Frontiers of Architectural Research (2018) 7, 56–66

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Frontiers of Architectural Research

www.keaipublishing.com/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Acoustic of monolithic dome structures

Mostafa Refat Ismail, Hazem Eldalyn

Department of Architecture Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Egypt

Received 27 May 2017; received in revised form 1 November 2017; accepted 9 November 2017

KEYWORDS Abstract
Acoustic; Monolithic dome structures were built in the 1970s in Europe and America. These dome
Eco Dome; structures share common benefits of being cost-efficient, earth-friendly, extremely durable,
Monolithic structures; and easily maintained. Monolithic shells are easily constructed and are extremely cost-
Sound treatment effective. Monolithic domes respond efficiently to any climate, even to extremely cold or
hot temperatures. In terms of utility savings, monolithic domes can cut electricity consumption
by up to one-third, thereby saving 60–70% of total energy costs. Moreover, monolithic structures
provide the highest survivability rates from destructions.
The interior of monolithic domes have perfect, concave shapes to ensure that sound travels
through the dome and perfectly collected at different vocal points. These dome structures are
utilized for domestic use because the scale allows the focal points to be positioned across daily
life activities, thereby affecting the sonic comfort of the internal space. This study examines
the various acoustic treatments and parametric configurations of monolithic dome sizes. A
geometric relationship of acoustic treatment and dome radius is established to provide
architects guidelines on the correct selection of absorption needed to maintain the acoustic
comfort of these special spaces.
& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on
behalf of KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction performances. Smooth concave surfaces purely reflect

Monolithic dome structures are enclosed by smooth concave
surfaces built in one block. These structures are unsuitable
for communication, presentation of speeches, and musical
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mostafa_ismail@eng.asu.edu.eg,
hazem.eldaly@eng.asu.edu.eg (H. Eldaly).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.
sound energy and do not diffuse this energy properly in
space. In most cases, these structures will create focal
points and dead spots with different geometrical configura-
tions. Previous work outlined practical guidelines for the
proper acoustic design of circular rooms and domes
(Vercammen, 2012; Kuttruff, 2000; Cremer, 1982; Satoshi
Inoue, 2009; Imaizumi, 1997), but the general application of
common rules to different scales and uses cannot be easily
achieved. a recent study (Dagmar REINHARDT, 2013)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.11.002
2095-2635/& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Acoustic of monolithic dome structures
outlined remedial actions of sound by focusing on structural
deflections of the original concave geometry of domes;
however, this approach has limitations because of the
structural construction process of monolithic domes.
Acoustical behavior cannot be easily standardized
because of variation in the size, shape, and volume of
concave domes. Therefore, correct treatments of internal
surfaces should be applied to prevent the occurrence of
unusual phenomenon in the room and assess remedial
strategies against such phenomenon through an accurate
acoustic assessment of space handling.
Monolithic dome structures are constructed for residen-
tial spaces. The acoustic phenomena arising from concave
shapes will interfere with human activities because the
focal points of acoustic energy have the same levels of
occupancy. This study examines the acoustic behavior of
residential monolithic dome structures and aims to standar-
dize acoustic treatment strategies related to dome size.
Acoustic examination is based on parametric analysis of the
acoustic and geometric factors related to subjective
Fig. 1 Domes covering an oval plan in Asia Minor (Huerta, 2007).
57
evaluation. This study presents the results of acoustic
evaluation to improve sound fields through the use of
certain parameters.
2. Monolithic domes
A monolithic structure is a structure that is carved or cast
from one piece to form a homogeneous structure. The term
monolithic stems from “monolith,” which means a large
piece of stone used to erect a structure or monument. The
earliest forms of monolithic structures are integrals of a
building unit. These domes were first constructed in Asia
Minor through masonry in 4000 B.C. by cantilevering of
stones. The igloo (Hall, 1865) is also an example of this
structure, which was formed of compressed snow bricks
melted together to form a homogeneous dome structure
(Figs. 1–3).
Fig. 4 shows an image of a current monolithic structure,
which is lightweight cast in a one piece and can be opened
58
in possible forms without affecting the structure. The form
can be temporarily made out of fabric or any deformable
material, or may be permanent and act as a part of the
finished surface. “Reams Turtle” is one of the first modern
monolithic domes, which was built in 1963 in Provo-Utah
(Wilson, 2009). The structure was constructed by placing a
grid of rebar over a mound of dirt, which was then covered
by a 10-cm thick concrete layer. After curing the concrete,
dirt was removed from underneath, thereby leaving a
homogenous concrete structure (Fig. 5).
Monolithic domes are commonly being used in residential
units. As shown in Fig. 4, combined or separated monolithic
structures afford great flexibility in home design and can
easily address any needs. 4. This structure can be easily
partitioned into small areas or integrated to form larger
spaces. Inside spaces can include almost anything. The
structural skin is integral and can withstand most natural
disasters. The thermal mass of concrete in a residential unit
will be energy-efficient and cost-effective. Thus, monolithic
structures are widely used in residential applications. Fig. 6
shows a typical plan for a monolithic dome residential unit.
Fig. 2 Design of an Eskimo igloo dome (Marston, 1972).
Fig. 3 Igloo dome constructed from corbeled snow blocks
(Melaragno, 1991).
Fig. 4 Possible openings of domes (Hennik, 2005).
M.R. Ismail, H. Eldaly
2.1. Monolithic dome structures
Modern construction methods use inflatable tough air form,
steel-reinforced concrete, and an insulation layer. Fig. 7
shows a schematic section of the monolithic structure
layering system.
The construction of a monolithic dome (Parker, 2002)
starts by laying out a foundation layer; the air form is then
erected to form a hemispherical shape dome, but deforma-
tion could occur for different shapes. The inner surface is
then sprayed with a urethane layer to harden the flexible
skin of the air form. A rebar mesh is laid inside the
hemisphere to reinforce the final sprayed concrete layer
and form the structure of the dome. The resulting structure
is a curved interior surface, which is connected from the
peak of the dome to the floor. The base material is sprayed
concrete with textured and rough finish. A final interior
coating is added with a white smooth finish (with possible
texture), such as a plaster that is washable and mechani-
cally suitable for human traffic (Fig. 8).
Fig. 9 shows a typical cross-section of a monolithic dome.
The figure shows structural elements and different layers of
the shell. The ring beam foundation is shown as well. The
section outlines the relative dome scale for residential
purposes, which clearly shows the focal acoustic energy
gathering at human activity levels. The radius of residential
unit structure should be analyzed to investigate the acoustic
and parametric behavior of monolithic domes in residential
units.
2.2. Radius of residential monolithic structures
To assess the acoustic behavior of various dome sizes, the
corresponding radiuses present in a residential unit that
houses various activities should be analyzed. Fig. 10 shows
the radiuses of a residential unit in different sections and
plans.
The residential unit in Fig. 10 includes various radiuses
that range from 2 m to 5.9 m. To parametrically investigate
the impact of various dome scales on acoustic behavior,
group analyses were conducted for radiuses 2, 2.9, 3.9, and
4.9 m. These radiuses represent the effect of size variation
on acoustic behavior to achieve parametric remedies to
different acoustic phenomena. Large scale domes are not
considered relevant for this study because they are not
present in small residential uses. Elevated domes such as
those on a cylindrical podium are not considered
monolithic.
3. Analysis of acoustic behavior
To investigate the impact of various sizes of domes on the
acoustics of internal space, sound behavior was modeled by
implementing a raytracing technique. The number of rays
Acoustic of monolithic dome structures 59

Fig. 5 Various shapes of monolithic domes, which are combined or separated (Anon, 2016).

Fig. 6 A typical residential unit constructed out of monolithic domes.

