Russel, curious.
The IRC requires 8" risere max. and 10" tread minimum.
Commercial Code is 7" max. and 11" minimum tread, and that is nose to nose.
Joe’s pictures indicate 11" minus the 1" nosing which is 10".
Does Penn. go under the Commercial Code?
Thanks.
Marcel 
Hi. Joe;
What is the current riser hieght and tread width per the 2006 Code? I do not have a copy.
Marcel 
http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/cwp/view.asp?a=310&q=210892
Codes and Standards Enforced Under the UCC
The codes currently in use under the UCC are the 2006 International Codes issued by the International Code Council. No supplements to the 2006 codes will be adopted for use. The next code changes will occur in 2009 (when the next triennial versions of the I-Codes are adopted by regulation).
Due to an oversight, the revised regulation that adopted the 2006 codes for use in Pennsylvania did not contain one of the statutory requirements pertaining to residential stairway treads and risers (imposed by Act 13 of 2004.) Although this requirement is not yet included in the approved UCC regulation, the statutory mandate took effect on February 19, 2004 and must be complied with. The omitted requirement is as follows:
In occupancies in Use Group R-3 and within dwelling units in occupancies in Use Group R-2, the maximum riser height shall be 8 1/4 inches (210 mm) and the minimum tread depth shall be 9 inches (229 mm). A 1-inch (25 mm) nosing shall be provided on stairways with solid risers. (Exception 8 to section 1014.6 of the BOCA National Building Code 1993)
Some municipalities failed to enact UCC adoption ordinances that mirror the Department’s model ordinance (i.e., that stipulate that the enforcing jurisdiction adopted “the requirements of the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act and its regulations”). Their ordinances specifically adopted each of the 2003 International Codes. Per section 7210.501(a)(2) of amended Act 45, these municipalities have until March 31, 2007 to amend their UCC adoption ordinances. Until this action is taken, the 2003 codes will apply to construction in these jurisdictions.
In all other municipalities, the 2006 codes are now applicable. The only exception is construction for which a design or construction contract was signed prior to December 31, 2006. This work shall comply with the 2003 code requirements.
Marcel, did you notice the last riser that lands on the pad?
I would be called out on this as it appears to be more than the required variation of the other treads.
http://www.nachi.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=13242&d=1184843720[
Good catch](“http://www.nachi.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=13242&d=1184843720”)
Thanks Joe, 3/8 is the maximum variance in my area.
Hi. Peter, yes I did and that was among the other things.
Riser variations can not exceed 3/8" and I believe that is the same for Residential and Commercial, and finally they agree on one item. ha. ha.
Joe, your above post, are you saying that the riser height is 81/4" and 9" compared to 2003 73/4"and 10"?
Like I said, Commercial is 7" and 11" nose to nose, so the tread is 12" but the run is 11".
Marcel
</IMG>
"In all other municipalities, the 2006 codes are now applicable. The only exception is construction for which a design or construction contract was signed prior to December 31, 2006. This work shall comply with the 2003 code requirements."
My references within the Report did not cite specific codes.
This is ongoing construction. This may be a variable.
Joe and Marcel,
This is the quality you get when the builder makes the framing sub thow in the front and rear stairs and landings as part of the deal.
The maximum riser height of residential stairs built in Pennsylvania remains 8 1/4".
The minimum tread depth is 9".
This State Amendment of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code overrides all versions of the IRC, is mandatory, cannot be changed locally, and has been in full effect in all municipalities in the Commonwealth since the PA UCC was adopted April, 9, 2004.
(I edited this post to clarify that the amended risers and tread geometry applies only to 1&2 family dwellings and not commercial structures in Pennsylvania.)
Not sure if I ever put it here before,but this will keep anyone busy.
Well, there must be something political about that, because anything more than 7-3/4" and 10" for me I will trip. Must be tall people in your area.
Slips, trips, and falls are responsible for accidental deaths
second only to motor vehicles. According to OSHA, 15 percent of all
accidental deaths come from this source, and nationally, 10 percent of
all injuries.
Stair falls account for a large percent of such injuries.
How can a fall down a stairway be fatal? A few broken bones, perhaps,
but fatal? The answer – unfortunately – occurs from closed head
injuries and broken necks. If not fatal, star injuries can be quite
debilitating.
Stair falls can be grouped into three categories:
Catching
one’s toe between stair steps while ascending (toe-catch),
Catching
one’s heel between stair steps while descending (heel-catch), and
Other means of tripping or losing one’s balance. This publication
looks at the first two types of stair falls, the toe-catch and the
heel-catch. Three different stair designs in public buildings will be
investigated. All three stairways were made of bone-crushing concrete.
The most dangerous of these designs – in this author’s opinion – may
surprise you.
Marcel
Again, the stairway geometry adopted in Pennsylvania is for 1&2 family dwelling and tonwhouses only.
IBC commercial building riser heights and tread depths remain intact.
The actual amendment to the PA UCC states in section 301 (a) Regulations (6):
The long and short here is that the 8 1/4" maximum riser height and 9" tread depth is mandatory and not changeable and was derived at by considering their existence in previous codes.
There was something political (and practical) when considering the change for Pennsylvania: Most existing residential and many heretofore allowed residential structures could never meet the 7 3/4" and 10" geometry if their stairways ever needed to be replaced or without making major and costly design changes to homeplans that otherwise worked and generally worked well.
Ultimately the change was implemented so as not to impose excessive burden on homeowners, builders and designers.
Although many builders, code officials, and others, (including myself), did not agree with the amended changes, it became the law nonethless.
One is not required to build steps with those dimensions, but one is certainly allowed to, and local municipalities cannot alter those dimensions by local amendment.
There was something political (and practical) when considering the change for Pennsylvania:
There might have been something political and sure as not practical.
That Code might be alright for the past stair construction in the past, but sure is a poor excuse in design properties of the present and future.
Marcel
Well, considering your state, Maine, does not even require any municipality in the State to adopt any building codes or regulate any stair geometry at all, and allows every municiplaity that does adopt the IRC to change anything they want within it…
I’d have to say the Maine example is only a BAD example of how states should NOT regulate construction and your complaints, as usual, merely the pot again calling the kettle black…
My father died from falling down the stairs.
So other than poor construction is it unsafe?
Is it a deal blower?
Is it nit picking?
I don’t think some of your arguements are very compelling.
Has this deck been okayed by the municipality? %between%
My understanding is that Pennsylvania kept their old stair riser and tread requirements because of the many prefab home builders in the state, who would be impacted negatively by their double framing at the second floor / ceiling, requiring more risers and therefore a greater stair run. Not that I agree with it…in my practice, I strive to keep stair risers at 7 1/2 inches or less…the stairs are SO much easier to climb.
As far as the deck stairs go, sure, they’re mighty sloppy, and have one or two defects, and there would seem to be nothing wrong with calling that out in a report, but they do basically appear to be code-compliant.
Maine’rs understand the Stair Geometry as you call it, a lot more than you think.
Since you do not seem to know the difference between Code and Standards of Practice in the Building Environment of the Safety and building practices, I have this to point out to you.
Municipal government in Maine enjoys a special authority called “home rule.”
This authority is given to the towns and cities of Maine in the state’s Constitution.
Under “home rule,” municipalities may govern themselves in any way that is not denied them by state or federal law.
This authority sets Maine apart from many other states where the authority of municipal government is exactly the reverse. Home rule finds its origin in the state’s reliance on community, an historical tendency to devolve the power of government to its most local level, and a deep respect for the common sense and good judgment of Maine’s citizens.
You will also find that Maine’s 500 Municipalities have adopted their own Ordinances that are based on the ICC, and edited to meet or exceed it’s requirements to suit the needs of the Local Government and provide the Maine residents with the most benifactoral degree of quality.
So, the pictures in the post, yes they meet Code. You are correct.
Do they meet the quality of standard practice for a Residence costing over $300,000? No. Not in my book.
Marcel :roll: