E. G.

Kerpershoek*
Computation
of Symmetrical
Free-Standing Staircases
Translated from

Cement XXZZ (1970) No. 1. pp. 24-28 by courtesy of

Cement, Holland

Keywords: design of staircases, reinforced concrete, torsion,

A Contribution to the Design of Symmetrical Free-Standing

Staircases Subjected to Symmetrical Loads.

1. Introduction.
Symmetrical free-standing staircases built of reinfor- He introduced a further approximation in the problem by
ced concrete have, during recent years, found steadily proceeding from the assumption that the flights are not
increasing application. Different methods, based on deformed in their planes, and that torsion may be neglec-
certain simplifications, have been established for the ted. By making these two assumptions he managed to
strength analysis of such staircases. to reduce the problem to a two-dimensional one and to
These methods are critically examined in this paper, obtain a statically determinate structure. The tensile and
and a new method is developed. The different computa- compressive forces in the upper and lower flights respec-
tion methods are compared with the aid of an example. tively could then be determined in a simple way through
decomposition. The bending moment in the center of the
landing was obtained by assuming the load to be con-
2. Previous Investigations.
centrated at the intersection line between the landing
W. Fuchssteiner (Ref 1.) was, in 1954, the first to publish and flights (Fig. 2). This method is very suitable for the *
a method for computing a symmetrical free-standing rapid determination of the dimensions.
staircase. He simplified the problem in that he considered
the staircase as a space frame. The stairs were assumed to
be sloping cantilever beams, while the landing was con-
sidered as a horizontal semi-circular bow girder (Fig. 1.).
The papers published by D. Dicke (Ref. 2.) in Cement
XI (1959) and by F. Sauter (Ref. 3) were entirely based
on these assumptions.
A. C. Liebenberg (Ref. 4) was the first to consider the
three-dimensional deformation of the plates. He found
that the deformations of the intersection line between the
flights and the landing were small in relation to the
deformations due to the bending moment in the flights.

* E. G. Kerpershoek, of Messrs. Dwars, Heederik and Verhey Fig. 1. W. Fuchssteiner’s mathematical model of free-stand& stair-
N. V., Des& Office, Amersfoort, Holland. case.

I.C.E. monthly / Vol. II No. 7. 1971/72 289

 3. The Computation.

The computation method as presented in this paper is

to a considerable degree a continuation of that developed
by A. Cusms and Jing-Gwo Kuung. The following im-
2q.d provements have been introduced :
a) The high rigidity of the intersection-between the
staircase plate and the landing is taken into account.
This rigidity may safely be assumed to be infinitely
large, as already observed by E. Suenson (Ref. 7) in 1937.
b. The deformations of the plate in the plane are
Fig. 2. A. C. Liebenberg’s computation method: Load on landing is
taken into account.
q=q,*a*cosct-l-qZ*c. Cd + d42) It should be noted for the sake of clarity that the de-
formation of the landing over the breadth of the railing
Moment in center of landing is gap must not be neglected. Qtherwise, a considerable
M,,,= - 1/2q*d*(d + c) increase of the bending moment in the center of the
landing will occur, since the landing remains completely
straight so that the flights will twist less.
Briefly, the computation procedure is as follows: The
A. Siev (Ref. 5) further developed A. C. Liebenberg’s
structure is first rendered statically determinate by cutting
computation method by allowing for the deformations
it apart in the center (Fig. 4). The two halves of the stair-
due to torsion, which cause secondary stresses. The first
case are now considered to deform independently. It is
assumed that the flights and the landing are deformed
immediately obvious that the symmetry and antimetry of
independently of each other, and then reconnected the
the free-standing staircase implies that the flights only
corners of the flights to the landing by establishing the
deform in two respectively opposite directions. These
compatibility conditions for these points.
deformations are shown in Fig. 5.
A. Cusens and Jing-i?wo Kuang (Ref. 6) again simplified
the staircase to a space frame structure, as done by
W. Fuchssteiner. They carried out detailed load tests on
a 1:2 model of a symmetrical free-standing staircase and
arrived at the conclusion that W. Fuchssteiner’s semi-
circular beam did not satisfactorily simulate the de-
formations of the landing. They therefore improved the
model by considering the landing as a straight beam
located at the intersection between the flights and the
DISPLACEMENT
landing (Fig. 3). They assumed that this beam had a (“10)
constant rigidity depending on the flexural rigidity of the
landing, without however allowing for the high rigidity
of the intersection-between the flights and the landing.
In contrast to W. Fuchssteiner they also neglected the
deformations of the flights in their own planes.

Fig. 5. Displacements in statically determinate case.

The load acting on the landing over half the breadth

Fig. 3. A. R. Cusens a.nd Jing-Gwo Kuang’s model of free-standing of the railing gap causes the flights to be twisted and a
stair-case. gap to be formed at 0. (The sideward displacement of the
Fig. 4. Statically determinate structure. flights is not shown in Fig. 5). The upper flight is bent in-

290 I.C.E. monthly / Vol. II No. 7. 1971/72

ward and the lower one outward, so that the horizontal In the Rights:
distance between points 0 and 0’ is increased.
M BxO = - qb * cz/2
These displacements can be cancelled by applying a
horizontal forte H, and a moment Mo at point 0. The M AxO = - h-a ’ s COS~E/~ - MB,.0 12 (2)
symmetrical free-standing staircase, subjected to a sym-
MYO
= q,*m*csina/4
metrical load, is thus twice statically indeterminate.
Six statically indeterminate magnitudes have to be M,, = - q,.m*c*cosa/4
found in the case of an asymmetrical staircase and load.
The reaction B is
For the sake of simplicity this paper deals only with the
symmetrical case. B=q;a*cosa/2fqb’c
Other cases may be solved similarly in accordance with (3)
+ (M,M - MBd la * CoSa
the method presented below.
The moments in the second phase are:
f--- In the flights:
O/ M,,= -B*x (4)
4= The first statically indeterminate magnitude is taken as
a moment Mo in the center of the landing (Fig. 9);

Fig. 6. Defhition of some n o t a t i o n s .

-f
@
- \ti
COs

- - - - - M O

Fig. 9.

The moments due to Mo = 1 are:

Fig. 7. Positive directions of forces and moment vectors.
In the landing :
M,, =1 (5)
4. Derivation of Formulas. In the flights:
The statically determinate case is separated into two M,, = - sina
phases in accordance with Fig. 8. (6)
M,, = cosa
The second statically indeterminate magnitude is a shearing
forte H,, also acting in the center of the landing (Fig. 10).

lst PHASE 2”d PHASE

Fig. 8.

The moments in the first phase are:

In the landing :
M,, = - qb. c*x2/2*(d ++m> Fig. 10.

I.C.E. monthly /Val. II No. 7. 1971/72 291

 H, = 1 are: The horizontal displacement is az i * Mo, where
In the landing :
(12)
Myz= -x

In the flights: The angular displacement due to the forte H, is a2 1 - H,,

where by virtue of Maxwell’s law of reciprocity a, i = a, 2.
- xtgcr
Mx2 = The horizontal displacement due to H, is az2 vH,, where
- b*cosu/2 (8)
M,2 = m3 a3 * sin2cc a * b2 cos2a
- - + g) (13)
Mw2 = - b*sina/2 a22 = 24EI,, + 3EI,, +- 4 EI,, wt
This distribution of forces enables us through integration The condition that the displacements must vanish yields
to compute the deformations due to the different load two equations with two unknowns :
(aHo, and Mo). alo + al1 - Mo + al2 * H, = 0
The angular displacement due to the load q is in the
statically determinate case : (14)
a,, + a21 -Mo +‘a,, * H, = 0

a,, = -
s ml2

0
- qb ’ c ’ x2
- . dx
from which the statically indeterminate magnitudes Mo
can be found.
We can now compute the forces acting at any point of
o’cosa qb - m * c * sin2a dx the staircase :
- In the landing :
s0
4EIy, * cos a
-
Mox = Mo
a*CoSa qb * m * c * cos2a dx (l-9
cos u D OY = H,
4G1, ’ -
(9) In the llights:
qb.c*m3
= - - - - - - -
MAX = MAxo - B * a * cosu - H, * ct * sinct
48 d + F EI,,
( ) MA - MB~
=z +q..a2. cos2c! -
_ qb-a * c - m sin2a + cos’a MD,
2
- -
4 EIyt GLt
MBX = MBXO
The horizontal displacement is
MABp = M,, - Mo * sma
* -+b.H,*cosa ( 1 6 )
a*=OSa B . tga . x2 dx
020 =
--.- - MAIlw= M,,+M,coscc--$b.H,.sincc
cosa
s0 E * Ix,
D, = - B . cosa - H, sina
“cOsoqb - b * c * m * sina *cosa . d x -
N = - B * sina + I-I, *cosa
8EIyt

-l s
cosu
-10

O’cOsaqb * b * c * m * sinu *cos , dx = 5. Design Example

0 ----%I,, cosa
(10) We shall use as design example the staircase which
B *a3 * sina *cosfx- q,*ll*b’C*T?l was also analyzed by A. Cusens and Jing-Gwo Kuang
= -
3EL 8 (Ref.6).

