New Roof

[RedWeb]

Got to love the internet. Everyone is suddenly an expert on structural engineering when they fancy a moan.

[AugustusCorpa]

Got to love the internet. Everyone is suddenly an expert on structural engineering when they fancy a moan.

Chipmunx literally is an expert. He wasn’t moaning though.

[RedWeb]

Chipmunx literally is an expert. He wasn’t moaning though.

Wasn't talking about Chipmunx. It was the rubbish above I was referring to i.e. buying pavements etc.

[Jim]

I always new that pillared supports were needed but do think we needed so many when they are only bearing the weight of steelwork and no brick etc. I understand the piling had to go a long way down and safety will always demand more than needed but quite so many?

If we are on about design, my two-penn'orth would be that something like the Newcastle Millenium bridge (the 'Blinking Eye') would have solved the problem. We could have a nice big arch with the roof suspended underneath from cables, then no need for supports at all!

[NORTHERNSOUL]

Yes it does seem a very strange arrangement when all hey would have needed to do was to buy a metre wide strip of the pavement and they could have erected cantilever roof stanchions outside the back wall which i.m pretty sure would have been a lot simpler cheaper and would have provided a much larger capacity with none of those bases in the way

As i was the Surveyor when the main stand was build i can safely say that you're completely wrong on the costs - the cantilever idea would have been far more expensive and needed much bigger steel sections, not only that but the foundations for the cantilever steelwork would have undermined the external wall and that alone would have made it a ridiculous and unsafe idea.

Not at all. If you look at stadium solutions largest lightweight construction it provides a roof capable of covering 12 steps of terracing which it seems would be just about deep enough and what's more, doesn't require traditional foundations as you would just lay a concrete pad in a trench not my preferred method but even a roof built in the more traditional way [ say like the one at Griffin Park which BAFC were supposedly interested in purchasing at one time ] and you.ll see its not the heavyweight construction project it once was. Maybe you could have a look at the away end that Torquay erected after buying it from Barnet [ there's an identical one for sale there right now as well ] it went up in a couple of days [ i think the timeline of pics are still on their website ].

I.m not a big fan of the SS stands with metal floors but having visited a number of grounds they've done Accy and Salford etc I think if you combine their roof with existing or new concrete steps [ which would have been the case at HS ] I think you achieve a good end result and i was quite surprised to see that what was going up at HS was an SS job as it's pretty rare they do full heavy steel constructions.

[Exeter bluebird]

As i was the Surveyor when the main stand was build i can safely say that you're completely wrong on the costs - the cantilever idea would have been far more expensive and needed much bigger steel sections, not only that but the foundations for the cantilever steelwork would have undermined the external wall and that alone would have made it a ridiculous and unsafe idea.

Not at all. If you look at stadium solutions largest lightweight construction it provides a roof capable of covering 12 steps of terracing which it seems would be just about deep enough and what's more, doesn't require traditional foundations as you would just lay a concrete pad in a trench not my preferred method but even a roof built in the more traditional way [ say like the one at Griffin Park which BAFC were supposedly interested in purchasing at one time ] and you.ll see its not the heavyweight construction project it once was. Maybe you could have a look at the away end that Torquay erected after buying it from Barnet [ there's an identical one for sale there right now as well ] it went up in a couple of days [ i think the timeline of pics are still on their website ].

I.m not a big fan of the SS stands with metal floors but having visited a number of grounds they've done Accy and Salford etc I think if you combine their roof with existing or new concrete steps [ which would have been the case at HS ] I think you achieve a good end result and i was quite surprised to see that what was going up at HS was an SS job as it's pretty rare they do full heavy steel constructions.

The Barnet stand is the away end at Exeter but wouldn't be deep enough. Would have only covered the back half of the HSE

[Dalton Bluebird]

Got to love the internet. Everyone is suddenly an expert on structural engineering when they fancy a moan.

and accountancy

Some people need to give their heads a wobble.

[Jonty]

Why is it that when someone makes an observational comment on any aspect of anything that is being done, it is more often than not shot soon down as being in someway unappreciative, or moaning, or anything else deemed in any way a negative comment. There are a lot of pillars, there will be many obstructed views looking across from one corner of the pitch to another, which is a shame it had to be this way. If they do put seating for away fans at one end of this stand, which is what I understand is planned, well good luck with the views from there. There is not much weight in that roof sheeting, so I guess to the unlearned the question is why did their need be that many pillars? I don't think that is an unreasonable question to ask and if it transpires that that was the only solution then fair enough, then at least people will understand why it was done that way,

[Sefton Aubergine]

