Berger Gallis 1

Introduction
Hurricanes, one of Earths most unpredictable natural disasters, cause countless
deaths every year. Though deaths on average range from approximately two thousand to
three thousand per year, larger hurricanes such as the November 2013 typhoon, Haiyan,
exceeded the average body count tremendously. With storms winds moving faster than
one hundred and eighty miles per hour, and storm surges higher than twenty feet,
Haiyans death toll was estimated to be around ten thousand people. The Philippines are
still recovering from the tremendous wreckage today (CNN).
One of the biggest harm factors of this storm was the high storm surges. The
extreme winds blew the oceanic water onto the coast causing floods and thousands of
dollars worth of damage. Given that the locals in these areas lived in feeble structures,
their homes were easily destroyed. If more homes were intelligently built, the damage
would have been less, and it is possible that the death toll could have been smaller.
Hurricanes are found in warm coastal regions where the structures are close to sea
level; because of the weak foundations, it makes it hard to choose the type house to build.
In developing countries, such as the Philippines, materials are limited, but life is still
dependent on the oceans coast. In such a location, a storm as large as typhoon Haiyan is
difficult to prepare for as largely as other countries, such as the United States; therefore,
the structures have to be ready for a storm.
After Hurricane Katrina, which left 275,000 families without a home, many
efforts were made to prevent the same destruction from future storms (Bertland). Brad
Pitt created the organization Make It Right to build homes, buildings and communities
for people in need. In New Orleans, their goal was to build 150 safe, sustainable homes
Berger Gallis 2

for families displaced by the storm. Architects from around the world came to New
Orleans to design what they believed to be the most sustainable designs for houses on the
coast (Royle). Almost all of these houses had one of three basic structural designs: a
domed roof, a slanted roof, or a house lifted about the ground by stilts.
Though architects are designing more sturdy homes, little research has been done
on which designs perform best in different conditions. Most new homes being built on
the coast have included many different sustainable aspects to their homes. For the homes
designed by the Make It Right Organization, everything from the paint, siding, roofs, and
plumbing was considered. Large efforts are being made to ensure that new houses built
can handle any naturally destructive occurrences. This organizations research focused
specifically on the shape of the home and affordability, but not on which designs are the
best against high winds.
In this research the researchers aimed to mimic other architectural structures in
relation to the speed of wind. The force on a structure is dependent on the aerodynamics
of the architectural design; therefore, three different types of coastal houses were used. A
typical house structure was used to mimic most coastal houses, a domed roof and circular
shaped house was used to mimic a common new architecturally sound structure, and a
stilted house was used to mimic common structures safe of storm surges (Perkins).
Examples of these houses can be found in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The force of wind
resistance was measured for each house, and then analyzed to see which design was the
most aerodynamic. This research was based on the fluid aerodynamics of winds, but the
practicality was also taken into account.
Berger Gallis 3


Figure 1. Dome Roof Example

Figure 2. Stilt Roof Example

Figure 3. Slant Roof Example







Berger Gallis 4

Review of Literature
Hurricanes are one of the most destructive natural occurrences on Earth. Their
creation cannot be prevented, making those living in coastal areas especially vulnerable.
The best people can do is prepare for their destructivity.
Also known as cyclones or typhoons, hurricanes are large circular storms often
consisting of heavy rain showers, intense lightning, and extremely high winds. Usually
occurring around 25 latitude, they are created when cooler winds and storms mix with
moist air evaporated from the warm oceanic water below (Masters). The storms winds
become circular (counterclockwise north of the equator, clockwise south of the equator)
when two forces act on the air, known as the pressure gradient and the Coriolis force.
Because the pressure gradient is the effect of air moving from high pressured regions to
low, thus causing pressure changes, it is affected by temperature (Snodgrass). High
temperature areas tend to balance out low temperature areas by a movement in molecules
creating an equilibrium (Kreger). The same situation works in water as ice dissolves into
warmer water (Tropical Cyclone). The Coriolis force, which explains how the earth
rotates in relation to its axis, is what causes the winds to circulate counter clockwise in
the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Therefore, the
Coriolis force affects the winds direction, and the pressure gradient affects the winds
speed (Snodgrass). As temperatures shift from extreme highs to extreme lows the wind
velocity increases drastically. Consequently, many coastal problems arise, specifically on
architecture and homes.
After hurricane Katrina and other destructive hurricanes many hours of research
went into looking for the safest, most aerodynamic house. Many ideas were executed
Berger Gallis 5

such as dome roof, dome houses, or even small metal shacks that are anchored several
feet below the ground (to keep frame into the foundation) (Poock). Each still stood
standing after enduring many storms. Stilted houses, made for the violent and tall storm
surges, are also good for hurricane situations (Lepore). Each house is built differently, so
the wind would have various effects on the structures.
Air cannot continue through solid materials, so it has to move around objects; this
is called aerodynamics. An object is considered to be very aerodynamic if it moves
through air easily. The shape of an object greatly changes its ability for air to move
around it. The streamline flow is gas particles moving in multiple parallel lines, and if
there is a streamline flow close to parallel behind the object, it is considered to be
aerodynamic. Curved or pointed objects tend to be more aerodynamic because of how its
streamline flow is closer to parallel then to that of a more blunt object (Aerodynamics).


Figure 4. Streamline on Pointed and Blunt Objects
Figure 4 shows the difference in streamline flow of a square object compared to a
pointed object. The pointed object had more parallel gas particles lines as soon as it hit
the object, so it is considered more aerodynamic than the blunt object.
The aerodynamics of a structure plays an important role in keeping it intact while
enduring high winds. Objects that have a streamlined design have the best aerodynamics
Berger Gallis 6

because they cause the air to exert very little force as it flows over the object. For
example, air moving past a perpendicular wall exerts a very strong force, while air
moving past a rounded object exerts a very small force. With hurricanes creating strong
winds, a large amount of force is exerted on a house.
Due to the low pressure, caused by winds blowing on a house and the high
pressures under and inside a house, wind uplift occurs. The normally constant air
pressure inside the house attempts to equalize with the outside pressure, which results in
a strong uplift force that can remove the roof or even a full house from where it is
anchored down. The best way to prevent wind uplift in homes is to divert the wind before
it even causes a disturbance among the indoor and outdoor pressures (Gregerson).

Figure 5. Streamline on Pointed and Blunt Objects
Figure 5 shows the spots on a typical house where pressures are affected by wind.
The wind cannot flow through the object, so it has to go around the sides and above it.
The blunt geometrical features of the structure of this house have spots where wind does
not hit, therefore they have lower pressures.
Berger Gallis 7


Figure 6. Wind Flow on Object
Figure 6 displays how an object is uplifted because of its aerodynamics. The blunt
shape shows the direction of the wind, resulting in a low pressure on the top of the object.
This low pressure needs to be at equilibrium, so force creates uplift.
The most aerodynamic shape is a teardrop. A thin point that blocks as little air as
possible at first contact is essential. The shape can then get wider and curve the air
around the object then produces the smallest force on the object. Figure 5 demonstrates a
few variations of this shape. However, this shape is not practical for buildings. The
closest designs that mimic the diversion that a teardrop creates are domes, houses on stilts
(allowing air flow underneath and above the house), and houses with a slanted roof
(Larrambebere). These three designs are the most common in current hurricane resistant
architecture.


Berger Gallis 8


Figure 7. Most Aerodynamic Shapes
Figure 7 shows seven different types of shapes that are found to be very
aerodynamic. Each shape, when a fluid is moving from the left to the right, create a
streamline flow that causes the fluid to move smoothly with little disruption.
Research conducted by the Institute for Research and Construction tested similar
concepts. The researchers designed an experiment which found the effect of curing time,
bonding strength, and insulation thickness of fully bonded assemblies. Each of these
factors was changed and the uplift force on the house was recorded. Inside the
dynamic roofing facility, established at the Institute for Research in Construction, life-
sized models of houses were tested using hurricane force winds in a wind tunnel. Several
bonding techniques were used to change the bonding strength of the bond between the
roof and the house; some different methods include the various materials used for
bonding, thicknesses, the geometric shapes of the fastener, and the adhesives. The
researchers found that the stronger the adhesive bond is to the roof is to the house, the
smaller the resultant uplift force will be (Baskaran). The researchers can use this
conclusion to make a better assumption on how build the model house, to understand that
Berger Gallis 9

the bond strength of the roof to the house is important, and how it can affect the uplift
force on a house.
In conclusion, domes, stilted houses, and slanted roofs do, from previous trial and
errors, present the best resistance to hurricane force winds. With this information the
researchers of this experiment formulated a hypothesis and experimental design.


































Berger Gallis 10

Problem Statement
Problem Statement:
What architectural structure creates the least force of resistance at different wind
speeds?
Hypothesis:
The structure with a domed roof will have the lowest force at all wind speeds.
Data Measured:
The independent variable of this experiment is the type of house (dome, stilt, or
slanted roof) and the speed of the wind (ft/s). The dependent variable of this experiment
is the force on the house, measured in Newtons (N). There will be five trials for each
structure at each of the five wind speeds and an ANOVA statistical test will be run to
compare these means.





















Berger Gallis 11

Experimental Design
Materials:
(3) Model Houses (Appendix C)
Homelite 12 AMP Electric Blower
10x3 ft Table
Verner Force Sensor
(2) 3ft Hot Wheel Race Tracks
Vernier LabQuest
8 ft Rayon String
Masking Tape
Tape Measure
Verner Smart Pulley

Procedures:
1. Measure out and mark every foot for five feet along a tape measure on top of the
table.
2. Place Hot Wheels tracks next to marked tape at the one foot mark. Place tracks
one inch apart.
3. Tie string around the middle of the base of the house (designated by trial), and tie
the other end of the string to the force meter attached to the LabQuest.
4. Run string over top of pulley. Place force meter directly below string on floor.
5. Place leaf blower on the stand at the other end of the table at the distance denoted
by trial number away.
6. Turn on leaf blower and record the average force on the house, while making sure
all other materials are clear of the air flows path for fifteen seconds.
7. Repeat each trial five times, using all three houses and at the different distances.


Berger Gallis 12

Diagram:

Figure 8. Design of Experimental Setup

Figure 8 is a design of how the materials are set up exactly to conduct the
experiment. Notice that the house is on the same line as the tape; this way the wind speed
on the house stays consistent. The distance of the leaf blower from the house changes
every trial by moving the leaf blower closer at each foot mark.
Slanted House
Berger Gallis 13


Figure 9. Design of Experimental Setup
Figure 9 is another view of the design of how the materials are set up to conduct
the experiment. The force meter was taped down to prevent it from being lifted off the
ground and recording inaccurate data. The tension on the string was recalibrated every
time the house was changed for a new house.





Berger Gallis 14

Data and Observations
Data:
Table 1
Dome House All Distances
Distance : 1ft Distance : 3ft Distance : 5ft
Trial Number Force (N) Trial Number Force (N) Trial Number Force (N)
1 0.734 1 0.42 1 0.14
2 0.845 2 0.41 2 0.2
3 0.677 3 0.4 3 0.32
4 0.733 4 0.41 4 0.29
5 0.743 5 0.49 5 0.088
6 0.725 6 0.52 6 0.28
7 0.736 7 0.47 7 0.28
8 0.723 8 0.399 8 0.24
9 0.723 9 0.47 9 0.25
10 0.766 10 0.563 10 0.26
11 0.732 11 0.341 11 0.145
12 0.728 12 0.371 12 0.151
13 0.733 13 0.318 13 0.059
14 0.94 14 0.397 14 0.067
15 0.74 15 0.324 15 0.131
16 0.566 16 0.332 16 0.101
17 0.735 17 0.304 17 0.198
18 0.721 18 0.374 18 0.224
19 0.721 19 0.321 19 0.245
20 0.71 20 0.349 20 0.211
21 0.725 21 0.365 21 0.162
22 0.801 22 0.37 22 0.157
23 0.755 23 0.37 23 0.182
24 0.699 24 0.372 24 0.195
25 0.67 25 0.369 25 0.187
26 0.744 26 0.362 26 0.25
27 0.789 27 0.425 27 0.14
28 0.728 28 0.498 28 0.2
29 0.729 29 0.425 29 0.28
30 0.749 30 0.4 30 0.29
Table 1 shows the data from all of the domed house trials. Each set of data kept a
fairly consistent trend with a few outliers, such as trial 14 at a distance of one foot, trial
10 at a distance of three feet, and trials 3, 13, and 14 at a distance of five feet. These
Berger Gallis 15

outliers may have been from human error, though most of the data kept a consistent
trend.
Table 2
Slanted House All Distances
Distance : 1ft Distance : 3ft Distance : 5ft
Trial Number Force (N) Trial Number Force (N) Trial Number Force (N)
1 1.55 1 0.46 1 0.25
2 1.32 2 0.58 2 0.186
3 1.46 3 0.62 3 0.204
4 1.42 4 0.57 4 0.226
5 1.58 5 0.58 5 0.194
6 1.268 6 0.5 6 0.186
7 1.311 7 0.62 7 0.202
8 1.223 8 0.58 8 0.184
9 1.32 9 0.571 9 0.212
10 1.12 10 0.567 10 0.315
11 1.311 11 0.586 11 0.23
12 1.119 12 0.563 12 0.163
13 1.114 13 0.563 13 0.189
14 1.203 14 0.62 14 0.205
15 1.215 15 0.584 15 0.206
16 1.19 16 0.554 16 0.213
17 1.11 17 0.48 17 0.29
18 1.135 18 0.378 18 0.24
19 1.356 19 0.56 19 0.38
20 1.312 20 0.521 20 0.312
21 1.315 21 0.562 21 0.352
22 1.348 22 0.451 22 0.348
23 1.346 23 0.512 23 0.304
24 1.32 24 0.601 24 0.279
25 1.353 25 0.562 25 0.278
26 1.301 26 0.499 26 0.334
27 1.299 27 0.534 27 0.296
28 1.295 28 0.512 28 0.249
29 0.704 29 0.582 29 0.259
30 0.609 30 0.5 30 0.221
Table 2 shows the data from all of the slanted house trials. The three sets of data
for this house kept a fairly consistent trend with a few outliers. These outliers were trials
Berger Gallis 16

10, 29, and 30 at the one foot distance, trial 18 at the three feet distance, and trial 19 at
the five feet distance. These outliers could have been experimental or human error.
Table 3
Stilted House All Distances
Distance : 1ft Distance : 3ft Distance : 5ft
Trial Number Force (N) Trial Number Force (N) Trial Number Force (N)
1 0.657 1 0.328 1 0.173
2 0.899 2 0.291 2 0.166
3 0.802 3 0.281 3 0.173
4 0.847 4 0.260 4 0.164
5 0.795 5 0.303 5 0.163
6 0.888 6 0.267 6 0.179
7 0.797 7 0.315 7 0.179
8 0.801 8 0.302 8 0.153
9 0.794 9 0.303 9 0.162
10 0.846 10 0.291 10 0.176
11 0.800 11 0.298 11 0.170
12 0.855 12 0.294 12 0.195
13 0.806 13 0.290 13 0.180
14 0.803 14 0.285 14 0.180
15 0.820 15 0.281 15 0.177
16 0.804 16 0.280 16 0.169
17 0.843 17 0.212 17 0.165
18 0.756 18 0.333 18 0.176
19 0.863 19 0.271 19 0.176
20 0.795 20 0.298 20 0.180
21 0.841 21 0.304 21 0.161
22 0.672 22 0.289 22 0.162
23 0.780 23 0.312 23 0.163
24 0.779 24 0.279 24 0.166
25 0.801 25 0.314 25 0.173
26 0.712 26 0.302 26 0.168
27 0.780 27 0.500 27 0.159
28 0.834 28 0.168 28 0.160
29 0.822 29 0.166 29 0.172
30 0.756 30 0.175 30 0.157

Table 3 shows the data from all of the stilted house trials. Every set of data kept a
consistent trend with a few outliers, such as trial 1 at a distance of one foot and trial 27 at
Berger Gallis 17

a distance of three feet. These outliers may have possibly been from human error, though
most of the data kept a consistent trend.
Table 4
Averages of Each Set
Dome House Averages Slant House Averages Stilt House Averages
1ft 3ft 5ft 1ft 3ft 5ft 1ft 3ft 5ft
0.739 0.398 0.200 1.294 0.550 0.251 0.802 0.290 0.170

Table 4 shows the average data from the each of the nine different sets. It is
apparent that the slanted house had largest force readings in each of the distances. This
means the resistance was largest on the slant house. The stilt house had the least overall
wind resistance, in comparison to the other houses.














Berger Gallis 18

Observations:
Table 5
Observations for All Trials
Day Observations Trials
1
Still making sure experiment
worked, blower was not tapped
down.
1, 4, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-16, 19, 21, 26-28, 31-34,
37-39, 41, 48-51, 53-54, 58, 64, 78, 81, 87,
93
2
A pencil was put under leaf
blower to keep in place, which
helped with the angle of the
wind. Resulting in consistent
pattern in force. Changed the
sensor on the force meter from
50.00 to 10.000.
40, 42-43, 57, 59, 62, 66, 68-71, 73-74, 77,
79, 83-84, 86, 88-89, 91-92, 95, 98-99, 102,
104-105, 107-108, 111-112, 120-121, 135-
136, 143-144, 151
3
Turned blower on first then
recorded. Recapped leaf blower
down tighter, restricting leaf
blower movement.
20, 45, 56, 75, 82, 85, 90, 97, 101, 109-110,
115, 117, 122, 129-131, 133, 148, 150, 152-
154, 156, 158-159, 163, 165, 169, 172, 176,
182, 185, 188, 191, 200, 206
4
Different location. Adjusted set
up until consistent data was
found. Most of these trials were
stilts, and performed on the last
day when the house was available
for experimentation.
2-3, 6, 9, 11-12, 17-18, 22-25, 29-30, 35-36,
44, 46-47, 52, 55, 60-61, 63, 65, 67, 72, 76,
80, 94, 96, 100, 106, 113-114, 116, 118-
119, 123-128, 132, 134, 137-142, 145-147,
149, 151-153, 155, 157, 160-162, 164, 166-
168, 170-171, 173, 175, 177-181, 183-184,
186-187, 189-199, 201-205, 207-270
All
All data was consistent with the
exception of a few outliers.


Table 5 shows the observations for each day the trials were performed. The all
trials involving the stilt house were performed on later days as the house was not yet
available when trials began. Looking back at the tables 1 through 4, it is apparent that
each day held consistent data. Furthermore, the data became more consistent in the later
days of trials.

Berger Gallis 19


Figure 10. Experiment Set-Up on Table
Figure 10 shows how the trials were set up, specifically with the dome house and
at three feet in distance. The mouth of the blower hung over the stand, so a right angle
triangle was used to line the end of the blower with the three foot mark. The string, tied to
the house, was lined up with along the tape, so it passed underneath the stand and did not
hit the table.


Figure 11. Force Sensor Beside the Table
Figure 11 shows how the force sensor was set up below the edge of the table. The
pulley was attached to the edge of the table and the string ran along it to the force meter.
The force meter had to be taped to the floor to create accurate results.
Berger Gallis 20

Data Analysis and Interpretation
This research was conducted using control, randomization, and replication. The
order of each trial was randomized using the Random Integer function using a TI-Nspire
calculator. The order of the trials for the dome and slanted house was followed exactly,
and was conducted in a different order. This helped to reduce any bias. The stilted house
was not available at the beginning of data trials, and its trials were conducted only on
later dates. Thirty trials for each set were conducted for replication, which helped
determine the most average value for each trial. The force meter was zeroed out after
every trial to find replication. The trials were conducted using the same strict procedures
each time. The setup of the experiment, as well as the wind speed, was consistent
throughout the entire experiment. The data in this experiment was quantitative, meaning
the data was measured. The data kept fairly consistent trend between the houses and the
distances.

Figure 12. One Foot Distance Dome Box Plot
Figure 12 shows the data for the one foot distance on domed house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows a few outliers, but a majority of the data around the mean value
of 0.7391 N. All of the data falls within the range of 0.566 N to 0.940 N. Since there is
Berger Gallis 21

relatively small data, it is possible that the outliers are not significant. The small range
around the mean shows that the experiment was executed correctly; though, the outliers
on both sides displays that they occurred because of human error.


Figure 13. Three Feet Distance Dome Box Plot
Figure 13 shows the data for the three feet distance on domed house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows two outliers, but a majority of the data around the mean value
of 0.3975 N. All of the data falls within the range of 0.348 N to 0.498 N. There is
relatively small difference in this data, so it is possible that the outliers are not significant.
The small range and few outliers show that the experiment was executed correctly.


Berger Gallis 22


Figure 14. Five Feet Distance Dome Box Plot
Figure 14 shows the data for the five feet distance on domed house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows no outliers, and all of the data around the mean value of 0.200
N. All of the data falls within the range of 0.059 N to 0.32 N. There is relatively small
difference in this data. The range show that the experiment was executed correctly.


Figure 15. One Foot Distance Slant Box Plot
Figure 15 shows the data for the one foot distance on slanted house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows two extreme outliers, but a majority of the data around the
mean value of 1.2938 N. These outliers may have been because of either experimental or
human error. All of the data falls within the range of 1.11 N to 1.58 N. Since the spread is
Berger Gallis 23

relatively close together, it is possible that the outliers are not significant. The small range
and few extreme outliers show that the experiment was executed correctly.


Figure 16. Three Feet Distance Slant Box Plot
Figure 16 shows the data for the three feet distance on slanted house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows no outliers, and all of the data around the mean value of 0.550
N. All of the data falls within the range of 0.451 N to 0.62 N. There is a minor difference
in this data.

Figure 17. Five Feet Distance Slant Box Plot
Figure 17 shows the data for the five feet distance on slanted house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows no outliers, and a majority of the data near the mean value of
Berger Gallis 24

0.251 N. All of the data falls within the range of 0.163 N to 0.38 N. There is a fairly
small difference in the data on this spread. The range shows that the experiment was
executed correctly.


Figure 18. One Foot Distance Stilt Box Plot
Figure 18 shows the data for the one foot distance on stilted house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows two extreme outliers, but a majority of the data around the
mean value of 0.8016 N. These outliers may have been because of either experimental or
human error. All of the data falls within the range of 0.657 N to 0.899 N. Besides the
outliers, the spread is relatively close together, so it is possible that the outliers are not
significant. The small range and few outliers shows that the experiment was executed
correctly.


Berger Gallis 25


Figure 19. Three Feet Distance Stilt Box Plot
Figure 19 shows the data for the three feet distance on stilted house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows one extreme outlier, but a majority of the data around the mean
value of 0.290 N. All of the data falls within the range of 0.212 N to 0.333 N. There is an
extremely small difference of the spread of this data. The small range shows that the
experiment was executed correctly.


Figure 20. Five Feet Distance Stilt Box Plot
Figure 20 shows the data for the five feet distance on stilted house on a box plot
graph. This spread shows no outliers, and all of the data near the mean value of 0.170 N.
All of the data falls within the range of 0.153 N to 0.195 N. There is almost a negligible
Berger Gallis 26

difference between the maximum and minimum data values of this spread. The small
range shows that the experiment was executed correctly.


Figure 21. One Foot Distance Box Plots
Figure 21 shows the data for each of the one foot distance on all three houses on
one graph. There was a large overlap between the stilt and the dome graphs. Because of
no overlap between the slant graph and the other two, it can be concluded that the slant
graph showed a significant difference. The medians of the dome and stilt houses subset of
data were relatively close together, with the medians ranging from 0.7391 N to 0.8016 N.
All of the data falls within the range of 0.566 N to 1.580 N. Since there is relatively large
spread between the three sets, it is possible that there is significant difference between the
subsets of data. To be sure, a statistical test was conducted.
Berger Gallis 27


Figure 22. Three Feet Distance Box Plots
Figure 22 shows the data for each of the three feet distance on all three houses on
one graph. There was little overlap between the stilt and the dome graphs, little overlap
between the dome and slant house, and no overlap between stilt and slant house. Because
the slant graph was larger than the other two, there was a significant difference. The
medians of the dome and stilt houses subset of data were relatively close together, with
the medians ranging from 0.290 N to 0.3975 N. All of the data falls within the range of
0.212 N to 0.620 N. Since there is relatively large spread between the three sets, it is
possible that there is significant difference between the subsets of data. To be sure, a
statistical test was conducted.


Berger Gallis 28


Figure 23. Five Feet Distance Box Plots
Figure 23 shows the data for each of the five feet distance on all three houses on
one graph. There was a large overlap between the three graphs. It can be concluded that
the slant graph showed a significant difference because of its largest mean. The medians
of the dome and stilt houses subset of data were close together, with the medians ranging
from 0.200 N to 0.170 N. The medians of the dome and slant houses subset of data were
fairly close together, with the medians ranging from 0.200 N to 0.251 N. All of the data
falls within the range of 0.059 N to 0.380 N. Since there is large spread between the three
sets, it is possible that there is significant difference between the subsets of data. To be
sure, a statistical test was conducted.
An ANOVA analysis of variance test was conducted to analyze this data. An
ANOVA is the most appropriate statistical test for this data because the means of
multiple populations are being compared. The assumptions for this test are that the trials
in each population were randomized, the data was normally distributed, and that the
largest sample standard deviation is no more than twice as large as the smallest standard
Berger Gallis 29

deviation. Because of the central limit theorem, which states that as the sample size
increases, so does the normality of the data, this research could be assumed to be
normally distributed because 30 trials were conducted for each population. The largest
standard deviation, which is the slant house at one foot, is 0.1175. The smallest is the stilt
house from five feet, at 0.009089. Because (0.009089*2) = 0.018178 < 0.1175, this
assumption could not be met. However, the strength of the other two assumptions made
the researchers confident enough in the data to run the test. The information given by this
test is regarded as slightly unreliable as one assumption was not met. The results of this
research were split up into three groups prior to running the ANOVA tests: the means of
the three houses when the leaf blower was one, three, and five feet away.
The null hypothesis, H
o
, of an ANOVA test is that all populations are equal. This
is expressed below.

The alternative hypothesis, H
a
, states that not all populations are equal. This is expressed below.

To conduct an ANOVA test, the number of observations, average forces recorded,
and standard deviations for each sample were needed. These values are shown in Table 6.
Table 6.
Number of Observations, Averages, and Standard Deviations of Each Group
Category
Number of
Observations
Average
Force (N)
Standard
Deviation
Dome 1ft 30 0.7391 0.058526
Stilt 1 ft 30 0.8016 0.053887
Slant 1 ft 30 1.29383 0.117543
Dome 3 ft 30 0.3975 0.041179
Stilt 3 ft 30 0.290467 0.022979
Slant 3 ft 30 0.549967 0.045190
Dome 5 ft 30 0.199867 0.065991
Stilt 5 ft 30 0.170067 0.009089
Slant 5 ft 30 0.250733 0.059865

Berger Gallis 30

In an ANOVA test, an F value is found. This value is found by dividing the mean
square group, MSG, by the mean square error, MSE. These values are the variation
among sample means between each population and the variation among individuals in the
same sample within each group, respectively.

To find both the MSG and MSE, the mean of the population, x must be found. To
find this value, the values for n
x
, the number of samples,

x
, the mean of each
independent sample, and N, the total number of observations in all samples.

( ) ( ) ()

The MSG and MSE can then be calculated once the mean of the population is
found. The MSG is the sum of the number of samples, n, times the mean of the sample,
x
1
squared minus the mean of the population, x. This sum is divided by the number of
populations, I, minus 1.

( )

( )

Furthermore, the MSE is the sum of number of samples, n, minus one, times the
standard deviation, s, squared. This sum is then divided by the total number of
populations, N, minus one.

( )

( )

( )

Once the MSG and MSE were calculated, these numbers were divided to find the
F value. For the ANOVA of data from one foot, the F value is 412.711. This F value was
compared to the critical F value of the data, which is derived from a table at the numbers
Berger Gallis 31

denoted by the degrees of freedom. For an ANOVA, the degrees of freedom is found
using the equation shown below.




The degrees of freedom for this test is

Using the degrees of freedom, the Critical F

value was found to be 3.013. These two values are extremely far apart, meaning that there
is a significant difference between the three houses at a distance of one foot. The p-value
of this ANOVA was then calculated to be 4.087 10
-45
. This value is extremely lower
than the 0.05 alpha level, causing the null hypothesis to be rejected. This low alpha level
means that there is strong evidence that the populations are not equal. In other words, the
forces measured from each type of house from a distance of one foot are significantly
different. Based on this p-value, there is a 4.087 10
-45
percent chance of achieving the
results by chance alone, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.
In order to conduct the best possible analysis of this data, another test was
conducted to determine where the significance within the ANOVA lies. This test is called
a Tukey HSD. A Tukey HSD is the value two means must be apart from each other in
order to be considered significantly diffferent. The equation to find the Tukey HSD is
shown below.

In this equation, the MSE is the mean square error, as calculated from the ANOVA, and n
represents the number per group. The variable q is found by locating the value found on
the Q Table using the number of groups and N-I as a fraction for the degrees of freedom.
The q value for this test is therefore 3.370. When the MSE and n are inputted into the
Berger Gallis 32

equation, the Tukey HSD is found to be 0.050362.This number is smaller than all three
differences, as shown in Table 7, so all three differences are greatly significant.

Table 7
Tukey HSD Calculations for Values at One Foot
1ft
Difference Tukey HSD
stilt-dome 0.0625 0.050362
slant-dome 0.55473
slant-stilt 0.49223

To see if these results occurred at different wind speeds, two additional ANOVA
tests were run. The p-value for the ANOVA at 3 feet is 9.4646*10
-43
and the F statistic
was calculated at 358.805. The critical F statistic for this value is 3.013. Both the p-value
and difference between the F statistic and critical F statistic are strong evidence that there
was a significant difference between at least two of the samples in the ANOVA test. The
null hypothesis was then rejected at the 0.05 alpha level. There is only a 9.4646*10
-43

percent chance of achieving the same results by chance alone, if the null hypothesis is
true. The Tukey HSD was calculated and compared to differences in means, as shown in
Table 8. Because the HSD is so small, all three differences are considered significant.

Table 8
Tukey HSD Calculations for Values at Three Feet
3ft
Difference Tukey HSD
stilt-dome -0.10703 0.023202
slant-dome 0.152467
slant-stilt 0.2595

Berger Gallis 33

Finally, an ANOVA was conducted to compare each house when the leaf blower
was placed five feet away. The p-value for the ANOVA at 5 feet is 1.79547 10
-7
and the
F statistic was calculated at 18.6678. The critical F statistic for this value is 3.013.
Though these numbers are not as extreme as the other two distances, they still show that
there is a significant difference between at least two of the means. The null hypothesis
was then rejected at the 0.05 alpha level. There is only a 1.79547 10
-7
percent chance of
achieving the same results by chance alone, if the null hypothesis is true. The Tukey HSD
was calculated and compared to differences in means, as shown in Table 9. There is a
significant difference between the means of the slant house with the other two houses, but
the difference of means of the dome and stilt house from a distance of five feet is not
significantly different.
Table 9
Tukey HSD Calculations for Values at Five Feet
5ft
Differences Tukey HSD
stilt-dome -0.0298 0.031816
slant-dome 0.050866
slant-stilt 0.080666









Berger Gallis 34

Conclusion
This research was conducted in an attempt to find the best structurally sound
design for houses to prevent wind damage. This idea was translated into a functional
experiment by measuring the forces exerted on model houses with wind in the form of a
leaf blower at three different distances to change the wind velocity reaching each house.
The initial hypothesis was that the domed house would exert a lower force than the stilted
and slanted roofed houses at the one, three, and five foot distances. After conducting
three ANOVAs and Tukey HSD statistical analysis tests, this hypothesis was rejected. It
was found that the stilt house exerted a significantly lower force than the dome and slant
houses when the wind was three and five feet away. However, at the one foot distance,
the dome had significantly lower forces than the other two houses. For all three ANOVAs
(conducted for each of the three distances), the null hypotheses that the three houses
would exert the same force were rejected at the 0.05 alpha level. The p-values for the
one, three, and five distance data were 4.087 10
-45
, 9.4646*10
-43
, and 1.79547 10
-7
,
respectively. Box plots formed from each individual sets showed that the data collected
was fairly regular with few outliers. To determine where the significance lied within the
data, Tukey HSD tests were conducted for each ANOVA. It was found that the
differences in averages between each house at all three distances were significant, with
the exception of the stilt and dome house from five feet away. The differences between
the average forces for stilt and dome houses from three and one feet, though significant,
were much lower than the differences involving the slant houses.
The results of this research do not completely coincide with the scientific
principles of aerodynamics and wind uplift. The stilted house reaped the lowest forces,
Berger Gallis 35

with values of 0.802N, 0.290N, and 0.170N for the one, three, and five foot distances
respectively. These averages were significantly better than the other two houses for all
except the dome house from five feet. The dome houses averages from one, three, and
five feet were 0.739N, 0.398, and 0.200. The circular shape of the dome house caused a
redirection of the air moving towards it, which meant that less air hit in from straight on
and put a force on the house. However, the stilt house had significantly lower forces
because it allowed the air to flow right underneath the house with only a small amount of
the house blocking the air path. One of the largest factors in determining the force of
wind is the surface area the wind is hitting. Air moving at 5mph will cause a much higher
force on a wall that is ten square feet than one that is only two. In this experiment, though
the size of the stilt and dome houses were relatively close, their surface areas was not.
The dome house had a very large surface area with high walls. The stilt house had less
than half the area of the dome house. Because of this, the results of this experiment
showed that the stilted house performed significantly better than the dome house. If the
same experiment were run with all three houses having the same surface area, the results
would likely show that the dome house would cause the least force.
Despite the discrepancies among the stilt and dome houses, the slanted house
performed as expected. Its forces were significantly higher than the average forces
recorded for the stilt and dome house, with values of 1.294, 0.550, and 0.251. This house
had only one way of deflecting the wind: by directing the wind hitting the top level of it
upward, after it had already contacted the house. Its flat front-facing wall, which was
perpendicular to the direction of the wind, did nothing to help the re-direction of air. For
this reason, the forces found for this house were significantly greater than both the stilt
Berger Gallis 36

and dome house at all three distances. This shows that in both low and high wind speeds,
having a slanted roof house is a poor defense against damage.
Overall, the houses all exerted a lower force on the string from five feet away and
the highest force from one foot away. The lowest average force recorded was the stilt
house from five feet: 0.170N. The greatest force of 1.294 was exerted by the slant house
from one foot away.
The trials were conducted using the carefully written procedures, as explained in
the Experimental Design. However, the few outliers suggest that some errors were made.
One such error may be that the experiment was not contained in an isolated system and a
leaf blower was used, so the wind was not in a consistent stream. An anemometer, which
would have helped to monitor the speeds being produced by the leaf blower, was not
available. Furthermore, for trials conducted on the first day, the force sensor was set to
have a large range of 50 Newtons. This was switched to have a 10 Newton precision for
the second, third, and fourth days, making it more accurate. Also, while recording data,
the leaf blower was not completely bound to the stand; this could have created a
difference in the angles the wind was projected. This error may have been the most
contributing factor in the inconsistencies within the data.
The observations showed that there was fairly consistent data throughout the days
of experimentation. Each trial was performed under the same conditions; the equipment
used for all trials was consistent, so the inconsistencies in the data were either human or
experimental errors. The trials were all randomized, with the exception of the stilted
house trials that were all conducted on the same day, as the house was not available until
the final day of testing.
Berger Gallis 37

One way to help reduce errors would be to run more trials. However, this would
require more experimentation time, which would cross the researchers time constraints.
The data could have been more exact, and with a larger amount of data there would be
less room for error and less variability. A more precise set up and equipment could have
been used; equipment such as an isolated system or a wind tunnel, or a more accurate
force meter for the LabQuest.
Hurricanes affect many architectural structures along the coast because of their
high wind speeds and storm surges. To save money, houses have to with-stand those
wind speeds by being aerodynamic and structurally sound. The most aerodynamic houses
are built with the smallest surface area (the stilt house), and create the most streamline
flow (the dome house). In this research the stilt house was the least structurally sound
model, but had the lowest wind resistance. In the case of a hurricane not only are high
winds a factor, but storm surges, or the sudden extreme raising of coastal tide, are
threating towards structures too. When choosing a house along the coast, it is important
for both of these factors. In this aspect, the stilted house would be a wise choice as it
could also prevent damage from flood waters and debris flowing underneath the house if
anchored properly.
If the opportunity to conduct more research on this topic were presented, the
researchers would like to replicate this experiment with the design flaws and errors
addressed. An experiment conducted at full scale would provide the ideal results for this
research. Redesigning the houses to all have the same surface area and scale to a real
house would greatly improve the quality of results found. This research could also be
furthered by making other minor changes to the experiment, since as adjusting the way
Berger Gallis 38

the wind was directed at the house (from different angles or in a circular motion), or more
exact wind speeds chosen to specifically replicate different types of storms, such as
hurricanes or tornadoes, could be tested. Furthermore, the houses could be designed to
come apart in different pieces. This would show which houses are at the most risk for the
roof to be blown off or the stilts to fall due to extremely high winds. In addition, different
materials could be applied to the surfaces of the houses to study how the friction caused
affects the force on the house. All of the knowledge gained from these altered designs
would help both architects and builders build smarter and safer houses for communities
often affected by high winds.


























Berger Gallis 39

Appendix A: Sample Calculations
To conduct an ANOVA test, the number of observations, average forces recorded,
and standard deviations for each sample were needed. These values are shown in Table
10.
Table 10
Number of Observations, Averages, and Standard Deviations of Each Group
Category
Number of
Observations
Average
Force (N)
Standard
Deviation
Dome 1ft 30 0.7391 0.058526
Stilt 1 ft 30 0.8016 0.053887
Slant 1 ft 30 1.29383 0.117543
Dome 3 ft 30 0.3975 0.041179
Stilt 3 ft 30 0.290467 0.022979
Slant 3 ft 30 0.549967 0.045190
Dome 5 ft 30 0.199867 0.065991
Stilt 5 ft 30 0.170067 0.009089
Slant 5 ft 30 0.250733 0.059865

In an ANOVA test, an F value is found. Table 1 shows how the values are found
by dividing the mean square group, MSG, by the mean square error, MSE. These values
are the variation among sample means between each population and the variation among
individuals in the same sample within each group, respectively. To find both the MSG
and MSE, the mean of the population, x must be found. This is shown in Figure 24.

( ) ( ) ()

() () (

Figure 24. Sample Calculation of .
The MSG and MSE can then be calculated once the mean of the population is
found. The MSG is the sum of the number of samples, n, times the mean of the sample,
Berger Gallis 40

1
squared minus the mean of the population, . This sum is divided by the number of
populations, I, minus 1. This equation is shown in Figure 25.

( )

( )

( )

Figure 25. Mean Square Group Equation and Sample Calculation

Furthermore, the MSE is the sum of number of samples, n, minus one, times the
standard deviation, s, squared. This sum is then divided by the total number of
populations, N, minus one. This equation is shown in Figure 26.

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

Figure 26. Mean Square Error Equation and Sample Calculation
Once the MSG and MSE were calculated, these numbers were divided to find the
F value. For this ANOVA, the F value is 412.711. This F value was compared to the
critical F value of the data, which is derived from a table at the numbers denoted by the
degrees of freedom. For an ANOVA, the degrees of freedom is found using the equation
shown in Figure 27.






Berger Gallis 41

Figure 27. Degrees of Freedom Calculation
Using the degrees of freedom, the Critical F value was found to be 3.013. These
two values are extremely far apart, meaning that there is a significant difference between
the three houses at a distance of one foot.

Figure 28. Tukey HSD Statistical Test
In Figure 28 shows the equation that was used in the Tukey HSD statistical test. The q
character represents the table value for the number of groups, the MSE symbol
represents the mean square error already calculated from the ANOVA test, and the n
character represents the population size.














Berger Gallis 42

Appendix B

Senior Research Professional Consultant Contact Form

Name:__Karly Gallis_______________ _______Sonja Berger_________________

Research Topic: __Wind Resistance of Architectural Structures_____________________

Professional Contact Information

Name:____Gilbert Sunghera ___________________________________

Title:__Assistant Professor of Architecture________________________

Organization:____University of Detroit Mercy_____________________

Phone (area code and extension):__ 313-993-1037______________________________

Email:_gilbert.sunghera@udmercy.edu_________________________________

Mailing Address:___ Name/Dept & Room No.
University of Detroit Mercy
4001 West McNichols Road
Detroit MI 48221-3038

Dialogue Information

1. Contact Goal:

We would like to gain a further understanding of the causes of wind uplift on houses.
2. At least three potential questions to help reach your goal:
A. What architectural features create the most wind uplift?


B. Which architectural feature is the most resistant against wind uplift?


C.What changes could we make to our design to improve it?

3. Additional Information
The contact listed above may not be our professional contact. He replied to our email (below)
and offered to find us a colleague to aid us.

FYI
Berger Gallis 43

Never give out any personal contact information
Write a thank you note or email to thank your contact for their time and participation.
MMSTC Senior Research Project
2 messages

Karly Gallis <kgal7778@gmail.com> Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:09 AM
To: gilbert.sunghera@udmercy.edu
Hi Gilbert,

I'm Karly Gallis and I participated in the Summer of Architecture camp with you this summer.

At my school, the Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center, my partner and I are in the
process of completing a physics research project rooted in architecture and need someone with your
level of expertise to help us.

Our topic is testing the wind resistance of three different architectural structures to later relate to
sustainability in hurricanes and other severe weather. We will be designing these structures in a CAD
software and creating them using a 3D printer. We will place these miniature structures in a wind
tunnel and test the force on each house at five different wind speeds.

After some preliminary research, we decided on the following types of structures: a cubicle house with
a domed roof, a cubicle house on stilted supports, and a cubicle house with a slanted roof. (Examples
are attached below.) We are still in the process of designing these structures in SolidWorks.

For this research, we are required to contact a professional in the field of our project to help guide us
and give us suggestions throughout its duration. Would you be willing to oversee this project? If you
feel you would not be able to adequately advise us on this project, could you put us into contact with
someone who could?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Karly Gallis and Sonja Berger


3 attachments


stilt house example.jpg
112K




dome roof example.jpg
88K


Berger Gallis 44



slanted roof example.jpg
397K





Gilbert Sunghera <gilbert.sunghera@udmercy.edu> Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM
To: Karly Gallis <kgal7778@gmail.com>
Karly
What a great project. I am checking with some colleagues who can possibly help. I will be back in
Detroit this evening and will hopefully have a response by mid week.
Gilbert.

Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted text hidden]
> <stilt house example.jpg>
> <dome roof example.jpg>
> <slanted roof example.jpg>


























Berger Gallis 45

Appendix C
Materials:
Dogo 480 Printer
Epoxy
Tech Deck Wheels
3x3 inches 1mm Thick Cardboard

Procedures:
1. Print .stl file house on 3-D printer.
2. Cut out proper thin cardboard to cover the hole on the bottom of the house, and
glue to bottom.
3. Accurately glue four sets of wheels on the bottom of the house, so it rolls
straight without turning.

Diagram:

Figure 29. Control House with Wheels
Figure 29 displays the controlled house with a set of wheels on the bottom for it to
roll along the tracks.
Berger Gallis 46



Figure 30. Drawing of Slanted Roof House
Figure 30 is a design of slanted roof house on the solid works computer program.
This house is shelled out with an open bottom. The base was three inches by three inches
wide, and the height of the entire house was four and a half inches tall. The roof hung
over the base of the house a quarter of an inch.

Figure 31. Drawing of Dome House
Figure 31 is a design of house on the solid works computer program. The
octagonal base was three inches by three inches wide, and the height of the entire house
was four and a half inches tall. This house is shelled out with an open bottom. The base
3in
3in
Berger Gallis 47

was three inches by three inches wide, and the height of the entire house was four and a
half inches tall. The roof hung over less than a sixteenth of an inch in eight different
locations on the top of the base.

Figure 32. Drawing of Stilt House
Figure 32 is a design of house on the solid works computer program. This house
is shelled out with an open bottom. The base was three inches by three inches wide, and
the height of the entire house was four and a half inches tall. The stilts were an eighth of
an inch thick and were 1.5 inches tall.









3in
3in
Berger Gallis 48

Works Cited
Aerodynamics. Hutchinson Encyclopedia. 2011. eLibrary.Web. 23 Sep. 2013.
Baskaran, A., S. Molleti, and M. Sexton. "Wind Performance Evaluation of Fully Bonded
Roofing Assemblies." Construction and Building Materials 22.3 (2008):
343.Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Bertrand, Peggy. "Hurricane Katrina: A Teachable Moment: Learning About Fluid
Mechanics Concepts Through The Context of Katrina." The Science Teacher 76.7
(2009): 30. Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
CNN. "Typhoon Haiyan Death Toll." CNN. Cable News Network, 22 Nov. 2013. Web.
25 Nov. 2013.
Ehni, Peter. "How Are Hurricanes Formed?" Classrooms of The Future (COTF). Center
for Educational Technologies/Wheeling Jesuit University, 28 Apr. 2005. Web. 23
Nov. 2013.
Gregerson, John. "Bracing for Wind Uplift." Building Design & Construction 31.9
(1990): 98. Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Kreger, Chris. How Are Hurricanes Formed. Cotf.edu. Center for Educational
Technologies, 28. Apr. 2005. Web. 11 Oct 2013.
Larrambebere, Gonzalo. "Summer theatre." Construction and Building Materials Apr.
2013: 918+. Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Lepore, Frank. "STORM SURGE: A RISING CONCERN AMONG COASTAL
RESIDENTS." NOAA Magazine Online (Story 178). NOAA National Hurricane
Center, Aug. 2007. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Berger Gallis 49

Masters, Jeffrey. "Hurricanes: Science and Society: Hurricane Impacts Due to Storm
Surge, Wave, and Coastal Flooding." Hurricanes: Science and Society: Hurricane
Impacts Due to Storm Surge, Wave, and Coastal Flooding. The University of
Rhode Island, 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Perkins, Sid. "Scour Power: Big Storms Shift Coastal Erosion into Overdrive." Science
News 178.5 (2010): 14. Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Poock, Nicole. "Building Hope: Housing Fit for a Hurricane." Resource: Engineering &
Technology for a Sustainable World20.3 (2013): 4+. Academic OneFile. Web. 23
Sept. 2013.
Royle, Taylor. "GUIDELINES NEW ORLEANS." Make It Right. Brad PittMake It
Right, 15 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Snodgrass, Eric. "Coriolis Force." YouTube. University of Illinois., 28 July 2010. Web.
23 Sept. 2013.
"Tropical Cyclone." World of Earth Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth
Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 598-600. Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Web. 23 Sept. 2013.