DOME certification, approval and credibility

[eric]

I loves me some testimonials but verified facts are equally important to me as a customer.
Monolithic is a small operation that makes a lot of claims about their signature product. They probably can't afford any of the following "official" endorsements that would up their credibility.

- A LEED certified "stock plan" dome.
- A FEMA letter that said they approve domes for disaster proof shelters.
- An earthquake testing lab putting a dome through vibration /shaking tests. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... esting+lab
- A university or lab http://www.htltest.com/ hurricane/tornado wind tunnel test of a dome and by shooting a 2X4 into it (and maybe a few different caliber bullets) at various angles.
- An independent verification of the insulating capability of the MD shell vs a wood wall with pink batting inside (3rd party analysis on the R value paper from DS)
- Third party fire rating of a MD shell inside and out.
- Health expert recommendations on moisture control in a MD
- Sound lab verification of sound proofing and interior reflection issues
- Consumer Reports article on dome value claims vs other construction techniques.

[DBS]

To Eric and others. I really appreciate your post. I work with this stuff so close that I often fail to see what you see. I am going to write a short answer to your questions here and then a long answer on a blog without the name. As it is not necessary.

!) There is no such thing as a stock LEED plan. Each building has to be evaluated for each piece of land. For instance the prior use of the land is part of the evaluation.
2) A FEMA letter of approval again is not possible. Each has to be designed for the use. But as proof we do have several buildings designed and built in various states where FEMA has provided up to 90% of the finding as Tornado Shelters.
3) When I asked the prof in charge of the Earthquake lab for University of Nevada at Reno if he would like to test one of our sample domes , he said. Why would you waste my time. By definition your building is as earthquake proof as a building can be. Any structural engineer will tell you that. "there are no moment connections". Since then we have had several domes "Tested" by actual earthquakes including a direct hit on one in Taiwan. The buildings on both side came down. If you saw the palace of Haiti after the earthquakes you saw the two domes on the roof came down in one piece. And they were nowhere as strong as a Monolithic Dome.
4) There have been hundreds of test shots into flat vertical walls made of concrete with the 2x4's. The 4 inch reinforced wall passes. So what is to be gained by shooting a 2x4 at a 4 inch curved wall that is obviously far stronger. On our website you can see where we have shot the domes. You can see where the one was bombed in Iraq and another was shot at many time.
5) Thirty - five years ago the R test may have done something . But we have too many buildings showing our savings to get in a battle over R values. If you really care it is easy to find all kinds of proofs of what we say. And they are from independent labs. The proof is in the pudding and any of our customers will tell you that our building will do what we say. Go to our website and look at the Thermographs.
6) There are hundreds of third party fire ratings of concrete. Why would we want to even consider another.
7) Moisture control is a function of the HVAC engineer. We have it under control. We also are making real advances by using Energy Recovery Ventilators that every builder should be using on most buildings.
8) Sound labs can not help much. It is the Acoustic engineers job. They are doing swell. Some are better than others and cost enters in. The big problem is some facilities do not have the budget to take care of acoustics properly even though it is not a huge problem.
9) I do not know how to get better consumer reports than we are doing. If you have an answer we would like to know it. We have been on several national TV shows with positive results.
10) How to get more and better is always tough. We do accept donations for more testing. We are involved as we know how to be. For those interested see www.changemakers.com

[Mcfish]

Thank you David. Your answers are quite succinct and i couldn't have put it as well or as briefly.

After looking at energy-efficient structures that are sustainable and safe for 10 years, I have have seen all types of testing and claims. As you have so aptly noted, almost all energy efficiency awards are based on individual houses, not designs. A zero-net energy house in Los Angeles is much easier to accomplish than one in Seattle. Or in Spokane. And the real life experiences are the proof of the pudding; some testing does not adequately predict behavior accurately since they fail to model important categories. Many programs do not model domes at all, nor account sufficiently for added mass or wing insulation.

It is human nature to hope that an easy path has been mapped out when first you start to explore sustainable housing. One might legitimately expect that of one of our oldest human endeavors. But it's just not so. There isn't a builder anywhere in the world that can produce the guarantees and testing Eric asks for, but MD's have been examined as thoroughly as any I have heard of, and for the widest range of effects. No one asks if a stick-built LEED house can withstand tornados; you know that a 2x4 going 200 mph will go right through the wall. A 20 foot snow accumulation squashes that house; let alone a fully loaded earth-mover. Yet existing testing and real life examples of this are available every day.

So certification, approval and credibility are really more functions of market demands. If enough MD's make it into existence, they will be widely recognized for their inherent engineering value, not just the unusual style, design or visual appeal.

[DBS]

Dear Mcfish:

Thank you for your kind word. You are right on point. The fact is all the testing in the world does not guarantee a car will work flawlessly. Or we would not have thousands of them recalled. The proof is in the pudding as they say. We have the pudding in place. But boy has it been uphill from the gitgo. Can you even imagine how many times I have been asked "can you really spray concrete over your head". Or "why do you insulate the concrete on the outside rather than the inside as everybody else does."

The interaction of thermal mass and insulation is only poorly understood. UCLA and others are now producing testing and computer models that verify exactly what we have been saying.

All in all we have a great system where we all can do our thing. Thanks for you input.

[eric]

Thank you David for your point by point response. I would like to address these one at a time but will wait for your blog as to speak to your full content.

The short version is this. Customers have different motivations for purchasing a product. What works for the very wise McFish may not work for my neighbor's wife. You have created and entire industry by training builders to make domes. I'm asking for the tools so I can sell domes.

A car/dome analogy.
A man is attracted to the new Chevy Volt on an emotional level because it's cool (sold as sexy in commercials) and because of it's tech-y features (a cutting edge drivetrain). The man's wife might be emotionally moved to want the same car because she thinks it's cute (as portrayed in ads in her favorite magazines) and that it fits the kids and groceries comfortably (empirical testing).
But they also both respond to car reviews and reports from credible institutions (such as JD Powers). The man's sale is cemented by the car being named Motor Trend's 2011 car of the year (outside verification) and the wife is also sold because she knows it's safer, does not pollute and is much and is cheaper to run (IIHS "safe pick" crash test videos) (EPA ratings).

Monolithic does a great job of being transparent. The website and sales package mailer also needs this type of outside confirmation in writing and portrayed in a powerful video to show what what they are saying is true, verified and demonstrable.

[Mcfish]

Eric; I think that much of the confirmation you seek is already posted within this website. Certainly there can not be much more dramatic evidence of the safety MDs provide than the Braswell video, or the tornado proof story of the Missouri dome, or the several domes that have been through hurricanes.

California has one of the stiffest energy codes in the country, ironically. They have provisions for showing interior mass benefits to retain heat/cool. One can not model as much mass as an MD has, but the lesser mass goes a long way to meet Title 24 requirements. UCLA offers a free program to check energy efficient designs. It is called HEED. A dome is not well modeled here because of the circular shape, but the mass and air-tight nature put a dome design as very efficient on HEED.

Other independent energy rating systems are LEED and HERS. Both rate only individual houses, not techniques or designs. Any design does better if it placed on the lot in a passive solar orientation. Thus neither MD's nor any other builder can point to a house model and say "all my ABC models have 65 HERS rating."

So safety and energy use is pretty well documented, although you have to search for the information. Costs and sexy design appeal are another issue. The emotional appeal of a dome has not been well developed. Costs are highly variable depending on location and quality, but can be quite low relative to stick built over a lifetime basis.

I would suggest that you look at the sales efforts of any tract builder. None that I have seen can quote specific performance. They rely on vague, qualitative descriptions that lack measurement performance to sell their energy efficiency. Safety is a non-issue. Mostly they push sexy style, granite counters, and stainless steel appliances.

I commend you on a desire to sell this great product. The information is out there, it just needs to be developed and organized. If we could get every house in the USA HERS rated, and a spot set aside on MLS to show it, along with insurance costs, MD's would have a much larger market share.

[opcn]

@DBS: I think this comes down to a question of being certain of something and being able to prove it. With my background in science I've had these two very different things thrown into sharp relief for me.

You and I both know that a dome is stronger than a regular house, and has XY and Z advantages, we both have familiarity that predisposes our judgement in favor of the dome. You can rely on that familiarity to sell to the small sliver of people who know already about the superiority of the dome. However most people don't know. You have done a lot to tell people about the superiority but you haven't done a great deal to show them The only demonstration of a controlled experiment that I have seen was the bullet test. But people can cheat on their own tests, you could shoot a .22 and say it was a 30-06 for instance. I intrinsically know that you wouldn't really have to, but I certainly don't know you personally, we don't have a history of trust and mutual understanding. That's why we have 3rd party organizations like Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Consumer reports and IIHS. If you think back to the Ford Exploders and Firestone tire recalls both Ford and Firestone sold their deathly dangerous products with claims of safety, it was third party organizations who were disinterested in their budgetary bottom line who held to the truth.

As I recalled you worked with an engineer from BYU, if you develop other relationships with engineers their approval is a form of third party endorsement (yes you still pay them, and shop around for them, but an engineer who will stamp anything doesn't keep his stamp for long). You have had national television exposure but it has all focused on (a) uncontrolled experiments like eye of the storm in the hurricane, (b) unverified claims by someone working at MDI, or (c) cosmetic comments. Bringing in more official approval will have a big effect on swaying the opinions of a cynical and disbelieving public.

Executive summary: Third party approval has a major psychological impact and there is good reason that it should. Together those two reasons are reasons that you should seek such approval.

[eric]

Thank you opcn for your writeup on third party verification. If they were not important you would not see them touted in car ads and certain products would never make it to market without them.

The "comfort" and "assurance" that comes from the outside accreditation organizations will help sell small municipalities, city councils, politicians and even newspapers who need to have the verified facts (in writing) to have the confidence to push through a dome-based project.

A city official gets two project proposals on her desk. One of them is dome based and she has never heard of them except in giant sports arenas. Besides the unconventional look, she worries there are no supports and that they might fall down. The company makes all sorts of wild claims about strength and suitability and cost benefits, etc, etc, etc... It's almost too good to be true. And it's new. And, different. Is it snake oil? She has her reputation on the line here.

With only the company that is selling the product (and their agents) making these claims it's so much easier for her to dismiss them and set aside the dome version and go the traditional construction route rather than spend taxpayer money to order a study with her city experts.

If she is forward thinking enough to pick up the phone there is another hurdle.
Those local experts also each have their jobs on the line. The region's "green" expert might know R value and may not fully understand insulated thermal mass.
The small town Fire Chief may balk because when she called him, she said, "spray foam" and he knows that in the absence of flame retardants, polyurethane is extremely combustible. Does she take the easy route and set the dome plan aside or is she sold enough to call him in? The next question is, "What's the fire rating listed on a vinyl covered two inch polyurethane shell?"
Even if you can get their attention, each of them is responsible and possibly not knowledgeable enough to feel comfortable going out on a limb taking full responsibility for budget, possible lives and risking their livelihood on assurances from the very company selling the project.

They need to cover their A--'s. They need to know they have someone else to blame if something goes wrong. They need to know that when a microphone is in their face they can say "We had the assurances from XX outside group that this would never happen."

This is cutting edge tech. The frightened need trusted organizations to do the testing they cannot afford themselves.

[GreginAlaska]

Have you guys researched the costs on reputable third party verification for something like a dome? I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that MDI does not have as big of a budget as Ford does.

[eric]

How about awards?
Have any Monolithic Domes or the company won any awards for anything? Stewardship, green building, beautification, futurist of the year? Whatever might add to the "confirmation" column.

