# Forum Home Renovation Stairs, Steps and Ramps  External Entry Stairs - Qlder

## Renofreak

G'day Guys,  
ok first post here we go...... 
I am rebuilding front room on Qlder due to some termite damage, so as always decider to do a whole lot more......  :Doh:  new stumps, windows and door and entry point - so expect a few dumb questions from me. 
To the stairs, I am putting in new 1200mm wide front door (930mm with opening side light) and current stairs are past their use by date..... 
I have a pretty good condition 900mm set from previous rear of house that are 50 x 220mm stringers with 38 x 240mm Treads with 170mm risers 
I am contemplating rebirthing these stringers with 1200mm wide treads to mate with door opening...... 
What thickness treads should I be using for this width, can i get away with 50 x 240mm treads or go even larger? is Kwila ok for treads this application?  :Confused:  
Appreciate any thoughts and advice thanks in advance. 
Cheers - Jim

----------


## METRIX

Hi Jim, we will always go for 290 treads, as these are much more comfortable to walk on than 240, but 240 is perfectly within the standards (just), dressed 290 is available at most good timber stockists.

----------


## Renofreak

> Hi Jim, we will always go for 290 treads, as these are much more comfortable to walk on than 240, but 240 is perfectly within the standards (just), dressed 290 is available at most good timber stockists.

   Thanks Metrix Building for your reply, I should be able to get the 290mm in there..... is 50mm thick enough? I want them to be solid with no spring..  :Redface:  
Cheers - Jim

----------


## METRIX

Hi, yes Merbau or any hardwood at 45mm will be sufficient. 
You mentiond your stringer width is 220 ?, You will struggle to get 290 treads onto a 220 stringer, these really need to be beefed up to 290 as well, this allows for a comfortablee stair angle that is strong.

----------


## shauck

So your saying 45mm thick tread is ok to span 1200mm? I would think a middle stringer is in order.

----------


## METRIX

Yes, 1200mm at 45 thickness *seasoned* should be fine, Referring to tables supplied by NSW Timber Development Association. 
1200 width *seasoned* 45mm F17 is suitable
1200 width *unseasoned* 50mm F14 required 
Max width for *seasoned* 45mm is 1300 but requires F27 
The inclusion of threaded rod approximately every 1300 would also be necessary if they are going above this height. 
And an anti slip treatment to the nose of each tread is also required, this can be done by routing a few 6mm grooves at the nose of each tread a few mm deep.
Always happy to hear others opinions on this,

----------


## Renofreak

> Yes, 1200mm at 45 thickness *seasoned* should be fine, Referring to tables supplied by NSW Timber Development Association. 
> 1200 width *seasoned* 45mm F17 is suitable
> 1200 width *unseasoned* 50mm F14 required 
> Max width for *seasoned* 45mm is 1300 but requires F27 
> The inclusion of threaded rod approximately every 1300 would also be necessary if they are going above this height. 
> And an anti slip treatment to the nose of each tread is also required, this can be done by routing a few 6mm grooves at the nose of each tread a few mm deep.
> Always happy to hear others opinions on this,

  
Thanks Shauck and Metrix Building, yes that was my concern on the 1200mm wide treads was the flex without central stringer.... should get at least 275mm depth for each tread 
Was going to include threaded rod to brace overall, thanks for your comments and thoughts.....  :Smilie:  
Cheers - Jim

----------


## shauck

I personally would still whack a middle stringer in there.

----------


## ringtail

Middle stringer for sure, no question. As for routing grooves in the nose of the tread, I think it would do the exact opposite. I would suggest they will hold water and grow moss and over time become slippery as, just like reeded decking fixed upside down.

----------


## Renofreak

> Middle stringer for sure, no question. As for routing grooves in the nose of the tread, I think it would do the exact opposite. I would suggest they will hold water and grow moss and over time become slippery as, just like reeded decking fixed upside down.

  
Thanks Ringtail for your inputs, think i have sorted what I am doing..... :Compress:  
going with 900 x 1200 landing at door, 4 stairs (50 x 270 x 1100 treads / 170 risers - with rod braces)  to 1200 x 1200 landing, 90deg turn 4 stairs as before to Ground level on stirrups  
any other thoughts appreciated..... 
Now to do  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  time for another beer.......  :Beer:  
Cheers - Jim

----------


## METRIX

> Middle stringer for sure, no question. As for routing grooves in the nose of the tread, I think it would do the exact opposite. I would suggest they will hold water and grow moss and over time become slippery as, just like reeded decking fixed upside down.

