jar546
Forum Coordinator
I enjoyed this history lesson:
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Death by Stairwell
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
The video on electricity was shocking.
R311.7.5.1 Risers
The riser height shall be not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm). The riser shall be measured vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. The greatest riser height within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Risers shall be vertical or sloped from the underside of the nosing of the tread above at an angle not more than 30 degrees (0.51 rad) from the vertical. Open risers are permitted provided that the openings located more than 30 inches (762 mm), as measured vertically, to the floor or grade below do not permit the passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere.
Exceptions:
- The opening between adjacent treads is not limited on spiral stairways.
- The riser height of spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.
R311.7.5.2 Treads
The tread depth shall be not less than 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. The greatest tread depth within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).
R311.7.5.2.1 Winder Treads
Winder treads shall have a tread depth of not less than 10 inches (254 mm) measured between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads at the intersections with the walkline. Winder treads shall have a tread depth of not less than 6 inches (152 mm) at any point within the clear width of the stair. Within any flight of stairs, the largest winder tread depth at the walkline shall not exceed the smallest winder tread by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Consistently shaped winders at the walkline shall be allowed within the same flight of stairs as rectangular treads and do not have to be within 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) of the rectangular tread depth.
Winder treads shall have a tread depth of not less than 10 inches (254 mm) measured between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads at the intersections with the walkline. Winder treads shall have a tread depth of not less than 6 inches (152 mm) at any point within the clear width of the stair. Within any flight of stairs, the largest winder tread depth at the walkline shall not exceed the smallest winder tread by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Consistently shaped winders at the walkline shall be allowed within the same flight of stairs as rectangular treads and do not have to be within 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) of the rectangular tread depth.
Exception: The tread depth at spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.
Has anyone else noticed how the IRC only requires uniformity of riser height and tread depth in each single flight of stairs (can change after a landing). However, the section for nosing projection uniformity(R311.7.5.3) states the requirement is for "stairways" (includes all flights on both sides of an intermediate landing).
I have already prepared a modification proposal for the 2024 IRC to change the nosing uniformity to "flight of stairs". After a landing, your cadence of step can restart so rise/run can change. I can't think of a reason the nosing projections couldn't change too. If you agree, please support this code change when you see it. If you don't agree, then be a teacher and share with us why. Thanks.
I have already prepared a modification proposal for the 2024 IRC to change the nosing uniformity to "flight of stairs". After a landing, your cadence of step can restart so rise/run can change. I can't think of a reason the nosing projections couldn't change too. If you agree, please support this code change when you see it. If you don't agree, then be a teacher and share with us why. Thanks.
ADAguy
Registered User
Consider the potential change in handrail height that may occur at the changes in flights you proposal? If risers differ in height at each one then the handrail may develop waves if measured at each tread vs being consistent.
TheCommish
Registered User
A few Mass Editions ago the difference between rise and run of adjacent tread way limited to 3/16 of an inch, when we adopted the 2003 IBC the dimension changed to 3/8 overall tolerance.
I think 3/16 between stairs should be the max and 3/8 over if flight then not 3/8 between adjacent treads
underline eddited
I think 3/16 between stairs should be the max and 3/8 over if flight then not 3/8 between adjacent treads
underline eddited
Last edited:
ADAguy
Registered User
So, as to measuring handrail height?
Paul Sweet
Sawhorse
R311.7.8.1 requires handrail height to be between 34" and 38". It doesn't require the exact same height at each and every step. I doubt that anybody would notice 3/16" difference between adjacent steps.
Come to think of it, a handrail that started at 34" above the first riser and increased to 38" above the last riser might comply!
Come to think of it, a handrail that started at 34" above the first riser and increased to 38" above the last riser might comply!
ADAguy
Registered User
Not a chance! We disapproved one for that very reason, inconsistent height along its length.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Don't think there is a code section for that...What if I step on a different part of the tread?
You have my support on the nosings Glenn!
TheCommish
Registered User
A handrail needs to be uniform height of the nosing line of the treads
ADAguy
Registered User
And what if the heights differ within allowed maximums between risers?
Handrail can still be considered uniformly compliant?
Handrail can still be considered uniformly compliant?
TheCommish
Registered User
First, on inspections I try not to take the tape measure out of the truck. I have been doing this long enough that in most cases, looking, walking the stair and grasping the rails will tell me if there are compliance issues.
If you wan to check for uniformity of star rise -run look from the top of the stair down the plane of nosing, if you can get on line and see all the tip of the nosing the stair is uniform, handrails have a comfortable height in the allowed range .
Most often if the stair if it is out of compliance is real sloppy or it is the top or bottom tread that is out of compliance with the uniformity.
our building permit cards are 8.5 x 11 inches, a paper bill is 6 inches.
If I observe a condition that I feel is out of compliance or real close then the tape comes out. I do not expect machinist tolerance of wood the swells and shrinks.
some days I don't even have to get out of the truck
If you wan to check for uniformity of star rise -run look from the top of the stair down the plane of nosing, if you can get on line and see all the tip of the nosing the stair is uniform, handrails have a comfortable height in the allowed range .
Most often if the stair if it is out of compliance is real sloppy or it is the top or bottom tread that is out of compliance with the uniformity.
our building permit cards are 8.5 x 11 inches, a paper bill is 6 inches.
If I observe a condition that I feel is out of compliance or real close then the tape comes out. I do not expect machinist tolerance of wood the swells and shrinks.
some days I don't even have to get out of the truck
In the IBC the handrail height has to be uniform.
In the IRC it does not.
I don't understand how a lack of uniform height is going to make me loose my grasp? When I use stairs, my hand is moving in relation to my body, as my body is bobbing up and down with each step.
In the IRC it does not.
I don't understand how a lack of uniform height is going to make me loose my grasp? When I use stairs, my hand is moving in relation to my body, as my body is bobbing up and down with each step.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
I usually only use the tape measure for accessibility.
Inspector Gift
Sawhorse - Made in USA
For all practical purposes, we are only talking 1/8 inch difference. Currently the tolerance for treads and risers is 3/8 inch in any given flight. The maximum and minimum limits for nosings is 1-1/4 inch to 3/4 inch, which is 1/2 inch tolerance. Since treads are measured from the projecting edge (nosing) to the upper most projection (nosing), the projection tolerance is no where close to being the trip hazard as the rise or run are.
Case in point: Your pics of your custom deck showed the top step riser did NOT have a nosing, yet all the other steps did have treads with nosings. Yet your owners did not complain of a trip hazard, did they? Because the tread dept was measured from the projection not the risers.
I am content with leaving things as they are.
Inspector Gift
Sawhorse - Made in USA
There are several corrections visible without even measuring.
1. Bottom riser is too short.
2. Open risers above treads over 30 inches above grade require guards limiting the space to less than 4 inches.
3. Lack of graspable handrail with an approved profile.
4. Bottom landing appears to be less than 36 inches in depth.
Good point about 3/8" variation in only 1/2" of space. However, I still don't see the need for the inconsistency. It's just a simple change, but it will make the codes appear to be more sensible. When I teach this subject, I spend a lot of time talking about the science of using stairs. I talk about what intermediate landings provide. I talk about definitions of "stair" and "stairway". Then when I get to the nosing projection uniformity, it all falls apart and I can't really justify the code. So... a change from "stairway" to "flight of stairs" seems appropriate. If the IRC is not sensible, the public will not trust it or our work to administer it.