Building houses that can withstand any tornadoes?

Is it possible? :)
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:43:44 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Sure, but very few people want to live in an underground bunker.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/8/17 3:43 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Yes. A quick search turned up a few. <http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/ingenius-home-built-battle-tornadoes/7105/
Dome houses are pretty tough.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/8/2017 3:43 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Sure, but they will cost more and I doubt if they would look like McMansions.
Here in Oklahoma some are pushing for better construction techniques, that can give greater chances of survival in a tornado.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/08/2017 06:12 AM, Bill Gill wrote:

Build a reinforced concrete house and slap some siding on it.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:43:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"

Absolutely. We already can see that with the current building code in Florida. Granted we are only building for winds in the 140-180 MPH (F3) range but when you compare the results to places like NY/NJ in Sandy (a strong tropical storm) you can see the difference. The other posters suggestion of a dome is an excellent example. If it is built in a dome form with the structure of an upside down swimming pool (concrete and steel) a tornado will not faze it. You could use the same techniques for a more conventional home and get wind protections up in the F3 range. The problem may be esthetics and cost. A Florida 150 MPH house might cost ~30% more than a house built where they do not have a wind code (for the basic shell).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/8/2017 4:43 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Sure. ICF houses will remain standing, but the roof is the weak link. Sure minimizes damage.
Fully tornado proof cost a bit more but can be done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Highly tornado resistant houses are very doable - housed that will suffer minor damage in an F3, and remain structurally sound while suffering damage in an F5.
Tornado PROOF buildings, which would suffer no dammage in an F5 are possible, but not either financially feasible or cosmetically acceptable to the average buyer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:22:18 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

CORE houses are 100% tornado PROOF.
Dig down to the core of the earth. Install an elevator shaft and elevator. Then build your home directly in the earth's core. 100% guaranteed that no tornado cyclone or hurricane will damage this home.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Zat guarantee extend to fracking? ;)
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 02:41:39 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@ISP.com wrote:

Also, As I noted 100% out of the realm of "financiallt feasible" for most people
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:27:50 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:08:22 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:45:08 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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%20wind%20code%20map.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:45:08 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

If you build a tornado proof home, you do not want door and windows. Eliminate them completely. In order to enter these homes, you want a tunnel under the home, that exits at least 50 feet from the home, and runs underground. Six foot diameter concrete sewer pipes can be used as this tunnel. Where it exits the ground, have a concrete stairway with concrete walls around it, and a heavy one inch thick steel plate over the top, that lifts up. and is operated by hydraulic cylinders. This steel plate should be closed and latched at all times, except when entering or exiting the home.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.