# Stringer support



## mjesse (Nov 24, 2010)

I hate to think about the moving crew hauling the furniture up these stairs!

View attachment 1446


View attachment 1447


View attachment 1446


View attachment 1447


/monthly_2010_11/IMG_6537.jpg.446d16ebf5ed83b3fe457ef1f754de41.jpg

/monthly_2010_11/IMG_6536.jpg.074ab0a267e3f63ad628f816d7ad9e15.jpg


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 24, 2010)

Me and three guys once moved a baby grand up a flight of stairs.

Glad I'm done doing that.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 24, 2010)

http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/Southampton/251429/Blood-drive-scheduled-for-James-MacWhinnie-injured-in-accident

Good friend of mine.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 24, 2010)

Good catch.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 24, 2010)

TimNY said:
			
		

> http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/Southampton/251429/Blood-drive-scheduled-for-James-MacWhinnie-injured-in-accidentGood friend of mine.


A good reminder of why we do what we do and that yes, the little things count. Lack of stringer support is something that I see more often than not here.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 24, 2010)

Sure would be nice if there was at least minimum prescribed stair stringer depth and bearing in the IRC. Here is the work of residential carpenters in a commercial A-3, I put an engineer to task for a 100 psf fix.    Tim hope your friend made a full recovery.

View attachment 270


View attachment 271


View attachment 272


View attachment 273


View attachment 270


View attachment 271


View attachment 272


View attachment 273


/monthly_2010_11/IMG_0618aa.JPG.f031e664f67b321a293e952d307859f2.JPG

/monthly_2010_11/IMG_0615aa.JPG.78265b0aa38f11888e72322c0c22302a.JPG

/monthly_2010_11/IMG_0614aa.JPG.3be881cd0fdecddf3fb79178a1d04d62.JPG

/monthly_2010_11/IMG_0617aa.JPG.4e183a37d309c6f92b3e349d21462b24.JPG


----------



## fatboy (Nov 24, 2010)

One of my inspectors had a complete set go out from under him (at the top tread) on a final inspection a couple years ago, he dropped the entire 7+ feet to the concrete and landed on his feet. Lucky he didn't break his ankles as he is a bit rotund. Did pull a muscle in his shoulder trying to instinctively catch himself on the handl rail.

Since then we all pay WAY more attention to attachments.


----------



## darcar (Nov 24, 2010)

seeing these types of things on here is a good reminder to look at ALL aspects during the rough in.

Too often you get wrapped up in checking truss bracing, rise and run uniformity, smoke detector location, point loads, etc. and the necessary things like stringer support tend to get overlooked and when/if something goes wrong the inspector gets blamed for missing it.

I dont know how long you guys spend on an average inspection but its hard for an inspector to go through an entire house in 20 minutes and comb over as acurately as the guy that spent weeks/months building it.

Thats why its especially more dificult when a contractor/owner insists on following you around and talking your ear off during the inspection.

We do the best we can tho...


----------



## TimNY (Nov 24, 2010)

Exactly.  So much time spent on all the things darcar mentioned, but little stuff like this can be so much more dangerous.  I have marks on my clipboard at 8.25" and 9" and my routine is before I climb a stair at rough I check the riser/tread, then look at the attachment.

Admittedly, I am usually looking at the top of the stringers.. must make mental note to pay attention to the bottom, too!

And yes, my friend was a miracle-- full recovery (sans several internal organs), thanks for inquiring!  The stringers let loose where they were toenailed into the joist at the top.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 24, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> ... on a final inspection ...


I guess your rough-in inspections are not to thorough.

But on to the initial photos. At least one of the stringers rests against the studs. Usually the stringer is nailed to the studs well enough to keep the stringer up. At my house one stringer is nailed to studs and the other is supported by a wall under the stringer. So the problem might just be in the eye of the inspector.

It is really hard to make a claim that stringers in a "habitable" area are not properly supported.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 24, 2010)

If the stringer against the studs were fastened satisfactorily, I would most likely agree.

Doesn't seem to be the case here, I see no nails (I do see EMT passing between the stringer and the wall), but it could be an easy fix.  Just need to make sure it gets fixed.

