# I don't like I-joists either.



##  (Nov 8, 2009)

So they decided that the floor was too flexible and fixed it with a 4"x6".  I guess they figured the added weight might make a difference.


----------



## jpranch (Nov 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Burn baby burn.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

From a firefighter view, these products seem to have an accellerated burn rate causing a lot of concern for interior fire attacks. Our crews have been beaten silly with warnings about these products. If homeowners would cover all these with 5/8" type X gyp board, it would help, but the unfinished basement will never go away. I understand the convenience from the contractor side, but concern for my crews comes first. Same with SIP walls and ICF, see issues with both from fire side. Just my 2cents worth.


----------



## brat (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

It's interesting how regional some products are.  I don't disagree that I-joists probably burn quicjly, but they have been extremely common around here for almost twenty years.  In fact now it is very rare to see dimensional lumber in a floor system.

I've never heard any of the fire folks complain about them.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

It's odd they used a 4x6 instead of a LVL, whats the span 16'? Sure messed up the flush ceiling!


----------



## conarb (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Is Baltimore over?  What happened with the fireproofing of lightweight construction?  I heard the firefighters ran off without voting again, can that really be true?


----------



## PORTEOUS (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

I can say that they are easy to frame with, but I have always questioned the longevity of these joists. I have done re-models on 50+ yr old homes where the rough-cut 2x12's are rotted through, I can't imagine what these will look like in that same amount of time, I do know they have been around since the early 70's. I guess time will tell.


----------



## jpranch (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

CA, Yes they ran off and off and off.................. Light weight construction has not yet been fully addressed. How many will die before we deal with this?


----------



## timnetzley (Nov 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Unfortunately, as with anything it seems, some have to die before the politics at play will even allow consideration of alternatives.  Then they'll make it more expensive because they can and the alternative will then be the requirement.  Am I being negative?

Tim

“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” -Albert Einstein


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Tiger,

Where are the "Truss Design Drawings"?

Or are they are present; and, is it, that know one knows how to read them?

Truss installation requirements are not a catch as catch can or modifiable installation.  Every nail, hanger, joist, attachment is required to be in accordance with the drawings; and specified on the drawings.

Their should be no question of what works or what goes where!

Uncle Bob


----------



## incognito (Nov 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Uncle Bob,

Exactly where in the photo are the trusses you are referring to?

Having framed with both dimensional lumber and wood I-joists, I am of the opinion that the wood I-joists are a far superior product when compared to dimensional lumber. They span farther and do not shrink like dimensional lumber does over time.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 24, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Incognito,

"Exactly where in the photo are the trusses you are referring to? "

I'm not refering to the photo; I'm refering to the question of whether someone modified the trusses.  If you have installed trusses per code; you know that "Truss Design Drawings" are required.  If there is a question about the installation (not per drawings and/or specifications); then, the Truss Design Engineer should have been contacted; that is provided the trusses were not installed per the "Truss Design Drawings".

Too many inspectors are being sent out to inspect; and are approving installations; without knowing what they are looking at.  The training is available; but the AHJ either doesn't have the financing or the inclination to give a damn.

Uncle Bob


----------



## conarb (Nov 24, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Uncle Bob:

I've never used that crap so I don't know, but since I Joists are engineered wood products don't the installers have to present the inspector with drawings just like trusses, showing squash blocks, types of hangers, reinforcement, etc.?  All I know is if they are burned or get wet they collapse, this is going to be fun in those areas with sprinkler mandates, can you imagine what's going to happen to those things when sprinklers flood the floors?  The manufacturers say they can't even be laid on wet ground or allowed out in the rain.

There was also the case where the whole family got sick from formaldehyde when the HVAC contractor used them for a cold air return.  Be fun to create cold air returns with I Joists wrapped in Chinese drywall.


----------



## Min&Max (Nov 24, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Uncle Bob, I am also having trouble identifing where the trusses are. And there is no previous comment about trusses--at least not in this thread.

conarb,

I have seen wood I-joists get pretty wet with no ill effects. I think the manufacturers "load the boat" with disclaimers. Nothing new about that. Typically they do not come with a detail plan for installation since the manufacturers produce an installation manual regarding proper installation techniques and requirements.

Incognito,

I would agree that wood I-joists are a better product than 2x material. It gets old having to order out twice the material you need so you can sort the crooked crap out. I would guess that 90% of the new homes in this area utilize them wood I-joists. Probably the dominate product for the last 10-15 years.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 24, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

M&M

I'am not sure if your area is different or the industry has changed, but I overseen the construction of over 150 trac homes were we used I-joist on 19.2 centers, 3/4" OSB and the maufactured required products like LVL & rim material. The I-joist products required us to have a floor joist lay-out with a starting point, where doubles are to be placed, blocking and other important information. We worked we the I-joist suppliers designer submitting new plans and changing I-joist placements around chases, stools, showers and other issues. They prevented call backs like cracked sheetrock and floor joist replacement and increased some floor spans. As a building inspector I will request the floor lay-out plan with products being used. Recent changes have been that lumber yards are now doing the layouts with the manufactures software. There is a learning curve with these products and the picture shows a wood beam which tells me the plan has been altered by the framers or the lumberyard.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 24, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Min&Max,

Forgive an old man, who has been away from the code books and job too long.  I referenced trusses when I should have been talking about "Joist layout"; which should be on the job site at time of inspection.

Uncle Bob


----------



## conarb (Nov 25, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.



			
				M&M said:
			
		

> Typically they do not come with a detail plan for installation since the manufacturers produce an installation manual regarding proper installation techniques and requirements.


So how does the inspector know where the squash blocks are to be placed?  Those I Joists "squash" without squash blocks.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 25, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

ConArb,

Where there are no qualified/knowledgeable inspectors available; one way to help insure that engineered wood products; such as I-Joists, LVLs, etc. are installed correctly; is for the Building Official to require (2006 IRC, Section R106) that a "qualified" registered design professional inspect, approve and submit a signed, sealed inspection report to the Department (2006 IRC, Section R109); prior to cover of installation.

In new home construction; this should be no problem.  Most reliable joist manufacturers that I have delt with, have been happy to assist with inspections of the installation of their products; and, I have had the design engineer on site many times.

Personally, I would never accept the drawings of a "lumber yard" without the signature of a registered design professional; especially for remodeling jobs.  If the lumber yards want to get into engineered lumber business they need to take the responsibility that goes with the territory.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 25, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Uncle Bob,

Excellent point, lumberyards should be responsable for thier layout plans and materials specified if they are going to design the floor and roof systems! Who do you think designed that fir 4x6 in the picture?


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Conarb,

An inspector that does not know where the squash blocks go should find a different job.

Uncle Bob,

Wood I-joists are a common framing material that have been in the industry for quite a while now. Any inspector who is still so unfamiliar with this product that he isn't comfortable looking at them should; 1). Educate himself on their use, or 2). Find a different career. Anyone who needs a detailed, stamped plan for the proper installation of wood I-joists is either an idiot or incompetent and should be relieved of their duties immediately. I would not tolerate such ignorance on the part of one of my staff.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Min&Max,

Since you haven't put on your profile what State you are in or *what you do for a living*; it's hard to answer you.  From your last statement I can only assume that it is not Building Official.

Uncle Bob


----------



## JBI (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

M&M - "Anyone who needs a detailed, stamped plan for the proper installation of wood I-joists is either an idiot or incompetent and should be relieved of their duties immediately. I would not tolerate such ignorance on the part of one of my staff."  :roll:

The Code requires the plan to be submitted. Anyone who would approve the house plans without details and a seal/signature is 'either an idiot or incompetent and should be relieved of their duties immediately. I would not tolerate such ignorance on the part of one of my staff'!   

They don't call them 'ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS' for nothing.  

Properly installed and maintained, I-joists are a _good_ product. I don't believe they are 'superior' to dimensional lumber... just another alternative.

If the Codes spent less time worrying about 'economics' and more time focusing on 'fire safety' the I-joists would perform admirably in a fire event as they would be protected by GWB on the undersides.

And for the record M&M, if you're ordering twice the material to pick out the bad stuff, maybe you need a better supplier...  :roll:


----------



## Mac (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

March 7, 2002 two of our local firefighters died when the burning floor of a house built using I-joists collapsed under them. I drive by that place every day and think of them.

Every I-joist floor and truss roof system that I approve is accompanied by engineered drawings indicating all the pertinent information needed by the installers.

Or they don't get built.

Just sayin'...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Trusjoist has information on fire testing @ 1-800-628-3997 or http://www.trusjoist.com/fire for those of you that need additional information on thier I-joist.


