On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:19:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:48*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:53:35 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:





On Feb 24, 11:49*pm, "Doug" wrote:

SNIP

Also, after reading your reference, just having anchor bolts thru the
sill plate doesn't mean all is ok. * It says they have to be installed
properly to be effective (pg 15). *This sounds to me like there is
requirement to meet ... not just showing that you have anchor bolts.
And I bet the requirement will be tied to the local building code.

Doug-

You never understood the question ..... nor have you answered the OP's
question correctly.

He was never asking If nor was I saying *"all is ok".
You clearly do not understand the intent of his question or the thrust
of the document I linked to.

Whether or not his home's anchor bolting "meet code", *previous or
current was not the question.
Whether his home "would be considered to be bolted to the foundation"
was the question.

You're just not getting it........ *the existence (or not) of anchor
bolts jumps a home from the "unbolted" category to the "bolted"
category.
That's what the question was about.

He wanted to know if his house qualified as "bolted".....clearly from
the photos, it does.

now you;re splitting hairs

"It says they have to be installed
properly to be effective (pg 15). *This sounds to me like there is
requirement to meet ... not just showing that you have anchor bolts. "

Don't you think that if the bolts were installed at the time of
construction that they met the local code in force at that time?

You're just a waste of my time. * Enough said.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry Doug, but until you can show an actual document,
I agree with DD. He has provided the document from the
CEA that talks about bolting to the foundation. I would
have thought that they would clearly define what that
means on an EXISTING, OLDER home. But they don't.
I also looked at the guide that is referenced that talks
about how to upgrade existing foundations, but that
also says nothing about what constitutes acceptable
bolting in existing homes. So unless you can provide
us with a reference that says otherwise, it sure looks
to me like just typical foundation bolting like you would
find in most houses around the USA consitutes a house
being "bolted to the foundation".

And there is some logic to that. I would think that
DD is correct in that just the typical bolting provides
considerable benefit compared to no bolting at all
in which case the house can just slide off. That
sure seems to be where both of the relevant
documents I read are coming from. They probably
know from past earthquakes that there is a big
difference in what happens from houses that are
bolted and those that are not. If they were
so concerned that typical bolting is totally inadequate,
then why in documents specifically about earthquakes
and bolting don't they just clearly define what
acceptable bolting on an EXISTING older house is?


No problem if we disagree. At least you are civilized about it.

I just don't want to waste my time with a ___ who thinks he can
design without engineering codes and makes excuses why my designs were
satisfactory to California then.