Falmouth Historical Commission 59 Town Hall Square, Falmouth, MA 02540

Telephone: 508-495-7440 Fax: 508.495.7443 email: planning@falmouthma.gov

Certificate of Appropriateness &

Administrative Review Application

Application is hereby made for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40C, as amended.

Please check all the categories that apply: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: __New __Addition __Renovation DEMOLITION/REMOVAL OF: __Building __Fence __Other:_____________________ TYPE OF BUILDING: __Residential __Commercial __Accessory/Other: ____________ EXTERIOR: __Roof __Siding __Windows __Doors __Other__________ OTHER STRUCTURES: __Fence __Wall __Flagpole __Lighting __Other_________ SIGN: __Please attach a completed “Town of Falmouth Sign Permit Application”

PROPERTY ADDRESS:______________________________________________ MAP # __________________ PROPERTY OWNER’S NAME:________________________________________ PHONE __________________ OWNER’S SIGNATURE:______________________________________________ DATE ___________________ CONTRACTOR/AGENT:_____________________________________________ PHONE __________________ MAILING ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________________

Please provide a brief description of the proposed work:

Documents attached: ___ addendum ___ photographs ___ material and/or color samples ___ scaled architectural drawings If you think that your proposal qualifies for administrative review and does not require a hearing before the Historical Commission, please check the appropriate box below:

I certify that the proposed work is not visible from any public way within the historic district.

I certify that the proposed work is considered a detail of design, ordinary maintenance, or repair.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Application # ___________________

Received by Planning Department on:

Scaled drawings and photographs of existing conditions and proposed work must be provided. Incomplete applications will not be considered.

conditions and proposed work must be ___ photographs provided. Incomplete applications will be ___ material and/or color

samples

not be

considered by the

Commission.

Falmouth Historical Commission Application #_________ Addendum #1 Specification Sheet

Property Address____________________________________________Assessor’s ID #_______________

Additional Project Information:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FEATURE PROPOSED EXISTING

Solar Panels Make/Model/Size

Chimney Material/Size/Color

Roof Type/Material/Size/Color

Gutters Type/Material/Color

Decking Material/Size/Color

Railing Material/Size/Color

Balusters Material/Profile/Color

Siding Type/Material/Color

Windows Style/Size/Material/Color

Trim Material/Size/Color/Profile

Ornamental Features Material/Size/Color/Profile

Shutters Type/Material/Color

Doors Type/Material/Color

Garage Doors Style/Size/Material/Color

Lighting Type: Freestanding or Fixed

Fence Type/Material/Size/Color

Retaining Wall Material/Size

Foundation Type/Material

Other

Falmouth Historical Commission Application #_________ Addendum #1 Specification Sheet

Property Address____________________________________________Assessor’s ID #_______________

Additional Project Information:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FEATURE PROPOSED EXISTING

Solar Panels Make/Model/Size

Chimney Material/Size/Color

Roof Type/Material/Size/Color

Gutters Type/Material/Color

Decking Material/Size/Color

Railing Material/Size/Color

Balusters Material/Profile/Color

Siding Type/Material/Color

Windows Style/Size/Material/Color

Trim Material/Size/Color/Profile

Ornamental Features Material/Size/Color/Profile

Shutters Type/Material/Color

Doors Type/Material/Color

Garage Doors Style/Size/Material/Color

Lighting Type: Freestanding or Fixed

Fence Type/Material/Size/Color

Retaining Wall Material/Size

Foundation Type/Material

Other

Description of Proposed Work

533 Woods Hole Road Falmouth Historical Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness Application Description of Proposed Work

The proposed project is located at 533 Woods Hole Road, a 5.41-acre parcel partially located within the

Woods Hole Historic District. The project will include the demolition of the remains of the Nautilus

Motor Inn, the preservation of the 1953 Buckminster Fuller geodesic dome located at the southeastern

corner of the property, and construction of new residential buildings.

Nautilus Motor Inn

The original twelve motel rooms of the Nautilus Motor Inn were constructed in 1953 to the designs of

Falmouth architect E. Gunnar Peterson with additional units added in six phases between 1956 and

1980. The motel consists of three wood framed two-story buildings arranged in a semi-circle facing

south toward Falmouth’s harbor. The buildings are constructed with features typical of the mid-century

Modern style, including flat roofs, rectilinear forms, flush board siding, and an absence of decorative

ornamentation. The motel closed in 2004 and has been vacant since. The buildings are in extremely

poor condition; potions of which have collapsed. The project includes the complete demolition of the

buildings and their removal from the site.

Buckminster Fuller Dome

The geodesic dome located at the southeast corner of the site is an original design by Buckminster Fuller

and was constructed on commission in 1953 as a restaurant for the Nautilus Motor Inn. The dome is the

first permanent wood member dome directly designed and overseen by Buckminster Fuller. The

wooden dome has two flat-roofed additions extending to the northeast and northwest. While the

northeast extension (a.k.a. the kitchen wing) appears to be original, the northwest extension (a.k.a. the

entrance wing) dates to around 1975. The restaurant which occupied the dome closed in 2002 and the

dome has since fallen into disrepair. The dome will be preserved as a separate free-standing structure

independent of the new construction on the site.

The dome structure consists of wood members bolted together with steel angles. The structure of the

Dome has been surveyed and documented. Damaged or decayed components and connections will be

repaired or replaced as needed, per the enclosed report by Structures North.

The exterior of the dome was originally covered in a translucent mylar skin, tightly wrapped over the

structural frame. Later renovations have altered this original skin, replacing it with fiberglass, plexiglass,

and layers of paint and elastomeric coatings. These later materials will be removed and new translucent

mylar will be installed over the dome frame, consistent with historic photographs of the dome.

As illustrated on the attached plans, the smaller non-original entry wing which extends to the northwest

of the dome structure will be removed and the entrance returned to its original configuration of a small

entry door with canopy and stone steps. The design is based on the attached historic photographs. A

portion of the kitchen wing will be removed with the remainder to be preserved and used as the new

accessible entry. A new one-story flat roofed entry porch will be constructed. The concrete block and

plywood panel structure will be preserved using the modular sizes and systems of the original. Windows

and doors will also follow the modular pattern.

533 Woods Hole Road Falmouth Historical Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness Application Description of Proposed Work

New Construction

The project will involve the construction of seven detached buildings of various sizes; including five two-

story duplexes; a single, three-story, 13-unit building; and a single three-story 20-unit building. Four of

the proposed buildings are located within the boundaries of the historic district: three duplexes

(Buildings B, C, and D) and the three-story 13-unit building (Building E). The site will retain two

entrances, with paved driveways and parking areas connecting the new buildings. As detailed in the

enclosed plans, the buildings will be designed in a modern interpretation of the late 19th and early 20th

century Shingle Style commonly found in the Woods Hole community and greater Cape Cod region.

Consistent with the Shingle Style, architectural elements will include shingle exteriors, broad sloping

roofs, divided light window sash, porches, and columned entrance porticos.

Buildings B, C, and D, located at the southwest corner of the site, are two and a half story buildings with

broad gable roofs. The buildings will be clad in wood shingles with asphalt roofs. Building E, located at

the center of the site and adjacent to the Fuller Dome, is a three-story building topped by a broad

gambrel roof and gambrel roofed projecting bays. The rectilinear building is oriented with its narrow

end facing south toward Woods Hole Road. Similar to Buildings B, C, and D, the building will be clad in

wood shingles and an asphalt roof. Specific materials for the buildings are as follows:

Siding will be white cedar shingles stained gray to weather.

Trim will be long lasting Boral and pre-primed pine crowns and moldings will be pre-primed –

painted white.

Columns will be fiberglass Doric 10” and 12” diameter – painted white.

Roofing material will be 50 year architectural asphalt shingles – black.

Gutters and flashing will be white aluminum 5” k-style with 3” smooth round downspouts –

white.

Windows will be Anderson 400 Series – simulated divided lite – black.

Decks will be mahogany with long-lasting Azek and mahogany railings and newels, painted

white.

Terraces and entries will be bluestone - mortar set.

Walkways will be brick and bluestone – sand set.

Sidewalks will be concrete.

Ventilation to be hidden in “chimneys” and cupolas and behind wood louvers.

Parking to be below buildings. Only visitor parking at front of buildings for minimal paved areas.

Garage doors to be wood carriage style, painted white.

Historic Views

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Photographs

Existing Conditions Dome (left) and kitchen ell (right)

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Dome

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Dome

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Entrance ell (left) and dome (right)

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Entrance ell

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Kitchen ell

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Kitchen ell (left) and entrance ell (right)

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Kitchen ell

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Nautilus Motor Inn structures

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Nautilus Motor Inn structures

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Nautilus Motor Inn structures

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Nautilus Motor Inn structures

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Site conditions

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Site conditions

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Site conditions

533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Structures North Report

1

8 September 2019 Doug Kelleher

Epsilon Associates, Inc.

