 which shows the most to least energy efficient structure was created using those

53 calculations. In Table 15, the ratio of the 4v dome without a riser wall to the hemisphere is 1.011, but the ratio of the 8v dome without a riser wall is 1.0027. While both of these ratios are very close to one, the ratio of the 8v dome is closer to one and is said to more energy efficient. A ratio of 1.0027 means the dome would use 0.27% more energy than a hemisphere of the same volume. Table 15 also shows that all of the domes with or without a riser wall are more energy efficient than any of the rectilinear homes. When comparing the 8v domes with the 4v domes of the same volume, the 8v domes with and without riser walls are more energy efficient. Therefore, the 8v dome is shown to be the most energy efficient of all of the models investigated. Since Tables 14 and 15 are in the same order, this means that the hypothesis that the more spherical implies more energy efficient is true. In fact, this is a direct consequence of Eq. (8). In this study, the wind resistance ratio was calculated for various geodesic dome models compared to various rectilinear models. Only one view of the geodesic dome and hemisphere were investigated, but there are three different views that are included in this investigation of the various rectilinear models. All of the calculations to determine the wind resistance ratios can be seen in Table 12 for the 4v dome and Table 13 for the 8v dome. Table 16 shows the structures which are arranged from most wind resistant to least wind resistant when comparing all of the investigated models with the wind resistance of a hemisphere. According to Table 16, View 2 of the one-story rectangular home is shown to have the smallest ratio when compared to the hemisphere which shows that this view is more wind resistant than the other models investigated. The side of the rectangular home visible in View 2 has the smallest amount of projected area of all of the models investigated.

54 Table 15 Most to Least Energy Efficient Model


Most energy efficient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dome/Home 8v 8v 4v 8v 8v 4v 4v 8v 4v 4v 30x30x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 Volume/ Riser Wall No 22500/yes No 13500/yes 10125/yes 22500/yes 13500/yes 5625/yes 10125/yes 5625/yes 13500 22500 5625 10125 Dome/Home Surface Area 3067.40 3087.50 3092.80 2202.10 1821.30 3106.10 2214.70 1236.90 1831.40 1243.30 2581.67 3781.67 1515.83 2415.83 Hemisphere Surface Area 3059.12 3059.12 3059.12 2176.19 1796.41 3059.12 2176.19 1214.01 1796.40 1214.01 2176.19 3059.12 1214.01 1796.40 Ratio to Hemisphere 1.0027 1.0093 1.0110 1.0119 1.0139 1.0154 1.0177 1.0189 1.0195 1.0241 1.1863 1.2362 1.2486 1.3448

Only View 2 of the rectilinear homes investigated will fare better when experiencing a straight line wind than the geodesic dome. When comparing the investigated domes and homes to the hemisphere, the ratio of the 8v dome without a riser wall is 1.0086, which is closest to one. Therefore, the geodesic dome home with the greater frequency is said to be more wind resistant on average, in two of the three views used than a rectilinear home. The ratio of 1.0086 means the dome would experience a 0.86% greater force from a straight line wind, neglecting aerodynamics, than a hemisphere of the same volume.

55 Table 16 Most to Least Wind Resistant Model


Most wind resistant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Dome/Home 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x30x10 30x30x20 8v 4v 8v 8v 8v 4v 4v 8v 4v 30x30x10 4v 30x30x20 30x30x10 30x15x10 30x30x20 30x15x10 30x15x20 30x15x20 Volume/Riser Wall or View 5625/V2 10125/V2 13500/V2 22500/V2 No No 22500/Yes 13500/Yes 10125/Yes 22500/yes 13500/Yes 5625/Yes 10125/Yes 13500/V3 5625/Yes 22500V3 13500/V1 5625/V3 22500/V1 5625/V1 10125/V3 10125/V1 Projected Area Dome/Home 187.50 337.50 450.00 750.00 548.72 313.74 810.86 582.38 483.75 827.69 594.13 331.75 493.33 600.00 338.05 900.00 742.46 450.00 1166.73 486.34 750.00 821.75 Projected Area Hemisphere 303.50 449.10 544.05 764.78 544.05 303.50 764.78 544.05 449.10 764.78 544.05 303.50 449.10 544.05 303.50 764.78 544.05 303.50 764.78 303.50 449.10 449.10 Ratio to Hemisphere 0.6178 0.7515 0.8271 0.9807 1.0086 1.0337 1.0603 1.0705 1.0771 1.0823 1.0921 1.0931 1.0985 1.1028 1.1138 1.1768 1.3647 1.4827 1.5256 1.6024 1.6700 1.8298

56 In conclusion, from Table 14 and earlier calculations, the higher the frequency of the dome the more spherical is the dome. By comparing Tables 14 and 15, the more spherical the model the more energy efficient is the model. Similarly, by comparing Tables 14 and 16, the more spherical the model the more wind resistant (on average) is the model.

57

APPENDICES

58 Appendix A Calculations for the One-Frequency Dome Original Points Magnitude x y Z P11 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 P21 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 P22 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

New Points x y 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

z 1.00 0.00 0.00

Volume P11 P21 P22

Surface Area 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 P11P21 P21P22 i 1.00 -1.00 j 0.00 1.00 k -1.00 0.00

Volume of one face 0.167 Total Volume of 1v Dome 0.667 Sphericity of the 1v dome 0.193

Surface Area of one face 0.866 Total Surface Area of 1v Dome 3.464

59 Appendix B Calculations for the Two-Frequency Dome


Original Points x P11 P21 P31 P22 P32 P33 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 z 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.0000 0.7071 1.0000 0.7071 0.7071 1.0000 Magnitude x 0.0000 0.7071 1.0000 0.0000 0.7071 0.0000 New Points y 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7071 0.7071 1.0000 z 1.0000 0.7071 0.0000 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000

Volume of symmetric faces P11 P21 P22 0.0000 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7071 1.0000 0.7071 0.7071

Surface Area of symmetric faces i P11P21 P21P22 0.7071 -0.7071 j 0.0000 0.7071 k -0.2929 0.0000

One face 0.2012 P21 P31 P32 0.7071 1.0000 0.7071

Four faces 0.81 0.0000 0.0000 0.7071 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000

One face 0.2897 i P31P21 P32P31 0.2929 -0.2929 j

Four faces 1.16 k -0.7071 0.0000

0.0000 0.7071

Two faces 0.0244 P21 P22 P32 0.7071 0.0000 0.7071

Eight faces 0.2 0.0000 0.7071 0.7071 0.7071 0.7071 0.0000

Two Faces 0.2897 i P22P21 P32P22 -0.7071 0.7071

Eight faces 2.32 j 0.7071 0.0000 k 0.0000 -0.7071

One face 0.1179

Four faces 0.47

One face 0.4330

Four faces 1.73

Total Volume of the 2v Dome 1.48 Sphericity of the 2v Dome 0.28

Total Surface Area of the 2v Dome 5.21

60 Appendix C Calculations for the Four-Frequency Dome


Original Points x P11 P21 P22 P31 P32 P33 P41 P42 P43 P44 P51 P52 P53 P54 P55 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 z 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0000 0.7906 0.7906 0.7071 0.6124 0.7071 0.7906 0.6124 0.6124 0.7906 1.0000 0.7906 0.7071 0.7906 1.0000 Magnitude x 0.0000 0.3162 0.0000 0.7071 0.4082 0.0000 0.9487 0.8165 0.4082 0.0000 1.0000 0.9487 0.7071 0.3162 0.0000 New Points y 0.0000 0.0000 0.3162 0.0000 0.4082 0.7071 0.0000 0.4082 0.8165 0.9487 0.0000 0.3162 0.7071 0.9487 1.0000 z 1.0000 0.9487 0.9487 0.7071 0.8165 0.7071 0.3162 0.4082 0.4082 0.3162 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Volume of Symmetric Faces P11 P21 P22 0.0000 0.3162 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3162 1.0000 0.9487 0.9487

Surface Area of Symmetric Faces AAB P11P21 P21P22 i 0.3162 -0.3162 j 0.0000 0.3162 k -0.0513 0.0000

One face 0.0483

Four faces 0.19

One face 0.0513

Four faces 0.21

61 Appendix C, continued
Volume of Symmetric Faces P21 P31 P32 0.3162 0.7071 0.4082 0.0000 0.0000 0.4082 0.9487 0.7071 0.8165 Surface Area of Symmetric Faces CDF P31P21 P32P31 i 0.3909 -0.2989 j 0.0000 0.4082 k -0.2416 0.1094

One face 0.0658 P22 P32 P33

Four faces =0.26 0.3162 0.4082 0.7071 0.9487 0.8165 0.7071

One face=0.0949 CDF P32P22 P33P32 i 0.4082 -0.4082 j

Four faces =0.38 k -0.1322 -0.1094

0.0000 0.4082 0.0000

0.0920 0.2989

One face=0.0658 P21 P22 P32 0.3162 0.0000 0.4082

Four faces =0.26 0.0000 0.3162 0.4082 0.9487 0.9487 0.8165

One face=0.0949 CCB P22P21 P32P22 i -0.3162 0.4082 j

Four faces =0.38 k 0.0000 -0.1322

0.3162 0.0920

One face=0.0716 P31 P41 P42 0.7071 0.9487 0.8165

Four faces =0.29 0.0000 0.0000 0.4082 0.7071 0.3162 0.4082

One face=0.0844 CDF P41P31 P42P41 i 0.2416 -0.1322 j

Four faces =0.34 k -0.3909 0.0920

0.0000 0.4082

One face=0.0235 P33 P43 P44 0.0000 0.4082 0.0000

Four faces =0.09 0.7071 0.8165 0.9487 0.7071 0.4082 0.3162

One face=0.0949 CDF P43P33 P44P43 i 0.4082 -0.4082 j

Four faces =0.38 k -0.2989 -0.0920

0.1094 0.1322

One face=0.0235 P31 P32 P42 0.7071 0.4082 0.8165

Four faces =0.09 0.0000 0.4082 0.4082 0.7071 0.8165 0.4082

One face=0.0949 DDE P32P31 P42P32 i -0.2989 0.4082 J

Four faces =0.38 k 0.1094 -0.4082

0.4082 0.0000

One face=0.0537

Four faces =0.21

One face=0.1240

Four faces =0.50

62 Appendix C, continued
Volume of Symmetric Faces Surface Area of Symmetric Faces

P32 P33 P43

0.4082 0.0000 0.4082

0.4082 0.7071 0.8165

0.8165 0.7071 0.4082

DDE P32P31 P42P32

i -0.4082 0.4082

j 0.2989 0.1094

k -0.1094 -0.2989

One face=0.0537 P32 P42 P43 0.4082 0.8165 0.4082

Four faces =0.21 0.4082 0.4082 0.8165 0.8165 0.4082 0.4082

One face=0.1240 EEE P42P32 P43P42 i 0.4082 -0.4082 j

Four faces =0.50 k -0.4082 0.0000

0.0000 0.4082

One face=0.0454 P41 P51 P52 0.9487 1.0000 0.9487

Four faces =0.18 0.0000 0.0000 0.3162 0.3162 0.0000 0.0000

One face=0.1443 ABA P51P41 P52P51 i 0.0513 -0.0513 j

Four faces =0.58 k -0.3162 0.0000

0.0000 0.3162

One face=0.0009 P44 P54 P55 0.0000 0.3162 0.0000

Four faces =0.003 0.9487 0.9487 1.0000 0.3162 0.0000 0.0000

One face=0.0513 ABA P54P44 P55P54 i 0.3162 -0.3162 j

Four faces =0.21 k -0.3162 0.0000

0.0000 0.0513

One face=0.0009 P41 P42 P52 0.9487 0.8165 0.9487

Four faces =0.003 0.0000 0.4082 0.3162 0.3162 0.4082 0.0000

One face=0.0513 CCB P52P41 P42P52 I -0.1322 0.1322 j

Four faces =0.21 k 0.0920 -0.4082

0.4082 -0.0920

One face=0.0050 P43 P44 P54 0.4082 0.0000 0.3162

Four faces =0.02 0.8165 0.9487 0.9487 0.4082 0.3162 0.0000

One face=0.0844 CCB P44P43 P54P44 I -0.4082 0.3162 j

Four faces =0.34 k -0.0920 -0.3162

0.1322 0.0000

One face=0.0050

Four faces =0.02

One face=0.0844

Four faces =0.34

63

Appendix C, continued
Volume of Symmetric Faces P42 P52 P53 0.8165 0.9487 0.7071 0.4082 0.3162 0.7071 0.4082 0.0000 0.0000 Surface Area of Symmetric Faces CDF P52P42 P53P52 i 0.1322 -0.2416 j -0.0920 0.3909 k -0.4082 0.0000

One face=0.0020 P43 P53 P54 0.4082 0.7071 0.3162

Four faces =0.01 0.8165 0.7071 0.9487 0.4082 0.0000 0.0000

One face=0.0949 CDF P53P43 P54P53 i 0.2989 -0.3909 j

Four faces =0.38 k -0.4082 0.0000

-0.1094 0.2416

One face=0.0020 P42 P43 P53 0.8165 0.4082 0.7071

Four faces =0.01 0.4082 0.8165 0.7071 0.4082 0.4082 0.0000

One face=0.0949 DDE P43P42 P53P43 i -0.4082 0.2989 j

Four faces =0.38 k 0.0000 -0.4082

0.4082 -0.1094

Total Volume of the 4v Dome 1.91 Sphericity of the 4v Dome 0.3197

One face=0.0105

Four faces =0.04

One face=0.1240

Four faces =0.50

Total Surface Area of the 4v Dome 5.97

64 Appendix D Calculations of the Six Frequency Dome


Original Points x P11 P21 P22 P31 P32 P33 P41 P42 P43 P44 P51 P52 P53 P54 P55 P61 P62 P63 P64 P65 P66 P71 P72 P73 0.0000 0.1667 0.0000 0.3333 0.1667 0.0000 0.5000 0.3333 0.1667 0.0000 0.6667 0.5000 0.3333 0.1667 0.0000 0.8333 0.6667 0.5000 0.3333 0.1667 0.0000 1.0000 0.8333 0.6667 y 0.0000 0.0000 0.1667 0.0000 0.1667 0.3333 0.0000 0.1667 0.3333 0.5000 0.0000 0.1667 0.3333 0.5000 0.6667 0.0000 0.1667 0.3333 0.5000 0.6667 0.8333 0.0000 0.1667 0.3333 z 1.0000 0.8333 0.8333 0.6667 0.6667 0.6667 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.8498 0.8498 0.7454 0.7071 0.7454 0.7071 0.6236 0.6236 0.7071 0.7454 0.6236 0.5773 0.6236 0.7454 0.8498 0.7071 0.6236 0.6236 0.7071 0.8498 1.0000 0.8498 0.7454 Magnitude x 0.0000 0.1961 0.0000 0.4472 0.2357 0.0000 0.7071 0.5345 0.2673 0.0000 0.8944 0.8018 0.5774 0.2673 0.0000 0.9806 0.9428 0.8018 0.5345 0.2357 0.0000 1.0000 0.9806 0.8944 New Points y 0.0000 0.0000 0.1961 0.0000 0.2357 0.4472 0.0000 0.2673 0.5345 0.7071 0.0000 0.2673 0.5774 0.8018 0.8944 0.0000 0.2357 0.5345 0.8018 0.9428 0.9806 0.0000 0.1961 0.4472 z 1.0000 0.9806 0.9806 0.8944 0.9428 0.8944 0.7071 0.8018 0.8018 0.7071 0.4472 0.5345 0.5774 0.5345 0.4472 0.1961 0.2357 0.2673 0.2673 0.2357 0.1961 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

65 Appendix D, continued
Original Points x P74 P75 P76 P77 0.5000 0.3333 0.1667 0.0000 y 0.5000 0.6667 0.8333 1.0000 z 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7071 0.7454 0.8498 1.0000 Magnitude x 0.7071 0.4472 0.1961 0.0000 New Points y 0.7071 0.8944 0.9806 1.0000 z 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Volume of Symmetric Faces P11 P21 P22 0.0000 0.1961 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1961 1.0000 0.9806 0.9806

Surface Area of Symmetric Faces ABA P21P11 P22P21 i 0.1961 -0.1961 j 0.0000 0.1961 k -0.0194 0.0000

One face 0.0190 P61 P71 P72 0.9806 1.0000 0.9806

Four faces 0.08 0.0000 0.0000 0.1961 0.1961 0.0000 0.0000

One face 0.0194 ABA i P71P61 P72P71

Four faces 0.08 j 0.0000 0.1961 k -0.1961 0.0000

0.0194 -0.0194

One face 0.0001 P66 P76 P77 0.0000 0.1961 0.0000

0.9806 0.9806 1.0000

Four faces 0.0005 0.1961 0.0000 0.0000

One face 0.0194 ABA P76P66 P77P76 i 0.1961 -0.1961

Four faces 0.08 k -0.1961 0.0000

0.0000 0.0194

One face 0.0001 P21 P31 P32

0.1961 0.4472 0.2357

0.0000 0.0000 0.2357

Four faces 0.0005 0.9806 0.8944 0.9428

One face 0.0194 CDE P31P21 P32P31 i 0.2511 -0.2115

Four faces 0.08 j k -0.0862 0.0484

0.0000 0.2357

One face=0.0278

Four faces=0.11

One face=0.0314

Four faces=0.13

66 Appendix D, continued
Volume of Symmetric Faces P22 P32 P33 0.0000 0.2357 0.0000 0.1961 0.2357 0.4472 0.9806 0.9428 0.8944 Surface Area of Symmetric Faces CDE P32P22 P33P32 i 0.2357 -0.2357 j 0.0396 0.2115 k -0.0378 -0.0484

