This article shows Static structural analyses performed on 35 diff erent Superadobe domed models. The dimensions of these models were defined according to a controlled variation of initial parameters, guided by previously derived equations . Maximum and Minimum principal stresses, Shear stresses and total deformations were measured assuming an ideali zed material with isotropic elasticity. Besides the dome’s self - weight , wind loads are considered from the most dangerous angle with respect to the openings. 1. Criteria for selecting the main geometries for Static Structural Analyses: Given the equation: (1 1− 𝑭)(√(𝑡𝑟+𝑟𝑟−𝑟𝑏)2+2(√𝑟𝑟2−(𝑡𝑟+𝑟𝑟−𝑟𝑏)2)(ℎ𝑠)−ℎ𝑠2+𝑟𝑏−𝑟𝑟−𝑡𝑟)−𝑠𝑤+𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑓 = 0 (1) Developed in [1] and showcased in [2], which consists of independent geometric parameters (𝒔𝒘, 𝒉𝒔,𝑬𝒙𝒕𝒇 , 𝒓𝒃, 𝒓𝒓 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝒕𝒓 ), explained in [1], we w ill use this equation as shown in [2] , Example 8, to produce four different sets of dome models to be subjected to F.E.M. The two main question s that we will address in the following series of static structural analyses, is 1. How big can a Superadobe structure be, and 2. If there exists an optimal way of ‘harmoniously’ tweaking the set (𝒔𝒘, 𝒉𝒔,𝑬𝒙𝒕𝒃 , 𝒓𝒃, 𝒓𝒓 ,𝒕𝒓 ,𝑭 ) to obtain a set of domes of different sizes so that their stresses are lowest and most evenly distributed Table 1. Geometries to be tested (All parameters are in meters, m, except F, which is a number) Note: Domes which’s parameters are marked in red, could not be modelled due to software license limit ations. More than 50 bodies needed to be created in each model. Tr hs Extb rb rr (sw) (F) sw Solve for (F) rr F Solve for (sw) rr sw F Solve for (rr) 0.5 0.2 0.1 2 4.33 0.333 0.074 0.4 0.28 4.33 0.33 0.423 4.33 0.4 0.25 4.13 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.25 4.88 0.375 0.182 0.4 0.25 4.88 0.33 0.436 4.88 0.4 0.25 4.874 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.5 5.42 0.417 0.266 0.4 0.226 5.42 0.33 0.447 5.42 0.4 0.25 5.62 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.75 5.96 0.458 0.335 0.4 0.205 5.96 0.33 0.456 5.96 0.4 0.25 6.365 0.5 0.2 0.1 3 6.5 0.5 0.391 0.4 0.188 6.5 0.33 0.464 6.5 0.4 0.25 7.11 0.5 0.2 0.1 3.25 7.04 0.542 0.438 0.4 0.172 7.04 0.33 0.471 7.04 0.4 0.25 7.855 0.5 0.2 0.1 3.5 7.58 0.583 0.478 0.4 0.159 7.58 0.33 0.477 7.58 0.4 0.25 8.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 3.75 8.13 0.625 0.513 0.4 0.147 8.13 0.33 0.482 8.13 0.4 0.25 9.346 0.5 0.2 0.1 4 8.67 0.667 0.543 0.4 0.137 8.67 0.33 0.487 8.67 0.4 0.25 10.09 0.5 0.2 0.1 4.25 9.21 0.708 0.571 0.4 0.13 9.21 0.33 0.491 9.21 0.4 0.25 10.84 Note: Columns 1 -4 (Yellow parameters) are set and fixed, (forced), and are common to every building to be modelled Explanation of table 1:  First group : Columns 1 -7 define the first way of twea king parameters to progressive ly enlarge Superadobe domes, which is according to the equations of conventional Superadobe practices and recommendations [1], (formulas 3,4,5 ). Columns 5 comes from applying [1] equation (4) to column 4, and column 6 from app lying [1] equation (5 ) on column 4. Column 7 is the result of solving the “geometric soundness equation” (1) for F, given the values obtained in columns 1 -6. The buildings arising from these 10 first parameter combinations will be referred to as the orange series.  Second group : Columns 1 -4, 8-10 define the progressive enlargement of a Superadobe dome according to the conventional Superadobe procedures but forcing 𝒔𝒘 to be constant ( 𝒔𝒘=0.4m, widely available sack dimensions typically used), hence, in these columns the structure is enlarged taking i nto account [1], formula (4 ) only: Column 10 is a copy of column 5. Column 8 is the forced (changed) parameter 𝒔𝒘, fixed at 0.4 m. Column 9 arises from solving (1 ) for F using the values at columns 1 -4, 8 and 10 . The buildings arising from these 10 second parameter combinations will be referred to as the blue series.  Third group: Columns 1 -4, 11 -13 define the progressive enlargement of a Superadobe dome according to the conventional Superadobe procedu res but forcing F to be constant ( 𝑭=0.33). In these columns the structure is enlarged taking into account formula (4 ) only: Column 13 is a copy of column 10 and column 5. Column 11 is the forced (changed) parameter F, fixed at 0 .33. Column 12 arises from solving (1 ) for 𝒔𝒘 using the values at columns 1-4, 13 and 11 . The build ings arising from these 10 parameter combinations will be referred to as the green series.  Fourth group: Columns 1 -4, 14 -16 define the progressive enlar gement of a Superadobe dome according to the Geometrical s oundness equation. In these columns the structure is enlarged taking into account equation (1 ): Column 14 and 15 are the changed (forced) parameters 𝒔𝒘 and F, fixed at 0.4m and 0.25 respectively . Column 16 arises from solving (1 ) for 𝒓𝒓 using the values at columns 1-4, and 14-15. The build ings arising from these 10 last parameter combinations will be referred to as the brown series. As mention ed above, the two biggest models of this series were not be modelled due to license limitations. 2. Model general settings: We will apply a static wind load of 2000Pa from the most dangerous face of the structures. The idea for the upcoming static structur al analyses is to model Superadobe domes with varying (successively increasing) geometric parameters , (𝒓𝒃,𝒓𝒓 and 𝒔𝒘) and as mentioned above, this increase in size is always done according to equations (1), or [1] (3,4,5), hence the increase of the structure size follows planned criteria and the parameters will increase together, comprehensivel y, as four different system s. All static structural analyses will have a given (constant) static wind pressure at a given (constant) angle, with a given (constant) friction coefficient between superblocks. In each analysis, we will observe four main res ulting structural responses to these gradual geometry changes. The maps of Max principal stresses (tensions), Min principal stresses (compressions), Max shear stresses, and Max deformations will be presented as a basis to develop the buildings’ destructio n criteria and design. The block or Superadobe fill material is idealized as having isotropic elasticity derived from an elastic modulus of 2.1213 E+10 Pa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.215, Bulk modulus of 1.2405 E+10 Pa and a Shear modulus of 8.7295 E+09 Pa. Shea r and Bulk modulus are automatically assigned by Ansys from the definition of elastic modulus and density, which was idealized as 2103.6 kg/m3 . What follows is an explanation of these numbers. 3. Engineering Data Engineering data refers to the material or ma terials to be considered as constituents of our Superadobe models for our finite element analyses. In our case, one main material will be modelled: Superadobe composite. This ideal material will be modelled as homogenous. This means that the composition o f tensile polypropylene exterior together with the deformable fill content in the interior of the bags (deformability which is typical of the initial moment when superblocks are placed), will not be considered. Instead, the composite is idealized as the br ittle and cohesive – homogenous material which is formed, once the blocks cure and acquire their stiffness and strength, this is, the hardened interior of the sacks, without the exterior polypropylene interaction. This is essentially, the final state of t he constituent materials of the in -service structure after they have become hardened and no longer need to interact with the sack exteriors to be cohesive, because the composite is stiff and cohesive within itself after dry. These considerations take into account, only the qualities of the in -service structure once the fill material of the superblock has acquired its typical strength and stiffness. The stress -strain characteristics of the composite, are taken to be independent of the direction of measurem ent. This means that our idealized Superadobe composite is given isotropic elasticity as one of its fundamental attributes. The other fundamental attribute given to the composite, is density . Isotropic elasticity in ANSYS WORKBENCH means that the fundament al stress -strain behaviours of the material (Young modulus, Bulk modulus, Shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio), although different from one another, remain constant with respect to the direction in which they are measured. In the case of isotropic elasticit y, the complete set of moduli (Young modulus, Bulk modulus, Shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio) is defined, once two of the moduli are given as input. This set of behaviours will be derived from Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio . Hence, using the isotrop ic elasticity relations within ANSYS, we will give these two key mechanical parameter values as input, and the rest of the moduli of our composite are automatically calculated. The assignment of Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and density values for the Superadobe composite is as follows: Superadobe Composite Mechanical Properties: Superadobe Composite is the hardened block resulting from compacting/tamping a humid earthen mixture inside a propylene bag, and providing it time to cure. Typical proportions of components in Superadobe composite earthen mixture, are as follows: 30% Clay, 30% Sand, 30% Gravel, 10% Cement. Superadobe constructions are built around the world, and there exists a high variability with respect to local clay, sand, and gravel used, causing variability in the block’s mechanical properties. In