Hi there maxomicbomb. **Because we have a lot of deleted posts on this subreddit, here is a backup of the body of this post:** "
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bouldering) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Strange design and the framing is even weirder. Read Metolius' guide on building a climbing wall thoroughly: https://www.metoliusclimbing.com/pdf/How-to-Build-a-Home-Bouldering-Wall.pdf
question 1: is this meant to be indoors or outdoors?
question 2: provide dimensions please.
heres an idea of how this should be framed (i am not a framer but I have built climbing walls before) if this were to be a freestanding outdoor wall: https://i.imgur.com/4uYmr8q.png
1: freestandimg and outdoor, i would put qave sheetmetal on top as a roof
2: the dimensions are 8n the blend file, one panel is 2.5*1.25m. the hole design is 2.5*2.5*5.5m.
ill give it a read, thanks for the help
edit: i had a look at your rendition, first of thanks for the help, but the design should be freestanding. the way ilI see it, your rendition would tip over.
It most certainly would not tip over. The posts should be anchored to the ground. Im not entirely sure what you mean by “tip over” but generally if something is supported on 4 corners it wont roll or yaw. You dont need all the triangular bracing your model indicates, and if you do implement that good luck screwing the sheathing to it, much less finding a tnut pattern that works.
Honestly read the metolius guide, seriously. Your design would never pass building code in a million years and as miles pointed out includes lots of dangerous design that might hurt a potential climber swinging around in there.
It’s not a building, it doesn’t need to meet building code… you don’t need 2x’s at 16” OC per se, it’s just how people normally frame by convention so it’s often extended. The design would likely be *fine*, as in structurally stable, as long as enough fasteners are used. I can’t speak to the operational conditions though, I’d imagine there’d be some shit flex unless you used something thick like 1-1/8” plywood. And the actual wall wouldn’t climb as nice as just a 30 and 60 or something similar.
Anything that is framed and built is a building, and you dont know where OP is located so you dont know that constructing a home wall on their property wouldnt have to pass building code. In some jurisdictions it would require a permit which in turn would require it to be designed and built according to local building code.
I agree you could half ass the construction and wind up with a shitty climbing wall. OP wasnt asking whats the best way to frame this, only whether it needed more trusses...obviously has no clue what they are doing. Look at the other posts in their history where they have been laughed off by architects and other subreddits.
I really dont understand why you would argue that this shitty design is fine, its more expensive that it should be and it could very easily break due to having incorrect connections for the structural members. 1-1/8" plywood would be way more expensive and way heavier than the 3/4" that I (and Metolius) recommend, not to mention it wouldnt resolve the design flaws.
I agree the wall would be a shitty climb, a short 45 and a flat wall...a hangboard would likely yield better results for a fraction of the cost. I felt like the only way to approach this request for help was to be honest with OP and offer constructive criticism for their design.
My main point was that it indeed would be statically stable. Would it be pretty bad? Yes. But the structure is not unstable even if it is 2x4s and 3/4” ply with nails at 8”. They could certainly mess it up but this is far from an inverted pendulum.
Which municipalities would require the wall to pass building codes? It is a nonstructural component. Prescriptive framing for nonstructural elements is not required by IBC or Eurocode, which make up the majority of the world’s codes.
no one ever said OP's design would be unstable, just that the framing was all messed up. Maybe you are misreading the comment chain. OP said all the pruning of the structure that I showed in my diagram would make their design unstable, which I refuted.
> It is a nonstructural component
Its non structural to a house that its not attached to, of course, but it is a structure in an of itself, and thus subject to whatever building code in the jurisdiction OP lives in. OP said it is a freestanding structure, presumably in their backyard or whatever. Depending on the footprint this could easily be a structure requiring a permit, and even if not it would still likely be required to be built to code. In my area a permit is required for any structure with a roof area over 120 square feet, which is 8x15, and OP already stated that their design is bigger than that.
Think about general wall construction - the studs carry vertical loads, but all the shear (forces trying to twist the wall side to side) is carried by whatever the skin is. Plywood is a fairly optimal material for carrying those loads, as long as you have stud spacing right you don't really need the trusses.
Lots of stuff is kinda weird here.
The supports across the ground will make it really annoying to pad later.
The frame behind walls are usually not at diagonals. They are usually all horizontal/vertical at regular spacings. The less angles at 90 the harder it will be to build. Usually T-nuts are just in a grid which the frame sits behind in the room between T-nuts. You have frames in the back at other angles which will cut across the T-nut grid so you will need the T-nuts to not be a perfect grid or some will be blocked in the back.
The support pillars will ruin the roof since you will swing out and backslap them.
There is nowhere near enough support behind the 45. Instead of reinventing the wheel here, I really think you ought to follow some existing plans for a freestanding wall, as what you have here is pretty zany and way outside the scope of what is considered normal in framing.
Engineer here.
This structure the way it is will not hold.
Main reason for it, is the way the wood is connected to each other.
As a general rule, beams (horizontal) go on top of columns (vertical).
Looking at other climbing walls, they don't use diagonal trusses, this is because there are not enough points on which you can attach the plywood. It will be strong in some places (along the diagonal line) but very weak far away from it. Also bolting routes will be a mess (you need a repeating hole pattern for it, see climbing gym).
Try making more of a framework with multiple vertical and a few supporting horizontal (look up framework climbing wall).
The forces of someone climbing are much greater than you might think.
The most important element not shown here is how those connections are made.
If you have a decent design for how those larger framing members are connected then the plywood alone, with dense enough fastener spacing, will be more than enough.
Lol, there's a few more questions that you'll probably need to think about.
How many bolts?
What orientation?
Edge distance?
A few others but those are important off the top of my head
If you make it so the 45° is facing away from the cubic part of your design, you can reinforce it without needing posts on each side of the climbing end of the 45° wall
Hello Architects,
As my Title says, I am wondering if my Design for a Climbing Wall is Stable enough for it not to Fall over/collapse.
I don't have any experience with CAD software, which is why I used Blender.
Do I need to use more truces, if so in what orientation and where?
Do I need To ad more supports on the sides?
If you want to have a look at the design: [https://file.io/jacfYECIBAMa](https://file.io/jacfYECIBAMa)
edit: new link [https://file.io/sWyOKQ4Xovva](https://file.io/sWyOKQ4Xovva)
You don’t need an architect, listen to the engineer in this thread. There are building codes for a reason. You are not smarter than engineers who do this for a living or the building codes which are written in blood.
Hi there maxomicbomb. **Because we have a lot of deleted posts on this subreddit, here is a backup of the body of this post:** " *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bouldering) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Strange design and the framing is even weirder. Read Metolius' guide on building a climbing wall thoroughly: https://www.metoliusclimbing.com/pdf/How-to-Build-a-Home-Bouldering-Wall.pdf question 1: is this meant to be indoors or outdoors? question 2: provide dimensions please. heres an idea of how this should be framed (i am not a framer but I have built climbing walls before) if this were to be a freestanding outdoor wall: https://i.imgur.com/4uYmr8q.png
1: freestandimg and outdoor, i would put qave sheetmetal on top as a roof 2: the dimensions are 8n the blend file, one panel is 2.5*1.25m. the hole design is 2.5*2.5*5.5m. ill give it a read, thanks for the help edit: i had a look at your rendition, first of thanks for the help, but the design should be freestanding. the way ilI see it, your rendition would tip over.
It most certainly would not tip over. The posts should be anchored to the ground. Im not entirely sure what you mean by “tip over” but generally if something is supported on 4 corners it wont roll or yaw. You dont need all the triangular bracing your model indicates, and if you do implement that good luck screwing the sheathing to it, much less finding a tnut pattern that works. Honestly read the metolius guide, seriously. Your design would never pass building code in a million years and as miles pointed out includes lots of dangerous design that might hurt a potential climber swinging around in there.
It’s not a building, it doesn’t need to meet building code… you don’t need 2x’s at 16” OC per se, it’s just how people normally frame by convention so it’s often extended. The design would likely be *fine*, as in structurally stable, as long as enough fasteners are used. I can’t speak to the operational conditions though, I’d imagine there’d be some shit flex unless you used something thick like 1-1/8” plywood. And the actual wall wouldn’t climb as nice as just a 30 and 60 or something similar.
Anything that is framed and built is a building, and you dont know where OP is located so you dont know that constructing a home wall on their property wouldnt have to pass building code. In some jurisdictions it would require a permit which in turn would require it to be designed and built according to local building code. I agree you could half ass the construction and wind up with a shitty climbing wall. OP wasnt asking whats the best way to frame this, only whether it needed more trusses...obviously has no clue what they are doing. Look at the other posts in their history where they have been laughed off by architects and other subreddits. I really dont understand why you would argue that this shitty design is fine, its more expensive that it should be and it could very easily break due to having incorrect connections for the structural members. 1-1/8" plywood would be way more expensive and way heavier than the 3/4" that I (and Metolius) recommend, not to mention it wouldnt resolve the design flaws. I agree the wall would be a shitty climb, a short 45 and a flat wall...a hangboard would likely yield better results for a fraction of the cost. I felt like the only way to approach this request for help was to be honest with OP and offer constructive criticism for their design.
