One end of this triple girder (2 story home) rested on the inner portion of a hollow CMU wall. I didn’t have my tape, but I think it was less than 3 inches. Even if it was 3 inches, is it OK to rest on a block like this? Seems to me it would be quite likely for it to break the block.
Also, the other end was completely unsecured. Had a slight twist. How would you secure a girder hanging out in the center of the crawl space like this?
All depends on the load on the girder, the species and grade of wood, the actual contact area on the block, and the compressive strength of the block.
The other end appears to be resting on a large block pier, and all the joists are presumably nailed into it. Not many places it could go…
Check your code. This is from mine:
**9.15.5.2. Support of Beams
**
**(1) **
Not less than a 190 mm depth of solid masonry shall be provided beneath beams supported on masonry.
**(2)
**Where the beam referred to in Sentence (1) is supported below the top of the *foundation *walls, the ends of such beams
shall be protected from the weather.
Hi. Joe, hope you are doing well.
Joe, bearing of supporting girders on masonry should be bearing 4" on solid masonry or concrete, the picture shows that it is bearing on 1-1/2" CMU shell.
IRC - R606.13
The wood girder beam should be adequately nailed to act as one unit.
It should be anchored to the solid block pier to prevent rotation.
Recommend a qualified Building Contractor to repair.
Hope this helps a little.
Marcel 
Thanks Marcel. That’s essentially what I said. Recommended that the contractor consult with an engineer and repair as deemed necessary. (New construction. Ryan Homes.)
The other end…I didn’t see that anything was nailed to it. The joists were engineered I-joists. It’s rotating already (new construction). Seems like it wants to go somewhere to me.
There are codes that specify the bearing of girders and I don’t recall that it gets into wood species, etc. I believe it is 3 inches in the IRC for bearing on concrete or cement. 1.5" for bearing on wood or steel.
The compressive strength of wood varies according to the species and grade, and the compressive strength of block can vary also according to its composition. The code is irrelevant when an installation is not in accordance with it in every detail. The code is prescriptive. Either it’s done according to code, or it must be “engineered”. It is very possible that the installation shown can be engineered and therefore be code-compliant. As I said, it all depends on the loads on the girder, the species and grade of wood, and the contact area with and the compressive strength of the masonry.
Failure to connect the composite joists to the girder is a bigger fault than the bearing condition and anchorage of the free end of the girder. If it’s rotating, it may be because the joists weren’t connected to it.
I agree with almost everything you said, except for the above. Code is never “irrelevant” in my view. I do appreciate your input and comments.
By “irrelevant”, I meant that when something does not conform exactly to the **prescriptive **requirements of the code, it matters not what those requirements say; the non-compliant feature must be engineered, and the prescriptive requirements no longer apply and are therefore irrelevant.