order to set a most general guideline for Superadobe behavior, the modelling properties (Density, Young’s Modulus, and Poisson’s ratio) of Superadobe composite are derived from the modelling properties of its components (typical clay, typical sand, and typical gravel soils), as measured in their natural states and posted on broadly known tables. Estimation of the modelling properties of Superadobe composite will also be influenced by our estimat ion of the modelling properties of typical hardened, Portland cement paste. The rule used to estimate hardened cement paste’s and Superadobe composite’s modelling properties, is the rule of mixtures: 𝑃(𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 )=∑(𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑖∗𝑃(𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖)), where 𝑃(𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 ) is the estimated value for a given mechanical property of a composite material, 𝑃(𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖) is the value for the given property of co mponent i, and 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑖 is the volume proportion of component i on the total volume of the composite. The following table contains values for modelling properties of typical soils, as well as estimated (idealized**) values for modelling properti es of pure hardened cement: Mechanical Property/ Young’s Modulus (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio Density (Kg/m3) Soil type Clay 50 0.3 1600 Sand 50 0.35 1600 Gravel 160 0.35 1500 Hardened Cement ** 211345.5 -0.85 6936.4 Superadobe Composite Values (as e stimated by the rule of mixtures, MPa) 21212.6 0.215 2103.64 **Young’s Modulus, Poisson's ratio and Density of pure hardened cement paste were estimated (idealized) by using the rule of mixtures . Taking typical concrete composite with given proportions (cement: 0.14 , sand: 0.33 , gravel : 0.53) as recommended in [http://www.cement.org/cement -concret e- basics/how -concrete -is-made] and taking Young's Modulus, Poisson's ratio an d Density of typical concrete to be 30000 MPa , 0.18 and 2300Kg/m3 respectively, the following relations resulted: 30000 𝑀𝑝𝑎 =∑(𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑖∗𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 ′𝑠𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖)) 0.18=∑(𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑖∗𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛 ′𝑠𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖)) 2300 𝐾𝑔/𝑚3=∑(𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑖∗𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖)) Using, the above proportions of typical concrete as well as typical values of sand and gravel’s modelling properties in each equation, and solving each equation for the unknown modelling property value of hardened cement paste, the values 211345.5MPa, -0.85, and 6936.4Kg/m3 were obtained. Finally, estimated values for Superadobe composite’s modelling properties respond to the following expressions:  21212 .6𝑀𝑝𝑎 =0.3∗50𝑀𝑃𝑎 +0.3∗50𝑀𝑃𝑎 +0.3∗160 𝑀𝑃𝑎 +0.1∗211345 𝑀𝑃𝑎  0.215 =0.3∗0.3+0.3∗0.35+0.3∗0.35+0.1∗(−0.85)  2103 .64𝐾𝑔/𝑚3=0.3∗1600 𝐾𝑔/𝑚3+0.3∗1600 𝐾𝑔/𝑚3+0.3∗1500 𝐾𝑔/𝑚3+0.1∗ 6936 .4𝐾𝑔/𝑚3 We can observe that it is a composite material with mechan ical properties comparable to those of typical concrete. Its Youngs modulus is approximately 29% smaller than the Young’s modulus of typical concrete, its Poisson’s Ratio is approximately 19% higher than Poisson’s ratio of typical concrete, and its density is approximately 9% lower than the density of typical concrete. 4. Connections: Contact Regions: Any surface which is shared among different bodies (superblocks) is a connection. In the models to be analyzed , the shared surfaces are horizontal, and occur b etween a superblock and the ones immediately above and below. A constant factor coefficient of 2, is set accordin g to the experiments done in [3 ]. 5. Mesh: Meshing is done automatically by Ansys. A limit of 32000 nodes and 32000 elements is observed by the program in its academic version. Element shapes where set automatically, and their sizes were set manually as to accommodate the greatest number of nodes and elements in each geometry while respecting the version’s restrictions. 6. Analysis (Static Structu ral) settings and Boundary Conditions:  Analysis Settings:  Step Controls: One step, with end time 1 sec. (There is no time in this simulations, the deformations are the result of constant/static pressures and loads according to code, not considering inerti al and damping effects)  Solver Controls: Weak springs were turned off.  Loads, pressures and boundary conditions:  Gravity: Standard earth gravity acceleration in the y direction. (−9.8𝑚 𝑠2⁄)  Fixed Support: The bottom ring is fixed to the ground (modelling foundation bed confinement).  Pressure: A static pressure of 2 KPa is applied from the rear face of the buildings (which creates the greatest principal stresses and deformation s). 7. Results : 35 different Superadobe buildings are successfully analyzed . A total of 140 maps produced . The results are graphical, and presented in matrix form. Each matrix is a structural response. Each row in the matrix corresponds to a row in table 1, and each column represents a dome group : column one represents the orange series , column two represents the blue series , column three represents the green series , and column four represents the brown series . The first matrix of 35 results represents the Maximum principal Stress values (Tensions) for each point of each building (represented by color gradients), and marks the location (point) of the buildings where the greatest tension occurs. The second matrix of 35 results represents the total deformatio n (displacement) vector moduli for each point of each building (represented by color gradients), and marks the location (point) of the buildings where the greatest displacement occurs. The third matrix of 35 results represents the Minimum principal Stress values (Compressions) for each point of each building (represented by color gradients), and marks the location (point) of the buildings where the greatest compression occurs. The fourth matrix of 35 results represents the Maximum Shear Stress values for each point of each building (represented by color gradients), and marks the location (point) of the buildings where the greatest shear stress occurs. Please note that of the 40 different buildings that result from the combination of geometric parameters as stated in table 1, two of them (the two biggest buildings from the brown series ) were not modelled for they exceeded the number of bodies allowed, and three of them (the biggest three buildings of the blue series ) did not converge. This was due to rigid body motion (the top superblocks moved as rigid bodies), thus making the building to be not equilibrium. Hence, a total of 35 simulations (35 buildings) converged. Their stress and deformation maps under the wind loads and own weight are presented in this work as a first guideline to determine patterns, optimum geometric configurations if possible, and as a basis for general purpose and reinforcement design. Please note that each building of the graphic results arrangements that follows is named according to its geometric parameter values , so they can be identified . Graphical Results: Max Tensile Stress measured on each building with increasing building size 051015 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5rb (m) -Max Principal Stress (+e5 Pa) Max.P. Conventional Increase Max.P. Conventional Increase with constant sack width Max.P. Conventional Increase with constant Frac and varying sack width Max.P. with G.E Increase and constant sack width and Factor of contact Table: Maximum Total Deformation on each building with increasing size 020406080 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5rb (m) -Max Total Deformation Vector Modulus( -e5m) Max.D. Conventional Increase Max.D. Conventional Increase with constant sack width Max.D. Conventional Increase with constant Frac and varying sack width Max.D. with G.E Increase and constant sack width and Factor of contact Table: Minimum Principal Stress on each building with increasing size -14-12-10-8-6-4-20 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5rb (m) -Min Principal Stress(+e5 Pa) Min.P. Conventional Increase Min.P. Conventional Increase with constant sack width Min.P. Conventional Increase with constant Frac and varying sack width Min.P. with G.E Increase and constant sack width and Factor of contact Table: Maximum Shear Stress on each building with increasing size 02468 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5rb (m) -Maximum Shear Stress(+e5 Pa) Max.S. Conventional Increase Max.S. Conventional Increase with constant sack width Max.S. Conventional Increase with constant Frac and varying sack width Max.S. with G.E Increase and constant sack width and Factor of contact 8. Final Observations:  Observation 1: Locati on of greatest tensile stresses The greatest tensile stress in the majority of buildings was located in the mid -span of the superblock portion over the main entrance.  Observation 2: Greatest tensile stress among all models as a baseline for failure criteria The greatest positive princip al stress (tension) among all 35 buildings, occurred in the building of the brown series with radius 2.75m. The geometric parameters of this building are Tr=0.5m, hs=0.2m, Extb=0.1m, rb=2.75m, rr=6.365m, and sw=0.4m . This stress measured less than 1.4 MPa. This number is a guideline for estimating whether or not these configurations can fail in the face of code wind loads. Knowing this greatest tension, as well as knowing Superadobe composite's mean tensile strength and mode of destruction, will give a criteria for Superadob e failure (It is safe to assume that Superadobe composite is a brittle material, hence the determining factor in its destruction is its tensile strength). Although comp osite strength is not determined in this work (the composite is idealized and broad), we may be optimistic due to three facts:  That the composite is comparable to concrete (in its composition, density, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio), and hence, it is possible that its mean tensile strength lies nearby concrete's range (2 -5 MPa, which i s, with varying degree, greater than the Max tensile stresses measured on all of our simulations)  That Superadobe composite has improved ductility because of its high clay content. And:  Observation 3: The l ocation of greatest tensile stresses can be model led as a statically determined structure In the majority of building's modelled, the greatest tensile stress was located in the mid -span of the superblock portion over the main entrance, and the fact that this location could be modelled (approximately) as a statically determined structure (a simply supported beam with distributed loads on the top), implies that the stress values already obtained in these locations will not greatly change if we add reinforcements (strain/material composition will not influe nce on the resulting stresses in these locations). Providing very simple steel bar reinforcements to this element will not change the obtained tensile stresses in great measure, and these few steel bars will be more than enough to carry the tensile stress values already measured in these locations without reinforcement.  Observation 4: Necessity of f ine tuning geometric parameters Neither of the curves of Table 3 are monotonous, this is, the greatest tensile stress values measured on each building do not st rictly increase with building size. A local maximum occurs on the brown series for the building of rb=2.75m , a local maximum occurs on the yellow series for the building of rb=3.25m , a local maximum occurs on the green series for the building of rb=3 , and a local maximum occurs on the blue series for the building of rb=2.75m . Since the amount of tensile stress does not strictly increase with overall building size, (in all the different series, this happens), it becomes apparent that optimal and less than o ptimal combinations of geometric parameters exist, in relation to stress response. This non monotonous behavior of stress, states the importance of a 'correct' combination of sw, rb , and rr in a Superadobe building, and rules out a simplistic approach to d escribe the mechanical response based soley on overall building size. Bigger and heavier buildings with 'better' rb-rr-sw configurations had 50% lower Max tensile stresses than smaller buildings with less than optimal geometric parameter configurations, an d this necessity of 'fine tuning' is one of the most important observations in this work.  Observation 5: E xceptional locatio ns of greatest tensile stresses It is a desirable behavior (that which generally happens), that strain is transmitted from the top -rear part of the structure towards the mid -front part (towards the mid - span of the block portion over the main entrance), localizing the maximum tensile stresses here. The above behavior is desirable because simple and straight -forward reinforcement wi th steel rebar can be used in this specific location of tensile stress accumulation. Yet, some buildings (generally those in the mid part of the rb range) experimented their greatest tensile stress, not as usually, on a point in the mid -span of the block p ortion over the main entrance, but rather many blocks above, near the building's mid height. The above exceptions happen in the case of the blue series and yellow series maximums, as well as in other buildings. The greatest tensile stresses on these buildi ngs (6 out of 35 ), are located on intermediate blocks, many blocks above the entrance. It seems that such blocks cannot transmit their usual stress pattern on to the blocks below, because they have too much displacement inwards in relation to the weight th ey have to carry. On these 'problematic' blocks, it seems that stresses get transmitted within the same element rather than passed down to the supporting blocks, and the element in question accumulates stress on the lower edge of its innermost side. Whene ver this behavior was observed in a building, the superblock in question had an important displacement inwards, as well as important weights to carry, and a criteria for predicting this kind of exceptional behavior could involve these factors. Example of T ensile Stress Concentrations in exceptional locations When rr and rb increase, producing bigger buildings, we can see that this behaviour starts to diminish: A block on a given building is less displaced inwards than an analogous block at the same height in a smaller building, and has a greater factor of contact with the block below, transmitting the stresses better. This can be thought of as a better 'supported portion -to-imposed weight' relation: Having a larger area of themselves supported on the bloc k below, these bigger blocks can transmit stresses below instead of accumulating them. This factor might change the amount of stress 'leaving' the blocks. Also, a block on a given building has a greater radius circumference than an analogous block at the same height on a smaller -building, hence, in spite of having to support a bigger load, these bigger blocks have a different 'bearing area - for - total weight above' relation. This factor might change the amount of stress 'entering' the blocks. These facto rs (supported portion -to-imposed weight relation and bearing area - for - total weight above) arise in each superblock of a structure as a result of the corresponding rr-rb-sw initial configuration of that given building. This is another observation whic h states the importance of a correct combination or 'fine tuning' of geometric parameters for more regular stress distribution.  Observation 6: Modelling buildings with a steel door frame support reduces overall tensile stresses throughout Superadobe eleme nts As we can see in the following figures , a random sample of Max tensile stresses from a problematic superblock's bottom face with no steel support frame at the entrance, averages 7.9+e5Pa, while a random sample of Max tensile stresses on that same elem ent's face when the dome entrance is supported by a steel frame, averages 3.25+e5Pa. Random Sample of Max Tensile Stresses in a “Problematic” Superblock, without door Support Random Sample of Max Tensile Stresses in a "Problematic" Superblock, with door Support This suggests that steel reinforcements in the openings will concentrate stresses which would be suffered by regular non -reinforced elements if the supports were not p resent. Reinforcing openings will decrease overall Max tensile stresses throughout the Superadobe elements, improving the functionality of the buildings and increasing its factors of safety.  Observation 7: Absence of rigid body motions and small Maximum Total deformations Modelled Superadobe's block - to - block interfaces were modelled using a static friction coefficient of 2. This value was obtained from differe nt experiments referenced in [ 3], and captures the steel barbed wire effect between superblo cks. 35 out of 38 simulations converged, hence, no rigid body motion (superblock displacements) were observed. The state of static equilibrium was satisfied. The Maximum modulus of total deformation vectors within a building, increases with building size, in a quasi linear manner f or all building series , and in all buildings this maximum deformation occurred among the uppermost superblocks. The Maximum modulus of total deformation vectors of all buildings, measured 7.5 tenths of a millimeter , which can be w ell within permissible deformation ranges.  Observation 8: Small Minimum Principal stresses (Compressions): The Minimum compressive st ress within a building , changes with building size, in a manner which reflects that of the Maximum tensile stress curves . For Minimum compressions within each building series, local minima are observed in a building on which local maxima were observed for Maximum tensions, yet minimum compressions did not occur within buildings on the same locations, but rather, in varied edg es and corners. The Maximum modulus of compressive stress of all buildings, measured less than 1.4 MPa, which is well below concrete's mean compressive stress range (20 -40 MPa), and which can also be well below Superadobe composite mean compressive strengt h.  Observation 9: Small Maximum Shear stresses The Maximum Shear st ress within a building , changes with building size, in a manner which also resembles that of the Maximum tensile stress curves . For Maximum shear within each building series, local maxima are observed in buildings where local maxima were observed for Maximum tensions, and maximum shear stresses within a building usually, but not always, occurred in the same locations as minimum compressions. The Maximum modulus shear stress of all buildings , measured less than 0.7 MPa, which is well below concrete's mean shear stress range (6 -17 MPa), and which can also be well below Superadobe composite mean shear strength.  Observation 10: The most Linear group of models: Domes from the blue group experimen ted the most linear increases of tensile, compressive and shear stresses with respect to their increase in size. 9.