Author Topic: Main Stand Expansion (U/C) Pics and Progress in here (Read 2512958 times)

Jonny-B · « **Reply #2160 on:** August 28, 2015, 05:20:35 pm »

Farman · « **Reply #2161 on:** August 28, 2015, 10:53:08 pm »

This may sound like an odd question, but I'm curious to know...

...in building a structure like this to hold 10000 people, do they have to give extra consideration to the likelihood that there will be that many people jumping up and down at the same time, or is the structure strong enough anyway that it's not a factor?

It was the Annie Road second tier/Celtic thing that made me wonder...

CraigDS · « **Reply #2162 on:** August 28, 2015, 11:13:07 pm »

I imagine they most definitely take onto account the movement of the crowd.

This is a little different to the Anny Rd though in that there isn't really much of an overhang at all so less likely there is anything to move like happened there.

Peter McGurk · « **Reply #2163 on:** August 29, 2015, 01:11:08 am »

Quote from: Farman on August 28, 2015, 10:53:08 pm

This may sound like an odd question, but I'm curious to know...

...in building a structure like this to hold 10000 people, do they have to give extra consideration to the likelihood that there will be that many people jumping up and down at the same time, or is the structure strong enough anyway that it's not a factor?

It was the Annie Road second tier/Celtic thing that made me wonder...

Behind closed doors last week... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okf5enMCQmc

Farman · « **Reply #2164 on:** August 29, 2015, 06:49:50 am »

^remarkable for a few reasons, but mostly for the fact that they used men to test the safety of it for other men! (Unless of course it was just a demonstration for a concerned public to prove something they already knew. Which on reflection makes more sense!).

Ned Kelly · « **Reply #2165 on:** August 29, 2015, 08:27:45 pm »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on August 29, 2015, 01:11:08 am

Behind closed doors last week... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okf5enMCQmc

That's not last week.

It's clearly from way back . You lie again.

Peter McGurk · « **Reply #2166 on:** August 29, 2015, 09:12:00 pm »

Quote from: Ned Kelly on August 29, 2015, 08:27:45 pm

That's not last week.

It's clearly from way back . You lie again.

Actually just a hat salesman. Not a word of a lie.

.

CHOPPER · « **Reply #2167 on:** August 30, 2015, 07:28:50 pm »

I wonder how much of the Kop roof they will have to cut out, to let the people sitting above the King Harry, see the Kop far corner flag.

KiNki · « **Reply #2168 on:** August 30, 2015, 07:45:51 pm »

Had a look at the new stand yesterday. Made me think of this.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y6PR4WvQngM?color2=FBE9EC&amp;version=3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Y6PR4WvQngM?color2=FBE9EC&amp;version=3</a>

Jonny5 · « **Reply #2169 on:** August 30, 2015, 07:51:03 pm »

The Kop roof has already been cut back, there is a picture on page 53 where you can see how much has been removed.

Jonny-B · « **Reply #2170 on:** August 30, 2015, 09:11:46 pm »

First piece of precast terracing has gone in.

https://instagram.com/clarkester23/

CHOPPER · « **Reply #2171 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:33:38 am »

Quote from: Jonny5 on August 30, 2015, 07:51:03 pm

The Kop roof has already been cut back, there is a picture on page 53 where you can see how much has been removed.

From where I sit - looking at the angle of the stand and the height it will reach, they're going to have to cut that(Kop's) roof back further.

CraigDS · « **Reply #2172 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:44:30 am »

Quote from: CHOPPER on August 31, 2015, 10:33:38 am

From where I sit - looking at the angle of the stand and the height it will reach, they're going to have to cut that(Kop's) roof back further.

I can't imagine they'll have to do it anymore, seems a little pointless to cut it back part way this summer then more next.

CHOPPER · « **Reply #2173 on:** August 31, 2015, 12:15:28 pm »

Quote from: CraigDS on August 31, 2015, 10:44:30 am

I can't imagine they'll have to do it anymore, seems a little pointless to cut it back part way this summer then more next.

From where I sit, I can't gauge how those at the back of that stand, kop end, will be able to see the centenary/kop corner flag. They will after all be sitting higher than the Kop roof.

CraigDS · « **Reply #2174 on:** August 31, 2015, 12:52:13 pm »

Quote from: CHOPPER on August 31, 2015, 12:15:28 pm

From where I sit, I can't gauge how those at the back of that stand, kop end, will be able to see the centenary/kop corner flag. They will after all be sitting higher than the Kop roof.

The top tier doesn't go up straight to a square corner at the very back, it's on an angle. I've attached an image to show what I mean. There probably would of been issues if it did.

Also the Kop roof has been cut all the way across to basically the other side of the pitch, with only a small section where it meets the Centenary left at the previous size. I've attached another pic of that.

