Re: Storm Damage : Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:50 pm  

Wind is worse tonight. One shudders at the potential damage we'll find in the morning.

We'll form a disaster response team in the morning. I'll divide you lot into gangs and you can walk the 4 square miles the roof will be scattered over and we can sell it for scrap. The proceeds can play for a prop so our second season out of town can be more prosperous than the last one. The club meanwhile can knock down and rebuild the stadium using a design so it's not like making a stadium out of lilos on Southport Beach.

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:02 am  

Get Alf Stewart in his Orange Overalls...

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:42 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Wind is worse tonight.

I'm sure Simon will be on here to argue with me ( ), but it was reported on Wish FM this morning that there were gusts of 87mph recorded 'in the region' last night. Where exactly in the region such gusts were recorded I don't know but the wind certainly sounded worse last night than the day before, although I wasn't driving in it this time and I might have felt differently had I done so.

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:37 am  

So do we still have a roof this morning?

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:04 am  

The Chair Maker wrote: D.D. wrote: With all these changes that seemed to have happened (enclosed stadium, then non-enclosed, the enclosed again; steelwork originally designed for cladding then downgraded so it's not only to discover that we do need cladding after all), I am wondering whether all things have been factored into the equation or things have been altered without the knock-on effects being considered. Would the roof have been damaged if it hadn't been for the exposed corners allowing the wind to get into the ground and up and below the roofing for example? For months I have expressed concerns about what I saw as some very shoddy designs. Sadly it would appear I was justified in those concerns. What is going to happen if the entire roof is condemned as unsafe because, to me, there is no possible way any of it can be seen as safe now? Dave you might be coming to this from the wrong angle so to speak The roof that has been damaged is in the South west corner which is fully cladded. This was because the wind was coming from the south west. As such the majority of the wind would hit the cladding and be stopped from travelling into the stadium. Consequently the seats in the south west corner would be a wind free area. However above them on the roof it was blowing a gale. The consequence of this would be that you would have fast travelling air over the roof and relatively static air in the south west corner. Fast travelling air is at a lower pressure than static air. The static air being at a higher pressure would create lift, as it would be trying to equalise pressure with the fast travelling air. Its easy to recreate the actual lift effect using a piece of A4 paper. Simply put the top side below your bottom lip and blow hard. You will notice that the paper rises, which is somewhat counter intuitive. This effect is essentially what allows aircraft to fly. As by creating a curved upper surface and a flat lower surface you force the upper air to travel faster because it has to travel further. Once the aircraft reaches a sufficient speed, the lifting forces are great enough to lift an aircraft off the ground and make it fly. Now in the unclad sections of the stadium, the air is free to move below and above the roof without hindrance. consequently we would see a lower level of lifting pressure on the roof. Therefore by cladding the rest of the stadium, we are putting the rest of the roof under greater lifting stress. This may therefore see the roof being damaged on windy days in other parts of the stadium. It also begs the question if someone miscalculated and fitted the South stand roof to the same standard as the other stands. Being open, the other stands would not need the level of bracing as the enclosed South stand. Coincidentally if you have walked around the stadium you will notice that it seems very windy, far more windy than when in the open near Tesco's. I suspect this is a consequence of the stadium being curved on the outside. As i mentioned earlier a curved surface forces air to move faster when compared to a straight surface. However curved surfaces do reduce the amount of force created by the wind against the actual structure itself. In essence the stadium is more aerodynamic than your box type structure. For anyone who wants to learn a bit about why the wind can cause a roof to be blown off, look up Bernoullis principle, or just check out the link on force below. You may also like to read up about fluid dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29 So how come rounded, fully contained stadiums such as Wembley, Emirates Stadium and Etihad Stadium seem to be able to keep the roof on without much problem, not to mention numerous others around the globe? You see this is what happens when the designers try to go all clever on us. Stick to a shoebox like Warrington and Leigh and you get none of this kerfuffle!

The Chair Maker wrote: D.D. wrote: With all these changes that seemed to have happened (enclosed stadium, then non-enclosed, the enclosed again; steelwork originally designed for cladding then downgraded so it's not only to discover that we do need cladding after all), I am wondering whether all things have been factored into the equation or things have been altered without the knock-on effects being considered. Would the roof have been damaged if it hadn't been for the exposed corners allowing the wind to get into the ground and up and below the roofing for example? For months I have expressed concerns about what I saw as some very shoddy designs. Sadly it would appear I was justified in those concerns. What is going to happen if the entire roof is condemned as unsafe because, to me, there is no possible way any of it can be seen as safe now? Dave you might be coming to this from the wrong angle so to speak The roof that has been damaged is in the South west corner which is fully cladded. This was because the wind was coming from the south west. As such the majority of the wind would hit the cladding and be stopped from travelling into the stadium. Consequently the seats in the south west corner would be a wind free area. However above them on the roof it was blowing a gale. The consequence of this would be that you would have fast travelling air over the roof and relatively static air in the south west corner. Fast travelling air is at a lower pressure than static air. The static air being at a higher pressure would create lift, as it would be trying to equalise pressure with the fast travelling air. Its easy to recreate the actual lift effect using a piece of A4 paper. Simply put the top side below your bottom lip and blow hard. You will notice that the paper rises, which is somewhat counter intuitive. This effect is essentially what allows aircraft to fly. As by creating a curved upper surface and a flat lower surface you force the upper air to travel faster because it has to travel further. Once the aircraft reaches a sufficient speed, the lifting forces are great enough to lift an aircraft off the ground and make it fly. Now in the unclad sections of the stadium, the air is free to move below and above the roof without hindrance. consequently we would see a lower level of lifting pressure on the roof. Therefore by cladding the rest of the stadium, we are putting the rest of the roof under greater lifting stress. This may therefore see the roof being damaged on windy days in other parts of the stadium. It also begs the question if someone miscalculated and fitted the South stand roof to the same standard as the other stands. Being open, the other stands would not need the level of bracing as the enclosed South stand. Coincidentally if you have walked around the stadium you will notice that it seems very windy, far more windy than when in the open near Tesco's. I suspect this is a consequence of the stadium being curved on the outside. As i mentioned earlier a curved surface forces air to move faster when compared to a straight surface. However curved surfaces do reduce the amount of force created by the wind against the actual structure itself. In essence the stadium is more aerodynamic than your box type structure. For anyone who wants to learn a bit about why the wind can cause a roof to be blown off, look up Bernoullis principle, or just check out the link on force below. You may also like to read up about fluid dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29 So how come rounded, fully contained stadiums such as Wembley, Emirates Stadium and Etihad Stadium seem to be able to keep the roof on without much problem, not to mention numerous others around the globe? You see this is what happens when the designers try to go all clever on us. Stick to a shoebox like Warrington and Leigh and you get none of this kerfuffle!

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:36 am  

D.D. wrote: The Chair Maker wrote: D.D. wrote: With all these changes that seemed to have happened (enclosed stadium, then non-enclosed, the enclosed again; steelwork originally designed for cladding then downgraded so it's not only to discover that we do need cladding after all), I am wondering whether all things have been factored into the equation or things have been altered without the knock-on effects being considered. Would the roof have been damaged if it hadn't been for the exposed corners allowing the wind to get into the ground and up and below the roofing for example? For months I have expressed concerns about what I saw as some very shoddy designs. Sadly it would appear I was justified in those concerns. What is going to happen if the entire roof is condemned as unsafe because, to me, there is no possible way any of it can be seen as safe now? Dave you might be coming to this from the wrong angle so to speak The roof that has been damaged is in the South west corner which is fully cladded. This was because the wind was coming from the south west. As such the majority of the wind would hit the cladding and be stopped from travelling into the stadium. Consequently the seats in the south west corner would be a wind free area. However above them on the roof it was blowing a gale. The consequence of this would be that you would have fast travelling air over the roof and relatively static air in the south west corner. Fast travelling air is at a lower pressure than static air. The static air being at a higher pressure would create lift, as it would be trying to equalise pressure with the fast travelling air. Its easy to recreate the actual lift effect using a piece of A4 paper. Simply put the top side below your bottom lip and blow hard. You will notice that the paper rises, which is somewhat counter intuitive. This effect is essentially what allows aircraft to fly. As by creating a curved upper surface and a flat lower surface you force the upper air to travel faster because it has to travel further. Once the aircraft reaches a sufficient speed, the lifting forces are great enough to lift an aircraft off the ground and make it fly. Now in the unclad sections of the stadium, the air is free to move below and above the roof without hindrance. consequently we would see a lower level of lifting pressure on the roof. Therefore by cladding the rest of the stadium, we are putting the rest of the roof under greater lifting stress. This may therefore see the roof being damaged on windy days in other parts of the stadium. It also begs the question if someone miscalculated and fitted the South stand roof to the same standard as the other stands. Being open, the other stands would not need the level of bracing as the enclosed South stand. Coincidentally if you have walked around the stadium you will notice that it seems very windy, far more windy than when in the open near Tesco's. I suspect this is a consequence of the stadium being curved on the outside. As i mentioned earlier a curved surface forces air to move faster when compared to a straight surface. However curved surfaces do reduce the amount of force created by the wind against the actual structure itself. In essence the stadium is more aerodynamic than your box type structure. For anyone who wants to learn a bit about why the wind can cause a roof to be blown off, look up Bernoullis principle, or just check out the link on force below. You may also like to read up about fluid dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29 So how come rounded, fully contained stadiums such as Wembley, Emirates Stadium and Etihad Stadium seem to be able to keep the roof on without much problem, not to mention numerous others around the globe? ££££ WONGA ££££ easy answer.

D.D. wrote: The Chair Maker wrote: D.D. wrote: With all these changes that seemed to have happened (enclosed stadium, then non-enclosed, the enclosed again; steelwork originally designed for cladding then downgraded so it's not only to discover that we do need cladding after all), I am wondering whether all things have been factored into the equation or things have been altered without the knock-on effects being considered. Would the roof have been damaged if it hadn't been for the exposed corners allowing the wind to get into the ground and up and below the roofing for example? For months I have expressed concerns about what I saw as some very shoddy designs. Sadly it would appear I was justified in those concerns. What is going to happen if the entire roof is condemned as unsafe because, to me, there is no possible way any of it can be seen as safe now? Dave you might be coming to this from the wrong angle so to speak The roof that has been damaged is in the South west corner which is fully cladded. This was because the wind was coming from the south west. As such the majority of the wind would hit the cladding and be stopped from travelling into the stadium. Consequently the seats in the south west corner would be a wind free area. However above them on the roof it was blowing a gale. The consequence of this would be that you would have fast travelling air over the roof and relatively static air in the south west corner. Fast travelling air is at a lower pressure than static air. The static air being at a higher pressure would create lift, as it would be trying to equalise pressure with the fast travelling air. Its easy to recreate the actual lift effect using a piece of A4 paper. Simply put the top side below your bottom lip and blow hard. You will notice that the paper rises, which is somewhat counter intuitive. This effect is essentially what allows aircraft to fly. As by creating a curved upper surface and a flat lower surface you force the upper air to travel faster because it has to travel further. Once the aircraft reaches a sufficient speed, the lifting forces are great enough to lift an aircraft off the ground and make it fly. Now in the unclad sections of the stadium, the air is free to move below and above the roof without hindrance. consequently we would see a lower level of lifting pressure on the roof. Therefore by cladding the rest of the stadium, we are putting the rest of the roof under greater lifting stress. This may therefore see the roof being damaged on windy days in other parts of the stadium. It also begs the question if someone miscalculated and fitted the South stand roof to the same standard as the other stands. Being open, the other stands would not need the level of bracing as the enclosed South stand. Coincidentally if you have walked around the stadium you will notice that it seems very windy, far more windy than when in the open near Tesco's. I suspect this is a consequence of the stadium being curved on the outside. As i mentioned earlier a curved surface forces air to move faster when compared to a straight surface. However curved surfaces do reduce the amount of force created by the wind against the actual structure itself. In essence the stadium is more aerodynamic than your box type structure. For anyone who wants to learn a bit about why the wind can cause a roof to be blown off, look up Bernoullis principle, or just check out the link on force below. You may also like to read up about fluid dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29 So how come rounded, fully contained stadiums such as Wembley, Emirates Stadium and Etihad Stadium seem to be able to keep the roof on without much problem, not to mention numerous others around the globe? ££££ WONGA ££££ easy answer.

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:43 pm  

D.D. wrote:

Stick to a shoebox like Warrington and Leigh and you get none of this kerfuffle!

Roof is still on the corners of the HJ but yours does have a nicer name though

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:51 pm  

vintage73 wrote:

D.D. wrote:

Stick to a shoebox like Warrington and Leigh and you get none of this kerfuffle!

Roof is still on the corners of the HJ but yours does have a nicer name though

I think you mean corner, as the SE corner of your ground has not been touched since the steel work was put in

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:34 pm  

Yer beat me to it Grunty http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/new ... ref=twtrec

Yer beat me to it Grunty http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/new ... ref=twtrec

Re: Storm Damage : Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:34 pm  

vintage73 wrote: D.D. wrote: Stick to a shoebox like Warrington and Leigh and you get none of this kerfuffle! Roof is still on the corners of the HJ but yours does have a nicer name though Is it?? http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/wol ... d/?ref=rss

vintage73 wrote: D.D. wrote: Stick to a shoebox like Warrington and Leigh and you get none of this kerfuffle! Roof is still on the corners of the HJ but yours does have a nicer name though Is it?? http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/wol ... d/?ref=rss