STAIRWAY RISERS AND TREADS - ACCEPTABLE AND PREFERRED DIMENSIONS

被引:31
作者
IRVINE, CH
SNOOK, SH
SPARSHATT, JH
机构
[1] Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, Research Center, Hopkinton, MA
关键词
Psychophysical assessment; stairways; user preference;
D O I
10.1016/0003-6870(90)90005-I
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Stairway preference and acceptability were investigated with psychophysical techniques. A series of six experiments was conducted where subjects ascended and descended 19 sets of stairways with different riser and tread (run) dimensions. Subjects were instructed to identify stairways that they considered acceptable, and the one stairway they most preferred. The optimum riser was 7·2 in (183 mm), and the optimum tread (run) was 11 or 12 in (279 or 300 mm). These dimensions were acceptable to both males and females, young and old, and subjects of greater or lesser stature. Larger dimensions were not as acceptable to shorter subjects, and smaller dimensions were not as acceptable to taller subjects. The 4-in (102 mm) riser was almost totally unacceptable, and never preferred. The 5·14 and 9-in (131 and 229 mm) risers were acceptable to less than one-third of the subjects, and rarely or never preferred. These results are compared with existing practices and recommendations. © 1990.
引用
收藏
页码:215 / 225
页数:11
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   RAMPS OR STAIRS - CHOICE USING PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOMECHANIC CRITERIA [J].
CORLETT, EN ;
HUTCHESON, C ;
DELUGAN, MA ;
ROGOZENSKI, J .
APPLIED ERGONOMICS, 1972, 3 (04) :195-201
[2]  
Diffrient N., 1981, HUMAN SCALE
[3]  
FITCH JM, 1974, SCI AM, V231, P82
[4]  
GOWINGS DD, 1960, ACCIDENTAL INJURIES, P59
[5]   A BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION OF STAIRCASE RISER HEIGHTS AND TREAD DEPTHS DURING STAIR-CLIMBING [J].
MITAL, A ;
FARD, HF ;
KHALEDI, H .
CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 1987, 2 (03) :162-164
[6]  
NASA, 1978, ANTHR SOURC BOOK, V2
[7]  
NELSON GS, 1973, THESIS TEXAS A M U
[8]  
PAULS JL, 1985, ANAL BEHAVIOR STAIR, V28, P999
[9]   STUDY OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH RISK OF WORK-RELATED STAIRWAY FALLS [J].
TEMPLER, J ;
ARCHEA, J ;
COHEN, HH .
JOURNAL OF SAFETY RESEARCH, 1985, 16 (04) :183-196
[10]  
*US DEP DEF, 1981, HUM ENG DES CRIT MIL