wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:56 -0400, HK wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:25 am, "mmc" wrote:
What a novel idea:http://www.raisedfloorliving.com/
Like this is something new?
No, this is traditional "Cracker house" construction. My house is
built this way.

Not unusual in areas with high water tables...and gives the termites
something beefy - the posts - on which to chew.

These houses usually use 2.5 CCA posts and there isn't much that can
eat them. I still have some cutoffs from a house built in 1980 on Pine
Island and I use one for a bunk for my jon boat on my dock. It still
looks brand new. I have couple more that I keep next to the garage (in
the grass) for blocking up my trailer when I am working on the boat.
Same thing, still look new.

There were a few in Jax where the posts either were rotted out or were
eaten. I have no idea how the posts were treated. Most of the raised
floor houses I saw there, though, were on short concrete piers.

On Apr 17, 1:39*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:56 -0400, HK wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:25 am, "mmc" wrote:
What a novel idea:http://www.raisedfloorliving.com/
Like this is something new?
No, this is traditional "Cracker house" construction. My house is
built this way.

Not unusual in areas with high water tables...and gives the termites
something beefy - the posts - on which to chew.

These houses usually use 2.5 CCA posts and there isn't much that can
eat them. I still have some cutoffs from a house built in 1980 on Pine
Island and I use one for a bunk for my jon boat on my dock. It still
looks brand new. I have couple more that I keep next to the garage (in
the grass) for blocking up my trailer when I am working on the boat.
Same thing, still look new.

There were a few in Jax where the posts either were rotted out or were
eaten. I have no idea how the posts were treated. Most of the raised
floor houses I saw there, though, were on short concrete piers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

House inspector now, huh? Did you learn that at Yale?

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:39:44 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:56 -0400, HK wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:25 am, "mmc" wrote:
What a novel idea:http://www.raisedfloorliving.com/
Like this is something new?
No, this is traditional "Cracker house" construction. My house is
built this way.
Not unusual in areas with high water tables...and gives the termites
something beefy - the posts - on which to chew.
These houses usually use 2.5 CCA posts and there isn't much that can
eat them. I still have some cutoffs from a house built in 1980 on Pine
Island and I use one for a bunk for my jon boat on my dock. It still
looks brand new. I have couple more that I keep next to the garage (in
the grass) for blocking up my trailer when I am working on the boat.
Same thing, still look new.
There were a few in Jax where the posts either were rotted out or were
eaten. I have no idea how the posts were treated. Most of the raised
floor houses I saw there, though, were on short concrete piers.

A lot of construction in Florida was done before they really had an
effective building code. People would come down here and do things
like they did up north with disastrous results. Just simple things
like "where does the vapor barrier go?" can make for bad situations.
The whole wind code issue is virtually unknown once you get much north
of the Florida line. That is why some little dust devil gets called a
tornado up there in Md because it rips off a bunch of shingles and
siding. We need engineered, stamped plans to build a shed these days.
You do see the difference after a storm though. Old, pre-code houses
still get blown up but the newer ones come out unscathed. One of my
best demonstrations is the Gilchrist house in Texas. That was built to
the same 150 MPH code Florida requires south of Miami.
It speaks for itself.
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg


I spent close to a month in south Florida after Andrew preparing a
booklet for a client on how various structures handled the storm and its
aftermath. Hope I still have a few copies of it somewhere. It was pretty
decent, with lots of photos, a few drawings, explanations, all reviewed
by the proper sort of engineers. Codes and lack of code enforcement were
big issues in south Florida then.

That's a great photo, by the way. Never saw it before.

On Apr 17, 3:08*pm, HK wrote:

I spent close to a month in south Florida after Andrew preparing a
booklet for a client on how various structures handled the storm and its
aftermath. Hope I still have a few copies of it somewhere.

Gee, I do too! I'd love to see a copy, liar!

It was pretty
decent, with lots of photos, a few drawings, explanations, all reviewed
by the proper sort of engineers. Codes and lack of code enforcement were
big issues in south Florida then.

No it wasn't "codes and lack of code enforcement". There were codes in
place. They were enforced. But things are learned by such events and
the subsequent testing. THEN the codes are revised.

I'll be waiting to see your thesis. Please, don't forget to list the
engineers that reviewed it. Did they stamp it? How was their review
done?

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:55:02 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


I don't want to get in the ****ing match but Harry is somewhat right on
this one. A lot of the houses the got blown up in Andrew did not meet
the existing code but Dade did have the strongest code in Florida at the
time.

Andrew also provided a terrific case study, unfortunate, but terrific.
Before Andrew, many things had been overlooked. The danger to windows
was well known, but doors, both entry and garage, weren't as
acknowledged. When the wind gets into a building, it has to get out,
mostly with explosive results.

Around the same time as Andrew, there was also a well known video from
Hawaii, I believe, that showed a complete roof lift up and fly away
intact. I still remember it to this day.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:55:02 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


I don't want to get in the ****ing match but Harry is somewhat right on
this one. A lot of the houses the got blown up in Andrew did not meet
the existing code but Dade did have the strongest code in Florida at the
time.

Andrew also provided a terrific case study, unfortunate, but terrific.
Before Andrew, many things had been overlooked. The danger to windows
was well known, but doors, both entry and garage, weren't as
acknowledged. When the wind gets into a building, it has to get out,
mostly with explosive results.