3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250

Maynard, Massachusetts 01754

Reference: Buckminster Fuller Geodesic Dome Conditions Survey Update

Dear Doug, On July 26th, 2018 and August 20th, 2019, Stephanie Davis and Sara Alinia from our office

visited Buckminster Fuller Geodesic Dome located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts to complete

a visual inspection of the dome. The purpose of the visit was to investigate the overall

structural stability of the overall dome and the individual members’ integrity. Between the site

visits, the existing hung ceiling, duct work and sprinkler pipes were removed to allow a view of

the full dome interior from the ground. For the purposes of this report, Woods Hole Road runs

east-west with the main entrance to the dome located on the north elevation.

General Description

The dome, which is an original design of Buckminster Fuller, was built in 1953, by students

from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other universities during the summer,

according to an inspiring 2018 IASS article, “Construction History of Fuller’s Timber Dome at

Woods Hole” contributed to by Robert Mohr, a copy of which is attached in this submission.

Fuller himself supervised the construction of the building. The dome has 2 extensions on the

north-east and north-west directions, which were used as part of the restaurant facilities.

The dome structure is constructed of 1½”x8” wood struts, arranged in diamond-shaped

modules, with steel hubs and bolts, which fasten the struts together at points of connection.

The struts are cut at approximately 125 inches and positioned into 2 types of diamonds,

referred to here as the “Red” and “Green” modules based upon the color of the plastic exterior

cladding. These modules are shown in Figure 1.

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

2

The connection between the dome and the eastern extension, referred to herein as the

“kitchen wing” appears to be original to the construction. The roof intersection of the wing was

designed and located where the struts of the green modules are horizontal allowing them to be

fully supported by the wing’s roof, greatly minimizing alternation of the dome structure allowing

a clear path for the loads on the dome to reach the foundation. In addition to the roof

intersection, there is a relatively large stone chimney which provides both vertical support and

lateral bracing to the surrounding structure. The northern extension, referred to herein as the

“entrance addition”, was added later. The original door at this location was substantially

smaller than the existing opening, which we understand was saw-cut through the three-

dimensional dome in order to create the larger opening.

The exterior shell of the dome is made out of glazed panels, which appear to have been

coated with the red and green coloring during renovations to the dome.

Dome Geometry

The dome, which is approximately 52 feet in diameter, is covered with modular diamonds as

shown in Figure 1. This modular arrangement is different from that of a more typical Geodesic

dome in the way that it’s not comprised of triangles, but rhombi (diamond shapes). These

diamonds have a large surface area, therefore there are wooden mullions running in 3

directions, creating supporting “mesh” for the panels. These mullions also act as bracing to

prevent the angle between the struts from changing. The frequency of these mullions varies

and is higher in the modules we have shaded red than the ones we have shaded green in

Figure 1, on the next page.

According to an eloquent description from the 2018 IASS article, the panels were each pre-

constructed in an empty Chemistry Lab at MIT and then shipped down to the site. According

to the article, in order to maintain the shapes of the “rhombic hypar panels before the full dome

structure was complete, temporary tension cables were strung between the interior corners of

the panels”.

When looking at the dome, one can read visually the overall conglomerated semispherical

geometry, which is defined by the primary boundary members of each panel. However,

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

3

Figure 2

between these primary

members, which appear

like ridges from the

exterior, the panel

surfaces between the

ridges in some places

appear to sag. This is due to

the warped romboid

geometry of the panels

which has rotated the

mullions that run in the

same directions as the

panel edges out of parallel

with each other and forced the

transverse mullions to bend (please see Figure 2). It is this spring-loaded effect that required

Figure 1

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

4

the temporary cables since the panels would have a natural tendency to snap back to a planar

condition.

Global Dome Stability Analysis and Recommendations

The dome has been standing for more than 60 years and according to our 3-D analysis is

globally stable.

We accessed the “Woods Hole Dome” 3D sketch-up model that is listed as Reference 15 in

the 2018 IASS report and converted it to a “GRASSHOPPER + RHINO model and using a

KARAMBA3D plug-in were able to run deflection and stress analysis on a relatively accurate

representation of the dome’s geometry.

We analyzed the structure for an assumed self-weight of 10 pounds per square foot (psf) plus

up to another 10 psf for cladding. We then considered a 30 psf snow load on the vertically

projected surfaces. This resulted in a maximum vertical deflection at the center of the dome of

2.29 inches for dead load and a total 4.05 inches with snow.

Interestingly, according to their 2018 article a similar analysis had been performed by the IASS

team, and reported a peak deflection of 4.25 inches, with correlates quite closely with ours.

The IASS article goes on to state that the total deflection measured on-site was 5.5 inches,

however this presumably was not taken with 30 psf of snow on the roof, therefore the

measured vs theoretical deflection is actually 5.5” (measured) – 2.29” (analytical) = 3.2 inches,

meaning that the structure has experienced some long-term creep and/or inelastic deformation

as well as presumed slippage in the bolted node connections.

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

5

We also analyzed the dome for a wind load of 50 psf, which resulted in a maximum drift

deformation of 1.14 inches.

We also looked at stress levels within the primary members and found inappropriately high,

2,667 psi axial load stresses within some of lower primary strut members, particularly within

the zones that flank that large opening to the kitchen wing. We did not consider the chimney

or the kitchen roof acting as supports, so our analysis may be unnecessarily taxing on these

members, given the secondary support that the roof and chimney likely provide. It is for this

reason that we recommend that the chimney not be removed.

Going forward, we see no reason, given the reasonable nature of the design, that any

significant, global reinforcing of the structure is needed. That being said, we do have the

following recommendations for strengthening on a local level:

D1. Restore the original framing configuration within the vicinity of the east entrance or

create a more rational configuration that takes into account the global structural

geometry of the dome.

D2. Further investigate and improve, if needed, the support and restraint condition of the

dome at the kitchen wing interface and more accurately account for this in the

structural model.

D3. With the model updated per items 1 and 2, above, identify the most heavily loaded

struts and provide discrete reinforcement, such as hidden plates or sisters, to bring

the “weak links” in the structure closer to the overall safety factor of the whole.

D4. Be certain that any modifications and reinforcements maintain the global integrity and

design intent of the structural functioning of the dome.

Structural Condition of Dome and Recommendations

Based upon our visual observations, the primary structure of the dome shows little outward

sign of damage, other than for a few discrete members and for reversable alterations others

have done to the structure since its original construction, such as enlarging the east entrance.

We noted damage on the following members:

• Five mullions are broken due to apparent bending or compression.

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

6

• Three struts are broken due to apparent bending or compression.

• Two struts have separations between the paired half-members.

• One mullion is split.

• One strut is split.

• Ten mullions are rotted.

• Five struts show signs of rot.

• Two hubs have loose connections.

Given the pioneering nature of the construction and more than half-century uneventful service

life of the dome, the above damage should be considered an extremely successful and

restorable structure, having suffered only relatively minor damage during its more than half-

century of service.

We have the following recommendations to bring the dome back up to a state of good repair:

D5. We recommend that the present cladding system be removed to reveal the entire

structure so that the top surfaces of all of the primary members, now hidden, can be

inspected and borate preservative treated. Any additional rot-damaged members

can then be identified and repaired or replaced in like-kind.

D6. Analyze all broken mullions and struts to determine whether the damage was

caused by structural overload, either from local or from global stress conditions.

Repair or replace the damage members and reinforce them as appropriate if

determined necessary.

D7. Re-fasten the separated strut members and determine whether the separations are

material- or load-related (please see above).

D8. Examine the split mullion and strut in light of the loads that are on them to determine

the causes of the splits. Repair or replace the members and reinforce them if the

splits were caused by localized overload or forced deflections.

D9. Replace all rotted members in like-kind.

D10. Re-tighten the loosened hub connections.

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

7

Kitchen Wing Description, Noted Conditions and Recommendations

The basement floor of the kitchen wing is a concrete slab on grade, surrounded by concrete

block and wood stud walls, supporting a first floor structure composed of 2x12 joists at 24” with

fiber composite deck. The roof is constructed with 3 ½” x 11” timber beams supporting a

Tectum composite paneled decking system. At the kitchen these beams cantilever past the

foundation walls, at each end, creating cantilevered eaves, with no interior support.

The kitchen wing is in generally good condition, with no visible cracks in the decks or damage

to the timber beams, beside a few specific locations noted below. We have the following

recommendations:

K1. Near the dome end of the kitchen wing there is a large tree which appears to be

damaging the concrete block foundation as it is cracked from the tree all the way to

the dome. The tree should be removed, and the cracked mortar joints should be

grout injected.

K2. If the existing brick fireplace is to be retained, all the loose and shifted brick masonry

should be dismantled and reset.

K3. The existing interface of the dome opening at the kitchen addition appears to be

materially sound, however the stud knee wall surrounding the interface is partially

rotted and should be replaced.

Report Limitations

This report is a summary of readily visible observations conducted during two site visits to the

property. No finishes were removed by Structures North to expose hidden structure, and no

calculations have been performed, beyond those noted, to determine if the overall building

framing or foundations of the structure comply with past or present building codes. This report

is strictly limited to structural considerations noted. Egress, guard rails, fire protection, and

other building systems were not reviewed, and they are beyond the scope of this report.

Thank you for the opportunity to investigate and analyze, and hopefully help preserve this

fascinating and historically important structure.

Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

8

If you have any questions regarding this report or should need further assistance, please do

not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully Yours,

Structures North Consulting Engineers, Inc.

