New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Rocksuperstar]

When you study engineering, there are books that set out the ways that you calculate the number and width and the type of steel needed for these connections, depending on the mass of the load and how it is distributed. I can't do it, but I work with lots of engineers. It's not trial-and-error, it's formulae and principles derived from the trial-and-error of previous centuries and the laws of physics and materials science.

When I built my house, which is timber-framed, I saw the calculations that derived the dimensions of the roof rafters, posts and floor joists. They even took into account that we were using British-grown Douglas Fir, which isn't quite as strong as the usual Scandinavian imported timber. People still ask me, with a worried look, about the loading of the soil on my "green roof"and whether the roof can handle it. Of course: because the extra load was all taken into account in the engineer's calculations.

@Ionman34 does this for a living. If he can keep his jargon in his pocket , he can probably give a better explanation than I can.

The only conclusion I could come to is that there must be some sort of formula or global reference guide, but it still makes me wonder who, how, when, etc. and then i often progress to if it was that long ago surely with improved materials and methods it has to be revisited and revised regularly. Mammoth brainache of a job but the thought of testing something like that to destruction does stir the primal hulk-smash part of my brain.

And I wouldn't expect a professional with that username to consult for free... charges apply

 

[Lilbaz]

When i worked at channel 4 the front atrium was glass. We used to have window cleaners that would abseil down. They had hooks on the roof that were regularly h&s checked.
Unfortunately we had decoraters in who decided to unbolt them when painting.
We had to wait a couple of months for any window cleaning until they were stress tested.

 

[Ionman34]

When you study engineering, there are books that set out the ways that you calculate the number and width and the type of steel needed for these connections, depending on the mass of the load and how it is distributed. I can't do it, but I work with lots of engineers. It's not trial-and-error, it's formulae and principles derived from the trial-and-error of previous centuries and the laws of physics and materials science.

When I built my house, which is timber-framed, I saw the calculations that derived the dimensions of the roof rafters, posts and floor joists. They even took into account that we were using British-grown Douglas Fir, which isn't quite as strong as the usual Scandinavian imported timber. People still ask me, with a worried look, about the loading of the soil on my "green roof"and whether the roof can handle it. Of course: because the extra load was all taken into account in the engineer's calculations.

@Ionman34 does this for a living. If he can keep his jargon in his pocket , he can probably give a better explanation than I can.

Each element is standard tested so you know the tensile and shear strength of each (load bearing capacities for resisting forces). The Engineers will model the structure (computerised) and impose the expected loading to show where the structure will be in tension or compression. Self load, wind load, crowd load etc will all be factored in, including uneven load distribution. The model will show the type of forces acting at the connections and the bolts will then be chosen according to their rated capacity, their configuration and the factor of safety required.

Back in the day, we didn’t have these computer models, so the calculation of the forces alone would have taken an age, let alone how the structure acts as a whole with the constantly changing load patterns.

We build some amazing structures nowadays because all materials used are tested and standardised, meaning that the information you have on them is extremely accurate, so you can create some fantastic buildings because you can trust the material to do what you’re told it will do.

 

[Lilbaz]

Each element is standard tested so you know the tensile and shear strength of each (load bearing capacities for resisting forces). The Engineers will model the structure (computerised) and impose the expected loading to show where the structure will be in tension or compression. Self load, wind load, crowd load etc will all be factored in, including uneven load distribution. The model will show the type of forces acting at the connections and the bolts will then be chosen according to their rated capacity, their configuration and the factor of safety required.

Back in the day, we didn’t have these computer models, so the calculation of the forces alone would have taken an age, let alone how the structure acts as a whole with the constantly changing load patterns.

We build some amazing structures nowadays because all materials used are tested and standardised, meaning that the information you have on them is extremely accurate, so you can create some fantastic buildings because you can trust the material to do what you’re told it will do.

Yet modern day builds look cheap compared to their historic counter parts. Ikea compared to chippendale. (Not the chipmonks).

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Yet modern day builds look cheap compared to their historic counter parts. Ikea compared to chippendale. (Not the chipmonks).

Older structures were over-engineered, because no one was quite sure how much load they would take. Modern structures use only the necessary amount of materials. We're accustomed to think of buildings looking robust and solid, because most of what we live around is pre-20c. But it's mainly just cautious.

 

[Ionman34]

Yet modern day builds look cheap compared to their historic counter parts. Ikea compared to chippendale. (Not the chipmonks).

The Burj Al Arab begs to differ, as does the Pineapple. Even the Shard is an amazing structure when you consider the forces acting around the taper.

Like all things, what you get is limited by the budget you spend. You want cheap, you’ll get cheap. These amazing structures have big budgets.

You only have to look through your thread in chat to see some of the structures that can be built if the budget is there.

David is right about early Engineers, they didn’t have the tools to go into the type of structural analysis that we do now, so most structures were heavily over engineered. Having said that, you still have to bow to their genius. Even today, with all of our technology, we still can’t replicate what the Egyptians did with their pyramids.

 

[Lilbaz]

Older structures were over-engineered, because no one was quite sure how much load they would take. Modern structures use only the necessary amount of materials. We're accustomed to think of buildings looking robust and solid, because most of what we live around is pre-20c. But it's mainly just cautious.

It's not about robustness, it's about effort and beauty. Look at most things the victorians built compared to the modern day equivalents. The sewers were a thing of beauty.

Yes i know we knocked down the crap and it was the time of empire but i was sitting in a pub the other day looking at st pancras station and comparing it to the british library, the shard etc... you can't compare.

 

[Lilbaz]

The Burj Al Arab begs to differ, as does the Pineapple. Even the Shard is an amazing structure when you consider the forces acting around the taper.

Like all things, what you get is limited by the budget you spend. You want cheap, you’ll get cheap. These amazing structures have big budgets.

You only have to look through your thread in chat to see some of the structures that can be built if the budget is there.

David is right about early Engineers, they didn’t have the tools to go into the type of structural analysis that we do now, so most structures were heavily over engineered. Having said that, you still have to bow to their genius. Even today, with all of our technology, we still can’t replicate what the Egyptians did with their pyramids.

No they don't. You have named some of the most expensive buildings of the modern era, now compare to the taj mahal, hagia sophia, musee d'orsay, st basils cathedral.

There are some wonderful modern buildings but the time taken to design and detail isn't the same.

Ffs the shard was drawn on a napkin in a restaraunt.

 

[Lilbaz]

I found this interesting. Means nothing of course but, old engineers knew their shit.

 

[Roynie]

Must have been pay day, everyone turned up!

 

[coys200]

The dark seats really do give it a menacing feel, especially with the steepness and intimidating park lane. And that’s before 62k yids are inside. It’s gonna make Anfield look like tea at your grans ?

 

[timfrancis]

The dark seats really do give it a menacing feel, especially with the steepness and intimidating park lane. And that’s before 62k yids are inside. It’s gonna make Anfield look like tea at your grans ?

You've obviously never met my gran...

 

[Ionman34]

No they don't. You have named some of the most expensive buildings of the modern era, now compare to the taj mahal, hagia sophia, musee d'orsay, st basils cathedral.

There are some wonderful modern buildings but the time taken to design and detail isn't the same.

Ffs the shard was drawn on a napkin in a restaraunt.

Yes I named some of the most expensive. I thought I’d qualified that with the budget comments. I thought I’d qualified the genius of the past Engineers too.

WRT the Shard, wtf has the concept being drawn on a napkin got to do with it? Draw a sail on a napkin and you have the concept for the Burj.

As a matter of interest, do you think the buildings you mentioned came cheap?

 

[Ionman34]

It's not about robustness, it's about effort and beauty. Look at most things the victorians built compared to the modern day equivalents. The sewers were a thing of beauty.

Yes i know we knocked down the crap and it was the time of empire but i was sitting in a pub the other day looking at st pancras station and comparing it to the british library, the shard etc... you can't compare.

But that is Architecture, not Engineering.

 

[worcestersauce]

I read on the other week that the black flooring being laid on the pitch area was the base for the NFL pitch but I am not sure that is right.
When I look at what appear to be trays they seem to be at a level with the side wall and my understanding is that the NFL pitch was below that level so that every front seat can be used in spite of the all the big buggers standing on the side line, those trays look too high.
Moreover they look too high and therefore too close to the bottom of the south stand so if more pitch trays are added they won't slide under the structure.
All of which is a long winded way of me saying theymust be the pitch trays mustn't they?
Sorry if someone has already confirmed this, if they did I missed it.

 

[RichieS]

The dark seats really do give it a menacing feel, especially with the steepness and intimidating park lane. And that’s before 62k yids are inside. It’s gonna make Anfield look like tea at your grans ?

No it isn't because none of the people who can afford the tickets are real fans who make noise.

 

[slartibartfast]

No it isn't because none of the people who can afford the tickets are real fans who make noise.

I always suspect some of those that moan about ticket prices are the same ones that bowl up 5min after kick off, go for a piss every 10min, nip down for food 5min before ht, get back 10min into 2nd hf, another 2 piss breaks and then fk off 10min before the end.
Dont know why these tits bother buying a ticket to watch 60min of a 90min game.

 

[tony0379]

 

[Hoopspur]

Thanks Chris and thanks Tony for posting them on here.

 

[tony0379]

Thanks Chris and thanks Tony for posting them on here.

Welcome mate