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.
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 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...
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.
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...
And of course that isn't the issue. He simply asked if his house meets the definition of "bolted to the foundation".
Apparently the California earthquake authority disagrees. Did you bother to read the reference?
More drama from Evan as usual.
As has the CEA, did you read their document? The current building code for a NEW building isn't the question being asked.
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?
Who should we believe? You or the CEA?
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?
=A0The context of the question asked was
According to the CEA, which the OP himself referred to, the answer would appear to be Yes.
There you go again. Just like the robot from "Lost in Space". Arms flailing, "Warning! Danger Will Robinson!" And just as clueless as ever.
"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.
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.
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.
"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
His house IS NOT bolted to the foundation if considering
*ANY* kind of seismic building codes is a factor...
That is why it survived
************************
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...
Did you read the entire thread? Did you read the referenced docs?
The OP's question .....to reiterate for the umpteenth time. :(
.............. From the photos in this link, does this mean my home is considered "bolted to the foundation" ? .......
The answer to which is "yes".
The OP asked nothing about "considering *ANY* kind of seismic building codes is a factor... "
Take a look at the multiple reference docs.....
When doing an eval of an existing home (like the type of eval that CEA has the homeowner do for an insurance premium estimate) one of the binary (yes / no) evaluations is ....
bolted vs not bolted
the existence of bolts puts the house in the "bolted category"
The reason for such a simple delineation is.....
Bolted homes (even minimally bolted per 1940's code) perform SUBSTANTIALLY better than "not bolted" homes. Take a look at the SFH damage by 1987 Whitter e/q.
Homes "not bolted" were often total losses. Homes "bolted" typically suffered minimal damage.
It's like seat belt vs no seat belt ..... not ..... 1971 seat belt vs 2005 seat belt system It's like parachute vs no parachute .... not ..... 1948 parachute vs
2000 parachute.
The context of the OP's question is what drives the answer. :)
You are taking his question out of context. He wants to know if CEA will consider it bolted to the foundation. Of course in the pictures, it is bolted but that's not really what he wants to know. I believe CEA is some sort of earthquake insurance (correct me if I'm wrong) and therefore they will have some standards they go by to decide if it can withstand an earthquake of a certain intensity (again defined by their standard). If they feel it can withstand this force, they will consider it bolted, if not, then not adequately bolted to meet their standards in order to insure the home. One of the URLs furnished in this thread clearly states that the bolts have to be installed correctly to be considered effective. I can tell you that 1940s standards are not as stringent as the current standards for earthquakes so my guess is CEA will say it's not adequately bolted. Again, I agree it's bolted but not necessarily to meet CEA standards. Of course let the CEA speak for themselves. I wish the OP would call them and inform us what they tell him so we don't have to go back and forth here.
I know what the CEA is. Do you? Do you go to the CEA website & try their premium calculator? If you did, you should have an understanding for the context and oyu'd know what CEA is.
Their 'standard' is "bolted vs not bolted"......... it's a binary thing (& don't play the game.... "if the house had one bolt, would it be consider bolted")
All the CEA cares about is "bolted per the standard of when the house was built or retrofitted........1/2" at 6' for one story or 5/8" at
4' for mutli. It aint rocket science. Mud sill anchor bolts have a LOT of shear capacity, their presensce will keep a house on it's foundation.
I challenge you to find an example of a SFH (single family home) that was bolted (per the standard of its day) that was shaken off its foundation in the 1987 Whittier e/q. I select Whittier because of the high number of older homes in the area. And the fact that Whitter e/q was a major motivation for the content of the docs I posted,
A 61 Corvair isn't a 2005 Corolla but you're a a LOT safer a roll over in either IF you're using the seat of the day than in a 54 chevy without a seat belt.
I can I possibly correct you? You don't think I know what I'm talking about.
Yes, the bolts need to be correctly installed but don't you think the
1940 bolts were CORRECTLY installed at the time they were installed?
Notice your choice of words .....
"I believe CEA is" "some sort of earthquake insurance" "my guess is CEA"
There's a lot of wiggle room in those weasel words" And you have yet to refute my argument with logic.
How about you call them? There's even a toll free number.
Thanks but let the OP call them and report back his findings. Maybe what you said is correct or maybe not. Let the OP tell us. There is more to bolt strength in concrete than spacing between bolts but maybe CEA does or does not care about this. I do agree the house probably was built to the 1940 stds.... no argument.
"There is more to bolt strength in concrete than spacing between bolts"
Yeah, like...... concrete strength, bolt diameter, bolt strength, embed depth, edge distance........actually you have to get the bolts pretty close together to negatively embedded bolt strength (group effect). The wood would be the limiting factor wrt to bolt spacing WAY before the concrete.
The only thing the CEA cares about is "bolted" or "not bolted".
Why not call the CEA and confirm or deny my "theory"?
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.