Help with fitting stairs

[apprentice 2010]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I apologize if I've put it in the wrong place. Does anyone know of a book/video that describes in detail the fitting procedures for stairs? Spicifically, standard commercial stairs.I have looked all over the internet and the only thing that I have found is a single pricey video for sale. I have worked several years fitting/welding but I have never had the opportunity to fit up stairs (I've learned on the job, no formal apprenticeship progrgam). I am amazed at the fact that there is apparently no comprehensive book on the market (not that I have found) that describes/details the fitting procedures for structural projects (stairs, handrails, moment frames, tanks, marine, etc). I have found some books on layout/fitting, but the fitting itself is very basic stuff. I came across an old naval trade book but the information was very basic. Is there such books out there or do only the apprenticeship organizations have such books? If only the apprenticeship people have such books, do they sale to the general public? I'm sure there are alot of welders out there working in job shops right now wishing they had such a book. I would greatly appreciate any help anyone can give. Thank you much.

[aevald]

Hello apprentice2010, try googling "Modern Steel Construction October 1999" there is a topic there 4 items from the top, it is a pdf called: "Detailing Stairs", I believe you will find some useful information there to help you with some of your questions. Good luck and best regards, Allan

[forhire]

National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers publishes some standards. You can download a standard for stairs and another for railings.
http://www.naamm.org/amp/amp_technical_literature.aspx

Stairs (9 megs):
http://www.naamm.org/landing_pages/AMP_510-92.pdf

Railings (2 megs):
http://www.naamm.org/landing_pages/AMP_521-01.pdf

This should get you started :)

[tapwelder]

https://www.netforumondemand.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=nomma&cart=0&shopsearch=&shopsearchCat=Merchandise

[William McCormick Jr]

We used to make 7-11 commercial stairs. Seven inch rise eleven inch run, In most cases. Because it falls under that 35 degree standard max. The actual number might be 7 5/8" rise, and 10 3/4" run though. That puts you just over the standard 35 degree max stair angle. But no one really checks today. And they feel good to walk on.

Now some guys will tell you that they make the top step a little lower then the rest for safety. And I think what really happens is that they figure it close and maybe a bit large if anything. Which is better then a bit short. You do not want that first step to be a doozy. Ha-ha.
They just cut the top of the stairs when they get it on site. So the first step has less rise. I have seen six inch first steps after the building work is done. Perfect is better though. If the finished floors are already in then go with perfect or a half less rise for the first step.

If the finished floors are not in, then you definitely want to leave the top step with a short riser. That could be as much as two inches or more short depending one what is going down on the floor up top. Today you have radiant heat, under marble and other very thick floor coverings.

If both the bottom and top floor are going to be covered in the same thing then you do not really figure that in. Just leave the top step riser a half inch shorter then the rest of the stairs. In this case when you are measuring you just treat the raw surface like the finished surface. The whole staircase will just get mounted two inches higher.

But to be honest a lot of times a higher rise and shorter run is nicer to walk up. It is just not as safe if you fall down, or a little kid falls down. For a short run I would go much more then 7-11.

On outside stairs I will make a very long run and a very low rise. So kids that will play on them, really cannot get hurt. But they suck to walk up. You can be huffing and puffing from one flight. You will actually feel new muscles in your legs after a couple times up and down them.

Are you making pans for cement or actual metal diamond plate treads?

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[William McCormick Jr]

There are so many guides to building stairs, that to put them into a book and make a blanket code, might cause a very considerate master stair building to knowingly make a set of stairs wrong, just to meet the code. Rather then the best it can be.

But those links those very generous guys posted, do have some standard information in them that is used pretty much everyday.

There are times that a steep stair beats a short platform like during a fire. Some guys will shorten a platform outside a room because they want to stay with standard commercial stairs dimensions. Now if there was a fire, and you come out of the main room onto a short platform, I believe that is worse then short stairs. But that is my opinion.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[madkaw284]

your gonna have to check your local codes and requirements. Handrails are usually 36" high from the toe (front of the tread) to the top of the rail on stairs and 42" high on flat walk ways. But check locally

[William McCormick Jr]

It is true about the 42" platform and the 36" from the front of the tread.