The other issue may be that there are a set of construction stairs during rough that they replace and at final you have a different set of stairs.  I did a final and the treads were 9" deep, but there was a 2" nosing!  So not only was the nosing too large for code, the tread depth (as defined in the code) was 7".

Finish painted, very nice moldings, sheetrocked below.  I failed them.  His attorney called me and I said never mind the code, try walking down them.  They were replaced.

Even the architect called saying "they're 9" deep".  I really felt bad for the owner, but wouldn't you know it was on the market within a few days of getting the C.O.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 24, 2010)

I confess I don't check the rise and run. I do notice upon walking the stairs if they seem to be off, but that's the only time I'll address it. I am mindful that the code has finite numbers for this element but I just can't get too excited when there are so many other things I feel are more likely to be hazardous that I'd rather spend my time on.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't check every tread.. I simply place the clipboard vertically and I can check the rise and run in a few seconds.  Usually the GC doesn't even realize I've checked them.  There is a lot to inspect.. We do the best we can..


----------



## fiddler (Nov 25, 2010)

Your all fixated on the stringers in those pictures, don't lose sight of the lack of support for the landings.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 25, 2010)

fiddler said:
			
		

> Your all fixated on the stringers in those pictures, don't lose sight of the lack of support for the landings.


Absolutely, see the 3rd photo in the second set where the rim joist is cantilevered; the corner is not fastened. The 4th picture has tapcons about every other joist span. If my memory serves I think in the 2nd picture that's OSB sandwich between the stringer and rim board supporting the landing on blocking nailed to the studs.

The framing inspection was approved the day before and I caught this doing an electrical inspection. No it wasn't me that did the framing inspection but even if so I think it helps just spot checking critical areas in a location instead looking at everything at once.  I'll ask how many plumbers, electricians or framers are doing the job and can start to pick out different signatures on their work; find errors in certain areas. Here there were several contractors doing things that were out of their league.

I get my code book(s) out; teach them the minimum with those scary words; "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"


----------



## mjesse (Nov 29, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> But on to the initial photos. At least one of the stringers rests against the studs. Usually the stringer is nailed to the studs well enough to keep the stringer up. At my house one stringer is nailed to studs and the other is supported by a wall under the stringer. So the problem might just be in the eye of the inspector.
> 
> It is really hard to make a claim that stringers in a "habitable" area are not properly supported.


One could argue that since there is no minimum standard in the Code, I have no grounds to "_claim_" they are "not properly supported"

I agree with Francis that some minimum should be in the Code to help those inspectors (and contractors for that matter) understand what makes an adequately supported stair carriage. In the "eye" of this inspector, there is nothing but a handful of 10d gunned in toenails holding up this stair.

What is not shown in the photos is that what may appear to be a double stringer is actually a 2x4 spacer and 2x12 stringer.

It appears as though the 2x4 was nailed to the stringer before installation, and then the assemble unit was toenailed through the studs into the 2x4.

During my 20 years of custom carpentry and stair building, I learned to fully support the landings by extending the rim into the stud space, resting on a post to the bottom plate. Bottoms of stringers should rest on the floor, or have a 1-1/2" flat cut supported by a 2x4 face nailed into the floor framing. For the tops of stringers, I use 3/4" plywood that runs from top of landing to bottom of stringer, nailed to the stringer ends before installing the carriage in the opening. Alternately, additional material could be fastened to the underside of the landing to support the lower ends on the stringer cut. Last but not least NO OVERCUTS! All rise/run cuts should be finished with a handsaw or jigsaw.

I'm going back for a re-inspection today. I'll keep ya posted.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 29, 2010)

"I guess your rough-in inspections are not to thorough."

Pound sand George...........that's a friggen cheap shot.....even for you.

aaaaa.........let me see........my inspectors log around 20,000 inspections a year.............do they miss some things? DUH...hell yeah they do. We all do........and, yup George......I'm sure that you've blown a few things in your days, climb off your high horse pal.

I was lucky an inspector didn't die, and you want to take pot shots....what a chump.............


----------



## PORTEOUS (Nov 29, 2010)

Agree w/ Fatboy, and agree w/ MJesse on framing technique


----------



## mjesse (Nov 29, 2010)

Met the carpenter on-site for the re-inspection. Used the opportunity to explain what I saw as insufficient, and helped him to understand what can be done differently to make a better/safer stair.