implemented in the simulation is reached according to
convergence criterion. The number of rays is increased in
packages until no significant change in results is observed.
The internal space of the monolithic dome can be divided
into several spaces that result in various configurations. The
possible configurations of domes for investigation are purely
hemispherical, one-sided and double-sided vertical walls
and all openings are neglected in simulation as shown in
Fig. 11.
3.1. Reverberation time (RT)
RT was investigated for various configurations and sound
treatment in a monolithic dome. To improve the sound field,
60
Fig. 7 Schematic section that shows the structural layering system (Parker, 2002).
Fig. 8 Construction of a modern monolithic dome: a) Foundation; b) Erecting the inner air form; c) Inner hardening by spraying
urethane layer; d) Laying of rebar mesh; e) Final concrete layer.
Fig. 9 Typical cross-section in a monolithic dome.
uniform sound field should be formed by increasing absorp-
tion through increased treatments in critical areas and
improvement of diffusion of sound with respect to the
reflection on internal concave surfaces. This viewpoint
suggests that an additional absorption material at a specific
level should be added to the internal concave surface area
of the dome to improve performance through simple
acoustic remedies. Acoustic treatment was applied to the
upper part of the dome (above floor level) and the circular
M.R. Ismail, H. Eldaly
concave wall at the top portion to a maximum height inside
the entire curved surface of the dome. The sound absorp-
tion of the multicellular spherical particles of plastic,
specifically selected density and granular distribution,
includes expanded vermiculite and synthetic resins that
act as binding glue. This sprayable plaster is then painted
with a sprayable paint in white. This treatment facilitates
human accessibility with acceptable absorption character-
istics, as shown in Fig. 12.
Figs. 13–16 show the simulation results for different
configurations of radiuses starting from 2 m, 2.9 m, 3.9 m,
and 4.9 m, respectively. The first row in each figure shows
the results of the RT with untreated concrete plaster. After
assigning absorption treatment to an adequate surface area
starting from the top of the dome, the model is run several
times until adequate RT is achieved.
Acoustic treatment is assigned to the top concave of the
dome because it is assumed that furniture and accessories
hanging in the wall will add to the required diffusion and
absorption of sound at low levels. However, the concave
part of the ceiling will remain exposed and sound-energy
focus could easily occur.
The 80-mm thick composite applied as sound absorption
treatment is effective at mid- and high-frequency ranges.
Low-frequency bass traps could be installed to cut off low-
frequency range sound waves. Acoustic absorptive materials
Acoustic of monolithic dome structures 61

Fig. 10 Typical schematic plan and section of a monolithic dome residential unit showing various radiuses.

reduce RT values to acceptable limits. Thus, sound focusing will be diffusely reflected by furniture. Intersected domes
issues will become less severe because critical sound energy negatively affect sound energy through reflection and
is absorbed by the absorptive ceiling and other components
62 M.R. Ismail, H. Eldaly

Fig. 11 Different designs of domes in a monolithic residential unit: a) hemispherical; b) one-sided vertical wall; c) double-sided
vertical wall.

Fig. 12 Position of acoustic treatment and absorption characteristics inside a monolithic dome.

concentration (Dagmar REINHARDT, 2013), thereby over-
coming sound focusing issues in single-dome structures.
4. Parametric analysis
The results of raytracing simulation to optimize the absorp-
tion needed for each dome size are utilized, and a para-
metric analysis (Ismail, 2013) is conducted to achieve
expression. This expression defines the geometric para-
meters of the amount of absorption needed. Absorption
should be applied to the upper part to form a circular dome
cap of absorptive layer that should be applied to the
internal concave surface.
Fig. 12 shows the relationship for defining geometric
parameters of the absorptive cap related to dome radius.
This relationship is defined in terms of the height of the
circular threshold that separates normal materials and the
Acoustic of monolithic dome structures 63

Fig. 13 RT results for dome radius of 2 m for hemisphere (first column); one-sided vertical wall (second column), double-sided
vertical wall (third column).

Fig. 14 RT results for dome radius of 2.9 m for hemisphere (first column); one-sided vertical wall (second column); double-sided
vertical wall (third column).
64 M.R. Ismail, H. Eldaly

Fig. 15 RT results for dome radius of 3.9 m for hemispherical (first column); one-sided vertical wall (second column); double-sided
vertical wall (third column).