John M. Wathne, PE, President

Supplementary Technical Reports

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

July 16-20, 2018, MIT, Boston, USA

Caitlin Mueller, Sigrid Adriaenssens (eds.)

Copyright © 2018 by Robert MOHR and Joseph SWERDLIN Published by the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) with permission.

Making the Woods Hole Dome: The Story of R. Buckminster Fuller’s Oldest Geodesic Structure

Robert A. MOHR*, Joseph M. SWERDLIN

*Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Department of Architecture, 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139

bobmohr@mit.edu

Abstract In August of 1953, a group of young people assembled in Woods Hole, Massachusetts to build a modest

structure on a wooded knoll. They came from diverse backgrounds and from across the country, and

they each came inspired by, and dedicated to, the vision of the project’s creative progenitor, R.

Buckminster Fuller. Rather than focus on the technical aspects of this unique structure, which are explored by the authors elsewhere, this paper assembles archival research and first-hand accounts, in

order to collect and unfold the story of the dome’s creation as a means to understand and record both its

historic significance and its broader value as an emblem of the zeitgeist.

Keywords: historic structure, geodesic dome, wood structure, Buckminster Fuller, Woods Hole

Introduction The Woods Hole geodesic dome located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts was designed and constructed

in 1953 by a small team of students from universities across the United States acting under the tutelage

of R. Buckminster Fuller. It was commissioned by Falmouth architect and aspiring hotelier E. Gunnar Peterson to provide the dining space for the restaurant of the Nautilus Motor Inn. The dome opened in

1954 to tremendous fanfare in the community, and although it was initially derided a modern interloper

on traditional Cape Cod, the Woods Hole dome survived early criticism and operated as a successful restaurant for decades. Over those decades, the Dome ultimately became a rather beloved fixture in the

village, a destination for special dinners, and a highlight for tourists.

Unfortunately, the Woods Hole dome has an uncertain future, having fallen into disuse and disrepair since 2002 when the restaurant closed. The dome, which is the first permanent wood member dome

structure that was directly overseen by Buckminster Fuller, stands today as the oldest extant structure

credited to Fuller, and it is in a precarious state of preservation.

Figure 1: (Left) The Woods Hole dome on opening day. [E. Joel Peterson]

Figure 2: (Right) The Woods Hole dome in 2017. [Mark Chester]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

2

Context Richard Buckminster Fuller, a Massachusetts native born in Milton, is known as one of the most

significant design minds of the 20th Century. A committed polymath – part engineer, part architect, part industrial designer – Fuller held a broad and comprehensive worldview that focused resolutely on

humanity’s collective future on Planet Earth, and how that future would require “doing more with less.”

For decades that spanned the middle 20th Century, “Bucky,” as he was known, inspired a generation of

people who were motivated by his pioneering spirit and unique futurist vision.

Fuller is credited with numerous inventions, including the geometry of what he is perhaps best known

for, the geodesic dome [1]. Geodesics were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, during a time

that Fuller spent traversing the country leading workshops and lecturing at many institutions, including Black Mountain College, the University of Oregon, University of Minnesota, University of Michigan,

Yale, Princeton, Cornell and MIT. This period was enormously prolific for Fuller, thanks to the creative

engine of these workshops.

Fuller’s residencies at these academic institutions were short, typically lasting one or two weeks. Numerous accounts describe Fuller’s workshops as being packed full of both discourse and experimental

creation. Fuller would generally lecture late into the evenings, and the end result of the workshop would

involve the students designing and constructing a geodesic structure [2], [3], [4], [5]. Over the course of just a few years, the geodesic experiments of Fuller’s laboratory workshops developed from very early

failures to an organized philosophy and a series of successful experiments showing clear potential as a

stable and viable structural system. During this workshop period, Fuller applied for a patent on geodesic geometry in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1954 after several domes – including Woods Hole –

were realized.

A network makes a dome Fuller never had a single academic home. His worldview and personality worked together to keep Fuller

in constant motion – always moving from institution to institution, travelling as a means to inform the most people with the least energy. It is thanks to Fuller’s wandering style that he was able to recruit so

many people to his cause. Through his wide-ranging workshops, Fuller had access to a vast, inexpensive,

young, and able-bodied workforce of “disciples” [6] that were ready, able, and excited to explore new territory. The network that Fuller developed fueled the proliferation of geodesic domes across the

country beginning in the early 1950s, and a parallel proliferation of geodesic- and network- thinking

within architecture, engineering, academia, the arts, and society at large. Fuller’s sphere of influence spread across the culture broadly, all the way from the Department of Defense to the counter-culture

movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

While Fuller is credited with “inventing” and patenting the geodesic dome, the work of designing and

building the domes was carried out in large part by a group of motivated devotees, and the case of the Woods Hole dome is no different. As with other early geodesic projects – such as Jeffrey Lindsay in

Quebec (1950), Zane Yost at MIT (1951), and the dome at the University of Oregon (1953) – the Woods

Hole Dome was drawn and built by over a dozen current and former students who had been participants in Fuller’s university workshops across the country. Unlike these other early works, however, the Woods

Hole Dome was a commissioned piece rather than purely academic or experimental. What follows is the

most-detailed research to date on this subject.

Timeline E. Gunnar Peterson, a modernist architect practicing in the Woods Hole area, purchased an historic estate in the fall of 1952 to develop into his new motor lodge, and he solicited Fuller to design a dome to serve

as the dining room of the restaurant. [7] The project first began at MIT, which was one stop on Fuller’s

trans-continental lecture circuit. [8] In the Fall of 1952, while in residence at MIT, Fuller received the

commission for the Ford Rotunda, which is known to be the first commissioned geodesic structure. That

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

3

was completed in the spring of 1953, also by a team of dedicated collaborators. It was in this context

that the Woods Hole Dome appeared as Fuller’s second geodesic commission.

Little is yet known about the precise timing of the dome’s commission, its design, or the pre-fabrication of its wooden components. Based on various interviews, however, the authors believe that design and

pre-fabrication happened in Cambridge, Massachusetts during the months of May, June, and July of

1953. Construction of the dome structure later began on or about August 4, 1953 [6], and lasted until

late August of that year [9]. Besides a small test sample, the dome’s initial cladding of Mylar was applied

later, most probably in the late winter or early spring of 1954. [10]

Stage 1: Design Peter Floyd, then a student in Fuller’s course, recalled the arrival of the commission by remarking,

“Bucky had no office, so he would fling the thing at a bunch of ex-students to see whether they could do anything for him.” [11] This seems to be emblematic of what it was like to operate in Fuller’s early geodesic period. Willing and interested students were readily available to tackle design problems, and

the itinerant nature of Fuller’s career defied conventions of practice. What seems undisputable is that

the Woods Hole dome was designed and drawn by a few MIT students in the late Spring of 1953. The authors have not yet been able to verify the precise makeup of, or roles within, the design team, but it is

believed that the design team consisted of Peter Floyd, Jack Kniskern, and William Wainwright. [12],

[13] Based on interviews conducted by the authors and others, many aspects of the dome’s design were

left to these individuals, including the wood material, [14] the details of the geometry, [11] and the

connections.

Stage 2: Pre-Fabrication The Woods Hole dome took advantage of the potential for pre-fabrication, which had always been a

research interest of Fuller’s. Following the dome’s design, the wood components for the dome’s panels

were all pre-cut and pre-drilled [11], [4] prior to shipment to the Woods Hole site. This pre-fabrication was undertaken in the chemical engineering shop at MIT, and according to Peter Floyd, the reason that

this shop was used stems from a previous relationship. Fuller’s MIT workshop during the fall of 1952

had focused on the design of a tent structure for use on a Ford station wagon. The chemical engineering shop, then located on Vassar Street, was used for that project, and the established relationship allowed

for the Woods Hole team to continue using that space during the less-demanding summer months. By

this time in the process it was surely the summer months, and photographs show that additional student

workers were involved in the pre-fabrication stage.

It should be noted that the extent of Fuller’s involvement in the design and pre-fabrication stages of the

project is unknown at this time. It is reasonable to assume that he was informed through the process, and

the authors believe that further research may lead to a more informed conclusion. What is well-established from photographs and first-hand accounts is that Fuller was an active participant on the

project site in Woods Hole.

Stage 3: Erection “We just rented a truck, took it down there, and put it up.” -Peter Floyd [11]

The student-driven, entrepreneurial and collective nature of the project continued on site. Students packed the pre-fabricated wood members into a truck and drove to Woods Hole on August 4, 1953 [6],

where other recruits had already begun to gather. Some of these students had already been involved in

other dome projects that spring and summer, including the Oregon dome, the Ford Rotunda, and the

erection of a collapsible dome at the Aspen Design Conference. [15], [11], [4], [16]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

4

Figure 2: Arrival of the pre-cut dome components by truck, August 4, 1953. Note the collapsible “Minnesota

dome” in the foreground. [Tunney Lee]

The erection of the dome went rather quickly, lasting roughly 2-3 weeks during the month of August.

