On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 1:44 AM, wrote:



The northern building code would not even protect most houses from a
strong Cat 1 or a 2.
When I was there they built to 80 mph but I assume they may have upped
that a little. Even so there are plenty of 30+ year old buildings
built to that code. There was absolutely zero uplift protection beyond
gravity. You were not even required to put nuts on the J bolts in
block headers when you mounted the sill plate for the stick built
parts. There is also no tie beam and no steel in the block. They
didn't even have steel in the footer. The J bolt is just mortared into
one of the block cores.
We have 4 #5 rebars in the tie beam and the top 16" is solid concrete,
that tie beam is doweled with a #5 every 4 feet and at every opening
in a grouted cell and the "hooks", top and bottom get tied to the tie
beam steel and the footer steel.


Your post caused me to think of the old farmhouse that we used to own
and had my mother living in. I doubt any codes existed when it and the
accompanying barn was built in 1800. All the support beams and rafters
in the barn where pegged together ... no nails or screws. The vertical
beams where the trunks from large cedar trees. We had a bulding
preservation expert who takes care of the buildings in "Plimouth
Plantation" (a local tourist attraction in Plymouth) visit us and he
explained to me that back in those days the barn was built like the
upside-down hull of a wooden ship, mainly due to the early ship building
history of the area.

We had the roof replaced on both the house and barn and when they tore
off the old shingles there was no plywood like you would expect to see.
The roof consisted of wood planks instead, with huge gaps between the
planks in many places. Amazing that it never leaked.

That old house and barn has withstood many a hurricane, blizzards and
storms with nothing close to meeting modern building codes.

If everything was pegged floor to roof peak it might come close to
code, particularly if the uprights were buried deep enough in the
ground.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:42:34 -0400,
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:22:48 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Florida is not prepared. If Scott really were concerned about Florida,
he'd be spearheading a statewide effort to stop development in low-lying
coastal areas, and begin a process of condemning and tearing down
susceptible structures in those areas, outlawing mobile homes, and
slowing growth generally.

===

That would be political suicide in a state that has millions of people
living in coastal areas. Many of us moved here exactly for the
opportunity to live on waterfront property. It's a calculated risk
that require constant juggling, just like for the people who choose to
live in the Caribbean.

I have no problem with the idea that the person taking that risk
should pay appropriately to get someone to insure them.

On 9/18/2017 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 1:44 AM, wrote:



The northern building code would not even protect most houses from a
strong Cat 1 or a 2.
When I was there they built to 80 mph but I assume they may have upped
that a little. Even so there are plenty of 30+ year old buildings
built to that code. There was absolutely zero uplift protection beyond
gravity. You were not even required to put nuts on the J bolts in
block headers when you mounted the sill plate for the stick built
parts. There is also no tie beam and no steel in the block. They
didn't even have steel in the footer. The J bolt is just mortared into
one of the block cores.
We have 4 #5 rebars in the tie beam and the top 16" is solid concrete,
that tie beam is doweled with a #5 every 4 feet and at every opening
in a grouted cell and the "hooks", top and bottom get tied to the tie
beam steel and the footer steel.


Your post caused me to think of the old farmhouse that we used to own
and had my mother living in. I doubt any codes existed when it and the
accompanying barn was built in 1800. All the support beams and rafters
in the barn where pegged together ... no nails or screws. The vertical
beams where the trunks from large cedar trees. We had a bulding
preservation expert who takes care of the buildings in "Plimouth
Plantation" (a local tourist attraction in Plymouth) visit us and he
explained to me that back in those days the barn was built like the
upside-down hull of a wooden ship, mainly due to the early ship building
history of the area.

We had the roof replaced on both the house and barn and when they tore
off the old shingles there was no plywood like you would expect to see.
The roof consisted of wood planks instead, with huge gaps between the
planks in many places. Amazing that it never leaked.

That old house and barn has withstood many a hurricane, blizzards and
storms with nothing close to meeting modern building codes.

If everything was pegged floor to roof peak it might come close to
code, particularly if the uprights were buried deep enough in the
ground.


The interior cedar uprights aren't buried at all and the exterior wall
framing sits on a foundation made of rocks.