I think it was a win-win, and I believe he will put into practice the things we discussed.


----------



## jim baird (Nov 29, 2010)

I wrote up stairs outside to a deck, two different flights, all top stringers bearing like the OP, about an inch and a half.  On a final "corrections" visit where inspector before me did not call it.  I showed the homeowner the problem and told her I was surprised the builder would accept such shoddy work.

Turned out the builder himself had built it.

Everybody got mad at me.  The owner wrote a complaint letter to my uppers, complaining about my lack of "tact".  Did he fix it?  CO was issued over my head.  Builder supposedly promised to fix, but you never know.

I did the right thing, but it cost.


----------



## tbz (Nov 29, 2010)

Good afternoon everyone,

It seems funny that stairs are so over looked by so many inspectors.

As a metal fabricator I can't believe how many stairs we run in to that are done just like the picture and when we refuse to install the railings on them without the support being added the amount of back lash we get with the INSPECTOR passed it at framing.

I have to agree with those of you that take the time, the amount of force weight subjected to stairs is beyond most peoples belief.

The fact is the majority of the problems like this are built in place stairs.  The person building the stairs looks to see how the rise and run can work out to fit the exact cut of the board in place face to face.

When stairs are built off site and then transported and then installed, this problem seldom comes up because the stair builder wants to make the installation an easy drop in place and nail and you normally find wing tips and wing outs on the tops and bottoms for setting and then cut off later by the trimmer.

Simply, I like hearing that some of you do the quick clip board lines and just taking a quick check under to make sure they will stay in place, but better attention needs to be given to fabricated in place stairs than what I see being done.

Sorta on the same topic but not, is plan review catches for rise and run, do any of you who do plan review ever check overall height and length of plan area for proper fit?  One of the biggest things I see is floor plans designed for 8ft ceilings being raised to 9-10ft ceilings, yet the floor plan space does not change and well R&R don't fit.

Just wondering how many plan reviewers check for this?  Sorry about the high jack.


----------



## Mac (Nov 30, 2010)

That's just ugly!

The stair loads should be (at least) equal to whatever the floor loads are supposed to be. It's up to the designer owner or builder to provide the info needed so the inspector can verify.

If they claim to need more time, I can get them that too....


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 30, 2010)

Mac said:
			
		

> That's just ugly!The stair loads should be (at least) equal to whatever the floor loads are supposed to be.


 I believe that the code load requirements for stairs are not related to the code load requirements for floors.

In any case, the loads on stairs are short term loads while the loads on floors are long term loads.


----------



## Mac (Nov 30, 2010)

You are right GHR, but absent a code requirement, we have to have something to go by, and I feel floor loads are as good as anything.


----------



## tbz (Nov 30, 2010)

Mac said:
			
		

> That's just ugly!The stair loads should be (at least) equal to whatever the floor loads are supposed to be. It's up to the designer owner or builder to provide the info needed so the inspector can verify.
> 
> If they claim to need more time, I can get them that too....


Both the IRC and IBC have requirements for loads on stairs and they do exceed floor requirements.

One area were you could see them put in to effect is on outside deck stairs fabricated from composite type decking.  For many years just with treated lumber many times stair stringers were made with just the pair.  With the introduction of composite materials that seemed to move a lot inspectors questioned these stairs and then the material manufactures started publishing spacing requirements and you started seeing 3 and 4 stringers being installed on a single stair flight.

My point was that many times these are often over look unless the stairs feel unsafe when the inspector walks up them.  If they move on the inspector they take a deeper look, but if not seems rare to see inspectors go further during inspections.

People always seem to look at me funny because I always take a look at the structure I am going to walk up before I do.  My family calls me crazy because if something looks shady to me I always take a look under before going up.

I ask you all this, if you go to a party at a home you have never been to before, do you check out the deck attachments before spending time on it???????

Call me crazy but I do......


