A Helical Stairway Project

Tom Farmer
This is a real-world problem. Its what I understand from a friendly
exchange of several e-mails during a recent semester in which I was teaching
a multivariable calculus class. The first message sent to me began with, I
am a carpenter with a problem, and it turned out that the problem involved
parameterizing lines and curves in space and finding intersections between
lines and planes exactly some of the topics in multivariable calculus. My
students got a kick out of the developing story.
By way of several messages back and forth, I learned about the plans
for a 10-story hospital (now completed) that has an unconventional stairway
system including, between each pair of floors, a free-standing, curved flight
of stairs that follows an arc of a helix. The stairway system is an important
visual element in this building. From the bottom floor, a visitor can look up
and see the entire system including the 9 helical flights. Thus, these curved
sections must look elegant as well as function properly.
The entire system is enclosed within a quarter cylinder of radius 21 feet,
and the stairway from one floor to the next has the following parts (see
Figures 1 and 2):
- a main landing adjoining the axis of the cylinder; then (rising clockwise
around Figure 1),
- a conventional flight of steps out from the axis to a landing bounded
by the wall of the cylinder; then
- the curved flight of steps that rise along a helical arc to another landing
along the cylindrical wall; and, finally,
- another straight flight of steps back toward the axis and rising to the
main landing on the next floor.

Figure 1: Stairway system.

Figure 2: One flight showing stringer and concrete beam.

Questions from the carpenter

In order to pour the concrete for the helical staircase, the carpenter envisioned a temporary framework consisting of two main beams, AB and CD
in Figure 1, surmounted by a number of horizontal, radial beams that meet
the cylindrical surface along a curve. Upon this framework would be constructed the ramps of plywood and the forms (the temporary walls) that
would contain the concrete. A sideview of the finished product (Figure 2)
shows the zigzag outline of the steps on top of an 8-inch thick band that
forms the stringer supporting the steps. Below the stringer is a thicker concrete beam. Although the steps, the stringer, and the beam are all poured at
once, it is convenient to speak of them as separate objects. The ideal temporary framework is one that could be dismantled and reused, and this would
help to guarantee consistent results from one floor to the next. In fact, more
important than its structural role, the beam AB would serve as a template
in preparing to pour the staircase on each floor. The points A and B are
essentially the bottom and top points of the helical curve that the bottom
of the concrete beam is to follow. The points C and D are constructed from
A and B by drawing horizontal lines toward the axis of the cylinder and
measuring a distance equal to the long dimension of each step.
If AB is a straight beam (rather than having a curved profile) then it turns
out that the curve we get on the cylindrical wall is only an approximation of
a helix. This may not be obvious, but we work out the formulas below. So
here is the initial question raised in planning for this temporary framework:
What curved profile for the beam AB will cause the curve traced out on
the cylinder to be a true helix? A related question is: If a straight beam is
used instead of a beam with the proper curved profile, will the constructed
curve be a sufficiently good approximation of a helix? In other words, what
problems will stem from using this non-helical curve?
A primary consideration in building a stairway is that the rise (riser
height) and run (tread width) of each step must remain constant if the
rise or run varies from one step to the next, then climbers might stumble.
4

A defining characteristic of a true helix is that it has constant slope along a

(right circular) cylinder, and this allows constant rise and run. On the other
hand, if the stairway were to follow a curve that is not quite a helix, then
the slope along the outer cylindrical surface would not be constant. Thus, if
the risers were held at constant height, then the treads would have to vary in
width. Similarly, if the treads were of constant width, then the risers would
have to vary in height. Either situation would mean trouble for the climbers.
Of course, even with a true helix, the tread width varies along the length
of the tread. Each tread in a helical section is bounded between the outer
cylinder of radius 21 feet and an inner cylinder of radius 16.5 feet (in this
application the tread length is 4.5 feet). The other boundaries of a tread are
along radial lines. Thus, two climbers walking side by side will face different
tread widths. But, as long as a person maintains a constant distance from the
axis of the cylinders, the tread width remains constant and climbing should
be no problem. By the way, as can be seen in Figure 2, the cylindrical walls
in this construction are imaginary and the stairway system is actually in an
open space alongside a cylindrical wall of glass.
Imagine that in preparing for a helical flight, we have drawn on the outer
cylindrical wall (supposing it existed as a solid wall) the outline of the steps
and the helical arc to be followed by the top surface of the stringer. The
outline is determined by the specifications of the rise and run of each step,
the desired number of steps in the flight, and the location of the lower landing.
But now lets talk about the bottom surface of the concrete beam that is
to support the flight. Ideally, the bottom surface would follow a helix parallel
to the one formed by the steps. Thats why we would like for the beam AB to
have a profile that matches the helix. If, instead, AB were a straight beam,
then the bottom surface of the concrete beam would have the wrong shape.
Of course, even so, we could make the top surface of the stringer have the
correct shape simply by allowing the concrete beam or the stringer to have
varying thickness. Would that work?
Well, because the sides of all the stringers and the concrete beams are

visible from the stairwell, allowing them to have varying thickness turns
out to be unacceptable. This is so even though the necessary variation in
thickness is quite small (as we shall see).
A mathematical reply
The main goal is to discover the correct profile for a beam AB so that horizontal rays from the axis of the cylinder and passing through points on the
top surface of the beam meet the cylindrical wall in a helix. We choose coordinates so that the (vertical) z-axis is the axis of the cylinder with radius
R = 252 inches (21 feet) and let z = 0 represent ground level. Although the
actual stair system rises in the clockwise direction, we follow mathematical
convention in considering a helix that rises counter-clockwise. Also, let the xaxis and y-axis be such that the first octant of space contains the entire stairway system as suggested by Figure 1. Then the coordinates of the points on
the desired helix for the first helical flight of stairs are x = R cos t, y = R sin t,
and z = ct, where t [, ]. Here c is a constant determined by the slope
of the helix and [, ] is the interval of polar rays that contains the helical
flight. The values of c, , and are derived from the building plans.
Any point P = (R cos t, R sin t, ct) of the helix uniquely determines a horizontal line segment QP , where Q = (0, 0, ct) is on the axis of the cylinder.
Where does this line meet the vertical plane containing A and B? We can
take the direction vector of the line QP to be hcos t, sin t, 0i, so using s as
the parameter, we find the line is given by

x = s cos t
y = s sin t

z = ct.

(1)

Since A = (R cos , R sin , c) and B = (R cos , R sin , c), the vertical plane AB containing these points has equation
(sin sin )(x R cos ) + (cos cos )(y R sin ) = 0.

(2)

To see this, we just verify that A and B satisfy the equation and note that
the equation does not depend on the z-coordinate of a point.
Substituting (??) into (??), we find that the desired point of intersection
U is

i
h
R sin( )

cos t
x
=

sin( t) + sin(t )

h
i
R sin( )
y=
sin t

sin( t) + sin(t )

z = ct.
Because the line QP radiates from the axis of the cylinder, we call U the
radial projection of the point P of the helix onto the plane AB .
Next we need to compare U with the point V where the line AB hits the
plane P containing P and the z-axis. The equation of this plane is simply
( sin t)x + (cos t)y = 0.
And, in parametric form the line AB is

x = R cos + v(R cos R cos )

y = R sin + v(R sin R sin )

z = c + v(c c),

using AB as the direction vector. It follows that V is the point given by

h
h
i
i
sin(t )

x
=
R
cos

+
(cos

cos
)

sin( t) + sin(t )

h
h
i
i
sin(t )
y = R sin +
(sin sin )

sin( t) + sin(t )

h
h
i
i

sin(t )

( ) .
z =c +
sin( t) + sin(t )
While it may not seem likely from the formulas, the x- and y-coordinates
of U must agree with those of V . After all, both points are on the line of
intersection of the vertical planes AB and P . To verify that they actually
do agree just requires the use of the sine difference formula or a computer
algebra system.
7

