# Stairology



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

I've got some uncomfortable stairs down to the basement.
There isn't much I can do about the space and stringer layout ...
but I do think how the tread and riser boards are set can be adjusted.

Here's what I have:
1) The stringers are cut with 9" of run against 8" of rise...
2) The 8" riser face board is 3/4" wide at base (with a nice taper at top)
3) The tread boards are 1 1/8" x 11 1/4".
4) That nosing overhangs the riser by 2 3/4"
(See the picture below)

Any ideas? Thanks.


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

These stairs are unsafe and would never meet and codes I've ever heard of. They need to come out and be redone.
http://www.blocklayer.com/stairs/stairseng.aspx


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

joecaption said:


> These stairs are unsafe and would never meet and codes I've ever heard of.
> Thank you for your comment.
> (you should see some of the other stuff here)
> 
> They need to come out and be redone.


OK; pretend for a moment this might actually happen...

The floor opening (inside of headers) is 98" long.
From the floor to the top of the joists is 97 1/2" high (99" to floor).
What can fit into that space?


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

Just because the opening is 98" doesn't mean the stairs can't be a little longer as long as you have (I believe) 7' of headroom straight up from that step to the bottom of the header (floor).
Cut new stringers.


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

titanoman said:


> ...as long as you have (I believe) 7' of headroom straight up from that step to the bottom of the header


That right there is the problem: this is a basement with an 881/2" rough height. 
Finished ceiling will be lower; no more than 87" (less flooring).

To avoid the height clearance issue would mean open the floor up...
and moving the header about 21-24" and relocating a duct run too.

ETA: I *could* expand the opening as much as 20"...
(I'll explore this but I still don't want to open that can of worms)

Assuming I remain stubborn: How can I (best) trim and/or reset the treads and riser boards to make this "better". Thanks.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

I have an old car with a broken frame, bald tires, and almost no brakes left. What brand of wax should I polish the car with to make it safer?


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

Ok, since it's obvious you aren't going to do this right, let me at least explain why there is not much you can do.

The rise and run of stringers (foot lift and tread depth) has to be initially figured and cut correctly to get the stringer angle and tread platforms to fall within safe and comfortable parameters. This was not done here. And there is not a thing in the world you can do to change the cuts once they are made because it is an angle and tilt thing that is now a part of the cut pattern.

Secondly, the piece of lumber chosen for the stringers was too narrow. There is not enough solid (uncut) wood left in your stringers to offer adequate support. This CAN be helped by "sistering" in another piece alongside the stringers, thouroughly fastening the two pieces together.

But that is about all you can do. No alteration in the world is going to change the inadequate tread depths. Any nosing overhang you try to cheat with will be offset and negated as soon as the next tread is installed.

You need a bigger hole in the floor, bigger lumber in the stringers, a newly calculated riser/run cut, and much thicker treads with legal nosing overhangs. Then you'll need some railings.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

BTW, if you do nothing else, you really should consider the "sistering" of the stringers. Think about it. Those stringers are ALL that is supporting your weight and the additional weight of anything you carry up or down those stairs. If a stringer breaks, you can easily be seriously hurt or even killed.


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

Willie T said:


> Ok, since it's obvious you aren't going to do this right, let me at least explain why there is not much you can do.


I get all that... Thanks.



> You need a bigger hole in the floor, bigger lumber in the stringers, a newly calculated riser/run cut, and much thicker treads with legal nosing overhangs.


Below is a (cell phone pic) hand sketch of what I came up with.
The 98" opening expanded to 118" 
the floor to the top of the joists is still 97 1/2" high (99" to floor).
I'm showing a stringer using 83/4" run, 7" rise and about 1 1/4" nose.


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

TarheelTerp said:


> I get all that... Thanks.
> 
> Below is a (cell phone pic) hand sketch of what I came up with.
> The 98" opening expanded to 118"
> ...


So your tread is 10" total? 
Makes you closer to legal.
I think you're doing the right thing even if it is a little more work than you were hoping.
At least they will be safe.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

Can you make a 90 degree turn halfway up, building a landing there?


----------



## <*(((>< (Mar 6, 2009)

Willie T said:


> Can you make a 90 degree turn halfway up, building a landing there?


This was my thought if you can't make the stair all on one plane do to the restrictions you mentioned.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

Here are three shots. All are using 7-5/8" x 10". If you use 3/4" risers, (on top of the treads), this setup will give you 1-5/8" nosing overhangs.

"A" is as it would sit with proper stringers and no floor opening change. (Obviously a pain, and no good for headroom.)

"B" shows the floor opening 20" longer. (The headroom gets better, but is still not to code.)

"C" and "D" are with a landing. The landing is undersized for code, so you might have to deal with that issue. (ie: 7-5/8" higher on the landing, and add a tread to the bottom run. Also you would still have to open the flooring hole... but it might be easier in this 90 degree location. Maybe?

Anyway, you have something accurate to look at.

If you can open a SKP file (SketchUp), here it is in full views (at the bottom of this post).


----------



## <*(((>< (Mar 6, 2009)

Willie T, thank you for your time that you spend doing some of your drawings, I've seen it on many threads and appreciate the time spent. And I'm not even the OP. :thumbsup:


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

<*(((>< said:


> Willie T, thank you for your time that you spend doing some of your drawings, I've seen it on many threads and appreciate the time spent. And I'm not even the OP. :thumbsup:


Absolutely agree. 
Unfortunately... none of those layouts will work (fit).
The problem here is that I'm NOT starting with a blank page.

I can expand the opening to 9'10" (118") but the height remains 99" floor to floor with no more than 87" finished clearance. Using these parameters is how I came up with what I'm showing on my drawing which may not be ideal but is far better than what I have now.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
c'est la vie.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

<*(((>< said:


> Willie T, thank you for your time that you spend doing some of your drawings, I've seen it on many threads and appreciate the time spent. And I'm not even the OP. :thumbsup:


No problem. I enjoy it. Besides, what else I gotta do?


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

TarheelTerp said:


> Absolutely agree.
> Unfortunately... none of those layouts will work (fit).
> The problem here is that I'm NOT starting with a blank page.
> 
> ...


That's why I was thinking about using the landing. Turned that way, 90 degrees, you could perhaps open up a lot more flooring hole space...... barring running into stuff we don't know about. Remember that the floor hole turn can be supported by a column at the landing corner...... although, depending on what you have above, this might mean bringing in an engineer.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

A thought...... Have you looked at opening up the flooring hole at BOTH ends?


And.... there is always the possibility of making a full 180 turn at the landing. This will often eliminate any headroom problems, altogether. But it does eat up more width.


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

Willie T said:


> A thought...... Have you looked at opening up the flooring hole at BOTH ends?


I don't *want* to do it at even one end. If I had to do more... I might choose to do dramatically more. But I have enough on my plate already.

Would you mind running my numbers through your program please?
-opening expanded to 118"; still 99" floor to floor.
-8.75" tread with 7" riser; 1.25" nose.

This has some fudge in it too (3.5" horizontal and 1" vertical).
Make us a pretty picture and see how far off from "ideal" this compromise is?
Thanks.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

TarheelTerp said:


> I don't *want* to do it at even one end. If I had to do more... I might choose to do dramatically more. But I have enough on my plate already.
> 
> Would you mind running my numbers through your program please?
> -opening expanded to 118"; still 99" floor to floor.
> ...


Here it is, with the measurements you asked for, using 3/4" risers to get the 1.25" nosing.

Actually, the rise runs closer to 7-1/16" than to an even 7" to match up with the 99" height.

You are still way short of code headroom (80") You COULD lose one riser height by sliding the set to the right...... but then you would have no way to fasten the upper end of the stringers.


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

Willie T said:


> Actually, the rise runs closer to 7-1/16"...
> OK. 7" was the closest whole number when I did the math.
> 
> You are still way short of code headroom (80")...
> ...


Let's cross one bridge at a time.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

To determine headroom, you lay a straight edge on the tips of the treads, on the slope of the stairs. From that line vertically to the shortest part of anything overhead is the legal headroom.

Using the top floor as the last step can cause some difficult attachment problems.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

TarheelTerp said:


> Let's cross one bridge at a time.


this can be a recipe for disaster in construction. Every path, hill, rabbit trail and bridge needs to be known, calculated, and solved before beginning anything.


----------



## BigJim (Sep 2, 2008)

I get the rise at 7.615" which is a light 5/8" or a heavy 9/16", use top floor as your last step, leaves 12 treads. If you cut the run on the stringer 9 inches you will have a tread of 10.25" with a 1.25 over hang which is code. 9inches for the run X 12 tread cuts will = 108 inches. So you wind up with 7 5/8X9 inch rise and run.

No place to nail the stringers at the top, just build a header and secure it low enough that the stringers will fasten into it, furr the rest of the rise out, it will only kick the stairs out by 3 1/2 inches or so.


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

jiju1943 said:


> I get the *rise at 7.615"* which is a light 5/8"...
> use top floor as your last step, leaves 12 treads.
> 
> If you cut the *run on the stringer at 9"* inches
> ...


This works! Thanks.



> No place to nail the stringers at the top, just build a header...


I'll have 3 complete walls around this stairwell... I can do all sorts of things.
Thanks again.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

Here it is set up at a riser shorter and slid tighter to the right so you can use the top floor level as the final step... still using your requested measurements... 8-3/4" run x 7-1/16" rise stringer cuts.

Now you will have to build a header, and that kind of sucks if you are going for any kind of looks, considering the angled bottom necessary to carry the visual stringer line will now need to be boxed in... if you decide not to put that end wall there.

Beefing it up to 2 x 12 risers, this will give you 9.75 of foot placement with a 1" nosing. If you are using 2 x 12 for treads also, you can slip the treads forward a bit to get as much as 11" of foot placement if you choose, but that will give you excessive nosing overhang.

If you use only 3/4" riser boards, you can run the treads all the way back in, and have 10-1/2" foot placement, but the nosing then goes to 1-3/4". Code on nosing is 3/4" to 1-1/4".

Headroom is adequate this way...... although I always try to get a full seven feet. (not always possible)

The stringers shown are also 2 x 12. And you have 5-11/16" of solid, unnotched, strength still left in these stringers.

The angle is 38.7 degrees. This set of stairs is probably going to be out of code most anywhere.... but just barely.

I've included the SKP file for you if you have SketchUp.


----------



## notme76 (Nov 9, 2011)

*would a winder work?*

something like this? height for this application was approx 98" and the run was 124ish if i rmbr right...something to consider?


----------



## Keith Mathewson (Sep 1, 2010)

Juji1943 has the solution that will work. Being code compliant is not what you need here.

Notme76,
I always hate it when I'm called to look at a job like the pics- how do you put a skirt on that?


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

Keith Mathewson said:


> Juji1943 has the solution that will work.
> Being code compliant is not what you need here.


This is the area at the top of the stairs...
at the bottom will be a 'vestibule' of sorts with (2) doors to (2) areas.
No room anywhere for a turn at either level; barely room to steal the extra 20".


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

It appears you have more than ample room to move that stair door wall rearward, toward the glass door, and have space to build *perfect* stairs. Providing there are no surprises beneath. You can go, what?... Thirty inches?

That whole area where you are standing is just wasted anyway since both doors open into it.


----------



## BigJim (Sep 2, 2008)

Willie T said:


> It appears you have more than ample room to move that stair door wall rearward, toward the glass door, and have space to build *perfect* stairs. Providing there are no surprises beneath. You can go, what?... Thirty inches?
> 
> That whole area where you are standing is just wasted anyway since both doors open into it.


I am thinking the same as you Willie.


----------



## TarheelTerp (Jan 6, 2009)

Willie T said:


> It appears you have more than ample room to move that stair door wall rearward, toward the glass door...


If I wasn't planning to open up that wall to the next room... it's still a maybe.
As it is, this space (95") has two doors that swing into it... leaving 33" between.
Then there are the HVAC issues of opening more as well.

Extending the opening by 20"... has me maxed out.


----------

