# Not a tread or a landing



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

View attachment 1275

	

		
			
		

		
	
I don't see this as a compliant tread or a compliant landing.  Too large for a tread (not uniform) and too small for a landing (not 36" in direction of travel).  It causes a disruption in the rhythm of travel.  Therefore not permitted.  Anybody have a dissenting opinion?

View attachment 1674


View attachment 1674


/monthly_2012_03/HPIM0014.JPG.8e2504027fbac8578cd23f6aca3df9c8.JPG


----------



## north star (Mar 29, 2012)

*& & &*

Pictures... ??  ...more info please!

*& & &*


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

This is my first picture post so still trying to figure it out.  I edited the post after I saw it wasn't there.  It should be there now???


----------



## north star (Mar 29, 2012)

*=  =  =*

*What are your options?*

*=  =  =*


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

This occured on the first house this builder did under the newly adopted codes in this jurisdiction.  I informed him then it would not work in the future, let him slide on that one since none of the other adjacent jurisdictions have been enforcing it and told him I wouldn't approve it again.  He did it again.  Now I want to make sure before he is forced to make a design change since this is one of his best selling models.  I suggested compliant winders or a real landing but he can figure out whatever he wants.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 29, 2012)

Is there another means of egress because it may be a not-a-stair.

See thread: http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8139-NFPA-101-just-what-is-it


----------



## north star (Mar 29, 2012)

*= = =*



"IF" it were me, I too would provide a workable solution for the

builder as well........You are most definitely on the right path.

Design change, .."YES!"......On this particular one, request that

he install some decorative ballusters & sturdy / well anchored /

functional handrailing, AND document the inspection with the

builder......"This simply cannot happen again, or else!".....Also,

try to educate him / them along the way.



FWIW, technically, ..." gbhammer " could be right.......This

might be one of those *"thingies". * 



*= = =*


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2012)

It appears to be a wininding tread, and not a landing. And it appears to comply with wininding tread requirements


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

I recently read that thread about the spirals.  In this case it is the only moe for three bedrooms, not sure I can justify it as a ladder on this one.  Some background on this customer.  He is a top local builder/seller and is very well connected.  I have been holding his hand since the day I got here, letting him slide all over the place.  He can't seem to understand that the "but it sells" argument doesn't hold water.  I gave him the workable solution on the last house and told him it can't happen again.  As far as education, while explaining all of this stuff to him he admitted he actually tripped on that spot because of the rhythym disruption, of course he doesn't care because it sells.  Afraid if I give him this house it will just be kicking the can down the road and giving more ammunition for him to say that I let him do it in the past.


----------



## rogerpa (Mar 29, 2012)

I agree with Mark. It's a "winder". WINDER. A tread with nonparallel edges. See R311.7.4.2


----------



## north star (Mar 29, 2012)

*= = =*

With this new info, and the admittance of himself tripping in

that very spot, I will now change course and state that it is

time to "stop kicking the can" and have him redo the

construction of the MOE stairway and to do it in a compliant

manner.

"Well connected you say..." Hmmmmm!..........Inform him of

your inspection results "in writing", along with chapter &

verse of the applicable code sections, then see where it goes.

They either hired you to enforce the codes or they didn't.

What's it going to be?

You could reference Section R101.3 [ `06 IRC ] to counter

the compliant winder tread.

*R101.3 Purpose.*The purpose of this code is to provide

minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety,

health and general welfare through affordability, structural

strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation,

light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life

and property from fire and other hazards attributed to

the built environment.

The builder's own admission of tripping is further evidence

of a MOE problem......Also, remember, the "most restrictive"

shall govern, not what is profitable for the contractor

[  RE: Section R102.1, `06 IRC  ].



*= = =*


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2012)

It appears to be a wininding tread, and not a landing. And it appears to comply with wininding tread requirements


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 29, 2012)

Mark, nice diagram. I was about to mention that code section and 311.7.3 Walkline.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 29, 2012)

It's a winder, and compliant.

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?6829-Stair-Landing/page2&highlight=winder


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2012)

Compliant? Yes


----------



## north star (Mar 29, 2012)

*- - & - -*

MOE problem... Yes!

*- - & - -*


----------



## fatboy (Mar 29, 2012)

Like I stated in the thread that I posted the link for, I think they suck as stairs, period. But, I have come to believe they are compliant.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> MOE problem... Yes!


MOE problem NO, compliant

SECTION R311

MEANS OF EGRESS

R311.7 Stairways.

R311.7.3 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.

R311.7.4.2 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).


