 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In a scene I'm working on, I have a walkway which is calculated via trig
to reach a certain point. However, I'm concerned that it appears too
steep for people to walk on.
Currently, it drops approximate 1 foot for every 3 feet forward. While
not an exhausting slope (I've climbed much worse), I'm thinking of
splitting it into sections of shallower slopes, interspersed with
sections of stairs. (Of course, for usability, I'm going to add
escalators etc, but that's a different aspect of this).
What would be a good slope, bearing in mind that this is a rather long
walkway (almost 3000', or about 920m)? Is the current drop of 1 foot
for every 3 forward acceptable, or should I lower it to 1 foot for every
5 or even 10 forward?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, and I'm not quite certain this is the right newsgroup, since it
isn't technically a POV question... but I'm not sure which newsgroup
would fit it better :(
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 30/11/2006 18:07:
> In a scene I'm working on, I have a walkway which is calculated via trig
> to reach a certain point. However, I'm concerned that it appears too
> steep for people to walk on.
> Currently, it drops approximate 1 foot for every 3 feet forward. While
> not an exhausting slope (I've climbed much worse), I'm thinking of
> splitting it into sections of shallower slopes, interspersed with
> sections of stairs. (Of course, for usability, I'm going to add
> escalators etc, but that's a different aspect of this).
> What would be a good slope, bearing in mind that this is a rather long
> walkway (almost 3000', or about 920m)? Is the current drop of 1 foot
> for every 3 forward acceptable, or should I lower it to 1 foot for every
> 5 or even 10 forward?
> ...Chambers
Your slope is 33% witch is prety steep. Usualy, you try to keep it at less than
15% or 15 unit per 100 or 3 unit per 20. In real life, you can have even steeper
slopes, but then, those who make those also make alternative, winding paths, or
make stairs.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A hooker once told me she had a headache.
Rodney Dangerfield
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Ben!
In the real world, 5% grade is optimally the steepest you want. I wouldn't
go more than 10%.
A landscape contractor might excavate, build a retaining wall on the side of
the slope, and have the pedestrian way lead to some steps or a ramp. This
is what I typically saw in residential neighborhoods in Seattle.
Alternatively, a series of switch-back paths with periodic landings are also
a norm. I've been on a number of paths like these in hilly parks. Of
course, retaining devices such as logs with spikes are used along such a
path.
If you want your image to look PlanetEarth realistic, then google
"ICC/ANSI". "ICC" stands for International Construction Code. You might
find a good resource that way.
I too have walked/driven up and down some very steep hills. Usually in
down-town areas of cities where building density prevented the possibilty
for alternative landscaping.
I hope this helps.
-Randall
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I forgot to mention:
Stairs have an optimal rise:run ratio of 7:10.
-Randall
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
> In a scene I'm working on, I have a walkway which is calculated via trig
> to reach a certain point. However, I'm concerned that it appears too
> steep for people to walk on.
>
> Currently, it drops approximate 1 foot for every 3 feet forward. While
> not an exhausting slope (I've climbed much worse), I'm thinking of
> splitting it into sections of shallower slopes, interspersed with
> sections of stairs. (Of course, for usability, I'm going to add
> escalators etc, but that's a different aspect of this).
A slope like this would be very difficult for someone on a wheelchair.
And if there is any ice or hard-pack snow on the surface, ordinary
walking is going to be downright dangerous.
I suspect that a 10% grade (10:1) is the very steepest acceptable.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> In a scene I'm working on, I have a walkway which is calculated via trig
> to reach a certain point. However, I'm concerned that it appears too
> steep for people to walk on.
>
> Currently, it drops approximate 1 foot for every 3 feet forward. While
> not an exhausting slope (I've climbed much worse), I'm thinking of
> splitting it into sections of shallower slopes, interspersed with
> sections of stairs. (Of course, for usability, I'm going to add
> escalators etc, but that's a different aspect of this).
>
> What would be a good slope, bearing in mind that this is a rather long
> walkway (almost 3000', or about 920m)? Is the current drop of 1 foot
> for every 3 forward acceptable, or should I lower it to 1 foot for every
> 5 or even 10 forward?
>
> ...Chambers
In Ontario, generally speaking, the steepest acceptable is 1:12 but for
wheelchair accessability it should be no more than 1:20. This is why
you'll often see switchback type access ramps with landings in order to
accomodate the slope. There are also rules about the length of single runs
and landings but I don't know them off the top off my head.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Stairs have an optimal rise:run ratio of 7:10.
I think the standard is 7":11" for stair treads...
the rule of thumb is that the rise and run should add
up to about 17.5"
So if you have a 4" tall step the run should be about
13.5" deep so that it feels right to walk up it.
Landings should be 42" deep at least.
Wheelchair ramps shouldn't be more than 1:12 about 8.3%
Standard train tracks never exceed a 4% grade, about 1:24
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so I've seen a few different numbers posted here. The design I
settled on is a series of 19 switchbacks, each one dropping about 52
feet over 750 feet, which comes out to about a 7% grade.
The real drawback to this, is that it means the walkway is extended from
3000 feet (a bit more than 1/2 mile, a considerable length on its own)
to about 14000 feet (close to three miles). I'm thinking I might just
have to adjust my target height so I won't need switchbacks, and put an
elevator in at the end.
...Chambers
PS Hopefully, I'll get some images up in the b.i group soon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 02/12/2006 02:41:
> OK, so I've seen a few different numbers posted here. The design I
> settled on is a series of 19 switchbacks, each one dropping about 52
> feet over 750 feet, which comes out to about a 7% grade.
> The real drawback to this, is that it means the walkway is extended from
> 3000 feet (a bit more than 1/2 mile, a considerable length on its own)
> to about 14000 feet (close to three miles). I'm thinking I might just
> have to adjust my target height so I won't need switchbacks, and put an
> elevator in at the end.
> ...Chambers
> PS Hopefully, I'll get some images up in the b.i group soon.
A workaround: make it a "natural" path. One that's just "there" instead of one
that has been built or planed. With that aproach, you can get by with grades of
around 100%!
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
CONFUSION IS OUR BUSINESS:
OUR ONLY BUSINESS!
WE'RE DAMN GOOD AT IT!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