Fuller was on site for much of the construction period in Woods Hole. However, the management of the operation was left to the students, seemingly in the hands of Peter Floyd and Maurice K. Smith, with

Smith acting as a construction foreman and Floyd as the organizer/liaison with Peterson. “We had a floating population of workers,” said Floyd in an interview, “There were no more than about 7 or 8 (at a time)...” According to Floyd, there was no written contract for the project, either with Fuller or the student crew. This seems likely, given that Fuller’s company Geodesics, Inc. was barely off the ground

as a company, and that MIT and Woods Hole are in close proximity. Students were all paid an hourly

wage, and Floyd acted as the “paymaster” receiving money directly from Peterson for distribution to the

students for time and materials. [11]

Figures 4 and 5: Assembling of dome panels on the Woods Hole site. [Barry Benepe]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

5

A dome makes a network “Among them was a contagious enthusiasm for Mr. Fuller’s ideas. Their eyes light up when they talk about setting architecture free from centuries-old concepts, a revolution against the ‘straight up-and-down’ school, against the confines of ‘hammer and nail construction’, against ‘shed-type architecture.’ Article in the Falmouth Enterprise, August 7, 1953 [6]

Figure 6: Joan Forrester and the parachute used to cover Minnesota dome [17]

The Woods Hole worksite was characterized by a communal, festival-like atmosphere. Students had gathered from all over and they worked together, ate together, went swimming together, and camped

together on site. The collapsible dome (developed by students in Minnesota and demonstrated at Aspen)

had been erected at the Boston Arts Festival earlier in the summer and was installed on site to serve as

the living quarters and workshop for the migrating band of followers. The group attracted much attention when they arrived, and many in the local community came out to visit the worksite and witness the

modernist-futurist barn-raising. Others within Fuller’s wide circle of friends and collaborators also came

to visit the worksite and contributed to the creative energy, including the filmmaker Robert Snyder and

the sculptor Kenneth Snelson.

Figure 7: Robert Snyder (left) and Kenneth Snelson (with camera) on site [18]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

6

The nature of the work – assembling boards into panels, maneuvering panels and lifting them into place

– was itself very collaborative, and the camaraderie among the workers, and with Fuller, is vivid in how

people recollect the experience. The entire project, with the exception of the custom metal brackets, was made of readily available parts – dimensional lumber of a standard variety, nuts and bolts from the local

hardware store – and the project was of a size, scale, and nature that it could be assembled by a small

group of able-bodied and relatively unskilled workers. These factors were fuel for Fuller’s belief that

the re-thinking of habitat could simultaneously involve high-technology, low-skill, and everyday

materials. The Woods Hole dome was one key effort in pushing those limits.

“Bucky was one of the most fascinating people I ever met in my life,” said Tunney Lee. “He was always tuned to solving problems.” [4]

Fuller was clearly the public face of the project, and he was indeed the reason that all these young people

had gathered in Woods Hole. They were inspired. They wanted to be a part of something new and

revolutionary, and tangible. Not only did Fuller offer them the chance to be involved, but he gave them

the reins. To have been given such responsibility by someone of such a stature as Fuller’s would have been rare at the time, and it is no wonder that many of those involved speak so highly of their Woods

Hole experience as being transformational. They got a peek at the future, and it energized them.

"...there was a 250-watt lightbulb hung from the top of the center of the dome, and it cast shadows of the structure into the fog. We climbed up on it and our bodies were cast like great gods in the sky. that was a very emotional experience for me, and I haven't been able to forget it." -Jack Kniskern [13]

Figure 8: Buckminster Fuller swinging in the Woods Hole dome. [Buckminster Fuller Estate]

A legacy in a network Members of the dome’s design team went on to make significant contributions, and many of them continued working with Fuller and on geodesics. Zane Yost went on to set up Fuller’s work at the Rome

Triennale in 1955. Tunney Lee continued with Fuller on truss designs in North Carolina. Peter Floyd

and William Wainwright were founding members of Geodesics, Inc. in Cambridge MA, and continued working on domes when they established Geometrics with William Ahern and others. Floyd and

colleagues were involved in the creation of the two most famous geodesic domes – the Montreal Expo

’67 dome and the dome at Epcot Center. Wainwright developed the geometry for the so-called

“truncated” geodesic dome that was widely employed by the US Government in the DEW Line “radome” project in the 1950s and was a celebrated sculptor later in life. Many of the other students

involved would go on to become design professors, including Maurice K. Smith, Tunney Lee, Larry

Bissett, Joseph Wehrer, and Joan Forrester Sprague.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

7

Buckminster Fuller defied simple definition. The Woods Hole dome and its creation equally defy

singularity. It was not the work of one, but of many – a structure built by a network. The most significant

contribution of Fuller is not his “invention” or his “genius,” but rather his capacity to inspire. Fuller’s headstone features a favored saying of his – call me trimtab – a reference to a tiny part of a ship or plane

that gently changes the vehicle’s course. Fuller liked to think that he was working to shift humanity

towards a more stable relationship with the planet. What better way to propagate an idea than to influence

a generation of young people to think differently.

The argument put forth in this paper is that a structure’s importance can extend well beyond the facts of

its historic significance, into a much richer and complex territory of meaning. The Woods Hole dome is

clearly historically significant; the fact that it is the oldest extant dome that involved Fuller is evidence enough for that. The work of many, it is a structure that sits precisely at the point where the geodesic

project shifted from being a family of academic experiments to a series of tangible and lasting built

works. As such, Woods Hole acts as a hinge between experiment and monument, between folly and

permanence. The Woods Hole dome embodies the enthusiasm of a generation, individuals motivated to make meaningful contributions, to do more with less, and to bend humanity toward a more sustainable

world.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank, some posthumously, all the individuals who were interviewed as a part of the research, including William Ahern, Barry Benepe, Larry Bissett, Peter Floyd, Jack Kniskern,

Tunney Lee, Jay Maisel, Maurice K. Smith, and William Wainwright. The authors would like to

especially thank Gary Wolf, whose interviews with Ahern, Floyd, and Wainwright greatly informed the

research.

References [1] Fuller applied for his first patent on geodesic geometry in 1951, which was approved in 1954. Fuller

went on to license this patent to many companies, retaining credit as patent-holder. It should be

recognized that other work based on the same geometry of an icosahedron, that of the Zeiss

Planetarium in Jena Germany by engineer Walter Bauersfeld, pre-dates Fuller’s patent by roughly

25 years.

[2] “1960s: Visionary Fuller brought dome projects to UO,” (2015, Jan. 15). University of Oregon

College of Design School of Art + Design News, Eugene, OR. Accessed on: Jan. 24, 2018. [Online].

Available: https://artdesign.uoregon.edu/1960s-visionary-fuller-brought-dome-projects-uo

[3] “Bucky Fuller to Design Proposed Hemisphere for Memorial Drive,” (1950, Nov. 21). The Tech,

Cambridge MA. [Online]. Available: http://tech.mit.edu/V70/PDF/V70-N47.pdf [Accessed on:

April 30, 2018]

[4] Lee, Tunney. Interview with Joseph Swerdlin. Personal Interview. Cambridge MA. November 28,

2016.

[5] Maisel, Jay. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. March 28, 2017.

[6] "Fuller and his Disciples Prepare to Make History with his Plastic Dome," The Falmouth Enterprise,

p.1, August 7, 1953. [Online]. Available: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Falmouth/.

[Accessed April 30, 2018].

[7] No record of the initial contact between Peterson and Fuller has yet been located. It is possible that

MIT provided the link, as Peterson was an alum.

[8] Records in the MIT Museum collection indicate that Fuller was present on the MIT campus

beginning in October of 1950 through early 1953.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

8

[9] "Dome Gets the Once-over, Fuller Tells How and Why," The Falmouth Enterprise, p.20, September

4, 1953. [Online]. Available: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Falmouth/. [Accessed

April 30, 2018].

[10] "Hotel Work Starts," The Falmouth Enterprise, p.3, December 11, 1953. [Online]. Available:

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Falmouth/. [Accessed April 30, 2018].

[11] Ahern, William, Peter Floyd, and William Wainwright. Interview with Gary Wolf. Personal

Interview. January 13, 2006.

[12]Floyd, Peter. Interview with Gary Wolf. Telephone Interview. December 19, 2005.

[13] Kniskern, Jack. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. April 3, 2017.

[14] Smith, Maurice K. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. April 19, 2017.

[15] Bissett, Larry. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. October 31, 2017.

[16] Benepe, Barry. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. March 22, 2017.

[17] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: April 18, 2017. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29948

[18] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: April 18, 2017. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29935

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

July 16-20, 2018, MIT, Boston, USA

Caitlin Mueller, Sigrid Adriaenssens (eds.)

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph SWERDLIN*, Robert MOHR, Paul MAYENCOURT, Andrew BROSE, John OCHSENDORF Published by the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) with permission.

Construction and History of Fuller’s Timber Dome at Woods Hole Joseph SWERDLIN*, Robert MOHR, Paul MAYENCOURT, Andrew BROSE, John OCHSENDORF

*Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Department of Architecture, Cambridge MA 02139

swerdlin@mit.edu

Abstract The geodesic dome built in 1953 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts is the oldest existing Richard

Buckminster Fuller geodesic structure in the world, yet very little has been written about it. This paper

provides the first known detailed written record of its fabrication and construction. By studying the

geometry, member sizes, joint connections, and module assembly of the dome, the structure can be

assessed for its overall stability. After standing for 65 years after its completion, this paper offers a

reasonable conclusion about the dome’s current structural state to support its preservation for the

future.

Keywords: historic structure, structural analysis, geodesic dome, wood structure, Buckminster Fuller, wood dome

1. Introduction The Woods Hole geodesic dome located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts was designed by R.

Buckminster Fuller and MIT students early in 1953 and constructed by a team of approximately 10

students from universities across the United States in two months later that summer. It was

commissioned by architect and aspiring restaurateur Gunnar Peterson to provide the main dining space

for the Nautilus Motor Inn Restaurant, locally known as The Dome Restaurant. It was the first

permanent wood member dome structure that was directly designed and overseen by Buckminster

Fuller. After over four decades of use, it was quietly abandoned in 2002 when the restaurant closed.

Today, it remains as the oldest remaining testament to one of the greatest structural designers of the

twentieth century.

Figure 1: Woods Hole Dome in 2004. Photo by J.W. Mavor, Jr [1]

Figure 2: Axonometric drawing of Woods Hole dome structure [drawn by author]

The dome has not been occupied in recent years and it is now in a precarious state of preservation,

with water infiltration causing damage over time. Even with many layers of roof coatings including a

fiberglass material installed post-hurricane in 1954 and several layers of liquid-applied coatings (i.e.

paint, elastomeric coatings, etc.) added over the past six decades, there are still persistent leaks. This

paper seeks to explore the possibility of its preservation by understanding the structure and its stability.

To do so, the paper provides insight into the dome’s fabrication, assembly, and construction for future

restorations.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

2

2. Research Questions The Woods Hole dome is an inspiring historical structure that stands today as a mid-20

th century icon

and as a realization of Buckminster Fuller’s utopian ideals. This paper begins with a description of the

geometric makeup of the dome and then moves into an explanation of how the ideal geometry was

realized in material form. Finally, after the structure is modeled and measured, the paper offers the

first assessment of its structural stability.

2.1. What is the geometric makeup of the dome? The geometry of the dome has been drawn by Popko [1] and Mavor [2] in two dimensions but an

accurate three-dimensional model of the dome and its members has not been published before this

study. This model is vital to be able to fully understand how the structure works and how loads are

carried through it. The authors took measurements from the existing structure to create an as-built

three-dimensional model. The description of the structure will aid in the future restoration and

preservation of the dome.

2.2. How was the dome constructed? While there are clues about the dome’s construction, very little has been written about the dome so this

paper consolidates the known information. Currently, there are no definitive descriptions on the way in

which the parts of the dome were fabricated, assembled into panels, and installed to create the dome

structure. Their precise dimensions have not been recorded as built. The details of the fabrication and

construction will shed light on the joint classifications for the structural analysis.

This paper uses primary sources, including lectures and writings by Buckminster Fuller, photographs

of the construction, and an interview with Tunney Lee, a Professor Emeritus at MIT, who worked on

the dome’s construction as a student in 1953, and observations from visiting the dome.

2.1. Is the dome structurally stable? This question is vital to the survival of this structure. The dome is made of Douglas Fir wood members

according to Progressive Architecture [3], which over the period of half a century have begun to

deteriorate. If the building is to be revitalized and repurposed, it is crucial to understand its current

structural state at a global geometric level. In the paper, a model of the existing structure is measured

against its ideal geometric form to measure the structure’s deformation. Also, the potential for local

buckling is tested in the base members.

4. Woods Hole Geodesic Dome Geometry No design sketches or blueprint drawings remain from the design process and construction of the

Woods Hole dome. There is however one instance of a geodesic structure patented by Buckminster

Fuller that is very closely related to the Woods Hole dome’s geometric organization. Submitted by

Fuller [4] in 1960, the Laminar Geodesic Dome patent drawings use a geometry made of two types of

diamond shaped panels. The panels in the patented drawings are more wide though and are faceted

since a sheet material is specified in the design as seen in figure 3.

Figure 3: Laminar Geodesic Dome patent drawings by R. Buckminster Fuller [4]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

3

The Woods Hole dome has a geometry that also uses two more distinct panel types. The sphere is

broken down into two types of rhombic hyperbolic parabolas (rhombic hypars), narrow panels with

interior angles of 43.6° and 133.2° and wide panels with interior angles of 70.3° and 107.5° as seen in

figures 4 and 5. The outlining members of each unit run along two distinct, flat planes, forming a

“bent” rhombus. Interior members individually remain straight, but their collective geometry creates a

curve along a hyperbolic parabola.

The dome is constructed of 37 structural full rhombic hypar panels; 24 wide panels, 13 narrow panels,

4 halved wide panels cut along the long diagonal, one halved narrow panel cut along the long

diagonal, and one halved narrow panel cut along the short diagonal. The halved panels are located

along the bottom edge of the dome. There are two openings that follow the geometry of the panels on

the southwest and northwest sides of the dome, creating a restaurant entrance and a kitchen entrance,

respectively seen in figure 4. The diameter of the dome is 16.5 m (54 feet) and is 8 m (26’- 4”) tall.

Figure 4: Geodesic dome geometry. I. Plan; II. Southeast Elevation; III. Southwest Elevation; IV. Axonometric.

Light grey: wide panels; Dark grey: narrow panels

Figure 5: Left: typical wide panel; Right: typical narrow panel

6. Construction After over a decade of research into geodesics through drawing and modeling, R. Buckminster Fuller

began to construct geodesic structures in the early 1950s with university students in numerous

workshops held across the United States. During these workshops, he would lecture late into the night

and expect his students to arrive early in the morning to work on the projects. The projects that Fuller

led with students often produced lightweight geodesic dome structures that could be quickly designed,

fabricated, and installed. Fuller invented these structures with his students and then oversaw their

fabrication and installation. Such was the case with the University of Oregon dome that also was an

important precedent for the Woods Hole dome.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

4

The Oregon dome was designed and drawn in April 1953 and constructed later in the Spring of 1953

[5], just months before the Woods Hole dome was constructed. The Oregon dome used a geodesic

geometry that relied on a singular repeated diamond module made of plywood members as seen in

figure 6; a cheap and accessible material solution. The diameter of this dome was 11 m (36 feet).

Construction of this dome began at the center and then panels were added to the perimeter, elevating

the center as more were added until the dome was complete. As this was a student project constructed

on the Oregon campus, it was a temporary structure and was disassembled shortly after its

construction. Even so, many of the fabrication and construction techniques used in this project were

used and improved upon in creation of the more permanent Woods Hole dome.

Figure 6: Fabrication of diamond modules at University of Oregon. [University of Oregon, 6]

The only recorded documentation of the Woods Hole dome’s construction details come from a few

lines in a lecture given by Buckminster Fuller [7] in 1975, brief mentions in articles by Progressive Architecture [3] and Fuller himself [8]. Fuller describes how a group of students from across the

country came together to construct the dome after the geometry was designed and parts were

fabricated at MIT. Fortunately, Tunney Lee, a recent graduate from University at Michigan (and now

Professor Emeritus at MIT) joined the construction team in 1953 with camera in hand and shared his

experiences in a series of recent interviews with the first author. His documentation affirmed Fuller’s

account and provided other details about the construction process that had remained a mystery.

In the spring of 1953, a group of students cut over 700 wood members and welded over 170 steel

angles in a wood shop at MIT before transporting them in a truck down to the Woods Hole site (figure

7). The parts were then assembled into panels. To do this, two jigs (for the narrow and wide panels)

were set up to hold the members that formed the perimeter of the panel in place while they were bolted

together using specially-fabricated steel angles as documented in figure 8 and in figure 9. To hold the

shape of the rhombic hypar panels before the full dome structure was complete, temporary tension

cables were strung between the interior corners of the panels (figure 8). The eyebolts that tied down

these cables are still present in the structure today. The smaller interior members were then bolted to

the primary diamond structure. The wide panels contained 13 interior members and the narrow panels

contained 9 interior members. The dimensions measured by the authors of all in situ members can also

be found in figure 9.

Figure 7: Precut boards loaded in truck at MIT. [T. Lee, 8]

Figure 8: Assembling panels on site in Woods Hole. [T. Lee, 9]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

5

Figure 9: Axonometric detail drawing of a joint between three wide panels.

Once the panel assembly was completed, the installation began. Unlike the Oregon dome, the panels of

this dome were much larger and much heavier. Because of this, the panels were installed from the

bottom ring of the dome and built upward. Once the bottom panels were bolted to the wooden ring

baseplate, panels were hoisted up into place by hand, clamped in place and then bolted to adjacent

panels. Tunney Lee recalled that due to the imprecision of construction, “The pieces were pre-cut and

pre-drilled. And then we had to re-drill them all.” When the structure became too tall for panels to be

lifted by hand, the team developed a rigging system by tying a long board with a pulley on the end to

the bolted structure, effectively creating a makeshift crane to lift the panels into place (figures 11, 12,

and 13). This solution allowed the entire dome to be created without interior scaffolding or a machine

lift. The only bracing used for the cantilevering structure before the dome was complete was the steel

cables that kept the panels in their hyperbolic shape. Fuller personally climbed on the incomplete

dome during the construction process (fig. 11) though he was 60 years old at the time.

