Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:50 pm  

Without reading too much into the silence, I will now do the opposite and theorise that if the cash flow and profits of the business were ahead of those planned then we would already see some plans published about when and where etc. This obviously leads to the conclusion that perhaps it hasn't been as easy as they thought to turn the business round into a profit.

Having said that, I was told at the match on friday by a bloke who says he is in "the know" (nudge nudge wink wink), that the matter is still with consulting engineers as there is real doubt that the weight of any cladding plus the roof would be too much for the structural beams and that ongoing litigation was under way against the design company.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:48 pm  

The word I got from Friday was that the money was now in place for cladding, but still no date set for the work to be done.

Although the North Stand is now sponsored so that maybe were a small percentage of the cash has been stumped up.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:19 pm  

If the roof design cannot accept full cladding as some have said, how is it the South stand roof design is the same and is clad to the very top. I would have thought a cladded circular design would be more wind resistant than leaving huge gaps where the wind can lift the roof.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:47 pm  

I'm not sure it's the roof that's the issue but the structure holding the roof. I'm sure the builders on here could give a more technical explanation. But I'm sure it's possible that they spent more on the South stand structure to hold the forces in place on that side.

If the supports on the rest of the stadium where cheaper for as they where estimated as having to take less force. ie only the roof and not the cladding, this may explain why the south can and the north can't take the same forces.

I only have a basic understanding though, there plenty more qualified on here as they spotted stuff like the type of cement being used as soon as they walked in the place.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:06 am  

Every time I see a post on this thread, which is not as often as it used to be I think the work may have started!

I can't understand the problem as the same builders have been involved with several similar projects and they are closed in or have have cladding??

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:13 pm  

But just because the stadia look the same that does not nessasarily mean that the materials are of the same standard and weight bearing.

My only experience is when we had our loft done. They had options of different RSJ's, they could look identical but bear differing tollerances.

So we may have lower tollerances on our beams as they where planned to carry less weight.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:17 pm  

The south stand is built differently, It has two rows of vertical beams whereas the other stands have one.

It isn't the weight of cladding in itself that is the problem, it is the air pressure in a gale under the roof once the back is filled in. The roof and back design was open to allow wind to blow through thus making equal pressure above and below the roof. Closing the back completely changes that.

In a gale the roof could possibly blow up and out (rather than what you would intuitively imagine, a collapse down) if the back is enclosed.

Having the back open allows much less steel to be used to keep the roof on, thus saving money.

The 'beams' holding the roof on is a cantilever design. This allows unhindered viewing from all seats. The down side of this design is it is a careful balancing act to get the roof to stay up. Unless you put in another row of vertical 'beams' to anchor the cantilever more securely at the back like was done in the South stand. But that is massively more expensive.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:57 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

The roof and back design was open to allow wind to blow through

Yeah and don't we know it!

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:15 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

But just because the stadia look the same that does not nessasarily mean that the materials are of the same standard and weight bearing.

Yes I do accept that, but an established stadia building company would advise and I'm sure would have said if you take this option, cladding can't be used! and it will mean weather elements on supporters and the stadium always looking unfinished.

Re: Stadium Site pictures PART II (Cladding Edition) : Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:52 pm  

jaybs wrote:

Yes I do accept that, but an established stadia building company would advise and I'm sure would have said if you take this option, cladding can't be used! and it will mean weather elements on supporters and the stadium always looking unfinished.

I think that's the basis of the legal stuff going on to see who is liable?