If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Vic Dura on July 17, 2005, 4:00 pm
Here is an article claiming that a 2400 sqft "round" house (approx 28'
dia.) is more resistant to wind than a rectilinear (square or
rectangle) house.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~vdura/Images/scan2.jpg
Any comments/opinions on the veracity of the claims?
--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
|
|
Posted by G Henslee on July 17, 2005, 2:07 pm
Vic Dura wrote:
> Here is an article claiming that a 2400 sqft "round" house (approx 28'
> dia.) is more resistant to wind than a rectilinear (square or
> rectangle) house.
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~vdura/Images/scan2.jpg
>
> Any comments/opinions on the veracity of the claims?
>
I read the article. Makes sense. Now you know why a baseball is round
and not square.
Anything else?
|
|
Posted by Wes Stewart on July 17, 2005, 4:56 pm
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:00:55 -0500, Vic Dura
>Here is an article claiming that a 2400 sqft "round" house (approx 28'
>dia.) is more resistant to wind than a rectilinear (square or
>rectangle) house.
Um, your math is a bit off.
>
>http://home.hiwaay.net/~vdura/Images/scan2.jpg
>
>Any comments/opinions on the veracity of the claims?
Plenty.
First, the house isn't "circular" but from inspection appears to be a
regular polygon with twelve sides (dodecagon).
Second, the article claims that there are no flat sections wider than
4' on the house.
The enclosed area (A) of a polygon can be found from:
A = (n * S^2 * cot (180 / n)) / 4
where:
n = the number of sides = 12
S = length of one side = 4
From "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", 5th Edition, pg 44-1.
Solving: A ~ 179 sq. ft. For a two story house then the area is ~
360 sq. ft. or a long way from 2400 sq. ft.
A sanity test: Let the twelve sides approximate a circle. The
circumference is then 12 * 4 = 48'. The diameter is then 48 / pi ~
15.28. The radius ~ 7.64 and the area is pi * radius ^2 ~ 183. Close
to more exact 179.
So bogus claim no. 1 is that the house has no flat surfaces greater
than 4' or conversely, it isn't 2400 sq. ft.
It's more likely and sensible that the sections are 8' wide, in which
case the area (per floor) is more like 720 sq. ft. (Enough snooping
on Deltec's web site confirms my suspicion)
So unless there is a "poop deck" (pun intended) on the back side of
this thing it still isn't 2400 sq. ft. If there is some poop on the
back then it's not "circular" and the professed wind loading advantage
is bogus claim no. 2.
I'm not fluent with the IBC or UPC wind loading stuff, but do have
some insight into wind loading on radio towers and antennas. So I
know that a smooth cylinder of given projected area has lower wind
pressure per unit area (drag) than a flat surface. So the "circular"
house probably has some advantage. That said, a 720 sq. ft. dodecagon
has a projected width (short aspect) of 30 ft. A square house of the
same area has a projected width of ~27 ft.
There are no doubt some advantages to the roof construction as well,
but I'm not going to try to mess with that.
Not living in hurricane country (please please please -don't- move
here), I have no first hand knowledge but from my reading it appears
that an awful lot of damage is done, not by the effects of wind on
your house but on the damage done by the flying debris from the houses
that weren't so well constructed.
I'm reminded of a Fine Homebuilding Magazine article about a
"hurricane proof" house built on some offshore island. It was no
sooner done than a light plane crashed into it and the resulting fire
completely destroyed it (and the unlucky pilot).
|
|
Posted by Vic Dura on July 17, 2005, 9:03 pm
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:56:14 -0700, in alt.home.repair RE: Re: Round
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:00:55 -0500, Vic Dura
>
>>Here is an article claiming that a 2400 sqft "round" house (approx 28'
>>dia.) is more resistant to wind than a rectilinear (square or
>>rectangle) house.
>
>Um, your math is a bit off.
Yeah, thanks for catching that.
>>Any comments/opinions on the veracity of the claims?
>
>Plenty.
>So bogus claim no. 1 is that the house has no flat surfaces greater
>than 4' or conversely, it isn't 2400 sq. ft.
I agree. Looking at the flat surfaces with the windows & doors
relative to the size of the sat. dish and the man, it didn't look
right. The panels with the two windows certainly did not look like 4'
panels.
>It's more likely and sensible that the sections are 8' wide,
That size is more consistent with the size of the other known objects
in the image and as you say seems like a more reasonable size for
prefab panels.
--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
|
|
Posted by Andy Sullivan on July 17, 2005, 9:10 pm
> Here is an article claiming that a 2400 sqft "round" house (approx 28'
> dia.) is more resistant to wind than a rectilinear (square or
> rectangle) house.
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~vdura/Images/scan2.jpg
>
> Any comments/opinions on the veracity of the claims?
Veracity? The question is, why *wouldn't* it be true?
Geodesic dome homes even moreso.
|
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Pet resistant screen color | July 21, 2006, 2:09 pm |
| Best dog and water resistant flooring? | August 29, 2006, 1:31 pm |
| Help with Slip Resistant Floor | September 26, 2006, 8:57 pm |
| Stain resistant carpeting | November 24, 2006, 11:49 pm |
| Impact Resistant Windows | December 23, 2006, 3:33 pm |
| Fire-resistant insulation? | February 24, 2008, 2:18 pm |
| pesticide-resistant fleas- how to get rid of them for good | August 12, 2005, 1:09 am |
| Tarnish resistant door hardware | October 31, 2005, 6:30 pm |
| bullet resistant sheet rock | July 1, 2007, 12:25 am |
| Recommendations for rot resistant trim material | January 14, 2006, 1:39 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap