To obtain a copy of a specific publication, users should contact the publication's publisher directly.
Abstract
Evidence strongly suggests that the extent of damage resulting from Hurricane Andrew was not due to an inherent weakness in light-frame wood construction. The magnitude of wind forces that accompanied this storm is still in question, but there is general agreement that with few exceptions, fastest mile wind speeds were within 5% of the design wind, giving wind forces within 10% of design load. Failures were primarily due to roof overhangs and inadequate interaction between internal and external wall systems. Damage surveys suggest the need for critical review of light-frame building construction methods and inspection procedures. Periodic training seminars that provide such a review may be the most cost-effective way of avoiding disasters of this magnitude in the future.
Evidence strongly suggests that the extent of damage resulting from Hurricane Andrew was not due to an inherent weakness in light-frame wood construction. The magnitude of wind forces that accompanied this storm is still in question, but there is general agreement that with few exceptions, fastest mile wind speeds were within 5% of the design wind, giving wind forces within 10% of design load. Failures were primarily due to roof overhangs and inadequate interaction between internal and external wall systems. Damage surveys suggest the need for critical review of light-frame building construction methods and inspection procedures. Periodic training seminars that provide such a review may be the most cost-effective way of avoiding disasters of this magnitude in the future.
Date
3/1993
3/1993
Author(s)
R Wolfe; R Riba; M Triche
R Wolfe; R Riba; M Triche
Page(s)
652-
652-
Keyword(s)
Hurricane Andrew; wind resistance; roof failure
Hurricane Andrew; wind resistance; roof failure