bolting and retrofitting

Page 2 of 3  


So now the CEA is wrong? And the California Seismic Safety Commission as well?
Did you even read the reference?
http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf
"I don't care to do the work for the OP" Sounds like a case of "declare victory and quit".
"I have other problems that need my attention." Yeah, like your biggest one....... you don't know when you're wrong. But you sure can tap dance.
The behavior of bolts in concrete is not the issue here, it is the existence or non-existence of them. It's binary thing (look that up it you don't know what it means)
"If the CEA doesn't seem to care about their behavior in concrete..."
"seem"..... more weasel words?
FYI .......... the CEA & CA SSC are doing just fine without your guidance.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm sure the OP is doing fine by now too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doug-
I thought I was a waste of your time? Why do you keep posting replies of no substance and never address the issues or questions?
Yeah, I happen know, from direct knowledge, that the OP is doing just fine. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

LOL... I did address it in one of my first posts in this thread. The OP needs to contact the CEA, etc... himself to get the answer from the horse's mouth, not from you or me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doug-
Now you're telling the OP what he "needs to do"?
You keep posting non sequiturs. You were wrong & won't admit your error but the weasel worded nonsense keeps on coming.
I happen to know that the OP already has the answers he needs.
He got answers from you? ........ the other end of the horse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Do you read well? I said * not * from you or me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I read quite well. Clearly you do not, since you have either not read or understood any of the posted references.
Oh, fyi ..... I don't take direction from the uninformed (that would be you). :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SNIP

Another try.....
read this ref doc
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/earthquake/pdf/fema-530.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More links that might convince you
http://www.bayarearetrofit.com/new_html/how_retrofitworks3.html http://www.bayarearetrofit.com/new_html/faqs.html http://www.bayarearetrofit.com/realtor/Cripple_Wall_Proposal_and_HowitWorks.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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/CEARateForm.aspx?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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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/bsc.ca.gov/gov.ca.bsc.2010.02.5.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.