wrote:
On Apr 17, 2:36 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

m...

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.
The posts do not contact the ground. At least according to code. Seeing
the damage after Katrina, lots of the lost houses were because of
construction practices. A house on a concrete pad. Not bad, but they did
not bolt the house to the pad. You would see a house pad, and no nails, no
bolts sticking up from the pad. Bad union work?

You even have to have a different coating on screws, nails and anchor
bolts that will be in contact with PT lumber because of the newer
chemicals they are using. I'm sure Harry's union worker buds that he
has protect him (allegedly) have told him this.

Do you really think WAFA has a clue about ACQ vs CCA lumber?

HK wrote:


That's correct. And many of the roof lumber was not tied to the top
plates, and the bottom plates were not tied to the foundation. Lousy
inspectors were a big part of the problem.

"And many of the roof lumber"? Are you really that dumb?

Tell us how they are "tied". I know the answer - do you?

Learn what a roof truss is and you won't present your pathetic self like
dumb Don.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm pretty sure that building houses off the ground "was" pretty common
throughout the US until developers got hold of "cookie cutter" plans and
threw down cement slabs, 10 or 100 at a time.
I know it'll chap your ass but the idea was probably brought to Florida by
some damn Yankee.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:50:35 -0400, D K
wrote:

Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
m...
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.

The posts do not contact the ground. At least according to code. Seeing
the damage after Katrina, lots of the lost houses were because of
construction practices. A house on a concrete pad. Not bad, but they did
not bolt the house to the pad. You would see a house pad, and no nails,
no bolts sticking up from the pad. Bad union work?

More likely some shifty 'contractor' hiring illegals at the cheapest
possible wage and taking every shortcut imaginable.



Sure, dummy. And the building inspectors are getting paid off, too, right?


Hey, I thought you were from Chicago. (-:

--Vic

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:08:23 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg

Damn, that's a great photo. Quite impressive.

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.