Thread: Sister I-Joist Installation

The builder installed a 10' sister i-joist due to the original i-joist having a mangled end. The sister joist sits on the ledger and girder (not shown) and is nailed on top and bottom all the way down. My concern is the sister joist end on the ledger has been slighlty shaved (1/8") for ease of installation. Does this installation look okay?

Similar Threads:

• Scissor joist
• Single Wall Window Installation
• Furnace vent installation
• Exterior Installation of Gas Flex Line
• Joist support

Cutting the flange on an engineered joist is a no-no.

Would you write this up?

It looks kinda bashed up in general, doesn't it?

I think the picture exaggerates it...they did use a hammer to get it in place. However, if you look at the second photo showing both joists it doesn't appear to be that mangled. I am more concerned with the 1/8" notch that they put into the end. This is actually my house and they just installed this today.

Dan,

The I-Joist manufacturers don't allow for such modifications. Now while you may never have a problem with this it may come back to bite you when you sell and an inspector raises the same question that you are right now. For me, I wouldn't ignore this in my reporting.

http://www.kentinternational.ca/broc...System/TJI.pdf
From these pix it looks as though he has used a different size I-joist for the sister, is that what I am seeing?

The correct fix for this situation, as I understand it, is much cheaper, neater and easier. A) Don't use an I-joist with a bad bearing point. Easy!

B) Lacking that opportunity, the deficient end could have been blocked on both sides and a face mounted joist hanger installed. That would shift the bearing point out to the hanger. If damage to the questionable joist extended out to the hanger, see option A above.

Engineered lumber is engineered to a specific shape for a specific purpose. All of it's performance relies on it being used as produced in the requisite applications. In my opinion loadbearing points are already an area in need of close scrutiny when wood I-joists are involved.

And for crying out loud! The thing is not a 2x10! You can't go whacking it with a hammer, shaving the chords and expect it to maintain its structural integrity.

As an inspector I would report it. Both I-joists are damaged at the most critical point. Wedging that scrap under it was a feeble attempt to provide more bearing point. What a joke.

In reality the house is not going to fall down or fail due to this crappy installation. But it will come back to haunt you when you sell the house. Make the builder fix it now or you will have to pay $400+ for an engineer to say it is OK or design a repair when you sell.

Bruce,

What is the fix at this point? The sister joist is pretty well nailed in on both ends and along the top and bottom of the original joist. I doubt the builder will remove it and replace it. What about adding a larger piece of ledger (to extend it past the defect) instead of the scrap that they used? I think I can put a 2" long extension in so that the bottom of the joist is more fully supported?

Thanks!

Just spoke to the builder.

He says the new sister joist was about 1/8" taller (ie. flange on top and bottom were 1/16" taller) than the size of the currently installed joists. He claims that this difference in lumber size is normal, within tolerance, and could change due to moisture content. He said that without trimming the ends of the sister joist, they would have destroyed the joist trying to bang it in place due to the 1/8" difference

Separate topic, but related.....they also installed some missing blocking the same day they installed the sister joist (same size i-joist was used). I asked him why they didn't need to trim the blocking before installing it? They said that the shorter lengths could be banged in without destroying the blocking. Where the longer length of the sister joist would be too difficult to install without destroying it.

Any validity to these statements?

I would measure the i beam and check the dimensions to see, if there was a difference. but it sounds like there was a negative bow to the original i beam. Did they have to notch both ends? either way a simple 20 ton bottle jack would solve the problem. I have repaired the same situation many times, a little soap and bottle jack work every time.

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

I would measure the i beam and check the dimensions to see, if there was a difference. but it sounds like there was a negative bow to the original i beam. Did they have to notch both ends? either way a simple 20 ton bottle jack would solve the problem. I have repaired the same situation many times, a little soap and bottle jack work every time.

I did measure and there was a difference as he indicated (1/8" overall). They did notch both ends the same amount (about 1/8"). He said they measured the original and new joist prior to installation. When they saw the difference in height, they went ahead and notched the sister joist.

Unfortunatly the sister joist is installed and pretty secured. Nails in both ends and along the top/bottom the whole length of the joist (10 ft).

sorry brain fart about the measurements. What is above the sister joist? carpet, vinyl etc?? I guess it must be the pictures but if that looks like alot more than 1/8". My thoughts if the could beat the missing blocking in, a jack would have solved the problem. There was alot more than an 1/8" of structual taken out of the due to the overcuts weakining the I beam. I agree with archi the best would be to find a joist hanger to pu the load, but finding one that extends that far would more than likely impossible to find if it even exists. Im thinking sistering another one on the other side but properly installing it.

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

sorry brain fart about the measurements. What is above the sister joist? carpet, vinyl etc??

Just hardwood floor (no walls). I examined the floor and there is no impact. The builder also mentioned that installing that long of a span (10') with an 1/8" difference (assuming he could bang it into place) could cause bowing in the hardwood floor. So that was another reason for him to notch the ends.

Originally Posted by Dan McDonald

Just hardwood floor (no walls). I examined the floor and there is no impact. The builder also mentioned that installing that long of a span (10') with an 1/8" difference (assuming he could bang it into place) could cause bowing in the hardwood floor. So that was another reason for him to notch the ends.

I was editing when i got your response. My other thought is to notch or replace the sill plate under a new i beam. Also i am curious if they are from the same manufacture?

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

I was editing when i got your response. My other thought is to notch the sill plate under a new i beam

As I mentioned...the work is done....are you suggesting they tear it out and redo it? can what has been done be salvaged?

editing again man your fast. I can think of several ways like a custom joist hanger, but they are not engineered. I dont know if there are any codes about triple i-beams or not., if not you wouldnt have to tear anything out, but i would be concerned that the area would be over supported and not settle with the rest of the florring causing a hump over time. Is the old I beam still supporting the floor?

I also thought about a support under it secured to the foundation, but i am not sure if your bricks are hollow or solid

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

editing again man your fast. I can think of several ways like a custom joist hanger, but they are not engineered. I dont know if there are any codes about triple i-beams or not., if not you wouldnt have to tear anything out, but i would be concerned that the area would be over supported and not settle with the rest of the florring causing a hump over time. Is the old I beam still supporting the floor?

Haha...sorry, this stuff give me anxiety since it's my house and I am not too savvy when it comes to this stuff.

Yes the old beam is supporting the floor. It's just the one end of the joist that is mangled which is why they installed the sister joist (although poorly). I am not overly concerned structurally. I am more concerned when I go to sell this house and have to deal with an inspector writing it up (assuming they see it and have a problem with it).

Originally Posted by Dan McDonald

Haha...sorry, this stuff give me anxiety since it's my house and I am not too savvy when it comes to this stuff.

Yes the old beam is supporting the floor. It's just the one end of the joist that is mangled which is why they installed the sister joist (although poorly). I am not overly concerned structurally. I am more concerned when I go to sell this house and have to deal with an inspector writing it up (assuming they see it and have a problem with it).

I understand, I wouldnt be concerned about structural, but i understand where your coming from. I have repaired issues like this before, just trying to figure out your best fix. The contractor is responsible for the incorrect install, but getting him to do anything about it is another thing. I am a little benind the times right now but, i am curious about a custom made joist hanger. I can think of several designs that would be more than strong enough, but would they pass inspection? Maybe

A little silver paint and fluffy insulation wouldnt hurt either

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

I understand, I wouldnt be concerned about structural, but i understand where your coming from. I have repaired issues like this before, just trying to figure out your best fix. The contractor is responsible for the incorrect install, but getting him to do anything about it is another thing. I am a little benind the times right now but, i am curious about a custom made joist hanger. I can think of several designs that would be more than strong enough, but would they pass inspection? Maybe

A little silver paint and fluffy insulation wouldnt hurt either

Hate to say it, but the insulation covers it pretty well....What about adding a larger piece of ledger (to extend it past the defect) instead of the scrap that they used? I think I can put a 2" long extension in so that the bottom of the joist is more fully supported?

I think it is going to be up to the particular inspector. I have another idea, there is a step( cant think of the proper word for it) in the foundation, is there one on the other side also?

Look at the rim joist. Dimensional lumber? NO NO NO. No wonder the new wouldn't fit.The I-joists has very little dimensional change due to humidity and season. The builder has to use the correct rim joist material or there can be a lot more problems down the road. Jack the floor up and replace the rim joist.

Stuart beat me to it, I was just about to upload:

I-joists require 1-3/4" bearing at the ends. I wouldn't care about the notch, provided 1-3/4" of the un-notched flange was bearing.

It appears the only bearing is on that little block of wood.

If you are going to go through the hassle of doing the job, why not do it right. From what I can see you didn't get anything more in your home than an increased fire load. YMMV.

I have seen doubled and tripled IJ but not done like this. What I have seen is the space between the IJ is filled with a 2x and 2x blocks are placed on the outside 2' on center on both sides. 16d nails are then driven through the blocks and into the 2x that is between the IJs. No nails are driven through the sides of the flanges. The spans I was dealing with were much greater than 10' and the loads were for rooftop mounted HVAC so this small span, small IJ is no big deal other than it is wrong.

The notch looks to be larger than 1/8" but I'll take your word for it. I wouldn't get excited about an 1/8 notch but I would be concerned about the fact that the saw was set to cut an inch deep and the cut is over half way through the flange. The end of the flange is split by a nail.

The dimensional lumber rim is wrong but if you haven't noticed a problem, chances are you never will but squash blocks could make a difference.

So far the workman have replicated a compromised IJ perfectly. I wouldn't ask them to do more work.

Originally Posted by TR Platt

I-joists require 1-3/4" bearing at the ends. I wouldn't care about the notch, provided 1-3/4" of the un-notched flange was bearing.

It appears the only bearing is on that little block of wood.

If you are going to go through the hassle of doing the job, why not do it right. From what I can see you didn't get anything more in your home than an increased fire load. YMMV.

I could remove that piece of scrap underneath (held in by one nail) and replace it with one that is two inches, thus meeting the 1-3/4" un-notched bearing? I would also think this would alleviate the over cut problem?

The other end is also notched (1/8") and it's sitting on a girder. However the original joist has no issues on the girder end. No fix needed?

I realize this is a bad install, but I am trying to find a solution other than ripping out a well nailed joist ie. PITA.

I don't agree with a quick get-by fix. Too much of that is allowed now by code inspectors who don't want to cause too much expense or trouble for contractor screw ups. IF some of these bozos had to rip off and replace a brick veneer because a weep system wasn't installed or had to jack up a house and replace the rim joist and bad I-Joist installations, the word would get around pretty quick. This contractor didn't bother to read the installation instructions that come with each I-Joist. Why gosh, he's been doing it this way for 20 years and never had a problem. "I, don't need to read no stinking instructions"

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

I have seen doubled and tripled IJ but not done like this. What I have seen is the space between the IJ is filled with a 2x and 2x blocks are placed on the outside 2' on center on both sides. 16d nails are then driven through the blocks and into the 2x that is between the IJs. . .

That too would be wrong. Using milled lumber with engineered materials! Your post suggests use of non-engineered lumber or "wood" is somehow acceptable - it is not!

Use engineered materials, as specified by system. That includes engineered material stiffeners, blocks, etc.

Follow the series of posts by the OP, finished and under load and stress already constructed home pictured on another topic string (5 of them all told), modified, damaged, etc. flooring system. 2+ stories, with multitude of unqualified tinkering.

OP has claimed a pier and curtain wall foundation on yet another topic discussion. Series of photos and descriptions of events/findings sprinkled amogst five topic discussions indicates NOT prescribed by the unammended IRC. - therefore where are the engineered plans, both original and those directing the modifications "repairs" on-going; and where is the consulting engineer.

Things go downhill from there = read and see all from OP: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...nduser&u=24939


Note amongst a multitude of "things" including OP "location"; elevations and compromises/damages & failures, pay special attention to OPs indications of ongoing "alterations" to the incomplete flooring system ("adding missing...") and the mix of non-engineered and engineered materials!

Start @ R404.1.5.3: Chapter 4 - Foundations

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

That too would be wrong. Using milled lumber with engineered materials! Your post suggests use of non-engineered lumber or "wood" is somehow acceptable - it is not!

Use engineered materials, as specified by system. That includes engineered material stiffeners, blocks, etc.

Follow the series of posts by the OP, finished and under load and stress already constructed home pictured on another topic string (5 of them all told), modified, damaged, etc. flooring system. 2+ stories, with multitude of unqualified tinkering.

The cases where IJ were doubled or tripled that I have dealt with were all engineered.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

As an inspector I would report it. Both I-joists are damaged at the most critical point. Wedging that scrap under it was a feeble attempt to provide more bearing point. What a joke.

In reality the house is not going to fall down or fail due to this crappy installation. But it will come back to haunt you when you sell the house. Make the builder fix it now or you will have to pay $400+ for an engineer to say it is OK or design a repair when you sell.

Did you really mean to say that B.R.?

Have you actually reviewed all the posts the OP has made, followed along the descriptions, bits and pieces of the saga, including OP's inconsistancies, "clues", etc. alterations, ; and viewed ALL of the OP's photos sprinkled on five discussion threads, regarding "this"?!?

