songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
...
do people have underground fire cellars?
it seems that it would be hard to know where
to head for if you are surrounded by fast
moving fires.


I haven't heard of one being purpose built. I have one by accident
as my house is built on a suspended concrete slab over brick
foundations.




The point about knowing what to do in a fast moving situation is
important. We are encouraged to identify escape routes, to plan
ahead, prepare the ground and house and to make your decisions in
advance not in a panic at the end. You want to avoid making a
last minute choice to flee and getting burned in your car or
staying to defend the indefensible. OTOH some houses are saved by
defenders who put out small fires which would otherwise take hold.
Not a fun choice.

that all makes sense.

and yes, not fun. i'm sure a lot can be
helped by designing structures with metal,
brick, concrete, etc.

Sure that's possible but not affordable in most cases. Along my
street many houses are 100+ years old, typically timber-frame
weatherboard, corrugated iron roofs and timber floors on brick
piers. Not a very defensible house as there are so many ways for
the fire to get into the structure and once its in, the house will
be gone in minutes. People in rural communities cannot afford to
knock down and re-build.

if i were looking at the price of replacing a
home in comparison i think it would be worth
finding something that would help. i can think
of several alternatives that would be fireproof
against flying embers and not too expensive.


Sure you can re-clad in iron or cementious planking (hardiplank) but that
doesn't get past the timber frame and the raised timber flooring and joists,
if the fire gets underneath you are gone. When these houses were built
people had no idea about fireproofing rural houses.


For new houses the regulations are much more stringent about where
you can build and the price of steel is now not much more than wood
and (most) people are seeing the sense in sacrificing some amenity
in outlook for safety. There are still those who want to build in
forests so they can hug the trees :-)

and i'm sure they pay for it and probably
a lot for extra fire protection too. are
fire insurance rates pretty high down there?
or is the government the insurer of last
resort?


The rates are not that high and you don't hear of people being refused
cover. Unlike flooding where the insurers refuse cover if you are in a
flood-prone area. It seems they don't yet have a method of assessing fire
risk, there are no fire-prone maps like flood-prone maps, so the insured
community as a whole carries the risk. This whole area seems to have lagged
behind for some reason, building consent authorities have only got serious
about assessing fire risk of proposed buildings in the last 15 years or so
and that is done individually not on an area.


D

"songbird" wrote in message

if i were looking at the price of replacing a
home in comparison i think it would be worth
finding something that would help. i can think
of several alternatives that would be fireproof
against flying embers and not too expensive.

I'd be very surprised if you could.

You might think you could but it's not as if we here in Oz live in a
vaccuum.

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
...
do people have underground fire cellars?
it seems that it would be hard to know where
to head for if you are surrounded by fast
moving fires.


I haven't heard of one being purpose built. I have one by accident
as my house is built on a suspended concrete slab over brick
foundations.




The point about knowing what to do in a fast moving situation is
important. We are encouraged to identify escape routes, to plan
ahead, prepare the ground and house and to make your decisions in
advance not in a panic at the end. You want to avoid making a
last minute choice to flee and getting burned in your car or
staying to defend the indefensible. OTOH some houses are saved by
defenders who put out small fires which would otherwise take hold.
Not a fun choice.

that all makes sense.

and yes, not fun. i'm sure a lot can be
helped by designing structures with metal,
brick, concrete, etc.

Sure that's possible but not affordable in most cases. Along my
street many houses are 100+ years old, typically timber-frame
weatherboard, corrugated iron roofs and timber floors on brick
piers. Not a very defensible house as there are so many ways for
the fire to get into the structure and once its in, the house will
be gone in minutes. People in rural communities cannot afford to
knock down and re-build.

if i were looking at the price of replacing a
home in comparison i think it would be worth
finding something that would help. i can think
of several alternatives that would be fireproof
against flying embers and not too expensive.


Sure you can re-clad in iron or cementious planking (hardiplank) but that
doesn't get past the timber frame and the raised timber flooring and joists,
if the fire gets underneath you are gone. When these houses were built
people had no idea about fireproofing rural houses.

i think a coat of cement over metal lathe would
work against flying embers. around here cement board
also has fiberglass which isn't necessarily fireproof --
i'd use something else as a backing layer. if the
underneath is posts cemented into the ground then those
could be fireproofed against stray embers (clay, mud, ...).
it would also need to be enclosed to keep blowing
debris from collecting under the house so there is
no other fuel source. after enclosing it i would also
stack rocks and pack them with mud for an extra layer.
most areas have clay and rocks.


For new houses the regulations are much more stringent about where
you can build and the price of steel is now not much more than wood
and (most) people are seeing the sense in sacrificing some amenity
in outlook for safety. There are still those who want to build in
forests so they can hug the trees :-)

and i'm sure they pay for it and probably
a lot for extra fire protection too. are
fire insurance rates pretty high down there?
or is the government the insurer of last
resort?


The rates are not that high and you don't hear of people being refused
cover. Unlike flooding where the insurers refuse cover if you are in a
flood-prone area. It seems they don't yet have a method of assessing fire
risk, there are no fire-prone maps like flood-prone maps, so the insured
community as a whole carries the risk. This whole area seems to have lagged
behind for some reason, building consent authorities have only got serious
about assessing fire risk of proposed buildings in the last 15 years or so
and that is done individually not on an area.

oh, ok. around here the government is insurer of
last resort for some areas and flooding, but they
are also finally getting smarter in encouraging
people to move out of the worst flood prone areas
instead of rebuilding. though it is still far from
perfect it's at least a step in the right direction.

i'm not going to be too surprised in the USoA to
find out that home fire proofing will become more
important as the climate gets hotter and dryer.


songbird

Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:

if i were looking at the price of replacing a
home in comparison i think it would be worth
finding something that would help. i can think
of several alternatives that would be fireproof
against flying embers and not too expensive.

I'd be very surprised if you could.

flying embers are different than actual
flames right up to the structure. dealing with
the surrounding area to keep the flames from
the structure only makes much sense if the
structure itself is going to be protected.

if the structure is sound it can be sealed
and coated with metal lathe, cement, aluminum
screening at the seams and edges that might
crack. windows, doors and roof might need
work or replacement, but those are still
less than the cost of a new home. tile floor
around the doors, take up the rugs, put the
exterior of the doors and windows flush with
the exterior of the house so that they will
not collect embers, make sure the roof is
sound and gaps caulked, etc.

mud, clay and rocks are often available as
fireproof materials. these are not expensive
things and within the skill set of most people
so the labor could be shared and the cost kept
down.

an exterior sprinkler system would not be
cheap, but not beyond the means of some people.

compressed air kept indoors that can be released
when flying embers are in the air to keep them
from getting in cracks. not that expensive.

inspecting the house before the fire season and
checking when fire is a threat would be a good
thing too. making sure to seal up any cracks.
mostly a matter of taking the time, not expensive.


You might think you could but it's not as if we here in Oz live in a
vaccuum.

of course, but i also know it is common for most
people to not do things until they have to. e.g.
global warming...


songbird

Great good going.......keep it up devid.

hello...all of you i am tom..and i am a new member in this forum...this is a very interesting forum for me....my 2nd hoby is gardening...thanks admin for this...and gud luck david