Any stair guys in the audience tonight? Winder info needed.'m

I'm starting to layout a set of stair for my garage/mini barn. 9' ceilings, 15'2" run...I can't see how to do it without winders, I had figured on 3 at the bottom, 30 degrees each turn. I've read they are more comfortable if the winders follow the same tread depth at the walk line as the common treads, but with a 6" inside width and 3 winders, that seems impossible to me. Then I'm reading an interpretation of the code that says all the commons have to be the same within 3/8", all the winders have to be the same as each other at the walk line, but the commons and winders don't have to have the same run. Scratching head to say the least. Is this something that varies locally? Should I be calling the building inspector for a local reading, or is there some standard on this? I've talked to some local stair builders.........boy do their answers vary. Some haven't heard of the 7 3/4" max rise yet. HELP!

to do a winder with a larger march the privet can't be the newel.

Attachment 278820

http://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/gui...gs-stairmaker/

I try to keep them all the same at the walk line, its definitely the most comfortable. That said as long as you`re not too narrow or too wide at the walk line it will be ok. Not ideal but ok. The codes on stairs are getting so strict that you cant do much of anything anymore. It`s almost to the point where only one kind of very narrow rise and run combination is legal...kinda sucks. I`d call the bulding department and check just to be sure, it sucks if you have to change anything.

Winders can be troublesome, one alternative is a level landing. Assuming no requirement for a landing at the top of the stairs and 36" clear run at bottom: Floor to floor height 120" and level run 182" with run allowance of 4" at top of stair plus 36" at bottom then framing to nose length allowance of 142" or 138 nose to nose. calc for risers 120 / 7.5 = 16, so 16 risers and 15 treads. Assume a 9.75 cut out for treads so 15 * 9.75 = 146.75, nose to nose length is a little long. So a 7.5 inch rise level landing can be placed at the bottom of the stair.

Over a certain total rise, I think a landing is required as well. I ended up getting a metal circular staircase for the shop above my garage due to the high garage ceiling and requirement for a landing. The code requirement for circular stairs provides a few options not available otherwise.

Is this stair coming from shop space? Think I would consider getting a pull down attic stair (ladder).

Years ago I had a shouting match with a home builder about winders. I showed him the international building code, and he basically laughed me off. The next day, I called the inspector and he laughed me off. I emailed the inspector the code section and a picture of the stairs, and his response was "I'll get back to you in a few minutes".

Long story short, the following morning, the builder had his guys out there making it right. The point being that the builder and inspector were professionals, with LOTS of experience, but this is a very tricky matter, and the code needs to be looked at very carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Nair

Winders can be troublesome, one alternative is a level landing. Assuming no requirement for a landing at the top of the stairs and 36" clear run at bottom: Floor to floor height 120" and level run 182" with run allowance of 4" at top of stair plus 36" at bottom then framing to nose length allowance of 142" or 138 nose to nose. calc for risers 120 / 7.5 = 16, so 16 risers and 15 treads. Assume a 9.75 cut out for treads so 15 * 9.75 = 146.75, nose to nose length is a little long. So a 7.5 inch rise level landing can be placed at the bottom of the stair.

---

The condition is its going up the back wall of a 16'X24' single car garage. I have about 180" of possible run wall to wall after sheet rock, trim etc. I have to turn essentially 180 degrees, you walk in on the right side, start rising, turn 90, continue rising up the back wall, landing at the top eats up 36", but you need to turn another 90 to get to the "storage loft" as its zoned.........or future home office for wife as I like to think of it. So ships ladder is out....wife is not going to want to climb a ladder, and pull down is out, even worse. I figured better to have the landing at the top, winders at the bottom, if you are going to trip better to fall 3 steps than the whole run. Two flat landings puts you out in the yard.....so that won't work. I do occasionally want to park a car in there, may also be an assembly area for my wood working, never really going to be my main shop.

Peter,

I went through a similar "design" problem with my garage with a shop overhead several years ago. My garage ceiling is a little higher, and however I laid it out, the steps with a required landing took up too much space or became too long to be practical. Pre-packaged Circular stairs are much more forgiving regarding zoning requirements, especially on tread width. It may seem a little like overkill, but it worked well for me. Also, to get equipment up and down, I have a trap door, coupled with a chain-fall that has a break-down, dead-man style support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Quinn

The condition is its going up the back wall of a 16'X24' single car garage. I have about 180" of possible run wall to wall after sheet rock, trim etc. I have to turn essentially 180 degrees, you walk in on the right side, start rising, turn 90, continue rising up the back wall, landing at the top eats up 36", but you need to turn another 90 to get to the "storage loft" as its zoned.........or future home office for wife as I like to think of it. So ships ladder is out....wife is not going to want to climb a ladder, and pull down is out, even worse. I figured better to have the landing at the top, winders at the bottom, if you are going to trip better to fall 3 steps than the whole run. Two flat landings puts you out in the yard.....so that won't work. I do occasionally want to park a car in there, may also be an assembly area for my wood working, never really going to be my main shop.