Remember, we don't know "where" in N.C., nor the S.D.C. (soil, etc.) either!

Caution.

Update if anyone cares:

I got a call from the builder after showing him photos of the sister joist install. He said that it was a horrible installation. He expected them to maybe shave a little of the ends with a planer, but not notch it (let alone over cut the notch). He is going to rip out the sister joist and replaced it.

I asked if this required engineering paper work to approve the repair. He said no because they are not repairing the original joist. They are "replacing" the original joist in a sense by adding another identical sister joist next to it (that runs from ledger to girder). So there is no change to the design that would require engineering approval.

I have looked at the joist manufacturer website, and there is no guidance regarding sister joists. Keep in mind, this is not considered a double joist (which many manufacturer install docs show). It's merely a joist added to support the load of the damaged joist. Technically the damaged joist could be removed and replaced with a new joist without engineering paperwork since this is not changing the original design? Since this is not feasible, they are adding a new joist next to it.

I then asked him about the rim board. He said they used engineered rimboard in the past and had bad experiences with it (water damage and not durable). They prefer to use PT lumber because it's thicker and water resistant. They also double up on the PT rimboard to make it thicker. He said the joist manufacturer that they use (and comes up with the joist plans) knows about this and doesn't have a problem with it.

I know folks on this board are skeptical about what builders say, but whether this guy is correct or not, I think he is being honest. Keep in mind that my house is 4 years old now and the builder is still making himself available to repair things (be it right or wrong).

Any thoughts?

Nothing should be bearing on the curtain wall for a prescribed foundation.
Elevations required engineering beyond prescriptions.

Shrinkage, expansion - ledgers with such a "system" are engineered. An I-joist flooring system.

The justifications are invalid. Replacing a componant, while under load, and adding missing required elements of a system and failed componants requires engineering.

Changing the concentrated load points ARE engineering. Ledger IS field engineering. Cutting, notching, beating the crap out of engineered componants of a system (i.e. performance rated I-Joists' flanges or chords) IS Unqualified "field engineering".

There are other more appropriate materials and options. The excuses are not valid, poor attempt at justifications - but invalid nonetheless.

Now the home is 4 years old .

Customary conflicting posts on a multitude of topic discussions created & inconsistant fact-sets, spinning a web. The latest post, OP loses any credibility, even the slightest regarding innocence or ignorance.

Failures under improper construction, alterations, and loading. Alterations and further damages further compromising.

The DIY tinkering IS a problem. As is cutting sills on the perimeter piers. The straps/bands and bolts served a purpose now defeated.

Apparently its your home, and/or your "work" contributing to the mess.

Get an attorney experienced in construction defect and real estate litigation to advise you further, including statutory limitations, liability, disclosure, acqusition of experts, and mitigation.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Nothing should be bearing on the curtain wall for a prescribed foundation.
Elevations required engineering beyond prescriptions.

Shrinkage, expansion - ledgers with such a "system" are engineered. An I-joist flooring system.

The justifications are invalid. Replacing a componant, while under load, and adding missing required elements of a system and failed componants requires engineering.

Changing the concentrated load points ARE engineering. Ledger IS field engineering. Cutting, notching, beating the crap out of engineered componants of a system (i.e. performance rated I-Joists' flanges or chords) IS Unqualified "field engineering".

There are other more appropriate materials and options. The excuses are not valid, poor attempt at justifications - but invalid nonetheless.

Now the home is 4 years old .

Customary conflicting posts on a multitude of topic discussions created & inconsistant fact-sets, spinning a web. The latest post, OP loses any credibility, even the slightest regarding innocence or ignorance.

Failures under improper construction, alterations, and loading. Alterations and further damages further compromising.

The DIY tinkering IS a problem. As is cutting sills on the perimeter piers. The straps/bands and bolts served a purpose now defeated.

Apparently its your home, and/or your "work" contributing to the mess.

Get an attorney experienced in construction defect and real estate litigation to advise you further, including statutory limitations, liability, disclosure, acqusition of experts, and mitigation.

Not too sure what work you are referring too? I haven't done any work on this house myself...all work has been performed by the builder...

You are awfully grumpy Mr. Watson. Not exactly sure what value added your posts are other than your own self satisfaction in belittling the poster. Your continuous ranting about the "OP" is getting old.

