On Feb 24, 6:31*am, "
wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:24*am, "Doug" wrote:









On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:35:55 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 23, 10:28*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:41:05 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 23, 1:28*pm, Craig E wrote:
From the photos in this link, does this mean my home is considered
"bolted to the foundation" ?http://s1163.photobucket.com/albums/q548/cegarbage/

I have had a home for 10 years, built in 1948 in the La Crescenta area
of Los Angeles. It survived the Sylmar quake and Northridge quake
(both @ 20 miles away) without any problems

With the type of coverage CEA offers, I'm re-assessing whether or not
I really want to pay the premium.

Thanks!

Short answer....yes your home is bolted to the foundation.

If you want to learn more

Here's a book & website I recommend...

http://www.theearthquakebook.com/

If one examines the homes, other residential & commercial building
that were badly damaged by earthquakes one can get a pretty good idea
of what works & what doesn't work.

Take a look on the web for residential structural damage from
earthquakes;
Sylmar (71), Whitter (87), Loma Prieta (89), Big Bear / Landers (92),
Northridge (94)

The need to simply "bolt the house to the foundation" was pretty well
know in California since the early 1900's.
The point was made again by the 1925 Santa Barbara and 1933 Long Beach
(actually closer to Huntington Beach) earthquakes.

Despite these "reminders" the requirement for mere mud sill bolting
did not become nearly universal in CA until after WWII.

How much risk (financial & physical) you are exposed & whether e/a
insurance makes sense depends on a number of factors.
Type of house construction; style of house, age of house
Location of house
E/Q insurance coverage / deductible

If you've got a reasonably sized (small or medium), single story home
you'e probably at low risk.

Not bolted ...higher
Unreinforced masonry (URM) chimney ....higher
No chimney...lower
Dry wall..... nuetral
Plywood shear walls (not likely in 1948) *.... lower
expanded metal lath & plaster .... lower
open cailfornia style floor plan ....higher
lots of small room .....lower
lots of big windows..... higher
smaller widows ... lower

My house (1-1/2 story w/ tall URM chimney) was built in 1930 in
central Orange County, not bolted (gotta get that done)
but survived (with some cracking) all the post 1930 e/q's in SoCal.
Fortunately, central OC is a lower seismic hazard area

I carried e/q insurance for a while after 1987 quake but premiums kept
rising along with the deductible *so I let it go.

btw the mud sill bolts were a provision to keep the house from
"walking off the foundation" in an e/q.
This failure mode caused a lot damage in

Hold downs mentioned in some of the other posts serve another purpose.
They are typically part of an engineered "lateral system" that is
designed to resist "lateral" (side to side) forces.
Hold downs & shear walls work together.

cheers
Bob

Bob, back when I designed the apartments, the building dept would not
allow simple bolts to resist earthquakes. * I don't know if the same
applies to homes but the OP can take pictures and show his local
building department and let them answer the question. * I suppose he
could also ask the insurance company / agent the same question.

The OP's original question was

........From the photos in this link, does this mean my home is
considered
"bolted to the foundation"? * ..........

The answer to this question is "yes".

No, you are taking his question out of context. *He's concerned about
earthquakes.

I agree. *CEA refers to California Eathquake Authority
and he specifically mentions earthquakes in the post.
In that context, clearly earthquakes are an issue. *At
the very least, the answer to the question is not an
unqualifed "Yes". * I would ask where the term
"bolted to the foundation" came from. *It appears
he's concerned because it came from the CEA or
some insurance that references the CEA, etc. *In
that case, that term and what they mean is most
certainly specified in detail somewhere and is not
hard to find.

If it's earthquake protection that is the issue, then
those bolts are NOT sufficient. *On the other hand
if by bolted to the foundation they mean just regular
foundation bolts like you see all over the country
where earthquake protection is not considered
important, than yes those are typical foundation
bolting.

As I posted previously.... *the aim of *"foundation bolts" were to
keep a house from "sliding" or "walking" off the foundation.

Yes, in a non-earthquake zone.

They represent a first step in resisting the forces generated during
an e/q.

I know of no regulations that require a homeowner to retrofit an owner
occupied single family residence.

I don't know his local building code so I can't comment on this.
Strictly as a "guess", I tend to agree with you just based on my
experience with other locations.

It would appear to me that he's probably paying a higher
insurance premium because his older house is not
up to current earthquake standards. *And he's
probably considering what it would take in upgrading
to not to pay the higher premium, hence he's trying
to figure out if that bolting meets the newer reqts.
I would say with about 99% certainty the answer is
no. *But a bit of research online should yield the
definitive answer.

T4-

You are correct about

the phrasing in

my home is considered "bolted to the foundation"? ..........

being qualidifed & context driven

"that term and what they mean is most
certainly specified in detail somewhere"


but you are incorrect about

"At the very least, the answer to the question is not an
unqualifed "Yes". "

It is, indeed, an unqualified "yes".

Because, I happen to know the context of the question and I see the
foundation bolts in the photos

ergo ....... his house is "bolted to the foundation".


If participants in thes thread trully deisre to become educated,
that a look at this link

http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf

Pages 14 & 15 address the OP's specific.
Page 2 is useful as well.

The pamphlet is an easy read for anyone wanting to become more
informed about hazards that older homes can have.

Also a trip to http://www.earthquakeauthority.com/C...spx?id=3&pid=3

and you can play around with the e/q premium calculator

You can do some "what ifs" by changing answers to what factors CEA
thinks increase or decrease risk.
Their adjustments don't seem to penalize some conditions as much I
would have thought, considering some conditions can make the
difference between minor damage & total loss. They fail to inquire as
to existence & state of cripple walls, which can be a major factor in
level of damage.

cheers
Bob