  I agree reeded side of decking can be an issue in this scenario, but i disagree routing will cause the edge to become slippery, think about it. 
The reeds are very closely spaced around 1 every 3mm with a rounded raised section and a shallow routing of about 2mm, this is deliberately done so "less" timber is in contact with the joist, this is why it it such a problem when installers put the boards upside down because there is less surface in contact with your foot and with the reeds being so close and shallow  with a rounded top they can promote a slipery surface to walk on. 
We route a 6mm groove about 4mm deep spaced about 12mm apart, this gives a very sharp edge to the grooves as they are routed individually, so your shoe will "catch" on the sharp edges of the route, instead of slip over the rounded shape of a reeded board,. 
I would suggest it is going to take an awful lot of water to promote enough mould to grow and become a problem, and even if mould did grow the sharp egde of the route will still promote to catch your shoe. 
This is similar to the nosing tiles used in swimming pool steps and in commercial tiling situations, we have done this for many years and havent had any slip claims presented to us. 
You suggest you would do the exact opposite, What is your suggestion for creating a slip resistant nose when you are required to by the council as part of obtaining the CC. 
Stick on tape will break down in the UV over time and then be ripped off by the owner at a later stage ?, and would end up a mess with constant oiling of the decking timbers. 
If you educate your clients on how to maintain their deck in the first place and even offer a service to do this for them on a regular interval as we do, then you minimise situations arising from neglect. 
Unfortunately mould will build up on any surface, and if you never clean it off, any surface will become slippery, and having a smooth surface as opposed to a routed edge I feel offers more surface area for slips. 
In relation to the middle stringer, is there a suggesting the Timber Design Authorty have it wrong with their spans for stair treads ?. 
We have to rely on span tables and testing authoritys data on a daily basis, questioning that the spans recommended by these authoritys is not correct means we should not trust any of the data supplied by these authorities. 
Builders will commony use F7 treated pine for 900 wide treads without a middle stringer. using a piece of HW rated at F27 to span 1200 I would imagine has much higher bending strength to the HW than an extra 33% length over a piece of TP would suggest, and the TDA must also suggest this as they recommend a span of 1300 for a 45mm F27 tread. 
I would suggest a piece of knot filled TP has a lot less strength than a piece of seasoned HW at 33% longer length, and I know which one I would rather be walking on.

----------


## shauck

> In relation to the middle stringer, is there a suggesting the Timber Design Authorty have it wrong with their spans for stair treads ?.  1200 span for tread (according to Index of /docs*stairs*.pdf) using F17 SHWD, puts the tread at it's maximum span. Many prefer to go above minimum standards and even though it's confirmed that it's within the design limits "personally" I would still whack in another stringer. 
> We have to rely on span tables and testing authoritys data on a daily basis, questioning that the spans recommended by these authoritys is not correct means we should not trust any of the data supplied by these authorities.  Yes we do rely on them, they are there to show the minimum standard.  
> Builders will commony use F7 treated pine for 900 wide treads without a middle stringer.   According to the span tables in the PDF found at the above link, that is a no no, not on the span table.   
> using a piece of HW rated at F27 to span 1200 I would imagine has much higher bending strength to the HW than an extra 33% length over a piece of TP would suggest, and the TDA must also suggest this as they recommend a span of 1300 for a 45mm F27 tread.  Well, F27 would be better than using F17. Satisfies somewhat, the idea of upping one size or closing the spacing/span. I would still prefer another stringer though.

  
Personal choice, of course.

----------


## METRIX

> Personal choice, of course.

  Agreed , and I was not quoting anything ouside of the recommendations, when we build at 1200 width we use F27 as this is available at our local suppliers, but F17 would be perfectly fine to use if constructed correctly as it has been tested to current standards. 
I have a book here which a lot of members refer to commonly and it states 1300mm spans can be achieved with F14 and 1200 achieved with F11, these tables state they were supplied by the qld development and advisory council, luckily we don't refer to these out of date publications. 
I was not suggesting the we build stairs 900 from TP, it was a statement that builders as a general will. 
As you say it comes down to personal preference and experience in building with certain materials. 
And any information given here should always be followed up with a qualified person to ensure what you are intending to do is within or above the required standards, and not taken as gospel.

----------


## shauck

All good. All points of view are useful.

----------


## ringtail

> I agree reeded side of decking can be an issue in this scenario, but i disagree routing will cause the edge to become slippery, think about it.  
> We route a 6mm groove about 4mm deep spaced about 12mm apart, this gives a very sharp edge to the grooves as they are routed individually, so your shoe will "catch" on the sharp edges of the route, instead of slip over the rounded shape of a reeded board,. 
> I would suggest it is going to take an awful lot of water to promote enough mould to grow and become a problem, and even if mould did grow the sharp egde of the route will still promote to catch your shoe. 
> This is similar to the nosing tiles used in swimming pool steps and in commercial tiling situations, we have done this for many years and havent had any slip claims presented to us. 
> You suggest you would do the exact opposite, What is your suggestion for creating a slip resistant nose when you are required to by the council as part of obtaining the CC. 
> Stick on tape will break down in the UV over time and then be ripped off by the owner at a later stage ?, and would end up a mess with constant oiling of the decking timbers. 
> If you educate your clients on how to maintain their deck in the first place and even offer a service to do this for them on a regular interval as we do, then you minimise situations arising from neglect.  
> In relation to the middle stringer, is there a suggesting the Timber Design Authorty have it wrong with their spans for stair treads ?. 
> We have to rely on span tables and testing authoritys data on a daily basis, questioning that the spans recommended by these authoritys is not correct means we should not trust any of the data supplied by these authorities. 
> ...