[opcn]

It's not free, but it's not millions of dollars either. Some of it is very inexpensive, DBS has mentioned several times that some of his structures have won praises from FEMA, showing a letter from FEMA about them would do wonders for credibility.

[eric]

For building a private dome residence only the one or two owners themselves have to be convinced of Monolithic's claims. After the homeowner is sold and the dome decision is made, then comes the phalanx of impersonal faceless suits that can disapprove loans, deny permits, and demand changes after approving plans.

But with public funded projects there is a required prior step that must be accomplished. Early on in the project the public dome is championed by a single (wise) individual. And long before the joy of construction can even begin, that dome-loving person has to convince yet another wide range of bureaucrats, unbelieving naysayers, and technical pencil pushers to get a project off the ground.

Selling the idea of public-use domes to a government body or church whose building funds will come from non profit donations and/or taxpayer money, is more difficult because now domes must answer to a higher power.*

So the forward thinking individual puts together a sales group (internal or hired out) who does the footwork gathering the proper documentation for months assembling enough of a "package" to pitch to the larger body. The goal is to get an agreement from constituents and parishioners on the validity of the dome concept. For the lone individual builder without access to that sales group, this task is much harder when trying to build publicly funded rental units.

The pitch does not consist of engineering documents that apply specifically to a particular dome project. Of course all domes are different. I'm talking about the sales package that is needed to convince bureaucrats to even order a RFP.

For every completed public dome project there has to have been some level of a challenging bureaucracy that was overcome. How many dome projects have failed because the champion and/or the sales team did not have the tools to push through the organizational quagmire?
With all the vast connections Monolithic has made over the years with local schools and places of worship, etc. they must have access to the documents that were required to get a publicly funded dome project off the ground. Documented reference that creates a strong bulletproof argument that domes live up to the claims purported.

The timing is right for a new entrepreneurial wave of dome builders that Monolithic can benefit from if they supply the materials to assist getting public and non profit funding for domes.







(churches have to answer to the highest power )

[eric]

More:

How about supplying copies of letters from happy customers with specific examples of dome superiority?

-A scanned PDF version of a letter from Pastor Benjamin O'malley on his church letterhead raving about how after one year he can report that his new dome is saving them $5,000.00 in heating and cooling costs annually.
-A PDF of a letter from a tornado ally school board chairman (again, on official letterhead) saying their new dome gymnasium has been approved as a FEMA shelter and how the cost came in under the budget of the other bids of buildings that would have never been FEMA approved.
-Another two paragraph letter (they should all be this short) from Italy's mayor (on city stationary) thanking Monolithic for the Morgan Meadows low income housing project and how it's eased the burden for minimum wage workers in town. Include a PS that asks for even more of them to be built ASAP.

These type of post-construction official documented testimonials speak to facts while at the same time showing that facility dome customers are enthusiastic customers and city officials love them.
It's like an employer asking for references before hiring someone. Pleased dome clients who are willing to put their contact information for inclusion in a future city's dome project package speaks powerfully to even the most stoic city official.

[cindysteele]

Eric,

Thank you for the suggestion. We do currently have testimonials from our customers on our website under Resources then Testimonials. I have attached a few links to letters listed in that section of our website. Please keep the suggestions coming. We always want to know where/how we can improve.

http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... avalon-isd
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... ronimo-isd
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/excer ... ic-schools
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... -jim-pitts
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... ore-pastor
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/letter-from-italy-isd
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... y-colorado

[eric]

Eric,

Thank you for the suggestion. We do currently have testimonials from our customers on our website under Resources then Testimonials. I have attached a few links to letters listed in that section of our website. Please keep the suggestions coming. We always want to know where/how we can improve.

http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... avalon-isd
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... ronimo-isd
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/excer ... ic-schools
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... -jim-pitts
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... ore-pastor
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/letter-from-italy-isd
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/lette ... y-colorado

Thank you Cindy. Can you dig up the original letters, scan them, and post them as PDF images? To include them in a project proposal they need to be on official business stationary.