cut floor joice

[John E. Gibson, #2]

Hi guys
Need some help. My neice recently had a home inspection done to sell her home. The inspector noticed that one floor joice which lined directly up with the plumbing stack had been cut from day one over forth years ago. She bought the house last year and is now moving. The joice was spliced with a overlaping piece and nailed on to the side of the cut joice and not with much overlap, about 18" on each side. The inspector said it should be fixed before she can sell the house.

The cut was about 1/4 to 1/3 from the end which sits on the sill plate of the basement.

Does a new joice need to be placed along side the cut one and bolted or should a telepost be added or is there some kind of steel brace that can be added to support the cut joice. Looking for some options.

[mnahrgang]

They make steel plates for that exact purpose. (Simpson Strong Tie. http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/fliers/...OTECT07_EX.pdf)

Practically speaking, since it was only one joist, and since there have not been any problems related to this in over forty years, I think it's safe to say her house isn't going to fall down over it.

If her municipality is requiring it to be fixed to sell it, a properly dimensioned steel plate is the right way to go.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by John E. Gibson, #2

Hi guys
Need some help. My neice recently had a home inspection done to sell her home. The inspector noticed that one floor joice which lined directly up with the plumbing stack had been cut from day one over forth years ago.

She bought the house last year and is now moving. The joice was spliced with a overlaping piece and nailed on to the side of the cut joice and not with much overlap, about 18" on each side.
The inspector said it should be fixed before she can sell the house.

The cut was about 1/4 to 1/3 from the end which sits on the sill plate of the basement.

Does a new joice need to be placed along side the cut one and bolted or should a telepost be added or is there some kind of steel brace that can be added to support the cut joice. Looking for some options.

Here is some information that you might find useful.
2006 International Residential Code for 1 and 2-Family Dwellings
Part III -- Building Planning and Construction

502.11 Wood trusses.
R502.11.1 Design.
Wood trusses shall be designed in accordance with approved engineering practice. The design and manufacture of metal plate connected wood trusses shall comply with ANSI/TPI 1. The truss design drawings shall be prepared by a registered professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed in accordance with Section R106.1.

R502.11.2 Bracing.
Trusses shall be braced to prevent rotation and provide lateral stability in accordance with the requirements specified in the construction documents for the building and on the individual truss design drawings. In the absence of specific bracing requirements, trusses shall be braced in accordance with the Building Component Safety Information (BCSI 1-03) Guide to Good Practice for Handling, Installing & Bracing of Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses.

R502.11.3 Alterations to trusses.
Truss members and components shall not be cut, notched, spliced or otherwise altered in any way without the approval of a registered design professional. Alterations resulting in the addition of load (e.g., HVAC equipment, water heater, etc.), that exceed the design load for the truss, shall not be permitted without verification that the truss is capable of supporting the additional loading.

R502.11.4 Truss design drawings.
Truss design drawings, prepared in compliance with Section R502.11.1, shall be submitted to the building official and approved prior to installation. Truss design drawings shall be provided with the shipment of trusses delivered to the job site. Truss design drawings shall include, at a minimum, the information specified below:
1. Slope or depth, span and spacing.
2. Location of all joints.
3. Required bearing widths.
4. Design loads as applicable:
4.1. Top chord live load;
4.2. Top chord dead load;
4.3. Bottom chord live load;
4.4. Bottom chord dead load;
4.5. Concentrated loads and their points of application; and
4.6. Controlling wind and earthquake loads.
5. Adjustments to lumber and joint connector design values for conditions of use.
6. Each reaction force and direction.
7. Joint connector type and description, e.g., size, thickness or gauge, and the dimensioned location of each joint connector except where symmetrically located relative to the joint interface.
8. Lumber size, species and grade for each member.
9. Connection requirements for:
9.1. Truss-to-girder-truss;
9.2. Truss ply-to-ply; and
9.3. Field splices.
10. Calculated deflection ratio and/or maximum description for live and total load.
11. Maximum axial compression forces in the truss members to enable the building designer to design the size, connections and anchorage of the permanent continuous lateral bracing. Forces shall be shown on the truss drawing or on supplemental documents.
12. Required permanent truss member bracing location.

2006 International Residential Code for 1 and 2-Family Dwellings
Chapter 8 Roof -- Ceiling Construction
Section R-802 Wood Roof Framing

R-802 Wood Trusses

R802.3 Framing details.
Rafters shall be framed to ridge board or to each other with a gusset plate as a tie.
Ridge board shall be at least 1-inch (25 mm) nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the rafter. At all valleys and hips there shall be a valley or hip rafter not less than 2-inch (51 mm) nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the rafter. Hip and valley rafters shall be supported at the ridge by a brace to a bearing partition or be designed to carry and distribute the specific load at that point. Where the roof pitch is less than three units vertical in 12 units horizontal (25-percent slope), structural members that support rafters and ceiling joists, such as ridge beams, hips and valleys, shall be designed as beams.

R802.7.2 Engineered wood products.
Cuts, notches and holes bored in trusses, structural composite lumber, structural glue-laminated 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.

R802.10 Wood trusses.
R802.10.1 Truss design drawings.
Truss design drawings, prepared in conformance to Section R802.10.1, shall be provided to the building official and approved prior to installation. Truss design drawings shall include, at a minimum, the information specified below. Truss design drawing shall be provided with the shipment of trusses delivered to the jobsite.
1. Slope or depth, span and spacing.
2. Location of all joints.
3. Required bearing widths.
4. Design loads as applicable.
4.1. Top chord live load (as determined from Section R301.6).
4.2. Top chord dead load.
4.3. Bottom chord live load.
4.4. Bottom chord dead load.
4.5. Concentrated loads and their points of application.
4.6. Controlling wind and earthquake loads.
5. Adjustments to lumber and joint connector design values for conditions of use.
6. Each reaction force and direction.
7. Joint connector type and description (e.g., size, thickness or gage) and the dimensioned location of each joint connector except where symmetrically located relative to the joint interface.
8. Lumber size, species and grade for each member.
9. Connection requirements for:
9.1. Truss to girder-truss.
9.2. Truss ply to ply.
9.3. Field splices.
10. Calculated deflection ratio and/or maximum description for live and total load.
11. Maximum axial compression forces in the truss members to enable the building designer to design the size, connections and anchorage of the permanent continuous lateral bracing. Forces shall be shown on the truss design drawing or on supplemental documents.
12. Required permanent truss member bracing location.

R802.10.2 Design.
Wood trusses shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The design and manufacture of metal-plate-connected wood trusses shall comply with ANSI/TPI 1. The truss design drawings shall be prepared by a registered professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed in accordance with Section R106.1.

R802.10.2.1 Applicability limits.
The provisions of this section shall control the design of truss roof framing when snow controls for buildings not greater than 60 feet (18 288 mm) in length perpendicular to the joist, rafter or truss span, not greater than 36 feet (10 973 mm) in width parallel to the joist span or truss, not greater than two stories in height with each story not greater than 10 feet (3048 mm) high, and roof slopes not smaller than 3:12 (25-percent slope) or greater than 12:12 (100-percent slope). Truss roof framing constructed in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be limited to sites subjected to a maximum design wind speed of 110 miles per hour (49 m/s), Exposure A, B or C, and a maximum ground snow load of 70 psf (3352 Pa). Roof snow load is to be computed as: 0.7 pg.

R802.10.3 Bracing.
Trusses shall be braced to prevent rotation and provide lateral stability in accordance with the requirements specified in the construction documents for the building and on the individual truss design drawings. In the absence of specific bracing requirements, trusses shall be braced in accordance with the Building Component Safety Information (BCSI 1-03) Guide to Good Practice for Handling, Installing & Bracing of Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses.

R802.10.4 Alterations to trusses.
Truss members shall not be cut, notched, drilled, spliced or otherwise altered in any way without the approval of a registered design professional. Alterations resulting in the addition of load (e.g., HVAC equipment, water heater) that exceeds the design load for the truss shall not be permitted without verification that the truss is capable of supporting such additional loading.

R802.10.5 Truss to wall connection.
Trusses shall be connected to wall plates by the use of approved connectors having a resistance to uplift of not less than 175 pounds (779 N) and shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. For roof assemblies subject to wind uplift pressures of 20 pounds per square foot (960 Pa) or greater, as established in Table R301.2(2), adjusted for height and exposure per Table R301.2(3), see section R802.11.

R802.11 Roof tie-down.
R802.11.1 Uplift resistance.
Roof assemblies which are subject to wind uplift pressures of 20 pounds per square foot (960 Pa) or greater shall have roof rafters or trusses attached to their supporting wall assemblies by connections capable of providing the resistance required in Table R802.11. Wind uplift pressures shall be determined using an effective wind area of 100 square feet (9.3 m2) and Zone 1 in Table R301.2(2), as adjusted for height and exposure per Table R301.2(3).
A continuous load path shall be designed to transmit the uplift forces from the rafter or truss ties to the foundation.

In my opinion the bottom line is this..... When your niece bought this house her inspector should have caught this mistake. She has 356 days from the date of HER inspection to file a complaint.

If it is more than ONE year then she is out of luck.

I hope that this information will be of some help to you.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

They make steel plates for that exact purpose. (Simpson Strong Tie. http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/fliers/...OTECT07_EX.pdf)

Practically speaking, since it was only one joist, and since there have not been any problems related to this in over forty years, I think it's safe to say her house isn't going to fall down over it.

If her municipality is requiring it to be fixed to sell it, a properly dimensioned steel plate is the right way to go.

Good advice and.... a nice article!

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Originally Posted by John E. Gibson, #2

Hi guys
Need some help. My neice recently had a home inspection done to sell her home. The inspector noticed that one floor joice which lined directly up with the plumbing stack had been cut ....... The inspector said it should be fixed before she can sell the house. ...............
.

Frank,

I'm still trying to figure out why a complaint should be filed against the inspector, my understanding is that this was a prelisting / presale inspection...........?

Jeff

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

Frank,

I'm still trying to figure out why a complaint should be filed against the inspector, my understanding is that this was a prelisting / presale inspection...........?

Jeff

I think he was referring to the inspector who did her inspection a year ago when she purchased the house herself.

Not the inspector she hired for her pre-sale inspection.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

I think he was referring to the inspector who did her inspection a year ago when she purchased the house herself.

Not the inspector she hired for her pre-sale inspection.

Correct!

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

Frank,

I'm still trying to figure out why a complaint should be filed against the inspector, my understanding is that this was a prelisting / presale inspection...........?

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
The inspector that I am referring to is not the one who was Professional and noticed that the trusses had been cut but rather ......the "original" inspector who failed to notice this.
{NOTE:
If she did not have her home inspected by certified home inspector before she purchased this home then shame on her.}
Quote:
She bought the house last year and is now moving.
End Quote:

And like I said, if the home was inspected, and if the original inspection is more than 365 days old then she is out of luck.

It all boils down to this;
The second inspector has found a "code violation" that has to be addressed.
{The question is..... was there a 1st Inspector?}

If the house was inspected last year then this lady purchased her home based on a Report from a "Professional" home inspector.

• This man failed to do his job.
• If the home was inspected and the inspection is less than 365 days old then I would recommend that she contact the first inspector who overlooked this item.
• If this house was NOT inspected last year then....and if I were the homeowner I would do the repairs and get on with my life.

This is a "low dollar" item and a quick fix. It should not be an excuse to hold up the sale!

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Ah....(light bulb comes one)......I got lost with the joice, forth, too many unidentified pronouns and a telepost....

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

Ah....(light bulb comes one)......I got lost with the joice, forth, too many unidentified pronouns and a telepost....

No sweat G.I!

I hope the IRC information that I posted earlier on the floor J-O-I-S-T-S can be of some help to you in the future.

[David A. Andersen]

In my opinion the bottom line is this..... When your niece bought this house her inspector should have caught this mistake. She has 356 days from the date of HER inspection to file a complaint.

Hey Frank,
Where did you attend that Plummer, Electrician, HVAC contractor's school of "you should've found that" seminar?

I seem to have missed all the elements of proof that the previous home inspector was negligent in their inspection.

When we don't know the circumstances/facts involved in the inspection, I see no cause to make such an assumption and recommendation.
I don't appreciate contractors pulling that crap on me, and I'm sure the rest of you feel the same.

I've read nothing about this condition resulting in other significant structural defects directly associated with the cut joist. You're recommending litigation against a home inspector over a joist that may have been incorrectly cut but has had absolutely no apparent adverse effect on the structure (in accordance with the reported information)?

Hummmmm!?

It's my business policy not to discuss the actions of other professionals (even in court) when I am not privy to 100% of the information associated with the circumstances. I simply report the facts that I collect. I do not discuss things that I do not have all the facts on.

The inspector said it should be fixed before she can sell the house.

I don't see anything to support this statement either. It's not the inspectors job to demand what should be fixed and when. There is no requirements that this defect must be corrected before the house can be sold. Disclosure, maybe. Property disclosure statements recommend inspections but specifically state that upgrades and repairs are not "necessary", only disclosed.

Home inspectors and realtors/sellers have this inherent conflict. Most often it stems from this type of business practice. Any inspector who wonders why these conflicts exists and would like to avoid this scenario, simply adjust your reporting style to inspect and report. Let the buyer and the realtors worry about what needs and does not need to be done.

Anyone who quotes/posts the building code and attempts enforcement of the code most likely has an authoritative reporting style, which is the basis for conflict between all parties.

The buyer may be our client, but there is no reason to "take sides" with anyone. As an inspector we should be collecting and reporting. These issues are most often building code violations, but that really has no bearing on the inspection. The house has already been built and the municipal inspections conducted. It really doesn't matter what shoulda been done.

Just my opinion.

[Larry D. Kage]

Excellent post, David...

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Hey Frank,
Where did you attend that Plummer, Electrician, HVAC contractor's school of "you should've found that" seminar?
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here?
Do you think it's really necessary to start off a post specifically directed at me with a sarcastic or an adversarial tone?

I seem to have missed all the elements of proof that the previous home inspector was negligent in their inspection.
When we don't know the circumstances/facts involved in the inspection, I see no cause to make such an assumption and recommendation.
Please re-read my comments. I stated that if this lady had her home inspected, and I repeat if.... then the first inspector should have reported the improperly cut floor joist.

I don't appreciate contractors pulling that crap on me, and I'm sure the rest of you feel the same.
I seemed to have missed something. I had no idea that you were personally involved in this issue.
I would also like to point out that no one is "pulling anything on you"!

I've read nothing about this condition resulting in other significant structural defects directly associated with the cut joist.
There are many examples that I can give you but think about this.......

This would be like finding a wooden deck that is "toe nailed" to a house. You know it is wrong, I also know that it is wrong. What we both "do not know" is if, and when it will fail!
This is the same issue with the improperly cut joist at this location.

You're recommending litigation against a home inspector over a joist that may have been incorrectly cut but has had absolutely no apparent adverse effect on the structure (in accordance with the reported information)?
Hummmmm!?
All inspectors reading this know that it is wrong and indeed illegal {Code Violation = illegal.} , yet none of us can predict the future and say when and if the cut joist will cause any structural problems.
{To see cut floor joists and not report them is pure negligence!}

Once again, I suggest you reread what I had written. At no time do I suggest "litigation" against the home inspector.
I stated "if" this home was previously inspected {last year at the time of this purchase} then the lady should contact her home inspector and file a complaint with him.

It's my business policy not to discuss the actions of other professionals (even in court) when I am not privy to 100% of the information associated with the circumstances. I simply report the facts that I collect. I do not discuss things that I do not have all the facts on.
I am a recognized Expert Witness in the judicial systems of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
I have been to 109 arbitration meetings, mediation hearings, and court trials. To this date I had yet to be on the "losing side".
The reason is very simple. I gather all the facts, documentation, and opposing depositions and formulate my responses and strategy based on all of the above.
I do not let "emotions" get in the way. I just present the facts.
At the present time I am testifying in three different court trials.

I don't see anything to support this statement either. It's not the inspectors job to demand what should be fixed and when.
Agreed!

There is no requirements that this defect must be corrected before the house can be sold.
That is a supposition on your part! Based on the inspection report the new buyer could be insisting on this repair!

Disclosure, maybe. Property disclosure statements recommend inspections but specifically state that upgrades and repairs are not "necessary", only disclosed.
I think you're a little confused. "Disclosure statements" are made by the seller, not the buyer.

Some homes are sold "as is" which means that no matter how significant "the damage or need for repair" the seller is notifying the Prospective Buyer that they will not fix anything at all.
"As is sales" are basically a Buyer Beware type of transaction.

Home inspectors and realtors/sellers have this inherent conflict. Most often it stems from this type of business practice. Any inspector who wonders why these conflicts exists and would like to avoid this scenario, simply adjust your reporting style to inspect and report. Let the buyer and the realtors worry about what needs and does not need to be done.
Agreed .... I. report on the "condition" of the home. Any and all repairs are up to them.

Anyone who quotes/posts the building code and attempts enforcement of the code most likely has an authoritative reporting style, which is the basis for conflict between all parties.
There are many types of inspections.
As a retired code compliance inspector the majority of my inspections were to ensure that both the commercial and residential properties that I was inspecting not only met "code" but that they were "Americans with Disability Act {ADA}Compliant ".

The buyer may be our client, but there is no reason to "take sides" with anyone. As an inspector we should be collecting and reporting. These issues are most often building code violations, but that really has no bearing on the inspection. The house has already been built and the municipal inspections conducted. It really doesn't matter what shoulda been done.
Unless specifically requested I put my "codebooks" aside and conduct all inspections according to the NACHI Standards of Practice.
I do have some customers who are buying "Brand New homes" who request stage/phase inspections to make sure that there homes are being built according to code.
This same goes for many commercial inspections. A lot of investors want make sure that their buildings are "up to code".

Just my opinion.

cut floor joice
Hi guys
Need some help. My neice recently had a home inspection done to sell her home. The inspector noticed that one floor joice which lined directly up with the plumbing stack had been cut from day one over forth years ago. She bought the house last year and is now moving. The joice was spliced with a overlaping piece and nailed on to the side of the cut joice and not with much overlap, about 18" on each side. The inspector said it should be fixed before she can sell the house.

The cut was about 1/4 to 1/3 from the end which sits on the sill plate of the basement.

Does a new joice need to be placed along side the cut one and bolted or should a telepost be added or is there some kind of steel brace that can be added to support the cut joice. Looking for some options. End Quote:

I would like to point out that these people came here looking for "advice".

Technical advice as well as personal opinions were provided.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

[John E. Gibson, #2]

Thanks Guys
There was no previous inspection done before she bought. Not a requirement in saskatchewan.

Just one question, can she have the end of the joice headered off on both sides of the cut. Will that make it back to code. Put a cross joice butted to the end and attach to the two joices beside the cut one.

thanks
john

[mnahrgang]

I said it before, and I'll say it again...

They make steel plates for that exact purpose. (Simpson Strong Tie. http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/fliers/...OTECT07_EX.pdf)

It just doesn't get any easier than that....