# Concrete steps masonry block



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Extreme of desirable...7" rise is what is ideal for interior steps and since exterior steps should be lower than interior, 7" is the "extreme" of desirable...8" is allowed by code, but is not desirable. 

Many things are done aver and over again because it's easier, or is the size material comes in...doesn;t mean it's how our body feels comfortable using it. Step/stair design is a very old and very particular science. Yes...1/4" difference in step height is quite noticeable, most municipalities only allow for a 1/8" difference (1/16" either way) in stair height. Doesn;t seem like much but I have seen occupancy permits not given because of it


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

Dont mean to hijack the thread. Funny how people do things differently different places.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

What I think we all can agree on is that consistent step height is important and that 8" is the maximum...1/4" difference in stair height IS significant regardless of the changes in average heights of people (too bad you're short grandma learn to live with the tall steps)


----------



## superseal (Feb 4, 2009)

dom-mas said:


> Extreme of desirable...7" rise is what is ideal for interior steps and since exterior steps should be lower than interior, 7" is the "extreme" of desirable...8" is allowed by code, but is not desirable.
> 
> Many things are done aver and over again because it's easier, or is the size material comes in...doesn;t mean it's how our body feels comfortable using it. Step/stair design is a very old and very particular science. Yes...1/4" difference in step height is quite noticeable, most municipalities only allow for a 1/8" difference (1/16" either way) in stair height. Doesn;t seem like much but I have seen occupancy permits not given because of it


Never heard of 1/16",...maximum irc codes state 3/8" variable allowance for risers/treads...all steps. I highly doubt you'll feel any difference in 1/4"...actually, quite confident since I do lots of them in concrete, masonry and wood.

We're you reading riser "should" be shorter on exterior steps? I'd like to see this in writing.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Give me a minute...


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

this gives a bit of info https://books.google.ca/books?id=8F...xterior step construction landscaping&f=false ...go to exterior step detail...almost everythin g i'm finding on-line is about wooden deck stairs...not what we're talking about


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Is this the same book? https://books.google.ca/books?id=8Fn4Xn0TIssC&pg=PA687&lpg=PA687&dq=exterior+stair+design+construction&source=bl&ots=8VQQ330r7x&sig=zwWOqzWS5L4astSjaDHpsKvnvN0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX-ojbjcbJAhVOm4MKHZgkAUs4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=exterior%20stair%20design%20construction&f=false

Yeah it's the same book. I'll see if I can find anything further. Take a look at any commercially provided landscaping steps...they are almost always under 7" in rise height and have 14" or over treads


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Here's another one...notice the riser height doesn;t go passed 7"

https://books.google.ca/books?id=4Toh06XEqMoC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=exterior+step+construction+landscaping&source=bl&ots=jNWAAGP_G2&sig=S0nTdw7Bst4F11Qt7bTcAihYLhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE7dSXkMbJAhXBHR4KHVmFDKQ4ChDoAQgzMAU#v=onepage&q=exterior%20step%20construction%20landscaping&f=false

i know nothing about the IRC, i build to my local building code...1/8" variance is acceptable. I read that as 1/16" either way from the intended (average) step. I KNOW I've see occupancy permits not issued for bigger discrepencies...on outdoor steps


----------



## Philament (Dec 9, 2014)

dom-mas said:


> Here's another one...notice the riser height doesn;t go passed 7"
> 
> i know nothing about the IRC, i build to my local building code...1/8" variance is acceptable. I read that as 1/16" either way from the intended (average) step. I KNOW I've see occupancy permits not issued for bigger discrepencies...on outdoor steps


For the area where dom-mas and I live, the maximum rise on a private dwelling is 200mm (~ 7-7/8"), for "public" (i.e. stairs that are shared between adjacent units) is 180mm (~ 7-1/16")

9.8.4.4. Uniformity and Tolerances for Risers and Treads
(1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), risers shall be of uniform height in any one flight with a maximum tolerance of,
(a) 5 mm (~3/16") between adjacent treads or landings, and
(b) 10 mm (~3/8") between the tallest and shortest risers in a flight.
(2) Except for required exit stairs, where the top or bottom riser in a stair adjoins a sloping finished walking surface such as a garage floor, driveway or sidewalk, the height of the riser across the stair shall vary by not more than 1 in 12.
(3) Treads shall have uniform run with a maximum tolerance of,
(a) 5 mm (~3/16") between adjacent treads, and
(b) 10 mm(~3/8") between the deepest and shallowest treads in a flight.
(4) Where angled treads or winders are incorporated into a stair, the treads in all sets of angled treads or winders within a flight shall turn in the same direction.
(5) The slope of treads shall not exceed 1 in 50.


Things get messy up here because all code is written in metric, but everyone works in imperial, so some code officials round up or down to the nearest 1/16" when applying codes sometimes....and some use metric.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I stand corrected, I do know that a home in Carleton Place that I worked on was not issued an occupancy permit for stairs that deviated buy ove r 1/8". the homeowner had to sign a statement accepting the stairs.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

It could also be that our code is getting sloppier. The code I got when i was in school says in 9.8.2.1 that all treads and risers shall have uniform rise and run in any one flight ('97) no number given, likely up to the discretion of the bldg inspector. In 2006 the bldg code reads like this http://www.twentyfivepercentmorelife.com/files/9.%20Housing%20&%20Small%20Buildings/9.8.%20Stairs,%20Ramps,%20Handrails%20&%20Guards/s%209.8%20Stairs.pdf
1/4" between shortest and tallest 9.8.4.1

Stairs aren;t something i work with often so it isn;t an update I've looked at recently. Sounds like it's gotten even more lax


----------



## Philament (Dec 9, 2014)

dom-mas said:


> I stand corrected, I do know that a home in Carleton Place that I worked on was not issued an occupancy permit for stairs that deviated buy ove r 1/8". the homeowner had to sign a statement accepting the stairs.


I don't doubt that in the least. As mentioned above, some inspectors sort of round up or down, and unless you can prove it in millimeters, you're more or less at their mercy of their conversion.
The above code citations are from the Jan 1, 2015 version. 
It's freely available on e-laws:
http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/120332


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

I sorta kinda started this discussion when the stair configuration jumped out at me. The riser height was one reason,however the thread dimension was the clincher. Here is a stair chart. While it is not law,it is a good example. With the aforementioned 8" riser and 17"-18 " thread,it was way off the charts. When a run deviates from this,your natural cadence is thrown way off.

http://www.gardengatemagazine.com/64stepchart/


----------



## Philament (Dec 9, 2014)

fjn said:


> I sorta kinda started this discussion when the stair configuration jumped out at me. The riser height was one reason,however the thread dimension was the clincher. Here is a stair chart. While it is not law,it is a good example. With the aforementioned 8" riser and 17"-18 " thread,it was way off the charts. When a run deviates from this,your natural cadence is thrown way off.
> 
> http://www.gardengatemagazine.com/64stepchart/


That's a handy chart, thanks for posting. I'm more familiar with wood than concrete/masonry, so tread depth is usually fairly fixed by the dimension of wood stock ( 2 5/4x6" usually) and required wood remaining on stringer. The odd time I get dragged into interlock so these guidelines will be handy.


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

I have trouble believing the original poster is either a licensed Arch. or even one in training.

Day two of wanbee arch is steps can't be more than 7.5"

Just as important as a consistent rise is a consistent tread, one should be able to place a straight edge over the steps so the edge is within a 1/4" of all the noses of the treads.

The only good thing to say about 8" steps is that they aren't 9".:thumbup:

I M O there no way there is continuous horizontal rebar in the left pier.

Falsely claiming to be a professional is a crime in this State, how about where your at OPer? Felony here.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

superseal said:


> A 7" rise on exterior is extreme?...I tend to have a different opinion as I always form with 2X8's which give me a nice comfortable 7 1/2" step.
> 
> I do like 14" treads better than 12's outside but they'll do if needed.
> 
> I definitely use a smaller rise if I have to, I just can't see you calling out 7" as extreme, whether inside or outside makes no difference to me.