One face=0.0278 P51 P61 P62 0.8944 0.9806 0.9428

Four faces=0.11 0.0000 0.0000 0.2357 0.4472 0.1961 0.2357

One face=0.0314 CDE P61P51 P62P61 i 0.0861 -0.0378 j

Four faces=0.13 k -0.2511 0.0396

0.0000 0.2357

One face=0.0030 P55 P65 P66 0.0000 0.2357 0.0000

Four faces=0.011 0.8944 0.9428 0.9806 0.4472 0.2357 0.1961

One face=0.0314 CDE P65P55 P66P65 i 0.2357 -0.2357

Four faces=0.13 j 0.0484 0.0378 k -0.2115 -0.0396

One face=0.0030 P62 P72 P73 0.9428 0.9806 0.8944

Four faces=0.011 0.2357 0.1961 0.4472 0.2357 0.0000 0.0000

One face=0.0314 CDE P72P62 P73P72 i 0.0378 -0.0861

Four faces=0.13 j -0.0396 0.2511 k -0.2357 0.0000

One face=0.0002 P65 P75 P76 0.2357 0.4472 0.1961

Four faces=0.001 0.9428 0.8944 0.9806 0.2357 0.0000 0.0000

One face=0.0314 CDE P75P65 P76P75 i 0.2115 -0.2511

Four faces=0.13 j -0.0484 0.0861 k -0.2357 0.0000

One face=0.0002 P21 P22 P32 0.1961 0.0000 0.2357

Four faces=0.001 0.0000 0.1961 0.2357 0.9806 0.9806 0.9428

One face=0.0314 CCB P22P21 P32P22 i -0.1961 0.2357

Four faces=0.13 j 0.1961 0.0396 k 0.0000 -0.0378

One face=0.0261

Four faces=0.11

One face=0.0275

Four faces=0.11

67 Appendix D, continued
Volume of the Symmetric Faces P61 P62 P72 0.9806 0.9428 0.9806 0.0000 0.2357 0.1961 0.1961 0.2357 0.0000 Surface Area of the Symmetric Faces CCB P62P61 P72P62 i -0.0378 0.0378 j 0.2357 -0.0396 k 0.0396 -0.2357

One face=0.0005 P65 P66 P76 0.2357 0.0000 0.1961

Four faces=0.002 0.9428 0.9806 0.9806 0.2357 0.1961 0.0000

One face=0.0275 CCB P66P65 P76P66 i -0.2357 0.1961 j

Four faces=0.11 k -0.0396 -0.1961

0.0378 0.0000

One face=0.0005 P31 P41 P42 0.4472 0.7071 0.5345

Four faces=0.002 0.0000 0.0000 0.2673 0.8944 0.7071 0.8018

One face=0.0275 DFG P41P31 P42P41 i 0.2599 -0.1726 j

Four faces=0.11 k -0.1873 0.0947

0.0000 0.2673

One face=0.0278 P33 P43 P44 0.0000 0.2673 0.0000

Four faces=0.11 0.4472 0.5345 0.7071 0.8944 0.8018 0.7071

One face=0.0430 DFG P43P33 P44P43 i 0.2673 -0.2673 j

Four faces=0.17 k -0.0926 -0.0947

0.0873 0.1726

One face=0.0278 P31 P32 P42 0.4472 0.2357 0.5345

Four faces=0.11 0.0000 0.2357 0.2673 0.8944 0.9428 0.8018

One face=0.0430 DFG P32P31 P42P32 i -0.2115 0.2988

Four faces=0.17 j 0.2357 0.0316 k 0.0484 -0.1410

One face=0.0339 P32 P33 P43 0.2357 0.0000 0.2673

Four faces=0.14 0.2357 0.4472 0.5345 0.9428 0.8944 0.8018

One face=0.0430 DFG P33P32 P43P33 i -0.2357 0.2673 j

Four faces=0.17 k -0.0484 -0.0926

0.2115 0.0873

One face=0.0339

Four faces=0.14

One face=0.0430

Four faces=0.17

68 Appendix D, continued
Volume of the Symmetric Faces P41 P51 P52 0.7071 0.8944 0.8018 0.0000 0.0000 0.2673 0.7071 0.4472 0.5345 Surface Area of the Symmetric Faces DFG P51P41 P52P51 i 0.1873 -0.0926 j 0.0000 0.2673 k -0.2599 0.0873

One face=0.0141 P44 P54 P55 0.0000 0.2673 0.0000

Four faces=0.06 0.7071 0.8018 0.8944 0.7071 0.5345 0.4472

One face=0.0430 DFG P54P44 P55P54 i 0.2673 -0.2673

Four faces=0.17 j 0.0947 0.0926 k -0.1726 -0.0873

One face=0.0141 P51 P52 P62 0.8944 0.8018 0.9428

Four faces=0.06 0.0000 0.2673 0.2357 0.4472 0.5345 0.2357

One face=0.0430 DFG P52P51 P62P52 i -0.0926 0.1410

Four faces=0.17 J 0.2673 -0.0316 k 0.0873 -0.2988

One face=0.0071 P54 P55 P65 0.2673 0.0000 0.2357

Four faces=0.03 0.8018 0.8944 0.9428 0.5345 0.4472 0.2357

One face=0.0430 DFG P55P54 P65P55 i -0.2673 0.2357

Four faces=0.17 J 0.0926 0.0484 k -0.0873 -0.2115

One face=0.0071 P62 P63 P73 0.9428 0.8018 0.8944

Four faces=0.03 0.2357 0.5345 0.4472 0.2357 0.2673 0.0000

One face=0.0430 DFG P63P62 P73P63 i -0.1410 0.0926

Four faces=0.17 j 0.2988 -0.0873 k 0.0316 -0.2673

One face=0.0013 P64 P65 P75 0.5345 0.2357 0.4472

Four faces=0.005 0.8018 0.9428 0.8944 0.2673 0.2357 0.0000

One face=0.0430 DFG P65P64 P75P65 i -0.2988 0.2115

Four faces=0.17 j 0.1410 -0.0484 k -0.0316 -0.2357

One face=0.0013

Four faces=0.005

One face=0.0430

Four faces=0.17

69 Appendix D, continued
Volume of the Symmetric Faces P63 P73 P74 0.8018 0.8944 0.7071 0.5345 0.4472 0.7071 0.2673 0.0000 0.0000 Surface Area of the Symmetric Faces DFG P73P63 P74P73 i 0.0926 -0.1873 j -0.0873 0.2599 k -0.2673 0.0000