Figure 10: Wide panel with steel cable tie. [T. Lee, 10]

Figure 11: Buckminster Fuller demonstrating how the improvised crane could work. [T. Lee, 11]

Figure 12: Cantilevering panels during installation. [S. Rosenberg, 13]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

6

Construction on site lasted about two months according to Lee, during July and August (though Fuller

[8] claimed it took three weeks on site). During their time in Woods Hole, the team swam in the ocean

after late lunches and spent the evenings conversing. The dome’s structure was completed in late

August and a year later faced a severe loading test: a hurricane in 1954. The Mylar cladding did not

survive, but the structure held up well.

5. Load Path To understand how the dome structure has survived hurricane wind loads and still stands today, the

structural behavior of the dome must first be described (figure 15). Within each panel, the thinner

interior members act in bending and tension and transfer the loads to the primary structural members

on the perimeter (figure 16). The perimeter members are thicker and create a ring around each panel.

To form the dome, the panels are bolted together and adjacent panels form the doubly thick primary

structure. These doubled members transfer the loads throughout the dome and into the foundation. As

described, the linear geodesic structure effectively performs as a continuous shell structure with

localized bending moments carried by the timber beam elements.

Figure 15: Plan showing load paths; Orange: load paths in panel; Red: primary load paths

Figure 16: Axonometric drawing showing load paths of single panel Orange: load paths within panel; Red:

primary load paths

7. Structural Analysis With the information and documentation developed through the research into the geometry and

construction of the Woods Hole Dome, a structural analysis can be conducted. The first most direct

test is to compare the long-term deformations seen in the existing structure with the ideal geometry of

the geodesic dome. The three-dimensional model of the ideal geodesic geometry was created by

TaffGoch [15] and then refined by the authors.

Figure 13: Wide panel being hoisted into place. [T. Lee, 12]

Figure 14: Wood structure complete. [T. Lee, 13]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

7

A Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was carried out using Karamba, a parametric structural engineering

plug-in for Grasshopper in Rhinoceros to predict the elastic deflection of the dome. In this model, only

the primary structural members were modeled. All joints were modeled as fixed connections due to the

strong tie of the bolted connections. All members supported by the ground plane were modeled as

fixed supports. The structure was analyzed under self-weight and uniform snow load. The gravity

loads are 8.6 kN (1944 lbs.) for the primary structural Douglas Fir wood members, 20.1 kN (4518.7

lbs.) for the .3 cm (.125 in) fiberglass roof panels with approximately 10 layers of liquid-applied

waterproof coatings. A uniform snow load of 1.4 kN/m2

(30 PSF) was applied to the entire roof. The

model showed that the top of the dome would lower, while the sides of the dome would bulge

outwards as expected for a spherical geometry under uniform load. The average deflection measured

from the Karamba analysis is 10.8 cm (4.25 inches).

The authors visited the dome and took measurements of the interior nodes at which the structural

panels came together. Measurements were taken from three fixed points on the floor of the dome to

each visible node in the geodesic structure. A drop ceiling obstructed the view to get measurements for

several nodes. Each measurement was used as a radius to create a sphere and then the intersection of

the three spheres triangulated the location of each node. A Grasshopper script was used to quickly

produce a digital 3D model that mapped the interior points of the structure.

Figure 17: Axonometric drawing of the interior nodes of dome; Green: Ideal, Black: Measured [drawn by author]

Figure 18: Elevation drawing of FEA; analysis is exaggerated by a factor of two to better show structural

behavior; Green: Ideal, Black: Measured, Red: Analysis (increased by factor of 2)

The FEA accurately predicted the deformation behavior of the dome. When the measured nodes of the

existing structure were compared to the ideal structure, an average maximum vertical deformation of

14.0 cm (5.5 inches) was found (Figure 17 and 18). This can be considered as the total deformation

due to the summation of initial elastic deflection, long-term creep, and movements in the joints. The

top of the dome has lowered slightly and the sides of the dome have pushed out. Since the difference

between the average elastic deflection found the Karamba analysis and the field-measurements is only

3.2 cm (1.25 inch), the dome has moved a relatively a small amount beyond the predicted deflection.

This demonstrates that the dome has not sagged a great deal over time and is in a safe condition.

A final calculation was completed to test the critical buckling load at which the 10 base members

would fail. Taking into account the total weight of the wooden structure, the weight of the fiberglass

roof panels with approximately 10 layers of liquid-applied waterproof coatings and the snow load, the

buckling strength of the members greatly exceeds the loads that they receive.

9. Conclusion The Woods Hole dome is unique in R. Buckminster Fuller’s built legacy. As an early experimental

geodesic dome in timber, it served as a crucial testing ground in the development of Fuller’s patents

and later built work. Original construction photos and process are revealed here for the first time. This

resilient structure has withstood decades of weather, wear, and neglect. A new survey has revealed its

detailed geometry for the first time and has estimated its deformation compared to the idealized form.

Its geodesic form has deflected slightly from the ideal geometry, suggesting that the structure remains

sound. This paper is a first step to a more in-depth analysis of the dome’s structure that ultimately can

contribute to the restoration and preservation of the dome. The Woods Hole dome is a unique structure

embedded with great cultural significance and should be saved for future generations.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

8

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Professor Tunney Lee for sharing his firsthand experience in building

this dome. We are also grateful for conversations with Chris Dewart that contributed to this research.

References

[1] E. Popko, “Woods Hole Dome” In Geodesics. Detroit, MI: University of Detroit Press, 1968.

[2] J. W. Mavor, Jr. (2004). Woods Hole Dome in 2004 [Image] in “The Woods Hole Geodesic Dome

- A Synergetic Landmark,” 2004. Accessed on: Jan 24, 2018. [Online]. Available:

http://www.woodsholemuseum.org/oldpages/sprtsl/v18n2-Geodes.pdf

[3] "Geodesic Wood Dome; Restaurant, Woods Hole, Mass." Progressive Architecture, vol. 35, June

1954, pp. 100-101.

[4] R. B. Fuller, “Laminar Geodesic Dome,” U.S. Patent 3 203 144 A, Aug. 31, 1965.

[5] “1960s: Visionary Fuller brought dome projects to UO,” (2015, Jan. 15). University of Oregon

College of Design School of Art + Design News, Eugene, OR. Accessed on: Jan. 24, 2018. [Online].

Available: https://artdesign.uoregon.edu/1960s-visionary-fuller-brought-dome-projects-uo

[6] Geodesic Dome, University of Oregon, Image. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, 1953. Oregon

Digital. Accessed on: Jan. 23, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://oregondigital.org/sets/building-

or/oregondigital:df67j0379

[7] R. B. Fuller, Speaker, Everything I Know, January 1975. Accessed on: Jan. 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.bfi.org/about-fuller/resources/everything-i-know/session-11#part6

[8] R. B. Fuller, “Architecture Out of the Laboratory,” Dimension, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20, Spring 1955.

Accessed on: Jan 23, 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yatUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR9&dq=hurricane+woods+hole+dome

&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjku9bZv4DZAhURn1MKHa2EDloQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=hurri

cane%20woods%20hole%20dome&f=false

[9] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29960

[10] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29939

[11] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29941

[12] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29953

[13] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29966

[14] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries

Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29933

[15] TaffGoch (2014, Oct. 14). “Woods Hole Dome,” 3D Warehouse. Accessed on: Jan 24, 2018.

[Online]. Available: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=u27e8b8c2-2243-465a-b7d3-

810a50e6ccbe

Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations

MHB/ DRILLHOLE

FOUND

MHB/ DRILLHOLE

FOUND

SB/DHFOUND

CB/DHFOUND

MHB/ DRILLHOLEFOUND

SB/DHFOUND

CB/DHFOUND

CB/DHFOUND

CB/DHFOUND

SB/DH

FOUND

CB/DH

FOUND

CB/DHFOUND

CB/DHFOUND

CB/DHFOUNDCB/DH

FOUND

CHURCH

STREET

GVGV

GV

GV

GV

EXISTING

BUILDING

EXISTING

BUILDING

PP

PPLP

LP

FENCE

GARAGE

POST AND RAIL FENCE

LP

PAVEMENT

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

PP

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

TENNIS COURT

CHAIN LINK FENCE

CH

AIN

LI

NK

FEN

CE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

CB

EXISTING

BUILDING

MH

MH

MHMH

MH

WSO

MH

MH

MH

MH

EXISTING

DOME

EXISTING

BUILDING

LOT 43N/F

DAVID A. EPSTEIN

LOT 44N/F

DANIEL JOHNSON, TR.

LOT 61N/F

MICHAEL P. GOLDRING

LOT 60N/F

CHARLES R. & ELLEN

G. WYTTENBACH

LOT 1BN/F

ROBERT N. & SUSAN

VEEDER, TRS.

LOT 45N/F

DAVID & ALEXANDER

KLEIN, TRS.

EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALK

EXISTING SIDEWALK

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TP-1

TP-2

TP-3

TP-4

TP-6

TP-5

TP-7

TP-8TP-10

TP-11

TP-9

1-W

2-W

4-W

3-W

71157

71158

71159

CB

10" CI WATERMAIN (1952)10" CI WATERMAIN (1899)

APPROXIMATE LOCATION APPROXIMATE LOCATION

10" CICL WATERMAIN (1952)

8" CICL WATERMAINAPPROXIMATE LOCATION

4" PL 60 PSIG 1981

4" PL 60 PSIG 1982

4" PL 60 PSIG 1982STONE WALL

EXISTINGHOTEL

EXISTINGHOTEL EXISTING

HOTEL

LANDSCAPED

EXISTINGHOTEL

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

LANDSCAPED

LANDSCAPED

DUMPSTER

LANDSCAPED

LANDSCAPED

AREA

HISTORIC

DISTRICT

HISTORICDISTRICT

MH

MH

MH

MH

MHMH

MH

MH

MH

EXISTING

HOUSE

EXISTINGHOUSE

EXISTING

HOUSE

EXISTINGHOUSE

EXISTINGHOUSE

EXISTINGHOUSE

GASVALVE

CATCH

BASIN

DECK

LOT 63N/F

GORDON D. BERNE

LOT 40N/F

KOIDE FAMILY, LLC

LOT 41

N/F

NIELS & DOROTHY T.

HAUGAARD

LOT 42N/F

STEPHEN MARTIN &

CYNTHIA R. KRANE

LOT CN/F

ELEANORA S.

CHAMBERS, TR.

LAWN

LANDSCAPED

G G G G G G GG

G G G G G G G G G GG

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GG

GG

G

G

G

G

G

GG

G

G

WW

WW W W W W W W

WW

W W W W W W W W W W W W WW

WW

WW

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

LOT 217

N/F

LUSCOMBE

AVENUE LLC

D

Y

H

D

Y

H

CB

CBASINR=38.16

TP-BSS1

TP-BSS2

CBASINR=45.69

CBASINR=56.29

100' BUFFER

100'

BUFFER

100'

BU

FFER

100'

BU

FFER

STO

NE

WAL

L

STO

NE

WAL

L R

EMAI

NS

STONE RETAINING

WALL

FOO

TPAT

H

FZFZ

FZ

FZCB

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

CB

CB

LOT 12AX

N/F

WOODS HOLE

OCEANOGRAPHIC

INST.

100'

BU

FFER

FR

OM

CO

ASTA

L BA

NK

100'

BUF

FER

FRO

MW

ETLA

ND

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

x

x

x

x

VAN

xx

xx

x

x

xx

x

xx

x

xx

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

FIR

E LA

NE

WOODS HOLE ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY - VARIABLE WIDTH)

EXISTING PAVED SHOULDERPULL-OFF TO REMAIN

EXISTING WAY - 16' WIDEAGREEMENT DATEDNOVEMBER 11, 1957

(BOOK 993 PAGE 574)

EXISTING WAY - 16' WIDE(PLAN BOOK 247 PAGE 101)

EXISTING CURBCUT TO REMAIN

EXISTING ABUTTINGPARKING

PROPOSED WOODEN GUARD RAIL

PROPOSED FENCED-INDUMPSTER CONCRETE PAD

GRANITE CURBINGR = 30'PRO

POSED DUPLEX

BUILDING 'D'

2ND F. F. = 65.0

1ST F. F. = 55.0

GARAG

E SLAB = 54.5

PROPOSED BUILDING 'A'20 RESIDENTIAL UNITSF. F. EL. = 66.0GARAGE SLAB = 57.0

PRO

POSED

DU

PLEX

BUILD

ING

'B'

F. F. EL. = 65.5

GAR

AGE = 65.0

BASEMEN

T = 55.0

PROPOSED DUPLEX

BUILDING 'C'

2ND F. F. = 63.0

1ST F. F. = 53.0

GARAGE SLAB = 52.5

70'

75'

13'

30'

85'

38'

26'

37'

41'

55'

20.0'

18.0'(TYP.)

9.0'(TYP.)

18.0

'(T

YP.)9.0'

(TYP.)

8.0'8.0'

8.0'

5'8.0'

8.0'

9.0'(TYP.)

18.0'(TYP.)

20.0'

20.0'

25.0'

20.0'

22.0'

24.0'

22.0'

9.0'

42.0'

20.0

'

18.0'9.

0'

24.0'

19.0'

30.0'

22.0'

1

5

10

13

16

22

23

3031

36

3937

4042

43

50 5154

55

58

59

6263

67

74

57'

WOODS HOLE ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY - VARIABLE WIDTH)

PRO

POSED

BUILD

ING

'E'

13 RESID

ENTIAL U

NITS

2ND

F. F. = 75.0

F. F. EL. = 65.0

GAR

AGE SLAB = 56.0

19

33

66

PROPOSED 4' WIDEBITUMINOUS SIDEWALK

CAPE COD BERM

PROPOSED 4' WIDEBITUMINOUS SIDEWALK

PROPOSED 6' WIDECROSSWALK (TYP.)

CAPE COD BERM

PROPOSED 4' WIDEBITUMINOUS SIDEWALK

CAPE COD BERM

PROPOSED CAPE COD BERM

LANDSCAPE ISLANDTO BE RESHAPED

PROPOSED STOP SIGNAND PAVEMENT LINE (TYP.)

PROPOSED STOP SIGNAND PAVEMENT LINE

PROPOSED STOP SIGNAND PAVEMENT LINE

PROPOSED CAPE COD BERM

RETAINING

WALLS

DESIGNED

BY OTHERS

PROPOSED DIRECTIONALPAVEMENT MARKING (TYP.)

PROPOSED WOODEN GUARD RAIL

PROPOSED 4' WIDEBITUMINOUS SIDEWALK

PROPOSED CAPE COD BERM

CAPE COD BERM

PROPOSED 4' WIDEBITUMINOUS SIDEWALK

PROPOSED PAVEMENT SAWCUTAND PAVEMENT MATCH LINEREFER TO DEMOLITION PLAN

PROPOSEDRETAININGWALL - DESIGNBY OTHERS

20

21

PRO

POSE

DD

UPL

EXBU

ILD

ING

'G'

F. F

. EL.

= 4

3.7

13.0'

PROPOSED740 S.F. ADDITION

63.0'

43'

42'

42'

42'

18.0'(TYP.)

34'23.0'

9.0'

23.0'23.0' 24

.0'

24.0

'

24.0'

18.0' 9.0'

18.0'

9.0'

24.0'

24.0'

BENCHMARKSURVEY MAG NAIL #5003

ELEVATION = 37.98' NAVD88

BENCHMARKCONCRETE BOUND

ELEVATION = 43.26' NAVD88

BENCHMARKMA. HIGHWAY CONCRETE BOUNDELEVATION = 68.16' NAVD88

PROPOSED GRAVELPAD FOR BIKE RACK

PROPOSED GRAVELPAD FOR BIKE RACK

PROPOSED GRAVEL PARKING AREAFOR PERPENDICULAR PARKINGSPACES WITH WHEEL STOPS

26'

31'

EXISTING HYDRANT TOBE RELOCATED. REFERTO UTILITIES PLAN.

PROPOSEDRETAINING

WALL - DESIGNBY OTHERS 24'

PROPOSED CONCRETESIDEWALK ACCESSIBLERAMP AND LANDING

PROPOSED CONCRETESIDEWALK ACCESSIBLE

RAMP AND LANDING PROPOSED CONCRETESIDEWALK ACCESSIBLERAMP AND LANDING

20.0'

25.0'

EXISTING BITUMINOUS SIDEWALKTO BE RECONSTRUCTED AND

WIDENED TO 5' (415± L.F.)R = 30' (EXISTING)

GRANITE CURBINGR = 15'

70'

LIMIT OF WORK

LIMIT OF WORK

15

14

BENCHMARKTO BE ESTABLISHEDFOR CONSTRUCTION

40.9'

17.0'

42.5'

24.0'

12.0'

22.3'

36.0'

36.0'

56.3'

19.5'

48.0'

15.0'

24.0'24.0'

26.0'

24.0'

24.0'

35.0'

22.0' 35.0'

23.0'

48.0'

23.5'

10.0'

13.0'

14.0' 13.5'

19.5'33.5'

33.0'

15.0'15.0'

15.0'

10.0'

48.0'

100.

0'

6.0'

6.0'

19.5'

14.0'13.5' 19.5'

4.0'6.1'

13.3' 6.1'

4.0'

2.9' 10.1'

13.8' 24.8'

2.0'

50.0'

2.0'

10.6'

26.5'

14.0'

16.0'

6.1'

13.9'6.1'2.0'

14.0'5.0'36.0'

5.8'10.0'5.8'

46.4'

6.1'

22.7'

6.1'10.0'

9.9'

9.9'

4.3'

6.0'26.0'6.

0'3.

