Philippines is in earthquake zone and has a lot of earthquakes but all the houses and buildings here are solid rebar reinforced concrete and the earthquakes are not a problem for the concrete homes or buildings here, literally millions of homes here all concrete in Manila and probably have more earthquakes here than California.
Just checked: The Philippines has experienced some serious building damage during earthquakes, including recent July 2022 quake. Also, rebar has the worrying issue of corrosion in the acidic concrete. We experienced a bit of that here in CA even in our very dry climate. And I’m saying this as someone who really likes concrete-built homes.
@@seychellesjac YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT SOUTH FLORIDA HAS BUILDING ALL HOMES OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FOR 75 YEARS AND HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A HIGH RISE BUILT WITH WOOD NO ME A BUILDER FROM S. FL / HOMES IN TN AND N. CA.
Steel reinforced concrete walls are earthquake resistant. Wood and asphalt shingles are cheap. That is why they are used. People would rather have a flamable McMansion rather than a modest appropriate home.
@samuellourenco1050 Yes, that is what I said. Wood and OSB are cheaper to use than masonry in the USA, otherwise builders would use that instead. The prices in Europe, as if that were somehow rural Spain and Slovakia were the same market as places like London and Paris, is irrelevant because we are not talking about Europe.
People in the USA rarely build their homes. They purchase homes already built. Reinforced concrete homes are not on the market. It is probably because they are not price competitive.
@silvieb2024 that's why there are building codes. Codes set what is an allowable minimum for new home construction. Changing the code will change the market. Codes are also localized, so that different areas can adopt different rules applying to the specific conditions in that area. After hurricane Sandy, certain areas of the Jersey Shore that had been flooded by storm surge updated their code to require homes to be elevated off the ground a certain number of feet. This is so the entire community is not wiped out again, which costs the state substantial money, increases insurance rates, and drives insurers out of the state. In the case of wild fires, it also becomes a personal responsibility issue. An cheap highly combustible home can more readily catch on fire, which can damage adjacent homes and infrastructure while endangering neighbors and rescue workers.
And on the outside Vinyl Windows Doors and Siddings, Asphalt Shinggles and Wood, perfect as a Fire Starter. To make perfectly sure the house burns down in short order.
Think about Hearst Castle on the Central Coast in California. Julia Morgan was the architect and Hearst Castle is basically cement but she built it earthquake proof.
@@eltamarindo Yes, concrete reinforced with rebar. Maybe when I said Proof, that wasn't quite the correct term. Withstand an Earthquake might be better. Also, the Nomadic Movement on RUclips are building a house that is mostly made out of metal that is designed to withstand an earthquake.
I helped build a house in Costz Rica out of cmu's. Plenty of rebar trusses let survive a big earthquake without a crack. Other cmu houses close by had major damage. It's all in design and quality conxtruction.
You should look back at the San Francisco earthquake and the enormous fire that followed. the buildings were nearly all made out of wood and look what happened! I have now read that great areas of Los Angeles are either uninsurable or else the insurance companies have put up their premiums massively so if you want to pay huge premiums forever build your house out of wood otherwise build it out of something sturdy that can handle fires and earthquakes
@@dolfin9879 I believe that was the entire point of the video. We don’t have the materials that would make a house flex during an earthquake and still survive fires; so, it’s a compromise to at least buy time to save lives.
California put a cap on premiums, that is one of the reasons the companies decided to get out. Another reason is a few months ago the Insurance Commissioner made it a requirement that 16% of an insurance company's portfolio must contain homes and that are located in high-risk areas. Lastly if California government's homeowners insurance plan (Cal FAIR) does not have the money to pay out all of its claims, *it will collect money from insurance companies that operate in California.* This makes insurance companies liable for government run Cal FAIR's debts.
As an architect practicing outside of the US, I think the building codes in the US sometimes doesn't make sense or have enough flexibility built into them. I know that architects don't have control over the greater area around the project they designed, and I think future designs need to include "fire breaks" or larger buffer zones between housing projects and the nearby woodlands, and specifying types of landscaping plants that are resistant to drought and catching fire. Perhaps states with earthquake threats need to learn from countries like Japan on earthquake resilient building technologies.
Well, according to many politicians, the USA is the greatest in every subject imaginable. So why should they learn from Japan, if they are more knowledgeable to start with? /s
precisely. The reaction in this video is normal but suboptimal - we need to think deeper and smarter. The problem isn't the wood but the fire and how the fire gets into a house. Wood frame stucco single story homes can be fireproof with good design like noncombustible level soffits and meshes that keep embers out. People are hyper focusing on fire and wood but not taking a scientific approach to WHY the fires occurred and WHY the fires spread. That's engineering root cause analysis 101
@cma8165 every material that can be purchased practically will burn. The trick is to keep fire away from it and then to extinguish the fire if it does get in
Concrete and bricks are generally not preferred for construction in earthquake zones due to several key factors: ## Lack of Ductility One of the main reasons concrete and bricks are not ideal for earthquake-prone areas is their lack of ductility. Ductility refers to a material's ability to deform without failure[2][5]. Unlike materials such as steel, wood, or bamboo, concrete and bricks are brittle materials that cannot absorb the energy from an earthquake effectively[1]. When subjected to the back-and-forth motion of seismic waves, these materials are more likely to crack, crumble, or collapse suddenly. ## Poor Performance Under Seismic Loads Unreinforced masonry buildings, including those made of bricks, concrete blocks, or adobe, perform very poorly during earthquakes[1][9]. The mortar holding the masonry together is generally not strong enough to resist earthquake forces. This can lead to walls falling away or buckling, resulting in significant damage or complete collapse of the structure. ## Vulnerability to Shaking During an earthquake, the shaking causes buildings to move in a horizontal direction, which can be disastrous for structures primarily designed to support vertical loads[2]. Concrete and brick buildings, especially if unreinforced, are particularly vulnerable to this lateral movement. The rigid nature of these materials means they cannot flex and sway with the ground motion, leading to increased stress on the structure. ## Risk of Falling Debris In the event of an earthquake, unreinforced concrete and brick buildings pose a significant danger due to falling debris[1]. Parapets, chimneys, cornices, and other ornamental features made of these materials can easily break away from the building, creating a hazard for people both inside and outside the structure. ## Alternative Materials and Techniques Instead of using concrete and bricks alone, modern earthquake-resistant construction often employs: 1. Reinforced concrete: When properly designed and constructed with steel reinforcement, concrete can be made more ductile and earthquake-resistant[8][10]. 2. Wood and steel: These materials have more flexibility and are favored in earthquake zones[12]. 3. Base isolation systems: These systems use flexible pads to separate a building's foundation from the ground, allowing it to move independently during an earthquake[2]. 4. Damping technologies: Shock absorbers and other damping devices can help dissipate seismic energy[2]. While concrete and bricks can still be used in earthquake-prone areas, they require special design considerations, reinforcement techniques, and strict adherence to building codes to ensure safety. In many cases, other materials and construction methods are preferred for their superior performance under seismic loads. Citations: [1] www.portland.gov/ppd/unreinforced-masonry-urm-buildings [2] planhub.com/resources/how-earthquake-proof-buildings-are-built/ [3] www.reddit.com/r/StructuralEngineering/comments/kwty07/reinforced_concrete_or_wood_what_material_is/ [4] en.poyatos.com/blog/the-use-of-concrete-in-seismic-zones [5] blog.iseekplant.com.au/blog/5-features-earthquake-proof-building [6] acropolis-wp-content-uploads.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/2019/02/reinforce-v2.gif?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiji4S9pPCKAxWcRTABHUv0C4MQ_B16BAgDEAI [7] www.americanprecastfences.com/is-precast-concrete-earthquake-resistant/ [8] www.foxblocks.com/blog/earthquake-resistant-construction-techniques [9] www.earthquakecountry.org/step4/urmwalls/ [10] www.britannica.com/technology/earthquake-resistant-construction [11] www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-how-l-a-conquered-an-earthquake-danger-zone-brick-buildings-20151009-story.html [12] www.exploratorium.edu/explore/seismic-science/engineering [13] www.preventionweb.net/files/7632_Earthquakesafeconstructionofmasonrybuildings.pdf [14] www.scienceworld.ca/resource/building-and-testing-earthquake-proof-structures/ [15] www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/1cmzqyp/how_safe_are_brick_walls_in_an_earthquake_prone/ [16] www.bigrentz.com/blog/earthquake-proof-buildings
Most new homes are required to have gas shut off valves that are activated with ground movement. The majority of fires during earthquakes were caused by ruptured gas lines
The requirement is to protect the human lives. Cheap wood construction is safer than cheap concrete or brick construction. Wood structures often will sustain substantial damage in a serious earthquake but they rarely collapse.
@eltamarindo well said. I went into more detail in my main comment but it also doesn't crumble and crush in humans like concrete does. The collapsed videos of the twin towers have gone into tremendous detail that anyone can see
In Puerto Rico, we build houses with concrete, including the roof. These homes are low maintenance and last longer without needing repairs. You don’t need to replace the roof; you just need to apply a treatment similar to paint. This means lower property insurance costs. Also in PR, we have hurricanes and earthquakes. They are also built to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes without significant damage. I was in Puerto Rico during December 2018 when a 7.0 earthquake occurred. It was in the news. My concrete house resisted without any damage. Nobody is complaining whem the big buldings in the US are constructed of concrete or brick. In the continental U.S., the system seems designed to protect the private interests of banks and construction companies. They are making a lot of money that way.
Great explanation. Here in Florida, it is common to build houses with CMU on the walls to protect them from hurricanes. It is interesting how the codes and techniques adapt to the different situations in each state.
It's not a matter of what you build with, it's HOW you build! It's also, what you do to prepare. No forest management, no prep for emergencies. THAT is much more important.
A few years ago the California Fire Marshall at the time had 2 tiny shed homes on a lot. One built with current materials and one built with fire resistant materials. Same with the landscaping around it. He had fires started at the beginning of the grass. Which one do you think burned and the other one didn't?
Seems to me, you missed one import reason to use wood: American mentality is to buy a first home and then proceed from there. German mentality is to buy/build a home for the family, raise your children there and take in your old parents thirty years later. That calls for a sturdy construction. Can you imagine Mt. Rushmore with wooden heads? Many of the castles in Europe are hundreds of years older and still in good shape. Made from stone. Let's not even talk about some things the Romans build a few thousand years ago.
Hmmmm … I’m trying to imagine German constructed houses in the middle of the Palisades fire but then also built to CA earthquake standards. You have some very beautiful buildings and I hope you never ever have to experience the climate and natural disasters that we have here.
@@seychellesjac I was thinking about that as well before I wrote my comment. I live in the Rhine Valley and the tectonic there is somewhat unstable. Most earthquakes here are minor but I did wake one time, because the house (concrete and bricks) around me was visibly shaking. Nothing comparable to Japan though. We are less prone to wildfires, especially at this time of the year, because we live a lot more north (like Montana or Canada) than people in CA. But keep in mind: A wildfire is just a fire in the wild that can be caused by many reasons, most of them created by man.
