From the photos in this link, does this mean my home is considered "bolted to the foundation" ?
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.
Nope...
Those are standard sill plate bolts...
Seismic bolts are much larger ~~ Evan
Short answer....yes your home is bolted to the foundation.
If you want to learn more
Here's a book & website I recommend...
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
?
No, you are taking his question out of context. He's concerned about earthquakes.
Yes, in a non-earthquake zone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
The pamphlet is an easy read for anyone wanting to become more informed about hazards that older homes can have.
Also a trip to
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=A0am, "Doug" wrote: SNIP
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
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
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.
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 storiesThen 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.
Bob, this is NOT a building code. Use this if you want to talk relevant to the OP's question(s)....
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
question(s)....
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.
question(s)....
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.
SNIP
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?
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?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.