Fig. 16 RT results for dome radius of 4.9 m, for hemispherical (first column); one-sided vertical wall (second column); double-sided
vertical wall (third column).
Acoustic of monolithic dome structures
Fig. 17 Relationship of geometric parameters of the absorp-
tive cap and dome radius.
Fig. 18 Relative absorptive cab surface area to dome radius.
absorptive cap above the finished floor level and dome size.
The relationship of dome radius and the absorptive cap
radius is defined as well.
The relationship of dome size and absorptive cap char-
acteristics is linear, which means it increases as dome radius
increases the material circular threshold distance from the
65
finished floor level. This relationship is affected by the
increase of dome radius.
Thus, the relationship of the absorptive cap surface area
to the total dome internal surface area should be plotted,
as shown in Fig. 18. The figure outlines a convergence,
which is reached with increasing radius and dome size and
outlines a decrease in the absorption needed with increas-
ing size.
Fig. 17 shows that the linear relationship of absorptive
cap radius and the overall dome radius can be expressed as
follows:
Absorptive cap radius ¼ dome radius–0:57
The relationship between circular threshold height from
finished floor level and the dome radius could be expressed
as:
Circular threshold height ¼ 0:413 dome radius þ 1:3
These two relationships assist designers in quickly identi-
fying the amount of absorption needed in residential
monolithic domes without the need to perform detailed
simulation during design process.
5. Conclusion
This study discussed issues related to acoustic design
strategies of residential monolithic dome structures and
outlined mitigation measures to the concentration of sound
energy caused by complex internal concave surfaces. By
introducing absorptive materials to the internal upper cap
of the monolithic dome structure, the critical sound com-
ponents reflected by the upper exposed shell of the dome
are absorbed and the focusing of sound energy is minimized
in these small residential units. Dome size significantly
influences sound behavior inside such structures. The pro-
blem in large-scale and highly lifted domes is the focal
points of sound energy elevated above human activity
levels, which do not interfere with daily activities. How-
ever, this phenomenon becomes problematic for small-scale
dome implemented for residential uses. A typological
monolithic dome structure for residential units was geome-
trically analyzed. Common dome scales were characterized
in terms of radius.
For the purposes of generative design, common dome
sizes were analyzed in terms of their acoustic impacts. A ray
tracing technique for modeling sound waves was implemen-
ted. The number of rays emitted from the point source was
chosen according to convergence criteria.
Parametric analysis was conducted to identify the rela-
tionship of various geometric parameters. The amount of
absorption needed is characterized in terms of the absorp-
tive upper cap surface area of the dome. A relationship was
developed to serve as guidance during schematic design
phases for the amount of absorption that should be applied
to the upper part of the dome and dome size in terms of
radius.
66
References
Anon., n.d, 2016. Monolithic Dome Shapes. Online: http://www.
monolithic.org/monolithic-dome-shapes.
Cremer L, M.H.S.T., 1982. Principles and Applications of Room
Acoustics. Applied Science Publishers, London and New York.
Dagmar REINHARDT, W.M. a.L.M., 2013. SONIC DOMES Solving
Acoustic Performance of Curved Surfaces by Interfacing Para-
metric Design, Structural Engineering and Acoustic Analysis.
Department of Architecture-NUS, The Association for Compu-
ter-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), Hong
Kong, and Center for Advanced Studies in Architecture (CASA),
Singapore, 529–538.
Kuttruff, H., 2000. Room Acoustics. Spon Press, London.
Hall, C.F., 1865. Arctic Researches and Life Among the Esquimaux:
Being the Narrative of an Expedition in Search of Sir John
Franklin in the Years 1860, 1861, and 1862. Harper and Brothers,
New York.
Hennik, P. v., 2005. Pneumatic Formwork for Irregular Curved Thin
Shells. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Huerta, S., 2007. Oval domes: history, geometry and mechanics.
Nexus Netw. J. 9 (2), 211–248.
M.R. Ismail, H. Eldaly
Imaizumi H, K.M.K.S.I.T., 1997. Sound propagation and speech
hearing in a curved reverberant tunnel. J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn (E)
18 (3), 129–137.
Ismail, M.R., 2013. A parametric investigation of the acoustical
performance of contemporary mosques. Front. Archit. Res. 2
(1), 30–41.
Marston, J., 1972. American Building: The Environmental Forces
that Shape It. Schocken Books, Boston.
Melaragno, M., 1991. An Introduction to Shell Structures: The Art
and Science of Vaulting. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Parker, F., 2002. An Architect's Sketch Book: Domes For Tomorrow II.
Monolithic Dome Institute, Italy.
Satoshi Inoue, K.S.M.K.H.I., 2009. Speech transmission performance
and the effect of acoustical remedies in a dome. Appl. Acoust.
70, 221–230.
Vercammen, M., 2012. Sound concentration caused by curved
surfaces. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133 (5), 3348.
Wilson, A., 2009. Dr. Arnold Wilson and the Ream's Turtle. Mono-
lithic Dome Institute 〈http://www.monolithic.org/stories/
dr-arnold-wilson-and-the-reams-turtle〉.