|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > May 2006 > Outside stairs and safety
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Outside stairs and safety
|
|
| Peter.H.M.Brooks@gmail.com 2006-05-09, 7:21 am |
| I'm not sure if this is really an appropriate question for here, but
I'd be grateful of advice!
There's a flight of external stairs that people have tended to fall
over on over the years. I've suggested better grip in the wet might be
a good idea and, as a result, an exterior paint, mixed with sand, has
been applied, giving a much better grip.
People still fall over - the stairs aren't even outside a pub, so
that's not the explanation!
I had somebody criticise some other stairs, saying that the risers were
too high and might be dangerous, so I wondered if that might be part of
the problem.
These stairs have a railing, but the riser hight is 17cm and the tread
width 28cm. I gather, from a brief look at things, that 15cm is a good
size for a riser. Is 17 cm too high? Would it make sense to put an
extra stair between each of the current ones giving 8.5 and 14 cm, or
would that make it worse?
Not everybody using the stairs is in the first flush of youth, which is
part of the problem, I know. They have a railing, on the right hand
side going down, but they are over three metres wide. Should they have
a railing down the middle? Is the height of the railing important?
| |
| Christian McArdle 2006-05-09, 7:21 am |
| > These stairs have a railing, but the riser hight is 17cm and the tread
> width 28cm. I gather, from a brief look at things, that 15cm is a good
> size for a riser. Is 17 cm too high? Would it make sense to put an
> extra stair between each of the current ones giving 8.5 and 14 cm, or
> would that make it worse?
I assume by "tread width", you actually mean the going.
170mm is a good height for a riser. 280mm is a good length for a going. It
is not entirely clear if this is a private staircase or an institutional
one. I presume the latter from your comments. If so, the rise is required to
be between 135mm and 180mm (it is). The going is required to be between
280mm and 340mm (it is).
One thing that should not be permitted in a staircase is variable rise and
going. All steps should be identical, or they will be very unsafe.
> but they are over three metres wide. Should they have a railing down
> the middle? Is the height of the railing important?
This may be your problem. 3m does need to be subdivided. Any stair wider
than 1.8m requires this treatment. Indeed, much more width and it would need
subdividing into 3. It also requires handrails on both sides additional to
the dividing handrail in the middle. Just one handrail down one side is not
enough!
The height of the railing should be 900-1000mm off the pitch line.
Christian.
| |
|
|
| Peter.H.M.Brooks@gmail.com 2006-05-09, 8:21 am |
| Thank you - that is most helpful! I hadn't known what the 'going' was,
but I see it is either the witdth of a passage, or a stair - I'm sure
I'll find that a useful term.
I'll have to check that they're all the same size. I think that the
bottom step might have a wider going. It looks like handrails are going
to be going into the going soon!
| |
| The Natural Philosopher 2006-05-09, 8:21 am |
| Christian McArdle wrote:
>
> I assume by "tread width", you actually mean the going.
>
> 170mm is a good height for a riser. 280mm is a good length for a going. It
> is not entirely clear if this is a private staircase or an institutional
> one. I presume the latter from your comments. If so, the rise is required to
> be between 135mm and 180mm (it is). The going is required to be between
> 280mm and 340mm (it is).
>
> One thing that should not be permitted in a staircase is variable rise and
> going. All steps should be identical, or they will be very unsafe.
>
>
> This may be your problem. 3m does need to be subdivided. Any stair wider
> than 1.8m requires this treatment. Indeed, much more width and it would need
> subdividing into 3. It also requires handrails on both sides additional to
> the dividing handrail in the middle. Just one handrail down one side is not
> enough!
>
> The height of the railing should be 900-1000mm off the pitch line.
>
> Christian.
>
>
One case in which the regulations are utterly sane...
| |
| manatbandq@hotmail.com 2006-05-09, 9:21 am |
|
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Christian McArdle wrote:
> One case in which the regulations are utterly sane...
SSSSHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
| |
| The Natural Philosopher 2006-05-09, 9:21 am |
| manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> SSSSHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
>
No, Actually not.
Where politics have been kept out of the regulations, and they have been
worked out properly by sensible engineers, they are a good
representations of 'best economically reasonable practice' and when
interpreted by intelligent BCO's they do result in safe structurally
sound and healthy and usable living spaces, and do not impinge on
architectural freedom.
Its the politicized ones that are always bollocks. To a large extent
that is the disability friendly ones, and the part P electrical ones.
I totally LOATHE the fact that it is no longer possible to build a town
house with a set of steps UP to the front door, and down to the basement.