Originally Posted by Dan McDonald

I then asked him about the rim board. He said they used engineered rimboard in the past and had bad experiences with it (water damage and not durable). They prefer to use PT lumber because it's thicker and water resistant. They also double up on the PT rimboard to make it thicker. He said the joist manufacturer that they use (and comes up with the joist plans) knows about this and doesn't have a problem with it.

Any thoughts?

1) If the walls are properly detailed, the rim boards should not have to be "water resistant". IMO if the builder needs to use treated lumber to prevent damage at this location, something else is wrong.

2) As I am not aware manufacturer which allows the use of dimensional rim boards, I would want to a written statement from the manufacturer to the effect that they "do not have a problem with it".

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

1) If the walls are properly detailed, the rim boards should not have to be "water resistant". IMO if the builder needs to use treated lumber to prevent damage at this location, something else is wrong.

2) As I am not aware manufacturer which allows the use of dimensional rim boards, I would want to a written statement from the manufacturer to the effect that they "do not have a problem with it".

Builder said that the flashing details can be complicated, and if they aren't installed perfectly, there could be water issues at the rim board. So I guess they had water issues in the past because of poor flashing installation, so they decided to use conventional PT lumber. Apparently the builder thinks there is less risk with shrinking rim boards than poor flashing installation. This is no excuse, but just him being honest. It seems other builders in the area are doing the same thing per conversations with friends in other neighborhoods.

At this point, I can ask the builder about fixing it and he will probably refuse (per my previous conversation with him). I don't think I can do anything myself because that could void the structural warranty (10 years) and I don't have engineering documentation to approve a fix.

So I am kinda screwed unless I want to pay money for a documented engineering fix (eg. squash blocks on every joist bearing end), pay money to sue the builder (ie. house not built per plan), or wait for something bad to happen to the house (ie. covered by structural warranty). Not exactly the ideal situation. Do I have any other options other than pour myself a glass of scotch?

Is there anything in the code book referring to this rim joist situation?

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

Is there anything in the code book referring to this rim joist situation?

Prescribing it? No, in fact the opposite. Of course we don't know if it was planned to generic code minimums or a higher standard (wind resistance design guide), doesn't seem to matter however, it is continuously being ammended, altered, etc. it seems.

Why are you asking this question?

Position statements from the various manufacturer's associations; Acceptance reports, etc. have been clear dating back to the 90s. Manufacturer's instructions as well. Official Interpretations NC.

Esp. not pier & curtain wall with wooden girder/beam plate and beam hacked.

See (clickable link): http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...tml#post170664

And read all of his discussion topic/threads here. Note he provides here location: "North Carolina".

He's also posting on TIJ as drm31078, if you're wondering how I devined Huntersville, (his profile location at TIJ, although in posting he states Charlotte is where he "lives") and Mecklenburg County, NC.

He's mentioned the county inspectors here, and made mention of "another inspectors forum" here as well:

(clickable link) http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...oof-truss.html

Thing is ... he's selectively posting multiple discussions there also, not including important details throughout each, such as the fact it is a pier and curtain wall foundation not a continuous perimeter bearing one, two stories plus attic, etc. and therefore not getting valid reponses (no fault of the responders, here or there), esp. not making clear intermediate bearing upon girder, no lateral restraint/blocking over same for 4-yrs, or that this was completed construction fully under load, and in many cases, not indicating was HO of 4-1/2 yo home actively living in, allowing to be continually modified/altered structural componants without benefit of permit, inspections, or engineering supervision/plans, consultation of the manufacturer's drawings, instructions, consulting with their own RDPs/engineers, or even checked the NC DOI interpretation statements. No mention has been made of the SDS or soil conditions/geotechnical report, and ignoring elevations.

He's also recently shared stamped ID (unclear if original or the recent, not at MC, added I-joist materials) as "Boise Alexandria EWP BCI 50005 1.8 Joist". For whatever reason he hasn't shared the ES ESR number which previously here pointed out was just beyond the edge of a photograph on the flange photographed (ID in upside down orientation). Also at TIJ, he described himself to be an engineer (of somesort having to do with the nuclear power industry) yet for whatever reason reluctant to acquire independant expert/professional assistance, and even acquire permit and certified copies of the plans/approvals history from the county from the original construction, and his recurring question here and there throughout has been for the most part, only (paraphrased) would a future H.I. for a potential buyer of his home, "notice" or "write up" what he has pictured??? Not could his imdeminity be in question, not is the minimum code required structural integrity potentially compromised, is there an issue of safety, wind resistance, etc.

