Hello,
we have the following issue.
We are currently renovating an old building and are now in the final stages of planning the staircase.
I have attached the drawings.
The problem is that we wanted a staircase that is not too narrow and with the largest possible tread depth.
However, because there is a supporting beam (lintel) in one spot, which our staircase builder apparently did not fully take into account, I am unsure which version we should choose.
We would prefer the 26 cm (10 inches) tread depth, but then the staircase would not comply with DIN standards, and from the second step, it is quite close to the supporting beam.
The beam is at 231.9 cm (7 ft 7 in). The second step has a height of 39 cm (15 inches). Since it is located under the beam, it should just fit. But I worry that it might look too cramped and feel more like a cellar staircase.
With the shorter 25 cm (10 inches) tread, I am afraid it might feel too shallow. However, this option would comply with standards and, unlike the other staircase, it would meet the DIN requirements.
Until recently, I was absolutely sure we would go with the 26 cm (10 inches) tread depth. But after the staircase builder remeasured following the screed installation, the walking step formula no longer fits and it would no longer be DIN-compliant. The staircase would still be comfortable to use, though.
I’m quite confused right now and don’t know what to do. I think I might just be overthinking it, don’t you?
we have the following issue.
We are currently renovating an old building and are now in the final stages of planning the staircase.
I have attached the drawings.
The problem is that we wanted a staircase that is not too narrow and with the largest possible tread depth.
However, because there is a supporting beam (lintel) in one spot, which our staircase builder apparently did not fully take into account, I am unsure which version we should choose.
We would prefer the 26 cm (10 inches) tread depth, but then the staircase would not comply with DIN standards, and from the second step, it is quite close to the supporting beam.
The beam is at 231.9 cm (7 ft 7 in). The second step has a height of 39 cm (15 inches). Since it is located under the beam, it should just fit. But I worry that it might look too cramped and feel more like a cellar staircase.
With the shorter 25 cm (10 inches) tread, I am afraid it might feel too shallow. However, this option would comply with standards and, unlike the other staircase, it would meet the DIN requirements.
Until recently, I was absolutely sure we would go with the 26 cm (10 inches) tread depth. But after the staircase builder remeasured following the screed installation, the walking step formula no longer fits and it would no longer be DIN-compliant. The staircase would still be comfortable to use, though.
I’m quite confused right now and don’t know what to do. I think I might just be overthinking it, don’t you?
All steps should definitely have the same height to avoid any tripping hazard. A tread depth of 25cm (10 inches) is also fine; the difference compared to 26cm (10.2 inches) is hardly noticeable, and you can choose steps with a small overhang, which makes the tread slightly larger.
But here’s another idea – the stairwell opening is already there. Would it be structurally possible to reverse the staircase? So that it doesn’t go up from the back right to the front left, but from the front left to the back right? This would solve the issue with the beam automatically, as it is on the right side. Then the 90° turn would be at the bottom instead of the top. You would just need to make sure that the front left bottom provides access to the staircase, with no load-bearing wall in the way.
But here’s another idea – the stairwell opening is already there. Would it be structurally possible to reverse the staircase? So that it doesn’t go up from the back right to the front left, but from the front left to the back right? This would solve the issue with the beam automatically, as it is on the right side. Then the 90° turn would be at the bottom instead of the top. You would just need to make sure that the front left bottom provides access to the staircase, with no load-bearing wall in the way.
We have a 25cm (10 inch) tread depth, and I wear shoe size 46/47.
That works, but a bit more (I think an extra 1cm (0.4 inch) would definitely make a noticeable difference) would be better.
--> Without knowing your shoe size, I would recommend 26cm (10.2 inches) if possible, although 25cm (10 inches) hasn’t been a problem for us so far—in the literal sense.
However, if this increases the riser height (which seems likely in your case), I can’t really help you with that.
That works, but a bit more (I think an extra 1cm (0.4 inch) would definitely make a noticeable difference) would be better.
--> Without knowing your shoe size, I would recommend 26cm (10.2 inches) if possible, although 25cm (10 inches) hasn’t been a problem for us so far—in the literal sense.
However, if this increases the riser height (which seems likely in your case), I can’t really help you with that.
I wear size 47 shoes.
Turning the staircase around is not possible because there is a basement stairway below. We even removed a section of the ceiling to make the staircase fit. The staircase was previously reversed, but this way it fits perfectly into the overall plan.
I recalculated using a staircase calculator, and the tread is likely to be 25.5cm (10 inches). Although it slightly misses the step formula with 65.3cm (26 inches) according to the DIN standard, the rest fits. With 26cm (10.2 inches), it would be too tight because of the beam, but this could work.
We don’t find the 19.9cm (7.8 inches) rise to be an issue, as at our in-laws’ house we have almost the same staircase with a 19.9cm (7.8 inches) rise and a 25.8cm (10.2 inches) tread.
The staircase builder also proposed a staircase with one more step, a rise of only 18.68cm (7.4 inches), and a tread of 25cm (9.8 inches). But we found the 85cm (33 inches) width of that staircase too narrow.
Well, with an old building renovation you can’t have everything.
Turning the staircase around is not possible because there is a basement stairway below. We even removed a section of the ceiling to make the staircase fit. The staircase was previously reversed, but this way it fits perfectly into the overall plan.
I recalculated using a staircase calculator, and the tread is likely to be 25.5cm (10 inches). Although it slightly misses the step formula with 65.3cm (26 inches) according to the DIN standard, the rest fits. With 26cm (10.2 inches), it would be too tight because of the beam, but this could work.
We don’t find the 19.9cm (7.8 inches) rise to be an issue, as at our in-laws’ house we have almost the same staircase with a 19.9cm (7.8 inches) rise and a 25.8cm (10.2 inches) tread.
The staircase builder also proposed a staircase with one more step, a rise of only 18.68cm (7.4 inches), and a tread of 25cm (9.8 inches). But we found the 85cm (33 inches) width of that staircase too narrow.
Well, with an old building renovation you can’t have everything.
Similar topics