UKC Forums - A climbing walls construction observation.

A climbing walls construction observation.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

mwr72 10 Sep 2013

This may only be noticed by those in "The trade", but more so by Joiners.

I have been following the progress of the new Awesome walls facility in Sheffield and have noticed that none of the boards have bonded joints (for those who may wonder, bonding is how bricks are laid).

I have also noticed the same at various other venues and have often wondered what the reason behind this is. It is certainly not as strong as a bonded wall.

If there are any wall construction folks out there, I'd be interested to know the reason.

Ps, As the title says, it is merely an observation and not a criticism.

Oceanrower 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72: Because the beams the boards are screwed to run from floor to ceiling and are not staggered. Otherwise you would need twice as much structure.

xplorer 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72:

The design of the studding must have taken into account the strength without bonding.

OP mwr72 10 Sep 2013

In reply to Oceanrower:

> (In reply to mwr72) Because the beams the boards are screwed to run from floor to ceiling and are not staggered. Otherwise you would need twice as much structure.

That wouldn't make a difference in the slightest, depending on the boards (Imperial or metric) the studs would be at 400mm or 16" centres.

elsewhere 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72:
Does it not make it much easier to change the angle of an overhang between adjacent panels if the panels all line up vertically?

OP mwr72 10 Sep 2013

In reply to elsewhere:

> (In reply to mwr72)
> Does it not make it much easier to change the angle of an overhang between adjacent panels if the panels all line up vertically?

Not really, Ok, maybe slightly easier but it's not at all difficult to rip a board in half, the offcut starts the next row of boards.

MikeYouCanClimb 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72:
I am not sure what you mean by bonding, do you mean gluing the edges of the panels together as cement would bond bricks?

If so, the same effect can be simply achieved with adjacent panels sharing beams or studs where strength or stability is an issue.

SteveoS 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72:

For ease in replacing worn or damaged panels? Or because it's cheaper.

OP mwr72 10 Sep 2013

In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:

> (In reply to mwr72)
> I am not sure what you mean by bonding, do you mean gluing the edges of the panels together as cement would bond bricks?
>
> If so, the same effect can be simply achieved with adjacent panels sharing beams or studs where strength or stability is an issue.

No, not glueing, but making sure all the joints aren't in a straight line, in the horizontal plane this is unavoidable, but in the vertical the joints would be staggered, ie, take three boards, screw two on adjacent to each other, the third board will be on the row above with the centre of the board directly above the vertical joint created by the first two boards. It creates a much better and stronger load bearing structure.
I hope that description helps.

OP mwr72 10 Sep 2013

In reply to SteveoS:

> (In reply to mwr72)
>
> For ease in replacing worn or damaged panels? Or because it's cheaper.

Neither as far as I can see, there is absolutely no difference in ease of changing a board either way, and the cost of materials doesn't chance either, there would still be the same surface area.

xplorer 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72:

> (In reply to MikeYouCanClimb)
> [...]
>
> No, not glueing, but making sure all the joints aren't in a straight line, in the horizontal plane this is unavoidable, but in the vertical the joints would be staggered, ie, take three boards, screw two on adjacent to each other, the third board will be on the row above with the centre of the board directly above the vertical joint created by the first two boards. It creates a much better and stronger load bearing structure.
> I hope that description helps.

I think your getting carried away here, as yes this is the reason bonding is carried out on standard studding, and standard floors. But that is part of the structure and strength.

A climbing wall I'd imagine would have to have a very substantial frame structure that doesn't need to be strengthened anymore with bonding ply sheets. The structure is already strong enough.

I'm pretty certain that's the reason and fairly obvious

muppetfilter 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72: The loads that the panels and through anchor points are going to be put through in use is insignificant when you look at the safe Working Loads a well designed bolted and welded steel structure can handle.

Lord_ash2000 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72: Different companies have different systems but generally speaking each panel is bolted to steel arms which are in turn attached to large steel or timber uprights. The panels are also joined to each other on the back using either steel hinges or bits of wood to tie everything together but that's really just an extra. In theory each panel should attached to the frame work well enough that its fully strong enough in total isolation. Although with the Multifaceted walls sometimes its a bit more complex.

Oceanrower 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72:

> (In reply to Oceanrower)
> [...]
>
> That wouldn't make a difference in the slightest, depending on the boards (Imperial or metric) the studs would be at 400mm or 16" centres.

Err, nope. Afraid not. Plywood comes in a standard size whick is 1220 x 2440.

Studding at 400mm wouldn't work for, off the top of my head, 2 reasons.

1. After the first sheet, you're aready 20mm (if fixing vertically) or 40mm out (horizontally)

And

2. With the timber framework that close together, there wouldn't be much room left for the t nuts.

If you were running the ply sheets horizontally, staggering the boards (i.e. stretcher bond) wouldn't be a problem as the centres of the framework would be 1220. If you wished to run the boards horizontally, as you often do, you would then need to have 610 centres. I.e. double the number of uprights.

Oceanrower 10 Sep 2013

In reply to muppetfilter:

> (In reply to mwr72) The loads that the panels and through anchor points are going to be put through in use is insignificant when you look at the safe Working Loads a well designed bolted and welded steel structure can handle.

FWIW. The testing of the lower offs and qd hangers is 8kn (or, generally accepted, 800kg) for 10 seconds.

Oceanrower 10 Sep 2013

In reply to Oceanrower: the second horizontally in my previous answer should, of course, be vertically!

OP mwr72 10 Sep 2013

In reply to Oceanrower:

> (In reply to mwr72)
> [...]
>
> Err, nope. Afraid not. Plywood comes in a standard size whick is 1220 x 2440.
>
> Studding at 400mm wouldn't work for, off the top of my head, 2 reasons.
>
> 1. After the first sheet, you're aready 20mm (if fixing vertically) or 40mm out (horizontally)
>
> And
>
> 2. With the timber framework that close together, there wouldn't be much room left for the t nuts.
>
> If you were running the ply sheets horizontally, staggering the boards (i.e. stretcher bond) wouldn't be a problem as the centres of the framework would be 1220. If you wished to run the boards horizontally, as you often do, you would then need to have 610 centres. I.e. double the number of uprights.

I know the sizes the boards come in, they come in both metric and imperial, ie, 2400x1200(The metric board) or most common the imperial 1220x2440. The centres of the studs could either be 400 or 16"(or 405mm) then there would be nothing to trim off(other than where the wall ends.

My query, really, applies to self build walls that use timber stud work(which I really should have made clear in the OP).

Oceanrower 10 Sep 2013

In reply to mwr72: Almost all sheets come in 1220x2440. By your logic, the centres should be 406.6mm. Not such an easy number.

However, I can assure you that no climbing wall has the studding that close. 18mm birch faced ply is phenomenally (sp?) strong and just doesn't need that kind of bracing. As I said, if you wished to run your panels vertically then the only way to stagger the panels would be to have 610 centres and that would be double the normal number of uprights.