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!

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:28:21 -0800 (PST), 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!


I don't know what CEA is but I gather you mean for earthquake
insurance??? I'll assume you mean this and in that case the bolts
you have to hold down the wall are not considered hold down bolts for
earthquakes. Google hold downs for earthquake design and you will see
they are much heavier duty. If it matters, a long time ago I
designed some California apartments with hold downs / tie downs for
earthquake design. I think I had to design shear walls too for that
apartment. Sorry I don't remember the name or location of it because
it was back in the 80's.

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.

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

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.

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".

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

Codes change over time. A home will be "not to code" as soon as the
code changes.
The OP has an existing home built in 1948. Depending on it's design
and construction it could be more e/q resistant than a more "modern"
residential structure.

The Sylmar (1971) e/q was another wake up call for "lateral force"
resistant design.

Multi-family units fall under different runs than single family homes.


cheers
Bob

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.


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.



Codes change over time. A home will be "not to code" as soon as the
code changes.

Sometimes. From what I've read in general over the entire state of
California, is that the building codes have gotten stricter in regard
to earthquake design but he may be grandfathered in, in regard to the
more recent building codes. He would have to check on that from the
building dept or check the code himself.


The OP has an existing home built in 1948. Depending on it's design
and construction it could be more e/q resistant than a more "modern"
residential structure.


I strongly doubt that in general but since I don't know much about his
house I can neither agree or disagree as a matter of fact.



The Sylmar (1971) e/q was another wake up call for "lateral force"
resistant design.

Multi-family units fall under different runs than single family homes.


Back then, to the best of my memory, they did not distinguish the two
but I do not know now. As I recall then, it had to do more with
building materials in the construction.

As I said before, he should be able to answer his own question from
the insurance company / agent. It's possible he might get different
answers from different insurance companies too because they go by
different standards.



cheers
Bob

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.

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

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



Sorry Evan but you don't know what you're talking
about.................
and you are using terminology without sufficient technical background


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...

Wrong again!

"the bolts pictured in the photos provided by the OP will disengage if
the structure is subjected to locally significant seismic activity"

Those bolts will do the job for which they were intended..... just
fine.
Whether or not the rest of the "load path" is up to the task is
another question.


Ok "knowledgeable one", how significant must this "local seismic
activity" be?

Careful, this is a trick question to expose your lack of knowledge.

btw it is you who misunderstood the OP's original question.....
because I understand the context in which it was asked.

This might give the answer to the trick question but "what the hell",
if you want to learn, check out

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

Especially pages 2, 14 & 15.
The section on cripple walls is useful as well but the OP never said
whether his home had them.

The whole thing about evaluating the potential for e/q damage in older
homes & agreeing upon a reasonable set of upgrades,
rests on not "what is the absolute best course of action"
but "what gives the most bang for the buck and what will an owner
reasonably do".

Over the years it has been agreed upon that, for older homes, the
following upgrades make the most sense.

Quick, cheap & easy DIY ones
strap water
bolt house to foundation
sheath cripple walls

Not so cheap & easy
retrofit pier & post foundation
URM walls
URM chimneys

notice there is no mention of hold downs........ those are for new
construction or MAJOR retrofit or repair situations.

I know there is very little likelihood that you have this sort of in
depth knowledge or experience.

"seismically enhanced building codes"..... reveals you lack of
knowledge; spoken like a true amateur, a wanna be

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.

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

On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.



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.


SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes


http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob

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.

On Feb 24, 5:23*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
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


I took a look at the document you reference below. It's
surprisingly
vague at what constitutes acceptable bolting for an existing house
to be considered "bolted to the foundation".
I would think they would have some
clear criteria, but they don't, at least in that document. I also
looked at the "How to Strengthen Your Home Before the
Next Earthquake" document that they reference. In there
they also don't spec what the minimum bolting for an EXISTING
home is. They do say if the existing house isn't bolted
or there is insufficient bolting that to correct it you should
install:

1/2" bolts at 6ft intervals for 1 story
5/8" at 4ft intervlas for 2-3 stories

Then they talk about drilling holes to the depth specified
by the bolt manufacturer. Suprisingly poor too, because
you would think they would spec what those bolts have
to be beyond the diameter. In reality, I'm sure that is
spec'd in the building code and I guess you'd have to
pull a permit to do the additional bolting on an existing
structure. At which point the bolts would have to be
long enough and of the correct type for the application.

