Home Page link

Fireproof Construction looks like?

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 2 of 3       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Fireproof Construction looks like? mike 10-26-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Kris Krieger on October 28, 2007, 12:00 am

> 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'..

It's still a hell of a lot better than the wood-frame wood-sided wood-
shingle-roofed places of which I saw so very many in the expensive areas
near where I used to live in SoCal several years ago.

It's onething to at elast *try* to make a place fire-resistant. It's
another to build something that's basically a tinderbox, becuase it's
"stylish" - and then justify it with silly arguments that "nothing is
perfect". Of course nothign is perfect, but there is such a thing as
taking reasonable steps to at least *try* to safeguard your home and your
life.



Posted by on October 28, 2007, 12:36 am
wrote:

>
>> 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'..
>
>It's still a hell of a lot better than the wood-frame wood-sided wood-
>shingle-roofed places of which I saw so very many in the expensive areas
>near where I used to live in SoCal several years ago.
>
>It's onething to at elast *try* to make a place fire-resistant. It's
>another to build something that's basically a tinderbox, becuase it's
>"stylish" - and then justify it with silly arguments that "nothing is
>perfect". Of course nothign is perfect, but there is such a thing as
>taking reasonable steps to at least *try* to safeguard your home and your
>life.
>

You are correct.

I do not practice any more but I do feel an obligation to at least be
informed - if of nothing else - at least about my own limitations and
where answers can be found. Australia never entered my mind in this
context before today. They clearly have a leg up on us down under.

Questions from the public never stop.

Posted by Kris Krieger on October 31, 2007, 6:48 pm

> wrote:
>
>>mike@nosam.org wrote in
>>
>>> 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'..
>>
>>It's still a hell of a lot better than the wood-frame wood-sided wood-
>>shingle-roofed places of which I saw so very many in the expensive
>>areas near where I used to live in SoCal several years ago.
>>
>>It's onething to at elast *try* to make a place fire-resistant. It's
>>another to build something that's basically a tinderbox, becuase it's
>>"stylish" - and then justify it with silly arguments that "nothing is
>>perfect". Of course nothign is perfect, but there is such a thing as
>>taking reasonable steps to at least *try* to safeguard your home and
>>your life.
>>
>
> You are correct.
>
> I do not practice any more but I do feel an obligation to at least be
> informed - if of nothing else - at least about my own limitations and
> where answers can be found. Australia never entered my mind in this
> context before today. They clearly have a leg up on us down under.
>
> Questions from the public never stop.
>

Australians come up with a lot of unique solutions. They sort-of have
to, in a way. But also, I think it's something that the place itself
inspires in people. My sister moved there many years back, and it's
interesting to talk to her because her thinking has changed in a number
of positive ways.

I occasionally think about taking a long visit there, but I'm afraid
that, if I did, I might never want to come back <g!>


Posted by Kris Krieger on October 31, 2007, 6:53 pm

>
>> mike@nosam.org wrote in
>>
>>> 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'..
>>
>> It's still a hell of a lot better than the wood-frame wood-sided
>> wood- shingle-roofed places of which I saw so very many in the
>> expensive areas near where I used to live in SoCal several years ago.
>>
>> It's onething to at elast *try* to make a place fire-resistant. It's
>> another to build something that's basically a tinderbox, becuase it's
>> "stylish" - and then justify it with silly arguments that "nothing is
>> perfect". Of course nothign is perfect, but there is such a thing as
>> taking reasonable steps to at least *try* to safeguard your home and
>> your life.
>
> This sort of thing *should* be justified through the insurance
> companies. IOW: 2 houses of similar floorplan and proximity but A is
> sticks and B is blocks, so B'd insurance rate *should* be less than
> A's. Now, thats a simplification but I think you catch the drift.
>
>
>

It's not really *that* much simplification - it's common sense. It's
well-known that there are various things people can do to make a place
more fire-resistant - if they take steps to do so, each itam accomplished
should bring a corresponding reduction in fire-insurance rates. Perhaps
even a tax credit, as one can get when one insulates one's attic.

If one lives in a fire-prone area and chooses to forgo fire-risk-
reduction in favor of "style", it's unfair to make eveyone else bear the
burden of that one person's bad choice.



Posted by Troppo on October 27, 2007, 2:00 pm

> 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.

Try Google Australia eg

http://www.google.com.au/search?
hl=en&safe=off&q=protecting+houses+from+bushfire+&btnG=Search&meta=cr%
3DcountryAU

[remove line wrapping]

> [...]

> First there is no such thing as fireproof - only near fireproof.

Correct - steel, concrete, timber houses all burn. Lightweight structural
steel looses strength rapidly. Heavy timber structures have good
resistance and may stay up, but the charring can't be fixed afterwards.
Yes, glass is very vulnerable.

> .... the construction would need to be near air tight in order to keep
> out fire.

Almost impossible, and there is a massive fuel load inside the house, so
hoses are needed inside as well.

Australian recommendations include blocking downpipes and filling
gutters, good firebreak all round the property. But all part of a
complete strategy, which includes the decision (if allowed) to stay and
fight, or secure as well as possible and get out, type of clothing,
vehicle movement strategies etc.

We have some remarkable success stories and many tragedies with
bushfires. Firestorms are something else entirely ...


Page 2 of 3       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
New Construction February 17, 2007, 10:48 pm
Question on construction January 19, 2007, 6:06 pm
strawbale construction November 28, 2007, 5:01 pm
Camp Construction April 1, 2008, 7:45 am
urgent ..pls help - construction question January 18, 2007, 8:57 pm
Updates on the construction of our "new old house" January 21, 2007, 10:09 am
Quality Construction Equipment January 28, 2007, 1:12 am
New Custom Home Construction April 29, 2007, 2:16 pm
Bowling Alley Construction? June 12, 2007, 6:20 pm
When you go to finance your construction project... June 20, 2007, 1:24 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap