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

Re: Reroofing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Welcome to the club!

As you, I was shocked by the inexplainable policies of the City of 
Irvine (and other jurisdictions). The simpliest structural 
calculations show that the LFRS of the 20-year-old houses was neither 
designed, nor built, to withstand the seismic loads from the heavier 
roofs by the current (and even previous)versions of the UBC.

I was a vice-president of my HOA when ore-roofing had started.  I was 
able to convince the Board not to allow the roofs heavier than the 
pre-existing wood shake.  The decent alternatives are: a) wood 
shakes; b)asphalt shingles; and c) metal tiles.  The (b) option 
appears to be the most justified from all points of view.

Having spent a lot of time assessing the damage from the 1992 and 
1994 earthqaukes, am honestly puzzled by the re-roofing activity of 
the HOAs in Irvine (e.g., in Woodbridge), as well as by the PEs and 
SEs in the Irvine City Hall. Haven't they heard about the recently 
discovered next-door fault?   

As far as the insurance companies are concerned, they care less about 
the earthquakes than about fires.  Hence, heavier but non-combustable 
roofs are more desired.  Besides, after Northridge, we DO NOT have 
earthquake insurance; the one offered is a joke.

Finally, the seismic load on heavier roofs is not the worst thing.  
The weight of the tiles (particularly, flat ones) causes creep-
related distortion of the light roof framing.  Just look at the 2-3-
year-old roofs - all of them are wavy.  So much for the 
desired "decent" looks of the tile-roofed house...


Vyacheslav "Steve" Gordin, S.E., Irvine   

       

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com