• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

96% of Tornados are EF2 and Below

$ - $ - $

" Just how much resistance would there be to code changes for minimums in all areas ? "
Click to expand...
In some jurisdictions, it would be all but impossible to require minimums...….As an example, just look at the
"minimums" for Accessibility........20+ years in and there is still "push back"......Also, look at the thousands
of postings by the ICE Man...…...They can't \ won't perform the minimums on basic construction.

$ - $ - $
 
Wind loads increase with the square of the wind speed, so designing for 135 MPH instead of 90 MPH (working stress design) would slightly more than double the wind loads. The entire country would have to meet the same wind standards as the Gulf coast and South Florida. The wind loads in the 2012 and later IBC are for ultimate stress design, which is on the verge of structural failure.
 
Paul Sweet said:
Wind loads increase with the square of the wind speed, so designing for 135 MPH instead of 90 MPH (working stress design) would slightly more than double the wind loads. The entire country would have to meet the same wind standards as the Gulf coast and South Florida. The wind loads in the 2012 and later IBC are for ultimate stress design, which is on the verge of structural failure.
Click to expand...

My area is 170mph. The panhandle is less and it decreases as you go north
 
north star said:
$ - $ - $

In some jurisdictions, it would be all but impossible to require minimums...….As an example, just look at the
"minimums" for Accessibility........20+ years in and there is still "push back"......Also, look at the thousands
of postings by the ICE Man...…...They can't \ won't perform the minimums on basic construction.

$ - $ - $
Click to expand...
30 years, not 20
 
I'd rather build a house that meets the demands of a changing climate and more volatile weather than build something cheaper. Things are what they are. Eventually the insurance industry will force change like they did in Florida.
 
@ ~ @

" I'd rather build a house that meets the demands of a changing climate and more volatile weather than build something cheaper. Things are what they are. Eventually the insurance industry will force change like they did in Florida. "
Click to expand...
Rembo, respectfully sir, ...while your desire to build to a changing climate is admirable, IMO you would not be
to be in the Residential new homes business for very long...…..Along with the actual evidence, even the
fearmongering weather voices are stating that climate change is causing the weather patterns to cause
increasingly stronger & more catastrophic events...…...How much can the insurance industry do to require
Res. constructors to build "above ground, hardened bunkers" ?...……..And the stronger weather events
are not just along the coastlines either !...….Fires in the West, ...wind events everywhere, ...snows,
...tornadoes that are commonly EF-4 and above, ...droughts, ...flooding, and on and on and on......Even
lightning damaging events are becoming more common and more costly.

@ ~ @
 
Last edited:
All well made points, it still comes down to cost of premiums and how deep insurers pockets are. Their real estate holdings are being rapidly devalued by CV.
 
ADAguy said:
yes, and your pocketbook too.
Click to expand...

Maybe people will realize they don't need a McMansion with 5 bedrooms and 7 baths and sweeping staircase in a 6,000 square foot house for them and their 2 kids and go back to simpler times when the house structure was high quality, yet smaller. For those that still want that and can afford that, they won't be affected by the price increase and be happy for the safety and security of a better built home.
 
I suggest that most of the older buildings which are seen as being of good quality will not do a good job of resisting tornados.

There is a tendency to decide that a building is higher quality based on one attribute that has no impact on other measures of quality such as the ability to survive a tornado. For buildings to survive an tornado the reality is that you need the perspective of an engineer involved in designing for high wind. You also need contractors who are willing to comply with the construction documents. But there is resistance to this, based either on the initial cost or the result of builders or developers egos which make them unwilling to change practices. There are no magic proscriptive solutions.

This also raises the question that from a societal perspective does it make more sense to prevent all damage or to accept a certain level of damage. Building codes are a manifestation of the amount of risk society is willing to accept.

From another perspective the insurance companies are not really concerned about eliminating all damage. As long as the amount of premiums they can charge are greater than the amount they have to pay out they do not care. In some ways their perspective is no different from the perspective of gambling casinos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top