Back to the original question, from what I've seen so
far, I'd have to agree with you that it appears the house
meets the definition of being bolted to the foundation.
It looks to me from the language used all they are
looking for is the basic bolting that is widely done
everywhere and that is consistent with what is in the
pics.



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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 24, 3:20*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:23*pm, DD_BobK wrote:









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

I took a look at the document you reference below. * It's
surprisingly
vague at what constitutes acceptable bolting for an existing house
to be considered "bolted to the foundation".
I would think they would have some
clear criteria, but they don't, at least in that document. *I also
looked at the "How to Strengthen Your Home Before the
Next Earthquake" document that they reference. *In there
they also don't spec what the minimum bolting for an EXISTING
home is. *They do say if the existing house isn't bolted
or there is insufficient *bolting that to correct it you should
install:

1/2" bolts at 6ft intervals for 1 story
5/8" at 4ft intervlas for 2-3 stories

Then they talk about drilling holes to the depth specified
by the bolt manufacturer. *Suprisingly poor too, because
you would think they would spec what those bolts have
to be beyond the diameter. *In reality, I'm sure that is
spec'd in the building code and I guess you'd have to
pull a permit to do the additional bolting on an existing
structure. *At which point the bolts would have to be
long enough and of the correct type for the application.

Back to the original question, from what I've seen so
far, I'd have to agree with you *that it appears the house
meets the definition of being bolted to the foundation.
It looks to me from the language used all they are
looking for is the basic bolting that is widely done
everywhere and that is consistent with what is in the
pics.









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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup!

The whole "bolted to the foundation" vs "not bolted to the
foundation" is pretty much a binary thing.

The e/q damage / failure of homes that were not "bolted to the
foundation" is pretty dramatic.

The bolting necessary to be effective are really pretty minimal. I'm
not a design expert. I am a test & research expert.
My buddy is an SE (structural engineer) and I've worked closely with
him for over 20 years. The whole field of CE/SE is one of compromise &
estimates. In an e/q situation how well do we really know the imposed
loads? Not very well compared to truck loadings on a bridge.

So how well should we size a bolting scheme for a loading scenario not
is not well known?
Probably doesn't matter all that much.
The CE world designs in large "safety factors", actually "ignorance
factors".

Years ago I wanted to know what a 5/8" foundation bolt was good
for..... So I cut up some timber, ginned up some test samples and put
them in a test machine.

I used a short section of 2x4 ~ 20" put a 5/8" bolt thru and tested a
number of samples.
I don't recall the exact results but I do recall how much higher the
load at failure (wood split open like a fish) was compared to
allowable load quoted in the code. The code provides a lot of "spare
capacity" and that's a good thing.

Engineers get in trouble when try to refine a design on the "capacity"
side when, "if the truth be acknowledged", the loads to be resisted
are not all that accurately known. Having worked in the ME world &
CE world, ME's have it a lot easier. They know their loads better.


So in retrofit situations just going from "no bolts" to 5/8" bolts at
6' o/c is a HUGE improvement.
I grew up with 1/2" bolts within 1' of sill discontinuities and approx
6' o/c elsewhere plus "when in doubt" add another bolt.
I've switched to 5/8" bolts, same spacing. Do I care if it exactly
agrees with the code? No, I'm not a building designer and I'm sure its
probably fine for the typical situations.

of interest http://www.raisedfloorlivingpro.com/floorframing.shtml

Building codes are typically ONLY concerned with "life safety"
issues...... so that structures don't kill people NOT "the structure
is undamaged"

Your tax dollars at work (in a good way)
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2020

cheers
Bob

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.



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.


SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes


http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob


Bob, this is NOT a building code. Use this if you want to talk
relevant to the OP's question(s)....
http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/b...2010.02.5.html

On Feb 24, 5:34*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.

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.

SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes

http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob

Bob, this is *NOT *a building code. * Use this if you want to talk
relevant to the OP's question(s)....http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/b...2010.02.5.html

Sorry Doug...... you are wrong in this situation, stop digging
The OP's question was NOT about the building code.

He asked 'does this mean my home is considered
"bolted to the foundation" ?' He mentioned the CEA.

The doc I posted the reference to is NOT a building code but it is the
relevant document to the OP's question.
Compare the wording in his question to the wording in the doc.
Re-read the OP. Go the CEA website. Take a look at the insurance
premium calculator.

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes".

Relax, being wrong & admitting it won't kill you.

Thank goodness you are no longer designing wood framed residential
buildings..... not that is rocket science by any means.

btw the common practice when citing a code or reference is to give
section or pages ..... not just give a link.
I gave you the entire document & the relevant pages

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:08:36 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 24, 5:34*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.

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.

SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes

http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob

Bob, this is *NOT *a building code. * Use this if you want to talk
relevant to the OP's question(s)....http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/b...2010.02.5.html

Sorry Doug...... you are wrong in this situation, stop digging
The OP's question was NOT about the building code.

He asked 'does this mean my home is considered
"bolted to the foundation" ?' He mentioned the CEA.

The doc I posted the reference to is NOT a building code but it is the
relevant document to the OP's question.
Compare the wording in his question to the wording in the doc.
Re-read the OP. Go the CEA website. Take a look at the insurance
premium calculator.

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes".

Relax, being wrong & admitting it won't kill you.

Thank goodness you are no longer designing wood framed residential
buildings..... not that is rocket science by any means.

btw the common practice when citing a code or reference is to give
section or pages ..... not just give a link.
I gave you the entire document & the relevant pages



If I gave you the relevant pages, you wouldn't understand it nor would
the OP so why bother. I gave him the answer he needs already.

And it's laughable you telling me I'm wrong when I designed per the
California code and it got approved by the local jurisdiction while
you never designed but claim that I'm wrong and you are right. Yeah
I know you have a buddy who is an engineer so that makes you
qualified. Well that aside, I appreciate a good laugh now and then.
Thanks.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:08:36 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 24, 5:34*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.

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.

SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes

http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob

Bob, this is *NOT *a building code. * Use this if you want to talk
relevant to the OP's question(s)....http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/b...2010.02.5.html

Sorry Doug...... you are wrong in this situation, stop digging
The OP's question was NOT about the building code.

He asked 'does this mean my home is considered
"bolted to the foundation" ?' He mentioned the CEA.

The doc I posted the reference to is NOT a building code but it is the
relevant document to the OP's question.
Compare the wording in his question to the wording in the doc.
Re-read the OP. Go the CEA website. Take a look at the insurance
premium calculator.

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes".

Relax, being wrong & admitting it won't kill you.

Thank goodness you are no longer designing wood framed residential
buildings..... not that is rocket science by any means.

btw the common practice when citing a code or reference is to give
section or pages ..... not just give a link.
I gave you the entire document & the relevant pages



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.

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?

On Feb 24, 11:33*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:08:36 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Feb 24, 5:34*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.

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.

SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes

http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob

Bob, this is *NOT *a building code. * Use this if you want to talk
relevant to the OP's question(s)....http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/b...2010.02.5.html

Sorry Doug...... *you are wrong in this situation, stop digging
The OP's question was NOT about the building code.

He asked 'does this mean my home is considered
"bolted to the foundation" ?' *He mentioned the CEA.

The doc I posted the reference to is NOT a building code but it is the
relevant document to the OP's question.
Compare the wording in his question to the wording in the doc.
Re-read the OP. *Go the CEA website. Take a look at the insurance
premium calculator.

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes".

Relax, being wrong & admitting it won't kill you.

Thank goodness you are no longer designing wood framed residential
buildings..... not that is rocket science by any means.

btw the common practice when citing a code or reference is to give
section *or pages ..... not just give a link.
I gave you the entire document & the relevant pages

If I gave you the relevant pages, you wouldn't understand it nor would
the OP so why bother. *I gave him the answer he needs already.

