Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Basic Roof Rafter Analysis Question

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>Consider John Q. Public who has a 15% deductible on his $100,000 earthquake
>rider. John's home sustains $15,000 worth of  damage in the form of cracked
>stucco as a result of the most recent earthquake (post tile). Will it occur
>to John that he had an engineer say it was o.k. to put on the tile?

As many California homeowners are finding out, upon policy renewel they are
being forced to accept half the eq coverage for twice the premium. The
California Fair Plan policies will not cover items such as theft and
itemized personal property. The homeowner is forced to decide whether the
earthquake insurance (sans other miscellaneous coverage) is within their
acceptable levels of assumed risk. Many homeowners are putting the money
they save in non earthquake premiums toward retro-fitting and forgoing eq
insurance. Ideally,  homeowners should have insurance and allocated retro
fit funds. It could be argued in hindsight, that adding seismic mass to the
top of a structure would increase the amount of cosmetic cracking during a
seismic event, that otherwise might not be so severe. At the same time it
could be argued that the increase seismic mass from a tile roof would be
relatively insignificant toward causing *strucutral* damage as compared to
the building performance with a lighter roof. Either way the client needs
to be informed that statistically they are increasing their seismic risk by
adding mass to the building.

Jeff Smith