But in order for that to come to reality you either have to drop the handrail about three or four inches at the top of the platform to get to the stair rail. Or you have to move the place where the rail starts to drop, down, back over the platform.

I have done them both ways. Both ways are a pain in the *** or butt. Today more and more, we just make them 38 inches high. Sometimes I will drop the front of the rails down a bit on outside wrought iron style rails. You really do not see it. So when you come to the front of the steps the handle is low and nice to grab. It just gradually gets higher and you really cannot tell.

These pictures are showing, 36" to tread and 42" to platform, by moving the joint over the platform. I only did it with this style rail because it looked ok. And it would have looked worse trying to do it by the drop method.
I know good guys that have lost their shirts when they switched up to stairs and rails, without knowing these little tricks and pitfalls.

For vertical balusters I would use the drop method. Neither is ideal but they are necessary evils. I do not have pictures of dropped rails. I will have to get some.




Sincerely,


William McCormick

[William McCormick Jr]

These are rails that I dropped the front an inch and a half. A trick I learned from Ray Boben who taught me to make railings. He said it is always better to be low in front then high. It is true when you are high in front it looks like a guy with is pants above his ankles.


There is 38 inches at the platform. The rails that were taken out were 34 inches I believe. If I go and just put up 42 inch rails everyone screams. Because they look hideous.

So you compromise and improvise.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[Ironmower]

I agree with some of this, but if you built a rail like that around here, the code inspector will tell ya, tear it out and re-do. Not try'n to be a smarta$$, just that I've done stairs and rails for the past 13 years. And believe me, they check that stuff here.

The idea when building stairs and rails (especially fire escapes) is that you should be able to find the "rail" in the dark of smoke filled building and follow it to an exit. The code changes constantly. it was about 5 years ago they mandated that ALL hand railings run continuous. Don't confuse this with the guard rail.

That's why I never vary from that, code is code. I've had them check my stairs/rails many, many times. They checked every riser, and measured the "toe space" . each riser has to be under 7" and within a 1/16" of each other and can't vary more than 1/8" on the flite. Toe space has to be 1", no smaller.

Picket spacing and railing height is what they check for the most, on railings. They use a 4' ball to check spacings, if it fits through, it's no good.

I had to re-do a cat walk rail that was installed a 1/2" to high. The inspector failed it for that reason. Also remember, the code changed on the post, of a pipe rail. The horizontals can be sch 40 BUT the post better be sch 80. This came after all those people got crushed at a soccer game, when the railin failed.

[William McCormick Jr]

I agree with some of this, but if you built a rail like that around here, the code inspector will tell ya, tear it out and re-do. Not try'n to be a smarta$$, just that I've done stairs and rails for the past 13 years. And believe me, they check that stuff here.

The idea when building stairs and rails (especially fire escapes) is that you should be able to find the "rail" in the dark of smoke filled building and follow it to an exit. The code changes constantly. it was about 5 years ago they mandated that ALL hand railings run continuous. Don't confuse this with the guard rail.

That's why I never vary from that, code is code. I've had them check my stairs/rails many, many times. They checked every riser, and measured the "toe space" . each riser has to be under 7" and within a 1/16" of each other and can't vary more than 1/8" on the flite. Toe space has to be 1", no smaller.

Picket spacing and railing height is what they check for the most, on railings. They use a 4' ball to check spacings, if it fits through, it's no good.

I had to re-do a cat walk rail that was installed a 1/2" to high. The inspector failed it for that reason. Also remember, the code changed on the post, of a pipe rail. The horizontals can be sch 40 BUT the post better be sch 80. This came after all those people got crushed at a soccer game, when the railin failed.

I hear you, but around here, what happens is a rich guy wants a certain look, so he gets it by whatever means. And next thing you know a lot of people have it. That is just how it works here. Code is code, I agree. And I warn the people ahead of time. They just do not seem concerned.

