bolting and retrofitting

Page 3 of 3  


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

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

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

You're just a waste of my time. Enough said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:19:43 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

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

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

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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-Can-Strengthen-Your-Home.pdf
cheers Bob
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.