# Stuck on Winder Layout



## DRP (Sep 24, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 25, 2010)

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 (Sep 26, 2010)

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 (Sep 27, 2010)

Walk Line



			
				DRP said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 27, 2010)

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


----------



## DRP (Sep 28, 2010)

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" walkline
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 212


View attachment 212


/monthly_2010_09/572953b9910b5_baldwinstairsSept28.jpg.c56eddc6a7bc3baee3ad397117ca727a.jpg


----------



## Lynn (Sep 28, 2010)

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 (Sep 28, 2010)

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.


----------



## jim baird (Sep 28, 2010)

from '06 IRC:

Winder treads shall have a minimum tread depth of 10 inches (254 mm) measured as above at a point 12 inches (305 mm) from the side where the treads are narrower.Winder treads shall have a minimum tread depth of 6 inches (152 mm) at any point. Within any flight of stairs, the largest winder tread depth

at the 12 inch (305 mm) walk line shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 28, 2010)

Tom, I would measure the 12 inches from the stair side edge of the center post, similar to circular stair measurement.  If there is no post and just guard, I would actually measure to the very outside edge of the tread.  I would not stop at the baluster.

My reasoning is that if there is no post it is more than likely very gentle winder and not a sharp 90.

DA BEARS!


----------



## tbz (Sep 28, 2010)

TJ,

My prior post is directed at the latest 2009 walkline wording for the defined location.  If you check out the commantary it is specific for using the widest point within the flight, not the shortest, hence my drawing.

The 06, though does not define location of walkline in a fixed term location, it leaves the door open and thus one need be creative and conclude that the walkline is just 12" in from edge.

Lynn, you are correct about the 6" on the outer side, that is normally fixed with just doing a 45 degree turn out 6" from the wall, I did not draw that in my sketch, figuring it was a given, but I guess I should be more detailed.  This turn out also takes care of the wall post for termination of the guard.

The point I was getting at is by doing more than 2 interlocking winder treads, and meeting the 6" min edge depth, you will end up eating up more travel distance than adding in a landing, unless you are doing a descending 180 degree wrap, but then you would still extend out further than a landing turn on a 90 degree layout vrs the 180 return for full descending.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Sep 28, 2010)

In the last jurisdiction I worked for, there was a builder that built this same style of "winder" (where the stairs were mostly straight, and a winder was incorporated into the middle, identical to the 1st drawing from DRP). The BO had alot of heart burn over it. Finally the builder came up with (paid for) an official interp from ICC (based on either '03, or '06 IRC) where they stated with regard to the walk line and the 3/8" difference in the tread depth, that the measurement for the 3/8" max variation only applied to the winder portion of the stairs. Basically, the tread depth for the straight portion was approved at 10" min (or what have you), then the tread depth for the winding portion only had to be consistent within itself (12" or 14" or whatever, varying max 3/8"). Then the rest of the parallel treads had to go back to the original 10".

At the time it seemed awfully strange, but based on that interp, we let them proceed. It was almost as if there were two different flights of stairs without being broken up by landings.

I still don't agree with it, but that's what we approved based on the interp. I don't know how to find such interps from ICC. There may be a way to find it. However, it may not work with the '09, but it is out there, somewhere.


----------



## DRP (Sep 28, 2010)

Glennman, yes, I saw a clarification of that during my reading of 311.7.4.2 of the '09. "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" of the rectangular tread depth." That has been my understanding of the intent, and I do agree with it. Don't misunderstand my sentiments... despite all my oscillations I'm not a winder fan.Tom, thanks for bearing with me and clearing up some of the terminology and measurement points. I've attached a plan view, it is 9'5" to the bath door but I'd like to keep the overall run in that direction to 9'3 max. The finish floor total rise is 108". The entry is fairly close @ 6'5". The lower run is also 38-1/2" wide which should pass min clear width between the newels. The constraint is the clients' desire to make the lower run into the floor as short as possible in the entry area. So yes, if the winder on the landing is as short as it can get, that is the solution. They were pushing for it being more compact and asked if we couldn't put another winder on the landing and buy more room.  That was my next round of sketches, exploring if that could work. That side journey also exposed a real weakness in my understanding so I'm also trying to fill that gap. I gather that after a single winder on the landing I'm growing as compared to minimal rectangular 9" treads stepping off the landing?Thanks again,Don P

View attachment 213


View attachment 213


/monthly_2010_09/baldwinstairSept28b.jpg.ab3e3ab86bbeb8796ef59008ec616463.jpg


----------



## DRP (Sep 28, 2010)

I'll make this another post so it'll be easier to say "disregard your last post, thinking problem".Let me see if I understand some concepts. I drew the baluster line 1" inside the newels on both flights. I then drew a line inside that 12", from both the upper and lower flights. I then swung a 12" arc that is tangent to both 12" lines. I added another winder. I swung a 6" arcfrom the corner of the newel to make sure I had 6" at any point on the tread below it. I measured and balanced the length of chords across the arc and down the lowermost winder (Is this the correct way to measure that?). I also nipped the corner of Lynn's tread (That actually looks like its more likely to cause trouble to me?)If that all worked it did save almost 4 more inches.

View attachment 214


View attachment 214


/monthly_2010_09/572953b999a34_baldwinstairsbSept28.jpg.177be2f627c0d9a9e41e971dd7f09a3b.jpg


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 29, 2010)

It does not appear that 2009 fixed anything.  It just codifies inconsistancy.  Great.


----------



## tbz (Sep 29, 2010)

DRP,

You have met the techinal portion of the code, however, it is really not that good of a stair layout for functionality.

You noted that the doorway was a bathroom, so this might not work, but what if you shifted the stairs to the right and put a double descending platform with a 180 degree turn, and shifted the door to be under the staircase rather than at the base?

I don't have the whole floor plan, nor know were in the construction phase you are, but, this seems awfuly tight fit and the stairs are being shoe horned in place.

You also might want to think of changing the guard and handrails from wood to metal, this would save you on post width and clear width concerns by about 3 - 4 inches.

The following layout would be a better walking surface






My skecth mostlikely involves a lot of fixture moving at this point, so it is mute, but just what I would see to solve the tight turn.


----------



## DRP (Sep 29, 2010)

Thanks for the considerable time and patience here Tom,

Mostly I'm glad to have finally wrapped my head around the technical aspects. There is actually a bathroom behind that door but there is a closet behind the doorway you've drawn. Your design can work in the original location, that sketch was shot down as well. I'm in the position of presenting the options and explaining the virtues and drawbacks of each. In the end I will build a compliant stair of their choosing. The bright spot is that I know the designs offered are code compliant, the original design was not.

TJ, Another way of thinking about it. The winder is a slice of pie. We have decided that it can be no narrower than 6" and by the time it is 12" wide it needs to be at least 10" wide. Making it the same as the rectangular treads at 12" might seem consistent in some way but at any other point it will be something other. It would also make it pretty much unbuildable, you would have locked 2 points of a triangle. I think that would essentially define a triangle. It will never really be a tread consistent with the others, these constraints simply make it relatively safe in the normal travel path. I can see and agree with the intent there.

I really do appreciate everyone's input.


----------



## Architect1281 (Oct 1, 2010)

Hear is the best reference for interpretation of stair layouts

rather than being the "Mother of Invention"

Ask Mom or in this case SMA

Stair Manufacturers association.

http://www.stairways.org/pdf/2006%20Stair%20IRC%20SCREEN.pdf

This orginization will provide state specific Code Specific document for any state

They did one for us in RI because we know best and change the national standards.

If you can't find the solution at this site you are trying really hard to avoid compliance


----------



## Architect1281 (Oct 1, 2010)

Comment on 3 d computer graphics.

Computers will make any mistake you tell them to make

My trouble with the damn things is they do exactly what I tell them to do

Instead of what I wanted them to do


----------



## DRP (Oct 1, 2010)

I started there, this situation wasn't really covered in the Stairways pdf, but  yes that is an excellent link. I refer to it often and pass it around.Another way to look at google sketchup. It is a free download, several forums allow posting the skp file directly. Instead of posting screenshots and others having to ask for particulars,  I could have posted the file, it could have been the entire 3d house model. That makes collaboration pretty easy. I've attached an example that I had on the computer of a drawing I worked up for an ag building. I've been pretty impressed with what it can do.

View attachment 217


View attachment 218


View attachment 217


View attachment 218


/monthly_2010_10/rafterfoot.jpg.41cf74155f6a26df5b5ab41ea1b59624.jpg

/monthly_2010_10/bentup.jpg.38ed69e6b8dc5494101dc14cde29880f.jpg


----------



## Mule (Oct 7, 2010)

When I first read this topic I thought the discussion was going to be on the placement of winders....you know those thangs that you open up to let the fresh air in.


----------