And I know that even town people do not like the look of 42 inch high hand rails. It looks downright wacky. So they do not say anything. Or else they will have them on their block.

A lot of times what we do is considered replacement. So if there were 36 inch rails and I put 38 inch rails back no one says anything. But I am prepared to make them again anyway if they have to redo them. Ha-ha.



Sincerely,


William McCormick

[William McCormick Jr]

I don't agree with the schedule 80 balusters being any better. That will not change much. It will not give you much more strength. And I already have seen this before. Because they change to schedule 80 and the pipe is sold by the pound. They will use smaller diameter tube instead of just using the right sized tube in the first place. That will be worse still.

Some architect just wants to cover his ***, or butt, for using too small a diameter baluster.

Schedule 80 tube in aluminum really will show you that it does not matter to much how thick the walls are. The most important thing is the diameter. Until the wall thickness cannot support that diameter anymore, or if it dents.

In steel tube the schedule 80 will help more, but not as much as you would think. I would take the larger diameter over the thicker wall any day of the week. So much of my work is replacing stuff that was undersized. Solids, heavy wall stuff it does not matter, if it is not over a certain diameter it will never work. Even if it is hardened material.

I always get called to a job when something is not going right. Because a lot of people know I know what is wrong. Sometimes an owner will get me to go to the site, and inspect the work. Because he knows he is getting coned. The people that show me around hope I don't see anything wrong, But in ten seconds I almost always find they undersized the balusters. Even if they are solid, and not large enough, you have junk. If you hit the railing it will actually create waves in the rail as it moves back and forth. With thrashing sounds created as it moves through the air.

I worked for a fellow, who took me back to a perfectly made rail. It looked great about 300 feet of rail. I could not see anything wrong with it. He even added bracing to it.

He looked around to make sure no one was looking. He hit it. And the rail started to create a wave up and down the railing. Over the whole 300 feet. It did not stop. It just kept going. He ran to a point about fifty feet up the rail and stopped it. I almost soiled my shorts. You could not have made me believe it without seeing it. Solid balusters.

It is in the design not the thickness of the material. That just goes to show they have no idea how to fix all this poorly designed stuff.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[Ironmower]

I hear ya. From what I remember, about the sch. change; Is it was latteral force. Meaning they measured the force it took to bend the railing post over. Which sch 80 would natureally, takes more force to bend.

Residential rails are easy to fudge on heights and other codes. I did a big job about 8 years ago that was for the town renovation. And all theses rails had to have 6 inches of post in the concrete, Reason I was given (by maryland state inspector) was; the rails was close to the street, which by THEIR code, required the post to be set that deep.

Personally, I don't see where two inches more than my normal post depth, would help anything. But as you stated, It's some rich a$$ with a degree that's gonna tell us what will work and what won't. And they're the ones that never cut or welded anything.

By the way, your stairs/rails looks SWEET!!!!!

[sbryant]

http://www.blocklayer.com/Stairs/StairsEng.aspx

I use this all the time.

[William McCormick Jr]

I hear ya. From what I remember, about the sch. change; Is it was latteral force. Meaning they measured the force it took to bend the railing post over. Which sch 80 would natureally, takes more force to bend.

Residential rails are easy to fudge on heights and other codes. I did a big job about 8 years ago that was for the town renovation. And all theses rails had to have 6 inches of post in the concrete, Reason I was given (by maryland state inspector) was; the rails was close to the street, which by THEIR code, required the post to be set that deep.

Personally, I don't see where two inches more than my normal post depth, would help anything. But as you stated, It's some rich a$$ with a degree that's gonna tell us what will work and what won't. And they're the ones that never cut or welded anything.

By the way, your stairs/rails looks SWEET!!!!!

Thanks.

You know what gets me?

If the rails were supposed to stop cars, you would be putting in footings for a large diameter filled pipe or ideally solid bar. If the rails are supposed to stop people from pushing them over in a panic, they would be of the right material. And if needed a footing would be poured at main balusters.
I know that when you go six inches deep, so many times you punch through the 4.5 inch pour. No you are either stuffing them with paper, or rocks, or they don't get an actual sealed pour. They get a cosmetic top sealed pour. It just makes for a mess. We have been told to do that, but we usually say something ahead of time, and they go, "do what you normally do".

That is bad sometimes too though, because some guys will do a three inch down to two or one inch core. Ha-ha.

I have seen the railings that are done six inches deep, fall into the ground later. You can actually go over to them and press them down. So it is like you say, let the railing guys put up the railings.
Or ask us ahead of time. I have no problem getting my cement guy there to pour footings, and designing a rail that makes use of the footings. But a standard hand rail has limits. I can bend one over with my hands.

If you do not make it through the cement at six inches, now you are digging and chiseling out the cores six inches deep, instead of four. Not impossible, but past that 4 inch mark and the core bits, start to walk, bind and you have to have thick teeth on them. 4 and under and you can just fly with a worn bit with three teeth if you have too. Ha-ha.

That is usually a case where six sounds better then four, to someone that does not actually do it, like you said.

We have gotten plans for 18 inch deep cores and 24 inch deep cores. With aluminum schedule 40 pipe. And stainless steel schedule 40 pipe. Both under 2" diameter. So I am sure it is not science but rather a misunderstood code or misunderstood material strength.

But I have seen plans that said 2-4 inch core depth. I will bet an architect took that to mean 24 inches. I guess they figure the concrete will be crooked and the rails will be straight? So you just go 4 inches deep at the high spots?

I know a couple times it worked out like that on one or two holes. We really had a 2.5 inch core. And I went five inches on some holes. The cement was that wild. But it was in the center of a slab, that sagged, so there were two good supports on either side, where I measured the height of the rail to.

Lately I have been sealing the top of the holes with silicon. It seems to stop the water getting in and freezing better. So I fill the holes up short of the top, and then mask off the stone and the rails and apply silicon to match. It seems to look the best and hold up the best. I core smaller holes, but keep them protected with the silicon.



Sincerely,


William McCormick

[rlaggren]

> silicon

Might want to look into polyurethane (eg. 3M 5200, 4200) or polysulphide (eg. 3M 101). I maintain my own boats and read up on what people were using and why a few years ago. I also keep up my folks homes and see what works there. Silicon is good for compression seals and but it doesn't stick very well compared to thepoly's. If you happen on old aluminum storm windows retro fitted back in the 60's you'll find them bedded in stuff that WON"T come lose but is still not completely hard. That's polysulphide; polyurethane sticks even better and sets slightly harder. But they are a little thicker and therefore harder to handle and an open tube won't last more than a few days unless you double bag it and put it in the freezer - then you gotta thaw it for use. They stink and although they take an initial cure in 12 hours or so it takes about a week before they reach full set.

Regardless of what type you use, when caulking, ie. bridging a gap to seal a small linear opening, the caulk must not exceed a thickness of about 1/8" if it's to work as designed. That spec varies some with the type of caulk but the principal is the same for all. The caulk is supposed to remain glued to both sides of the crack and _stretch_ when there is movement to keep the crack fully sealed. A thin layer of caulk stretches much better than a thick layer; if it's too thick it won't stretch easily but instead will pull loose from one side of the other, opening the crack to weather. That's why poly is better than silicon for caulking - it sticks way more tenacioiusly, even though silicon stretches a little more.

PL brand , IIRC, is polysulphide and available in Home Depot; lately they've gone on the consumer craze and put about a dozen different variants on the shelves, so you have to read the lables a little. Home Depot also sells 3M products and so does Walmart.

Rufus

[apprentice 2010]

I apologize for taking so long to reply my thanks, so here it goes: Thank you all (aevald, forhire, tapwelder, William Mcormack JR, madkaw284, ironmower, and sbryant) so much for your written help, links, and pictures. There is a mountain of information there. I'm sure there are alot of guys (or gals), including myself, that will find the information very helpful. There is nothing like learning the tricks of the tade from master craftsmen. William, I am sure that there is a book just waiting for you to write. Great pictures by the way. Very nice work. Thank you all for contributing your time and expertise. It's greatly appreciated.