Why is it that when someone makes an observational comment on any aspect of anything that is being done, it is more often than not shot soon down as being in someway unappreciative, or moaning, or anything else deemed in any way a negative comment. There are a lot of pillars, there will be many obstructed views looking across from one corner of the pitch to another, which is a shame it had to be this way. If they do put seating for away fans at one end of this stand, which is what I understand is planned, well good luck with the views from there. There is not much weight in that roof sheeting, so I guess to the unlearned the question is why did their need be that many pillars? I don't think that is an unreasonable question to ask and if it transpires that that was the only solution then fair enough, then at least people will understand why it was done that way,

There were a few reasoned grown up conversations about it on Sunday at the ground which I thought might be interesting to continue on here. Before any steel had gone up it was obvious that two steel uprights were going to be fitted to each plinth. I had a sneaky walk to the back of the stand about twenty metres in from the corner and it was clear that there would be restricted views. I then heard that approx 100 seats are to go in the away end which I think will draw complaints. If I remember correctly there are 13 plinths with two uprights on each I'm just surprised it needed that many plinths and that one upright per plinth would easily carry the weight of the cross steels and sheet steel. I'd be interested to know what Chipmunx thinks.

[+[ [[Kris]] ]+]

Kevin McCloud is gonna be spitting feathers

[PerthBluebird]

Why is it that when someone makes an observational comment on any aspect of anything that is being done, it is more often than not shot soon down as being in someway unappreciative, or moaning, or anything else deemed in any way a negative comment. There are a lot of pillars, there will be many obstructed views looking across from one corner of the pitch to another, which is a shame it had to be this way. If they do put seating for away fans at one end of this stand, which is what I understand is planned, well good luck with the views from there. There is not much weight in that roof sheeting, so I guess to the unlearned the question is why did their need be that many pillars? I don't think that is an unreasonable question to ask and if it transpires that that was the only solution then fair enough, then at least people will understand why it was done that way,

Probably engineering calculation and from surveyors thats probably skilled in that field. The moaning over the past 2 days has been sensational the alternative was to flatten the entire stand or purchase land from the council. Let the engineering experts do their thing ffs. Lets see what it actually looks like when finished

[chipmunx]

Why is it that when someone makes an observational comment on any aspect of anything that is being done, it is more often than not shot soon down as being in someway unappreciative, or moaning, or anything else deemed in any way a negative comment. There are a lot of pillars, there will be many obstructed views looking across from one corner of the pitch to another, which is a shame it had to be this way. If they do put seating for away fans at one end of this stand, which is what I understand is planned, well good luck with the views from there. There is not much weight in that roof sheeting, so I guess to the unlearned the question is why did their need be that many pillars? I don't think that is an unreasonable question to ask and if it transpires that that was the only solution then fair enough, then at least people will understand why it was done that way,

There were a few reasoned grown up conversations about it on Sunday at the ground which I thought might be interesting to continue on here. Before any steel had gone up it was obvious that two steel uprights were going to be fitted to each plinth. I had a sneaky walk to the back of the stand about twenty metres in from the corner and it was clear that there would be restricted views. I then heard that approx 100 seats are to go in the away end which I think will draw complaints. If I remember correctly there are 13 plinths with two uprights on each I'm just surprised it needed that many plinths and that one upright per plinth would easily carry the weight of the cross steels and sheet steel. I'd be interested to know what Chipmunx thinks.

without measuring it looks like there is about 5 metres between each set of 2 uprights. The use of 2 uprights strongly suggests that all the weight of the roof is being born by the steelwork (and piled foundations) and none (or a minimal amount*) by the back wall. Only having one upright would have put a lot of weight on that back wall which given the age of it etc could have required it all to come down and be rebuild which would obviously have been far far more expensive.
As for there being 13 plinths - remember there were 14 on the old roof at the HS end.

* on the plans there are small steel uprights mounted on the back wall - but they will not be carrying a lot of weight and will be largely there because of the back cladding and rails needed to support it

[andyg]

When i was up at the ground the other week I was told about the seating required to house the away fans (an EFL requirement I believe). I think the seating will be towards the corner where the away fans have stood in past seasons. Is that correct?

[Alley_Cat]

Two big factors at play here, time and money.

We need to get the roof on quickly so it has to be a simple design to achieve it in that timeline

If we designed a cantilever stand i'm pretty confident it would cost triple if not quadruple because you would need to flatten the whole end first and then start building up again.

The board couldn't guarantee which league we would be playing in when they submitted the plans so they went for the functional and much cheaper design, don't forget the board has already spent a million on infrastructure projects.

Once we've spent a few years in L2 there could well be more money/grants/investment available.


It's all good

[blumooncrab]

You mean L1 , right ?