Otis and facade wind safety in Mexico

A building can retain its columns and beams yet lose the conditions needed for occupancy. Windows, cladding, and roofing help determine the difference between remaining standing and continuing to provide a service. As the third anniversary of Hurricane Otis approaches, a useful question for Mexican engineering is how to incorporate the envelope into safety, maintenance, and recovery decisions.

The discussion should begin with an accurate date: Otis made landfall near Acapulco on October 25, 2023, as a Category 5 hurricane, according to NOAA (National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service [NESDIS], 2023). Remembering the event can motivate a review of specific practices; it cannot, by itself, establish the causes of damage to an individual building.

What the university investigation documented

In February 2024, Gaceta UNAM reported that an Institute of Engineering visit had identified facade and cladding damage while the main structures observed retained their columns and beams (Méndez, 2024). Preserve the scope of that observation: it describes the buildings examined during that visit, rather than a finding about every building in Acapulco.

That distinction matters in engineering communication. A photograph of broken glazing cannot establish that a material was unsuitable, that a regulation was violated, or that a building is safe. We suggest first describing visible damage, then identifying the documents, inspections, and analyses needed to investigate its mechanism.

Move from an isolated component to a complete system

To review a facade, we propose following a simple question: how does the action received by each component reach the elements that resist it? The project file should connect the glass or panel, frame, fasteners, supporting components, and attachment to the structure. That review requires coordination among designers, suppliers, installers, and supervisors.

FEMA P-804 provides wind retrofit guidance for houses, including protection of openings and a continuous load path (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2023). Its scope in U.S. residential construction must be respected. It provides concepts to study, rather than a prescription that can be transferred directly to towers, hotels, or Mexican regulations.

Distinguish wind pressure from debris impact

FEMA addresses resistance to design pressures separately from protection against windborne debris impact (FEMA, 2023). When reviewing a commercial proposal, request evidence for the specific performance claimed and the assembly to be installed. A general “hurricane resistant” label leaves important technical questions unanswered.

We suggest checking which configuration was tested, which sizes and supports its documentation covers, and which conditions fall outside that evidence. If the project changes a component or its attachment, identify who will verify compatibility. Material approval and acceptance of the installed system need to remain connected through the review process.

Avoid misleading comparisons of wind speeds

NOAA reported sustained winds of 165 miles per hour at Otis’s landfall (NESDIS, 2023). That meteorological value must retain its definition. We suggest that any comparison with a design wind speed state the averaging period, height, and other conditions used by each reference. A unit conversion alone does not establish technical equivalence.

A project report needs to identify the applicable design reference and justify the site parameters. Information about a hurricane can prompt an assessment, but it cannot replace that work. Likewise, a solution observed on another coast should not be adopted without checking the conditions for which it was designed and documented.

What to review in existing buildings in Mexico

As a working proposal for owners and building managers, begin with an inventory of facade systems and their history. Include available drawings, alterations, repairs, replaced components, and inspection records. Where documents are missing, identify the survey or investigation a specialist needs before reaching conclusions.

Gaceta UNAM also highlighted corrosion in buildings examined after the hurricane (Méndez, 2024). Without turning that observation into a general diagnosis, we suggest identifying concealed elements, the safe access required to inspect them, and indications that justify a more detailed review. Inaccessible areas should not disappear from the inventory.

An intervention can be organized in stages: collect background information, obtain a specialist assessment, compare alternatives, and verify execution. Each stage needs an owner and a defined output. Maintenance, repair, or replacement should follow verified conditions and project criteria; this article assigns no capacities and prescribes no strengthening details.

Discuss continuity of service during design

We suggest that a rehabilitation project establish post-event use objectives: which spaces have priority, how they will be inspected, and who will decide whether they can reopen. Those questions help coordinate the facade with utilities, access, and building operations. They are particularly relevant where closing an area affects essential activities or large numbers of people.

The team should also agree on how substitutions will be documented during construction. A seemingly small change may require a compatibility review against the specified system. Closeout records should identify what was actually installed and which checks were performed. A future manager may need that evidence as much as the original drawings.

One useful coordination exercise is to assign an owner to each interface in a sample facade detail. The drawing can identify which specialist checks the connection, which supplier provides evidence, and who verifies installation. Any unassigned interface becomes a question to resolve during design rather than an assumption left for the site team.

A lesson students can practice

A student team could prepare an original load-path diagram for a fictional facade and identify the evidence it would request from each project participant. Professionals could begin by reviewing an existing project file. The lesson from Otis deserves to become a set of verifiable questions and clear responsibilities before the next event arrives.

Sources and recommended reading in APA 7 format

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). Wind retrofit guide for residential buildings (2nd ed., FEMA P-804). https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_rsl_fema-p-804-wind-retrofit-guide_042025.pdf

Méndez, F. (2024, February 22). Habrá recomendaciones del II para construir después de Otis. Gaceta UNAM. https://www.gaceta.unam.mx/habra-recomendaciones-del-ii-para-construir-despues-de-otis/

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. (2023, October 26). Category 5 Hurricane Otis devastates Acapulco, Mexico. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/category-5-hurricane-otis-devastates-acapulco-mexico

Continue exploring

Leer este artículo en español · More civil engineering articles · ASCE Mexico webinars · Community and student chapters

Illustrative photograph: Christian Ladewig / Unsplash. This is not a photograph of Hurricane Otis damage.

Contact

We are always here to help

SOCIAL MEDIA

LINKS OF INTEREST

[email protected]