  
Ok, I get ya. The grooves are deeper and further apart creating a sharp edge. So my questions / statements are 
1. Sharp edge, how do they go on bare feet ?
2. 4 mm deep grooves will hold water and promote rot ?
3. No requirement in QLD for non slip stairs in domestic AFAIK. I have never seen any non slip nose done on any timber stair in any house in QLD ( internal or external)
4. Builders that use pine for stairs should be shot
5. totally agree with the F27 / F17  having superior resistance to deflection over pine however, anything over 1 mt should get a 3rd stringer IMHO. I dont want bounce and with aussies becoming fatter I'll do everything I can to make a pre - emptive strike against deflection. :Tongue:

----------


## METRIX

Ok, I get ya. The grooves are deeper and further apart creating a sharp edge. So my questions / statements are 
1. Sharp edge, how do they go on bare feet ?  *No Problem, they are only little grooves, and feet just go over them, feet have been around for many thousands of years and can cope with a little 6mm groove here and there.* 
2. 4 mm deep grooves will hold water and promote rot ?  *Possibly but like any timber, if it is maintained then this would be minimal, and most Australian hardwoods have exceptional life outdoors untreated anyway, if you keep the oil and cleaning up there should not be any concerns. 
Education to the client goes a long way to keeping things in good order over the life of the structure, deck or otherwise, and if they don't want to do this, then we offer to do it for them at a reasonable price of course, but yes, there will be some who just neglect basic maintenance, this can't be helped, its human nature.* 
3. No requirement in QLD for non slip stairs in domestic AFAIK. I have never seen any non slip nose done on any timber stair in any house in QLD ( internal or external)  *Some jobs we have done require these, so we just do it on all now, and we opt for the least obtrusive option rather than a stick or screw on, as these just look out of place and detract from the overall look of the timber.
The routing lines if done correctly look quite neat, and assist the visually impaired where the treads are.* 
4. Builders that use pine for stairs should be shot  *Agree, but in the real world this does happen and will continue to happen, economies of scale prevail here.* 
5. totally agree with the F27 / F17  having superior resistance to deflection over pine however, anything over 1 mt should get a 3rd stringer IMHO. I dont want bounce and with aussies becoming fatter I'll do everything I can to make a pre - emptive strike against deflection. :Tongue:   *Agree we are getting bigger and soon may be building steel stringers and treads if the trend continues.* :Roflmao:

----------


## METRIX

> All good. All points of view are useful.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## ringtail

I've got one customer with stairs that are easily 2 mt wide. Only 7 rises but the treads are about 30 mm thick and he is a large chap. I wait until he is off the stairs before I go up or down. The stairs appear to be at least 20 years old too and deflect like a mother. Only a matter of time before they fail in dramatic fashion. Better make room in the diary  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## METRIX

I think I would be staying well clear of them when they are FULLY LOADED as well, might be an idea to suggest some sort of thick soft fall mulch around and under the stairs in preparation for the inevitable. :Shock:  
In this case, then I think 2 extra stringers may be required.

----------


## ringtail

Wait for it fail big time. Not far to fall and makes it easier to up-sell to bigger and better stairs with more profit :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bloss

> In relation to the middle stringer, is there a suggesting the Timber Design Authorty have it wrong with their spans for stair treads ?. 
> We have to rely on span tables and testing authoritys data on a daily basis, questioning that the spans recommended by these authoritys is not correct means we should not trust any of the data supplied by these authorities.

  Minimum standards are NEVER best practice IMO. Not to say if one builds to them the structure won't be fine, but it is not a question of trust. Moderately exceeding or staying within the lower range of the various parameters in standards rather than using the maximum allowed limit will always give a better structure and usually at moderate, if any, additional cost. Assuming the build quality is the same of course. 
Standards are set to enable compliance and enforcement on those who would otherwise simply try get away with whatever they could in cost and quality. There are those who try that even with the standard in place. We can build down to a price - and that is in part what standards drive, or we can build to a quality. My Dah and his Dah before him did the latter - and me too. But most don't of course - and as consequence few building we construct now are expected to last even 40 years let alone 100 or 200 or more. Building standards and materials have changed, but we will not see still standing in 100 years the current equivalent to the workers cottages and Victorian terraces still in use. 
BTW - I like stairs that don't move - I'd bung in the extra stringer! Agree with 290 treads but prefer non-slip coatings than grooving.

----------


## ringtail

> building we construct now are expected to last even 40 years let alone 100 or 200 or more. Building standards and materials have changed, but we will not see still standing in 100 years the current equivalent to the workers cottages and Victorian terraces still in use.

  I would say a lot of new houses these days will be flogged 15 - 20 years or less. There is a way to make em last, good design, good material selection and....... h  a  r  d  w  o  o  d   :Biggrin:

----------