- 1- -1 - Given :
‘ma * ‘Os’ EI,, GI, a = 276 cm (108.6 in.); I, = 11,400 cm4 1(274 in,“);
I, = 22,851,OOO cm4 (550,000 in.4); I,, = 54,300 cm4
The deformations dueto the statically indeterminate loads
(1305 in.4); b = 180 cm(70.8 in.); IX, = 32,700 cm4
may be computed in the same way :
(784 in.4); = 503,600 cm4 (12,086 in4); c = 140
Iyb

The angular displacement due to Mo is al 1 *:Mo, where

cm(55.1 in.); d = 140cm (55.1 in.); m = 40 cm (15.7 in.);
m u = 30”; G/E = 0.435; q. = 8.87 kgf/cm (32.1 lbf/in.)
a1i=2EI;b+a (11) q,, = 8.99 kgf/cm (32.5 lbf/in.).

292 I.C.E. monthly / Vol. II No. 7. 1971/72

 Substitution of these values for the coefficients yields
the following equations:
O.O09M, - 0.4548, = ll 0,620
(17)
- 0.454M, -t 177.352H, = - 693,525,916
whose solution is
M, = - 211318 kgfcm ( - 187071 in.-lbf)
H, = - 4433 kgf ( - 9753 Ibf)
The results will now be compared with those obtained
for the same staircase by means of the other computation
methods. The results are given in Table 1.
The results of A. Siev’s more involved computation
method are in close agreement with those obtained by
means of the method presented here. The reason for
this. agreement is surely the fact that A. Siev together
with A. C. Liebenberg (Ref. 8) made allowance for the
high rigidity of the intersection line between the flight and
the landing when establishing the compatibility condi-
tions for this line.
In discussing A. Siev’s paper, A. C. Liebenberg points
out that the stiffening effect of the landing due to the
bending of the flights has not been taken into account.
This may well be the cause of the small difference be-
tween the results.
The results obtained by means of the computation me-
thods of W. Fuci’tssteiner, and A. R. Cusens conside-
rably differ from those obtained here. The reason for
these difIerences should be sought in the unjustified simpli-
fications, such as the neglection of the high rigidity of the
intersection line between the flights and the landing.
6. Reinforcement.
We shall now make some suggestions as regards the
reinforcement of symmetrical free-standing staircases
built of reinforced concrete.
Top reinforcement must be inserted in the center of the
landing in order to resist the moment M,,. The point 0
practically does not deflect; this causes the stresses to
become concentrated at this point. It is therefore recom-
mended that the width of the landing part resisting the
moment be assumed to be not more than half the landing
breadth.
The shearing forte D in the center of the landing must
also be verified. The landing behaves like a cantilever
plate resting on the flights. The flights must be reinforced
near the attachment of the landing in order to enable it
to resist the fixing moment at this point. It should be re-
membered that these moments will be larger if the load is
not symmetrical. It is recommended that the value of the
moment, obtained for the case of a symmetrical load,
be multiplied by a factor of 1.5, the reinforcement then
being designed for this load. It must also be remembered
that a tensile forte N appears in the upper flight. The rein-
forcement resisting this forte may be distributed over the
entire breadth of the flight near the upper section of hxa-
tion. However, this tensile forte probably becomes more
displaced toward the railing gap at the bottom. It is there-
fore recommended that the reinforcement necessary for
resisting iV be distributed over not more than one quarter
of the breadth of the plate.
In general it will not be necessary to reinforce the
flights against twisting. However, care must be taken
if the railing gap is wide. The moment about the y-axis

