Talk:Monolithic dome

Old talk

Okay, is it just me or is this article a little too bias towards the 'good' parts of Dome houses, I don't think this article is NPOV.--142.177.126.16 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the original article, under a slightly different title, was an advertisement for a specific company and was deleted, but this replacement uses a lot of the same language. Joyous! | Talk 14:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some of these domes in person, and they really are as awesome as the current article says. But I agree that the article is much too one-sided, too much like a sales pitch. Also, domebuilders.com link now redirects back to Monolithic's web site. I'll fix the link.--Bouncey 03:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in one of these domes. I believe at present we have one of the largest residential monolithic domes currently in existance. I don't agree that the article (at least as it is presently) is biased toward the 'good' side. If anything, I thought it gave a fairly heavy emphasis toward the disadvantages although I can't say any of them are wrong, I just felt that there are ways to work with most of them. We found that we had a tough time getting a permit but in our case it was due more to the size of the structure than the dome part. They (the county) actually told us that since it was an engineered structure and build out of reinforced concrete, they had no problem with it. With a larger dome, the problem of dividing up the rooms and dealing with the curved outer wall just wasn't much of an issue. If anyone is interested in discussing this further, feel free to contact me. Yumadome 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I drove past the MDI on I-35 on my way to San Antonio, and was intrigued by the domes in the area, so I went to the website. I nearly completely re-wrote the article, based on information from the website. I tried to keep it factual, and I added a bit on disadvantages--I don't have any sources to back up the disadvantages other than my own observations. Not that I object to the dome house, I do think they're neat, but not everyone can build one and dividing up the inside of a sphere into rectangular rooms doesn't work well (and hexagonal furniture is kind of hard to find). scot 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Update--found a source that listed disadvantages, so I added it to the article. Still, it's a fairly positive article--it's hard to complain about a house that can survive grass fires, tornadoes, F5 hurricanes, shots from a .30-06 Springfield rifle, and even an arial bomb. Most of it boild down to the issue of how odd it looks. scot 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tornado/Hurricane Public-Assembly Shelters

One would suspect that after the latest outbreak of killer-tornados in the southeastern US that public planners will overlook the appearance issue and construct schools and other public-assembly buildings as domed structures. We have two domed schools in Payson, AZ. Yes, they do seem odd, but one gets used to them.

If their resilience can be proven, then such shelters should move from the optional to the required for new construction/reconstruction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allenwoll (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no question that monolithic domes are tough. However, it's hard to say how much of that is due to the "dome" part and how much is due to the "monolithic" part. Structural failures tend to be at joints and edges of the building materials, and a monolithic structure by definition has none of those, as it's cast in one continuous piece. The advantage of a dome here is that it is well suited to the "airform" method of building, and that in turn works well with the shotcrete. To get a monolithic concrete structure, you have to maintain a wet edge, which means laying down the concrete quickly and continuously from start to finish. If you were to build a traditional rectilinar building using similar methods (foam insulation outside, rebar inside, shotcrete applied always to a wet edge) then you'd get a similar strength. It would still fail at the edges and corners first, but it might well require more energy than an F5 tornado could throw at it. scot 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that concretes main strength lies in compression AND that wind force hitting a concrete dome compresses the dome, there is NO way that a flat vertical wall of the same thickness could resist the same amount of wind force. The reason is that the flat, vertical wall would be resisting with tensile strength where concrete is weak. To illustrate. Take an egg. Now create one that is a cube out of the same material of the same thickness. The egg shell functions as concrete in that it has compressive strength. Which shape resists pressure better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.13.233 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Theodoric

A link to the Mausoleum of Theodoric might be appropriate. It's got a single piece roof that's dome shaped on the outside, I don't know if it's concave on the inside though. Dyson's Dragon 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

5000lb bomb

Huh? 5000lb? That's over 2 metric tons. Judging from the destruction inside the mosque a 500lb bomb is more likely.

No 5,000lb bomb is in the inventory for fighter aircraft. 2000lbs is the max and a 500 pounder is about 350lbs of high explosive and about 150lbs of shrapnel and would have left an empty crater, especialy if its monolithic, the force of the explosion has nowplace to go so it takes it right off the ground. Domes can only hold back force, they can not contain force at all! Its a mosque, so if the US even hit it at all. it would have been by mistake and probably with the 105mm cannon on an AC-130 Spectre or a stray mortar, since it looks like it was hit from the top and not the side. The information in this article needs to be verified because it sounds more like a promotional ad for domes.

Here's the US Air Force source for the photo and information: http://www.af.mil/weekinphotos/wipgallery.asp?week=16 If you have an issue with the data, you need to take it up with the USAF. I'm going to alter the source info for the image to reflect the USAF source, not the MDI. scot 13:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the GBU-28 is a 5,000 lb. precision guided bomb currently in the US inventory, used in Operation Desert Storm, and carried by the F-111. scot 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article on the GBU-28: They weigh 4,700 pounds/2132 kg. and contain 630 pounds / 286 kg. of high explosive. That is certainly consistent with the damage; the explosives payload is tiny, less than that of most 2000 lb. bombs. The remainder of the mass is the heavy 8" steel casing, originally made from howitzer barrels, and capable of penetrating 20 feet of concrete. I would expect it to go right through the dome, and detonate only after penetrating the floor of the building. scot 15:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the .mil link given by scot above, the building was not a mosque but "one of Saddam Hussein's key regime buildings" and it was 5,000lb bomb that hit it, not a 500lb bomb as the article currently states. I'll update the page. -- Hux (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the photo showing the bombarded structure in Iraq/Baghdad is a mosque in Faw city in Basra province south of Iraq.it was built in 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.231.49 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monolithic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212070257/http://www.af.mil/weekinphotos/wipgallery.asp?week=16 to http://www.af.mil/weekinphotos/wipgallery.asp?week=16

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)