@@wora1111 The Rhine Valley is so beautiful! I’ve had family live in Germany and loved it. Geologically and ecologically very different from here. We live on top of the subduction zone of two major tectonic plates. Earthquakes are common (the more small ones the better to ease the pressure). We are one of 5 Mediterranean climates in the world - each one unique because of the survival strategies necessary for swiftly changing and extreme weather conditions. A really good, heavy rainy season occurs every 25 years; otherwise it’s perpetual drought. Saying wildfire is just a fire in the wild … well … this is a fire ecosystem - as are other Mediterranean climates. There are plants here that cannot or barely survive without fire. Some seeds burst open only with fire, some need the acidic compounds from the ash, some need the brush to burn away so they get heat and sunlight. In 2-3 years, if there are no more fires, the wildlands will be covered rare in blooms as well as our famous superblooms that can be seen from space. At the end of summer where temperatures can reach well above 40 C, we get the strong windstorms that sweep down from the high deserts above us, down the mountain canyons, accumulating speed and heat ,tearing across what is basically a huge tinderbox of dry grasses and brush - and once it starts, pieces of brush, that are now on fire, fly on these winds. We’ve had fires start from a car backfiring, a gunshot, lightning and of course, arson, campfires … you name it. So, yes, mostly man-made disasters coupled with higher than normal temperatures. Thus her explanation that what may work elsewhere is not ideal for here, that the need for fireproof yet flexible material is still illusive. Because people here have lost homes and lives, we are very aware and always looking for solutions. Trust me, if there was that even close to ideal material that would not collapse on our heads during an earthquake; not burn in our inferno-creating fires, it would be used.
@@seychellesjac One thing you need to account for, germany has Tornados, up to F4 and some times a very rare F5. The houses withstand in europe a Tornado way better as the American wooden houses. Beside a fire inside a building spreads way slower, thanks to higher rated Walls, Doors and Windows. But a outside fire to slip into the house takes way longer too, some times a hole car can burn out beside a house with only small amount of smoke damage. And about earthquakes look at Taiwan, Japan or Philipines, they building Concrete and Brick houses in a area with way bigger and more frequent Earthquakes.
@seychellesjac There you got me, I forgot that there may be positive consequences of wildfires as well. At least for part of nature. We are in a better situation because our nature life does not depend on wildfire (any more). Ravens around here learned to open nuts and access the seeds by dropping them on the roads. Certainly safer than them starting to play with fire! Ok, let's be serious again. From the pictures/videos I saw, I assume the main problem is/was the glowing embers carried by the wind. If they land at a spot where their remaining energy/heat suffices to ignite new materials, you have a problem, a growing one. Paper, dried leaves, unprotected wood, plastic become a problem. Especially if close to wooden structures. The only 'solutions' I can see from here is to keep a wide separation between 'the wild' and housing areas and prepare the outside of houses so they do not catch fire by flying embers as easily as now. I think I saw the picture of one house where the owner forgot to turn off the lawn watering system and came to a house unaffected by the fires. But now it is the only house in that street ...
Most of the 5000 to 7000 homes that burned in the ongoing Eaton fire here, were 60 to over 100 years old. That alone shows that the area is not as fire prone as people think.
@silvieb2024 what it shows is that in the past 60 years the criminal incompetence of Democrat politicians. I grew up in the LA and Sylmar areas when they took steps to mitigate the fires. That has not been done in many years. This is NOT a natural disaster. It was intentionally created by the politicians Californians elected. There should be zero federal aid! You voted for this... you pay for it!
So, why are there even houses build by the Spanish, made from stone, still standing in CA? You saw many walls made from brick still standing while the rest burned down. Yes, there are risks with brick and concrete when it comes to earthquakes, but in general, a concrete house with steel reinforcement would be the way to go. Just go take the tour of Hearst Castle in California, and in that presentation, it was highlighted that Hearst requested it to be built with concrete and steel due to fires and earthquakes and as far as I know, it still stands. Now, the Paradise fire a few years ago, was the same problem. After the fire, the town wanted to change the laws that houses need to be build with concrete. However, the building companies opposed as they said it would be to expensive and, you guessed it, nothing changed. The conclusion is, that profits are way more important then people safety and building with wood is way more easier than stone/concrete/steel, thus bigger profits for the builders.
Those very rare Spanish stone buildings have been reinforced to survive earthquakes for their historic value. Most still suffer severe damage and have to be partially rebuilt after large earthquakes, like the Spanish missions, for example.
Fires were not nearly as much of a threat to most neighborhoods here in California as reports would make it seem. Most of the 5000 to 7000 homes burned in the ongoing Eaton fire were 60 to over 100 years old. They would otherwise not have lasted that long. The bigger threat is earthquakes which are frequent and unpredictable. Intentional fires to facilitate land grabs are the biggest fire threats now...
I agree. I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are specially designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking. After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire. I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
What are most SINGLE family homes made of in Argentina? The concrete and steel you describe is only in about 10000 new homes, mostly still being built, per Google. How does an average Argentine working class person afford this?
Just subscribed, my thoughts are it's really difficult to design against 100 mph winds with extreme dry combustibles in the environment it's like exposing your house to a heat kiln for hours at a time.
The word most used is "ductility". Structures made out of wood joined with soft nails are able to move a huge amount before they structurally collapse. Even if the structure is damaged beyond repair it is unlikely to collapse in an earthquake.
Every time I experience a large earthquake in my wooden home here near LA, I am so grateful and amazed at its ability to move and sway so remarkably and still be OK after the shaking stops. The only part that we have lost several times over the decades was the chimney.
So skyscrapers in California are made of wood then? But, yeah, you can definitely make a wood structure more resistant to catching fire via design and material choices. But you can also make much more fireproof structures resilient against earthquakes and storms.
Glass infused wood and other treatments can improve fire resistance. There are paints and other coatings that char rather than burn. Bricks are stronger than perceived. The problem is the mortar or grout used. Also bricks are made with holes for rebar. There are also coatings that hold masonry and river rock walls together too.
I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking. After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire. I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
It’s fascinating that Americans continues to push their residential construction style even after failure. No other country in the developed world builds houses to such low standards as the US. And many of them are in hot and dry climates and in locations that are prone to earthquakes. Americans needs to travel more.
My wooden California home has stood up well to many earthquakes since the 1950's. It's been a life saver. Only the top part of the chimney crumbled twice in those decades. The news frequently reports many earthquake deaths all over the world, including Italy, for example, due to poor construction and crumbling buildings. I think you need to travel more...☺️
One thing is clear, in the current climate change climate, building a house made of wood, a flammable material is madness. I hope the Americans will learn this painful lesson. By the way, most of the houses that have burnt down seem to be of very old constructions, with no water protection systems, etc.
@silvieb2024 Even if there had been deliberate arson of the trees, if the houses had been built with modern non-combustible technology, with water pump protection, they would not have burnt down.
@@janina7066Deliberate arson in the form of weather modification and directed energy weapons. Perhaps blue paint would have been helpful... but nothing else.
Building codes are minimum standards for protecting life and property. People can also spec for higher standards on their own projects. For example the cost of building a California hospital is many times greater than a building a hospital in another state because of tons of higher performance standards required than elsewhere. California hospitals conforms to OSHPD codes that is unique to California
When I worked in construction, almost anything you could learn was part of a well-rounded education in my father's eyes-construction to computers, agriculture to automotive, and plumbing to people. I noticed during this period that the best buildings for earthquakes were tilt-ups; no matter their distance to the epicenter or the quake's magnitude, they always stood with minimal damage. Even when I was networking computers, there would be minimal shifting in the raised cable flooring. Also, I was fortunate enough to work on a fire station here in Southern California, with its block wall and steel frame construction. All new architectural students should study these. Likewise, given the large amount of iron ore and our steel production capability here in the US, I've never understood why the government hasn’t subsidized steel frame construction for all new homes until the market equalized; it would solve many problems and lower the cost of some lumber, rebuilding lost industries here in the US.
Very interesting! Do you have an opinion on Monolithic Domes? Their website says they've survived earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, and hurricanes. Mind you, I realize that just because *one* dome has survived X it doesn't mean that *all* domes are Xproof, but it is thought-provoking.
See this Kirsten Dirksen' feature bio ceramics modular green Dome homes .. Plus you guys really need to get your heads round Basalt fiber re enforcement ... fibers meshes in bricks and blocks plus slabs and rebar.. 🧙🏼♂️🌍🥼 already tested by Japanese.
they largely are especially if re enforced with materials like Basalt fiber grids and rebar. It's also salt and highly corrosive substances resistant . 🧙🏼♂️🌍🥼
I am from France Lyon. Thank You for your explanation, I have forgotten that the main risk is earthquake in California. I lived in Alsace some years ago and the wooden structure are often built in part of Alsace were earthquake can happen. The building can freely move without crambling and the oak wood is very resistant to fire, safe to escape and easy to rebuilt with strow and mud. You are going to have a lot of work to make safer construction. You all need a lot of courage.
I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking. After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire. I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
I’m not an architect, but I appreciate architects! Also, I’m wondering about the ages of the homes in those areas and the how the different eras they were built may have affected things?
If I were to build a house in CA, I'd use 3-hinged steel arch- or gable frame with metal cladding & roof. Such frame would be highly resistant against fire, earthquakes and strong winds. Lot of thermal mass & good roof/ceiling ventilation facilitates cooling.
You would have to be rich. Earthquake insurance premiums alone would be unaffordable for most people. Our earthquake insurance cost went sky high after replacing our roof with a metal one.
I thought I was going to hate this video by the title. But you did an excellent job of pointing out the pros and cons. Build the rock Castles of Europe in a seismic region and they would be gone today. CMU, yes the walls will remain but that is about it when you encounter a 100ft high wall of fire. Tempered glass will hold but the frames will fail. The eaves and vents are probably the second ignition point to fail. The landscape is the first. Excellent video.
Does the building codes at least require that the wood is treated to be fire resistant? (In South Africa, wood houses is rare enough that there is a perception that they might uninsurable...) (Apparently, the can be insured if compliant with the relevant standard, which seems to require concrete foundations and treated wood)
Earthqukes, wildfires, deserts, the winds. Maybe this piece of land is not the best to live there. If I was rich, that would absolute not my first choice.
I think container homes can withstand both earthquakes and wildfires. since shipping containers are designed to be stacked on cargo ships, you can stack enough to build yourself an LA type mansion.
I have a stucco sided house and a "firefree" slate roof product BUT, I also have 3 ridge vents on each "blocking" wood eves. How can I mitigate the vents (which do have wire mesh to keep fowl out)? The roof also has 2x8 ridge beams the extend from the roof.
Use woven stainless steel mesh with 1/16 inch spacing of the mesh to retrofit the vent openings. Or replace the existing vents with units that use the 1/16 inch stainless steel woven mesh.
The asphalt tile roofs used in California are required to be fire resistant. Many homes here also have clay or metal roofs. Part of the problem is that if you add special features for fire protection to your home, the earthquake insurance policy premiums become very high because the high cost of replacing them after an earthquake. For example, we put a new metal roof on our home for fire protection, but our earthquake insurance cost went sky high.
Europeans had limited wood (forests belonged to nobility often) and the US had lots of timber historically. Check out how much of the US is owned by private timber companies.
Europeans used to use wood for houses. But the ancestors had learnt their lessons through death caused by big city fire and wars. US has a short history. So their lessons are yet to be learnt.
@@himmelkami3308Europe has huge fires every year that destroy many homes in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Albania, etc. Europe also has very deadly earthquakes because of collapsed buildings, in Italy, for example . Lessons learned?
Not convinced. Japan has a lot more sismic activity and they have concrete buildings. Some million dollar masions burnt like a pile of matches. Architects are not doing their job there.
There are timber frame houses with brick fill between the posts beams and braces which have endured through 500 years of earthquakes along the Mediterranean. These often have slate or tile roofing. Rebar would have to be carbon fiber since the military grade energy weapons used to burn Los Angeles would react to steal rebar in the concrete and destroy the buildings as was the case in Maui where all steel buildings completely surrounded by paved parkinglot were disintegrated, while in the case of concrete structures the concrete exploded from the over heated rebar inside it.
I am looking for an architect. Basically, we are soon to be an NPO looking to build 6x6 houses in SFH zones that also allow boarding/transitional housing, or SRO policies. We know where the land is, we have the financing to build a model, but will likely put off building due to all the "insurance builds" that are very likely to own the labor for the next 2 years or more. Still, comments on our 3 build plans (a Duplex, a 2-level and a 1-level/ranch) depending on which land we're able to afford for 10 or more units would be helpful. We're not looking for "free wetstamps" or anything like that, just "maybe move this here or there" commentary on the FP's we've mocked up. We are open to all insights as we try to build homes for post-foster care ILP rentals and build a community of these young adults without being attached to a college.
Yes, after the so-called “Northridge Quake” (epicentered in Canoga Park) the top 1/3 of chimneys and (crosswise to the waves) sections of cinder- block walls fell over. My area of West Hollywood is just above the valley floor with the Santa Monica mountains between us and the epicenter. The cinder block walls folded over and shed blocks leaving bent re-bar in some places. Chunks of the concrete facing on The Beverly Center (a tall indoor mall) had shot off the wall two and three stories above the sidewalk and sheared limbs off the street trees below, landing mostly in the street and gutter, missing the sidewalk. (Noted to self, hug the wall as long as it is a modern steel reinforced structure. Also avoid the canned goods and liquor aisles at the grocery). People have been killed by the top of a chimney falling through the roof and ceiling. In that quake, one couple was crushed by their boxes of possessions stored around the bed. Note that flexible construction definitely saved lives, and that total collapses were rare in modern code. Historic downtown Santa Monica which had masonry buildings and was built near the beach on a liquefaction zone was far more impacted than my area nearby with the mountains between us and the epicenter. I do know someone who was on the mountain in the second story who was tossed out of bed. Parking structures with decayed rebar or cables failed when the concrete snapped. We were lucky this happened at 4 am on a Monday holiday.
In Italy, we learned 2000 years ago that wood buildings are not good when there is a risk of fire. After that Rome was almost destroyed in the fire of 62 ac roman auctority made law to build only using stone and concrete.
FYI you do not want to be inan earthquake any other type of home other than WOOD! Wood moves and flexes. Build for one and die with the other... pick your poison!
@silvieb2024 Italy is 2000 years old. People still live in building that have 2000 yaers old - rare but happen - and generally the majority of building of our old town are at least 200 years old. They are all historically protected building . I can undersent that you have no idea of the importance of ancient bulding when yours nation is about 240 years old. The fact that in Italy we have is shown in the simple fact that Italy has 53 site protected by UN. And this is done protecting our ancestry .
Yeah i was curious because i watched a vid and realised their fire place was still standing and was confused. I had no idea that bricks werent the main building matrial in other places because their all i see here. Makes sense about the earthquakes. Its horrible to think how many homes were torn down by those fires. I hope everyones ok...
I thought for earthquakes an inexpensive way to achieve foundation isolation would be to lay a bed of rounded river gravel, which acts a lot like a fluid, with chipped tires mixed in with it. There are piles of used tires. Since the chipped tires would be buried under the structures slabs, air can't reach the rubber and there is no fire problem. The rubber allows the rocks to have some play. It should transmit energy poorly. I'm not sure if anyone has explored something like this. I wonder what the cost of cutting up old shipping containers, poring concrete in-between the metal sheets and running stay bolts from one metal side to the other to straight jacket the concrete for earthquakes would be? Concrete can only break, if it can expand somewhere.
Interesting thoughts. I am trying to come up with designs for my Zone Zero, the first 5 feet closest to my house. I have been thinking about river rocks as attractive and non flammable, but your idea makes me think of "base isolation" design for earthquakes.
@@janalderton8644 Maybe I should do a video on the base isolation concept and then perhaps one of the universities out there can do tests. If they end up in landfills anyway, maybe they can be buried with a purpose. Another material for earthquake isolation would be Talc which on the Mohs Scale of hardness is listed as an example of the softest rock. It is used as a lubricant. Since it is used in baby powder, it isn't toxic. I live in southern Louisiana, where the engineers worry about making structures too heavy to avoid sinking because they are being built on mud.
@@lewisdoherty7621 Go for it, Lewis! Building on mud is very problematic, if there are earthquakes. Mud looses its integrity when it is vibrated. It essentially becomes like pudding. I did a science project on liquefaction when I was 10.
Here's another survivor: 18860 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA 90265. Pictures on Zillow shows wood above the balcony and on the deck surface, however because it's designed to be like a ship I believe the wood is Teak so it is very dense and may have been treated. Also: Please discuss residential steel stud/frame construction cost vs Wood frame. Thanks.
The single-family homes for the average American must cost nothing, so they must be as cheap as possible. Then the houses must be constructed in such a way that unskilled (60 to 70% of American workers and craftsmen are unskilled) builders, laborers and craftsmen, without much prior knowledge, can patch these houses together. If German building regulations were used as a basis, these houses would not even receive approval as sheds. These houses are extremely cheaply built and of poor quality. The price that is charged from then on is disproportionate to the poor quality of the material used. Solid houses, with the appropriate fire protection and of appropriate quality, are unaffordable for the average American earner. The timber used is of poor quality and is often not impregnated and protected against insect infestation and rot. In terms of quality, this is better firewood or just enough for a shed.
The building codes in california are not the cutting edge of engineering; they're what was legislated. I was inside the wood-frame house in Malibu in the 1974 earthquake. The whole house shook back and forth, things fell off shelves, the earth rumbled, it seemed like it would never stop, but there was no sense that the house was at risk, the timber frame just shook like trees in a woods, it had zero trouble with a shakey shake. That said, 4 inch continuous exterior batons of rockwool and exterior steel cladding is an economic nearly fireproof exterior skin that easily transforms a timber frame in to a beast. Just as well, it could be building code to have an exterior property roof-fire sprinkler kept tested annually by law. Building codes make things more expensive, so you want cheap combustible plastic, or solid rebar reinforced gabion baskets.
The main reason is because the city of los angeles since around 1850 has been in the US. Migrants from other parts of the US especially the east moved to LA and brought their customs. In eastern usa they build houses made of wood. Prior to around 1850 Los Angeles was a Mexicancity and the houses were constructed in a more sturdy way. When Los Angelesturned into a US city the migrants from Eastern usa were not going to build their houses like Mexicans. This is why wood is used in LA: it's an anglo cultural thing
Building fireproof homes is simple. Pumicecrete is by far the best building material on the planet. Pumicecrete is by a mixture of pumice cement and water mixed and poured into a set of reusable forms walls are poured from 12"to 24" thick. Pumicecrete is fireproof termite proof rust rot and mold proof non toxic and has a high R value and good sound attenuation solid poured walls means no critters can live in your walls Pumicecrete can be built for a fraction of the cost and time and pumice is one of the few building materials that can go directly from the mine to the job site ready to use without any additional possessing and zero waste. California has plenty of pumice. Global pumice in Olancha CA Take care Ray
Thanks for sharing. Good video. Is there any way that the building, design and construction industry can go full on masonry, particularly in California?
@@subhobroto Would it be more labor intensive and perhaps more expensive? Yes. But look at the 12,000+ wood frame homes that are now reduced to ashes and the only remnants of these ashes are the brick fireplaces and doorways made from masonry. The challenge of full on masonry would be to keep interiors dry and especially in California, and have masonry to be flexible enough to withstand seismic events.
@christophermoody1448 think about how much homes cost now and what this would impact those costs. A nuclear silo is not just fireproof but earthquake proof and nuclear bomb proof. However very few people can afford it. One has to take affordability into consideration when proposing solutions
@@subhobroto That might be the problem. A heavy focus on affordability rather than durability, I can't comment about nuclear silos. But I think that it would be fair to say that not everyone would want to live in a nuclear silo.
So why not build homes starting with a metal frame and attach metal walls and glass windows on that? Metal can be decrative, it can have texture and colour, it doesn't have to look like a giant shipping container. If you fill you metal walls with insolation that would deal with sound and heat, just have to make sure the insolation doesn't metal or catch fire when heated.
Also i HIGHLY RECOMMEND A CONCREATE RAMP FROM 2 EXITS FOR EMERGENCY EXITS FOR WHEELCHAIRS. People often get trapped in a burning house because wheelchair exit is a wood ramp. DESIGNED WHEELCHAIR RAMPS IN NON BURNING MATERIALS IS AN UPGRADE IN ANY HOME not just a wheelchair assessable. People using toddler strollers, having pets, or cart to bring groceries inside love it as well. And when power is out a wheelchair ELECTRIC LIFT DOES NOT WORK ESPECIALLY AS EMERGENCY FIRE EXIT.
You are wrong thinking all concrete based houses have load bearing walls, which are risk in earthquake areas. Our second home is in Spain with almost daily earthquakes, have concrete based structure, a "cage" with concrete floors and roof combined with concrete pillars. They are rebarred into one strong structure. Voids between the pillars are constructed with brick, but they are not load bearing. Exterior has stucco and tiles. Floors and backyard are mainly with tiles. Windows are with aluminium frames. There's no organic materials to burn. House is now 10 years old with no cracks on the walls
If we insist on using wood, InventWood is building a factory in Maryland that starting in 2025 will produce Mettlewood that is a form of densified wood that has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than steel and is resistant to fires. If we want earthquake-resistant cement, there is Geoship which developed a fiber-reinforced magnesium oxide bioceramic cement which can be casted into components for a triangular space frame, as well as the inside and outside panels, and insulation. Starting in 2025, Geoship will start building bioceramic geodesic dome homes, initially with rockwool insulation, but ultimately they will be able to make insulation out of cellular bioceramic cement.
I studied architecture in canada and ended up living in romania. I can tell you thst no matter how poor ans devatated romania wad in the past decades, their building practices still outperform ours.
it is because it is CHEAP... ALL buildings over 4 or 5 floors are made of what, any guesses? reinforced CONCRETE... so you most certainly can make a single or two story out of reinforced concrete... it all comes down to cost!
