• 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

Not a tread or a landing

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,813
View attachment 1275I don't see this as a compliant tread or a compliant landing. Too large for a tread (not uniform) and too small for a landing (not 36" in direction of travel). It causes a disruption in the rhythm of travel. Therefore not permitted. Anybody have a dissenting opinion?

View attachment 1674

View attachment 1674

/monthly_2012_03/HPIM0014.JPG.8e2504027fbac8578cd23f6aca3df9c8.JPG
 
This is my first picture post so still trying to figure it out. I edited the post after I saw it wasn't there. It should be there now???
 
This occured on the first house this builder did under the newly adopted codes in this jurisdiction. I informed him then it would not work in the future, let him slide on that one since none of the other adjacent jurisdictions have been enforcing it and told him I wouldn't approve it again. He did it again. Now I want to make sure before he is forced to make a design change since this is one of his best selling models. I suggested compliant winders or a real landing but he can figure out whatever he wants.
 
= = =



"IF" it were me, I too would provide a workable solution for the

builder as well........You are most definitely on the right path.

Design change, .."YES!"......On this particular one, request that

he install some decorative ballusters & sturdy / well anchored /

functional handrailing, AND document the inspection with the

builder......"This simply cannot happen again, or else!".....Also,

try to educate him / them along the way.



FWIW, technically, ..." gbhammer " could be right.......This

might be one of those "thingies". :D



= = =
 
Last edited by a moderator:
attachment.php


It appears to be a wininding tread, and not a landing. And it appears to comply with wininding tread requirements
 
I recently read that thread about the spirals. In this case it is the only moe for three bedrooms, not sure I can justify it as a ladder on this one. Some background on this customer. He is a top local builder/seller and is very well connected. I have been holding his hand since the day I got here, letting him slide all over the place. He can't seem to understand that the "but it sells" argument doesn't hold water. I gave him the workable solution on the last house and told him it can't happen again. As far as education, while explaining all of this stuff to him he admitted he actually tripped on that spot because of the rhythym disruption, of course he doesn't care because it sells. Afraid if I give him this house it will just be kicking the can down the road and giving more ammunition for him to say that I let him do it in the past.
 
I agree with Mark. It's a "winder". WINDER. A tread with nonparallel edges. See R311.7.4.2
 
= = =

With this new info, and the admittance of himself tripping in

that very spot, I will now change course and state that it is

time to "stop kicking the can" and have him redo the

construction of the MOE stairway and to do it in a compliant

manner.

"Well connected you say..." Hmmmmm!..........Inform him of

your inspection results "in writing", along with chapter &

verse of the applicable code sections, then see where it goes.

They either hired you to enforce the codes or they didn't.

What's it going to be?

You could reference Section R101.3 [ `06 IRC ] to counter

the compliant winder tread.

R101.3 Purpose.The purpose of this code is to provide

minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety,

health and general welfare through affordability, structural

strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation,

light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life

and property from fire and other hazards attributed to

the built environment.

The builder's own admission of tripping is further evidence

of a MOE problem......Also, remember, the "most restrictive"

shall govern, not what is profitable for the contractor

[ RE: Section R102.1, `06 IRC ].



= = =
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It appears to be a wininding tread, and not a landing. And it appears to comply with wininding tread requirements

S1W35W3N-LH.GIF
 
Like I stated in the thread that I posted the link for, I think they suck as stairs, period. But, I have come to believe they are compliant.
 
north star said:
MOE problem... Yes!
Click to expand...
MOE problem NO, compliant

SECTION R311

MEANS OF EGRESS

R311.7 Stairways.

R311.7.3 Walkline. The walkline across winder treads shall be concentric to the curved direction of travel through the turn and located 12 inches (305 mm) from the side where the winders are narrower. The 12-inch (305 mm) dimension shall be measured from the widest point of the clear stair width at the walking surface of the winder. If winders are adjacent within the flight, the point of the widest clear stair width of the adjacent winders shall be used.

R311.7.4.2 Tread depth. Winder treads shall have a minimum tread depth of 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 minimum tread depth of 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).
 
= = =

IMO, Section R101.3 [ "the minimum requirements" ] have not been

met!........There is "verbal & visual documentation" of a known trip

hazard......To me, a trip hazard has not met the minimum!......Reconstruct

this one area to "not" have a trip hazard and I am o.k. with it, but

not until!

Would you want your pregnant wife / girlfriend, or elderly

mom / dad / grandmom / grandad / other to trip on this hazard?

= = =
 
Could be a code compliant winding tread. Depends on the dimensions at the narrow end and at a point 12" in from the narrow end. If the dimension at the narrow end is at least 6" and the dimension at the walkline is consistent with the dimensions of the other treads and risers, it certainly could qualify.
 
north star said:
= = =IMO, Section R101.3 [ "the minimum requirements" ] have not been

met!........There is "verbal & visual documentation" of a known trip

hazard......To me, a trip hazard has not met the minimum!......Reconstruct

this one area to "not" have a trip hazard and I am o.k. with it, but

not until!

Would you want your pregnant wife / girlfriend, or elderly

mom / dad / grandmom / grandad / other to trip on this hazard?

= = =
Click to expand...
North Star, as we know everyone has an opinion, but what does the math and geometry of the layout prove.

In order to know if this complies, the OP needs to set the walkline in place on the stairs in the field.

Based on the basics of geometry the "Winder Tread" is not large enough to be a landing, thus does the tread comply with the dimensional requirements of the winder portion of the code?

If it does, then it complies and is compliant. If it does not, then it fails and it needs to be changed.

I believe by looking at the picture the stair flight will more than likely meet the requirements and be compliant, again IMO.

As to R101.3 using it as a personal disagreement tool to fail compliant portions of the building is why we have voting booths that some what work................

Sifu, did you layout the walkline and check for winder compliance?

On a note, the winder tread
 
Sifu, did you layout the walkline and check for winder compliance?
Click to expand...
That would be my suggestion also. If a slight modification is needed to be compliant the builder could adjust his design and still have it "sell" as he has in the past.

You might even get an allie out of it that you are reasonable to work with
 
fatboy said:
Like I stated in the thread that I posted the link for, I think they suck as stairs, period. But, I have come to believe they are compliant.
Click to expand...
Agreed. :agree Poor design but compliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top