Around the same time as Andrew, there was also a well known video from
Hawaii, I believe, that showed a complete roof lift up and fly away
intact. I still remember it to this day.



The house we had in Jupiter, Florida (just north of West Palm Beach) was
built in 1996 if I recall.
It was custom built, designed by the original owner who was an architect.
The main, double entry doors originally opened inward.
There were also several double doors throughout the house that opened
outward.

During the first of three hurricanes that hit in one year after we bought
the house, the wind blew the main doors open inward and the force of the
wind inside blew all the other doors open outward. The result was some
significant damage to the inside of the house. It was all repaired, but
with no hurricane insurance (a result of Andrew) it wasn't cheap. The
main doors were replaced by outward opening types.

We also had a pool enclosure installed at that house. By that time the code
requirements were for 150 mph winds.
It was installed by a reputable and licensed company but "Wilma" still
pretty much destroyed it with 120 mph gusts.

Eisboch

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:02:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The main doors were replaced by outward opening types.

I guess that's one difference between the north and the south. Up north,
those outward opening doors can trap you inside when the snow gets
deep. ;-(

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:02:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The main doors were replaced by outward opening types.

I guess that's one difference between the north and the south. Up north,
those outward opening doors can trap you inside when the snow gets
deep. ;-(


When we first bought the house and were in it during a heavy thunderstorm
with winds, I noticed that the way the entrance way was designed it
"funneled" the wind and put a lot of pressure on the doors. When we
returned north after the first winter, I drove our golf cart into the house,
closed the doors, and backed the golf cart up against them with a pillow
between the golf cart bumper and the doors.

Unfortunately the year the first hurricane hit I forgot to do that before we
headed north. $50K lesson.

Eisboch

On Apr 18, 1:55*am, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:50:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Apr 17, 3:08*pm, HK wrote:

I spent close to a month in south Florida after Andrew preparing a
booklet for a client on how various structures handled the storm and its
aftermath. Hope I still have a few copies of it somewhere.

Gee, I do too! I'd love to see a copy, liar!

It was pretty
decent, with lots of photos, a few drawings, explanations, all reviewed
by the proper sort of engineers. Codes and lack of code enforcement were
big issues in south Florida then.

No it wasn't "codes and lack of code enforcement". There were codes in
place. They were enforced. But things are learned by such events and
the subsequent testing. THEN the codes are revised.

I'll be waiting to see your thesis. Please, don't forget to list the
engineers that reviewed it. Did they stamp it? How was their review
done?

I don't want to get in the ****ing match but Harry is somewhat right
on this one. A lot of the houses the got blown up in Andrew did not
meet the existing code but Dade did have the strongest code in Florida
at the time.
They found things like roof sheathing with about 10-15% of the
required nailing schedule and such. The inspectors were not really
inspecting. That is the type of thing that did get addressed. Florida
has always had a fairy strict code, when it was enforced. My 1963
house has a poured bond beam with 2 #5s in it and embedded straps over
the trusses.
In my addition we did get to bust into some of that for a look. The
slab also has the two #5 perimeter steel and the dowelled cells in the
walls. That is basically what the current code is and happened almost
a half century ago. It was all in who built your house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Codes evolve. What was in place during a particular house's
construction may not be the same as one that was built even a year
later. If a house isn't built to code, first they start looking at the
engineer and architect. If there construction documents were in
compliance with the code at the time of construction, then they go to
the builder. As for a bond beam at the top of a c.m.u. wall, that's
standard, it stiffens the wall. As for the embedments, they are just
as much for the wall as for the trusses. The diaphram action of the
trusses help keep the wall from pushing over. Poured and reinforced
cells in the wall (simply put) keep the wall from breaking off at at
some height. Horizontal joint reinforcing stiffens the wall in a side
to side direction.

On Apr 17, 2:08*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:39:44 -0400, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:56 -0400, HK wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:25 am, "mmc" wrote:
What a novel idea:http://www.raisedfloorliving.com/
Like this is something new?
No, this is traditional "Cracker house" construction. My house is
built this way.

Not unusual in areas with high water tables...and gives the termites
something beefy - the posts - on which to chew.

These houses usually use 2.5 CCA posts and there isn't much that can
eat them. I still have some cutoffs from a house built in 1980 on Pine
Island and I use one for a bunk for my jon boat on my dock. It still
looks brand new. I have couple more that I keep next to the garage (in
the grass) for blocking up my trailer when I am working on the boat.
Same thing, still look new.

There were a few in Jax where the posts either were rotted out or were
eaten. I have no idea how the posts were treated. Most of the raised
floor houses I saw there, though, were on short concrete piers.

A lot of construction in Florida was done before they really had an
effective building code. People would come down here and do things
like they did up north with disastrous results. Just simple things
like "where does the vapor barrier go?" can make for bad situations.
The whole wind code issue is virtually unknown once you get much north
of the Florida line. That is why some little dust devil gets called a
tornado up there in Md because *it rips off a bunch of shingles and
siding. We need engineered, stamped plans to build a shed these days.
You do see the difference after a storm though. Old, pre-code houses
still get blown up but the newer ones come out unscathed. One of my
best demonstrations is the Gilchrist house in Texas. That was built to
the same 150 MPH code *Florida requires south of Miami.
It speaks for itself.http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....ouse.irpt.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not just south of Miami. There's lots of coastal areas that are
in the 150 range. BUT, an engineer can still interpolate.