code requirements

[Willl]

Hi,

Is it against code if the first step is 1 1/4" wider than the other steps going up. Thanks

[Davestone]

You mean wider or deeper?

[cx]

I know of no variation limits on width so long as it meets minimum requirements. Never really looked into that, though, truth be known.

Now, if you're talking about depth, as Stoner is suggesting, your step would not even be close to meeting anyone's code.

My opinion; worth price charged.

[Willl]

deeper. I saw some pictures where the staircases first step looked deeper than the rest. Maybe they were just bad pictures. Thanks

[Sterving]

1-1/4" is definitely way outside any code. When I was rebuilding lower section of the stairway, I recall the code stipulated no more than 3/8" variation in tread depth. You should check your local building code, but the national one should be good enough.

[cx]

I think that's the IRC requirement, Dimitriy, and their depth consistency requirement is the same as for the riser heights. And that's the least restrictive in the industry, I believe.

My opinion; worth price charged.

[ddmoit]

At what point is it no longer a step, but a landing?

[cx]

Well, Dan, just go ahead and pewt us onna spot, why doncha?

Don't quote me without lookin' it up, but I believe to be a proper landing it must be as deep as the width of the stair.

[rus_geek]

WI code has a max variance of 3/16" and landings have to be at least 36" deep.

nodak building code is here: http://www.communityservices.nd.gov/...building-code/ At first glance it looks like they adopted the same standard as WI.

What's causing your first step to be that much larger?

-r-

[Willl]

I can cut it if I want too so all is good there.

Sense I am here I have another question to ask. I have a concrete floor with cracks in it and it looks like one side of the crack is about 1/32" higher than the other. That is pretty small and I was thinking that this might have occured in the first years because of the concrete settling some. Concrete is about 30 years old and I am thinking all settling is over with. I will be using ditra over the whole thing. Thanks

[cx]

You said you had a question, Will? I musta missed it.

[bbcamp]

Sense I am here I have another question to ask. I have a concrete floor with cracks in it and it looks like one side of the crack is about 1/32" higher than the other. That is pretty small and I was thinking that this might have occured in the first years because of the concrete settling some. Concrete is about 30 years old and I am thinking all settling is over with. I will be using ditra over the whole thing.

And the question is.....

Is this OK? I dunno. No guaranties with vertical movement. It may be done and in the past, but maybe not. If you do tile over it, the Ditra will n ot protect against further movement. Nothing will. You simply have to ask yourself: Do I feel lucky?

[Willl]

Your opinion on tiling over the floor that has the slight variation in hieght was the question. Is this slight variation that much of a big deal. I am aware of the ditra not covering the vertical movement I just didn't think that 1/32" was that much of a problem. being 30 years old shouldn't the settling be all over with. The flooring is about 4 feet below ground. Thanks.

[ddmoit]

Hi Will,

Here's the deal: You can tile over it. If it never moves again, your tiles will be fine. If it does move, there is no product or procedure that you can employ that will prevent your tiles from cracking over that vertical fault.

[Willl]

It isn't a nominal 1/32" of an inch either. At one end of the crack it is level and at the other end it is level. Only the central 6-8 feet is there a variation. Crack is about 15 feet I would say. It isn't all the way through it either. What I mean by that is the slab is 30 by 40 and the crack doesn't go the full length of the slab. Thanks