Re: [math-fun] Optimal Dome
After a bit more thought, I think that the following would be feasible. An erf/erg dome cut off at some point with radius r, r fairly large, so when you're close to the outer edge of the dome, it looks like a flat wall at a very slight angle towards the dome. We now place a "skirt" around the outside of this dome which "starts" perhaps halfway up (down?) the dome side and gracefully (e.g., exp(-r) or exp(-r^2)) expands out from the dome in all directions. Note that the volume between the ground plane and underneath the skirt outside the dome is _filled in_ with material. The vertical weight of the erf/erg dome is carried by the lip of this dome itself; the only purpose of the skirt & filled in material is to provide the horizontal force towards the origin. If the dome is quite high, the angle of the wall at the lip is very nearly vertical, so the horizontal force required is relatively weak. The purpose of the skirt is to spread the horizontal force over as large a perimeter as possible. One way to analyze the circular "buttress" is to look at a section of it and turn it 90 degrees, so that the infinite lip is pointing down. The almost-horizontal top (after rotation) is now 1/2 of a standard arch bridge, except that in our case, the force coming down from the top is the original horizontal spreading force of the dome, and most importantly, the material of the bridge doesn't have to hold itself up (because gravity is pulling essentially orthogonally to the spreading force of the dome). At 01:08 PM 11/12/2012, Warren Smith wrote:
On 11/12/12, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
You've got a valid point, Warren.
1. I think it might be possible to get a pure compressive dome, but the base might have to be infinite.
--1. The area of dome-cap goes like radius^2 or greater. But its perimeter is 2*pi*radius. Hence the compressive stress would be at least proportional to radius for a uniform-thickness dome. Hence growing the radius to infinity is impossible with uniform thickness.
So, suppose the thickness were q(r), nonuniform. Roughly how would q grow? Integral q(r) * r * dr is proportional to a lower bound on weight for a radius-r cap, and this for uniform compressive stress would be proportional to r*q (perimeter*thickness).
Hence q' * r + q = C * r * q with solution q(r) = K*exp(C*r)/r.
So therefore, an infinite-width dome with uniform compressive stress would perhaps be possible provided its thickness grew as above, i.e. roughly exponentially with r.
2. I think that there may be a solution that looks something roughly like a Gaussian revolved around the y axis.
Basically, the "skirt" of the Gaussian pushes out on an ever increasing radius.
--2. I don't think so because a nonconvex object like that will get tension at points of negative curvature.
For a free-standing arch (domes too hard!) we can make it have uniform thickness and uniform compressive (along the curve) stress. Result curve is cycloid. Alternatively we can make it have uniform thickness and uniform bending stress, in fact zero bending stress. Result curve is inverted catenary y=cosh(x) type curve. Cannot do both at same time. But if allow nonuniform curve-thickness, then can do both by controlling both thickness and shape functions. --------- Now returning to the dome, the paper Henry Brady found seems to enforce uniform thickness and zero tensional stress round latitudes. But: nonuniform compressive stress along meridians. And is there also a third kind of stress - bending? It is a famous rigidity theorem of Pogorelov that the surface-metric of a convex body in 3D determines its shape uniquely. Therefore, unlike an arch, which can bend without distorting any arc-lengths, a dome cannot bend without distorting its surface metric. So I think the moral of that is, if the tensional and compressional stresses are handled by the dome's material without stretching & shrinking its surface metric, then the dome shape will stay fixed even if the material is totally flimsy against bending (assuming base attached to ground by immovable hinges). [Similarly, a catenary-shaped arch (or hanging chain) will stay fixed shape even if totally flimsy against bending, provided it does not stretch/shrink.] If when manufacturing the dome, you were to build in those compressional & tensional stresses so dome was already in correct shape when stressed, then you'd be happy. However, to accomplish this seems to require building the dome from top downward jacking it up as we go (!) -- or if built in usual bottom-up way, then applying artificial stress using cables as it is built (the cables supply the forces representing the unbuilt missing part of the dome). Far as I know, nobody does either in practical construction. I guess the practical thing to do would be to build it in slightly intentionally wrong shape, so that under stress it comes out right shape. As far as I know nobody does that in practice either. There is also yet another issue: instabilities such as "buckling." Trying to make your arch or dome maximally stable against such, might be a whole different design challenge (probably a good deal more difficult too). So these things are quite subtle.
participants (2)
-
Henry Baker -
Warren Smith