# Stair Landing



## ICE (Nov 1, 2011)

The tiles are 18".  The entire 2800 sq. ft. is tile.  The stairs are tile and slippery.  A lot of work went into making this landing.  Sure looks odd.


----------



## JBI (Nov 1, 2011)

A lot of work... and almost code compliant. :-(


----------



## fatboy (Nov 1, 2011)

Yeah, have run into this before also, looks pretty, not code compliant though.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 2, 2011)

Its a Winder


----------



## iggentleman (Nov 2, 2011)

Definitely a winder.

From the photo I can't tell if the handrail and it's termination works.


----------



## tbz (Nov 2, 2011)

Well from what I can see

The lower step is a winder the front edge is not parallel to the other treads.

Thus it is not a landing it is a winder by definition.

However,

If you are looking for a reason to fail it, the tread and riser sizes might not comply, but I am guessing they do since ICE did not mention this.

But,

I believe the IRC-CBC that ICE is using is based on the 2009 IRC for the most part and within that the profiles of the projections on the stair flight treads are required to be uniform within 3/8",

thus from the picture the upper flight after the winder looks to have the 1/2" or more slanted risers, however the riser on the winder to the main floor level looks completely vertical, thus the profiles are not uniform in size and does not comply, a bit nit picky, but by code looks to be the only thing I can spot.

As for the handrail portion, again I am figuring ICE does not have a problem with it, since nothing noted, to me it looks like a turnout, and per the IRC a turnout is permitted over the bottom stair tread (see exceptions)

and a winder tread can be a top or bottom tread.

Tom


----------



## pete_t (Nov 2, 2011)

Interesting discussion.

My take on this is that it comes down to the definition of "_within_". The code does not state "_as a part of_" but "_within the same flight of stair_s" and if I go to Websters two of the definitions I get are:

Definition of _WITHIN_     preposition

1 — used as a function word to indicate enclosure or containment

Definition of _WITHIN_     adjective

: being inside : enclosed

To me those definitions means that the winder is bordered, contained or enclosed on both sides with something and since this section is titled Tread Depth I would read it as there needs to be regular treads before and after the winder(s).

I don't see where it would allow the winder to bordered, contained or enclosed with treads on one side and a floor on the other.

Then there is the section requiring a floor or landing at the top and bottom of stairs.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though.


----------



## fiddler (Nov 2, 2011)

The treads are not deep enough


----------



## iggentleman (Nov 2, 2011)

pete_t said:
			
		

> ....I don't see where it would allow the winder to bordered, contained or enclosed with treads on one side and a floor on the other....


Looking through both the 2006 and 2009 IRCs, I don't see anything that prevents it. Just need to maintain a minimum depth at  couple of locations.



			
				tbz said:
			
		

> .....As for the handrail portion, again I am figuring ICE does not have a problem with it, since nothing noted, to me it looks like a turnout, and per the IRC a turnout is permitted over the bottom stair tread (see exceptions)....


Exception 2 under handrail continuity allows volutes and turnouts (which maintains rail height) but I'm not sure it allows a turn-down to replace the handrail on the last tread. In the photo it looks like the handrail ends at the second riser, then drops as it turns out over the winder.

But it is hard to tell from the photo.


----------



## ICE (Nov 2, 2011)

The permit for the house was obtained in 2010 so the IBC applied.  The only deficiency is the landing.  The owner is upset because this wasn't caught at the framing inspection.  I didn't do the framing inspection and from looking at the records, I'm not convinced a framing inspection was done.  In as much as the rise from the floor to the landing is identical to the rest of the risers, I would be willing to bet there was a step there and not a landing at the framing inspection.  It would be hard to miss this landing at a framing inspection.

They also added a fixed island in the kitchen with no receptacle and check out the back door.  Too bad it was built per the IBC because the steps would be almost legal under the IRC.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 2, 2011)

Looks like ka-ka.

That is my professional opinion.


----------



## JBI (Nov 2, 2011)

$80,000 education and you come up with 'ka-ka'? LMAO

'Within'. Interesting arguement. Gotta chew on it for a while.


----------



## ICE (Nov 2, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Well from what I can seeThe lower step is a winder the front edge is not parallel to the other treads.
> 
> Thus it is not a landing it is a winder by definition.
> 
> ...


I will look into this winder theory.  I am never looking for a reason to fail something.  I am looking to see if there is a reason that compels me to fail something.  A perfect day for me is a day with no corrections.  That's usually Saturday and Sunday.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 2, 2011)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> Its a Winder


   Winner, Winner, Steak Dinner ... channeling Dottie the Beagle.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 2, 2011)

pete_t said:
			
		

> Interesting discussion.  My take on this is that it comes down to the definition of "_within_". The code does not state "_as a part of_" but "_within the same flight of stair_s" and if I go to Websters two of the definitions I get are:  Definition of _WITHIN_     preposition  1 — used as a function word to indicate enclosure or containment   Definition of _WITHIN_     adjective  : being inside : enclosed    To me those definitions means that the winder is bordered, contained or enclosed on both sides with something and since this section is titled Tread Depth I would read it as there needs to be regular treads before and after the winder(s).  I don't see where it would allow the winder to bordered, contained or enclosed with treads on one side and a floor on the other.  Then there is the section requiring a floor or landing at the top and bottom of stairs.  I am willing to be convinced otherwise though.


  Are you seriously arguing that the floor level occurs both above and below the first riser? or are you giving a deadpan demonstration of the illogic behind such an interpretation through reductio ad absurdum?


----------



## tbz (Nov 3, 2011)

iggentleman said:
			
		

> Looking through both the 2006 and 2009 IRCs, I don't see anything that prevents it. Just need to maintain a minimum depth at  couple of locations. Exception 2 under handrail continuity allows volutes and turnouts (which maintains rail height) but I'm not sure it allows a turn-down to replace the handrail on the last tread. In the photo it looks like the handrail ends at the second riser, then drops as it turns out over the winder.
> 
> But it is hard to tell from the photo.


IG,

The lower handrail termination turns outward, I am pretty sure and thus is a turn out, the exception is in both height[see below] and continuity.  The termination wraps under in a floating lambs tongue, though I prefer the lambs tongue to return to a post, the client wished to be creative here, I am figuring.



> R311.7.7.1 Height. Handrail height, measured vertically from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm).
> 
> Exceptions:
> 
> ...


----------



## tbz (Nov 3, 2011)

pete_t said:
			
		

> Interesting discussion.My take on this is that it comes down to the definition of "_within_". The code does not state "_as a part of_" but "_within the same flight of stair_s" and if I go to Websters two of the definitions I get are:
> 
> Definition of _WITHIN_     preposition
> 
> ...


Pete,

It is within,

simply the winder is contained "WITHIN" the bottom riser and the top riser of the flight, the winder portion of the flight as noted by others does not meet a landings requirement and thus is not considered 2 flights just one from the ground level to the second floor.

If you are saying it needs to be contained between walls and one can have a winder stair only between walls, well I do not agree.


----------



## tbz (Nov 3, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> I will look into this winder theory.  I am never looking for a reason to fail something.  I am looking to see if there is a reason that compels me to fail something.  A perfect day for me is a day with no corrections.  That's usually Saturday and Sunday.


ICE:

Though the section in the IBC in 2006 was labeled curved stairs, the intent is the same and if you review the SMA's guide, which diagrams different winder stairs your lower tread is shown within the flight.  The exception is listed for the 2006 IBC below for R-3.  Though the flanking edges of the winder are boxed the turn within the walkline is a radius when descending.

You are correct that this winder tread was most likely added by the owner to try and add something to the bottom of the stairway, they could have just used a raised circular plinth with a extend bottom tread edge.  Would have turned out nicer.

By the way, I did not mean to say you are looking to fail inspections all the time, I was just suggesting that if you felt by walking on the stair flight in person that this is going to cause a bunch of injury and strongly felt a need to get it corrected, the profiles being within 3/8" was the only item that jumps out at me from viewing the picture.



> 1009.7 Curved stairways.Curved stairways with winder treads shall have treads and risers in accordance with Section 1009.3 and the smallest radius shall not be less than twice the required width of the stairway.
> 
> Exception: The radius restriction shall not apply to curved stairways for occupancies in Group R-3 and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2.


----------



## tbz (Nov 3, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> The permit for the house was obtained in 2010 so the IBC applied.  The only deficiency is the landing.  The owner is upset because this wasn't caught at the framing inspection.  I didn't do the framing inspection and from looking at the records, I'm not convinced a framing inspection was done.  In as much as the rise from the floor to the landing is identical to the rest of the risers, I would be willing to bet there was a step there and not a landing at the framing inspection.  It would be hard to miss this landing at a framing inspection.  They also added a fixed island in the kitchen with no receptacle and check out the back door.  Too bad it was built per the IBC because the steps would be almost legal under the IRC.


For the life of me I can't figure out why when sites have the room to build a exterior landing outside a door they don't, what did they save $500.00.

I get it when zoning says you can't, don't agree, but do get it.


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2011)

The definition of a winder is simplistic.  There is no change of trajectory which in my opinion, would be part and parcel of a winder.  While it is correct that this landing shape fits within the definition of a winder, the same can be said of any four sided polygon.  To allow this landing by calling it a winder tread leaves open the possibility of creating treads anywhere within a  straight flight with more than a 3/8" variation by calling it a winder tread.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 3, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> The definition of a winder is simplistic.  There is no change of trajectory which in my opinion, would be part and parcel of a winder.  While it is correct that this landing shape fits within the definition of a winder, the same can be said of any four sided polygon.  To allow this landing by calling it a winder tread leaves open the possibility of creating treads anywhere within a  straight flight with more than a 3/8" variation by calling it a winder tread.


  To allow it means only that this stair doesn't need to be ripped out. It doesn't mean that you have to approve every example of crappy construction.


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> To allow it means only that this stair doesn't need to be ripped out. *It doesn't mean that you have to approve every example of crappy construction.*


Just this one.

I reviewed this situation with my office manager before I started this thread.  He said that the landing must be 36".  A day later, I told him about the feedback I was getting here and now he has decided that it's a winder tread.  I just seem to have a hard time bending the code until it is near the breaking point and that is what I am about to do.

In the grand scheme of things, this landing is not all that dangerous but stairs are where most accidents happen and as slippery as these stairs are, accidents are a real possibility.  I would prefer that the entire arrangement be able to pass scrutiny.

It is worth noting that this forum can make a difference in the results of the practice of code enforcement.  Good or bad, it's still a difference.

I surprised the manager when I immediately said OK without comment.  That's not like me at all.  I know that he has a tough row to hoe and he's an old hand at bending the codes to within a hare's breath of rupture.

Not to forget is the outside chance that I was wrong.  That is why I mentioned the forum feedback to the manager.  We both pondered the situation.  Allow it if you must and I will wonder about that outside chance....nah just kidding.  Call it what you will, I am not convinced.


----------



## pete_t (Nov 3, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Pete,It is within,
> 
> simply the winder is contained "WITHIN" the bottom riser and the top riser of the flight, the winder portion of the flight as noted by others does not meet a landings requirement and thus is not considered 2 flights just one from the ground level to the second floor.
> 
> If you are saying it needs to be contained between walls and one can have a winder stair only between walls, well I do not agree.


Tom

I thought this after I posted and agree that it's a compliant winder, just haven't seen them at the top or bottom of a stairway.

Any thoughts about that open curved tread section that returns to the wall?


----------



## fatboy (Nov 3, 2011)

I too am rethinking this. I posted what we have enforced in the past, but after going back a re-reading the stair section several times looking for an argument to support my interpretation, I'm coming up empty as to why you can't have a winder at the the bottom of compliant stairs, rather than a full landing.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 3, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> Just this one.In the grand scheme of things, this landing is not all that dangerous but stairs are where most accidents happen and as slippery as these stairs are, accidents are a real possibility. I would prefer that the entire arrangement be able to pass scrutiny.
> 
> ...............................................................................
> 
> ...


Good reason for handrails be it (slippery) tile, (slippery) wood, (pilling) carpet and marble wearing socks or shoes. Aside from our opinions the code sets the lowest bar. Call it the minimum.


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I too am rethinking this. I posted what we have enforced in the past, but after going back a re-reading the stair section several times looking for an argument to support my interpretation, I'm coming up empty as to why you can't have a winder at the the bottom of compliant stairs, rather than a full landing.


Oh this is not a good thing.  When a stalwart {that's not an insult fatboy} supporter of common sense is led astray I feel that a betrayal of our mission has taken place.


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2011)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> *Good reason for handrails* be it (slippery) tile, (slippery) wood, (pilling) carpet and marble wearing socks or shoes. Aside from our opinions the code sets the lowest bar. Call it the minimum.


I can get more handrails.  From 34" to 38" on both sides allows for at least four.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 3, 2011)

It's fine, move along folks nothin' to see here


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 3, 2011)

ka ka just about covers it.  I would buy the winder argument better if it wound somewhere but it's larger than a winder tread needs to be so I'd accept it grudgingly.  They'll trip a lot...


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It's fine, move along folks nothin' to see here


Would that we could but somebody gave it five stars.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 3, 2011)

Seriously, I have read through the relevant sections time and time again, even put it back to my staff to justify our interpretation, and we are coming up , zilch. I don't like it, but, I believe now it is compliant, as far as the winder/landing issue. Not insulted ICE, but you are also thinking. Somebody please tell me I was OK making some of those townhouses change that stair termination. (can't call it a landing, right?)


----------



## KZQuixote (Nov 4, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> The definition of a winder is simplistic.  There is no change of trajectory which in my opinion, would be part and parcel of a winder.  While it is correct that this landing shape fits within the definition of a winder, the same can be said of any four sided polygon.  To allow this landing by calling it a winder tread leaves open the possibility of creating treads anywhere within a  straight flight with more than a 3/8" variation by calling it a winder tread.


Don't get that! For it to be a winder tread which is part of a larger stairway it'd have to comply with the 3/8" deviation rule. If the rise meets this standard I'd say the landing was at finished floor elevation.

Good to Go!

Bill


----------



## Yankee (Nov 4, 2011)

I don't believe there is justification for disallowing it


----------



## tbz (Nov 4, 2011)

Been a lot of posting since I last checked this post.

ICE,

As noted in my posts I don't like the layout, but felt strong enough to call a friend who happens to be the guy or should I say person that re-wrote all the stair winder, profiles, walk line and pretty much flight wording in the IRC & IBC in the last 9 years,

I can't use his real name so I will call him Dave......

I sent him the post and he confirmed my interp, it's a winder.

However, the profile dimension is off.

ICE,

You have a simple rule of thumb, if it is correct it passes if it is not it fails, wish more inspectors were just like you.

I hate it when you tell a client that's not compliant and then the inspector says, well I let it pass.

You have egg on your face for doing the right thing and the inspector hangs you out to dry.

Bending to a point is fine, this is not a bend, sleep well it's just pretty ugly,


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2011)

The back door problem can disappear too.  We can call it a window.  It doesn't look like a window but as long as it fits within the definition of a window, that shouldn't be an issue, right?

The simple solution would be to ask the owner, What is that at the bottom of the stairs?, and if he says it is a landing, agree with him.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 4, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I don't believe there is justification for disallowing it


I was speaking of just the landing/winder issue. Clearly it doesn't meet the other criteria.


----------