Yes, but SoCal had bountiful previous winter. It is common that they have many months of no rain, as we do sometimes in NorCal. Need: better vegetation and reservoir management.
Wood is cheaper to buy, easier to build with and easier to fix than concrete. The problem isn't the wood but the fire and how the fire gets into a house Wood frame stucco single story homes can be fireproof with good design like noncombustible level soffits and meshes that keep embers out. Wood is light and won't kill you like concrete will when it collapses on your during an earthquake Yes, we can go full concrete until the next time there's an earthquake and the whole house cracks at multiple places. You also cannot just patch up concrete like you can wood once the concrete has cracks in it. You have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild. So you don't need your house to burn down to the studs to need a rebuild - just a tiny earthquake Commercial buildings built with concrete have special designs with bars to handle these challenges. A residential home built this way will cost in the millions. Wooden homes in Cal are expensive as it is - concrete will move the cost by atleast one magnitude and freeze the residential market completely. People are hyper focusing on fire and wood but not taking a scientific approach to WHY the fires occurred and WHY the fires spread. This reaction is normal but suboptimal - we need to think deeper and smarter.
The WHY is known, California is practically designed to burn, just like Western Australia. California has always had fires & always will. The next fire is just a matter when. And as long as homes there are made of wood & other combustibles, they'll also burn. Metal roofs, treated wood, & stucco cladding will certainly help mitigate, but stucco & treated wood will only delay the inevitable for so long, & when the timber studs finally reach their ignition point, well... If only wooden houses didn't do so well in earthquakes.
@darkgalaxy5548 yes, vegetation management is an issue among many others. In this case there weren't enough fire fighters or water from hydrants. There are multiple reports of people saving their homes with water from their pool and garden hose. Again these were all the exact same wooden homes other people are worried about catching fire than concrete homes. The material is less of an issue than what happens when a fire breaks out
BAL 12.5 | Bushfire Construction Reference Guide | AS3959:2018. Australia has its BAL building regulations. Ever heard of it ?? In California very apparantly not. Their house go up in flames in 30 minutes like a match.
You are contradicting yourself since city are built with concrete and steel but why city can withstand the earthquake? Concrete can easily withstand level 8 earthquake. And you forget there’re tornadoes and will easily destroy the wooden houses. Why US are still majoring wooden houses? The answer is simple. US history is short so they haven’t learnt the lesson. The ancestors of Europe are also living in wooden houses. But they have learnt the lesson through big city fire like London fire and multiple wars. US on the contrary have yet been taught yet.😂 I don’t they will learn this time. It will take multiple incidents for them to discover.
This is an American problem. They've let builders get away with selling overpriced wooden boxes for a century. Meanwhile, other countries have 2-feet thick walls that insulate against heat or cold, and those are called houses. People outside America don't understand why movies show guys punching through walls, since their walls are solid.
Brick and masonry homes are too dangerous here because of frequent and unpredictable earthquakes. These wooden homes are intended to save lives... I personally would live in nothing else here after experiencing large earthquakes.
@@silvieb2024as if only the US would suffer from earthquakes... Other countries have the same earthquake problems but build with steel and rebar... As for the explanation you can get away with many things but not with bad design, like having embers rolling underneath your houses. Or not using flame repelling surfaces.
@@pirminp7090 I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking. After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire. I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
I have lived in California all my life. I am a DIYer and have changed the south wall of my home from T1-11 to stucco. I was inspected. I used a Styrofoam layer under the stucco. What i would have preferred was to use Comfortboard (made by Rockwool) under the stucco because Comfortboard is fire resistant. However I could find no documentation for such an assembly. Is it because it is somehow not as earthquake safe as styrofoam?
Ms Young, have you even glanced at the many photos and hours of video available of the Palisades fire, ongoing and aftermath? LARGE numbers of buildings with non-combustible exterior cladding and zero flammable vegetation or other materials outside burned completely (e.g., buildings in the commercial center, but also many homes in the neighborhoods). Some, probably many, of those would have been Chapter 7A compliant (Class A roofs, 1/8" vents, all that). You are completely missing two of the main reasons structures burned in this fire. One of these was embers entering the interior not through unscreened vents but through construction imperfections, around doors, etc., then igniting flammable materials or furnishings inside. Sheds are time bombs; garages are a huge risk because their construction isn't as perfect and always have cardboard boxes, fuel, etc. inside. Another was house-to-house combustion from direct flame impingement (e.g., but not limited to, the alphabet streets area). Exactly the same as in Coffey Park in Santa Rosa; also in Paradise. In such situations, the only possible fire safe way to build is with 1-hour exterior walls and doors AND to have really top notch fire shutters. Anything less will result in a repeat someday.
5:17 Surviving is goal #1. Surviving financially, so you’re not paying two mortgages for the destroyed house and its replacement, should be a goal #1.1
architects can only do so much, insurance is also a factor, specifically the real cost of covering true costs of the large-scale damage risks in the area: wild fires and earthquakes.
Building with steel and/or concrete is possible in California BUT it requires the use of Base Isolaters which allow the building to move with the Earthquake. This is how they do commercial buildings. It is expensive. Builders are in the business for profits, and will build using the cheapest materials and labor they can get away with.
I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking. After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire. I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
Spacex are getting spacecraft to survive 1 200 mph winds thare 1500C. They just abiut to test another. Why dobt you maje the skin of the new homes out of stainless steel luke starshio, with a non flamable insulator. This shoukd be very readonably price Sure you as an architect can design in an inovative way how these panels can be held together. No shortage of options. you also likeky to want to cover
Philippines is in earthquake zone and has a lot of earthquakes but all the houses and buildings here are solid rebar reinforced concrete and the earthquakes are not a problem for the concrete homes or buildings here, literally millions of homes here all concrete in Manila and probably have more earthquakes here than California.
Brick and cement but you know what's even better? natural building. Cob and all its similar techniques. There are 300 year buildings built that way, still standing.
What we actually see is that it is not balanced. Year after year the same, not really working in an earthquake scenario and not working in a fire. And yet you can see a patter like at Boeing, engineering is ignored so that a few bucks more could be made for the shareholders. If something happens, we blame the victims.
If we’re going to be talking about logic, it would have been logical to NOT cut funding to the california fire departments and to RESERVE water. Also despite all the regulations, it doesn’t apply to the homeless living in tents or less.
Is cement hardie board siding too stiff for earthquake zones like SoCal? Do you know if that kind of siding is outlawed due to earthquakes? If not, it is an excellent alternative to wood and vynal siding that actually looks good and looks like real wood from a distance with zero maintenance and all the fire resistance a home owner could ever want .
What about that 65-yr old John Carr who stayed and saved his house and neighbors' houses by himself ? With just garden hose ?? Could builders just come up with a sprinkler system to just squirt away wild fire like John Carr did ?
Maybe when you build in California you are doing something fundamentally illogical. I'm from New England and have always marvelled at the idea that so many people live in places like Los Angeles or Las Vegas where there are so many potential calamities that can be expected to occur. Besides the potential for fires and earthquakes, the fundamental lack of water is crazy. When it comes to Las Vegas, I firmly believe that no one will be living there in one thousand years because it has no water (unless it is pumped from some distance). I enjoyed your video, thanks.
Yeah no. Building with wood is fast cheap and labor is abundant for that type as it does not have a high skill set to build. After WW2, returning veterans started families and wanted homes. The fastest production was with wood. Correct wood does have impact resistance, but how many of your neighbors can put together something out of masonry, vs. wood?
I remember when people started building out of more concrete until there was an earthquake... There are some new wood treatments that could make it almost flame proof...
Excuses and more excuses. The real reason is the cost of a house made out of concrete, iron/steal bars and bricks. Building a house out of wood is cheaper so the houses can be made bigger (the american dream: a big house with 10 LCD TVs) and this is maximazing the profits of the constructor/seller.
Philippines is in earthquake zone and has a lot of earthquakes but all the houses and buildings here are solid rebar reinforced concrete and the earthquakes are not a problem for the concrete homes or buildings here, literally millions of homes here all concrete in Manila and probably have more earthquakes here than California.
Yep
Just checked: The Philippines has experienced some serious building damage during earthquakes, including recent July 2022 quake. Also, rebar has the worrying issue of corrosion in the acidic concrete. We experienced a bit of that here in CA even in our very dry climate. And I’m saying this as someone who really likes concrete-built homes.
@@seychellesjac YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT SOUTH FLORIDA HAS BUILDING ALL HOMES OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FOR 75 YEARS AND HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A HIGH RISE BUILT WITH WOOD NO ME A BUILDER FROM S. FL / HOMES IN TN AND N. CA.
@@seychellesjac CHECK THIS = MIAMI / DADE BUILDING CODES WE BUILD HOMES LIKE CA BUILDS A BANK VAULT
@@seychellesjac ACIDIC CONCRETE LOL LOL
Steel reinforced concrete walls are earthquake resistant. Wood and asphalt shingles are cheap. That is why they are used. People would rather have a flamable McMansion rather than a modest appropriate home.
Cheap? Ironically, a McMansion costs way more than a similar sized house in Europe. So, it is only cheap for the constructor.
@samuellourenco1050 Yes, that is what I said. Wood and OSB are cheaper to use than masonry in the USA, otherwise builders would use that instead. The prices in Europe, as if that were somehow rural Spain and Slovakia were the same market as places like London and Paris, is irrelevant because we are not talking about Europe.
People in the USA rarely build their homes. They purchase homes already built. Reinforced concrete homes are not on the market. It is probably because they are not price competitive.
Is asphalt shingles common in LA? No bitumen based roofing material should be allowed in such fire prone areas.
@silvieb2024 that's why there are building codes. Codes set what is an allowable minimum for new home construction. Changing the code will change the market. Codes are also localized, so that different areas can adopt different rules applying to the specific conditions in that area.
After hurricane Sandy, certain areas of the Jersey Shore that had been flooded by storm surge updated their code to require homes to be elevated off the ground a certain number of feet. This is so the entire community is not wiped out again, which costs the state substantial money, increases insurance rates, and drives insurers out of the state. In the case of wild fires, it also becomes a personal responsibility issue. An cheap highly combustible home can more readily catch on fire, which can damage adjacent homes and infrastructure while endangering neighbors and rescue workers.
its not only made of wood but a very flammable type of wood, plus cupboard, plastics, styrofoam, etc. inside & outside.
And on the outside Vinyl Windows Doors and Siddings, Asphalt Shinggles and Wood, perfect as a Fire Starter.
To make perfectly sure the house burns down in short order.
Plus furnishings are not fire retardant either.
Why not build with concrete?
Think about Hearst Castle on the Central Coast in California. Julia Morgan was the architect and Hearst Castle is basically cement but she built it earthquake proof.
Like the Women's Club in Berkley, the Hurst Castle is also made out of steel and concrete: steel reinforced concrete.
