Stuck on Winder Layout

[DRP]

Hopefully I've attached a picture of a winder I'm having difficulty laying out. I think I've thought it into that dark place where a winder is unbuildable. If you can see what's going on with my thought process/ brain fart here and can talk me down, I'd sure appreciate it. The posts are drawn at 3.5" square, when I try to get to 6" I end up with a point in space. Advice on the measurement points for the 12" walkline would be helpful as well.

View attachment 1393

View attachment 1393

/monthly_2010_09/572953dd1be31_baldwinstairs.jpg.ad905f891158de3c0b901ee32c65cb26.jpg

 

[Rio]

Just shift the lower set of stairs to the right until you intersect your curve which is at 6" for the inside of the winder. BTW, if you can avoid a winder do so. They are a lot more dangerous then an intermediate landing.

 

[Robert Ellenberg]

I thought about replying when I read your post yesterday but I wasn't really sure what you were asking or what the black line represented. I have done a lot of them but the codes as now written require a minimum 6" tread width which makes them almost impossible to bring around a hard corner unless the overall stair run is wider than the required 36", though it can be less than that at the tread. I'll see if I can do a sketch and post it.

 

[Robert Ellenberg]

Hopefully my sketch attachement works! The last time I did this the AHJ said it didn't meet code. However, he could not tell me why other than to say he had a reference book that explained the code and my winders did not meet the intent of how it was written. He said he wouldn't make me tear it out but would not pass it if I built it again in another house. I never got an answer other than what I have written above so if any of you AHJs reading this have an opinion please voice it.

View attachment 206

View attachment 206

/monthly_2010_09/StairWinderjjpeg.jpg.7555e28ab07eba3af6a9576ed34c3401.jpg

 

[peach]

The general provisions of R311.5.1 are clear that the tread width can not be less thann 31.5" if a handrail is located on one side. The 36" is measured at the handrail height. I believe Robert's sketch works, if the handrail is on the questionable side... since it's unlikely that your foot will be in that location.

 

[fatboy]

Or, as Rio suggested, avoid it altogether, they may look nice, but they suck as stairs. Unless there is no other alternative, don't go there. JMHO

 

[peach]

Not that hard to turn it into a landing and have one step further into the room... unless it impedes with doors or openings. I don't like winders either... even though my basement stairs have the same winder as described.

 

[RJJ]

DRP: Try this link:http://www.renovation-headquarters.com/stairs6.htm

6" as rio stated might work. Need to know the well size and room you have to work with. The new code requirements make them easier to to walk and a bite safer.

 

[peach]

Good link, RJJ.. however what they are showing for a winder still doesn't have the minimum 6" tread depth... renovations are always tough.. no excuse in new construction.

 

[RJJ]

I agree: But what has been presented does not give enough info to design a build out. Winders are not the best steps, but they do function. As long as they meet code. New construction or not.

 

[peach]

new construction: follow the code. Existing - may be stuck with accepting something less than current code. Last year, I enforced the current winder requirements on an existing stair (since they tore part of the old one out)... was one tread longer, so they had to move walls.

 

[RJJ]

This happens quite often. Problem here is we don't know if any obstruction exist. He may have room for a landing! He may not. Maybe the homeowner wants a winder. I have quite a few of them is 2 million dollar plus homes new. And quite a few in older ones. Looks like this one is for something new.

 

[peach]

Looks like new... if the owner wants a winder (for whatever reason).. it needs to meet Code.

We sacrificed some floor space to get rid of a winder in the last home we owned... mostly because we couldn't get furniture up.

 

[RJJ]

Agree it needs to meet code! Some people think they are pretty and complement their home. Hard on the movers!

I have one that was just built on a renovation. It is now a set of back stairs that allow entrance into a kitchen. I must say it is a nice addition and allows the kids to enter right into the breakfast area. Now I wish I had a photo of that! I believe we had a few redraws before it was approved.

 

[peach]

The 3'-0" front door came in by way of the moving industry.. at least they can get the furniture into the house... (maybe dump it on the main floor, but it's in).. unless the furniture came in a box in the first place, you may have an issue getting it up or down.

The futon, TV and most bookshelves in the basement came in by way of the walkout basement door.

 

[tbz]

The simple fix is just 2.5" away.

Currently as drawn by the poster if using 3.5" typical wood posts, by moving the extended edge just 2.5" more, you will have your 6".

As noted by others, not the best flowing design, but would work.

A mid level landing would only add one tread to this staircase, not real sure why the real shortage on space unless headroom is a factor.

 

[peach]

Thanks Tom Z..

This is one design option. The point is.. we can't be approving winders like we have for a hundred years.

Thanks again!

Cindy

 

[DRP]

Thanks everyone for the responses. Yes this is new construction, headroom is not a factor. I can't move right, interior doorway. The line was my interpretation of the 12" walkline. I drew it and after a couple of iterations got the tread widths the same at the walkline. I'm still not positive I've got the walkline exactly right but I expect a little grace there. The designer actually drew a 180 degree turn with winders all the way around them, coming to points all the way around the turn. Happily they are entertaining other options. I've voiced my concern about winders but they want to preserve every inch in this small house. Robert and Tom, thanks for the sketches, I'll try them again with that input.

 

[DRP]

I could adjust the tread depth to get the winders into Tom's configuration. Then I attempted to find the angle along the walk line. These two pictures show my thinking that there are a couple of ways to measure this. Both these ways of measuring are within spec, I'm not sure I've thought of all the ways... or the correct way yet

View attachment 207

View attachment 208

View attachment 207

View attachment 208

/monthly_2010_09/572953b9799ea_baldwinstairsSept26.jpg.83b8357ac32e74d534f4c755a0e404c5.jpg

/monthly_2010_09/572953b97dd58_baldwinstairsSept26b.jpg.cb88cab3fade7c0c06c562f714dbba4b.jpg

 

[tbz]

Walk Line

I could adjust the tread depth to get the winders into Tom's configuration. Then I attempted to find the angle along the walk line. These two pictures show my thinking that there are a couple of ways to measure this. Both these ways of measuring are within spec, I'm not sure I've thought of all the ways... or the correct way yet

DRP,

Which Code are you using?

The 2000 thru 2006 IRC was not specific with walk line location, the 2009 has specific parameters for were to locate the walkline.

The only real point of concern with my layout, and the one you need to play with is the 3/8" max dif between tread sizes within the winders.

Not sure how best to explain this.

 

[peach]

I guess the good news is that there shouldn't be a foot there very frequently!

 

[DRP]

Thanks Tom,Sorry to be thick here, it's still giving me trouble.I'm in VA (not NC as on the contact email, though I grew up there). We're on the '06 but I'll find an '09 to peruse. Our max rise is 8-1/4", min tread depth is 9" with winder treads @ 12" walkline 10" min. OK, here's the pertinent sections from the '09 IRC.

311.7.3 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.

Concentric to the curved direction of travel?Widest point of the clear stair width at the walking surface of the winder? Clear width is the line inboard side of the newels I'm assuming... what is the widest width... that whole section just turned muddy for me.

R311.7.4.2 Tread depth. The minimum tread depth shall be 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). 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 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).

Developments today, they nixed the single winder and want it wound up as tight as it can be, I'm envisioning 4 or 5 winders. This really drove my thinking problem home!To make sure I've got 6" minimum inside the clear line, which I'm interpreting to be the inboard line of the newels, I'm drawing 6" dia circles where each tread crosses that line. I then swung 12" arcs from that same clear line. I end up with very poorly balanced treads when I round the corner. Hmm, its still not gellingEach tread is 6" at the narrowest and is 10-7/8" measured along MY 12" walklineView attachment 212

View attachment 212

/monthly_2010_09/572953b9910b5_baldwinstairsSept28.jpg.c56eddc6a7bc3baee3ad397117ca727a.jpg

 

[Lynn]

Does anyone recognize a concern about the minimum 6" winder depth on the other end of the tread? If you measure the 6" minimum tread depth at a right angle to the nosing, you don't have 6" on the far end of the tread.

I recognize the trip hazard is probably less in the far corner, but isn't that a violation also?

 

[tbz]

Widest Point

DRP,

When Dave wrote this new section he tried very hard to make it easy to use, don't read in to it to far, keep it simple.

1. The widest point would be the baluster not the post, the posts are normally the smallest width.

2. So the first thing you need to do is layout your guard location and then work your walkline off the inside edge of the balusters, this will bring your walk line closer to the newel posts. You are not using that measurement point on each tread, you are going to the widest tread and the using that point within the entire flight.

Example:

3. Lets drop back in the thinking for a minute, do you have a simple plan view drawing of location constraints for were the stairs are to go? With total rise?

4. Lastly, does the client insist on a winder or do the constraints of the location require the winder, we see your drawn winder, but not the constraints can you make your site limits more clear in a simple sketch?

I understand your questions, I see your concerns, but I am not sure why you are having trouble understanding why the simple fixes are a problem, I beleive this is because of other unknow site conditions which you have not noted on your drawing.

Based on your original drawing if your min tread depth is 10", we are talking about 4" more projection on the stairs from the 2 step winder configuration. I am not seeing why the landing is not an option.