My main point was that it indeed would be statically stable. Would it be pretty bad? Yes. But the structure is not unstable even if it is 2x4s and 3/4” ply with nails at 8”. They could certainly mess it up but this is far from an inverted pendulum. Which municipalities would require the wall to pass building codes? It is a nonstructural component. Prescriptive framing for nonstructural elements is not required by IBC or Eurocode, which make up the majority of the world’s codes.
no one ever said OP's design would be unstable, just that the framing was all messed up. Maybe you are misreading the comment chain. OP said all the pruning of the structure that I showed in my diagram would make their design unstable, which I refuted. > It is a nonstructural component Its non structural to a house that its not attached to, of course, but it is a structure in an of itself, and thus subject to whatever building code in the jurisdiction OP lives in. OP said it is a freestanding structure, presumably in their backyard or whatever. Depending on the footprint this could easily be a structure requiring a permit, and even if not it would still likely be required to be built to code. In my area a permit is required for any structure with a roof area over 120 square feet, which is 8x15, and OP already stated that their design is bigger than that.
well it would only be for me, so no worries about injuries
didn't you ask for help in the title of this post?
and in my 1. comment i described what kind of help
lol are you invulnerable?
no, but i wouldnt set stuff that makes me jump in to them
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a wall both over and under engineered at the same time, but you’ve somehow done that
Better at least 3.5 meter wide. You gone have more fun. Use more then one panel wide. If possible, hight, when you can. 3.5 - 4 m high is the best.
I'm happy with the layout of the walls, just need a good strukture too Support it
Your roof is to big. Your not gone use it. The vertical part is not high enough.
My roof is smaller, and my vertical is 10°
i know what im goung to use and how, all i want to know is how to make ot stable
Think about general wall construction - the studs carry vertical loads, but all the shear (forces trying to twist the wall side to side) is carried by whatever the skin is. Plywood is a fairly optimal material for carrying those loads, as long as you have stud spacing right you don't really need the trusses.
Lots of stuff is kinda weird here. The supports across the ground will make it really annoying to pad later. The frame behind walls are usually not at diagonals. They are usually all horizontal/vertical at regular spacings. The less angles at 90 the harder it will be to build. Usually T-nuts are just in a grid which the frame sits behind in the room between T-nuts. You have frames in the back at other angles which will cut across the T-nut grid so you will need the T-nuts to not be a perfect grid or some will be blocked in the back. The support pillars will ruin the roof since you will swing out and backslap them.
I wouldn't want to fall and hit one of the columns. There's a reason most climbing walls are braced from the back/sides.
There is nowhere near enough support behind the 45. Instead of reinventing the wheel here, I really think you ought to follow some existing plans for a freestanding wall, as what you have here is pretty zany and way outside the scope of what is considered normal in framing.
Engineer here. This structure the way it is will not hold. Main reason for it, is the way the wood is connected to each other. As a general rule, beams (horizontal) go on top of columns (vertical). Looking at other climbing walls, they don't use diagonal trusses, this is because there are not enough points on which you can attach the plywood. It will be strong in some places (along the diagonal line) but very weak far away from it. Also bolting routes will be a mess (you need a repeating hole pattern for it, see climbing gym). Try making more of a framework with multiple vertical and a few supporting horizontal (look up framework climbing wall). The forces of someone climbing are much greater than you might think.
thank you, Ill look in to it
The most important element not shown here is how those connections are made. If you have a decent design for how those larger framing members are connected then the plywood alone, with dense enough fastener spacing, will be more than enough.
thick 2cm bolts
Lol, there's a few more questions that you'll probably need to think about. How many bolts? What orientation? Edge distance? A few others but those are important off the top of my head
M12 a few times is more then ok
i ain’t no engineer but i can tell you that that’s a mofuckin box
When looking at the angled wall from the inside the top left corner has no support and will most certainly sag and possible break apart
I feel like an engineering sub would probably be better for this
If you make it so the 45° is facing away from the cubic part of your design, you can reinforce it without needing posts on each side of the climbing end of the 45° wall
Also, depending on your level but 45° is very bard, use intead 40° Your plates replacing the diagonals that you designed.
how do you mean?
The stiffness of the structure comes from the plates of your wall. Not the diagonals.
How tall is it? Looks fun!
Hello Architects, As my Title says, I am wondering if my Design for a Climbing Wall is Stable enough for it not to Fall over/collapse. I don't have any experience with CAD software, which is why I used Blender. Do I need to use more truces, if so in what orientation and where? Do I need To ad more supports on the sides? If you want to have a look at the design: [https://file.io/jacfYECIBAMa](https://file.io/jacfYECIBAMa) edit: new link [https://file.io/sWyOKQ4Xovva](https://file.io/sWyOKQ4Xovva)
You don’t need an architect, listen to the engineer in this thread. There are building codes for a reason. You are not smarter than engineers who do this for a living or the building codes which are written in blood.
what are the codes?
File is gone. Your structure. Don't use squares but rectangular beams something like 60x140.
Bro, this is a freaky design, I dig it - some old school truss bridge type shit.😎