TABLE 1

Moment Fuchssteiner (1954) Sieu (1962) Cusens (1966) Author

kgfm ft-lbf kfm ft-lbf kgfm ft-lbf kfm ft-lbf
--

MAX -1153 - 8350 - 193 - 1390 - 403 - 2920 - 273 - 1970

MDX - - - - - 4 - 3 0 f 54 -t 390

MEX - 881 - 6360 - 881 - 6360 - 881 - 6360 - 881 - 6360

Mo* - 995 - 7200 -2205 -15900 -1600 -11580 -2113 -15200

MABB +3410 i-24600 -l-4430 +31800 $4120 +29810 +4440 +32000

MABW + 3430 f24700 + 159 + 1140 + 463 + 3350 -l- 3 8 0 + 2740

I.C.E. monthly 1 Vol. II No. 7. 1971172 293

 4. LIEBENEERG, A. C. : The design of slab type reinforced concrete
of the flghts will in general cause only small increases in the
stairways; The Structurai Engineer (London), Vol. 38, NO. 5,
required reinforcement, in view of the great height of
May 1960, pp. 156-164.
the plate in the corresponding direction.
5. SKEV, A.: Analysis of free straight multiflight staircases; Pro-
ceedings ASCE, Vol. 88, No. 3, June 1962, pp. 207-232.
7. Conclusims. 6. CUSENS, A. R. ANO KUANG, JING-GWO: A simplified method
of analysis of free-standing stairs; Concrete and Constructional
The computation method, proposed by A. Cusens and Engineering (London), Vol. 60, NO. 5, May 1965, pp. 167-172;
Jing-Gwo Kuang (Ref, 6) in 1965, is based on less accept- Experimental study of a free-standing staircase; A.C.I. Journal,
Proceedings, Vol. 63, NO. 5, May 1966, pp. 587-604.
able assumptions than that of A. Siev (Ref. 3). This is
7. SUENSON, E.: Trägerlose Eisenbetontreppen (Reinforced-con-
clearly shown by the test undertaken by A. Cusens and crete staircases without supports); Beton undEisen, 1937, p. 308.
Jing-Gwo Kuung.
8. LIEBENBERG, A. C.: Discussion of “Analysis of free-straight
It is evident from Fig.13 in the paper (Ref. 6) that the multiflight staircases”; Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 88, No. 6,
assumption that the intersection line does not deform is December 1962, pp. 327-333.
justified. 9. SIEV, A.: Closure to discussion of “Analysis of free-straight
The results obtained by W. Fuchssteiner’s computation multiflight staircases”; Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 89, NO. 5,
method differ considerably from those with the other met- Oct. 1963, pp. 251-254.
hods. This may be explained by the different initial assump-
tions. This computation method must therefore certainly NOTATIONS :
be considered asbobsolete. a length of flight
The design may be based on the simplifying assump- b length of landing
tions made by A. C. Lebenberg. The reinforcement may c breadth of landing
be determined according to a computation as proposed d breadth of flight
by A. Siev, or by means of the method presented here, m breadth of railing gap
once the thickness of the plate has been established. qd horizontal load on flight per unit length in direction of flight
It should be remembered that the plates are in al1 the q6 load on landing per unit length in direction of flight
cases considered computed in accordance with the beam B reaction in B, for statically determinate staircase
theory. The differences in the results obtained by means of D shearing forte
the methods proposed by Siev, Cusens, and the author E modulus of elasticity
may therefore be considered as not particularly important. G shear modulus
It can only be stated that as precise a solution as possible, Cr, statically indeterminate forte in center of landing
based on the beam theory, has been aimed at with the ZXt moment of inertia of flight section about transverse axis
aid of the method presented here. ZY, ditto about normal axis
Zwt polar moment of inertia of flight
Z xb moment of inertia of lanclmg section about transverse axis
REFERENCES
ZY6 ditto about normal axis
1. FUCHSSTEINER, W.: Die Freitragende Wendeltreppe, (The free- Mo statically indeterminate moment in landing center
standing helical stairs); Beton und Stuhlbetonbau (Berlin),
M, moment perpendicular to plane of plate
Vol. 49, No. ll, Nov. 1954, pp. 252-259.
M,, moment in plane of plate
2. DICKE, D. : Vrijdragende trap met bordes (Free-standing stairs
with landing); Cement íl (1959), No. 3, Mar. 1959, pp. 275-279. M,,, torsional moment
3. SAUTER, F.: Free-standing stairs; A.C.I. Journul, Proceedings, N normal forte
Vol. 61, No. 7, July 1964, pp. 847-870. u angle of inclination of staircase

294 I.C.E. monthly / Vol. II No. 7. 1971/72