I am curious if there are a large amt of homes in his area why the county inspectors are not catching it. If his situation is the norm, could it be possible that it is acceptible in his county?

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

Is there anything in the code book referring to this rim joist situation?

Since "No." is too short, the answer is NO

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

I am curious if there are a large amt of homes in his area why the county inspectors are not catching it. If his situation is the norm, could it be possible that it is acceptible in his county?

In general - building inspectors can only "catch" code violations. If it isn't in the "code" they cannot enforce it.

I understand that, and it is my point. If it meets local code requirements then he will lose in court. simple as that. That is why I would like to know if there is a specific code for this . If he goes to court they are going to ask if it meets code. I would think you would need to get the code changed or added if necessary, but even with code change his home was built under previous code. Not saying the rim joist is correct but how can we enforce something that isnt code. You could suggest it, unless we can enforce every issue that isnt correct by manufactures standards. I.E. We would have to pull the covers off every single light fixture to check to see they have the correct bulbs.

btw the term catch I used is common in our area, for the most part our county inspectors are so lousy they sometimes catch things that are wrong

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

I understand that, and it is my point. If it meets local code requirements then he will lose in court. simple as that. That is why I would like to know if there is a specific code for this . If he goes to court they are going to ask if it meets code. I would think you would need to get the code changed or added if necessary, but even with code change his home was built under previous code. Not saying the rim joist is correct but how can we enforce something that isnt code. You could suggest it, unless we can enforce every issue that isnt correct by manufactures standards. I.E. We would have to pull the covers off every single light fixture to check to see they have the correct bulbs.

btw the term catch I used is common in our area, for the most part our county inspectors are so lousy they sometimes catch things that are wrong

There are official industry standards. In this part of the country every TJI comes with a pamphlet, in English AND Spanish that provides all major requirements for installation, holes, allowable modifications, blocking, sistering, etc. When standards exist, the builder is expected to follow them OR the applicable building code whichever is more restrictive. In my area, for every ONE competent contractor who wants to and does good work, there are at least 100 that shouldn't have a license or be allowed to hold a hammer or nail gun and 50 that should be in jail for fraud. The builder is incompetent, lazy, and should find another line of work, like changing tires or picking up trash.

I understand what your saying, I am just curious about the legal aspect, and a home owners recourse. Not to be picky, but you said "expected" to follow guidelines and personally I agree. Did you mean required? I am curious what a home owner will be able to do about the situation. I would suspect a judge will rule on the code rather than the manufacturers requirements. I am not arguing here just curious

Hey watch the tire changing comment I owned a tire shop for ten years

Originally Posted by MARVIN TOWNSEN

I understand what your saying, I am just curious about the legal aspect, and a home owners recourse. Not to be picky, but you said "expected" to follow guidelines and personally I agree. Did you mean required? I am curious what a home owner will be able to do about the situation. I would suspect a judge will rule on the code rather than the manufacturers requirements. I am not arguing here just curious

Only one way to find out. A lot of court decisions are dictated by the region in which the court resides.

No argument either - too much of that stuff already.
Peace and tranquility. I'm going to get a beer now. Local micro stuff called "Fred Red". A great Irish red ale.

SURE BRAG ABOUT BEER JERK

So I spoke to the Boise Engineer (manufacturer of original joist). If I get him the loads and joist drawing he will come up with a repair to the original damaged joist. He couldn't comment on the sister joist currently installed because it is another manufacturer, but said that if it was a Boise joist the notching is not allowed.

His first thought is to leave the damaged sister joist installed because ripping it out could do more damage than good. Then use piece of solid LVL engineered wood with a shorter height (say 9" instead of 9 1/2") as a sister joist on the other side of the original joist. Once in place, jack up and use metal shims on each bearing end to engage the subfloor. Thus there will be three joists in total at that span (original, damaged sister, new sister). He said this method will be much easier to install than trying to beat in a piece of identical i-joist since the home is completely built.

As long as I get some engineering paper work, I guess this will work. Hopefully the builder will cooperate getting me the plans that the engineer requires.

Comments?

FYI, I spoke to him about the rim board question. He said because it's a pier and curtain foundation that the PT lumber is fine. He didn't go into much more explanation than that. He said it's not considered a true rim board in a pier and curtain foundation because it's load bearing like a girder. I dunno, it didn't really make sense to me. I might pick his brain more about it. He isn't the most talkative type of person.