I think the reason it has survived is because the "peg" fastening
construction that allows the whole barn to "flex" and give a bit, much
like the wings on a commercial airplane that is riveted rather than
welded. If it (and wings) were stiff, it would be ripped apart in
strong wings.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:50:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 1:44 AM, wrote:



The northern building code would not even protect most houses from a
strong Cat 1 or a 2.
When I was there they built to 80 mph but I assume they may have upped
that a little. Even so there are plenty of 30+ year old buildings
built to that code. There was absolutely zero uplift protection beyond
gravity. You were not even required to put nuts on the J bolts in
block headers when you mounted the sill plate for the stick built
parts. There is also no tie beam and no steel in the block. They
didn't even have steel in the footer. The J bolt is just mortared into
one of the block cores.
We have 4 #5 rebars in the tie beam and the top 16" is solid concrete,
that tie beam is doweled with a #5 every 4 feet and at every opening
in a grouted cell and the "hooks", top and bottom get tied to the tie
beam steel and the footer steel.


Your post caused me to think of the old farmhouse that we used to own
and had my mother living in. I doubt any codes existed when it and the
accompanying barn was built in 1800. All the support beams and rafters
in the barn where pegged together ... no nails or screws. The vertical
beams where the trunks from large cedar trees. We had a bulding
preservation expert who takes care of the buildings in "Plimouth
Plantation" (a local tourist attraction in Plymouth) visit us and he
explained to me that back in those days the barn was built like the
upside-down hull of a wooden ship, mainly due to the early ship building
history of the area.

We had the roof replaced on both the house and barn and when they tore
off the old shingles there was no plywood like you would expect to see.
The roof consisted of wood planks instead, with huge gaps between the
planks in many places. Amazing that it never leaked.

That old house and barn has withstood many a hurricane, blizzards and
storms with nothing close to meeting modern building codes.

If everything was pegged floor to roof peak it might come close to
code, particularly if the uprights were buried deep enough in the
ground.


The interior cedar uprights aren't buried at all and the exterior wall
framing sits on a foundation made of rocks.

I think the reason it has survived is because the "peg" fastening
construction that allows the whole barn to "flex" and give a bit, much
like the wings on a commercial airplane that is riveted rather than
welded. If it (and wings) were stiff, it would be ripped apart in
strong wings.

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.

On 9/18/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:50:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 1:44 AM, wrote:



The northern building code would not even protect most houses from a
strong Cat 1 or a 2.
When I was there they built to 80 mph but I assume they may have upped
that a little. Even so there are plenty of 30+ year old buildings
built to that code. There was absolutely zero uplift protection beyond
gravity. You were not even required to put nuts on the J bolts in
block headers when you mounted the sill plate for the stick built
parts. There is also no tie beam and no steel in the block. They
didn't even have steel in the footer. The J bolt is just mortared into
one of the block cores.
We have 4 #5 rebars in the tie beam and the top 16" is solid concrete,
that tie beam is doweled with a #5 every 4 feet and at every opening
in a grouted cell and the "hooks", top and bottom get tied to the tie
beam steel and the footer steel.


Your post caused me to think of the old farmhouse that we used to own
and had my mother living in. I doubt any codes existed when it and the
accompanying barn was built in 1800. All the support beams and rafters
in the barn where pegged together ... no nails or screws. The vertical
beams where the trunks from large cedar trees. We had a bulding
preservation expert who takes care of the buildings in "Plimouth
Plantation" (a local tourist attraction in Plymouth) visit us and he
explained to me that back in those days the barn was built like the
upside-down hull of a wooden ship, mainly due to the early ship building
history of the area.

We had the roof replaced on both the house and barn and when they tore
off the old shingles there was no plywood like you would expect to see.
The roof consisted of wood planks instead, with huge gaps between the
planks in many places. Amazing that it never leaked.

That old house and barn has withstood many a hurricane, blizzards and
storms with nothing close to meeting modern building codes.

If everything was pegged floor to roof peak it might come close to
code, particularly if the uprights were buried deep enough in the
ground.


The interior cedar uprights aren't buried at all and the exterior wall
framing sits on a foundation made of rocks.

I think the reason it has survived is because the "peg" fastening
construction that allows the whole barn to "flex" and give a bit, much
like the wings on a commercial airplane that is riveted rather than
welded. If it (and wings) were stiff, it would be ripped apart in
strong wings.

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.