---

Without the full picture I ask this serious question - Can you build the stairs outside?

Otherwise - you make what works and likely go against code within the narrow confines of your available space.
This is not a primary use stairway right? No reason for guests or visitors to use the approach? Obviously I have no good answers :confused:.

Peter--- I experimented with a couple of stair plans. Assuming 120" overall rise (8"/rise = 15 rises) I think you can do this with two flat landings (pic 1 below) or with winders (pic 2) I used 22.5 deg. winders to make the tread at the "walking line" closer to the standard tread. You lose about 15" of floor space with the winders at the bottom. If you put the winders at the top, you gain the space on the first floor and lose it at the second.

Attachment 278842Attachment 278841

Jerry has the correct solution for you. Winders that meet code will no longer fit in the confines of the landing. Note his drawing of the winders will extend into the room further than the width of the stairs. Are you sure you have to meet code to storage area, it is not a living space?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Wolf

Jerry has the correct solution for you. Winders that meet code will no longer fit in the confines of the landing. Note his drawing of the winders will extend into the room further than the width of the stairs. Are you sure you have to meet code to storage area, it is not a living space?

---

I called the inspector when I first started designing the building, we talked about stairs, I asked that exact question, out building, not living space, do I have some latitude? Answer was no, new construction, all stairs must meet all new codes. I can't go up the outside due to set backs, its a small lot in town location, houses are real close together, and wife won't climb icy stairs to future home office in winter even if I could fit them in. I think they are holding me to 7 3/4" rise maximum... the old ones were almost 10" with an 8" run! Total demo on that building. I do have room to project into the building, my plan was to have two common treads before the winders at the bottom, I think I still make head room by a whisker that way, four winders would be as good or better.

Jerry, much thanks for your drawings, thats putting me int the right direction. I've made a lot of stair parts at work but never a stair case, never had to think about the geometry.

Peter, your mention of the two common treads brings up a good point ,one tread is really annoying . Doesn't get mentioned enough ,even in the old books. Even in outside low pitch walkways it's much more comfortable to take two steps to the next slab. You are right about how it's different to be responsible for the geometry ,don't want to end up with one of those Escher stairs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack forsberg

to do a winder with a larger march the privet can't be the newel.

---

Wow, if you would have just posted that reply without any context, how many would have any idea of the subject? Very cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerry Miner

Peter--- I experimented with a couple of stair plans. Assuming 120" overall rise (8"/rise = 15 rises) I think you can do this with two flat landings (pic 1 below) or with winders (pic 2) I used 22.5 deg. winders to make the tread at the "walking line" closer to the standard tread. You lose about 15" of floor space with the winders at the bottom. If you put the winders at the top, you gain the space on the first floor and lose it at the second.

Attachment 278842Attachment 278841

---

Jerry, Thanks again for posting that wonderful solution and plan! Do you suppose I can reasonably put a single common tread in front of the winders at the bottom as the first tread? If I bump up to 16 rises I get a 7.5" rise and less pressure from the building department. My other option is to put in a ships ladder, get inspections, then do what ever I want in the cover of dark. Might raise liability down the road or at resale, but sometimes you have to deal with bureaucracy in more circuitous ways. Probably never think about his again as long as its walkable and comfortable.

Peter, FWIW since you are going to another step ,as opposed to a landing , I don't see any reason why that would not be a good solution .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel Fulks

Peter, FWIW since you are going to another step ,as opposed to a landing , I don't see any reason why that would not be a good solution .

---

So your thinking common tread to winder is ok at the bottom. I guess in lots of cases the winders are half way up the rise to take a turn at a corner. Its that whole body turn issue that makes winders dangerous. I read some Canadian threads, maybe older, where guys said only three winder landings were allowed there, but it seems to me that 4 winders at 22.5 degrees makes the body turn and pivot less per rise than a 3 winder landing. I see lots of them use 5 to turn a corner to make modern code. I need to make a story pole for elevations to check the head room conditions at the bottom, I think all is good. I'm figuring to start building this thing in a few weeks after my propane bullet arrives and the weekend job I'm on goes out the door.

Just looked at my house stair ,it has two common treads before winders, but I see no reason why one wouldn't work just as well. To be honest ,I'm not sure why I thought my earlier comment relevant to your particular situation. I must have thought it was one step, then landing .Our front walkway is six slabs each 5 or 6 feet long and the single step between adjacent slabs always seems awkward ,somehow two steps up is more comfortable than one. Not sure why, but it is mentioned in at least one of my old books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel Fulks

Just looked at my house stair ,it has two common treads before winders, but I see no reason why one wouldn't work just as well. To be honest ,I'm not sure why I thought my earlier comment relevant to your particular situation. I must have thought it was one step, then landing .Our front walkway is six slabs each 5 or 6 feet long and the single step between adjacent slabs always seems awkward ,somehow two steps up is more comfortable than one. Not sure why, but it is mentioned in at least one of my old books.

---

Yeah, its like 2 steps is a stair, one step is a tripping hazard. Your brain gets used to climbing, then the rhythm is interrupted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Quinn

Do you suppose I can reasonably put a single common tread in front of the winders at the bottom as the first tread?

---

In terms of walkability, I don't see a problem. The issue (as you have recognized) will be head clearance. I don't know how you're framing this, but if the structure allows, could you put the 16th riser at the top, maybe?

Attachment 278918

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Quinn

I. I've talked to some local stair builders.........boy do their answers vary. Some haven't heard of the 7 3/4" max rise yet. HELP!

---

Thats why I stop by construction code and pick up a signed/dated copy of the code of the day every time I do a stairway. They change them at their whim.

Max rise here is 8 1/8" in Charlivoix , 8 1/4" in Emmett and Cheboygan counties, a much more reasonable number. But codes are not always directly linked to logic.

Larry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry Edgerton

Thats why I stop by construction code and pick up a signed/dated copy of the code of the day every time I do a stairway. They change them at their whim.

Max rise here is 8 1/8" in Charlivoix , 8 1/4" in Emmett and Cheboygan counties, a much more reasonable number. But codes are not always directly linked to logic.

Larry

---

Your not kidding! I've talked to three different stair guys that came into work, all actively working, all facing and passing inspections locally, all giving me different info on allowable rise. Varies town by town? Or by day? I think most of them are building high end custom and haven't done a tight basic residential installation in decades, probably have't been close to allowable limits to care, plenty of room in a mansion to build a staircase! Most of the basic stairs are factory made around here, cheaper than custom. An 8" rise would help a great deal, and IMO its still very walkable staircase, maybe I'll go argue for 8", bring a few plan views, make the case. A single riser at the top between door and landing seems tricky to negotiate, and the box is already framed, I'm not sure how to interrupt the triple joist to let in the extra rise w/o a lolly column, and I really don't want a column at that location, makes parking the full size van challenging. An extra common riser at the bottom puts me farther into the room than I'd like to be, but the space is there. There's a window there too, had to order it tempered due to location near stairs. This little building has me backed into a corner. I'm thinking with a 105" or so rise (the floor to framing is 108" at the opening, but the slab slopes down, so the height is a bit lower at the rear where the stair will go), three treads (a common and two winders) I make headroom by a couple of inches? I need to confirm that with a more accurate layout.

What you need to check is how much variance code will allow. Even with a max rise of 7 3/4, most code used to allow 3/8" maximum deviation from code, which means if you build accurately all your rise can be 8 1/8". Don't hold me responsible.

Peter, you have touched on something many people miss. Measuring the stair total rise from where they start to where they end. Many guys measure straight down from the upper landing to the floor below without checking if the floor level changes. I always check with a water level, its cheap and it never lies. The one I just finished was 3/4" out of level from just below where the upper landing hit and where the first tread took off.[Log home]

My own basement stairs are an 8" rise with a 9 3/4" run, and I get my busted up old butt up and down them just fine. I like about a 7 3/8" rise, but in a garage or a basement a bit more is not a problem to my eyes.

I have heard nightmares from contractors from here that have gone out east to work around the NYC area as far as codes. One in particular had over 100K in permit fees, I believe in Manhattan, and he was back here because they were holding him up. When is the government going to figure out we that work are the ones paying for all their handouts and leave us alone so we can make a profit. I know I am frustrated here, and out there sounds a lot worse.

Larry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Wolf

What you need to check is how much variance code will allow. Even with a max rise of 7 3/4, most code used to allow 3/8" maximum deviation from code, which means if you build accurately all your rise can be 8 1/8". Don't hold me responsible.

---

I guess I have to take a morning off and go into the building dept office to get the details in writing, or at least a verbal I trust. If this is the case I'm perfect with 15 risers, 4 winders, no probems. I can lay them all out at 8" rise. Then I just have to get all the hand rail stuff right.....and make them!

Larry, Mannahatten is a racket for sure. I wouldn't want to be a contractor there, it's tough enough here. I'm a shop guy and rarely get into the permits world, we make um, other guys install and deal with inspectors. I've made loads of stair treads with odd rise and run combos, no bull nose, modern square edge stuff where riser and tread are glued as one piece with no toe kick space....I see the delivery addresses and scratch my head as to how some of this stuff gets approved. I can only guess some installs happen in the middle of the night the day after CO is issued? This project might go that way too!

I just got off the phone with building dept, my town has gone back to an older less restrictive residential code, 8 1/4" max rise, 9" minimum run, all commons the same And all winders the same but not necessary to be the same as each other. Makes this a lot easier to fit!

If my town allowed that, I would have been able to use a more standard set of stairs instead of a circular set. Good for you. Install them before they change their minds again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Quinn

I just got off the phone with building dept, my town has gone back to an older less restrictive residential code, 8 1/4" max rise, 9" minimum run, all commons the same And all winders the same but not necessary to be the same as each other. Makes this a lot easier to fit!

---

If you use the pic posted for your winders you will have a noticeable kink in the handrail at riser #5, I suggest you lookup dancing winders instead of using balanced winders.

Keith--

Thanks for jumping into this conversation. I'm not a "stair guy" but I have built a few stairs over the years (and I'm the guy that drew the plan that leads to the "kink" you mention)

You're right, of course. There is a pitch change at Riser 5. Can you help us all understand "dancing winders" a little better? My understanding is that they would have a tread depth at the short end that closely matches the tread depth at the straight run, keeping the pitch close to the same, thereby avoiding the kink.

But doesn't that also mean that you lose most of the "advantage" of the winders taking up less space than a straight run? Think you could sketch out a plan for Peter's stairs that would work better? I know you know a lot more about this than I do.

---Jerry

p.s. since we are now ok with 8" rise--I would probably skip the winders and use two flat landings, either as in post #12 above or with one (or two) risers at the bottom:

Attachment 279212

the handrail would be much simpler this way.

Eureka! Thats the solution Jerry! Thanks so much for your help with this. I like the longer run the single tread at the bottom adds, bit more comfortable to climb, and a landing is always my preference to winders. I swear the first time I called 1 1/2 years ago they told me I had to meet the stricter code, maybe too many variances had to be granted? On the subject of "dancing winders", I'm ignorant. I see a definition as having the narrow side equal to the common tread run, at least at the walking line, the 4 winder plan you drew earlier pretty much follows that rule no? I don't exactly understand the kink in the hand rail, I had planed to square off the inside corner, add a newel, run the hand rail down into the newel and a shorter one up from the first newel. Is there a requirement to adjust the handrail exactly to the pitch change going around the corner? This is going to be a good project for me, doing the whole stair soup to nuts. Lots to learn about the details.

Now that you can get by without winders the stair is much easier to build. The kink comes when there is a pitch change. The handrail still has to increase in height with each riser but when the tread run becomes shorter, as it would going from straight to winder it has to rise at a faster rate. With balanced winders that change in pitch happens at a single point and thus the kink, assuming that it is not a post-to-post balustrade. Dancing winders stretch that pitch change out over one or more of what would be the common treads in a balanced winder and therefore ease the kink. Hopefully this pic helps explain.

Great Peter! Much better solution.

I actually hate winders. I an always thinking of something other than what I am doing, and winders always screw with me, as I am sure they do many people. If you are not on the exact same line you are essentially climbing a different set of stairs every time. I like a set of stairs that you can come to know and not have to think about.

Larry

Well, I've finally started the rough stair install. I have this pile of hideous 4/4 red oak...I mean twice beaten with the ugly stick. Solid FAS material in theory, but the grain is just gross, color nasty, a pile of culls I got for free, the uglys from 50 packs of wood. I'm going to make the type of treads with an 8 degree back bevel, tread right into riser, no bull nose but the toe space is created by the bevel. This way I don't have to miter the skirt/riser intersections, just scribe the skirt to the rough stair then install the treads with a 3/4" or so over hang. Very popular "Euro" look, lets me get away with 4/4 material that might finish at 7/8". Rough stairs are 1 3/4" LVL stringers, 3/4" plywood risers and sub treads screwed and glued to stringers. I went with a landing top and bottom as per Jerry's plan above, 10 steps in the middle. I've got both landings in and one stringer cut, the stringer dropped into place dead on perfect, total thing of beauty. Just have to do that 3 more times and its walkable. Sorry no pics, it was a blitzkrieg endeavor in between birthday parties and kids sports this weekend. Plus it isn't much to look at presently. The stair in the old structure were awe inspiring....every time I survived the climb back down them I felt blessed. These will be rock solid and code legal. My wifes first comment...."Hey, now that you have that figured out can you replace the stairs going to the basement?" They are completely scary, and on my list, but those are going to be shop built housed stringer stairs. Bit more formal, and they have to go back in quick.


Anyway, with the advice here and a careful plan and layout, it seems even I can do this! I'll snap a few photos when its a little further along. Thanks again for all the help. Peter

See if you can find 'dancing stairs' with a google search. I built some once, and they were much more comfortable walking than winders.