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, 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, 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