David Meiland Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 I have a customer with an older home that was moved onto a concrete block foundation about 20 years ago. There are no anchor bolts or other means of holding the building to the foundation. Most houses that were built new around here would have had anchor bolts in the mudsill, starting probably some time in the 70s. Just curious, would you mention lack of anchor bolts on your report on a house like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Yep, Tell 'em about the bolts and then point out that, in addition to the lack of foundation bolts, they'll have trouble getting earthquake insurance with some companies if the home isn't retrofitted with seismic bracing. Then recommend they consider having it done. Kills two birds with one stone. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Moore Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 If they didn't tie it down when they moved it, chances are they also didn't bother with re-bar in the CMU walls. What happens in the islands....etc, etc! So, is there really any point in bolting to what is most likely an un-reinforced CMU foundation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Meiland Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Yeah, I doubt there's rebar either, or any grout aside from what's in the top of the blocks. I'm sure an engineer could design a solution, probably involving some sort of connection to the footing, which is poured concrete. Whoever moved the house (one of many from the SeaTac airport expansion that ended up here) did a lousy job of the interior posts and piers, so it settled, and we did some jacking/leveling of the floors along with new posts and piers. All the new stuff is tied together nicely. We were musing about how it made absolutely no difference because the rest of the house could just slide off the foundation. It got me wondering if the owner was made aware of this when they bought, and whether it's the type of thing that is/should be reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 It's not a normal build, because of the move. Sometimes the block wall is built under the home and then the last few shims are pulled out. The better movers would pour a foundation under the jacked up house. Even so, it would be tricky business to line up holes in the old sill plates with anchor bolts in the new foundation. I've never thought about it before, and will have to ask one of the mover guys sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Meiland Posted March 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Their mistake was leaving the old mudsill, and not wanting to disturb the existing siding. You pour the foundation, bolt a mudsill to it, lower the house onto the mudsill, then nail sheathing to the mudsill, the rim joist, and the wall studs, and then deal with siding repair all the way around the bottom of the house. If you really had to, you could drill the existing mudsill for the new bolt locations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 It's still possible to do it. There was an article years ago in either FHB or JLC that showed various techniquest for retroactively reinforcing a CMU foundation and tying it to the footings. It's just a question of whether they'd want to do it. As far as reporting it; what would you report and to whom? OT - OF!!! M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Meiland Posted March 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 My question is, when the current owner bought this, should the HI have mentioned the lack of bolting? It's mostly an academic question, and I recognize the answers could vary. I'm not reporting anything, I'm just a contractor mooching off your forum. However, I do find myself reading HI reports fairly often when people call me to talk about the property they might buy or just bought. Fortunately, right now, one guy is working this area a lot and he seems decent although I don't think he's as thorough as most of you would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 "Should the inspector have mentioned the lack of bolting?" Yes. But, I can also imagine how one might overlook it depending on a lot of other considerations. In earthquake country, that's kind of a primary consideration, isn't it? Around here Chicago, it doesn't particularly matter; there's only a few hundred thousand houses without anchor bolts. I'll point it out if I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Anchor bolts is not in my SOP. Old houses don't have them and we know this. Old houses don't have a lot of things. In recent years, insurance companies have been asking if the house is bolted down. It is an issue if you ask for eathquake insurance coverage. So for those mid 60's houses, I will sometimes be asked to check for anchor bolts. Thanks, David. It makes sense that you could attach a new sill to the foundation wall and then set the house on that. I imagine straps or plates could tie the new sill to the old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.