"Mike O." wrote
Are you sure about your IRC dates? We were building stairs at a "minimum tread depth" of 10" under IRC 2000 (granted, one of our local municipalities changed it to 9 1/2", IIRC, but that was their change)
Just a builder, not a stair builder, so I could be suffering from advanced CRS ... but I know a couple of local municipal building inspectors that I think would be surprised also? :)
What say you?
Uh, most research programs lead to very many dead ends. If that was an a reason to not perform the research then we would not have airplanes or electric lights.
When has a human spinal cord injury been effectively treated using any product of "adult stem cell research"? They can partially repair a rat using embryonic stem cells but that's a long way from treating a human. The only information I can find about the use of stem cells in the treatment of human spinal injuries is a statement that there _might_ be a clinical trial using embryonic stem cells some time next year.
You have that one backwards, knowledge of the existence of adult stem cells came out of research into why bone marrow transplants were effective in treating leukemia.
One person was treated, got better for a while, then his symptoms returned. I find it telling that that experiment was not repeated.
Are we so poor as a nation that we cannot do both? The US spends less than 5 percent of the Federal budget on scientific research and about half of that is military research.
Let's not let the GC off too easily. Last week I installed three sets of spiral stairs. Not one of the floor to floor measurements provided by the GC was accurate. There was no blocking at the wall where my rail rosettes were to be mounted. The landing was out of level in two directions. The rock was bowed on the vertical face of the well at the landing. The drywall inside corners were fat by 3/8" in the well. There was no electricity within 100 feet of the work area.
Que lastima.
Regards,
Tom Watson
completion times often exaserbated by designers not advising them otherwise
"Tom Watson" wrote
Yep... the painter wields the builder's secret weapon of the last quarter of the 20th century:
"CAULK" ... it covers all sins.
... for a while.
...out here in SoCal there was a time when piece-work was the dominant mode of framing...this was during the tract-house boom in the 60's and
70's. I came in right on the tail end of it and even in my nubile state of skill development was sometimes amazed at what those guys got away with...short-nailing was common, basically anything to make a buck. Now, as a small contractor of the one-man-band ilk, I'm reminded constantly of those times whenever I do remodeling...pretty funny/sad. That said, I learned my lessons...one of them came from an inspector who told me his "quick" inspection technique for stairs (this is to determine whether he pulls his tape out or not): climb the stair with your eyes closed.cg
It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and experience with building/re-building stairs.
I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for comfort.
They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa) landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about
8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!No wonder they feel "weird."
At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it "depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the way down.
Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement. Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!" OIy vey!
Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.
At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to proceed.
It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and experience with building/re-building stairs.
I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for comfort.
They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa) landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about
8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!No wonder they feel "weird."
At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it "depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the way down.
Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement. Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!" OIy vey!
Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.
At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to proceed.
...you're referring to "run" in staircutter terms...your treads are cut correctly for a 1" overhang leaving a 10" exposed tread (and if you cut them square with no lip you'll gain run), your risers are way out of whack. The extra run you'll get once the chimney is gone should get you an extra couple of treads and that will bring your risers into a more acceptable measurement.
...aw, what's a couple of projects, anyhow!?
cg
"Hoosierpopi" wrote
This a simple calculator that will give you some options to consider:
Also DAGS "stair calculator", as there are number of both free and pay versions of stair calculators on the web.
Here's the visual interpretation of the 2006 IRC.
Here's an alert for you....The visual interpretation of the 2000 IRC is here.
Mike O.
"Mike O." wrote
I doubt that is correct, since that has been no change in the "minimum tread depth" of 10", or the way it is measured, since at least IRC 2000:
IRC 2006:
R311.5.3.2 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.
IRC 2003:
R311.5.3.2 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.
IRC 2000:
R314.2 Treads and risers. The maximum riser height shall be 7-3/4 inches (196 mm) and the minimum tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The riser height shall be measured vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. 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.
That's because, as you can see above, there aren't any. :)
Thanks for all the info/education! I am may just install wood flooring over what is there. If I stick with 3/8" thickness I will be within code.
Thanks again,
cm
...the guy I learned from used a Mickey Mouse calculator...no kidding...with ears! LOL...he knew the rise and the run and knew his material thicknesses and the finish floor above...*I* went out and bought a stair book!
cg
I agree that there aren't any changes. The code really requires that you rip your treads at 11" minimum (assuming you have a 1" nose) but I've never seen an inspector fail a stair as long as the actual tread was ripped at 10".
Mike O.
"Mike O." wrote
I agree. IME these days, most wooden residential treads seem to be purchased "ready made" at 11 1/4" and the preponderance used as is. That might vary from region to region, but it is certainly the case down here.
Then again, this is a large metropolitan area with almost every jurisdiction therein heavily involved in "building standards" ... get out in the unincorporated areas, which are almost non-existent for 50 miles in any direction and you may well have a good bit of tread ripping to shoehorn a stairwell.
The big issues here are minimum width of a winder tread (6"), and arguments over the "walk line" when measuring same.
We've been down that road too. We've seen some framed that did not meet either the 6" min or the 10" at the walk line. Since the framing inspection is signed off before we get there, they somehow passed.
There are a few things in the stair codes that I don't quite understand. Why is there a 4" sphere rule between balusters on a guardrail (horizontal) and a 4 3/8" rule on open stairs? Also they allow 6" sphere in the pie of the run and rise (if you run a bottom rail) so why is that different than having a 6" space between balusters?
Mike O.
Fortunately, they aren't all like that. Leon, the guy that did the framing in my last addition, seemed to work in thousandths. He is a Carpenter.
-- Doug
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.