I come from a hilly area of older homes and grew up as a kid helping then building many many conc / brick and stone steps. In fact as a kid I had to stack the stringers in the barn!

Last I knew an outside step could be at max 8 by 12 but there are a boat load of 11's throughout CT especially on small loted homes.

I find the 7 to 8 is perfectly fine and as predominantly used height since the bluestone granite era hence granite ranging within 7 to 7-3/4''. 
Of course it's all what one calls the rise....which is not the step itself i.e. rise plus pitch = total rise x total steps = total rise.

As for a set of steps on a hillside well its about yard pitch / budget and available room.....more money and room widens treads and lowers pitch.
Personally I never liked six inch steps but I came from the valley ..lol 
My house has 7.5 to 8's.....in one particular area the 8's were all that would work give the situation..very common in my endeavors.


----------



## comegetme (Dec 4, 2014)

edited


----------



## comegetme (Dec 4, 2014)

Fancis Casini said:


> I come from a hilly area of older homes and grew up as a kid helping then building many many conc / brick and stone steps. In fact as a kid I had to stack the stringers in the barn!
> 
> Last I knew an outside step could be at max 8 by 12 but there are a boat load of 11's throughout CT especially on small loted homes.
> 
> ...



The pros from Canada and Fourth (Fouth?) Generation masons from somewhere in the Mid West have very strong opinions, but were able to elaborate only little to nothing on the original topic at hand. I neither engineered, nor built these steps; but I'm happy that my post lead to such a popular albeit off-topic discussion. Based on all of the comments, it appears that step dimensions depend on local standards and personal preferences. I don't know about other states, but with all the cheap, quick and dirty construction that is going on in California by many "licensed" contractors, believe me, whether three landscape steps are a quarter inch more or less in height than some kind of standard from some table or formula, would be the least of concerns.
Having that said, I hear conflicting opinions from masons on whether, in general, steps like the ones pictured should be rebar tied into the walls, or not, basically leaving a control joint gap. I can follow the rationale for either one, but would be concerned that the steps slowly keep moving down the slope over time from earth pressure from above. In the example, they have moved about 1/4" on one end within a few months in dry weather. Any additional opinions, or better past experiences, on this would be appreciated.
In addition to the question of whether to tie the steps to the walls, it is unclear why the left wall separated from the column, and apparently tilted, after the joints were grouted. The contractor failed to tie the two together with rebar above grade, but both are sitting on the same continuous rebar reinforced footing. The footing has no cracks. The hole in the column is for electric conduit, but could be used to add a rebar from the bond beam of the wall which is not yet grouted.


----------



## Philament (Dec 9, 2014)

It's probably been posted elsewhere on here, but seems kind of fitting for the thread
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/29/watch-everybody-trips-on-this-one-subway-stair/


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

IBC 2009 Code states: 1009.4.2 Riser height and tread depth,max 7" and minimum 11 inches depth... on R-3 & r-2 units 7.75" max, 10" minimum WITH a 3/4" nosing....


Yes, in a more perfect world your steps wouldn't be moving in a different direction then your "stringers"

My guess is some highly trained dirt mover 'bumped' the left pier, breaking it loose from the footing...

lip stick this pig by pouring 2" on top tread, 3" on next, 4" on lower, and add a landing step 7" below with some post holes dug under it to pin the sliding stairs from heading further downhill. Cross the subs name off of your stair contractor list.:whistling

A few seconds on the Internet researching the code, not guessing, and a few minutes drawing up some working drawings with a rebar sketch would have resulted in a much more durable and economical stairs.:thumbsup:

As America ages, properties with out of code stairs become much harder to obtain any mortgage on property that needs to meet various federal standards of construction.

Francis, the code does allow 8" risers for Prison guard towers.

Here in 42" deep frost country, the added cost of the frost footing depth further punishes fly-by-night building methods, I'd hang the stairs on the "stringers" with a rodent resistant sorted rock layer under the void/cavity. Fixed Yard stairs are a huge PITA here.


----------