They didn't have to cut the roof this summer, so can't see why they'd do so, only to then have to do so again even further back next year.

John C · « **Reply #2175 on:** August 31, 2015, 05:51:01 pm »

Quote from: CHOPPER on August 31, 2015, 12:15:28 pm

From where I sit, I can't gauge how those at the back of that stand, kop end, will be able to see the centenary/kop corner flag. They will after all be sitting higher than the Kop roof.

To be fair to you though mate, it is a fucking long way from Rainhill Hospital to have a clear view of the ground.

CHOPPER · « **Reply #2176 on:** August 31, 2015, 07:42:57 pm »

Quote from: John C on August 31, 2015, 05:51:01 pm

To be fair to you though mate, it is a fucking long way from Rainhill Hospital to have a clear view of the ground.

From factual c*nts, to fucking c*nts. Who needs enemies with fuckers like you two eh!

PM for Norwich, ye council binman ye!

John C · « **Reply #2177 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:38:27 pm »

Quote from: CHOPPER on August 31, 2015, 07:42:57 pm

PM for Norwich, ye council binman ye!

kavah · « **Reply #2178 on:** September 1, 2015, 08:40:40 pm »

Quote from: John C on August 31, 2015, 05:51:01 pm

To be fair to you though mate, it is a fucking long way from Rainhill Hospital to have a clear view of the ground.

Peter McGurk · « **Reply #2179 on:** September 1, 2015, 10:35:39 pm »

Quote from: CraigDS on August 31, 2015, 12:52:13 pm

The top tier doesn't go up straight to a square corner at the very back, it's on an angle. I've attached an image to show what I mean. There probably would of been issues if it did.

Also the Kop roof has been cut all the way across to basically the other side of the pitch, with only a small section where it meets the Centenary left at the previous size. I've attached another pic of that.

They didn't have to cut the roof this summer, so can't see why they'd do so, only to then have to do so again even further back next year.

The view from the kop end of the main stand to the corner flag at the ARE end of the main stand is the least convincing part of the design.

DanA · « **Reply #2180 on:** September 2, 2015, 10:11:33 am »

Quote from: Farman on August 28, 2015, 10:53:08 pm

This may sound like an odd question, but I'm curious to know...

...in building a structure like this to hold 10000 people, do they have to give extra consideration to the likelihood that there will be that many people jumping up and down at the same time, or is the structure strong enough anyway that it's not a factor?

It was the Annie Road second tier/Celtic thing that made me wonder...

It's not a stupid question.

As a general rule when designing a structure is quite complicated with engineers having to take into account a bunch of stuff (wind, bending moments, buckling capacity etc) to determine the load on each individual slab, beam and column. It's complicated and engineers get paid a bunch for a reason but as a general rule once load calculations are done they will apply a conservative multiplying factor based on the structures use which for most countries is dictated by design standards.

Broadly speaking though yes design standards take into account the live load (Q) which crowd would form a part of. For example in a residential buildings most countries I think use the equation 1.2G + 1.5Q. G being dead loads, Q being live loads. Once the load for the beam is calculated they choose the appropriate beam or column from a design catalogue which has a list of various standard beams and columns and their characteristics.

Gus 1855 · « **Reply #2181 on:** September 3, 2015, 08:13:22 am »

Amusingly, when the University Library at St Andrews was built, they forgot that it was supposed to be strong enough to hold 4 floors of books, so it's only ever been half full.

These errors can happen. Hopefully not in this case.

red_lfc_costello · « **Reply #2182 on:** September 3, 2015, 08:20:49 am »

Quote from: Gus 1855 on September 3, 2015, 08:13:22 am

Amusingly, when the University Library at St Andrews was built, they forgot that it was supposed to be strong enough to hold 4 floors of books, so it's only ever been half full.

These errors can happen. Hopefully not in this case.

My wife went to Imperial College in South Kensington, and a similar thing happened there years back. They built a new gym and swimming pool but apparently forgot about the weight of the water! Not sure if actually 100% true or not but I remember it being told to us as a fact when she was in halls next to it!

Farman · « **Reply #2183 on:** September 3, 2015, 10:12:52 am »

^This is all very well, but it's the 'jumping around' bit that I was interested in.

Let's forget about the fact that it's our new stand for a minute. Let's say you're engineering a big new apartment block, which you need to expect to hold up to 10,000 people (plus the other bits n' pieces). My question is, if you additionally knew that - for whatever reason - those 10,000 people will occasionally but regularly have cause to be jumping up and down all at the same time - will that knowledge make you design it to be stronger than otherwise, or is the structure strong enough anyway that it doesn't become a factor?

DanA · « **Reply #2184 on:** September 3, 2015, 12:14:21 pm »

Quote from: Farman on September 3, 2015, 10:12:52 am

^This is all very well, but it's the 'jumping around' bit that I was interested in.

Let's forget about the fact that it's our new stand for a minute. Let's say you're engineering a big new apartment block, which you need to expect to hold up to 10,000 people (plus the other bits n' pieces). My question is, if you additionally knew that - for whatever reason - those 10,000 people will occasionally but regularly have cause to be jumping up and down all at the same time - will that knowledge make you design it to be stronger than otherwise, or is the structure strong enough anyway that it doesn't become a factor?

Maybe I didn't make it clear. Yes it will be taken into account, presumably with a higher multiplying factor specific for stadiums as outlined in design standards. And all structure are conservatively designed. I don't think jumping up and down is unique to Anfield.

McrRed · « **Reply #2185 on:** September 3, 2015, 12:30:34 pm »

The Posnan coefficient...

Farman · « **Reply #2186 on:** September 3, 2015, 12:33:28 pm »

OK, thanks

Claire. · « **Reply #2187 on:** September 3, 2015, 05:31:26 pm »

Farman I love your optimism that the moaning arl gets in the main stand are going to be jumping up and down over anything!

Farman · « **Reply #2188 on:** September 3, 2015, 06:01:57 pm »

To be honest Claire I was thinking less about a goal, and more about a misplaced Lovren pass!

Mark Walters · « **Reply #2189 on:** September 3, 2015, 08:11:31 pm »

Quote from: Farman on September 3, 2015, 06:01:57 pm

To be honest Claire I was thinking less about a goal, and more about a misplaced Lovren pass!

Haahaaaaa!! Excellent!

Jonny5 · « **Reply #2190 on:** September 3, 2015, 10:17:51 pm »

not posted in awhile been on holiday so here are a few i took tonight, they where working past 7 fitting the giant columns in picture 1, there was also a guy on the street corner taking sound levels.

One section of steps has now reached the top.

Twelfth Man · « **Reply #2191 on:** September 3, 2015, 10:18:23 pm »

Lets give FSG £1,000 for 'Refugees welcome', as an immigrant nation and peoples, I'm sure they can understand the poignancy. Think it work well personally.

Georgie · « **Reply #2192 on:** September 4, 2015, 04:50:48 pm »

Looking at pic Stad 3 above it appears as if the truss is resting on two pins on the vertical towers. Bearing in mind the truss itself weighs 620 tonnes this puts a huge loading on each pin even before the roof itself is added?

CraigDS · « **Reply #2193 on:** September 4, 2015, 04:54:40 pm »

Quote from: Georgie on September 4, 2015, 04:50:48 pm

Looking at pic Stad 3 above it appears as if the truss is resting on two pins on the vertical towers. Bearing in mind the truss itself weighs 620 tonnes this puts a huge loading on each pin even before the roof itself is added?

Yeah was amazed to see that too when it was going up. You'd think it would require a massive contact area to carry the huge weight rather than a couple of small pins.

Jonny-B · « **Reply #2194 on:** September 4, 2015, 04:55:06 pm »

Quote from: Georgie on September 4, 2015, 04:50:48 pm

Looking at pic Stad 3 above it appears as if the truss is resting on two pins on the vertical towers. Bearing in mind the truss itself weighs 620 tonnes this puts a huge loading on each pin even before the roof itself is added?

There are also the temporary uprights in which you can see on pic 2. I shouldn't worry though as i'd imagine they have done their sums correctly

Georgie · « **Reply #2195 on:** September 4, 2015, 05:36:21 pm »

I have no qualms that they've done their calculations properly!( ever seen the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse footage though?)
You would imagine they could reduce the stress by spreading the load over a large area, rollers would do this and still allow movement due to temperature changes.
Unfortunately I only know a very limited amount of theory rather than the practice!

Rome-77 · « **Reply #2196 on:** September 5, 2015, 07:09:43 pm »

CentenaryBoy · « **Reply #2197 on:** September 5, 2015, 10:34:29 pm »

Quote from: Georgie on September 4, 2015, 05:36:21 pm

I have no qualms that they've done their calculations properly!( ever seen the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse footage though?)
You would imagine they could reduce the stress by spreading the load over a large area, rollers would do this and still allow movement due to temperature changes.
Unfortunately I only know a very limited amount of theory rather than the practice!

I suppose it's possible they could get their sums wrong and the stand collapses and there's a huge scandal...

...but it's a high profile job and I'm sure the builders are professionals, so I wouldn't worry if I were you.

Rome-77 · « **Reply #2198 on:** September 6, 2015, 06:15:43 am »

El Denzel Pepito · « **Reply #2199 on:** September 6, 2015, 10:32:25 am »

Coming together now!