[William McCormick Jr]

> silicon

Might want to look into polyurethane (eg. 3M 5200, 4200) or polysulphide (eg. 3M 101). I maintain my own boats and read up on what people were using and why a few years ago. I also keep up my folks homes and see what works there. Silicon is good for compression seals and but it doesn't stick very well compared to thepoly's. If you happen on old aluminum storm windows retro fitted back in the 60's you'll find them bedded in stuff that WON"T come lose but is still not completely hard. That's polysulphide; polyurethane sticks even better and sets slightly harder. But they are a little thicker and therefore harder to handle and an open tube won't last more than a few days unless you double bag it and put it in the freezer - then you gotta thaw it for use. They stink and although they take an initial cure in 12 hours or so it takes about a week before they reach full set.

Regardless of what type you use, when caulking, ie. bridging a gap to seal a small linear opening, the caulk must not exceed a thickness of about 1/8" if it's to work as designed. That spec varies some with the type of caulk but the principal is the same for all. The caulk is supposed to remain glued to both sides of the crack and _stretch_ when there is movement to keep the crack fully sealed. A thin layer of caulk stretches much better than a thick layer; if it's too thick it won't stretch easily but instead will pull loose from one side of the other, opening the crack to weather. That's why poly is better than silicon for caulking - it sticks way more tenacioiusly, even though silicon stretches a little more.

PL brand , IIRC, is polysulphide and available in Home Depot; lately they've gone on the consumer craze and put about a dozen different variants on the shelves, so you have to read the lables a little. Home Depot also sells 3M products and so does Walmart.

Rufus

I really appreciate that. Believe it or not I have used the polyurethane to seal expansion joints in concrete it is really great stuff. Very long lasting and it adheres very well, just as you say. But it did not come in colors.

They have something now at the Marine supply that is expensive it comes in a tube, and a few colors. It is supposed to be better then silicon. It is like eighteen bucks a tube. It smells awful but does seem to seal and adhere very nicely.
I was a little hesitant though about those types of sealers. And the powder coating or Imron finish on the rails. I am glad you posted because it reminds of that. Ha-ha. So if I do use that next time I will make sure I test it on the finish first. And also I will have silicon on hand as well, incase the other stuff does react with the finish. Again thanks for the information it really woke me up.



Sincerely,


William McCormick

[rlaggren]

Good point about reacting w/the finish. I forgot to mention that the poly's eat plastic which in boater's world means the clear acrylic often used in ports; lexan is toughers stuff but IIRC it also degrades that over time. That's where we revert to good old silicon.

But I never heard of it eating paint and I thought powder coat.was impervious to just about everything. The storm windows on my folks house were retro fitted in 1960 and just 3 years ago we pulled some of them out. It was a real fight because the caulk didn't want to let go; IIRC it had been applied over the top of the paint and in some but not all cases the paint let go before the caulk - back then it was lead paint and much of it was still adhereing well.

Rufus

[William McCormick Jr]

Good point about reacting w/the finish. I forgot to mention that the poly's eat plastic which in boater's world means the clear acrylic often used in ports; lexan is toughers stuff but IIRC it also degrades that over time. That's where we revert to good old silicon.

But I never heard of it eating paint and I thought powder coat.was impervious to just about everything. The storm windows on my folks house were retro fitted in 1960 and just 3 years ago we pulled some of them out. It was a real fight because the caulk didn't want to let go; IIRC it had been applied over the top of the paint and in some but not all cases the paint let go before the caulk - back then it was lead paint and much of it was still adhereing well.

Rufus

I think it is the Kinar Fluoride based epoxy paint, often thought to be powder coat that is pretty impervious to most common solvents. It is 70 percent inert material. They spray it on wet really sloppily and then bake it to a glass like finish. I have seen it hit really hard with a hammer, with a treated aluminum underneath. Amazing stuff. The metal slightly dented, but the finish held on for sure. And was still shinny.

But the standard powder coatings are susceptible to acetone and some solvents. They might not wash away to bear metal, but the finish will be harmed. I somehow think, that new sealant, might be able to effect the finish. But I will do a test before I just mask it off and go to town.

Some of the petroleum based colored cement dies impregnate the powder coating enough, that I have to use a hand glaze if not a fine compound to remove the coloring.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[rlaggren]

Thanks. I'll have to pay more attention to coatings. Normally I favor paint; so far I haven't needed perfect finish so paint has worked fine.

As it happens today I got to revisit polysufide, needed to seal a penetration for my 1/2" antenna feed. Turns out that I was way too pessimistic about shelf life. I had an old tube (not cartridge) of 3M-101 from - get this - 4 years ago and figured why not see... I had left thenozzle on the tube, no cap on it; took that off and cleared it with a rod, then poked through about 1/4" of solids at the top of the tube and Voila! Stinky Goo!. <g> Forgot how bad that stuff smells. Went on easy, stuck to everything around and generally acted normal; I'm sure it's fine. Kinda amazing.

Rufus

[William McCormick Jr]

Thanks. I'll have to pay more attention to coatings. Normally I favor paint; so far I haven't needed perfect finish so paint has worked fine.

As it happens today I got to revisit polysufide, needed to seal a penetration for my 1/2" antenna feed. Turns out that I was way too pessimistic about shelf life. I had an old tube (not cartridge) of 3M-101 from - get this - 4 years ago and figured why not see... I had left thenozzle on the tube, no cap on it; took that off and cleared it with a rod, then poked through about 1/4" of solids at the top of the tube and Voila! Stinky Goo!. <g> Forgot how bad that stuff smells. Went on easy, stuck to everything around and generally acted normal; I'm sure it's fine. Kinda amazing.

Rufus

Here is a job I did today, two rails. I used the polyurethane foam. It is self leveling, very nice stuff, it comes in a quart tube, I only need about eight teaspoons but I am really not complaining, it worked so nice. I filled the cored holes with QuickRock about 3/8" short of full, and then laid in the sealant. Worked really nicely.

Boy that core bit did not want to cut through the lentil. But it did. Slow rpm's with heavy pressure. I wanted two four inch cores up on top. Even though I really could have gotten away with two shallow cores.

I only had to core one hole in the lentil. They left it sticking all the way over, to the left edge of the stoop. The center pipe in the center of the stoop, I had to cut the pipe on the rail. Because if I cored through the lentil it would stick out into the space for the oil tank behind the lattice in the picture. But I got through a 1/4" inch lentil in about five minutes.

So far the self leveling polyurethane is the way to go, if you can use grey or beige. Ha-ha. Thanks for the heads up.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

[rlaggren]

You cored a hole 4" deep for that center pole w/out breaking through? Don't you have to chip out the material when your core - and you still didn't go through? I think I'm missing something here. <g>

Rufus

[William McCormick Jr]

You cored a hole 4" deep for that center pole w/out breaking through? Don't you have to chip out the material when your core - and you still didn't go through? I think I'm missing something here. <g>

Rufus

There are two different rails, one of the rails went on a stoop that has a lentil over an opening to gain access to a fuel tank. Their is lattice over the opening. Looking at the picture, on the left hand side, the steel lentil, basically a piece of angle iron, was placed all the way over to the left side of the stoop, so that I had to core through the lentil on the left side. To get a four inch core.

The center post going into the stoop, could not be four inches long or it would have stuck through the lentil into the opening. So I only cut the center pole, down by an inch and half. That was ok and expected. I just did not think they would run the lentil all the way over to five inches, from the edge of the stoop. Where almost every brick layer knows you are going to core for rails.

I could have cut that pipe on the left down though, because of the style of rail it is, it does not need much support from those top stoop pipes. But I feel better making a four inch core. It only took me about five minutes to penetrate the lentil.


On the center of the stoop, I just cored down until I hit the lentil and cut the pipe off.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[rlaggren]

> On the center of the stoop, I just cored down until I hit the lentil and cut the pipe off.

Now _that_ makes sense. <g>


A good 4th and all.

Rufus