Stan in Oly, WA
Well-known Member
I'm taking care of some of the problems in the crawlspace of my house before I have it insulated. One of the things I want to do is to tie the framing to the poured concrete foundation. The house didn't jump off the foundation during the 7.1 quake of 1949, the 6.5 quake of 1965, or the 6.8 quake of 2001, but there's no guarantee that it won't in the future. (It did sustain minor damage in 2001, the only quake to occur while I've owned the house.)
The 2X10 floor joists rest directly on the mudsill, no cripple wall. (That actually makes the job more difficult because the clearance is too low for me to move around on my hands and knees.) The mudsill is not bolted to the foundation. Most of the research I've done about seismic retrofitting recommends attaching the mudsill to the foundation by using steel plates which are lag screwed and anchor bolted. Then L-plates are used to strengthen the attachment of the floor framing to the mudsill. But one site I looked at showed the use of angle iron (steel) to tie floor joists directly to the foundation. This struck me as cutting right to the chase. Does anyone see any drawback to doing it this way? I could weld plate to the ends of the pieces of angle iron to spread the area of attachment. Does this seem like a good idea, or merely excessive (obsessive)? If the floor framing was tied to the foundation, I can't see that there would be any reason to put any effort into strengthening the attachment of the mudsill to anything.
I tried, without much luck, to get information about this from the local building department, and from my homeowner's insurance company. State Farm has some generic guidelines, but neither the building dept's website nor their complicated telephone menu system made any mention of seismic retrofitting (or any related terminology.) I got the distinct impression that I could get them to issue me an over-the-counter permit if I insisted, but no guidelines, or inspection.
Thanks, Stan
The 2X10 floor joists rest directly on the mudsill, no cripple wall. (That actually makes the job more difficult because the clearance is too low for me to move around on my hands and knees.) The mudsill is not bolted to the foundation. Most of the research I've done about seismic retrofitting recommends attaching the mudsill to the foundation by using steel plates which are lag screwed and anchor bolted. Then L-plates are used to strengthen the attachment of the floor framing to the mudsill. But one site I looked at showed the use of angle iron (steel) to tie floor joists directly to the foundation. This struck me as cutting right to the chase. Does anyone see any drawback to doing it this way? I could weld plate to the ends of the pieces of angle iron to spread the area of attachment. Does this seem like a good idea, or merely excessive (obsessive)? If the floor framing was tied to the foundation, I can't see that there would be any reason to put any effort into strengthening the attachment of the mudsill to anything.
I tried, without much luck, to get information about this from the local building department, and from my homeowner's insurance company. State Farm has some generic guidelines, but neither the building dept's website nor their complicated telephone menu system made any mention of seismic retrofitting (or any related terminology.) I got the distinct impression that I could get them to issue me an over-the-counter permit if I insisted, but no guidelines, or inspection.
Thanks, Stan