One face=0.0003 P64 P74 P75 0.5345 0.7071 0.4472

Four faces=0.001 0.8018 0.7071 0.8944 0.2673 0.0000 0.0000

One face=0.0430 DFG P74P64 P75P74 i 0.1726 -0.2599

Four faces=0.17 j -0.0947 0.1873 k -0.2673 0.0000

One face=0.0003 P32 P42 P43 0.2357 0.5345 0.2673

Four faces=0.001 0.2357 0.2673 0.5345 0.9428 0.8018 0.8018

One face=0.0430 GGH P42P32 P43P42 i 0.2988 -0.2673

Four faces=0.17 j 0.0316 0.2673 k -0.1410 0.0000

One face=0.0375 P41 P42 P52 0.7071 0.5345 0.8018

Four faces=0.15 0.0000 0.2673 0.2673 0.7071 0.8018 0.5345

One face=0.0516 GGH P42P41 P52P42 i -0.1726 0.2673

Four faces=0.21 j 0.2673 0.0000 k 0.0947 -0.2673

One face=0.0243 P43 P44 P54 0.2673 0.0000 0.2673

Four faces=0.10 0.5345 0.7071 0.8018 0.8018 0.7071 0.5345

One face=0.0516 GGH P44P43 P54P44 i -0.2673 0.2673

Four faces=0.21 j 0.1726 0.0947 k -0.0947 -0.1726

One face=0.0243 P52 P62 P63 0.8018 0.9428 0.8018

Four faces=0.10 0.2673 0.2357 0.5345 0.5345 0.2357 0.2673

One face=0.0516 GGH P62P52 P63P62 i 0.1410 -0.1410

Four faces=0.21 j -0.0316 0.2988 k -0.2988 0.0316

One face=0.0065

Four faces=0.03

One face=0.0516

Four faces=0.21

70 Appendix D, continued
Volume of the Symmetric Faces P54 P64 P65 0.2673 0.5345 0.2357 0.8018 0.8018 0.9428 0.5345 0.2673 0.2357 Surface Area of the Symmetric Faces GGH P64P54 P65P64 i 0.2673 -0.2988 j 0.0000 0.1410 k -0.2673 -0.0316

One face=0.0065 P63 P64 P74 0.8018 0.5345 0.7071

Four faces=0.03 0.5345 0.8018 0.7071 0.2673 0.2673 0.0000

One face=0.0516 GGH P64P63 P74P64 i -0.2673 0.1726

Four faces=0.21 j 0.2673 -0.0947 k 0.0000 -0.2673

One face=0.0019 P42 P43 P53 0.5345 0.2673 0.5774

Four faces=0.01 0.2673 0.5345 0.5774 0.8018 0.8018 0.5774

One face=0.0516 IIH P43P42 P53P43 i -0.2673 0.3101

Four faces=0.21 j 0.2673 0.0428 k 0.0000 -0.2244

One face=0.0343 P42 P52 P53 0.5345 0.8018 0.5774

Four faces=0.14 0.2673 0.2673 0.5774 0.8018 0.5345 0.5774

One face=0.0634 IIH P52P42 P53P52 i 0.2673 -0.2244

Four faces=0.25 j 0.0000 0.3101 k -0.2673 0.0428

One face=0.0264 P43 P53 P54 0.2673 0.5774 0.2673

Four faces=0.11 0.5345 0.5774 0.8018 0.8018 0.5774 0.5345

One face=0.0634 IIH P53P43 P54P53 i 0.3101 -0.3101

Four faces=0.25 j 0.0428 0.2244 k -0.2244 -0.0428

One face=0.0264 P52 P53 P63 0.8018 0.5774 0.8018

Four faces=0.11 0.2673 0.5774 0.5345 0.5345 0.5774 0.2673

One face=0.0634 IIH P53P52 P63P53 i -0.2244 0.2244

Four faces=0.25 j 0.3101 -0.0428 k 0.0428 -0.3101

One face=0.0138

Four faces=0.06

One face=0.0634

Four faces=0.25

71 Appendix D, continued
Volume of the Symmetric Faces P53 P54 P64 0.5774 0.2673 0.5345 0.5774 0.8018 0.8018 0.5774 0.5345 0.2673 Surface Area of the Symmetric Faces IIH P54P53 P64P54 i -0.3101 0.2673 j 0.2244 0.0000 k -0.0428 -0.2673

One face=0.0138 P53 P63 P64 0.5774 0.8018 0.5345

Four faces=0.06 0.5774 0.5345 0.8018 0.5774 0.2673 0.2673

One face=0.0634 IIH P63P53 P64P63 i 0.2244 -0.2673

Four faces=0.25 j -0.0428 0.2673 k -0.3101 0.0000

One face=0.0090

Four faces=0.04

One face=0.0634

Four faces=0.25

Total Volume of the 6v Dome=2.01 Sphericity of the 6v Dome=.3274

Total Surface Area of the 6v Dome=6.14

72 Appendix E MATLab Computer Program function SurfaceArea % The purpose of this program is to find the SurfaceArea and Volume % for any geodesic dome given some defined frequency. % The frequency of the geodesic dome is defined by n. % Since the dome is created with equilateral triangles, % each triangle has three vertices. % These vertices will change for each iteration. % First, label the vertices of one eighth of the octahedron, the base % platonic solid. % x(1,1) represents the vertex on row one, point one. % x(2,1) represents the vertex on row two, point one, and so forth. % Frequency is defined by n. To change the frequency, change the n value. n=8; close all N=n+1; x(1,1)=0; y(1,1)=0; z(1,1)=1; x(N,1)=1; y(N,1)=0; z(N,1)=0; x(N,N)=0; y(N,N)=1; z(N,N)=0; delta=1/n; for k=2:n x(k,1)=x(1,1)+delta*(k-1); y(k,1)=0; z(k,1)=z(1,1)-delta*(k-1); x(k,k)=0; y(k,k)=y(1,1)+delta*(k-1); z(k,k)=z(1,1)-delta*(k-1); end

for k=3:N for m=2:k x(k,m)=x(k,1)+(m-1)*(x(k,k)-x(k,1))/(k-1); y(k,m)=y(k,1)+(m-1)*(y(k,k)-y(k,1))/(k-1); z(k,m)=z(k,1)+(m-1)*(z(k,k)-z(k,1))/(k-1); end

73 Appendix E, continued end figure hold on % Plot the lines connecting two of the vertices. for j=1:n for i=j:n plot3([x(i,j) x(i+1,j+1)],[y(i,j),y(i+1,j+1)],[z(i,j),z(i+1,j+1)],'','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x(i,j) x(i+1,j)],[y(i,j),y(i+1,j)],[z(i,j),z(i+1,j)],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') end end % This plots one face of the dome before the stretch. for i=2:N for j=1:i-1 plot3([x(i,j) x(i,j+1)],[y(i,j),y(i,j+1)],[z(i,j),z(i,j+1)],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') end end % % % % This defines the magnitude, L, by which the original points are stretched to ensure they are equidistant to the center-base point. L is divided by the radius of the dome to ensure the volume is close to the volume of a rectilinear home.

for i=1:N for j=1:i L=sqrt(x(i,j)^2+y(i,j)^2+z(i,j)^2)/15.835; x(i,j)=x(i,j)/L; y(i,j)=y(i,j)/L; z(i,j)=z(i,j)/L; end end x y z figure hold on % This plots the geodesic dome in 3D. for j=1:n for i=j:n plot3([x(i,j) x(i+1,j+1)],[y(i,j),y(i+1,j+1)],[z(i,j),z(i+1,j+1)],'','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black')

74 Appendix E, continued plot3([x(i,j) x(i+1,j)],[y(i,j),y(i+1,j)],[z(i,j),z(i+1,j)],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') end end for i=2:N for j=1:i-1 plot3([x(i,j) x(i,j+1)],[y(i,j),y(i,j+1)],[z(i,j),z(i,j+1)],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') end end % Use the cross product to find surface area of the geodesic dome. k=1; for i=1:N-1 for j=1:i D=(((y(i+1,j)-y(i,j))*(z(i+1,j+1)-z(i,j))-(y(i+1,j+1)-y(i,j))*(z(i+1,j)-z(i,j)))^2+((x(i+1,j)x(i,j))*(z(i+1,j+1)-z(i,j))-(x(i+1,j+1)-x(i,j))*(z(i+1,j)-z(i,j)))^2+((x(i+1,j)-x(i,j))*(y(i+1,j+1)y(i,j))-(x(i+1,j+1)-x(i,j))*(y(i+1,j)-y(i,j)))^2); Area(k)=.5*sqrt(D); k=k+1; end end for i=3:N for j=2:i-1 D=(((y(i-1,j-1)-y(i,j))*(z(i-1,j)-z(i,j))-(y(i-1,j)-y(i,j))*(z(i-1,j-1)-z(i,j)))^2+((x(i-1,j-1)x(i,j))*(z(i-1,j)-z(i,j))-(x(i-1,j)-x(i,j))*(z(i-1,j-1)-z(i,j)))^2+((x(i-1,j-1)-x(i,j))*(y(i-1,j)-y(i,j))(x(i-1,j)-x(i,j))*(y(i-1,j-1)-y(i,j)))^2); Area(k)=.5*sqrt(D); k=k+1; end end % This command shows the total surface area of the four faces of the % geodesic dome. NT=k-1; sum=0; for k=1:NT sum=sum+Area(k); end % This section computes the surface area of the dome with and without the % riser wall. Multiply LR is, the length of the wall by the height of % 4 when there is a riser wall and by 0 when there is no riser wall. RSA=0 for k=1:n

75 Appendix E, continued LRis=sqrt((x(N,k+1)-x(N,k))^2+(y(N,k+1)-y(N,k))^2); RSA=RSA+4*LRis end sum=sum+RSA SA=4*sum % This command will find the volume of each of the triangular faces of the % geodesic dome pointed upward. Add 12 between the parentheses before % z(i+1,j)to compute the volume with 4 foot riser wall. % Delete the 12 when finding the volume of the dome without the % 4 foot riser wall. k=1; for i=1:N-1 for j=1:i V=(-1/6)*(12+(z(i+1,j)+z(i,j)+z(i+1,j+1)))*(x(i+1,j+1)*y(i+1,j)+x(i+1,j+1)*y(i,j)+x(i,j)*y(i+1,j)+y(i+1,j+1)*x(i+1,j)-y(i+1,j+1)*x(i,j)y(i,j)*x(i+1,j)); Volume(k)=abs(V); k=k+1; end end % This will compute the volume of each of the triangular faces of the % geodesic dome pointed downward. Add 12 between the parentheses before % z(i+1,j)to compute the volume with 4 foot riser wall. % Delete the 12 when finding the volume of the dome without the % 4 foot riser wall. for i=2:N-1 for j=1:i-1 V=(-1/6)*(12+(z(i,j+1)+z(i,j)+z(i+1,j+1)))*(x(i+1,j+1)*y(i,j+1)+x(i+1,j+1)*y(i,j)+x(i,j)*y(i,j+1)+y(i+1,j+1)*x(i,j+1)-y(i+1,j+1)*x(i,j)y(i,j)*x(i,j+1)); Volume(k)=abs(V); k=k+1; end end NT=k-1; sumV=0; for k=1:NT sumV=sumV+Volume(k); end TV=4*sumV

76 Appendix E, continued % This computes the sphericity of the dome as a ratio of volume to % surface area. SP=TV/SA for i=1:n for j=i Trapezoid(k)=((y(i,j)+y(i+1,j+1))/2)*(z(i,j)-z(i+1,j+1)); k=k+1; end end Trap=k-1; sumTrap=0; for k=1:Trap sumTrap=sumTrap+Trapezoid(k); end SumTrapezoid=sumTrap Riser = 4*(y(n+1,n+1)) %PA = Projected area of dome PAR=2*(sumTrap+Riser); PA=2*sumTrap; ProjectedAreaRiser=PAR ProjectedAreaNoRiser=PA % The coordinates of the 30x30x10 rectilinear home are: % 1.(15,0,20) 2.(15,30,20) 3.(0,30,10) 4. (0,30,0) % 5.(30,30,0) 6. (30,30,10) 7. (0,0,0) 8. (30,0,0) % 9, (30,0,10) 10. (0,0,10). % Change to coordinates for the 30x15x10 to: % 1.(7.5,0,20) 2.(7.5,30,20) 3.(0,30,10) 4. (0,30,0) % 5.(15,30,0) 6. (15,30,10) 7. (0,0,0) 8. (15,0,0) % 9, (15,0,10) 10. (0,0,10). x1=7.5; y1=0; z1=20; x2=7.5; y2=30; z2=20; x3=0; y3=30; z3=10; x4=0;

