DIYbanter - Round House more wind resistant?

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)

- Home Repair (https://www.diybanter.com/home-repair/)

- - Round House more wind resistant? (https://www.diybanter.com/home-repair/113738-round-house-more-wind-resistant.html)

Round House more wind resistant?

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.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:00:55 -0500, 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.

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

whe

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).

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:56:14 -0700, in alt.home.repair Round
House more wind resistant? Wes Stewart wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:00:55 -0500, 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.

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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:00:55 -0500, Vic Dura
wrote:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~vdura/Images/scan2.jpg

This is better :-)

http://www.mystrealm.com/screengrabs/RIV-19.jpg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQtxqywIk7T39FC4ZEQJTSgCfZd5dBaGH9WfbJN3q7PeS68 5WjK8An22D
GDEa4IYqxYFxKnYs0mAHUuaa
=QWsT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

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

1: The house in the picture isn't round, it's
an octagon, but mostly, the same principles apply.
2: Yes, given similar construction, the round house
should be more wind-resistant.
3: But not enough to matter. A box-shaped house
is more space efficient, and cheaper to build.
So if you're comparing PRICE instead of
construction technique, you're probably better
off with the box.
--goedjn

Goedjn wrote:

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

1: The house in the picture isn't round, it's
an octagon, but mostly, the same principles apply.
2: Yes, given similar construction, the round house
should be more wind-resistant.
3: But not enough to matter. A box-shaped house
is more space efficient, and cheaper to build.
So if you're comparing PRICE instead of
construction technique, you're probably better
off with the box.
--goedjn

And, in a roundhouse those damned locomotives take up so much space!
;-)

--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

On 19-Jul-2005, Gort wrote:

And, in a roundhouse those damned locomotives take up so much space!

Ballast - that's why they're wind resistant.

Mike

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?

The force due to wind will be proportional to the surface area the wind
passes. Its not the roundness per se that is making the difference.
Its the more efficient use of surface area. Round house does use less
surface area per given volume.

If you take a given surface area, and make it round, its still going to
receive the same amount of force.

So I guess I have to agree. Given a fixed square footage (2400) which
yields a fixed volume, the round house will be affected less by the wind
pressure because it will have less surface area.

--
Respectfully,

CL Gilbert

"Vic Dura" wrote in message
...
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.

The cited article is nothing more than a sales pitch -- a simple answer to a
very complex question. A structure, whatever its shape, should be designed
to resist whatever forces may be imposed, windwise or otherwise. The shape
of the structure is only one of many factors to be considered in design,
factors such as esthetics, economy, utility and the desire to have something
unique. Considering these, it is easy to see why circular and dome houses
have not become a standard.

For an indication of how complex innovative design to resist wind stresses
can be --

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd034e.html

SJF

"SJF" wrote in message
The cited article is nothing more than a sales pitch -- a simple answer to
a
very complex question. A structure, whatever its shape, should be
designed
to resist whatever forces may be imposed, windwise or otherwise. The
shape
of the structure is only one of many factors to be considered in design,
factors such as esthetics, economy, utility and the desire to have
something
unique. Considering these, it is easy to see why circular and dome houses
have not become a standard.

Circular is far from the "best" overall design, but it can be a style to be
admired by some. It has plenty of drawbacks from a practicality point of
view. But if you have the money . . . .

If you want to build for strength, I'd go with concrete. Using insulating
concrete forms is becoming very popular both because of the strength issues
and the energy efficiency. www.integrapec.com www.polysteel.com
www.standardicf.com are just a few of them. I saw pictures of one that
went through a tornado. While there was some damage, the interior was
hardly touched.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/