# Joist & TGI issue



## jpmartz (Nov 4, 2019)

My plumber put a groove in out joist and TGI to run plumbing to the tub, I know this isn’t up to code. Could this be a problem and if so what is the fix? The tub is already in.


----------



## classicT (Nov 4, 2019)

Welcome... can you please clarify and or post a photo? To post a photo, you must do it via a link or be a paid member.


----------



## classicT (Nov 4, 2019)

You may also refer to TJI's Technical Bulletin for damaged top chords.

https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/woodproducts/document-library/document_library_detail/tb-818/


----------



## e hilton (Nov 4, 2019)

It can be a serious problem.  Did they cut a hole in the middle web?   Or cut th3 top or bottom flange?   Cutting the flange can render the joist completely useless.  Only solution is to engage an engineer to evaluate and recommend a fix.    If the house us still under construction, have them replace it.


----------



## classicT (Nov 4, 2019)

e hilton said:


> It can be a serious problem.  Did they cut a hole in the middle web?   Or cut th3 top or bottom flange?   Cutting the flange can render the joist completely useless.  Only solution is to engage an engineer to evaluate and recommend a fix.    If the house us still under construction, have them replace it.


A bit alarmist there....

The only solution is not to engage an engineer. TJI and the other I-joist manufacturers all provide bulletins for how to complete repairs for damage to their respective joists. See my post above for TJI's bulletin on top chord fixes.


----------



## e hilton (Nov 4, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> A bit alarmist there....
> .


Maybe. 
 I was not aware of that technical bulletin.  Interesting.  A huge number of restrictions on when it applies, the two most important being: top flange only, and only half the width of the flange.  Most plumbers are not that careful.


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2019)

If the project was engineered the engineer shall be the one to choose the repair.  While it can be a canned fix from the manufacturer, the engineer makes that call...not the contractor, owner or inspector.


----------



## TheCommish (Nov 4, 2019)

If the manufacturer is commin up with  specifications, the problem must be rampant, it is a shame that tradesmen  think nothing of cutting up the structure of a building


----------



## Mark K (Nov 5, 2019)

Not an alarmist at all.  The joist may be worthless.

If there is any violation of code which is not resolved by making it comply with the code then an engineer or architect must be involved with designing the fix.  The joist manufacturer does not have the authority to modify the code by issuing a recommendation.  While such a recommendation may be interesting and suggest a solution the code does not give  the manufacturer the ability to redefine the code.

Any building department that does not have an engineer on staff capable of evaluating a fix needs to hire an engineer as a consultant.

Plumbers are notorious for cutting wood members in such a way as to make them useless.  On one project the contractor had a rule that the plumber or electrician was not allowed to have a chain saw on the job site.  This says a lot about the prevalence of these problems.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 5, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Not an alarmist at all.  The joist may be worthless.
> 
> If there is any violation of code which is not resolved by making it comply with the code then an engineer or architect must be involved with designing the fix.  The joist manufacturer does not have the authority to modify the code by issuing a recommendation.  While such a recommendation may be interesting and suggest a solution the code does not give  the manufacturer the ability to redefine the code.
> 
> ...



I would disagree somewhat on this. These floor joists are engineered systems with stamped designs. We see repair details from the manufacturer of these systems all the time, again, stamped by an in-house engineer. We do not view the repair details as "recommendations" since they are an engineered repair detail. 

I am assuming that this is not a Canada only thing...


----------



## steveray (Nov 5, 2019)

TheCommish said:


> If the manufacturer is commin up with  specifications, the problem must be rampant, it is a shame that tradesmen  think nothing of cutting up the structure of a building



Sign of the failing industry....we used to lay out the framing the miss the plumbing elements where possible....As most "builders" don't actually know how to build....


----------



## fatboy (Nov 5, 2019)

I'm with tmurray, we just tell the contractor to contact the manufacturer for an engineered fix, and they would.


----------



## classicT (Nov 5, 2019)

Mark K said:


> If there is any violation of code which is not resolved by making it comply with the code then an engineer or architect must be involved with designing the fix.  The joist manufacturer does not have the authority to modify the code by issuing a recommendation.  While such a recommendation may be interesting and suggest a solution the code does not give  the manufacturer the ability to redefine the code.
> 
> Any building department that does not have an engineer on staff capable of evaluating a fix needs to hire an engineer as a consultant.