77 Appendix E, continued y4=30; z4=0; x5=15; y5=30; z5=0; x6=15; y6=30; z6=10; x7=0; y7=0; z7=0; x8=15; y8=0; z8=0; x9=15; y9=0; z9=10; x10=0; y10=0; z10=10; figure hold on % Shows the one-story 30x30x10 house in 3D. plot3([x1 x2],[y1 y2],[z1 z2],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x2 x3],[y2 y3],[z2 z3],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x3 x4],[y3 y4],[z3 z4],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x4 x5],[y4 y5],[z4 z5],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x5 x6],[y5 y6],[z5 z6],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x3 x6],[y3 y6],[z3 z6],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x2 x6],[y2 y6],[z2 z6],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x6 x9],[y6 y9],[z6 z9],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x5 x8],[y5 y8],[z5 z8],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x8 x9],[y8 y9],[z8 z9],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x7 x8],[y7 y8],[z7 z8],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x7 x10],[y7 y10],[z7 z10],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x9 x10],[y9 y10],[z9 z10],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x1 x10],[y1 y10],[z1 z10],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x1 x9],[y1 y9],[z1 z9],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x7 x4],[y7 y4],[z7 z4],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x10 x3],[y10 y3],[z10 z3],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') L96=sqrt((x9-x6)^2+(y9-y6)^2+(z9-z6)^2); L62=sqrt((x6-x2)^2+(y6-y2)^2+(z6-z2)^2);

78 Appendix E, continued L63=sqrt((x6-x3)^2+(y6-y3)^2+(z6-z3)^2); L65=sqrt((x6-x5)^2+(y6-y5)^2+(z6-z5)^2); PAreaRoof=L96*10; Onehalfroof=.5*PAreaRoof; AreaFrontSideLeft=L96*L65; AreaFrontSideRight=L65*L63; RoofHeight=10; RtTriangleRoof=.5*L63*RoofHeight; SurfaceAreaView1=((L63+L96)*cos(pi/4))*L65+(1/2*(2*L96*cos(pi/4)+L63*cos(pi/4)))* RoofHeight SurfaceAreaView2=AreaFrontSideRight+RtTriangleRoof SurfaceAreaView3=AreaFrontSideLeft+PAreaRoof % The coordinates of the 30x30x20 rectilinear home are: % 1.(15,0,30) 2.(15,30,30) 3.(0,30,20) 4. (0,30,0) % 5.(30,30,0) 6. (30,30,20) 7. (0,0,0) 8. (30,0,0) % 9, (30,0,20) 10. (0,0,20). x1=15; y1=0; z1=30; x2=15; y2=30; z2=30; x3=0; y3=30; z3=20; x4=0; y4=30; z4=0; x5=30; y5=30; z5=0; x6=30; y6=30; z6=20; x7=0; y7=0; z7=0; x8=30; y8=0; z8=0; x9=30; y9=0;

79 Appendix E, continued z9=20; x10=0; y10=0; z10=20; figure hold on plot3([x1 x2],[y1 y2],[z1 z2],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x2 x3],[y2 y3],[z2 z3],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x3 x4],[y3 y4],[z3 z4],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x4 x5],[y4 y5],[z4 z5],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x5 x6],[y5 y6],[z5 z6],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x3 x6],[y3 y6],[z3 z6],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x2 x6],[y2 y6],[z2 z6],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x6 x9],[y6 y9],[z6 z9],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x5 x8],[y5 y8],[z5 z8],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x8 x9],[y8 y9],[z8 z9],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x7 x8],[y7 y8],[z7 z8],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x7 x10],[y7 y10],[z7 z10],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x9 x10],[y9 y10],[z9 z10],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x1 x10],[y1 y10],[z1 z10],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x1 x9],[y1 y9],[z1 z9],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x7 x4],[y7 y4],[z7 z4],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') plot3([x10 x3],[y10 y3],[z10 z3],'-','Linewidth',3,'Color','Black') L96=sqrt((x9-x6)^2+(y9-y6)^2+(z9-z6)^2) L62=sqrt((x6-x2)^2+(y6-y2)^2+(z6-z2)^2) L63=sqrt((x6-x3)^2+(y6-y3)^2+(z6-z3)^2) L65=sqrt((x6-x5)^2+(y6-y5)^2+(z6-z5)^2) PAreaRoof=L96*10 Onehalfroof=.5*PAreaRoof; AreaFrontSideLeft=L96*L65; AreaFrontSideRight=L65*L63; RoofHeight=10 RtTriangleRoof=.5*L63*RoofHeight; SurfaceAreaView1=((L63+L96)*cos(pi/4))*L65+(1/2*(2*L96*cos(pi/4)+L63*cos(pi/4)))* RoofHeight SurfaceAreaView2=AreaFrontSideRight+RtTriangleRoof SurfaceAreaView3=AreaFrontSideLeft+PAreaRoof

80 Appendix F Email permission to use photographs American Ingenuity Domes, Inc.


Taralyn, American Ingenuity gives you permission to use the pictures in your thesis. Glenda Busick

-------- Original Message -------Subject: AI Domes: Geodesic Dome Pictures From: Taralyn Fender <paultara@comcast.net> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 7:31 am To: info@aidomes.com This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.aidomes.com from: Taralyn Fender <paultara@comcast.net> Good morning, I am using the informaton received from you in my mathematical thesis on geodesic domes. I would like to get permission to use the pictures from your cd and website in my paper. The paper will be published and I need written permission to include them. While credit is sited in the paper, the pictures add so much reader appeal and I would like to keep them in the paper when it is published. Thank you for your permission to use these pictures and for your immediate attention concerning this. Have a great and beautiful day.

