© All Rights Reserved

68 views

© All Rights Reserved

- ANOVA Nanti Ganti Nama
- Homework Problem Set 2 Solutions (1)
- The Feasibility of Chili
- Influence of BisGMA, TEGDMA, And
- Educational Qualification as Secondary School Principals’
- Gt 3511931198
- mp2
- Grr of 1220-00 @Limit-RLC
- IMT Research Paper -Final
- IRJFE_89_12
- Ip Mgt516 Research Methodology
- A Study on Age Related Responses Towards Hedonic
- Understanding Repeated-Measures ANOVA.pdf
- data analysis project julia packard
- Design & analysis of experiments: supplement
- ppt
- Solved Examples Ch10
- 16 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).pdf
- Chapter 8
- 18. Agri Sci - Ijasr -Characterization of Drudgery in - Mrunalini

You are on page 1of 49

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

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.

- ANOVA Nanti Ganti NamaUploaded byIwan Irwan Arnol
- Homework Problem Set 2 Solutions (1)Uploaded byMuzamil Shah
- The Feasibility of ChiliUploaded byMark Paul
- Influence of BisGMA, TEGDMA, AndUploaded bymuchlis fauzi
- Educational Qualification as Secondary School Principals’Uploaded byAllen Alfred
- Gt 3511931198Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- mp2Uploaded byunwell_08
- Grr of 1220-00 @Limit-RLCUploaded byParamesr Khettsupan
- IMT Research Paper -FinalUploaded byramchandaniravi
- IRJFE_89_12Uploaded byeyes1aq
- Ip Mgt516 Research MethodologyUploaded bySiddharth Singh
- A Study on Age Related Responses Towards HedonicUploaded bychakra01oct_71792439
- Understanding Repeated-Measures ANOVA.pdfUploaded bywahida_halim
- data analysis project julia packardUploaded byapi-242791951
- Design & analysis of experiments: supplementUploaded byMurugesh
- pptUploaded byManav Kohli
- Solved Examples Ch10Uploaded byaman_nsu
- 16 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).pdfUploaded byFco.JavierEspinosa
- Chapter 8Uploaded byAthar Rizwan
- 18. Agri Sci - Ijasr -Characterization of Drudgery in - MrunaliniUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Banker LendingUploaded byInnocent Zee
- i Jcc e 67431383251400Uploaded byEng Mohammed
- Overview of a NovaUploaded byHii King Fong
- ILT No Author DetailsUploaded byNor Syahirah Mohamad
- 10.1016@j.bcab.2017.04.014(1)Uploaded byLaisa Husraini
- rob travel prep 1Uploaded byapi-416865625
- pisa5Uploaded byYani
- Kupdf.net Industrial Plant Engineering Reviewer CompletepdfUploaded byMiguel Ocampo
- 20150827161213912.12.Prof. Bharati R. HiremathUploaded byMuhammed Rafee
- inglesUploaded byJOSE JOSE LORA SANCHEZ

- final paper 6-6-13Uploaded byapi-253562120
- done 2 swimmingUploaded byapi-253562120
- outside math paperwith part 4 1Uploaded byapi-253562120
- using spreadsheets for financial decisionsUploaded byapi-253562120
- ssepUploaded byapi-253562120
- rubric-towerUploaded byapi-253562120
- tower paperUploaded byapi-253562120
- done 7 crm paper - copyUploaded byapi-253562120
- my oedipus complexUploaded byapi-253562120
- scorereportUploaded byapi-253562120

- Soal Bahasa Inggris Kelas 11 ScribdUploaded byDovy Wahyu Widhiarta
- NTSB Preliminary ReportUploaded byAnonymous xvHO5CigF
- DisasterUploaded byRaissa Pauline Oliva
- hydrosphere map setUploaded byapi-303242164
- Meteorology StuUploaded byNick Tsang
- Natural DisastersUploaded byoiu7hjjs
- Failure Analysis Report, Banqiao damUploaded byHaddas Asfaw
- Flood DroughtUploaded bysaamy
- d18a - Under Keel Clearance Calculation r5Uploaded bySunilGangwar
- CP Lost Sales Handout SolutionUploaded bySumit Singh
- The Gambia Coastal Erosion Photo File - YT2012.pdfUploaded byYusef_Taylor
- ToR for the Final ReviewUploaded byucl_hai
- EarthquakeUploaded bydahlia orit
- NCA RebuttalUploaded byAnonymous UFfj4cWO
- ReadyFldRCUploaded bysentryx1
- Tropical Cyclones 11Uploaded byLana Boyce
- Fill in the Gaps With a an the or Zero ArticleUploaded bykamolpan@gmail.com
- Arthur Rimbaud-The Drunken BoatUploaded byIvana NIkolic
- Lexington County Flood MapUploaded byTony Santaella
- Paulding County Progress February 27, 2013Uploaded byPauldingProgress
- The Shore in Twilight - Twelve kingdomsUploaded byanckh
- mqUploaded byΓιώργοςΣκάζας
- Mcq s HydrologyUploaded byRahat ullah
- TyphoonUploaded byAndrea Jarani Linezo
- Hazards Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community-based Disaster Risk ManagementUploaded byErnan Baldomero
- Disaster Snapshot 17-18th Dec 2012 GDACSUploaded byGarry De La Pomerai
- Rubber InsuranceUploaded bychaitanya_scribd
- DRRR COmpetency 27-30Uploaded byMajoe Odnorb
- epwt englishUploaded byJohn Alexander Gallin
- Atmospheric CirculationUploaded bytungtunglam

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.