And it's laughable you telling me I'm wrong when I designed per the
California code and it got approved by the local jurisdiction while
you never designed but claim that I'm wrong and you are right. * Yeah
I know you have a buddy who is an engineer so that makes you
qualified. * Well that aside, I appreciate a good laugh now and then.
Thanks.

Doug-

Any code monkey can design per the code.
Since the code is "a minimum standard" designing things per code is
nothing to be proud of.

btw you designed one building?

I've seen the junk "approved by the local jurisdiction"..... why do
think there are so many lawsuits over design & construction issues.
Because the industry has always scraped the bottom. Designing
something per code & getting it approved is certainly nothing to crow
about.

You have no knowledge of my qualifications but I can tell yours is
sorely lacking by what you have posted.
I'll put my engineering knowledge up against yours any time.

Understanding the intent of the code and the principles behind it are
what being a real engineer is all about.

You still do not "get it" the OP's question was nearly verbatim from
the document I linked to......no comment about that?

On Feb 24, 11:33*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:08:36 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Feb 24, 5:34*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 24, 4:24*am, "Doug" wrote:
SNIP

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.

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.

SNIP

Doug,

I'm not taking his question out of context, I am answering it within
the context that it was asked.

and the answer is Yes

http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
from page 14

The Problem
Houses that are not bolted to the foundation can
move off their foundations during earthquakes.

see pages 2, 14 & 15 (at minimum)
read the entire pamphlet if you desire to become more informed on the
subject.

cheers
Bob

Bob, this is *NOT *a building code. * Use this if you want to talk
relevant to the OP's question(s)....http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/b...2010.02.5.html

Sorry Doug...... *you are wrong in this situation, stop digging
The OP's question was NOT about the building code.

He asked 'does this mean my home is considered
"bolted to the foundation" ?' *He mentioned the CEA.

The doc I posted the reference to is NOT a building code but it is the
relevant document to the OP's question.
Compare the wording in his question to the wording in the doc.
Re-read the OP. *Go the CEA website. Take a look at the insurance
premium calculator.

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes".

Relax, being wrong & admitting it won't kill you.

Thank goodness you are no longer designing wood framed residential
buildings..... not that is rocket science by any means.

btw the common practice when citing a code or reference is to give
section *or pages ..... not just give a link.
I gave you the entire document & the relevant pages

If I gave you the relevant pages, you wouldn't understand it nor would
the OP so why bother. *I gave him the answer he needs already.

And it's laughable you telling me I'm wrong when I designed per the
California code and it got approved by the local jurisdiction while
you never designed but claim that I'm wrong and you are right. * Yeah
I know you have a buddy who is an engineer so that makes you
qualified. * Well that aside, I appreciate a good laugh now and then.
Thanks.

Doug-

Don't worry, if you gave me the pages I would definitely understand
them......

Like I keep telling you, the OP's question was not one about the code.
It was about whether his house would be considered "bolted" or not.
This is not a question of code. The CEA is asking a different
question.

A pathologist is not a surgeon but a pathologist can tell when a
surgeon was wrong.

I'm not a code designer, you claim to be one or to have been one in
the 80s.

I don't need to be a code designer to tell that you are wrong
here....... just a pathologist.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

On Feb 25, 10:21*am, Evan wrote:
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...

And of course that isn't the issue. He simply asked
if his house meets the definition of "bolted to the
foundation".



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...

Apparently the California earthquake authority disagrees.
Did you bother to read the reference?




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...

More drama from Evan as usual.



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...

As has the CEA, did you read their document? The
current building code for a NEW building isn't the
question being asked.



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...

Again, the CEA clearly disagrees, but you didn't
bother to read that, did you? You have a reference
that says bolting that you would find in a typical
house anywhere in the USA offers no benefit?



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...

Who should we believe? You or the CEA?



You seem fine with giving the OP a false sense of security for
whatever reason...

You seem fine with handing out opinion without regard
to the facts. And making alarmist mountains out of
mole hills. You want to tell us again how it's illegal to
vent nitrogen to the atmosphere?



*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...

According to the CEA, which the OP himself referred
to, the answer would appear to be Yes.



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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again. Just like the robot from "Lost in Space". Arms
flailing, "Warning! Danger Will Robinson!"
And just as clueless as ever.

On Feb 25, 4:48*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.

No answer to my question?

"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?"

Cite the code section that answers the OP's question & I will defer to
your knowledge of the code.

I have admitted I'm not a code expert, I claim to be a testing,
research & concept expert.
This is not a code question if it were, I would not be answering it
because I don't use or know the code.

On Feb 25, 7:48*am, "Doug" wrote:
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.

Doug-

The OP's question was not about the code.
It was not about design.
It was not about your design.

It was merely about the "binary state" of his house...............
State1: considered "bolted"
State 2: consider "not bolted"


Not at all complicated, if you know the context.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:21:58 -0800 (PST), Evan
wrote:

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


Evan, first off, we are in agreement except that you are wasting your
time replying to this guy. He won't accept what you say no matter
how nice you put it. He boasts how much he knows tho... which I find
laughable. I will say only one nice thing about him and that is he
gave me a nice chuckle before I went to bed last nite reading his
silly posts.

On Feb 25, 8:04*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:21:58 -0800 (PST), Evan
SNIP


~~ Evan

Evan, first off, we are in agreement except that you are wasting your
time replying to this guy. * He won't accept what you say no matter
how nice you put it. * He boasts how much he knows tho... which I find
laughable. * I will say only one nice thing about him and that is he
gave me a nice chuckle before I went to bed last nite reading his
silly posts.

Doug-

The fact that you agree with Evan should be a red flag.....

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.

On Feb 25, 7:49*am, 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-

Indpendent of the length of your posts, you are still wrong.
Whether or not I have construction experience, you are still wrong.

The OP asked a very simple question, if you understood the context.
Not a question about seismic design.
Not a question about the overall safety / adequacy of his home.
Not a question about the code.

I answered the OP's question, in the context in which it was asked.

His question may have seemed vague to YOU because you did not
understand the context.

He was not asking for a seismic evaluation of his home.....he merely
asked


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

The answer to which is "yes".

If you are going to attempt refute my arguments at least be logical.

btw post in newgroups is hobby, I don't watch sports on TV.

On Feb 25, 10:56*am, DD_BobK wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:48*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.

No answer to my question?

"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?"

Cite the code section that answers the OP's question & I will defer to
your knowledge of the code.

I have admitted I'm not a code expert, I claim to be a testing,
research & concept expert.
This is not a code question if it were, I would not be answering it
because I don't use or know the code.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the record, I agree with what you're saying above.
Those that claim that what was shown in the pics
doesn't meet the CEA definition of "bolted to the
foundation" should just show us the reference that
says so. If CEA wanted that to mean more than
just typical foundation bolts, then one would think
they would have said something like:

Bolted to the foundation means bolting that
meets or exceeds CA building code xyz, 2002.

I also don't buy the idea being put forth that basic
bolting doesn't add anything in terms of preventing
some earthquake damage. I would expect it's like
a lot of other things, where some of the first, most
basic things add a good deal in terms of protection.
As you've said, with no bolting at all, a house can
just easily slide off. Just basic bolting like you have
here in NJ would likely prevent that for a modest
earthquake.

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.

My apologies to all for not finding this more detailed retrofit doc
earlier.
Notice, again, the language used.

I should have know that LADBS (Los Angeles - Dept of Building &
Safety) would have a step by step recipe.

http://www.cert-la.com/BAS-How-You-C...-Your-Home.pdf

cheers
Bob

On Feb 25, 11:26*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
My apologies to all for not finding this more detailed retrofit doc
earlier.
Notice, again, the language used.

I should have know that LADBS (Los Angeles - *Dept of Building &
Safety) would have a step by step recipe.

http://www.cert-la.com/BAS-How-You-C...-Your-Home.pdf

cheers
Bob

That's the document I was referrring to in previous posts.
I thought you had read it. Again, from what I see there,
it's consistent with your position. That document together
with the CEA reference is what convinced me that you
are right. I'm still waiting for any reference from those that
disagree.