Bloody ramps.
| |
| tbasc@bellsouth.net 2006-05-09, 9:21 pm |
| What brought about the restriction of steps down and steps up?
What is allowed?
TB
| |
| Christian McArdle 2006-05-10, 7:21 am |
| > What brought about the restriction of steps down and steps up?
Level access for wheelchairs. You need one on the primary entrance floor. It
can be the back door, although this is more difficult on terraces and
townhouses.
Christian.
| |
| Roarmeister 2006-05-10, 10:21 pm |
| On 9 May 2006 02:32:30 -0700, Peter.H.M.Brooks@gmail.com wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is really an appropriate question for here, but
>I'd be grateful of advice!
Certainly appropriate.
>There's a flight of external stairs that people have tended to fall
>over on over the years. I've suggested better grip in the wet might be
>a good idea and, as a result, an exterior paint, mixed with sand, has
>been applied, giving a much better grip.
Wouldn't hurt - a better gripping surface is general good. You may want to
delineate the edges/nosing with a different colour or texture for the
visually impaired.
>People still fall over - the stairs aren't even outside a pub, so
>that's not the explanation!
Some people will trip over a level flat surface too. :-)
>I had somebody criticise some other stairs, saying that the risers were
>too high and might be dangerous, so I wondered if that might be part of
>the problem.
>
>These stairs have a railing, but the riser hight is 17cm and the tread
>width 28cm. I gather, from a brief look at things, that 15cm is a good
>size for a riser. Is 17 cm too high? Would it make sense to put an
Sounds appropriate to me. In Canada we use what I call the "180/280 rule"
- max. 180mm rise, min. 280mm run for interior or exterior steps. Although
exterior steps of 150mm/300mm can also be used.
>extra stair between each of the current ones giving 8.5 and 14 cm, or
>would that make it worse?
Definitely worse for walking on and likely uneconomical. What is your
nosing like? Is it straight and perpendicular, slightly angled back
risers, or rounded/chamfered edges? A nosing that is too round (greater
than 6mm radius) tends to be more slippery and feels less defined or
comfortable to the foot which may result in slipping on the stairs.
>Not everybody using the stairs is in the first flush of youth, which is
>part of the problem, I know. They have a railing, on the right hand
>side going down, but they are over three metres wide. Should they have
>a railing down the middle? Is the height of the railing important?
Yes - probably and Yes. Am I correct in assuming you are British? Anyway
- we have a code requirement that any stair wider than 1100mm requires a
handrail on both sides and if wider than xxxx, it requires a middle
handrail. I just cannot remember that figure off hand. This may work for
well for interior stairs but let's say you have an exterior stair to a
public building like a courthouse where the stairs may be several metres
wide, it doesn't make sense to have umpteen handrails spaced a metre apart.
Handrail height should be between 860-920mm in height. Guard rails should
be 1100mm in height. The handrail itself should be graspable and small
enough to put your hand around it (35-44mm dia.) and it should be
continuous so that the supports don't interfere with the handhold. Toddlers
can grasp the hand of an adult because even a 860mm high rail can be too
tall for them. Extend the handrails 150mm horizontally past the nosing so
people can continue to grasp/hold on while ascending/descending the stair.
This is as per Canadian code and experience - your jurisdiction and
"mileage" may vary. :-)
| |
| Roarmeister 2006-05-10, 10:21 pm |
| On 9 May 2006 03:38:14 -0700, Peter.H.M.Brooks@gmail.com wrote:
>Thank you - that is most helpful! I hadn't known what the 'going' was,
>but I see it is either the witdth of a passage, or a stair - I'm sure
>I'll find that a useful term.
>
>I'll have to check that they're all the same size. I think that the
>bottom step might have a wider going. It looks like handrails are going
>to be going into the going soon!
Going... Going... Gone.... :-)
In North America, we call it the "run". This is the first time I've ever
heard it called a "going". In fact, if it wasn't for that Code reference
posted above, I would still be scratching my head.
| |
| Roarmeister 2006-05-10, 10:21 pm |
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:50:26 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
<cmcardle75@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Level access for wheelchairs. You need one on the primary entrance floor. It
>can be the back door, although this is more difficult on terraces and
>townhouses.
Definitely understandable for public buildings but residential entrances in
Canada don't have that kind of requirement.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-05-12, 8:21 pm |
| Roarmeister wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:50:26 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
> <cmcardle75@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Definitely understandable for public buildings but residential entrances in
> Canada don't have that kind of requirement.
>
In the US a certain number are required to be "accessible" units. Most
of the time, all of the units, except the required minimum are set up
however the designer/developer team likes.
|
|
|
|
|