----------



## conarb (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.



			
				M & M said:
			
		

> Conarb,An inspector that does not know where the squash blocks go should find a different job.


M & M:

They are not in the prescriptive code so far as I know, as such if they are used, or where they are used, is none of the inspectors' business.  I seems to me that if they are used the AHJ should require engineered designs.  Industrial hygienists are finding extremely high levels of formaldehyde and other chemicals in new homes, and engineered wood products are the prime suspects, if you recall several years ago a family was sick from the offgassing of I Joists and it was determined that it was from the open cold air returns running through them, the solution was to duct the cold air returns in homes with I Joists, but the carcinogenic fumes are still there.  Elmhurst Illinois has the best solution, in homes with I Joists they require fire sprinklers, to date nobody has installed I joists because nobody wants the expense or liability of fire sprinklers.


----------



## mmmarvel (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Min&Max says -

"An inspector that does not know where the squash blocks go should find a different job.

Uncle Bob,

Wood I-joists are a common framing material that have been in the industry for quite a while now. Any inspector who is still so unfamiliar with this product that he isn't comfortable looking at them should; 1). Educate himself on their use, or 2). Find a different career. Anyone who needs a detailed, stamped plan for the proper installation of wood I-joists is either an idiot or incompetent and should be relieved of their duties immediately. I would not tolerate such ignorance on the part of one of my staff."

Well, I guess I would never be able to work for you.  I learned that my job was to inspect to the approved plans.  If the plans included a detailed, stamped plan on the installation of the I-joists, that is what I'm inspecting to.  If I'm a plans examiner and the builder/owner has taken the time and expense to hire a certified engineer to do the engineering on the plans, I'll double check the plans, but the onnus is on the engineer.  If I'm the plans examiner and the plans show/call out for a specific product, I'll be looking up that product (I-joist) to make sure the span and load shown on the plans are per manufactor specs.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Min&Max, I'm just saying that that is not the way I was taught to inspect (plans or the building) and I would enforce what I outlined above.


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

I started working construction in 1972 and am fairly familiar with most residential framing techniques--some good some bad. Over the last 37 years many products have come and gone. The first generation wood I-joists that came out in the late '70's early '80's were not the product they were touted to be. But what we have today is much improved and--when properly installed-- a superior product when compared to dimensional lumber(my opinion). These products have been around a long time and we(inspectors) should be taking some initiatve and educating ourselves on their proper installation. If we are going to insist on engineered drawings and plans on every floor system that crosses our desk and outside inspectors to confirm their proper installation, we will become the same as the old products that have fallen by the wayside--obsolete. If a large segment of your market is utilizing a product on a regular basis it is time to get up to speed or get out of the way. Despite what many would lead you to believe with scare tactics, this isn't rocket science. And yes Uncle Bob I am a building official.


----------



## conarb (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

M & M:

What about collapsing in  fire?  Do you check to see that the jobs with lightweight trusses or I joists are properly labeled (here is New Jersey) so the fire service can save lives and let them burn?" San Francisco is requiring labelling like house numbers clearly visible from the street.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Min&Max,

You must be blessed with extremely knowledgeable inspectors.  Since they do not require a TJI layout; they must also be able to inspect without framing plans and roof-ceiling truss design drawings.

Most Building Officials are lucky to find people who have some experience and/or background and the ability to learn  and hopefully have a building certification.  I know numerous certified building inspectors and Building Officials who cannot read or understand TJI layouts and/or truss design drawings; and none who can correctly inspect them without the layouts and/or drawings; much less are able to walk up to a framing inspection and conduct the inspections without them.

If every Building Official insisted on your requirements for a new hire as a building inspector; most Municipalities wouldn't have a building inspector.

From the replies I am reading you have evidently found yourself on a website with a bunch of "idiots" who should be fired immediately; according to you.

ps.  I haven't conducted a residential framing inspection in a year and and a half; and, am retired.  I have known a lot of inspectors and none who are as knowledgeable as your inspectors.  Since I am retired; I have some time on my hands;  I would consider it an honor and a privilege to follow one of your building inspectors on a residential framing inspection that included TJI floor framing and metal plate connected wood trusses.

If you are within 500 miles of Oklahoma City; and, would allow me the privilege; I will be more than happy to take that drive.  Since I got my first job as an inspector I have been driven to learn as much as I can.  I would be greatful for the opportunity to observe your inspectors.

Please send me a private message and I will make the time.

Best wishes,

Uncle Bob


----------



##  (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Well this has turned out to be quite the can of worms I've opened up with this thread.  For those that read the plans and those that don't, I give you my method.  I walk a roughs inspection before I look at the plans.  I write the obvious corrections for all the trades all the while looking for the weak spots in the construction.  Then I look at the plans.  By then I know how the building is put together.  Then I make sure that the work matches the plans.

Plans are seldom perfect and on occasion grossly imperfect yet many think that if it is on the plans it is good enough.

A good inspector should be able to inspect without plans.  I don't recommend it, nor do I do it but I should be able to recognize what's right and what's not on my own.  If all an inspector can do is get work to match the plans, that inspector puts too much faith in the plan checker.  For many years I was the plan checker as well as the inspector so I know we all make mistakes.  The bottom line is read the plans and apply what you know and hopefully it will be good enough.

Consider that 30% of construction work is done without permit or inspection.  Of the 70% that does get a permit, half is inspected by the 1 to 5 scale inspector and half by the 6 to 10 scale inspector.  So there you have it. 35% of all construction gets inspected by a competent inspector.  What is the result?  Buildings aren't falling down.  People aren't getting electrocuted or gassed in their sleep.  It seems to work ok for the entire 100%.  Anybody that is unwilling to accept that few inspectors are really great at inspecting has their head in the sand.

I'm guessing that the can of worms just got bigger but it is time for this thread to die a natural death.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Min&Max,

Since you inspect TJI floor framing in new homes without the use of a TJI Layout; how do you determine if a filler block, in a double TJI installation; is required by the design engineer without looking at the layout?

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

UB: You really can't inspect them without the plan. That is why one of the approved set must remain on site. Now if they are cookie cut homes and the plan is the same after a few you don't need the plan if you have half a brain. I most often fine point loads not carried through or the normal response is the plumbers must have knock it out! :roll:


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

I am having trouble deciding to respond to various comments or let it die like Tiger suggested.

This may get somewhat off track but is intertwined with original post and responses. Make no mistake--I will be as aggresive as necessary. I enjoy playing in the mud and I always play to win. What be the consensus of all?


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Min&Max,

Please take it easy on this old inspector; my knowledge is limited and my feelings are easily hurt.   

Were you planning on answering my last question?

Uncle Bob


----------



## incognito (Dec 3, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

May be kind of like watching a train wreck--fun to watch but rarely anything good comes of it. But I do like watching train wrecks from the safety of my sofa.


----------



## incognito (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Dang, looks like everybody chose death of thread. Just when it looked like the trains were picking up some downhill speed.


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Typically LVL's are installed instead of double I-joists. I-joists create to much of a barrier for the plumbing and mechanical folks.


----------



## JBI (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

And drilling through LVLs is _easier_ than drilling through two pieces of OSB? :?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

And drilling through LVLs is easier than drilling through two pieces of OSB? :?


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

You really should not drill through a LVL. If you do, you need to have it approved by the manufacturer/design professional. The top and bottom chords on wood I-joists are typicall 2 1/4"

to 2 1/2" wide. It is a sin to remove any material from the top or bottom chords. When doubled up the overall width comes to 4 1/2" to 5". Obviously if this is supporting the wall above it would be very difficult--if not impossible--to get a plumbing line, hvac supply or hvac return into the above wall cavity. LVL's resolve the problem because they are not as wide as a doubled wood I-joists yet provide superior loading capability. It is also much faster to install a LVL instead of messing with the filler blocks required for doubled wood I-joists.

Are you all familiar with R502.8.2 and R802.7.2. Please note it says "or" not "and".

Also please note that R106.1 states "...where required....". Please do not assume that all jurisdictions are consumed by bureaucratic over-regulation.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

While using the I-joist, it was commom to use two I-joist below a partition wall and allow a space between both joist as long as we catch the edge of the above plate. There was hardly ever a time we would use an LVL because of the expence. The plans provided by the I-joist manufacture was followed to a tee. We adjusted floor joist to avoid stools pipe drops, shower & tub drops, as long as we did not go over our o/c spacing. We actually had plans that were layed out perfect, the framers would layout the whole floor then adjust each joist to avoid plumbing and vent problems. Drilling an LVL or over cutting an I-joist was a tongue lashing and grounds for being let go, I just would'nt put up with it!


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Allowable Holes,

Scroll down to page 36;

http://www.ilevel.com/literature/TJ-9000.pdf

Note: For LVLs, holes allowed in middle 1/3rd span and middle 1/3rd depth only.  Hole size limit and spacing on the right.

Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

UB,

You are correct!

You had to understand the framers we used, it was better to say "no mas, no mas" knowing that you can drill an LVL.


----------



## conarb (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Well, for all you inspectors in the hinterlands that want to allow I Joists without an engineer's plan and stamp, the APA has just come out with a through design specification!

You can bet your 10 gallon hat that that Uncle Bob is going to be taking this to bed with him.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

ConArb,

Inspectors should be certified to inspect I-Joist layouts and metal plate connected wood truss systems.  Unfortunately, most inspectors don't have a clue.

Here is a good place to start;

http://ttw.sbcindustry.com/inspector.ph ... me3s4r5al2

This one will help inspectors and plan reviewers understand who is responsible for what;

http://ttw.sbcindustry.com/TTWOTBH.php

Some are FREE,

Uncle Bob


----------



## conarb (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Uncle Bob:

One of my men is building this house, the engineer specified I Joists in a nice house like this.  Because of a cold wet winter forecast (with global cooling), he asked permission to substitute Advantech for the 1 1/8" subfloor, the engineer said no, he wanted no OSB on the project.  This blows my mind, specifying I Joists full of OSB, yet refusing OSB in the subfloor sheathing.  The house

BTW, this is a few blocks from the site where Steve Jobs has been fighting for 30 years to get permits to tear down an old home and build a new one, he even donated it to the Secret Service while Chelsea was at Stanford, even heavy-handed politics like that don't work trying to get a permit around here.


----------



## peach (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

I just can't liet a fun topic like this just die....   :twisted:

The I joists (should) always come with a layout, which will show point loads, etc.  And the inspector needs to ask for them everytime... (even if you've seen this exact house 100 times).  It's as much a training exercise for the framer as the inspector.

Need to look at the top and bottom flanges of these things for damage .. that requires an engineering fix (from the manufacturer's engineer.. not the DP for the house).  And unlike dimensional lumber, any holes to accommodate the trades should be near the center.. the web is what transmits shear to the foundation.


----------



## conarb (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

How many inspectors here are enforcing their truss labeling requirements? Afterall, we wouldn't want our brave firefighters rushing into a home ablaze and fall to his/her death. It's my understanding that NIST is still working on a national standard, so most standards are local at the present time. 

Tap to see New York/New Jersey requirements.





Move cursor over each to see applications.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

ConArb,

From the link;

"Trusses are the most dangerous part of your building in a high-heat fire emergency"

I didn't see an explaination of the requirement.

Are you saying that New Jersey and New York have a law that requires buildings to be label that have trusses?

What is the Fire Fighter suppose to do; not enter?

I don't understand,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mac (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Yes Unkie, there is a NYS law that requires buildings using trusses in thier construction to be identified by labels or placards at each entry and FD connection. It's just so the FD will know....

See text here - www.dos.state.ny.us/CODE/part1264.htm

Too bad the law doesn't apply to wood frame houses & townhouses, where these systems are most often used.

The floor - and roof - system design is part of the house design, and a complete layout and instructions are prepared by the manufacturer's engineering dept. I have bunches of them in my files.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Mac,

Well, that clears the way for "Green Building":

I think I'll get out of the codes and start up a sign company; in order to get a jump on the new building trend.

I could make; Warning Signs for Fire Fighters notifying them "DO NOT ENTER"!

The following NEW GREEN BUILDING products *WILL KILL YOU* if you breath the fumes when they are burning.

PVC pipe, OSB sheathing, Great Stuff Foam, Styrefoam, and most "Green Building Products".

These products are necessary in order to build "affordable" 2,000 sq. ft. McMansions; for the working class; however do not enter them when they catch fire.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mac (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

I don't exactly see it the same way, UB.  The truss ID signs don't have any "green building" implications - thay are meant to notify the responders of the presence of truss type construction.

None of the green building stuff you listed is news. All FD's should know about those components by now.

Hey - I thought you was already retired! Go catch a fish or something.


----------



## conarb (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Our Uncle is spot on, as usual, were I a firefighter, I'd rather have a truss floor collapse under me than suffer though a long life of being poisoned by toxic gasses from foams and other toxic products. Aren't some of those guys from the Rhode Island Station fire still alive  -- in iron lungs? 

Other fire labeling requirements.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

ConArb,

Thanks for the link.

Apparently, from now on; if you have a home or business that is built using, lightweight steel, I-joist, or wood truss systems; you will be on your own, as far as fire rescue is conserned.

From the comments at the bottom of the link;

"My opinion only, if we don't know how long that fire has been burning then maybe we really don't need to send a crew to the roof to vent. There are other ways to do ventilation than doing roof ventilation. That is also why size up is so important and it needs to be done through out the time of the incident. That means from the time the call comes in till the time you get back to the station. That way you know everyone came home. My feeling right now with the way buildings are being constructed is to not even put guys on the roof. This is due to the fact that like you said Dave, you may not know the amount of time that this building has been burning. But I think the placards will help. They will give us some incite to what we are dealing with as far as the possibility for a roof collapse and floor collapse. We need to consider do the risks out way the rewards. We also need to realize that if there are victims, is this a rescue or recovery. Our safety is of the utmost importance. This does not sit well with a lot of people, but that is just the facts of this business. *Our safety comes before the safety of the public.*  If we are injured or killed then there is no one there to help the public."

This gentleman just said it all,

Uncle Bob


----------



## beach (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.



> Our Uncle is spot on, as usual, were I a firefighter, I'd rather have a truss floor collapse under me than suffer though a long life of being poisoned by toxic gasses from foams and other toxic products.


Do you know what SCBA stands for? (without looking it up!)


----------



## beach (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.



> "My opinion only, if we don't know how long that fire has been burning then maybe we really don't need to send a crew to the roof to vent. There are other ways to do ventilation than doing roof ventilation. That is also why size up is so important and it needs to be done through out the time of the incident. That means from the time the call comes in till the time you get back to the station. That way you know everyone came home. My feeling right now with the way buildings are being constructed is to not even put guys on the roof. This is due to the fact that like you said Dave, you may not know the amount of time that this building has been burning. But I think the placards will help. They will give us some incite to what we are dealing with as far as the possibility for a roof collapse and floor collapse. We need to consider do the risks out way the rewards. We also need to realize that if there are victims, is this a rescue or recovery. Our safety is of the utmost importance. This does not sit well with a lot of people, but that is just the facts of this business. Our safety comes before the safety of the public. If we are injured or killed then there is no one there to help the public."


By reading that, you think the firefighters will stand in the street and watch it burn?



> There are other ways to do ventilation than doing roof ventilation





> My feeling right now with the way buildings are being constructed is to not even put guys on the roof.


 See the above quote



> We need to consider do the risks out way the rewards. We also need to realize that if there are victims, is this a rescue or recovery


That quote speaks for itself

Of course, if it was sprinkled.....it would all be a mute point!

wait for it.........


----------



## beach (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

:  http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living ... =allsearch


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

mute or moot?

moot - of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

mute - Expressed without speech

Sorry but I had to know.


----------



## JBI (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

rk - Of all the spelling and gramatical errors on this board, you pick that one to comment on? :roll:  Half the attorneys I know don't know how to spell/pronounce 'moot' and ALL of tham went through multiple 'moot courts' during their educational process.  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> rk - Of all the spelling and gramatical errors on this board, you pick that one to comment on? :roll:  Half the attorneys I know don't know how to spell/pronounce 'moot' and ALL of tham went through multiple 'moot courts' during their educational process.  :lol:  :lol:


Hey....I'm not the grammer/spelling police.  Just thought I'd throw it out there.  I once made a similar mistake and was thankful someone corrected me.  If they hadn't I'd still be using "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".  I was about 18, first year in college, but the correction stuck for the last 22 years.  Of course, that is all just a moot point now, right?


----------



## JBI (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

Maybe it's a 'mute' point?  

I'm actually guilty of the same tendency... I've offered corrections here more often than some might appreciate... Oh well, sometimes it sucks to be (a) smart(a$$).  :mrgreen:


----------



## beach (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

I meant "Moot".....so you can all just be mute about it, ok? :lol:


----------



## JBI (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: I don't like I-joists either.

We _could_... but where's the fun in THAT?!?  

(12 to go mtlog... I think I WILL make it by years end... :lol: )


----------

