I am an Architect, looking to install an interior rope suspension bridge in my home. A span of roughly 10’. I have looked for some literature to determine whether there is modern precedent for getting such a thing permitted. My thinking is that if I can demonstrate that the structural materials (either steel cable or robust rope), compare equivalently with the minimum requirement for joists in the code for load capacity, then that would be important. Further, that the ‘railings’ are designed to not permit an opening beyond 4”. Perhaps tightly netted/woven rope and or cable.
What are the obvious code violations that such a thing can not work around? Im not familiar with a minimum amount of floor ‘movement’, but perhaps that could be an issue.
Can anyone point me towards recent precedents that they are aware of for interior suspension bridges, that would have had to respond to somewhat recent residential building codes?
Try looking at playground equipment. Is it a necessary egress path? that will have a large bearing on what you can do I would think. I have also seen some examples of netting used to create loft-like spaces inside a home. I think any of these done in the US are technically non-habitable "storage" lofts. If it is in your own home and not a means of egress what's stopping you? Just remove it before sale.
Building codes for floors limit deflection under load to 1/360 the length of the span; for a 10-foot span, that's 0.33". A suspension bridge would need a lot of supports to limit deflection to that amount. There may be workarounds but I'm not aware of any. You could set up a meeting with your local code office to discuss the situation.
I think the workaround is that it is to be not a habitable space, not part of an egress path. An auxiliary play structure, sculpture, or "art". Removable and not necessary for the function of the building.
Table R301.5 calls out "areas other than sleeping areas" (or that aren't otherwise listed) as having a live load of 40 psf. Table R301.7 calls for floors to have min. L/360 deflection: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2021P1/chapter-3-building-planning#IRC2021P1_Pt03_Ch03_SecR301.7. It's a slippery slope to start calling things "art projects" when they are used in exactly the same way as elements that fall under the codes. I could call a stair without handrails an art project, or a wall without insulation an art project, or...
WG I totally agree. grasping at things here for the sake of thought exercise. "art project" is totally dependent on not being necessary to the function of the space.
I don't think you have to call something art. You just have to demonstrate it not to be part of the required life safety system.
Mar 8, 23 3:15 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Proto, I'm honestly curious how your statement fits within the IRC model code that most residential codes are governed by. I do not see a path to exclude areas that are not part of the required life safety system. Perhaps your statement applies to the NFPA; I am less familiar with those codes though I do have to use them occasionally. But I always have to meet IRC requirements.
Mar 8, 23 3:19 pm ·
·
proto
It fits in the category of "not defined by the code", ie the code is silent on the things that it does not regulate. Specific code is not relevant.
Pretty common understanding among jurisdictions imho. But I will admit that any given AHU might look at something and say "that's dangerous" and provoke a conversation about what & how that exists. But there is legal space for these sorts of confections in architecture, commercial & residential.
Mar 8, 23 5:04 pm ·
·
proto
Example: a 36" door is required to a SFH, but, after you provide that required element, you can provide doors of all sizes/types for any number of uses.
Mar 8, 23 5:13 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
I've tried to make similar arguments many times but the response is always along the lines of, "if it's attached to the building and you can stand on it, fall from it or otherwise occupy it, it falls under the code." I mostly work in New England but I just had a plan reviewer in Boise make me get engineering for an overhead shelf doubling as a duct chase and for a 3' wide storage shelf in a shed.
Mar 8, 23 5:14 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Not sure how the freedom! Code works in the US, but we have a whole other stack of pages with nothing else but lists of operationAl and functional statements for every part of our building code. This is what gets used when some thing does not fall into an obvious section. A cool pirate rope bridge likely gets picked it by these.
Mar 8, 23 5:16 pm ·
·
proto
If the rope bridge isn't part of a required access (meaning you can access both sides of the rope bridge from separate but equal legal accesses), I think there is space to talk about this rope bridge. There may be attendant issues like guard rails or fall potential but I'd expect those to have solutions that are code compatible.
(Alternately, you could engineer it to work & perform to an equivalence and get that approved. But that isn't what I'm referring to as code "silent")
I've visited a local children's museum with a bunch of "rope bridges"... ropes were involved as well as planks, but the thing is so tight and stable that it takes the fun out of it. No deflection or wobbling. Then immediately outside they have an actual ropes course for the older kiddos.
We had an indoor bike park here in pdx in a former bowling alley (it unfortunately didn't survive past the pandemic) . When the owners first went to get it permitted for the new use, the plans examiners wanted to put guardrails on all the track features over 30" off the ground. They finally came to some sort of agreement on the static landings (places where riders might hang & wait to get on a jump line) having guards, but all the ramps & jumps managed to get through eventually. Sort of comical but I totally saw it coming when the owner was starting to relate the story.
i saw cam mccaul get inverted there one day -- you always thought the riders who really boosted in there might hit the ceiling [only a couple select ones ever did]
Mar 9, 23 3:36 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Interior Rope Bridge
Hello Community,
I am an Architect, looking to install an interior rope suspension bridge in my home. A span of roughly 10’. I have looked for some literature to determine whether there is modern precedent for getting such a thing permitted. My thinking is that if I can demonstrate that the structural materials (either steel cable or robust rope), compare equivalently with the minimum requirement for joists in the code for load capacity, then that would be important. Further, that the ‘railings’ are designed to not permit an opening beyond 4”. Perhaps tightly netted/woven rope and or cable.
What are the obvious code violations that such a thing can not work around? Im not familiar with a minimum amount of floor ‘movement’, but perhaps that could be an issue.
Can anyone point me towards recent precedents that they are aware of for interior suspension bridges, that would have had to respond to somewhat recent residential building codes?
Any other insights would be most welcomed!
Thanks for the help
Try looking at playground equipment. Is it a necessary egress path? that will have a large bearing on what you can do I would think. I have also seen some examples of netting used to create loft-like spaces inside a home. I think any of these done in the US are technically non-habitable "storage" lofts. If it is in your own home and not a means of egress what's stopping you? Just remove it before sale.
Claims to be an architect yet demands for code-related items without first specifying which jurisdiction? Eummmm... sure bud.
Yup, not an architect. At least not in North America.
Building codes for floors limit deflection under load to 1/360 the length of the span; for a 10-foot span, that's 0.33". A suspension bridge would need a lot of supports to limit deflection to that amount. There may be workarounds but I'm not aware of any. You could set up a meeting with your local code office to discuss the situation.
I think the workaround is that it is to be not a habitable space, not part of an egress path. An auxiliary play structure, sculpture, or "art". Removable and not necessary for the function of the building.
Table R301.5 calls out "areas other than sleeping areas" (or that aren't otherwise listed) as having a live load of 40 psf. Table R301.7 calls for floors to have min. L/360 deflection: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2021P1/chapter-3-building-planning#IRC2021P1_Pt03_Ch03_SecR301.7. It's a slippery slope to start calling things "art projects" when they are used in exactly the same way as elements that fall under the codes. I could call a stair without handrails an art project, or a wall without insulation an art project, or...
WG I totally agree. grasping at things here for the sake of thought exercise. "art project" is totally dependent on not being necessary to the function of the space.
I don't think you have to call something art. You just have to demonstrate it not to be part of the required life safety system.
Proto, I'm honestly curious how your statement fits within the IRC model code that most residential codes are governed by. I do not see a path to exclude areas that are not part of the required life safety system. Perhaps your statement applies to the NFPA; I am less familiar with those codes though I do have to use them occasionally. But I always have to meet IRC requirements.
It fits in the category of "not defined by the code", ie the code is silent on the things that it does not regulate. Specific code is not relevant.
Pretty common understanding among jurisdictions imho. But I will admit that any given AHU might look at something and say "that's dangerous" and provoke a conversation about what & how that exists. But there is legal space for these sorts of confections in architecture, commercial & residential.
Example: a 36" door is required to a SFH, but, after you provide that required element, you can provide doors of all sizes/types for any number of uses.
I've tried to make similar arguments many times but the response is always along the lines of, "if it's attached to the building and you can stand on it, fall from it or otherwise occupy it, it falls under the code." I mostly work in New England but I just had a plan reviewer in Boise make me get engineering for an overhead shelf doubling as a duct chase and for a 3' wide storage shelf in a shed.
Not sure how the freedom! Code works in the US, but we have a whole other stack of pages with nothing else but lists of operationAl and functional statements for every part of our building code. This is what gets used when some thing does not fall into an obvious section. A cool pirate rope bridge likely gets picked it by these.
If the rope bridge isn't part of a required access (meaning you can access both sides of the rope bridge from separate but equal legal accesses), I think there is space to talk about this rope bridge. There may be attendant issues like guard rails or fall potential but I'd expect those to have solutions that are code compatible.
(Alternately, you could engineer it to work & perform to an equivalence and get that approved. But that isn't what I'm referring to as code "silent")
Man, architects and their kinks. Don't forget to let us know what your safe words are.
The real kink is lubing that code loophole. Safeword is "Insurance"
I've visited a local children's museum with a bunch of "rope bridges"... ropes were involved as well as planks, but the thing is so tight and stable that it takes the fun out of it. No deflection or wobbling. Then immediately outside they have an actual ropes course for the older kiddos.
We had an indoor bike park here in pdx in a former bowling alley (it unfortunately didn't survive past the pandemic) . When the owners first went to get it permitted for the new use, the plans examiners wanted to put guardrails on all the track features over 30" off the ground. They finally came to some sort of agreement on the static landings (places where riders might hang & wait to get on a jump line) having guards, but all the ramps & jumps managed to get through eventually. Sort of comical but I totally saw it coming when the owner was starting to relate the story.
https://www.koin.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/08/Lumberyard-indoor-porltand-bike-park-08292019.jpg
i saw cam mccaul get inverted there one day -- you always thought the riders who really boosted in there might hit the ceiling [only a couple select ones ever did]
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.