The other thing is that the screen panels on the pool enclosures down
there are designed to pop out, reducing the "sail" effect caused by the
wind. Screens really don't have as much conductance for wind or even a
breeze for that matter. They are designed to keep the bugs out.

On 9/18/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:50:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/18/2017 1:44 AM, wrote:



The northern building code would not even protect most houses from a
strong Cat 1 or a 2.
When I was there they built to 80 mph but I assume they may have upped
that a little. Even so there are plenty of 30+ year old buildings
built to that code. There was absolutely zero uplift protection beyond
gravity. You were not even required to put nuts on the J bolts in
block headers when you mounted the sill plate for the stick built
parts. There is also no tie beam and no steel in the block. They
didn't even have steel in the footer. The J bolt is just mortared into
one of the block cores.
We have 4 #5 rebars in the tie beam and the top 16" is solid concrete,
that tie beam is doweled with a #5 every 4 feet and at every opening
in a grouted cell and the "hooks", top and bottom get tied to the tie
beam steel and the footer steel.


Your post caused me to think of the old farmhouse that we used to own
and had my mother living in. I doubt any codes existed when it and the
accompanying barn was built in 1800. All the support beams and rafters
in the barn where pegged together ... no nails or screws. The vertical
beams where the trunks from large cedar trees. We had a bulding
preservation expert who takes care of the buildings in "Plimouth
Plantation" (a local tourist attraction in Plymouth) visit us and he
explained to me that back in those days the barn was built like the
upside-down hull of a wooden ship, mainly due to the early ship building
history of the area.

We had the roof replaced on both the house and barn and when they tore
off the old shingles there was no plywood like you would expect to see.
The roof consisted of wood planks instead, with huge gaps between the
planks in many places. Amazing that it never leaked.

That old house and barn has withstood many a hurricane, blizzards and
storms with nothing close to meeting modern building codes.

If everything was pegged floor to roof peak it might come close to
code, particularly if the uprights were buried deep enough in the
ground.


The interior cedar uprights aren't buried at all and the exterior wall
framing sits on a foundation made of rocks.

I think the reason it has survived is because the "peg" fastening
construction that allows the whole barn to "flex" and give a bit, much
like the wings on a commercial airplane that is riveted rather than
welded. If it (and wings) were stiff, it would be ripped apart in
strong wings.

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.



It's rare but we've had a few Cat 3 hurricanes up here. Mostly they are
Cat 1 or 2 though. The old farmhouse withstood the Great Hurricane of
1938 that although estimated to have been a Cat 3, recorded winds at the
Blue Hills observatory were 121 mph sustained with a 186 mph gust which
remains the highest hurricane produced wind in the USA.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:09:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.



The other thing is that the screen panels on the pool enclosures down
there are designed to pop out, reducing the "sail" effect caused by the
wind. Screens really don't have as much conductance for wind or even a
breeze for that matter. They are designed to keep the bugs out.

Where did you hear that? The standard screen "patio" material uses
flat spline that gets tighter, the harder you pull. Screens come out
when the screen tears, not because it "pops out" of anything. When you
replace it, you have to pry the spline out and dig out the screen
under the spline.
This is the cross section of a 1x2 screen cage member (usually used to
hold screen on the side of a 2x2 that does not have the spline groove)
The top right is the screen groove and the "C" shaped extrusions hold
#8 screws when you are putting them together.

I agree the screen does catch a lot of wind and even more when there
is driving rain. That is why these things are made to be so tough.
They are really engineered more like biplane wings than bridges. That
is how they get away with so little aluminum. The key is steel cables
holding the whole thing together. I did some post portems on failed
cages at my wife's (Centex) community after Charley and every one
seemed to fail when a cable anchor failed. After that they started
racking and just came apart. I do know I added extra cables to mine
after that.

On 9/19/2017 12:28 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:09:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.



The other thing is that the screen panels on the pool enclosures down
there are designed to pop out, reducing the "sail" effect caused by the
wind. Screens really don't have as much conductance for wind or even a
breeze for that matter. They are designed to keep the bugs out.

Where did you hear that? The standard screen "patio" material uses
flat spline that gets tighter, the harder you pull. Screens come out
when the screen tears, not because it "pops out" of anything. When you
replace it, you have to pry the spline out and dig out the screen
under the spline.
This is the cross section of a 1x2 screen cage member (usually used to
hold screen on the side of a 2x2 that does not have the spline groove)
The top right is the screen groove and the "C" shaped extrusions hold
#8 screws when you are putting them together.