@@eltamarindo Yes, concrete reinforced with rebar. Maybe when I said Proof, that wasn't quite the correct term. Withstand an Earthquake might be better. Also, the Nomadic Movement on RUclips are building a house that is mostly made out of metal that is designed to withstand an earthquake.
I helped build a house in Costz Rica out of cmu's. Plenty of rebar trusses let survive a big earthquake without a crack. Other cmu houses close by had major damage. It's all in design and quality conxtruction.
You should look back at the San Francisco earthquake and the enormous fire that followed. the buildings were nearly all made out of wood and look what happened!
I have now read that great areas of Los Angeles are either uninsurable or else the insurance companies have put up their premiums massively so if you want to pay huge premiums forever build your house out of wood otherwise build it out of something sturdy that can handle fires and earthquakes
After the San Francisco fire the brick buildings had collapsed and the wood buildings stood. The fire came later.
@@dolfin9879 I believe that was the entire point of the video. We don’t have the materials that would make a house flex during an earthquake and still survive fires; so, it’s a compromise to at least buy time to save lives.
California put a cap on premiums, that is one of the reasons the companies decided to get out. Another reason is a few months ago the Insurance Commissioner made it a requirement that 16% of an insurance company's portfolio must contain homes and that are located in high-risk areas. Lastly if California government's homeowners insurance plan (Cal FAIR) does not have the money to pay out all of its claims, *it will collect money from insurance companies that operate in California.* This makes insurance companies liable for government run Cal FAIR's debts.
As an architect practicing outside of the US, I think the building codes in the US sometimes doesn't make sense or have enough flexibility built into them. I know that architects don't have control over the greater area around the project they designed, and I think future designs need to include "fire breaks" or larger buffer zones between housing projects and the nearby woodlands, and specifying types of landscaping plants that are resistant to drought and catching fire. Perhaps states with earthquake threats need to learn from countries like Japan on earthquake resilient building technologies.
Well, according to many politicians, the USA is the greatest in every subject imaginable. So why should they learn from Japan, if they are more knowledgeable to start with? /s
precisely. The reaction in this video is normal but suboptimal - we need to think deeper and smarter. The problem isn't the wood but the fire and how the fire gets into a house. Wood frame stucco single story homes can be fireproof with good design like noncombustible level soffits and meshes that keep embers out.
People are hyper focusing on fire and wood but not taking a scientific approach to WHY the fires occurred and WHY the fires spread.
That's engineering root cause analysis 101
What materials can be used to build a home that won't burn? ...anyone???
@cma8165 every material that can be purchased practically will burn. The trick is to keep fire away from it and then to extinguish the fire if it does get in
Concrete and bricks are generally not preferred for construction in earthquake zones due to several key factors:
## Lack of Ductility
One of the main reasons concrete and bricks are not ideal for earthquake-prone areas is their lack of ductility. Ductility refers to a material's ability to deform without failure[2][5]. Unlike materials such as steel, wood, or bamboo, concrete and bricks are brittle materials that cannot absorb the energy from an earthquake effectively[1]. When subjected to the back-and-forth motion of seismic waves, these materials are more likely to crack, crumble, or collapse suddenly.
## Poor Performance Under Seismic Loads
Unreinforced masonry buildings, including those made of bricks, concrete blocks, or adobe, perform very poorly during earthquakes[1][9]. The mortar holding the masonry together is generally not strong enough to resist earthquake forces. This can lead to walls falling away or buckling, resulting in significant damage or complete collapse of the structure.
## Vulnerability to Shaking
During an earthquake, the shaking causes buildings to move in a horizontal direction, which can be disastrous for structures primarily designed to support vertical loads[2]. Concrete and brick buildings, especially if unreinforced, are particularly vulnerable to this lateral movement. The rigid nature of these materials means they cannot flex and sway with the ground motion, leading to increased stress on the structure.
## Risk of Falling Debris
In the event of an earthquake, unreinforced concrete and brick buildings pose a significant danger due to falling debris[1]. Parapets, chimneys, cornices, and other ornamental features made of these materials can easily break away from the building, creating a hazard for people both inside and outside the structure.
## Alternative Materials and Techniques
Instead of using concrete and bricks alone, modern earthquake-resistant construction often employs:
1. Reinforced concrete: When properly designed and constructed with steel reinforcement, concrete can be made more ductile and earthquake-resistant[8][10].
2. Wood and steel: These materials have more flexibility and are favored in earthquake zones[12].
3. Base isolation systems: These systems use flexible pads to separate a building's foundation from the ground, allowing it to move independently during an earthquake[2].
4. Damping technologies: Shock absorbers and other damping devices can help dissipate seismic energy[2].
While concrete and bricks can still be used in earthquake-prone areas, they require special design considerations, reinforcement techniques, and strict adherence to building codes to ensure safety. In many cases, other materials and construction methods are preferred for their superior performance under seismic loads.
Citations:
[1] www.portland.gov/ppd/unreinforced-masonry-urm-buildings
[2] planhub.com/resources/how-earthquake-proof-buildings-are-built/
[3] www.reddit.com/r/StructuralEngineering/comments/kwty07/reinforced_concrete_or_wood_what_material_is/
[4] en.poyatos.com/blog/the-use-of-concrete-in-seismic-zones
[5] blog.iseekplant.com.au/blog/5-features-earthquake-proof-building
[6] acropolis-wp-content-uploads.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/2019/02/reinforce-v2.gif?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiji4S9pPCKAxWcRTABHUv0C4MQ_B16BAgDEAI
[7] www.americanprecastfences.com/is-precast-concrete-earthquake-resistant/
[8] www.foxblocks.com/blog/earthquake-resistant-construction-techniques
[9] www.earthquakecountry.org/step4/urmwalls/
[10] www.britannica.com/technology/earthquake-resistant-construction
[11] www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-how-l-a-conquered-an-earthquake-danger-zone-brick-buildings-20151009-story.html
[12] www.exploratorium.edu/explore/seismic-science/engineering
[13] www.preventionweb.net/files/7632_Earthquakesafeconstructionofmasonrybuildings.pdf
[14] www.scienceworld.ca/resource/building-and-testing-earthquake-proof-structures/
[15] www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/1cmzqyp/how_safe_are_brick_walls_in_an_earthquake_prone/
[16] www.bigrentz.com/blog/earthquake-proof-buildings
Earthquakes also start fires, so you may survive the earthquake with wood framing yet suffer loss due to the resulting fires.
Is concrete more resilient to Earthquake than wood?
Most new homes are required to have gas shut off valves that are activated with ground movement. The majority of fires during earthquakes were caused by ruptured gas lines
@@914Hex Exactly. So an earthquake prone/fire danger area is an ignorant place to build unless you totally expect to lose your place and don't care.
The requirement is to protect the human lives. Cheap wood construction is safer than cheap concrete or brick construction. Wood structures often will sustain substantial damage in a serious earthquake but they rarely collapse.
@eltamarindo well said. I went into more detail in my main comment but it also doesn't crumble and crush in humans like concrete does. The collapsed videos of the twin towers have gone into tremendous detail that anyone can see
In Puerto Rico, we build houses with concrete, including the roof. These homes are low maintenance and last longer without needing repairs. You don’t need to replace the roof; you just need to apply a treatment similar to paint. This means lower property insurance costs. Also in PR, we have hurricanes and earthquakes. They are also built to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes without significant damage. I was in Puerto Rico during December 2018 when a 7.0 earthquake occurred. It was in the news. My concrete house resisted without any damage. Nobody is complaining whem the big buldings in the US are constructed of concrete or brick. In the continental U.S., the system seems designed to protect the private interests of banks and construction companies. They are making a lot of money that way.
Great explanation. Here in Florida, it is common to build houses with CMU on the walls to protect them from hurricanes. It is interesting how the codes and techniques adapt to the different situations in each state.
CMUs also are not eaten by the bugs that live in that humid climate.
It's not a matter of what you build with, it's HOW you build! It's also, what you do to prepare. No forest management, no prep for emergencies. THAT is much more important.
A few years ago the California Fire Marshall at the time had 2 tiny shed homes on a lot. One built with current materials and one built with fire resistant materials. Same with the landscaping around it. He had fires started at the beginning of the grass. Which one do you think burned and the other one didn't?
Seems to me, you missed one import reason to use wood: American mentality is to buy a first home and then proceed from there. German mentality is to buy/build a home for the family, raise your children there and take in your old parents thirty years later. That calls for a sturdy construction.
Can you imagine Mt. Rushmore with wooden heads? Many of the castles in Europe are hundreds of years older and still in good shape. Made from stone. Let's not even talk about some things the Romans build a few thousand years ago.
Hmmmm … I’m trying to imagine German constructed houses in the middle of the Palisades fire but then also built to CA earthquake standards. You have some very beautiful buildings and I hope you never ever have to experience the climate and natural disasters that we have here.
@@seychellesjac I was thinking about that as well before I wrote my comment. I live in the Rhine Valley and the tectonic there is somewhat unstable. Most earthquakes here are minor but I did wake one time, because the house (concrete and bricks) around me was visibly shaking. Nothing comparable to Japan though. We are less prone to wildfires, especially at this time of the year, because we live a lot more north (like Montana or Canada) than people in CA.
But keep in mind: A wildfire is just a fire in the wild that can be caused by many reasons, most of them created by man.
@@wora1111 The Rhine Valley is so beautiful! I’ve had family live in Germany and loved it. Geologically and ecologically very different from here. We live on top of the subduction zone of two major tectonic plates. Earthquakes are common (the more small ones the better to ease the pressure). We are one of 5 Mediterranean climates in the world - each one unique because of the survival strategies necessary for swiftly changing and extreme weather conditions. A really good, heavy rainy season occurs every 25 years; otherwise it’s perpetual drought. Saying wildfire is just a fire in the wild … well … this is a fire ecosystem - as are other Mediterranean climates. There are plants here that cannot or barely survive without fire. Some seeds burst open only with fire, some need the acidic compounds from the ash, some need the brush to burn away so they get heat and sunlight. In 2-3 years, if there are no more fires, the wildlands will be covered rare in blooms as well as our famous superblooms that can be seen from space. At the end of summer where temperatures can reach well above 40 C, we get the strong windstorms that sweep down from the high deserts above us, down the mountain canyons, accumulating speed and heat ,tearing across what is basically a huge tinderbox of dry grasses and brush - and once it starts, pieces of brush, that are now on fire, fly on these winds. We’ve had fires start from a car backfiring, a gunshot, lightning and of course, arson, campfires … you name it. So, yes, mostly man-made disasters coupled with higher than normal temperatures. Thus her explanation that what may work elsewhere is not ideal for here, that the need for fireproof yet flexible material is still illusive. Because people here have lost homes and lives, we are very aware and always looking for solutions. Trust me, if there was that even close to ideal material that would not collapse on our heads during an earthquake; not burn in our inferno-creating fires, it would be used.
@@seychellesjac One thing you need to account for, germany has Tornados, up to F4 and some times a very rare F5.
The houses withstand in europe a Tornado way better as the American wooden houses.
Beside a fire inside a building spreads way slower, thanks to higher rated Walls, Doors and Windows.
But a outside fire to slip into the house takes way longer too, some times a hole car can burn out beside a house with only small amount of smoke damage.
And about earthquakes look at Taiwan, Japan or Philipines, they building Concrete and Brick houses in a area with way bigger and more frequent Earthquakes.
@seychellesjac There you got me, I forgot that there may be positive consequences of wildfires as well. At least for part of nature. We are in a better situation because our nature life does not depend on wildfire (any more). Ravens around here learned to open nuts and access the seeds by dropping them on the roads. Certainly safer than them starting to play with fire!
Ok, let's be serious again. From the pictures/videos I saw, I assume the main problem is/was the glowing embers carried by the wind. If they land at a spot where their remaining energy/heat suffices to ignite new materials, you have a problem, a growing one. Paper, dried leaves, unprotected wood, plastic become a problem. Especially if close to wooden structures.
The only 'solutions' I can see from here is to keep a wide separation between 'the wild' and housing areas and prepare the outside of houses so they do not catch fire by flying embers as easily as now. I think I saw the picture of one house where the owner forgot to turn off the lawn watering system and came to a house unaffected by the fires. But now it is the only house in that street ...
Yep, watching houses being built looks like a bonfire preparation or a snack for termites.
Actually, the surface burning of wood prior to construction has been used in Asia for centuries, and some structures are 1000 plus years old.
Most of the 5000 to 7000 homes that burned in the ongoing Eaton fire here, were 60 to over 100 years old. That alone shows that the area is not as fire prone as people think.
@silvieb2024 what it shows is that in the past 60 years the criminal incompetence of Democrat politicians. I grew up in the LA and Sylmar areas when they took steps to mitigate the fires. That has not been done in many years. This is NOT a natural disaster. It was intentionally created by the politicians Californians elected. There should be zero federal aid! You voted for this... you pay for it!
So, why are there even houses build by the Spanish, made from stone, still standing in CA? You saw many walls made from brick still standing while the rest burned down. Yes, there are risks with brick and concrete when it comes to earthquakes, but in general, a concrete house with steel reinforcement would be the way to go. Just go take the tour of Hearst Castle in California, and in that presentation, it was highlighted that Hearst requested it to be built with concrete and steel due to fires and earthquakes and as far as I know, it still stands.
Now, the Paradise fire a few years ago, was the same problem. After the fire, the town wanted to change the laws that houses need to be build with concrete. However, the building companies opposed as they said it would be to expensive and, you guessed it, nothing changed.
The conclusion is, that profits are way more important then people safety and building with wood is way more easier than stone/concrete/steel, thus bigger profits for the builders.
Those very rare Spanish stone buildings have been reinforced to survive earthquakes for their historic value. Most still suffer severe damage and have to be partially rebuilt after large earthquakes, like the Spanish missions, for example.
Fires were not nearly as much of a threat to most neighborhoods here in California as reports would make it seem. Most of the 5000 to 7000 homes burned in the ongoing Eaton fire were 60 to over 100 years old. They would otherwise not have lasted that long.
The bigger threat is earthquakes which are frequent and unpredictable. Intentional fires to facilitate land grabs are the biggest fire threats now...
I agree. I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are specially designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking.
After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire.
I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
What are most SINGLE family homes made of in Argentina? The concrete and steel you describe is only in about 10000 new homes, mostly still being built, per Google. How does an average Argentine working class person afford this?
Just subscribed, my thoughts are it's really difficult to design against 100 mph winds with extreme dry combustibles in the environment it's like exposing your house to a heat kiln for hours at a time.
The word most used is "ductility". Structures made out of wood joined with soft nails are able to move a huge amount before they structurally collapse. Even if the structure is damaged beyond repair it is unlikely to collapse in an earthquake.
BOLONEY GET A BUILDERS LIC LIKE ME CA / TN / FL
I've seen wooden structures collapse during earthquakes. Go no further and search photos of that big earthquake in San Francisco.
Every time I experience a large earthquake in my wooden home here near LA, I am so grateful and amazed at its ability to move and sway so remarkably and still be OK after the shaking stops. The only part that we have lost several times over the decades was the chimney.
So skyscrapers in California are made of wood then?
But, yeah, you can definitely make a wood structure more resistant to catching fire via design and material choices.
But you can also make much more fireproof structures resilient against earthquakes and storms.
Glass infused wood and other treatments can improve fire resistance. There are paints and other coatings that char rather than burn. Bricks are stronger than perceived. The problem is the mortar or grout used. Also bricks are made with holes for rebar. There are also coatings that hold masonry and river rock walls together too.
I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking.
After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire.
I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
It’s fascinating that Americans continues to push their residential construction style even after failure.
No other country in the developed world builds houses to such low standards as the US. And many of them are in hot and dry climates and in locations that are prone to earthquakes.
Americans needs to travel more.
My wooden California home has stood up well to many earthquakes since the 1950's. It's been a life saver. Only the top part of the chimney crumbled twice in those decades.
The news frequently reports many earthquake deaths all over the world, including Italy, for example, due to poor construction and crumbling buildings.
I think you need to travel more...☺️
One thing is clear, in the current climate change climate, building a house made of wood, a flammable material is madness. I hope the Americans will learn this painful lesson. By the way, most of the houses that have burnt down seem to be of very old constructions, with no water protection systems, etc.
They are older homes, which proves that they can withstand a lot. No homes can withstand deliberate arson, such as is occurring, and be affordable.
@silvieb2024 Even if there had been deliberate arson of the trees, if the houses had been built with modern non-combustible technology, with water pump protection, they would not have burnt down.
@@janina7066Deliberate arson in the form of weather modification and directed energy weapons. Perhaps blue paint would have been helpful... but nothing else.
Building codes are minimum standards for protecting life and property. People can also spec for higher standards on their own projects.
For example the cost of building a California hospital is many times greater than a building a hospital in another state because of tons of higher performance standards required than elsewhere. California hospitals conforms to OSHPD codes that is unique to California
True: I believe the UCLA Medical Center complex in Westwood is designed to withstand an 8.0 earthquake on the Richter scale
This is a very important topic that needs to be addressed. Thanks for the insights!
When I worked in construction, almost anything you could learn was part of a well-rounded education in my father's eyes-construction to computers, agriculture to automotive, and plumbing to people. I noticed during this period that the best buildings for earthquakes were tilt-ups; no matter their distance to the epicenter or the quake's magnitude, they always stood with minimal damage. Even when I was networking computers, there would be minimal shifting in the raised cable flooring. Also, I was fortunate enough to work on a fire station here in Southern California, with its block wall and steel frame construction. All new architectural students should study these.
Likewise, given the large amount of iron ore and our steel production capability here in the US, I've never understood why the government hasn’t subsidized steel frame construction for all new homes until the market equalized; it would solve many problems and lower the cost of some lumber, rebuilding lost industries here in the US.
Lightweight steeling framing can castistophically fail during a fire. Reinforced concrete with stainless steel rebabar is the gold standard.
Very interesting! Do you have an opinion on Monolithic Domes? Their website says they've survived earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, and hurricanes. Mind you, I realize that just because *one* dome has survived X it doesn't mean that *all* domes are Xproof, but it is thought-provoking.
See this Kirsten Dirksen' feature bio ceramics modular green Dome homes ..
Plus you guys really need to get your heads round Basalt fiber re enforcement ... fibers meshes in bricks and blocks plus slabs and rebar.. 🧙🏼♂️🌍🥼 already tested by Japanese.
they largely are especially if re enforced with materials like Basalt fiber grids and rebar. It's also salt and highly corrosive substances resistant . 🧙🏼♂️🌍🥼
Bio ceramic modular domes 300mph winds tested, quake, fire, extreme weather insulation and noise protection , ruclips.net/video/ELihrjm7ffk/видео.htmlsi=p4QBxSk78TQI9RWd
I am from France Lyon. Thank You for your explanation, I have forgotten that the main risk is earthquake in California. I lived in Alsace some years ago and the wooden structure are often built in part of Alsace were earthquake can happen. The building can freely move without crambling and the oak wood is very resistant to fire, safe to escape and easy to rebuilt with strow and mud. You are going to have a lot of work to make safer construction. You all need a lot of courage.
Architects should look at the way they build houses in Japan. Lots of quakes over there.
I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking.
After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire.
I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
I’m not an architect, but I appreciate architects! Also, I’m wondering about the ages of the homes in those areas and the how the different eras they were built may have affected things?
If I were to build a house in CA, I'd use 3-hinged steel arch- or gable frame with metal cladding & roof. Such frame would be highly resistant against fire, earthquakes and strong winds. Lot of thermal mass & good roof/ceiling ventilation facilitates cooling.
You would have to be rich. Earthquake insurance premiums alone would be unaffordable for most people. Our earthquake insurance cost went sky high after replacing our roof with a metal one.
I thought I was going to hate this video by the title. But you did an excellent job of pointing out the pros and cons. Build the rock Castles of Europe in a seismic region and they would be gone today. CMU, yes the walls will remain but that is about it when you encounter a 100ft high wall of fire. Tempered glass will hold but the frames will fail. The eaves and vents are probably the second ignition point to fail. The landscape is the first. Excellent video.
Does the building codes at least require that the wood is treated to be fire resistant?
(In South Africa, wood houses is rare enough that there is a perception that they might uninsurable...) (Apparently, the can be insured if compliant with the relevant standard, which seems to require concrete foundations and treated wood)
Fiber cement siding and metal roofing on a wood frame the best of both worlds.
Very educational, thank you!
Earthqukes, wildfires, deserts, the winds. Maybe this piece of land is not the best to live there. If I was rich, that would absolute not my first choice.
Metal frame windows with tempered glass, never vinyl
I think container homes can withstand both earthquakes and wildfires. since shipping containers are designed to be stacked on cargo ships, you can stack enough to build yourself an LA type mansion.
I have a stucco sided house and a "firefree" slate roof product BUT, I also have 3 ridge vents on each "blocking" wood eves. How can I mitigate the vents (which do have wire mesh to keep fowl out)? The roof also has 2x8 ridge beams the extend from the roof.
Use woven stainless steel mesh with 1/16 inch spacing of the mesh to retrofit the vent openings. Or replace the existing vents with units that use the 1/16 inch stainless steel woven mesh.
If you wanted to use brick, you can just tether it down to the foundation with steel cables, like light houses. Full concrete also is an option
The problem is that asphalt roofs catch fire instantly as soon as they come into contact with a spark.
The asphalt tile roofs used in California are required to be fire resistant. Many homes here also have clay or metal roofs.
Part of the problem is that if you add special features for fire protection to your home, the earthquake insurance policy premiums become very high because the high cost of replacing them after an earthquake. For example, we put a new metal roof on our home for fire protection, but our earthquake insurance cost went sky high.
Plant hemp to renew the earth. Harvest hemp to make homes with it so they can withstand fires.
Europeans had limited wood (forests belonged to nobility often) and the US had lots of timber historically. Check out how much of the US is owned by private timber companies.
Europeans used to use wood for houses. But the ancestors had learnt their lessons through death caused by big city fire and wars. US has a short history. So their lessons are yet to be learnt.
@@himmelkami3308Europe has huge fires every year that destroy many homes in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Albania, etc. Europe also has very deadly earthquakes because of collapsed buildings, in Italy, for example . Lessons learned?
Not convinced. Japan has a lot more sismic activity and they have concrete buildings.
Some million dollar masions burnt like a pile of matches. Architects are not doing their job there.
There are timber frame houses with brick fill between the posts beams and braces which have endured through 500 years of earthquakes along the Mediterranean. These often have slate or tile roofing. Rebar would have to be carbon fiber since the military grade energy weapons used to burn Los Angeles would react to steal rebar in the concrete and destroy the buildings as was the case in Maui where all steel buildings completely surrounded by paved parkinglot were disintegrated, while in the case of concrete structures the concrete exploded from the over heated rebar inside it.
I am looking for an architect. Basically, we are soon to be an NPO looking to build 6x6 houses in SFH zones that also allow boarding/transitional housing, or SRO policies. We know where the land is, we have the financing to build a model, but will likely put off building due to all the "insurance builds" that are very likely to own the labor for the next 2 years or more. Still, comments on our 3 build plans (a Duplex, a 2-level and a 1-level/ranch) depending on which land we're able to afford for 10 or more units would be helpful. We're not looking for "free wetstamps" or anything like that, just "maybe move this here or there" commentary on the FP's we've mocked up. We are open to all insights as we try to build homes for post-foster care ILP rentals and build a community of these young adults without being attached to a college.
Yes, after the so-called “Northridge Quake” (epicentered in Canoga Park) the top 1/3 of chimneys and (crosswise to the waves) sections of cinder- block walls fell over. My area of West Hollywood is just above the valley floor with the Santa Monica mountains between us and the epicenter. The cinder block walls folded over and shed blocks leaving bent re-bar in some places. Chunks of the concrete facing on The Beverly Center (a tall indoor mall) had shot off the wall two and three stories above the sidewalk and sheared limbs off the street trees below, landing mostly in the street and gutter, missing the sidewalk. (Noted to self, hug the wall as long as it is a modern steel reinforced structure. Also avoid the canned goods and liquor aisles at the grocery). People have been killed by the top of a chimney falling through the roof and ceiling. In that quake, one couple was crushed by their boxes of possessions stored around the bed. Note that flexible construction definitely saved lives, and that total collapses were rare in modern code. Historic downtown Santa Monica which had masonry buildings and was built near the beach on a liquefaction zone was far more impacted than my area nearby with the mountains between us and the epicenter. I do know someone who was on the mountain in the second story who was tossed out of bed. Parking structures with decayed rebar or cables failed when the concrete snapped. We were lucky this happened at 4 am on a Monday holiday.
In Italy, we learned 2000 years ago that wood buildings are not good when there is a risk of fire. After that Rome was almost destroyed in the fire of 62 ac roman auctority made law to build only using stone and concrete.
FYI you do not want to be inan earthquake any other type of home other than WOOD! Wood moves and flexes. Build for one and die with the other... pick your poison!
Italy continues to have a large loss of life in earthquakes. Your buildings historically fail in earthquakes.
@silvieb2024 Italy is 2000 years old. People still live in building that have 2000 yaers old - rare but happen - and generally the majority of building of our old town are at least 200 years old. They are all historically protected building . I can undersent that you have no idea of the importance of ancient bulding when yours nation is about 240 years old. The fact that in Italy we have is shown in the simple fact that Italy has 53 site protected by UN. And this is done protecting our ancestry .
@@andread5560Even your modern bridges fail.
@@andread5560Italy crumbles.
Yeah i was curious because i watched a vid and realised their fire place was still standing and was confused. I had no idea that bricks werent the main building matrial in other places because their all i see here. Makes sense about the earthquakes. Its horrible to think how many homes were torn down by those fires. I hope everyones ok...
I thought for earthquakes an inexpensive way to achieve foundation isolation would be to lay a bed of rounded river gravel, which acts a lot like a fluid, with chipped tires mixed in with it. There are piles of used tires. Since the chipped tires would be buried under the structures slabs, air can't reach the rubber and there is no fire problem. The rubber allows the rocks to have some play. It should transmit energy poorly. I'm not sure if anyone has explored something like this.
I wonder what the cost of cutting up old shipping containers, poring concrete in-between the metal sheets and running stay bolts from one metal side to the other to straight jacket the concrete for earthquakes would be? Concrete can only break, if it can expand somewhere.
Interesting thoughts. I am trying to come up with designs for my Zone Zero, the first 5 feet closest to my house. I have been thinking about river rocks as attractive and non flammable, but your idea makes me think of "base isolation" design for earthquakes.
@@janalderton8644
Maybe I should do a video on the base isolation concept and then perhaps one of the universities out there can do tests. If they end up in landfills anyway, maybe they can be buried with a purpose.
Another material for earthquake isolation would be Talc which on the Mohs Scale of hardness is listed as an example of the softest rock. It is used as a lubricant. Since it is used in baby powder, it isn't toxic.
I live in southern Louisiana, where the engineers worry about making structures too heavy to avoid sinking because they are being built on mud.
@@lewisdoherty7621 Go for it, Lewis! Building on mud is very problematic, if there are earthquakes. Mud looses its integrity when it is vibrated. It essentially becomes like pudding. I did a science project on liquefaction when I was 10.
What about ICF ?
IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD
Here's another survivor: 18860 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA 90265. Pictures on Zillow shows wood above the balcony and on the deck surface, however because it's designed to be like a ship I believe the wood is Teak so it is very dense and may have been treated. Also: Please discuss residential steel stud/frame construction cost vs Wood frame. Thanks.
The single-family homes for the average American must cost nothing, so they must be as cheap as possible. Then the houses must be constructed in such a way that unskilled (60 to 70% of American workers and craftsmen are unskilled) builders, laborers and craftsmen, without much prior knowledge, can patch these houses together. If German building regulations were used as a basis, these houses would not even receive approval as sheds. These houses are extremely cheaply built and of poor quality. The price that is charged from then on is disproportionate to the poor quality of the material used. Solid houses, with the appropriate fire protection and of appropriate quality, are unaffordable for the average American earner. The timber used is of poor quality and is often not impregnated and protected against insect infestation and rot. In terms of quality, this is better firewood or just enough for a shed.
Its high time for hempcrete to be considered. Its a superior building material. Fire and earthquake resistant. Homegrown and low neg. Enviro. Impact.
I heard cob is approved in SD for small buildings. Is this true in LA too?
The building codes in california are not the cutting edge of engineering; they're what was legislated. I was inside the wood-frame house in Malibu in the 1974 earthquake. The whole house shook back and forth, things fell off shelves, the earth rumbled, it seemed like it would never stop, but there was no sense that the house was at risk, the timber frame just shook like trees in a woods, it had zero trouble with a shakey shake. That said, 4 inch continuous exterior batons of rockwool and exterior steel cladding is an economic nearly fireproof exterior skin that easily transforms a timber frame in to a beast. Just as well, it could be building code to have an exterior property roof-fire sprinkler kept tested annually by law. Building codes make things more expensive, so you want cheap combustible plastic, or solid rebar reinforced gabion baskets.
The main reason is because the city of los angeles since around 1850 has been in the US. Migrants from other parts of the US especially the east moved to LA and brought their customs. In eastern usa they build houses made of wood. Prior to around 1850 Los Angeles was a Mexicancity and the houses were constructed in a more sturdy way. When Los Angelesturned into a US city the migrants from Eastern usa were not going to build their houses like Mexicans. This is why wood is used in LA: it's an anglo cultural thing
Building fireproof homes is simple.
Pumicecrete is by far the best building material on the planet. Pumicecrete is by a mixture of pumice cement and water mixed and poured into a set of reusable forms walls are poured from 12"to 24" thick. Pumicecrete is fireproof termite proof rust rot and mold proof non toxic and has a high R value and good sound attenuation solid poured walls means no critters can live in your walls Pumicecrete can be built for a fraction of the cost and time and pumice is one of the few building materials that can go directly from the mine to the job site ready to use without any additional possessing and zero waste. California has plenty of pumice.
Global pumice in Olancha CA
Take care Ray
Thanks for sharing. Good video. Is there any way that the building, design and construction industry can go full on masonry, particularly in California?
Have you thought what it would do to costs to build if we go full on masonry?
@@subhobroto Would it be more labor intensive and perhaps more expensive? Yes. But look at the 12,000+ wood frame homes that are now reduced to ashes and the only remnants of these ashes are the brick fireplaces and doorways made from masonry. The challenge of full on masonry would be to keep interiors dry and especially in California, and have masonry to be flexible enough to withstand seismic events.
@christophermoody1448 think about how much homes cost now and what this would impact those costs. A nuclear silo is not just fireproof but earthquake proof and nuclear bomb proof. However very few people can afford it. One has to take affordability into consideration when proposing solutions
@@subhobroto That might be the problem. A heavy focus on affordability rather than durability, I can't comment about nuclear silos. But I think that it would be fair to say that not everyone would want to live in a nuclear silo.
So why not build homes starting with a metal frame and attach metal walls and glass windows on that?
Metal can be decrative, it can have texture and colour, it doesn't have to look like a giant shipping container. If you fill you metal walls with insolation that would deal with sound and heat, just have to make sure the insolation doesn't metal or catch fire when heated.
CONCRETE AND STEEL / ICF
@terryshull4477 I don't mention concrete, but skyscrapers do stand up to earthquakes very well and they are made of made of concrete and metal.
and built so close together? cement fiber board should have been used instead of wood siding... metal roofs instead of asphalt shingles
Ferris Concrete can be used for pillars every thing a mansion needs cheaper..
Also i HIGHLY RECOMMEND A CONCREATE RAMP FROM 2 EXITS FOR EMERGENCY EXITS FOR WHEELCHAIRS.
People often get trapped in a burning house because wheelchair exit is a wood ramp. DESIGNED WHEELCHAIR RAMPS IN NON BURNING MATERIALS IS AN UPGRADE IN ANY HOME not just a wheelchair assessable.
People using toddler strollers, having pets, or cart to bring groceries inside love it as well.
And when power is out a wheelchair ELECTRIC LIFT DOES NOT WORK ESPECIALLY AS EMERGENCY FIRE EXIT.
You are wrong thinking all concrete based houses have load bearing walls, which are risk in earthquake areas. Our second home is in Spain with almost daily earthquakes, have concrete based structure, a "cage" with concrete floors and roof combined with concrete pillars. They are rebarred into one strong structure. Voids between the pillars are constructed with brick, but they are not load bearing. Exterior has stucco and tiles. Floors and backyard are mainly with tiles. Windows are with aluminium frames. There's no organic materials to burn. House is now 10 years old with no cracks on the walls
Doubt that you have significant earth quakes in Spain (over 5.5-6.5) on the Richter scale.
Still a great way to build but it's expensive. 😊
If we insist on using wood, InventWood is building a factory in Maryland that starting in 2025 will produce Mettlewood that is a form of densified wood that has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than steel and is resistant to fires. If we want earthquake-resistant cement, there is Geoship which developed a fiber-reinforced magnesium oxide bioceramic cement which can be casted into components for a triangular space frame, as well as the inside and outside panels, and insulation. Starting in 2025, Geoship will start building bioceramic geodesic dome homes, initially with rockwool insulation, but ultimately they will be able to make insulation out of cellular bioceramic cement.
Cool!
I studied architecture in canada and ended up living in romania.
I can tell you thst no matter how poor ans devatated romania wad in the past decades, their building practices still outperform ours.
3:59 I wonder how a building similar to what we call Fachwerk in Germany would perform in California.
it is because it is CHEAP... ALL buildings over 4 or 5 floors are made of what, any guesses? reinforced CONCRETE... so you most certainly can make a single or two story out of reinforced concrete... it all comes down to cost!
Concerning the image that you showed: only the front is in wood, the sides are made with concrete materials.
What about high rises that are concrete and steel in earth quake zones.
They require tons of steel (very expensive and only viable for luxury building and high rise structures.
A waste of steel and money on low rise.
And let’s not forget the long term drought conditions…close to a year without rain, I believe I heard.
Yes, but SoCal had bountiful previous winter. It is common that they have many months of no rain, as we do sometimes in NorCal. Need: better vegetation and reservoir management.
Wood is cheaper to buy, easier to build with and easier to fix than concrete. The problem isn't the wood but the fire and how the fire gets into a house
Wood frame stucco single story homes can be fireproof with good design like noncombustible level soffits and meshes that keep embers out.
Wood is light and won't kill you like concrete will when it collapses on your during an earthquake
Yes, we can go full concrete until the next time there's an earthquake and the whole house cracks at multiple places.
You also cannot just patch up concrete like you can wood once the concrete has cracks in it. You have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild. So you don't need your house to burn down to the studs to need a rebuild - just a tiny earthquake
Commercial buildings built with concrete have special designs with bars to handle these challenges. A residential home built this way will cost in the millions. Wooden homes in Cal are expensive as it is - concrete will move the cost by atleast one magnitude and freeze the residential market completely.
People are hyper focusing on fire and wood but not taking a scientific approach to WHY the fires occurred and WHY the fires spread.
This reaction is normal but suboptimal - we need to think deeper and smarter.
The WHY is known, California is practically designed to burn, just like Western Australia. California has always had fires & always will. The next fire is just a matter when. And as long as homes there are made of wood & other combustibles, they'll also burn. Metal roofs, treated wood, & stucco cladding will certainly help mitigate, but stucco & treated wood will only delay the inevitable for so long, & when the timber studs finally reach their ignition point, well...
If only wooden houses didn't do so well in earthquakes.
@darkgalaxy5548 yes, vegetation management is an issue among many others. In this case there weren't enough fire fighters or water from hydrants. There are multiple reports of people saving their homes with water from their pool and garden hose. Again these were all the exact same wooden homes other people are worried about catching fire than concrete homes. The material is less of an issue than what happens when a fire breaks out
BULL SH-T
Stucco and metal roof. Look at that mansion on the beach that was the home on the strand to survive. See above
BAL 12.5 | Bushfire Construction Reference Guide | AS3959:2018. Australia has its BAL building regulations.
Ever heard of it ?? In California very apparantly not.
Their house go up in flames in 30 minutes like a match.
You are contradicting yourself since city are built with concrete and steel but why city can withstand the earthquake? Concrete can easily withstand level 8 earthquake. And you forget there’re tornadoes and will easily destroy the wooden houses. Why US are still majoring wooden houses? The answer is simple. US history is short so they haven’t learnt the lesson. The ancestors of Europe are also living in wooden houses. But they have learnt the lesson through big city fire like London fire and multiple wars. US on the contrary have yet been taught yet.😂 I don’t they will learn this time. It will take multiple incidents for them to discover.
This is an American problem. They've let builders get away with selling overpriced wooden boxes for a century. Meanwhile, other countries have 2-feet thick walls that insulate against heat or cold, and those are called houses. People outside America don't understand why movies show guys punching through walls, since their walls are solid.
Brick and masonry homes are too dangerous here because of frequent and unpredictable earthquakes. These wooden homes are intended to save lives... I personally would live in nothing else here after experiencing large earthquakes.
@@silvieb2024as if only the US would suffer from earthquakes...
Other countries have the same earthquake problems but build with steel and rebar...
As for the explanation you can get away with many things but not with bad design, like having embers rolling underneath your houses. Or not using flame repelling surfaces.
@@silvieb2024meanwhile the rest of the world uses brick walls and concrete in earthquake regions and is doing fine...
@@pirminp7090no, they have high death tolls with brick and masonry.
@@pirminp7090 I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking.
After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire.
I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
Wood sways but does not fall down in earthquakes. Brick falls down in earthquakes. Steel framing is best.
I have lived in California all my life. I am a DIYer and have changed the south wall of my home from T1-11 to stucco. I was inspected. I used a Styrofoam layer under the stucco. What i would have preferred was to use Comfortboard (made by Rockwool) under the stucco because Comfortboard is fire resistant. However I could find no documentation for such an assembly. Is it because it is somehow not as earthquake safe as styrofoam?
You can still built in wood and as well be fireproof. Don't use flameable materials on the outside. As simple as that.
Ms Young, have you even glanced at the many photos and hours of video available of the Palisades fire, ongoing and aftermath? LARGE numbers of buildings with non-combustible exterior cladding and zero flammable vegetation or other materials outside burned completely (e.g., buildings in the commercial center, but also many homes in the neighborhoods). Some, probably many, of those would have been Chapter 7A compliant (Class A roofs, 1/8" vents, all that). You are completely missing two of the main reasons structures burned in this fire. One of these was embers entering the interior not through unscreened vents but through construction imperfections, around doors, etc., then igniting flammable materials or furnishings inside. Sheds are time bombs; garages are a huge risk because their construction isn't as perfect and always have cardboard boxes, fuel, etc. inside. Another was house-to-house combustion from direct flame impingement (e.g., but not limited to, the alphabet streets area). Exactly the same as in Coffey Park in Santa Rosa; also in Paradise. In such situations, the only possible fire safe way to build is with 1-hour exterior walls and doors AND to have really top notch fire shutters. Anything less will result in a repeat someday.
Yes! Also, no wooden fences or decks! ICF house here in California.
5:17 Surviving is goal #1. Surviving financially, so you’re not paying two mortgages for the destroyed house and its replacement, should be a goal #1.1
Srop trying to live in the desert. Problem solved.
architects can only do so much, insurance is also a factor, specifically the real cost of covering true costs of the large-scale damage risks in the area: wild fires and earthquakes.
I've always wondered why a product like Rok-on exterior sheathing isn't more popular. It is kinda like a SIP but with cement board surrounding foam.
Sips are rot boxes, fiber cement and cement board are not structural, and foam is highly flamible.
Building with steel and/or concrete is possible in California BUT it requires the use of Base Isolaters which allow the building to move with the Earthquake. This is how they do commercial buildings. It is expensive. Builders are in the business for profits, and will build using the cheapest materials and labor they can get away with.
I come from San Juan, Argentina, a very seismic region. The city suffered a major earthquake in 1944 and was practically destroyed. After that, they began building with an anti-seismic code. Houses in San Juan are made of bricks, concrete, and very strong structural steel beams. They are designed to move with the earthquakes, preventing walls from cracking.
After the city was rebuilt, we were hit by a major earthquake in 1977, and there was basically no damage to the city. More recently, in 2021, another earthquake struck, and the houses and buildings remained intact. It's rare to see houses completely burned down when there is a fire and we've never seen an entire neighborhood catch fire.
I think in the U.S., there is an economic reason for building with wood that is difficult to change. The entire industry relies on wood, prioritizing lower costs and faster construction over building more fire- and earthquake-resistant neighborhoods.
Spacex are getting spacecraft to survive 1 200 mph winds thare 1500C. They just abiut to test another. Why dobt you maje the skin of the new homes out of stainless steel luke starshio, with a non flamable insulator. This shoukd be very readonably price Sure you as an architect can design in an inovative way how these panels can be held together. No shortage of options. you also likeky to want to cover
This is my question. Why wood?
Aha! I got an answer. Thank you
How about some shipping container homes?
Horrible insulation and difficult to build with mold sound.
Wood is used because there is a huge timber industry in the United States and to build using other materials would cost more.
What about concrete?
Concrete requires more reinforcement engineering to resist earthquakes...
Philippines is in earthquake zone and has a lot of earthquakes but all the houses and buildings here are solid rebar reinforced concrete and the earthquakes are not a problem for the concrete homes or buildings here, literally millions of homes here all concrete in Manila and probably have more earthquakes here than California.
Brick and cement but you know what's even better? natural building. Cob and all its similar techniques. There are 300 year buildings built that way, still standing.
What we actually see is that it is not balanced. Year after year the same, not really working in an earthquake scenario and not working in a fire. And yet you can see a patter like at Boeing, engineering is ignored so that a few bucks more could be made for the shareholders. If something happens, we blame the victims.
If we’re going to be talking about logic, it would have been logical to NOT cut funding to the california fire departments and to RESERVE water. Also despite all the regulations, it doesn’t apply to the homeless living in tents or less.
It's all about money. Wood lobby won.
Is cement hardie board siding too stiff for earthquake zones like SoCal? Do you know if that kind of siding is outlawed due to earthquakes? If not, it is an excellent alternative to wood and vynal siding that actually looks good and looks like real wood from a distance with zero maintenance and all the fire resistance a home owner could ever want .
What about that 65-yr old John Carr who stayed and saved his house and neighbors' houses by himself ? With just garden hose ?? Could builders just come up with a sprinkler system to just squirt away wild fire like John Carr did ?
Maybe when you build in California you are doing something fundamentally illogical. I'm from New England and have always marvelled at the idea that so many people live in places like Los Angeles or Las Vegas where there are so many potential calamities that can be expected to occur. Besides the potential for fires and earthquakes, the fundamental lack of water is crazy. When it comes to Las Vegas, I firmly believe that no one will be living there in one thousand years because it has no water (unless it is pumped from some distance). I enjoyed your video, thanks.
Yeah no. Building with wood is fast cheap and labor is abundant for that type as it does not have a high skill set to build. After WW2, returning veterans started families and wanted homes. The fastest production was with wood. Correct wood does have impact resistance, but how many of your neighbors can put together something out of masonry, vs. wood?
Mass timber will withstand both fire and earthquakes.
I remember when people started building out of more concrete until there was an earthquake... There are some new wood treatments that could make it almost flame proof...
Excuses and more excuses. The real reason is the cost of a house made out of concrete, iron/steal bars and bricks.
Building a house out of wood is cheaper so the houses can be made bigger (the american dream: a big house with 10 LCD TVs) and this is maximazing the profits of the constructor/seller.
Someone had to say it