----------



## mjesse (Nov 30, 2010)

From 2006 IRC, R301.5

c.   Individual stair treads shall be designed for the uniformly distributed live load or a 300-pound concentrated load acting over an area of 4 square inches, whichever produces the greater stresses.

mj


----------



## DRP (Nov 30, 2010)

Ever see the holiday photo with the entire family arranged on the stairs?... and with some of our families that can be quite a load. To compound the fracture, the basement set is stacked right under that.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 30, 2010)

DRP said:
			
		

> Ever see the holiday photo with the entire family arranged on the stairs?... and with some of our families that can be quite a load. To compound the fracture, the basement set is stacked right under that.


While I agree about the possible loading. The code, not usage, gives us the design and inspection requirements.


----------



## Architect1281 (Nov 30, 2010)

Ah yes we all force these poor contstructors to aspire to provide the worst possible job.

using the most minimal of materials assembled in the least compliant manner.

and yet?

we are at fault

if only we could lower our standards to meet them halfway.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 30, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> I ask you all this, if you go to a party at a home you have never been to before, do you check out the deck attachments before spending time on it???????
> 
> Call me crazy but I do......


I do too . . . . . .


----------



## JBI (Nov 30, 2010)

@ tbz & Yankee - Not me. I'm hoping for the fall... I could use the money!


----------



## KZQuixote (Nov 30, 2010)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Ah yes we all force these poor contstructors to aspire to provide the worst possible job. using the most minimal of materials assembled in the least compliant manner.
> 
> and yet?
> 
> ...


Been  there, experienced that, 35 years ago!

There are two possibilities here:

This is a new contractor in need of some serious experience.

OR

Similar behavior has been passed consistently in recent history.

As you can expect, I'll not blame the carpenter, rather I'll look to the system that allowed such an inexperienced carpenter to get into such deep Do Do!

Frankly, I'll ask the original poster to affirm that this is a contractor whom he's never encountered before?

I'm not suggesting that the contractor is not responsible, at least on the surface, but I'm wondering how similar situations could be avoided in the future.

Bill


----------



## mjesse (Dec 1, 2010)

KZ, this is the first time I've seen this carpenter on a job.

The rest of the framing job looked pretty good.

Many of the carpenters in this area have come up through the ranks building tract homes where roofs are trussed and stairs are factory built. They have evolved to become "installers" rather than craftsman. There are very few here who can cut roofs or stairs, not because they are new, but because the industry has allowed them to build hundreds of homes without ever having to do the most technical portions.

When I was building custom homes here, I had to teach or re-teach several experienced carpenters the basics of roof and stair construction. I'm fortunate to have spent my carpentry years on many complex "stick-built" homes, and comparatively few panelized and trussed "installations".

mj


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 1, 2010)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Ah yes we all force these poor constructors to aspire to provide the worst possible job. using the most minimal of materials assembled in the least compliant manner.
> 
> and yet?
> 
> ...


 It might be better to simply accept that their standards are just as legal as yours.


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 1, 2010)

Electrical Bob our current inspector says it differently.

"Hey I don't write this stuff its just my job to rub your nose in it"

GHR when thier standards are published and accepted in my enforcement library then and only then can they do it thier way.

cause then it will also be my way.


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 1, 2010)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Electrical Bob our current inspector says it differently."Hey I don't write this stuff its just my job to rub your nose in it"
> 
> GHR when thier standards are published and accepted in my enforcement library then and only then can they do it thier way.
> 
> cause then it will also be my way.


I think the standard was given earlier - 300 pounds over 4sqin. Very simple to test. No need to take pictures. Just cart a 300 pound test weight around.

While I don't like the construction shown in the original pictures, only the 300 pound test weight gives an accurate answer.


----------



## timh (Dec 1, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I think the standard was given earlier - 300 pounds over 4sqin. Very simple to test. No need to take pictures. Just cart a 300 pound test weight around. While I don't like the construction shown in the original pictures, only the 300 pound test weight gives an accurate answer.


any recommendations on what to use as a 300 lb weight with a 4 sq. in footprint?


----------



## TimNY (Dec 1, 2010)

2 guys and a pogostick?


----------



## High Desert (Dec 1, 2010)

A 300 pound inspector with a peg leg.......


----------



## DRP (Dec 1, 2010)

40 psf uniform will test the stair assembly harder, I've got a set on the computer with a roughly 60 sf footprint, 60x40=2400 lbs. Each flight to the mid landing is ~20sf or 800 lbs. The 300# point load is a tread test IIRC


----------