Hence, we focus on the difference in the z-coordinates of V and U . This

is exactly the vertical separation between a point on a straight beam AB
and the corresponding point on a beam with a profile that matches the true
helix. This difference leads to the error in the thickness of the stringer if a
straight beam were used instead of a beam with the proper curved profile.
Thus, in the end, we need to look at the function determined by the difference
between the z-coordinates of V (t) and U (t) as the point P (t) varies on the
helix. This function is given by
h
h
f (t) = c +

=c

i
i
sin(t )
( ) t
sin( t) + sin(t )

h ( t) sin( t) + ( t) sin(t ) i
sin( t) + sin(t )

Now we put in some data

In order to get a clearer sense of what the function f says about the beam AB,
we put in some data. The carpenter provided information from the building
plans for the lower floors of the building. While the helical staircases for the
upper six floors use 16 risers as shown in Figure 6, the lower floors use 11.
9
So for the lower floors, 11 risers times 6 16
inches per riser yields an overall
vertical rise of 72.1875 inches. Also, = 0.3560 and = 0.9857, so c =
72.1875/( ) 114.64 inches. Using this data, we numerically evaluate
f . In fact, we could derive expressions for the maximum and minimum values
of f in terms of the parameters c, , and , but they are quite complicated
and do not seem to shed light on the design of the beam AB. So instead,
using MATLAB, we estimate the maximum and minimum values of f to be
about 0.4684 inches.
Note that the f values are vertical differences rather than measurements
perpendicular to the line AB. Since AB has an angle of inclination of
0.4332 radians (computed from the coordinates of A and B), a vertical
difference f (t) corresponds to a value f (t) cos perpendicular to the line AB.

So the maximum and minimum values of f , namely 0.4684 inches, correspond to values of f cos 0.425 inches. This means that using a straight
beam AB would cause the concrete beam to vary in thickness by about 0.85
inches in order for the top of the stringer, and therefore the steps themselves, to follow the path of the true helix. This variation, being noticable,
was deemed unacceptable.

Figure 3: Notch the main beam to position the radial beams.

On the other hand, such small adjustments in the profile of the beam
plus or minus a half inch along a beam that is about 172 inches long could
be accomplished by cutting notches of varying depth in a straight beam in
order to position the radial beams at the proper heights. That is, we wouldnt
need to carve the entire beam; just let the notch depths match the desired
curved profile. Figure 2 illustrates the idea. The top of the main beam is
located a little below the line AB so that the radial beams can all fit into
9

a notch of some positive depth. Each radial beam is topped by a triangular

wedge to provide a surface for attaching the plywood ramp. Of course, many
such issues belong in the domain of the carpenter, not the mathematician.
In order to make a picture of the curved profile of the beam, we want
to view f as a function of linear distance along the line segment AB rather
than a function of the polar angle t. The distance from A along AB is given
by
172 sin(t )
,
172v(t) =
sin( t) + sin(t )
where 172 inches is the distance from A to B. With this we can use MAT-

Figure 4: Vertical displacement along AB.

LAB to plot f (t) versus 172v(t) as in Figure 4. Obviously, the vertical and
horizontal scales here differ from each other in order to accentuate the fact
that the beam is not straight.

10

Back to reality
Back in the real world, the carpenter actually avoided the problem that he
posed he used a different approach entirely. In the photograph in Figure
5, we see how the radial beams are supported independently by vertical
columns. What they did was to build a temporary deck at the level of each
main landing. Then, vertical columns standing on this deck were used to
support the framework and the forms into which the concrete was poured.
They did not use a main beam AB. Nonetheless, I give the carpenter credit
for seeing and caring about the underlying mathematical question that he
raised.
Acknowledgment. I wish to thank the carpenter, Bob Nelson, for bringing
this problem to my attention. The helical stairway now stands in American
Family Childrens Hospital, University of Wisconsin (Madison), Builder: J
H Findorff; Carpenters: Bob Nelson, Jamie Smith and Brian Heble. I also
thank the referee for suggestions that improved the clarity of the paper.

11

Figure 5: Actual support structure. (Photo by Bob Nelson.)

12

Figure 6: Nearly finished stair system. (Photo by Bob Nelson.)

13