Small Project Design

The growing of population had changed the choice of location, some communities are in fire or tornado zones.  But, the construction materials and methods are the same as pioneer times, when it was plenty places to live safe in stead of using flimsy and inflammable materials.
Codes have Concrete buildings as Type I, fire resistant.
Concrete can be designed to resist the stress is going to have, technology and laboratory test assure quality and performance.
I developed concrete construction: 7,500 houses in Mexico City (earthquakes) with about 40 year use, no problems, one hotel several stories in Cancun (hurricanes), no problem.
With such experience, I build a concrete house in California US, and patent it.   The structure is a monolithic building (foundation, walls and roof) based in the principle of T-beams, the ones used in parking structures for decks (big spans, heavy loads , minimum volume of concrete), to cast in place I use extruded polystyrene to make the T shape, which embedded (no voids, no leaks) gives a insulation factor of R56 minimum.  The Method is fast, uses non-skilled labor, resulting in affordable cost.

I need your help to understand why in spite of fires and tornados, people rebuild with wood framing.
I will appreciate your input to cop with my failure. 
-------------------------------------------
Eugenio Aburto AIA
Eugenio Aburto, AIA
Palm Desert CA
-------------------------------------------

This question came up on another forum and I think the answers were essentially these:

First, very few lives are lost due to failure of recently-built, insured structures that meet modern building codes and relatively little property is lost that way. The majority of loss occurs due to failure of older buildings and due to the magnitude of the event surpassing the maximum magnitude planned for by code. Concern over potential disaster is generally not strong enough to bear the costs to upgrade old structures or to exceed the requirements of the code.

Second, owners of homes and commercial buildings are reluctant to adopt different building technologies because--
1. They see the building as more than a shelter--as communicating something important about them and their organization--and they therefore opt for the construction technologies that most cost-effectively convey that message. This usually results in the use of that region's predominant construction technologies.
2. Virtually any construction technology (poured-in-place reinforced concrete, pre-cast concrete, tilt-up concrete, wood frame, steel frame, etc.) can be made resistant to virtually any force (earthquake, wind, flood, etc.). Again, cost vs. risk usually leads an owners to opt for a traditional design.

In my opinion, the best thing we can do is not to mandate a particular construction technology and not to increase code requirements but to enforce existing building codes better and to factor the risk of lost human life in our analysis of re-using older buildings.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall AIA
Architect
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 08-10-2013 13:08
From: Eugenio Aburto
Subject: natural disasters again and again

The growing of population had changed the choice of location, some communities are in fire or tornado zones.  But, the construction materials and methods are the same as pioneer times, when it was plenty places to live safe in stead of using flimsy and inflammable materials.
Codes have Concrete buildings as Type I, fire resistant.
Concrete can be designed to resist the stress is going to have, technology and laboratory test assure quality and performance.
I developed concrete construction: 7,500 houses in Mexico City (earthquakes) with about 40 year use, no problems, one hotel several stories in Cancun (hurricanes), no problem.
With such experience, I build a concrete house in California US, and patent it.   The structure is a monolithic building (foundation, walls and roof) based in the principle of T-beams, the ones used in parking structures for decks (big spans, heavy loads , minimum volume of concrete), to cast in place I use extruded polystyrene to make the T shape, which embedded (no voids, no leaks) gives a insulation factor of R56 minimum.  The Method is fast, uses non-skilled labor, resulting in affordable cost.

I need your help to understand why in spite of fires and tornados, people rebuild with wood framing.
I will appreciate your input to cop with my failure. 
-------------------------------------------
Eugenio Aburto AIA
Eugenio Aburto, AIA
Palm Desert CA
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Rene Cardinaux AIA
Rene Cardinaux
Petaluma CA
-------------------------------------------

Some thoughts on this subject, most destructive events by nature that result in complete replacement most often are funded by an insurance policy that only covers replacement value or less because of the limits in policy . When owners are considering  what to rebuild they mostly seek a quick rebuilding within the limits of their policy.  Any discussion about upgrading usually gets input from builder who will revert to what they have previously experienced with some concessions to meet more recent code requirements.
I have seen many residences damaged by flooding that are simply rebuilt on an elevated lower floor so as to rise above the experienced flood with no other changes, only to be further damaged by the next flood.  I truly think that many persons are simply not creative or imaginative enough to seek improvements that they will have to fund themselves.
After a car wreck and the replacement check comes in the mail, people are likely to upgrade to better survive the next accident, but that is easy to do when the better alternative is quickly available and easily financed.
Here in California the major losses seem to come from escaped fires that ravage an entire neighborhood.  I have witnessed seeing one house or two that totally survive these fires while all their neighbors burn to the ground.  These homes offer living proof that good design can withstand, but there are few people that choose to rebuild with these lessons in mind, unless it is required by code.  Human nature is hard to change.




Original Message:
Sent: 08-12-2013 18:06
From: Sean Catherall
Subject: natural disasters again and again

This question came up on another forum and I think the answers were essentially these:

First, very few lives are lost due to failure of recently-built, insured structures that meet modern building codes and relatively little property is lost that way. The majority of loss occurs due to failure of older buildings and due to the magnitude of the event surpassing the maximum magnitude planned for by code. Concern over potential disaster is generally not strong enough to bear the costs to upgrade old structures or to exceed the requirements of the code.

Second, owners of homes and commercial buildings are reluctant to adopt different building technologies because--
1. They see the building as more than a shelter--as communicating something important about them and their organization--and they therefore opt for the construction technologies that most cost-effectively convey that message. This usually results in the use of that region's predominant construction technologies.
2. Virtually any construction technology (poured-in-place reinforced concrete, pre-cast concrete, tilt-up concrete, wood frame, steel frame, etc.) can be made resistant to virtually any force (earthquake, wind, flood, etc.). Again, cost vs. risk usually leads an owners to opt for a traditional design.

In my opinion, the best thing we can do is not to mandate a particular construction technology and not to increase code requirements but to enforce existing building codes better and to factor the risk of lost human life in our analysis of re-using older buildings.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall AIA
Architect
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 08-10-2013 13:08
From: Eugenio Aburto
Subject: natural disasters again and again

The growing of population had changed the choice of location, some communities are in fire or tornado zones.  But, the construction materials and methods are the same as pioneer times, when it was plenty places to live safe in stead of using flimsy and inflammable materials.
Codes have Concrete buildings as Type I, fire resistant.
Concrete can be designed to resist the stress is going to have, technology and laboratory test assure quality and performance.
I developed concrete construction: 7,500 houses in Mexico City (earthquakes) with about 40 year use, no problems, one hotel several stories in Cancun (hurricanes), no problem.
With such experience, I build a concrete house in California US, and patent it.   The structure is a monolithic building (foundation, walls and roof) based in the principle of T-beams, the ones used in parking structures for decks (big spans, heavy loads , minimum volume of concrete), to cast in place I use extruded polystyrene to make the T shape, which embedded (no voids, no leaks) gives a insulation factor of R56 minimum.  The Method is fast, uses non-skilled labor, resulting in affordable cost.

I need your help to understand why in spite of fires and tornados, people rebuild with wood framing.
I will appreciate your input to cop with my failure. 
-------------------------------------------
Eugenio Aburto AIA
Eugenio Aburto, AIA
Palm Desert CA
-------------------------------------------