• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

R

righter101

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
604
Looking for some feedback if anyone has approved anything similar in their jurisdiction. I have an application at a summer camp for a "challenge tower".

This is basically a 70 foot tower with a total of 3 floors. In the middle are climbing walls that extend to the top with belay points. there is a middle floor to stop climbing if you want. There are stairs from the bottom to the middle floor on the exterior. Then on the inside, the stairs extend from the middle to the top floor. Located on the top floor is a platform with a 1000 foot "zip line" to slide down, ending an another tower, elsewhere on the property.

I reviewed it as an A5 occupancy and wrote a standard correction letter about building allowable height for a VB construction and non compliant stairs.

Anyone have experience with anything similar??? I can't see this being approved by us without some serious modifications by the BO.

thanks for any feedback.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

Sounds like a very fancy piece of custom site-built playground equipment, for which you may find discussion in other threads here concluding that it is a subject which is not prescribed by code. Therefore, the design and method of construction would probably be regulated by IBC 104.11.

IFC Section 102.7 may also be applicable, and here's a link G8gle found for consideration: Association for Challenge Course Technology

Standards that ACCT said:
7th Edition standards Book, 2008 ($60 US plus shipping and handling)...There are 5 Chapters in the standards book – Installation and Equipment, Inspection, Operations, Practitioner Certification and the Qualified Challenge Course Professional. While there are some diagrams in the book, there are no design plans for elements.
  • Installation and Equipment Standards - Minimum strength standards for various parts of a course and specifications for equipment;[/*:m:1k7bijek]
  • Inspection Standards - What should be covered in an inspection, some retirement criteria, and what a report should include.[/*:m:1k7bijek]
  • Operations Standards - Course management specifics and facilitator competencies.[/*:m:1k7bijek]
  • Practitioner Certification Standards - outlines the requirements for a certification program[/*:m:1k7bijek]
  • Qualified Challenge Course Professional – outlines the requirements for a trainer/tester, installer, inspector, and designer.[/*:m:1k7bijek]
Click to expand...
ICC also makes a performance code that you may also wish to consider.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

DANG! Boggles the mind.......... I haven't had the chance to look at something like that, but it would be interesting. First thing that comes to mind, without seeing a plan of course, is the application of guards and handrails, are they applicable?. Then, yes, stairs would be next. Flame/smoke index applications?
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

Seen them in the military..

Non ADA compliant..

Non compliant stairs/handrails/guardrails..

Had a blast.. like a big kids playground...

I wouldn't overthink it.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

"I wouldn't overthink it."

My point exactly peach, you could get totally over the top with this. But keep in mind what they are doing here, climbing up, out, over, down....what codes make sense in this application? Yeah maybe genaral public access you apply codes, but once inside the "use"???? Would you apply code requirements in the middle of a paintball range?

Just saying.....
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

"U" occupancy like a tower??

Have seen them, do they fall under the scope of IBC?? do you review the wooden playground structures???
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

peach & fatboy, Excellent advice. We have an indoor 3 story climbing tower in a 180K sq. ft. rec center currently under construction. 56 million. As already said: keep it simple. Make the "base" accessible and the stairs compliant and call it a day. By the way, the tower here is an exact replica of "Devils Tower". It sits in the grand foyer with the main entrance having 3 stories of glazing so you can see the tower from the exterior. It has back lighting for a very cool look at night. This has been under construction fro 1 1/2 years and we hope to write a C.O. sometime in March.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

Put a fence around it. Get a letter from the owner. Call it a day.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

I appreciate the tips and points of view. I have been leaning towards the "less is better" approach.

You think a modification to the allowable building height and area would be acceptable??

As they have shown, its VB construction. max height would be 40 feet.

I was hoping someone had permitted one in another jurisdiction.

If it was just a climbing wall or apparatus, i wouldn't be as concerned. This will be used as a launching point for a zip line, and likely have observers coming to the top for a nice view or to take pictures, etc. so there will be some possible non participant users.

thanks again for the feedback.

I will probably ride the zip line as a condition of the final!!!!!!!
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

The climbing wall here is inside a type 1-A building. It has a steel framing system with FRT sheathing and then the rock finish. To me it is nothing more than playground equipment of built-in furniture. Enjoy the zip line ride!
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

righter101,

I would probably classify your structure as a ' SPECIAL AMUSEMENT BUILDING ' - ( see Section 411 in the `06 IBC ).

50 or more occ. would kick this into an Assembly type occupancy. 50 or less would be classified as a B type

occupancy. As for the platforms that will be used to access the ' zip line ' feature, I would want to see some

engineered plans and an ' allowable occupant load ' for each of them. I personally would not take this type of

structure so lightly. Let's see: a). the potential for overcrowded stairs, ...overloaded platforms, ...guards &

railing throughout. Yes, I suppose one could "not overthink this type of project" until that first accident or

medical event happens and the AHJ gets named in the lawsuit. I would much rather have the DP's and

owner come together for a sit down type of meeting with the AHJ and bring along some engineered plans to

discuss. Also, if you are the AHJ, then you might want to discuss this with the AHJ attorney.

This has CYA written all over it! ;)

peach,

I too saw some of these type structures at various military locations. The Special Ops. folks practically live

on them. :D That aside, the U.S. military has a whole department of JAG Corps just waiting to defend

the DoD, while the local AHJ's do not usually have that type and amount of resources at their disposal. Just

saying that ' righter101 ' should tread lightly and perform the required due diligence to protect his AHJ, or

to the extent s/he is able to protect it anyway.

jp,

In your 3 story application, is all of that glazing the " tempered / safety " type? Just

asking... :?:

 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

To answer some questions.....

Why not call it a "U". Because it is 3 stories.

I do like Peach's advice, not taking it too lightly....

To answer CDA about the picture of a playground, no i wouldn't treat this the same way. This is proposed to be 70 feet tall. There are 2 separate sets of stairs and will likely see significant use.

I received some design calculations for this, however, in my initial correction letter, i requested a lot of additional information. For instance, there was no apparent consideration for the dynamic loading on the zip lines (2). assuming maximum loading (2 300 pound kids at the same time.), what happens to the attachment if they suddenly come to a stop, mid way down the 1000 feet of line.???

As far as safety glazing, there are not any windows. there are openings that will allow airflow, but no windows, at least not on the plans i have.

I will try to get the plans in PDF so i can post them here.

We are going to meet with the designer on Friday to go over my correction letter, and figure out how to proceed.

Thanks again for the continuing dialogue.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

I brought this topic up with my sister who has worked with challenge courses for 15 years, has an AA in Outdoor Recreation, BA in Outdoor Leadership, and an MS in Outdoor Pursuits Administration as well as certification from Experiential Systems as a Ropes Course Manager.

In all of her experience/training, the highest element she has been on is 40 feet, and that was at grad school; a camp where she worked topped-out at 25 feet. She questions the justification for the extreme risks inherent in a 70-foot element if a shorter element could provide a similar experience, suggesting that adrenaline and fear can be instigated at lower heights without increasing the risk of experiencing a fatality at the facility.

She emphasized that it would take a LOT of convincing for her to certify or use such an extreme element, such as in the form of operations and training. She talked about how the belay line (for when users are climbing the stairs) would have to be twice the height for them to clip in at the ground, so as they climbed, there would be quite the accumulation of line (in the absence of a transfer landing part way up).

She spoke of how long hair and loose clothing can come entangled in a zip line during use, causing the rider to be stopped out of reach. She has participated in such a rescue via ladder, and questions what the approach would be to rescue someone above the height that could be reached by a ladder, thinking a cable gripper would be challenging. She mentioned that even if aerial FD apparatus access were provided, common harnesses are not intended for use beyond 15 minute intervals to maintain circulation to the user's legs, such that the FD response time may be excessive.

She offered that there are few reputable course designers/installers, and cited Experiential Systems (check out the indoor high ropes course pic!) and Project Adventure (which includes a blurb on accessibility) as a "big ones" She also referred to ACCTinfo.org as a good resource for industry standards. There is a link on ACCT's website for challenge course criteria in Massachusetts, which references a 3rd Party Reviewer.

Seems like it is good to promote and maintain an open dialogue with the facility so they continue to present their projects to you, but it seems like there may be a certain amount of liability if you approve something that does not meet code and was outside your training - may be better to outsource that task to a third party reviewer who specializes in such facilities.
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

I am not saying do not review it.

I do question if is an A or a U

And also, if you review this type of structure, than why isn't similar stuctrures, like large playground structures, that will have more people on them than this?? and if I am said owner and question why am I being singled out when other stuctures are not reviewed

just my own thoughts.

so should this be reviewed:::

A or U??

http://www.joyrides.com/las_vegas/bungee_jump.htm
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

Point taken. I would review the large play structure you have the same way and a permit would be required. While the fundamental review process would be the same, the strucutre in your picture and the one I am describing are very different.

As far as the U vs A occupancy, the A5 allows unlimited height (stories) with VB construction, and it would be a reasonable application of the codes. I don't feel (by reading of the code and the commentary) that the "U" classification was intended for structures that will be occupied (ref. commentary). A "U" would except them from accessiblity requirements, for starters, which i could understand for something such as a radio tower, a water storage tank tower, a remote forest service fire watch tower, but i really don't think it would apply in this instance. Using the occupancy that the use most closely resembles, the A or B choices found under 411 (special amusemsent buildings).

The bungee link that someone posted, would be curious to see that classification. I would guess that it is an A5/B under the same provisions, not a "tower" under a U class.

By the Way, I am putting on the jack boots right now, getting the "do not occupy" signs out, and heading to the grade school to put a stop to this use of an illegal, unpermitted structure..> RIGHT NOW!!!!
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

righter101

Thanks for understanding

I consider a special amusement building to either be a "building" with some typr of amusement thing in it like laser tag, haunted house, challange tower or roller coaster,

OR a building attached to some type of amusement thing, challange tower, roller coaster, that is used for queing purposes. and would only consider the building itself as A-5

please go to my childs city playground and shut it down for not having a permit. I just think that if you require permits on thing "A" and something is even similar, no matter how big or small, it should also require a permit
 
Re: Challenge Course -Climbing Tower

Classify it as an amusement ride - and call on those experts ( we have 1)

had a similar quandry when the Fire training academy wanted to build a Burn Structure???

I told them if it met the building code they would only need Mops and a bucket

not an axe and a hose. Call Serve Pro they'll clean anthing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top