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Like I stated in the thread that I posted the link for, I think they suck as stairs, period. But, I have come to believe they are compliant.


I agree  :agree


----------



## north star (Mar 29, 2012)

*= = =*

IMO, Section R101.3 [ "the minimum requirements" ] have not been

met!........There is "verbal & visual documentation" of a known trip

hazard......To me, a trip hazard has not met the minimum!......Reconstruct

this one area to "not" have a trip hazard and I am o.k. with it, but

not until!

Would you want your pregnant wife / girlfriend, or elderly

mom / dad / grandmom / grandad / other to trip on this hazard?

*= = =*


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 29, 2012)

Could be a code compliant winding tread.  Depends on the dimensions at the narrow end and at a point 12" in from the narrow end.  If the dimension at the narrow end is at least 6" and the dimension at the walkline is consistent with the dimensions of the other treads and risers, it certainly could qualify.


----------



## tbz (Mar 29, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *= = =*IMO, Section R101.3 [ "the minimum requirements" ] have not been
> 
> met!........There is "verbal & visual documentation" of a known trip
> 
> ...


North Star, as we know everyone has an opinion, but what does the math and geometry of the layout prove.

In order to know if this complies, the OP needs to set the walkline in place on the stairs in the field.

Based on the basics of geometry the "Winder Tread" is not large enough to be a landing, thus does the tread comply with the dimensional requirements of the winder portion of the code?

If it does, then it complies and is compliant.  If it does not, then it fails and it needs to be changed.

I believe by looking at the picture the stair flight will more than likely meet the requirements and be compliant, again IMO.

As to R101.3 using it as a personal disagreement tool to fail compliant portions of the building is why we have voting booths that some what work................

Sifu, did you layout the walkline and check for winder compliance?

On a note, the winder tread


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 29, 2012)

> Sifu, did you layout the walkline and check for winder compliance?


That would be my suggestion also. If a slight modification is needed to be compliant the builder could adjust his design and still have it "sell" as he has in the past.

You might even get an allie out of it that you are reasonable to work with


----------



## Alias (Mar 29, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Like I stated in the thread that I posted the link for, I think they suck as stairs, period. But, I have come to believe they are compliant.


Agreed.  :agree   Poor design but compliant.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 29, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Could be a code compliant winding tread.  Depends on the dimensions at the narrow end and at a point 12" in from the narrow end.  If the dimension at the narrow end is at least 6" and the dimension at the walkline is consistent with the dimensions of the other treads and risers, it certainly could qualify.


Hi Big Mac,

R311.7.4.2 ... the largest winder tread depth at the walkline shall not exceed the smallest winder tread by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm)... and do not have to be within 3/8"of the rectangular tread depth.

I don't see anything connecting the tread depth of the winders to the regular treads. The risers do have to be withing 3/8" over the whole stairway but not the treads.

Bill


----------



## mjesse (Mar 29, 2012)

Winder - Compliant


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 29, 2012)

Looks like a compliant winder to me.

BS


----------



## Inspector Gift (Mar 29, 2012)

Mark Handler's last picture does not appear to meet R311.7.4.2, requirement of 6 inches minimum width at any point within the clear width of the stair.

Compliant?  NO.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 29, 2012)

KZQ - I agree, I think.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2012)

Inspector Gift said:
			
		

> Mark Handler's last picture does not appear to meet R311.7.4.2, requirement of 6 inches minimum width at any point within the clear width of the stair.Compliant?  NO.


You are correct


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

Maybe the picture is not doing it justice.  What you see is a single tread with a depth at walkline of about 18", far greater than the 10" on all the other treads.  This would not comply with the uniform tread depth requirement.  To equate it with a winder would be to say that a single tread of 18" in a straight run of stairs with 10" treads would be compliant.  IMO it half winder, half landing and wholly non-compliant.  But, if I am wrong tell me.  I don't *want* to fail anyone if I don't need to.

R311.5.3.2 Tread depth

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).


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

Would it still be compliant if treads 2 & 3 were combined into one single tread, yet not be large enough to be a landing?  That is similar but not as severe as the condition I have.


----------



## rogerpa (Mar 29, 2012)

2009 IRC

R311.7.4.2 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 walk line. 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 walk line shall not exceed the *smallest* winder tread by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).

Since there is only one winder there is no "smallest winder" to exceed.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

Rogerpa, don't understand that.  By that reasoning the winder riser could be 2 inches high and the rest 7 inches.  A winder is part of the entire flight so all the adjacent treads and risers are the ones with which the winder would be compared.....no?  A flight is only broken into two distinct and different flights by a landing.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 29, 2012)

2006 IRC commentary:

A stairway may consist of straight

treads, or it may be constructed using winders. If winders

are used, they can either be used for an entire flight of a

stairway, as a portion of a stairway such as at a change

of direction or to form a circular stairway. Winders consist

of tapered treads that are narrow on one end and widen

out, pie-shaped, toward the opposite side of the stairs.

Because they are primarily used to change the direction

of the stair, and they create a change in the rhythm for

the stair user, it is important that winders comply with the

specified dimensional criteria. See Commentary Figure

R311.5.3.2(1) for examples of winders used as a portion

of a stairway at a change of direction.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 29, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Rogerpa, don't understand that.  By that reasoning the winder riser could be 2 inches high and the rest 7 inches.  A winder is part of the entire flight so all the adjacent treads and risers are the ones with which the winder would be compared.....no?  A flight is only broken into two distinct and different flights by a landing.


Sifu,

Tread depths and riser heights are different things.

Tread depths are not to be compared between winders and rectangular treads. Riser heights are a different matter they must all be within 3'8" of each other.

Bill


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 29, 2012)

Inspector Gift said:
			
		

> Mark Handler's last picture does not appear to meet R311.7.4.2, requirement of 6 inches minimum width at any point within the clear width of the stair.Compliant?  NO.


I thought the same thing. Seems like 6", concentric to the walk line needs to be 6" and I don't see it there.

Bill


----------



## tbz (Mar 30, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Maybe the picture is not doing it justice.  What you see is a single tread with a depth at walkline of about 18", far greater than the 10" on all the other treads.  This would not comply with the uniform tread depth requirement.  To equate it with a winder would be to say that a single tread of 18" in a straight run of stairs with 10" treads would be compliant.  IMO it half winder, half landing and wholly non-compliant.  But, if I am wrong tell me.  I don't *want* to fail anyone if I don't need to. R311.5.3.2 Tread depth
> 
> Within any flight of stairs, the largest winder tread depth at the 12 inch (305
> 
> ...


Sifu,

Tread depth is measured only against the type of tread, thus winders against winders and standard rect. Treads against rect. Treads.

All the risers are measured against each othe within the flight.

As noted by KZ your case just happens to have only one winder, thus no other tread to compare the depth to.

But, the risers better be within range.

Tom


----------



## Sifu (Mar 30, 2012)

*"Tread depths are not to be compared between winders and rectangular treads. Riser heights are a different matter they must all be within 3'8" of each other"*

OK, I am seeing a consensus and am starting to be swayed but I would like to know how or where you come by that understanding?  If the code requires the same 10" minimum at the walkline as the rectangular treads, and the commentary informs us that winder treads are a portion of a stairway I have trouble inferring that.  If it is not a new stairway then the uniformity would need to hold.  Like I said, happy to let it go if a valid argument is made but it does not appear to meet the intent as I see it.  The tread as it is is too big to take a normal step down on and not big enough to take a normal horizontal stride.  It requires shuffling your feet or one giant step for mankind.  Would you think that is the intent of the code?


----------



## Sifu (Mar 30, 2012)

Big apology to ALL.  Don't know why I didn't check this first.  The 2009 interpretations book has this very issue word for word.  You are all correct, I am not.  "...not required to be the same depth as straight treads within the same flight...."

I will look at the other requirements as mentioned but those I think will be easy to rectify.  Sometimes it feels OK to be wrong!


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 30, 2012)

A reminder of resources available on this website; http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7409-IRC-Residential-Stairs

Francis


----------



## mjesse (Feb 2, 2016)

Resurrection of an old thread for more fancy winders.

How 'bout these beauties?!


----------



## Msradell (Feb 2, 2016)

I Just like to See an Inspector try measuring those to see if they met code or not! If the rise is correct which we can't tell from the pictures measuring the run would present a major challenge.

I'm also not so sure they tried very hard!


----------



## ICE (Feb 2, 2016)

> Resurrection of an old thread for more fancy winders.How 'bout these beauties?!


I think the spring broke on that winder staircase.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 3, 2016)

> I Just like to See an Inspector try measuring those to see if they met code or not! If the rise is correct which we can't tell from the pictures measuring the run would present a major challenge.I'm also not so sure they tried very hard!


The rise is consistent all the way up, treads...not so much.

I was getting a headache trying to explain how that's not what was on the approved plan, and why no, I will not approve them as-is.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 3, 2016)

When we get weird ones like this, the framer will usually sketch them out on the floor before they build them. We come and check the the sketch and sign off before they start building them. Later we come back and check the rise.


----------