81 Appendix F, continued Natural Spaces Domes, Inc.

Hi Tara, You may use our pictures for your paper, please note the source of course. Thank you for asking first. Tim Natural Spaces Domes

From: Paultara@comcast.net [mailto:Paultara@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:38 AM To: nsd@naturalspacesdomes.com Subject: Geodesic dome pictures

Good morning, I currently have included a few of your pictures in my mathematical thesis on geodesic domes. Your pictures add so much reader appeal and knowledge of the homes to my paper. I would also like to include these when my paper is published, but I need your written permission. Thank you for your immediate reply. Have great and beautiful day. Tara Fender

82 Appendix F, continued FEMA Dear Ms. Fender: Thank you for your e-mail dated April 5, 2010, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) inquiring about the use of FEMA photographs. U.S. Government materials are not copyright protected. Conditions for use of FEMA materials are explained on our Web site at http://www.fema.gov/help/usage.shtm. I hope this is helpful and wish you success. Sincerely, Janice Sosebee FEMA Disaster Assistance Directorate

From: Paultara@comcast.net [mailto:Paultara@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM To: AskFEMA, Subject: Pictures taken by Mark Wolfe of Hurricane Ivan disaster, September 2004

Good afternoon,

I would like permission to use a few photos taken by Mark Wolfe of the Hurricane Ivan disaster in my mathematical thesis on geodesic dome homes and how they fare during a hurricane. The picture numbers are 11737, 11725, and 11724. This paper will be published, so I need written permission to use them in my paper. Thank you so much for your immediate attention concerning this. Have a beautiful day.

Tara Fender

83

REFERENCES
Arch of Severus. (n.d.). greatbuildingsonline.com. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.greatbuildingsonline.com/buildings/ArchOfSeverus.html Baldwin, J. (1996). Buckyworks: Buckminster Fuller's Ideas for Today. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Beals, M., Gross, L., & Harrell, S. (n.d.). THE SURFACE AREA TO VOLUME RATIO. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/ bealsmodules/area_volume.html Bible and Science. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2009, from geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/earthmythology.txt Blanchette, A. (2007, May 19). Home a la Dome; Dome homes aren't as few and far between as they once were. Known for their sturdiness and energy efficiency, the unusual hemispheric structures are becoming viable, mainstream housing options. Star Tribune. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? index=0&did=1275379381&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQ D&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1227905917&clientId=18012 Brainy Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved June 24, 2009, from www.brainyquote.com/quotes/g/galileogal381320.html Building Shape - Surface Area to Volume Ratio. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.learn.londonmet.ac.uk/packages/clear/thermal/buildings/configurati on/surcafeareato_vol_ratio.html Busick, M. (n.d.). Domes from American Ingenuity - Home. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.aidomes.com DND/CF | Backgrounder | The Distant Early Warning Line Clean up Project. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=205 Desert Domes - Home. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.desertdomes.com Diamond, R., & Moezzi, M. (n.d.). Changing Trends: A Brief History of the US Household Consumption. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://epb.lbl.gov/homepages/Rick_Diamond/LBNL55011-trends.pdf Dewitt, D. P., & Incropera, F. P. (1990). Introduction to Heat Transfer. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

84 Dolan, E. (2005, October 2). Tour of Hurricane -Resistant Dome Home set for this weekend in Stuart. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=906095451&SrchMode=2&sid=2 &Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1227904722&cli entId=18012 Dulley, J. (2005, January 2). Geodesic dome home strong, efficient. Post and Courier, p. G.6. Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9106250 Electric Energy Efficiency . (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2009, from psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric13.pdf Epcot - Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, Walt Disney's Epcot. (n.d.). Disney World - The Largest Unofficial On-Line Guide to Disney World, Walt Disney World . Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.wdwinfo.com/wdwinfo/ guides/epcot/ep-overview.htm Geodesic Dome. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2008, from www.kyrene.org/staff/sreed/AMSITECH/activities/geodome/deodome.htm Geodesic Math. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://mr-fusion.hellblazer.com/ pdfs/geodesicmath.pdf History of The Environmental Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.ttenvironmentalcommission.org/history.htm Hornas, J. (2000). How to Build a Concrete Dome House: How to Build the Strongest, Most Fireproof, Tornado and Earthquake-resistant Concrete Dome House. Lansing: Infinity Publishing. Hurricane Hazards: Winds. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2008, from www.fema.gov/hazard/hurrican/hu_winds.shtm Hurricane History. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml In the light of Aristotle's scientific contributions, critically account for its longevity. (n.d.). Retrieved June 24, 2009, from members.tripod.com/~leavis/science.htm Introduction to Geodesic Domes and Structure | The Buckminster Fuller Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2008, from http://bfi.org/our_programs/ who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/introduction_to_geode sic_domes_and_structure

85 Kenner, H. (2003). Geodesic Math and How to Use It. Berkeley: University of California Press. Knauer, G. (). The Return of the Geodesic Dome. The Futurist, 26, 29. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=479087&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=18012&R QT=309&VName=PQD Mandel, C. (2008, July 19). General News. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1515344801 Massey, D. (n.d.). DEW. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from www.porticus.org/bell/dewline.html Missouri Botanical Garden Overview Tour. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.mobot.org/hort/gardens/overview.shtml Narins, B. (2008, October 3). Geodesic Curvature. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ Natural Spaces Domes - Storm Stories. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.naturalspacesdomes.com/storm_stories.htm Nicolaus Copernicus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2004, November 30). Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/ Pantheon - Rome, Italy - Great Buildings Online. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Pantheon.html Pantheon and Piazza della Rotonda. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2009, from www.romaclick.com/Pages/Rome/Tosee/Rome-guide-pantheon.htm Parker, J. (2005, October 29). Home and Garden. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1154301571&Fmt=3&ClientId=18012&RQT=309& VName=PQD Reynolds, J. (2004). Dome Home Survives Hurricane Hit. Architecture, 93(10), 15. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? did=724185211&sid=1&clientid=18012&RQT=309&VName=PQD Roman Architecture. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from www.unrv.com/culture/architecture.php Rourke, M. (2000, October 14). Dome Homes: An Architect uses the materials at hand to answer the housing needs of monks, disaster victims and NASA. Star Tribune, pp. 7.

86 Rowlett, R. (n.d.). Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/saffir.html Smith, R. (2006, June 3). Hurricane Hazards: Winds. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.physicsworld.com Sphericity: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sphericity Stewart, J. (2004). Calculus: Concepts and Contexts (with Tools for Enriching Calculus, Interactive Video Skillbuilder, Mentor, and I Lrn Homework). New York: Brooks Cole. United Nations Environment Programme - Document Manager - United Nations Environment Programme. (2008, November 27). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.unep.org/documents.Multilingual/default.print.asp? US and World Population Clock. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2009, from www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html Wind Scales - Beaufort Wind Scale, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, Wind Warnings,Fujita Tornado Scale - MarineWaypoints.com. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.marinewaypoints.com/marine/wind.shtml

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi