Stair Regulation for first step

magnethead

Hi,
I have a stairs starting beside a wall that, I know it's good practice to bring the first step back a bit, so nobody collides with someone coming off the bottom step, but I have a large mirror planned to go opposite the bottom of the stairs which will enable people to see around this wall.


question is, Is there some nasty building regulation that prevents me moving this step out to the edge of the wall like below?


Thanks

Gumbo

Will every step move forward also?
Is this to get to the top of the landing quicker?

Or will you have the first step bigger than the rest?

Also hard to give an opinion without seeing the context of the hallway walls etc
Widths and door way openings.

magnethead

Thanks, I'll come back tomorrow with a better contextual pic... I just wanted the stairs to start at the edge of the wall, and not where the stairs company automatically put it which appears to be in from the corner the width of a thread

sydthebeat

magnethead wrote: »

Thanks, I'll come back tomorrow with a better contextual pic... I just wanted the stairs to start at the edge of the wall, and not where the stairs company automatically put it which appears to be in from the corner the width of a thread

Visually keeping the step away from the end of the wall would look better.

Having it flush would look a bit "mean" and tight

magnethead

Thanks Gumbo and sydthebeat.
Here is what my original dodgy drawing looked like



Here's what the stair company provided, I was wondering if they were implementing a building regulation here, by pulling the first step back.
We have a floor to ceiling mirror directly opposite on the wall so safety shouldn't be a concern. I was just thinking of lowering the angle of attack on the stairs...It's already a huge floor to ceiling height ...3270mm




It's supposed to look something like this...

woody1

stairs in your drawing have 17 risers stair company have 16 which is the max your allowed in one flight without a landing so the stair company have simply taken out the extra step on the bottom

if you want to move the bottom step to the edge of the door every other step has to come forward with it , so where your stairs finish upstairs is then also moved, not a big deal if your only in planning stage, bigger deal if first floor is already in

The Mighty Quinn

TGD K 2014 (stairways, ladders, ramps, guards):
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C37830%2Cen.pdf

1.1.14 Landings should be clear of
permanent obstruction. A door opening on to
a landing should be so positioned that there
will be a clear space of at least the full width
of the flight between the door swing and the
flight. In the case of private stairs, the landing
at the bottom of a flight may be reduced in
length provided a clear space of at least
400mm is maintained between the flight and
the door swing (see Diagram 5 for examples).

Looks like the stair company is keeping the 400mm back from the opening in the wall to your kitchen, though you don't have a door shown here, perhaps not required, but I would definitely set it back per supplier drawing. Look at diagram 5. The intent, even without a door, seems fairly clear that it should be kept back.

sydthebeat

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

TGD K 2014 (stairways, ladders, ramps, guards):
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C37830%2Cen.pdf




Looks like the stair company is keeping the 400mm back from the opening in the wall to your kitchen, though you don't have a door shown here, perhaps not required, but I would definitely set it back per supplier drawing. Look at diagram 5. The intent, even without a door, seems fairly clear that it should be kept back.

if the door swings the opposite way ie into the kitchen, then that step back is not required.

The step back is required from the door swing, not the door ope.

In the OPS case there is no door swing (from how i read it) so no 400 step back required.

that being said, if its open plan the OP needs to confirm that all the travel distances from the bottom step are complied with.

Gumbo

What kind of door do you have into the kitchen?
Is the house 2 storey or 3?

If open plan there may be a fire rating required on the wall to protect the stairs. The stair company may have pulled it back to keep it protected behind the wall.

magnethead

Thanks, Good to see some very knowledgeable lads on this forum

THis is the opening I have at the moment, I stuck some Plywood in the floor while the Liquid lads were splashing their screed down, looks like those recess might have being for nothing I was planning to bury the steel stringers feet under the laminate.

There is no door, just an opening into the open plan Kitchen/Dining.



sydthebeat
Travel distances, I'll look into that now, Is that to the front door in case of fire?

sydthebeat

magnethead wrote: »

sydthebeat
Travel distances, I'll look into that now, Is that to the front door in case of fire?

To any door.

And alas check distance from stairs to the cooking appliance in the kitchen.
From your plans you are probably OK, but best to have the knowledge of the regs in case it became an issue.

magnethead

Gumbo wrote: »

What kind of door do you have into the kitchen?
Is the house 2 storey or 3?

If open plan there may be a fire rating required on the wall to protect the stairs. The stair company may have pulled it back to keep it protected behind the wall.

Please see the drawing above, it's open plan dining on the other side of that wall, and the kitchen is completely open there, The house is 2 Story

Sydthebeet
6.5M to the kitchen appliance

6.2M to the Front door (Through double door to the south of stairs in that drawing, little draft proofing room to up the BER rating)

2.9M to the garden door if you round the corner into the open plan and head out that way.

woody1
ok so the stairs company is catching the 16 risers, but couldn't they just increase the thread depth overall and push it back to the edge... It's only design stage at the moment, delivery in 7 weeks.
But it's an Italiano company(see cad drawing at the top of thread) and trying to speak through an non-technical agent is such a pain in the ass!! and I hope my dodgy measurements are ok, otherwise I'll be throwing out a lot of scrap Iron ;p

I think this is a great stage to be looking into building regulation, hope to be finished in 3 months There are so many non standard things in the build, it's really broken my heart over the last 2 years, but nearly there.

woody1

Ok so your first floor is in . So your stairs have to finish in a fixed place . Work back from there ... the curved section has a fixed width .. from the back wall to the centre has to be the width of the stairs .. therefore you've got a fixed amount of space between the top of the stairs and the first step on the curve so you don't have room to make all the treads bigger .. Just curious what's your floor to floor you must be borderline on the maximum rise [ step height ]

You could make just the first tread bigger .. would be strange .. personally I think it's fine as drawn by stair company right up to the ope is too mean as syd says

Gumbo

This reminds me of a thread from last year.
May even be the same OP.
It was designed by boards.ie

OP, who is signing off on the layout, design and the stairs compliance?

This should not be an issue at this late stage. The open plan arrangement has to comply with Part B (Fire Safety). Who is checking this? The stairs has to be protected from the effects of fire, and smoke also. Who is designing this.

The curve of the stairs in general should not be in the middle. Any tapered steps should be as close to the bottom of being used.

magnethead

Hi woody1,
The Floor to floor, is 3270mm which gives me a 205mm riser, pretty high alright I went for a 300mm dropped ceiling. I thought they'd use the 150mm ventilation pipes everywhere, only in some places, and broke it down to 125mm once inside the open plan area.

Gumbo, you're talking a lot of sense there I don't know if I'm that lad, I was here years ago throwing up some pretty strange designs, before google images and houzz stepped in and designed my house(along with a few boards.ie members).
I've done everything myself with regards organizing the build, and plenty of strain injuries, and wrecked ligaments My third engineer(First was a moonlighter, second was past retirement and broke my heart, a lot more backstory for those two lads) is going to sign off for me, but I guess that covers planning only? is building regulation compliance a separate cert? Would it be hard to get someone to review it at this stage ...I'll double check, maybe he is doing the regulation stuff too.

Is this stairs design not a standard winder? I have seen the regulation you are talking about, where the curve should be at the end, but I'm pot committed now anyway. The ope is what is is. and I've seen plenty of examples that look similar to mine (maybe american and not irish regulation...LOL)

The Engineer did say he was serious about fire safety, so I guess he's looking after that, Are you saying my brick slip wall beside the open plan there should be fire rated? balls, might need to stick an extra slab on the dining room side then.

What's the crack with all the regulation? worst case sceanario, if the stairs doesn't comply, the entire building doesn't comply? What are the consequences? just can't sell it? THats not a problem. This was all done as a project to keep myself occupied.

It hit 0.9 on the air tightness before the slabs went on, I had asked the tester to do a smoke test, but he didn't. after I only realized that the room he was pulling air from (garage) had 3 x 2" ducts going under the slab to other parts of the house (future proofing) , so it should do slightly better in the final test. Obviously I would have preferred to hit passive rating on a first build, but it's not bad when you are trying to organize chaos (ie..building)

again, Thanks very much for your insights, I'm going to make a big blog out of this build to stick on the end of my boards design thread, because man, I truely believe Irish people are oblivious to what goes on in the construction industry and this is just a little domestic job.

woody1

205 is fine you had said floor to ceiling 3270 so I was adding a floor onto that so risers would've been bigger

magnethead

woody1
Do you really think 205mm is fine? It's a bit on the high side for older people unless there still into yoga. That's why I was trying to lower the angle bit, not sure how much a step distance would have made.
When you posted before, you were talking about thread depth, that it couldn't be made deeper to extend the stairs to the edge of the wall even if it looks mean(what does mean, It makes the stairs look cheap?). I'm happy with the thread width as it is.

woody1

205 is within regulations yes it's steep but you've got a high floor to floor and 16 steps unless you put in a landing there's not a lot you can do about it you were talking about making each step wider to get it to end / start at the opening edge at least I thought you were doesn't seem workable to me anyway you need to run all this by your engineer

tabby aspreme

Am I right in thinking you have a 260mm thread with a 205mm rise, it will not be easy to walk on, coming down will be worse than going up

The Mighty Quinn

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Am I right in thinking you have a 260mm thread with a 205mm rise, it will not be easy to walk on, coming down will be worse than going up

If 2R + G is between 550-700mm, which it is, he's got a compliant stair. Offhand I think pitch less than 42 degrees for private stair too is good, and he doesn't exceed the max rise or have less than the min going.

Obviously there are other bits aside from this to be considered, head height, wonder steps, stair width, height of handrail, open risers or not, balustrade design etc...

tabby aspreme

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

If 2R + G is between 550-700mm, which it is, he's got a compliant stair. Offhand I think pitch less than 42 degrees for private stair too is good, and he doesn't exceed the max rise or have less than the min going.

Obviously there are other bits aside from this to be considered, head height, wonder steps, stair width, height of handrail, open risers or not, balustrade design etc...

I wasn't questioning whether it was compliant, I was saying it won't be easy to walk on, you would need to be looking at your feet coming down

sydthebeat

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I wasn't questioning whether it was compliant, I was saying it won't be easy to walk on, you would need to be looking at your feet coming down

who doesnt?

tabby aspreme

sydthebeat wrote: »

who doesnt?

You shouldn't need to, if a proper allowance of space was made for the stairs when the building was designed, you will rarely find a rise of more than 175mm is any house over 30 years old, in the past, even in small houses, stairs were comfortable to walk, the old method of calculating the going on a stairs was, if the rise multiplied by the going, in inches, was between 60 and 66 it was ok, with 63 being the optimum

The Mighty Quinn

tabby aspreme wrote: »

You shouldn't need to, if a proper allowance of space was made for the stairs when the building was designed, you will rarely find a rise of more than 175mm is any house over 30 years old, in the past, even in small houses, stairs were comfortable to walk, the old method of calculating the going on a stairs was, if the rise multiplied by the going, in inches, was between 60 and 66 it was ok, with 63 being the optimum

I'd argue that building regulations for stairways were largely developed around ergonomics and safety, and working within prescribed dimensions will yield an ergonomically sound stair.

sydthebeat

tabby aspreme wrote: »

You shouldn't need to, if a proper allowance of space was made for the stairs when the building was designed, you will rarely find a rise of more than 175mm is any house over 30 years old, in the past, even in small houses, stairs were comfortable to walk, the old method of calculating the going on a stairs was, if the rise multiplied by the going, in inches, was between 60 and 66 it was ok, with 63 being the optimum

Who said anyone needed to?

Everyone walking down a stairs look down unless they are carrying something.

A 260 going and 205 rise is a 38 degree stairs.

Nothing at all unusual or strange with those numbers.

And on you claim about stairs over 30 years ago.... I've seen many many esb built, bord na mona built, and council built 2 storey houses from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that would fail today's regs for rise, going and pitch.

Also, people are getting taller.

The average height for men and women has increased by about 10cm over the last 100 years. This has an obvious impact on how a stairs is used, thus many Georgian era stairs are actually felt too "shallow" by many modern users

tabby aspreme

sydthebeat wrote: »

Who said anyone needed to?

Everyone walking down a stairs look down unless they are carrying something.

A 260 going and 205 rise is a 38 degree stairs.

Nothing at all unusual or strange with those numbers.

And on you claim about stairs over 30 years ago.... I've seen many many esb built, bord na mona built, and council built 2 storey houses from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that would fail today's regs for rise, going and pitch.

Also, people are getting taller.

The average height for men and women has increased by about 10cm over the last 100 years. This has an obvious impact on how a stairs is used, thus many Georgian era stairs are actually felt too "shallow" by many modern users

Those numbers may not be strange or unusual, but as I said earlier, the stairs won't be easy to walk on.

bobbyy gee

The minimum stair landing length - distance in the direction of travel out of a doorway - is 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

sydthebeat

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Those numbers may not be strange or unusual, but as I said earlier, the stairs won't be easy to walk on.

personally id view the 6 winders as more of an ergonomic issue than the trigonometry of the steps.... And something that's more of a possible regulation compliance issue as well

chooseusername

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I wasn't questioning whether it was compliant, I was saying it won't be easy to walk on, you would need to be looking at your feet coming down

sydthebeat wrote: »

who doesnt?

He'll have one eye in the mirror
As he watches himself Gavotte.

Seriously though if the 3270mm total rise is f.f.l.to f.f.l. it will just
about comply.
If it is as stated, floor to ceiling then 16 steps won't comply.

sydthebeat

bobbyy gee wrote: »

The minimum stair landing length - distance in the direction of travel out of a doorway - is 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

Where did you pull that from, because its wrong.

magnethead

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

If 2R + G is between 550-700mm, which it is, he's got a compliant stair. Offhand I think pitch less than 42 degrees for private stair too is good, and he doesn't exceed the max rise or have less than the min going.

Obviously there are other bits aside from this to be considered, head height, wonder steps, stair width, height of handrail, open risers or not, balustrade design etc...

Hi,
there is a 3D pic on the previous page showing handrail etc....What is a wonderstep IS that like in Super Mario, you just hop on that, and it gives you enough bounce to clear the rest of the steps in one go?

chooseusername ....Yes 3270 is Floor to Floor..... Next time I'm slapping a house design together, I'll be more mindful of the stars

tabby aspreme I agree, the Riser height is on the upper side, trying to look at it in a positive light, it'll force me to keep up the yoga

The Mighty Quinn

magnethead wrote: »

Hi,
there is a 3D pic on the previous page showing handrail etc....What is a wonderstep IS that like in Super Mario, you just hop on that, and it gives you enough bounce to clear the rest of the steps in one go?

Haha, I mistyped, much less interestingly I meant a winder step, i.e., tapered.

magnethead

on a more serious note, from someone with experience.

Why are winders hated so much by regulators? are they really that dodgy to use, obviously I see the narrowing edge could be dangerous, but if the width of the step is close to 1m, surely you would just end up using the wide side?

The Mighty Quinn

I think it's to do with stair cadence. Your body automatically hits a rhythm when going up and down a stairs, and many people take them at speed, if the rhythm your body expects is changed, e.g., to navigate a narrower portion of a step, there's a chance you'll stumble. You shouldn't have to consciously switch to the wide part of a step when coming up or down a flight.

From TGD K.

1.1.6 The varying tread width of a tapered
step can cause people to misjudge distances
and can lead to falls. For this reason, the use
of tapered steps should be avoided. If it is
necessary to use them, they should
preferably be situated at the bottom of the
stairs.

Gumbo

magnethead wrote: »

on a more serious note, from someone with experience.

Why are winders hated so much by regulators? are they really that dodgy to use, obviously I see the narrowing edge could be dangerous, but if the width of the step is close to 1m, surely you would just end up using the wide side?

You would think that but no.
Watch kids and elderly people use those steps. They tend to stay in close to the handrail where the step is at its narrowest point.

I hate them and I feel they are put in as a last resort when people didn’t plan or allow the pace for a proper stairs.

I would be making sure from an early stage that these sill be signed off. The company supplying you the stairs don’t have to make them comply, it’s up to you. The company in Italy won’t give a crap when or if you are receiving enforcement letters should that ever happen.

chooseusername

On a more serious note,
Increasing the depth of all the steps by the same amount will only be a slight advantage when going up, no advantage coming down,
as the going will not have changed much.
To change the going by say 1/2 inch on each step you would have to extend the bottom step forward by 8 inches, second by 7.5 third by 7 and so on.
Also if you plan to bury the stringers in the subfloor, the bottom rise will
need to be adjusted to make the bottom step down onto the floor the same as the rest, otherwise you might stumble into your mirror.

magnethead

chooseusername wrote: »

On a more serious note,
if you plan to bury the stringers in the subfloor, the bottom rise will
need to be adjusted to make the bottom step down onto the floor the same as the rest, otherwise you might stumble into your mirror.

Great point, thanks

magnethead

Gumbo wrote: »

You would think that but no.
Watch kids and elderly people use those steps. They tend to stay in close to the handrail where the step is at its narrowest point.

Maybe I should stick a rail on the outside then too, It'll take the look off the brick wall I'll have to weigh that up against a few broken hips.

enforcement letters

That sounds like a real PITA ...are you serious, like the council would start getting on your case over an infringement? Actually, probably not the council, as they are only interested in planning , not building regulation? correct?
Whose sending these letters? someone looking for money no doubt?

Gumbo

magnethead wrote: »

Maybe I should stick a rail on the outside then too, It'll take the look off the brick wall I'll have to weigh that up against a few broken hips.


That sounds like a real PITA ...are you serious, like the council would start getting on your case over an infringement? Actually, probably not the council, as they are only interested in planning , not building regulation? correct?
Whose sending these letters? someone looking for money no doubt?

Building Control is the section of the council that are responsible for the administration of the building regulations. They carry out random inspections also.

And no, they don’t accept money in any way. Enforcement proceedings will only occur if compliance is not agreed by the developer.

magnethead

I started with the First step on this thread, I'd like to finish with a few opinions on the last step....
The stair company lamped in a rather large last step before the landing(Thread 15) My dodgy software rolls the tapered section around a little more to keep the last step consistent....
Which do you prefer? What would you go for, maybe the manufacturer is keeping the tapered section even for ease of manufacture.
Thanks again for your thoughts

chooseusername

quote;
The stair company lamped in a rather large last step before the landing(Thread 15)

Maybe to allow a transition onto landing flooring

Gumbo

magnethead wrote: »

I started with the First step on this thread, I'd like to finish with a few opinions on the last step....
The stair company lamped in a rather large last step before the landing(Thread 15) My dodgy software rolls the tapered section around a little more to keep the last step consistent....
Which do you prefer? What would you go for, maybe the manufacturer is keeping the tapered section even for ease of manufacture.
Thanks again for your thoughts

All the going’s should be the same.
I’m sorry but this is a dogs dinner of a stairs and it looks like you have no professional oversight on it’s design.

muffler

Gumbo wrote: »

All the going’s should be the same.
I’m sorry but this is a dogs dinner of a stairs and it looks like you have no professional oversight on it’s design.

+1

The last tread (355mm) doesn't comply with Part K of the B. Regs

Id also question the use of winders at mid point.

sydthebeat

"stairs people" design does not comply.

Do not sign off on that

magnethead

ok ;p Well the Italians always were good with the style, but I believe it ends there ;p
Thanks very much for the warnings

magnethead

Gumbo wrote: »

All the going’s should be the same.
I’m sorry but this is a dogs dinner of a stairs and it looks like you have no professional oversight on it’s design.

you can say that again and it's not just the stairs

magnethead

Gumbo wrote: »

This should not be an issue at this late stage. The open plan arrangement has to comply with Part B (Fire Safety). Who is checking this? The stairs has to be protected from the effects of fire, and smoke also. Who is designing this.

Hi Gumbo, you blind sided me there, It's a testament to how much a project like this can melt your brain, when you are trying to do every last detail.
Boards is signing off on my open plan, I went through this with some heavy hitters from boards a while back and completely forgot about it altogether.
I was seriously about to order some fireboard and stick it on the dining side wall after your last comment thank God it's only 'story height construction' and not fireproofing

Great thread on open plan, page 2 is where I cut in
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055297772


I've read a bit of the building regs, and I have to say, some of it comes across as fairly vague.....echoed by Mellor's comment there

Potentially an issue. But the TGD is a bit wishy washy in that regard.

"you shouldn't have tapered steps...unless you have them"



But regards handrails, this doesn't sound vague.....and now I wish this was a grey area... Part K building regs below -- Page 9

Handrails
1.1.17 Stairs should have a handrail on at
least one side if it is 1000 mm wide or less. It
should have a handrail on both sides if it is
wider.

Maybe the regulators are thinking about the rounded out winders, like in my dodgy drawing above surely they'll be making exceptions for me, with the nice squared out look? all the rage these days

magnethead

Well, I told Mario and Luigi, that my Irish certifiers NO LIKEA your stairs, so after much gesticulating, they calmed down and came back with a new design,,, leaving out the elephant in the middle(winders)...Does this seem a bit better?

Gumbo

Why are the goings different lengths?

Winder in the middle.

I wouldn’t sign off on its design personally.

muffler

magnethead wrote: »

Well, I told Mario and Luigi, that my Irish certifiers NO LIKEA your stairs, so after much gesticulating, they calmed down and came back with a new design,,, leaving out the elephant in the middle(winders)...Does this seem a bit better?

Get a designer who is familiar with the building regulations in this country.

magnethead

Thanks Lads, yes, there is a few mm in the goings there..I see you are not a big fan of winders, but since you know your stuff, could you explain this one to me please.
A large estate of over 200 houses was built 15 years ago in the town next to me, large architectural firm involved...etc...most of the houses have straight stairs, but quite a few went for this option below, winder in the middle. I would prefer to to walking on my winder Vs this one, This is definitely a killer winder.
I guess this is perfectly ok with regulation given the size of the development project and firm involved? or the regulations have being overhauled since then?

This house and a few others have loft conversions and there's another set of winders above these some people just can't enough of them LOL