1'

4.0'

40.0'

3.0'

14.9'6.1'

5.0'3.0'

36.0'

6.1'

13.3'6.1'

3.0'

15.9'

9.6'

12.0'

32.0'7.0'

7.0'

39.0'

3.0'

50.0'

8.1'

13.9'

8.1'

30.0'

41.8

'

3.6'

18.0

'

3.6'30.0'

41.8

'

8.0' 5.0'

8.0'

5.0'

30.0'

3.6'

3.6'

18.0

'

41.8

'

30.0'

41.8

'8.0' 5.0'

5.0'

8.0'

12.0

'

4.0'

12.0

'

4.0'

12.0

'

4.0'

12.0

'

4.0'

5.0'

6.0'

8.0'

15.5'

6.0'

5.0'

8.0'

15.0'3.0'6.0'

29.5'

9.0'

3.0'6.0'

29.0'

8.0'8.0'

2.0'

2.0'

35.0'

6.1'

13.7'

6.1'

2.0'

6.1'13.7'

6.1'

6.1'13.7'

6.1'2.0'

6.1'13.7'6.1'

4.0'

8.0'

4.0'

4.0'6.1'

13.7'

6.1'

19.0' 1.5'

8.3'

1.5'

10.7'

33.0'

6.0'

33.5'

10.7'1.5'

8.3'

1.5'

19.0'

7.0'

7.0'8.0'

19.5'

6.0'

19.5'

6.0'

6.0'

19.5'

7.0'7.

0'8.0'

19.0

'

6.0'

19.5'

1.5'

8.3' 1.5'

10.7

'

6.0'

10.7

'1.5'

8.3'1.5'

26.9'

13.9

'

3.3'

4.0'

1.5'

13.6

'

31.9

'

20.3'

5.5'

PRO

POSE

DD

UPL

EXBU

ILD

ING

'F'

F. F

. EL.

= 4

3.7

N 56° 4

2' 52

" E

89.16

'

N 45

° 30'

52" E

45.5

4'

N 2

5° 3

1' 2

2" E

85.5

4'N

15°

55'

52"

E80

.60'

N 67° 34' 28" W

200.49'S 88° 09' 22" W85.00'

N 1

° 50'

38"

W

265.

57'

S 62° 32' 38" E269.15'

S 62° 32' 38" E234.09'

S 62° 32' 38" E39.86' S 57° 21' 38" E42.21'

S 57° 21' 38" E111.17'

S 48° 53' 18" E59.70'

S 6° 45' 20" E

170.61'

S 83° 14' 40" W21.98'

S 6° 45' 20" E

115.98'

S 75° 47' 03" W73.16'

N 14° 16' 39" W29.73'

S 88° 28' 46" W311.83'

R=418.05'L=184.31'

N 1

8° 3

6' 5

2" E

21.2

3'

8.7'

9.3'

70'

25'

18.0

'

18.0

'18.0

'

N

NAD

83

CO

PY

RIG

HT

(C) B

Y C

AP

E &

ISLA

ND

SE

NG

INE

ER

ING

, IN

C. A

LL R

IGH

TS R

ES

ER

VE

D

NO

TIC

ETH

IS P

LAN

MA

Y N

OT

BE

AD

DE

D T

O, D

ELE

TED

FRO

M, O

R A

LTE

RE

D IN

AN

Y W

AY

BY

AN

YO

NE

OTH

ER

TH

AN

CA

PE

& IS

LAN

DS

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G, I

NC

.

UN

LES

S A

ND

UN

TIL

SU

CH

TIM

E A

S A

N O

RIG

INA

LS

TAM

P A

ND

SIG

NA

TUR

E A

PP

EA

RS

ON

TH

IS P

LAN

NO

PE

RS

ON

OR

PE

RS

ON

S, M

UN

ICIP

AL

OR

PU

BLI

CO

FFIC

IAL

MA

Y R

ELY

UP

ON

TH

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

NC

ON

TAIN

ED

HE

RE

IN; A

ND

TH

IS P

LAN

RE

MA

INS

THE

PR

OP

ER

TY O

F C

AP

E A

ND

ISLA

ND

SE

NG

INE

ER

ING

, IN

C.

Date:

Rev

Dat

eD

escr

iptio

nB

y

Checked By:

Drawn By:

C-101C-101 SITE LAYOUT PLAN

RLR/JVB

OCTOBER 5, 2018

SIT

E L

AY

OU

T P

LAN

MC

SU

MM

ER

FIE

LD P

AR

K80

0 FA

LMO

UTH

RO

AD

SU

ITE

301

CM

AS

HP

EE

, MA

026

49

508.

477.

7272

PH

ON

E50

8.47

7.90

72 F

AX

info

@C

apeE

ng.c

omw

ww

.Cap

eEng

.com

30

SCALE: 1" = 30'

0 60 100

SIT

E P

LAN

IN

FALM

OU

TH, M

AS

SA

CH

US

ETT

S

533-

539

WO

OD

S H

OLE

RO

AD

PR

EP

AR

ED

FO

R:

DR

AW

ING

TIT

LE:

WO

OD

S H

OLE

PA

RTN

ER

S, L

LC1

1/31

/19

RLR

RE

VIS

E L

OW

, BU

ILD

ING

'E',

GA

RA

GE

'A' &

PA

RK

ING

CO

UN

T,P

RO

VID

E A

DD

ITIO

NA

L P

AR

KIN

G D

IME

NS

ION

S, A

DD

BE

NC

HM

AR

K

23/

14/1

9R

LRA

DD

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

TO

DR

IVE

WA

Y C

UR

B C

UTS

AN

D W

OO

DS

HO

LE R

OA

D S

IDE

WA

LKS

. WID

EN

PA

RK

ING

DR

IVE

WA

Y'.

5/24

/19

AD

D D

IME

NS

ION

S O

F A

LL B

UIL

DIN

G.

JVB

3

9/6/

19R

EV

ISE

PR

OP

OS

ED

DO

ME

AD

DIT

ION

RLR

4

01 FIRST FLOORPROPOSED

0' - 0"

02 SECONDFLOOR

8' - 9 1/2"

02 SECONDFLOOR CLG.

17' - 3 1/2"

FIRST FLOOR CLG7' - 7"

HIGH DOME27' - 4"

01 FIRST FLOORPROPOSED

0' - 0"

02 SECONDFLOOR

8' - 9 1/2"

GROUND-5' - 6"

02 SECONDFLOOR CLG.

17' - 3 1/2"

FIRST FLOOR CLG7' - 7"

HIGH DOME27' - 4"

PROJECT NUMBER

DRAWING SEAL

DRAWING

PROJECT

NOTE

REVISION

# DAT

CONSULTANT

THIS DOCUMENT'S USE BY THE OWNER FOR OTHER PROJECTS OR FOR COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT BY OTHERS IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. DISTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PUBLICATION IN DEROGATION OFTHE DESIGNER'S RIGHTS.

SCALE

DRAWN

1/8" = 1'-0"

A2.0

08/05/2019

EXTERIORELEVATIONS -EXISTING

BUCKMINTERFULLER DOME ATWOODS HOLE

ELF1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST VIEW - ELEVATION

1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH VIEW - ELEVATION

01 FIRST FLOORPROPOSED

0' - 0"

02 SECONDFLOOR

8' - 9 1/2"

GROUND-5' - 6"

02 SECONDFLOOR CLG.

17' - 3 1/2"

FIRST FLOOR CLG7' - 7"

HIGH DOME27' - 4"

CONCRETE PAD 5'6" X 9'7"

01 FIRST FLOORPROPOSED

0' - 0"

02 SECONDFLOOR

8' - 9 1/2"

GROUND-5' - 6"

02 SECONDFLOOR CLG.

17' - 3 1/2"

FIRST FLOOR CLG7' - 7"

PROJECT NUMBER

DRAWING SEAL

DRAWING

PROJECT

NOTE

REVISION

# DAT

CONSULTANT

THIS DOCUMENT'S USE BY THE OWNER FOR OTHER PROJECTS OR FOR COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT BY OTHERS IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. DISTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PUBLICATION IN DEROGATION OFTHE DESIGNER'S RIGHTS.

SCALE

DRAWN

1/8" = 1'-0"

A2.1

08/05/2019

EXTERIORELEVATIONS-EXISTING

BUCKMINTERFULLER DOME ATWOODS HOLE

ELF

1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST VIEW - ELEVATION

1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH VIEW -ELEVATION

date: 09-05-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

A201

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Com

mun

ity C

ente

r @

B.F

. Geo

desi

c D

ome

date: 09-05-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

A202

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Com

mun

ity C

ente

r @

B.F

. Geo

desi

c D

ome

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

B-A103

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Unit B

Uni

t B

- Pr

opos

ed R

oof

Plan

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

B-A201

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Unit B

Uni

t B

- Pr

opos

ed F

ront

an

d Le

ft E

leva

tions

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

B-A202

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Unit B

Uni

t B

- Pr

opos

ed R

ear

and

Righ

t El

evat

ions

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

D-A103

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Uni

ts C

&D

- P

ropo

sed

Roof

Pla

n

Units C&D

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

Uni

ts C

&D

- P

ropo

sed

Elev

atio

ns

D-A201

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Units C&D

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

Uni

ts C

&D

- P

ropo

sed

Elev

atio

ns

D-A202

scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Units C&D

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

Uni

t E

- Pr

opos

ed E

leva

tions

E-A201

scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"

Unit E

date: 07-24-2019

535

Woo

ds H

ole

Road

R E

V I

S I

O N

S

5102

-14-

17co

ncep

t pl

an

2 3 4

12-0

4-18

revi

sed

elev

atio

ns

Uni

t E

- Pr

opos

ed E

leva

tions

E-A202

scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"

Unit E