I agree the screen does catch a lot of wind and even more when there
is driving rain. That is why these things are made to be so tough.
They are really engineered more like biplane wings than bridges. That
is how they get away with so little aluminum. The key is steel cables
holding the whole thing together. I did some post portems on failed
cages at my wife's (Centex) community after Charley and every one
seemed to fail when a cable anchor failed. After that they started
racking and just came apart. I do know I added extra cables to mine
after that.



The install guy of our screen house in Florida told me that. He said
that in the event of a hurricane with winds over a certain level the
screen sections were designed to release, reducing the load on the
aluminum frame and preventing it from being wrecked. The screens are
replaceable at far less cost than the frame.

I don't recall any "cables" in the frames of either of the screen houses
we had at either of the houses we had there. Not to say they didn't
have them ... I just don't remember them and I watched one of ours being
built. The first house we bought had a pool but did not have a screen
enclosure. We contracted with an installer to put one up. I remember
that I originally wanted it to also cover part of a deck that was
between the house and the pool and that caused all kinds of problems in
terms of getting permits. It would require having a structural engineer
approve how it attached to the house which wasn't a big deal except it
would take two or three months to get it done due to a backlog of work.
We ended up opting to just enclose the pool only and the permit was
issued in a couple of days.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 02:52:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/19/2017 12:28 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:09:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.



The other thing is that the screen panels on the pool enclosures down
there are designed to pop out, reducing the "sail" effect caused by the
wind. Screens really don't have as much conductance for wind or even a
breeze for that matter. They are designed to keep the bugs out.

Where did you hear that? The standard screen "patio" material uses
flat spline that gets tighter, the harder you pull. Screens come out
when the screen tears, not because it "pops out" of anything. When you
replace it, you have to pry the spline out and dig out the screen
under the spline.
This is the cross section of a 1x2 screen cage member (usually used to
hold screen on the side of a 2x2 that does not have the spline groove)
The top right is the screen groove and the "C" shaped extrusions hold
#8 screws when you are putting them together.

I agree the screen does catch a lot of wind and even more when there
is driving rain. That is why these things are made to be so tough.
They are really engineered more like biplane wings than bridges. That
is how they get away with so little aluminum. The key is steel cables
holding the whole thing together. I did some post portems on failed
cages at my wife's (Centex) community after Charley and every one
seemed to fail when a cable anchor failed. After that they started
racking and just came apart. I do know I added extra cables to mine
after that.



The install guy of our screen house in Florida told me that. He said
that in the event of a hurricane with winds over a certain level the
screen sections were designed to release, reducing the load on the
aluminum frame and preventing it from being wrecked. The screens are
replaceable at far less cost than the frame.

Sounds like bull**** to me. Everyone uses the same "patio" material
and I have never seen it with anything but flat spline grooves
I suppose someone may make round spline material but I have never been
asked if I wanted it when I buy patio.
You also find out pretty quickly that replacing the screen is not
cheap. They typically charge $100 a panel that they can get to from
the ground and $125-150 if it is overhead.
Even before Andrew there was a pretty tough code on screen cages.

I don't recall any "cables" in the frames of either of the screen houses
we had at either of the houses we had there. Not to say they didn't
have them ... I just don't remember them and I watched one of ours being
built. The first house we bought had a pool but did not have a screen
enclosure. We contracted with an installer to put one up. I remember
that I originally wanted it to also cover part of a deck that was
between the house and the pool and that caused all kinds of problems in
terms of getting permits. It would require having a structural engineer
approve how it attached to the house which wasn't a big deal except it
would take two or three months to get it done due to a backlog of work.
We ended up opting to just enclose the pool only and the permit was
issued in a couple of days.

You could have gone for "free standing". They have canned engineering
for that. I did it with my pool cage instead of trying to tie into the
older (lower code) cage.
I guarantee there were cables in the corners.
This is a post 2001 code cage, the difference being the cross bucks in
the roof. The cables were in the code in 85 when I put in the original
cage. The difference is the attachment method. In 85 they used an eye
bolt through the frame and another eye bolt through that one used as
the tensioner. In 2001 they use an angle bracket with a dozen #8
screws into the member. BTW that is what failed on the ones I looked
at. I think the eye bolt may have been stronger.

On 9/19/2017 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 02:52:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/19/2017 12:28 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:09:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

A truly strong wind against the long side would probably toss it over
but you don't really get Cat3 and 4 up there. The direction of the
wind also makes a huge difference. You can see that, just driving
around my neighborhood If it is hitting the corner I doubt it sees
much at all except the racking force and those pegs will absorb a
whole lot of that. It is the racking that kills screen cages. When I
had mine built to the 140 mph code they added a bunch of rigid cross
members at angles across the roof to stiffen it up. I have had 3 major
hurricanes and it seemed to work.



The other thing is that the screen panels on the pool enclosures down
there are designed to pop out, reducing the "sail" effect caused by the
wind. Screens really don't have as much conductance for wind or even a
breeze for that matter. They are designed to keep the bugs out.

Where did you hear that? The standard screen "patio" material uses
flat spline that gets tighter, the harder you pull. Screens come out
when the screen tears, not because it "pops out" of anything. When you
replace it, you have to pry the spline out and dig out the screen
under the spline.
This is the cross section of a 1x2 screen cage member (usually used to
hold screen on the side of a 2x2 that does not have the spline groove)
The top right is the screen groove and the "C" shaped extrusions hold
#8 screws when you are putting them together.

I agree the screen does catch a lot of wind and even more when there
is driving rain. That is why these things are made to be so tough.
They are really engineered more like biplane wings than bridges. That
is how they get away with so little aluminum. The key is steel cables
holding the whole thing together. I did some post portems on failed
cages at my wife's (Centex) community after Charley and every one
seemed to fail when a cable anchor failed. After that they started
racking and just came apart. I do know I added extra cables to mine
after that.



The install guy of our screen house in Florida told me that. He said
that in the event of a hurricane with winds over a certain level the
screen sections were designed to release, reducing the load on the
aluminum frame and preventing it from being wrecked. The screens are
replaceable at far less cost than the frame.

Sounds like bull**** to me. Everyone uses the same "patio" material
and I have never seen it with anything but flat spline grooves
I suppose someone may make round spline material but I have never been
asked if I wanted it when I buy patio.
You also find out pretty quickly that replacing the screen is not
cheap. They typically charge $100 a panel that they can get to from
the ground and $125-150 if it is overhead.
Even before Andrew there was a pretty tough code on screen cages.

I don't recall any "cables" in the frames of either of the screen houses
we had at either of the houses we had there. Not to say they didn't
have them ... I just don't remember them and I watched one of ours being
built. The first house we bought had a pool but did not have a screen
enclosure. We contracted with an installer to put one up. I remember
that I originally wanted it to also cover part of a deck that was
between the house and the pool and that caused all kinds of problems in
terms of getting permits. It would require having a structural engineer
approve how it attached to the house which wasn't a big deal except it
would take two or three months to get it done due to a backlog of work.
We ended up opting to just enclose the pool only and the permit was
issued in a couple of days.

You could have gone for "free standing". They have canned engineering
for that. I did it with my pool cage instead of trying to tie into the
older (lower code) cage.
I guarantee there were cables in the corners.
This is a post 2001 code cage, the difference being the cross bucks in
the roof. The cables were in the code in 85 when I put in the original
cage. The difference is the attachment method. In 85 they used an eye
bolt through the frame and another eye bolt through that one used as
the tensioner. In 2001 they use an angle bracket with a dozen #8
screws into the member. BTW that is what failed on the ones I looked
at. I think the eye bolt may have been stronger.


I agree that the screens aren't cheap to replace but it's better than
starting all over again with a collapsed frame, all twisted and bent.
I assume ours was of the "free standing" type because there was no older
screen enclosure to tie into. I've long forgotten the details of how it
was built although I watched most of the work being done. I also can
understand that losing two or three screen panels significantly reduces
the load on the remaining ones because the wind has a place to escape,
rather than imposing all it's force on the remaining panels. We lost
panels on that one but not the frame. The other house we had had an
older and much larger pool and screen enclosure. We had sold that house
before Wilma hit but much of the frame collapsed during that hurricane.
It had actually survived Charlie and Francis with only two or three
panel loses.