What code violation has been made; I am not aware of a code section that relates to engineered lumber requiring a engineer for every fix? If you want to be grounded in the code, then here is what the code actually provides:

*R502.1.2 Prefabricated Wood I-Joists*
Structural capacities and design provisions for prefabricated wood I-joists shall be established and monitored in accordance with ASTM D5055.

and

*R502.8.2 Engineered Wood Products*
Cuts, notches and holes bored in trusses, structural composite lumber, structural glue-laminated members, cross-laminated timber members or I-joists are prohibited except where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations or where the effects of such alterations are specifically considered in the design of the member by a _registered design professional_.​You have stated that "The joist manufacturer does not have the authority to modify the code by issuing a recommendation." But the code says the exact opposite as highlighted by the red font above. Design by a registered professional is an alternative, but is not required by the code.

And your opinion that every department must have an engineer, *is your opinion*. I am not a licensed engineer, yet I reject close to 1/3 of first reviews on engineered plans, mostly because of calculation errors made by the engineer. Just because someone has a license, does not mean that they are competent; and inversely, just because someone doesn't have a license, doesn't mean that they are incompetent.


This callous approach to requiring a design professional on anything atypical is a plague among building departments that really needs to stop. Be grounded in the code, do what the code intends, and do not add arbitrary requirements that the code does not support. Requiring an engineer because you don't know better is ridiculous.


----------



## e hilton (Nov 5, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> are prohibited except where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations
> ." But the code says the exact opposite as highlighted by the red font above.
> .


Sorry, I disagree, but it might be semantics.  The mfgr clearly shows allowable knockout in the joists, where the contractor can freely make penetrations without impacting the design capabilities of the joist.  If the contractor should cut the joist outside of those allowances, the joist is compromised.   The mfgr has recognized the volume of noncompliant cuts has has preemptively published a document with vary narrow instructions for field repairs.  The mfgr does not permit cutting of the flanges, but if the cut meets certain parameters they have a ready solution.  

If ICE saw joists installed with no modifications, he would issue a green tag (well, maybe, if he was feeling benevolent).  But if he saw cuts, he would want to see a doc from the mfgr that proscribed the repair.  Or h3 would want to see a doc from an engineer.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 5, 2019)

I hope this group realizes that we are a country of laws not a country ruled by autocrats and kings.  This fact is reflected in our constitution.  One of the most important constitutional provisions is that due process be followed.  This means that the laws, including building codes, must be adopted following due process and must be approved by an appropriate legislative body.

When the IBC or the IRC contains a provision that appears to give legislative powers to a building official or a private entity, such as a manufacturer, this creates a conflict with the US and I suggest most state constitutions.  When there is a conflict between the building code and the constitution this means that the building code provision has been improperly adopted and is thus unenforceable.   Are building officials willing to consider the possibility that not every part of the building code is enforceable?

In response to the position that engineers are “…a plague among building departments…”  I will point out that in California it is law that the person in a building department making engineering judgements must be a registered engineer or architect.

If a manufacture provides a fix signed by an engineer licensed in the state where the project is located this satisfies the need for a licensed engineer.  Still the fix is a change to the construction documents which would require that the architect or engineer who prepared them must consent to the change.  This is not something that can be resolved solely between the building official and the manufacturer.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 5, 2019)

Mark K said:


> I hope this group realizes that we are a country of laws not a country ruled by autocrats and kings.  This fact is reflected in our constitution.  One of the most important constitutional provisions is that due process be followed.  This means that the laws, including building codes, must be adopted following due process and must be approved by an appropriate legislative body.
> 
> When the IBC or the IRC contains a provision that appears to give legislative powers to a building official or a private entity, such as a manufacturer, this creates a conflict with the US and I suggest most state constitutions.  When there is a conflict between the building code and the constitution this means that the building code provision has been improperly adopted and is thus unenforceable.   Are building officials willing to consider the possibility that not every part of the building code is enforceable?
> 
> ...



I hear what you are saying and for the most part, I agree.  Emphasis on "for the most part."  The US Constitution always takes precedence over building codes that may have been illegally adopted or enforced, however, the judgement of an inspector or building official, whether or not they are a registered design professional is more than legal and appropriate if they accept an engineered fix from the manufacturer in lieu of a local engineer.  There cannot be a prescriptive fix for all situations with engineered lumber, therefore if the manufacturer shows a fix, it must be applicable to the specific situation and I would only accept a fix from the manufacturer if it was signed by an engineer licensed in the state.  I have had contractors show me a span chart for I-Joists but not a plan from the manufacturer and I rejected it.  I need a design for the assembly, not just the span table for you to do it by yourself.

There is a big difference between fixing an I-joist that has a 4' span and having a cut or notch 3' from the end on a 22' span.  Again, each repair has to be specific to the situation at hand.  Mark, I understand you are not pro inspector or plans examiner unless they are an architect or engineer, much the same way I think that if you sign and seal drawings, you should be the one who drew them and not some apprentice, draftsman or contractor asking you to seal them.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 5, 2019)

In defense of MH, as if he needs one, "it depends", each situation must be evaluated on its specific conditions. 99% of the time you may be correct jar but there is that one time when by someone overlooking/sidestepping the result can lead to unintended consequences; ie: both the Florida bridge failure and the SF beam fracturing though designed by engineers, failed because of improper procedures or ignoring reported obvious signs of weakness.


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 6, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Any building department that does not have an engineer on staff capable of evaluating a fix needs to hire an engineer as a consultant.


 funny


----------



## steveray (Nov 6, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Any builder that does not have an engineer on staff capable of evaluating a fix needs to hire an engineer as a consultant.



Fixed it!


----------



## classicT (Nov 6, 2019)

steveray said:


> Fixed it!


Took me a moment, but I like it Steveray.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 6, 2019)

Be honest when you quote somebody.


----------



## steveray (Nov 7, 2019)

Mark,
I assume you mean me? I do not have a budget to hire any consultants. The burden of proof of compliance is on the applicant/ contractor. They hire and pay for the engineer to fix their mistakes, not my department. That was not trying to twist your words, just making it more relevant for the rest of the world outside of cali or very large municipalities. Bad side, I kinda have to swallow whatever their engineer throws at me as long as I can see that they used proper practice and values as we can not review their calcs. If I suspect something fishy, I do have some people I can call.....


----------



## Min&Max (Nov 7, 2019)

Contact your material supplier. They can take a picture and send to manufacturer for evaluation. Manufacturer will provide info on how to properly repair. I have instilled into all contractors that removing material from engineered lumber is a mortal sin and that a manufacturers fix is required no matter how little they remove.


----------



## Nearly-Complete (Nov 7, 2019)

jar546 said:


> I think that if you sign and seal drawings, you should be the one who drew them and not some apprentice, draftsman or contractor asking you to seal them.



This is absolutely not necessary. I am an engineer and I believe I can do a better job when I focus on calculating than spending time drawing. However, I do agree that the engineer should be working closely with the drafter to ensure accuracy, and everything must be well calculated and designed.

On the other hand, I received a letter last week for an as-built, for an unpermitted building, from an engineer that was one sentence stating the structure was adequate with zero backup. Additionally, the applicant accidentally emailed the signed contract which stated the engineer was writing the letter for $500 and released liability even in the case of negligence. I responded with a one sentence letter requesting calculations.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 7, 2019)

You can quote me and you can disagree with me but DO NOT misquote me.

Compliance is an obligation of the building owner not the contractor.  If the contractor has done something not in compliance it is between the Owner and to Contractor to sort it out but ultimately the Owner's responsibility to provide to the local jurisdiction a compliant design and  a building that complies with the construction documents..

When an engineer or an architect prepares construction documents and because of a non-compliance a fix is needed the fix needs to be approved by the original architect or engineer or else by another engineer or architect who takes  responsibility for the project.  An unsigned fix from a manufacture may be interesting but has no legal standing.  If the manufacturer has its fix signed by an engineer this is still of no interest to the building official unless  the manufacturer's engineer is taking responsibility for the project.  You need signoff by the architect or engineer who prepared the approved construction documents.

The building code requires the building department to perform a review of the application.  If you do not have the budget to hire the consultants or qualified staff that is your problem.  You still have an obligation to fulfill your duties.  Note that engineers and  architects cannot use the fact that their  fee was not large enough to do a proper job as an excuse.  I suggest you increase your permit fees.

Building officials have created a model building code that does not differentiate between big cities and more rural jurisdictions.  Please note that California does have a number of rural jurisdictions and  while some of them may be  challenged my guess is that they still tend to do a better job that much of the rest of the country.  I suggest that the  rest of the country could do better although I suspect that this will be threating to some.

One way jurisdictions have of performing an adequate review is to contract with an engineering firm to provide a review on a project by project basis.

I agree developing a fix is not the responsibility of the building department but review of the change for code compliance is the responsibility of the building official.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 7, 2019)

Mark K said:


> You can quote me and you can disagree with me but DO NOT misquote me.
> 
> Compliance is an obligation of the building owner not the contractor.  If the contractor has done something not in compliance it is between the Owner and to Contractor to sort it out but ultimately the Owner's responsibility to provide to the local jurisdiction a compliant design and  a building that complies with the construction documents..
> 
> ...



It sounds like you are saying most RDPs are negligent and need to undergo a more detailed review.

We have established case law here, and I would imagine the same exists in your litigious environment, that states it is reasonable for building officials to rely on third party RDPs where it would cause undue financial hardship on the local government agency to require they provide these services.


----------



## classicT (Nov 7, 2019)

Mark K said:


> You can quote me and you can disagree with me but DO NOT misquote me.
> 
> Compliance is an obligation of the building owner not the contractor.  If the contractor has done something not in compliance it is between the Owner and to Contractor to sort it out but ultimately the Owner's responsibility to provide to the local jurisdiction a compliant design and  a building that complies with the construction documents..
> 
> ...


Ok, so let me put this before you Mark....

Let's say, as it was never clarified by the OP, that the house is built prescriptively and lacks any engineering design. If that is the case, whom is responsible to design and approve the fix?

Per the code sections I provided, the IRC provides direction to follow the manufacturers guidelines. Manufacturer provides guidelines for specific "common" repairs. Building Inspector can require that the manufacturers guidelines for the repair be on site for inspection of the fix, but what more is necessary?



Ty J. said:


> *R502.8.2 Engineered Wood Products*
> Cuts, notches and holes bored in trusses, structural composite lumber, structural glue-laminated members, cross-laminated timber members or I-joists are prohibited except where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations or where the effects of such alterations are specifically considered in the design of the member by a _registered design professional_.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 7, 2019)

It is the Owner, not the Contractor, who is responsible for providing the information needed to resolve the problem. 

You are suggesting that the original design was exempt from the state licensing laws.  What do  the state licensing laws say?  I do not care what the IRC says since it is the state licensing laws that determine when an engineer is required.  In California certain residential buildings do not need an engineer or an architect as long as they comply with certain conditions.  Repairs of a damaged joists are not covered by the exemption, thus an engineer or architect is needed in California.

I believe you are  reading the IRC provisions regarding manufacturers guidelines too liberally.

Since I doubt the manufacturer recommended cutting the flange I would suggest that it was the intent of the IRC that a registered design professional, registered in the state where the project is located, be responsible for the design of the fix..


----------



## jar546 (Nov 7, 2019)

As an inspector, if there were damage to a TJI, even if the contractor were to provide me the attached documentation, I would still require a registered design professional to sign off on the actual repair design, even if they used the sheets from the manufacturer because the sheets from the manufacturer are for engineered lumber and the attached sheets are not stamped by an engineer.  See attached.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 8, 2019)

Mark K said:


> It is the Owner, not the Contractor, who is responsible for providing the information needed to resolve the problem.
> 
> You are suggesting that the original design was exempt from the state licensing laws.  What do  the state licensing laws say?  I do not care what the IRC says since it is the state licensing laws that determine when an engineer is required.  In California certain residential buildings do not need an engineer or an architect as long as they comply with certain conditions.  Repairs of a damaged joists are not covered by the exemption, thus an engineer or architect is needed in California.
> 
> ...



Are you as a building official empowered to enforce the state licencing laws?

Because someone damages a joist halfway through construction, an architect or engineer is required for a whole building? What reasonably diligent professional is going to sign off on a building that they had no part in designing and is mostly constructed?


----------



## classicT (Nov 8, 2019)

Mark K said:


> It is the Owner, not the Contractor, who is responsible for providing the information needed to resolve the problem.
> 
> You are suggesting that the original design was exempt from the state licensing laws.  What do  the state licensing laws say?  I do not care what the IRC says since it is the state licensing laws that determine when an engineer is required.  In California certain residential buildings do not need an engineer or an architect as long as they comply with certain conditions.  Repairs of a damaged joists are not covered by the exemption, thus an engineer or architect is needed in California.
> 
> ...


Washington (my state) does not require design professionals where constructed per the IRC. Wanna build per the IBC, get a design professional.

If you want to base your world views on how things are done in California, good luck....California is a hot mess of regulations and bureaucratic red-tape.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 8, 2019)

Maybe so but you have EQ's and fires in Washington too.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 8, 2019)

I understand that California bashing is the favorite sport of some.

I recognize that the rules vary in different states and that I cannot keep track of all the variations.  It is also my observation that it is common on this forum for individuals responses to be influenced by their state rules.  So I  suggest you broaden your criticism to include those other individuals.

There is also a problem with  understanding the limits of the IRC.  The IBC through its reference standards provides a framework for addressing issues such as the repair of a damaged truss.  The IRC does not provide this framework thus I suggest that when faced with an unusual situation that the appropriate thing is to realize that there are limits to the IRC and look to  the IBC.  Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the IRC contains provisions allowing the use of the IBC.

We need to realize the limits of the IRC.


----------

