Quote:
Originally Posted by milt
I think you are a bit misinformed. But, if you cite your sources, I'll read.
However, if the job is not engineered and executed properly, I agree that one could possibly make matters worse in a unique combination of misguided installations of seismic attachments.
Actually, I could go into that business and feel good about myself. But, again, I do very good and conscientious work at whatever I do.
|
I looked around briefly and found this from RePEc:
In general, the survey results can be summarized as follows. First, the use of the MMI scales was not well received by the engineers, who are more familiar with the Richter scale or measure of peak ground acceleration. Second the importance of quality of construction, the weight and shear capacity of the structure above ground, and non-structural damage should not be underestimated. Third, existing conditions such as rot and termite damage can greatly effect costs and effectiveness. Fourth, survey damage values were less that comparable values found in the "ATC-13" and FEMA 227/228 guidelines. Finally, there was wide variation in both damage and cost estimates in both survey groups."
Nowhere in here does it state that bolting is beneficial. In fact, this suggests building material and house weight are instrumental in keeping a house on its foundation. Any other information I found which shows the benefits of bolting is provided by companies who provide bolting services - i.e. just one long advertisement for their services.
After Northridge, several suggested we bolt down our house. We had independent structural engineers come by and state a house is supposed to be a bit fluid with its foundation, not stand rigid against it by bolting. They said, essentially, that bolting could cause more structural damage to a home during an earthquake, than if it were not bolted.