On Feb 24, 5:37*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:03*am, Evan wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:08*am, DD_BobK wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:08*pm, Evan wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:28*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!
Nope...
Those are standard sill plate bolts...
Seismic bolts are much larger in size, aren't simply
straight or curved like typical J-bolts, (they are longer
S-bolts to resist pulling out) and would be installed
with a larger metal plate instead of a normal bolt
washer again to prevent pull out...
Also, simply bolting the sill plate down doesn't
provide all that much in the way of seismic protection,
the wall studs need to be tied into the foundation
as well using tie downs like the other reply said...
~~ Evan
Stop replying to inquires where you have neither relevant experience
nor expertise.
Bob:
His house IS NOT bolted to the foundation if considering
*ANY* kind of seismic building codes is a factor...
The pictures the OP linked to show standard sill plate
attachment to a non-seismically rated structure...
PERIOD...
I know more than enough about construction to answer
that question... *The bolts pictured in the photos provided
by the OP will disengage if the structure is subjected
to locally significant seismic activity...
Since the OP asked his question in relation to the
CEA regulations, which others here have presumed
to be in reference to some sort of insurance premium
issue, the answer to his question is NO... *His home
is built to non-seismic construction standards and
would not withstand local seismic activity...
Referring to past earthquake events and making the
claim that "well the house was here since 1948 and
wasn't destroyed or seriously damaged in any of those
earthquake events" shows a lack of understanding
as to what the seismically enhanced building codes
are seeking to accomplish -- protection of people and
property in the event of local activity...
It is sad that you snapped a judgement against my
understanding of the seismic codes when you seem
to have not even understood the OP's question to
begin with...
~~ Evan
Evan-
you depariage my reference to
|"Referring to past earthquake events and making the
claim that "well the house was here since 1948 and
wasn't destroyed or seriously damaged in any of those
earthquake events" shows a lack of understanding
as to what the seismically enhanced building codes
are seeking to accomplish -- protection of people and
property in the event of local activity... "
So, ifI have a structure of unknown capacity and I load it to an
approximately known level *and it shows no distress.....
I have gained no knowledge of its capacity?
It's not about "the paperwork", it's about the current condition of
the structure and its history.
Think about it.
No sir, it is not, the building code is concerned with
all seismic events, including one which might happen
down the street -- not just the ground vibrations which
*could* shake a house off its foundation (unlikely) from
an event occurring tens of miles away...
High winds could also blow an unattached house off
its foundation, which is why there are provisions which
increase the minimum building standards in areas
prone to such weather phenomena...
The OP's house is clearly not up to any sort of modern
seismic code... PERIOD... The way his house is bolted
to the foundation would not do anything to protect the
integrity of the structure during a local seismic event...
Stating the history of the house and saying it is still
in existence and undamaged is totally pointless, as
it will NOT remain in that condition if a fault line in
the OP's neighborhood is the next area of activity...
The building codes look at the techniques of the past
and the mistakes which were made that resulted in
loss of lives and property to ensure that future buildings
won't fall prey to those same issues...
Houses can be attached to foundations with bolts, however
those bolts offer no protection against serious local seismic
activity or against landslides which also tend to be a problem
in California whether triggered by rainfall/flooding events or
during an earthquake...
I stand by what I said, the OP's house *IS NOT* attached to
the foundation in a way which will offer any sort of earthquake
protection during an event which occurs locally, his life and
home are at risk the way the structure is currently put together...
You seem fine with giving the OP a false sense of security for
whatever reason... The context of the question asked was
very vague but clearly the answer given the totality of the
circumstances (considering all factors and sub-plots) is NO...
No, as far as offering anything more than "the house will
break apart before becoming detached from the foundation"
because there are no shear walls or structural tie downs in
a structure that old to hold the building together as the ground
moves around underneath it... No, in so far as meeting any
standard of seismic protection which would be required during
any substantial renovation of the structure... No in complying
with any version of the CEA codes currently in effect...
~~ Evan