|
Posted by on October 26, 2007, 7:28 pm
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:32 -0400, "Michael Bulatovich"
>
>> Just how practical and costly would a near fireproof res. really be -
>> compared to standard stucco and wood frame?
>>
>> Did a google and found next to nothing. I'm thinking about the recent
>> fire storms in California. Sparks and fire moves like a high wind
>> snow storm - down, sideways and even up under anything above ground
>> level.
>>
>> First there is no such thing as fireproof - only near fireproof.
>> Given the above conditions it would appear that the construction would
>> need to be near air tight in order to keep out fire.
>
>Why do you say that?
Because sparks the size of dust particles have been known to enter
enclosed spaces. The result is often a sudden flash over/explosion
from the 'inside'..
>
>> Any vents or
>> even roof tile would likely be major problems. Vents (no plastic)
>> would need steel covers - to be manually closed prior to the event.
>> Glass in windows or doors?? The roofing (even tiles with air gaps)
>> would be a real problem.
>>
>> Any suggestions or links (other than reinforced concrete boxes)?
>
>This is something I've thought about, for a second or two, during a
>recurring reverie where I can afford wooded recreational property within a
>reasonable drive of my home town. I never get to far with it, since the
>premise is pretty far-fetched, but non-combustible construction is an
>obvious place to start. Fire shutters could probably handle the openings.
>Landscaping/siting could be part of the answer as well. More than
>airtightness, my limited thinking has focused on eliminating conduction
>through non-combustible assemblies.
>
>Everything's harder in tighter suburban contexts where there's less
>maneuvering room in siting a building.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap