On Feb 25, 8:23*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:49:53 -0800 (PST), Evan









wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:13*pm, DD_BobK wrote:

May be it's my 20+ years in the CE/SE world being involved in
construction, testing & research that gives me the basis from which I
speak? *

Evan, posting your CA contractor's license number (if you have one)
won't change my opinion of your knowledge.
If you have a CE or SE....please DO NOT post *the number, as I will be
obligated to report you to BORPELS as practicing without suffice
knowledge to do so.

20+ years experience and you still waste your professional time
on Usenet spewing poor advice...

Stick to paperwork and static testing under the most ideal
conditions in a structural materials lab...

Since you are a CE or SE (Engineer) you have ZERO ability
to actually build something, you interpret the plans and
supervise (wait for it) the paperwork... *You get approvals
from people who aren't engineers who visually inspect
the work after its completed... *Hmm... *Who to trust,
an engineer who says something is safe after seeing
a handful of pictures of something and nothing else,
lacking any sort of situational awareness of other hazards
OR someone who points out that the older home even
if bolted to a foundation would still pose a life safety
hazard to the occupants during an earthquake event...

Want to talk about "reckless practice" shove your
professional ethics deep up your ass and rotate on
them... *Don't open your mouth (or use your fingers
to type) when you are bound by professional standards
and you lack anything more than a causal glance
at the facts of a situation...

Mr. Engineer, how may homes suffered significant
damage/total loss/fatalities even when bolted to
their foundations because the studs detached
and the structure still failed... *Bolting alone really
offers no more actual protection as the building
will shake itself apart if it is close to the epicenter
or in an area with other hazards which can be
triggered by a far away earthquake...

Wow,. you must be psychic or an omniscient
all-knowing-being to say with such certainty
that the OP's home is anything in any significant
way without doing the proper background research
and a physical on-site inspection...

Good luck with your "work" and "career"...

~~ Evan

Evan, he's laughable so he's not all bad.
I believe the OP wanted to know if the CEA would find the original
bolts acceptable and while I think not, only the CEA can answer that.
What some fail to realize, the guideline is just that, a guideline not
a standard to determine if you house can resist an earthquake. Further
the guideline doesn't say to what forces the bolts need to resist so
while they can resist something, the question is whether the CEA
criteria will be satisfied.

Did oyu even read the referenced docs?

"I believe the OP wanted to know if the CEA would find the original
bolts acceptable"

CEA only wants a "Yes" or "No" answer to the existence of the bolts.

You have no idea what the CEA wants to know because you are wrongly
focused on the code.
This is not a code question.

It is a question about the existence of the bolts in the OP's home.

Looking at the photos..... does the OP's home have bolts?

There is no question from the OP or the CEA about the adequacy of
them.
CEA assumes that if they exist they were installed per the practice of
the time.

"Bolts" vs "no bolts" makes such a huge different in e/q performance
that being "bolted" is enough information.

Take a look on the web for photos & commentary about home damaged in
the 1987 Whitter e/q.
That's what motivated the concepts in the retrofit pamphlet.

If you want to learn more reseearch LA Division 88

Put your ego aside & learn something.