On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:45:08 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:08:22 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:27:50 -0500, wrote:


Also, As I noted 100% out of the realm of "financiallt feasible" for
most people

I think you might find the shell of a tornado proof house might only
be about 50% more than a regular home.
(reinforced concrete on all 6 sides), If you used ICF walls insulation
would not be a problem and use a girder roof structure like commercial
buildings with a poured concrete roof. Your weakness is the
penetrations but we are seeing very capable impact windows and if you
backed that up with 200 MPH hurricane shutters your protection would
be up in the F4 category. The latter being a big part of the extra
cost.
Totally different concept than the "core house" and closer to
affordable - and getting into the "highly tornado resistant" home -
effective against most tornados below F5 category with only minor
damage - and still acceptable aesthetics..
We are on the edge of "tornado alley north" up here between the
lakes, with the Fergus, Orangeville, Grand Valley, Durham, Barrie
areas fairly succeptible.
One advantage we have up here is "trailer homes" are virtually
unheard-of except in campgrounds, unlike much of the American
countryside where "redneck bungalows" are very common "permanent
homes" - and they don't stand a chance much above an F1 - and also
much of the American housing stock has no basements. Most homes here
are built on a fully excavated poured concrete foundation, providing a
full basement. We are seeing more and more ICF for that application,
as well as some higher end homes being built completely in ICF - some
with stucco finish, some with concrete or clay brick veneer, and the
occaisional one with vinyl or metal siding. Siding doesn't stand up
well to F2 or above.
Storm shutters are not common here so window and door openings are
still problematic (particularly with siding flying around) - as are
roofs (Flat roofs are not common - not good for snow loads etc)

You would be putting a stucco finish on the concrete building as we
already do here anyway (CBS) so it would blend in well. The only thing
you might have to do to make it look "normal" and deal with snow would
be to put a pitched roof instead of totally flat. Build a rebar "A"
frame and shoot that with Gunite and mortar roof tile on that.
As I said in another note, it is basically an upside down swimming
pool.
You could easily go for a Frank Lloyd Wright style if you do like the
boxy look. If this is poured like a parking deck, I am still not sure
why you would care about snow load anyway. Obviously we don't really
give a damn about down load here, uplift is the big thing in
engineering.
This is all within the scope of engineering, in fact a coastal shed
(or any structure) in South Florida is engineered for 160-180 MPH
winds depending on where you are. That gets you up into the low end of
an F3.
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/2012...code%20map.jpg