North Stand Construction Discussion

[Coatigan]

Nice, you can see the first bit of steelwork for the base of the Skybar and the 5 elevated rows of seats in front of it. I love this stage as things look like they're absolutely flying along.

View attachment 114807

View attachment 114808


Edit: or is that for the suites underneath the Skybar?

You are right, in the sense that the inner side of the tower is where this will connect to. Added the same as above to this section.

Although to stress for clarity. The two are not on the same plane. The skybar bit is inbetween the towers being built.

The purple and blue are for a sense of location, not all of it will physically be there, other than at the edges on either side of the overhang.

More for the benefit of everyone than to your post as such, and more for a sense of location relative to what is on site now than anything else.

 

[wolfie1988]

The purple is what is built so far. The blue is what is yet to be built, of the towers, before the structure can transfer. The green is the existing structure and stand that will be removed when that happens.

Same ones over both the proposed and as existing for easier referencing. And also in blue over a screengrab of the drone video, to show roughly the rest of the tower to come.

The skybar element that hangs over the entrance bridges between the two towers and will bolt to the sides built so far, but hasn't yet started.

View attachment 114816View attachment 114817View attachment 114818

I've previously jokingly called it steelwork kerplunk, but it really is so damn complicated and at the same time impressive, how they are working round the existing and will then have to work round the new to remove the existing. Like one big of twister, with structure.

Highlights imo how much bigger the new stand will be and the amount of extra seats to what now makes the existing north stand look quite small, in comparison.

NB. Can you tell I plan to avoid other threads after last night and cocoon safely in here.

Great work

 

[tailspin747]

I’m intrigued as to how they will transfer the anchor points for the current north stand part of the cablenet. Unless they’re going to support the rest of the roof on the CB and east stands during the process, it’s going to have to be done whilst under load. That’s not an easy task but it will be fascinating to see how it’s done.

Obviously the new roof will be supported by the new tower structure but the cablenet has to remain in place and be tensioned in the same way it is now, as it will still be in use for the CB & East stands.

 

[Coatigan]

I’m intrigued as to how they will transfer the anchor points for the current north stand part of the cablenet. Unless they’re going to support the rest of the roof on the CB and east stands during the process, it’s going to have to be done whilst under load. That’s not an easy task but it will be fascinating to see how it’s done.

Obviously the new roof will be supported by the new tower structure but the cablenet has to remain in place and be tensioned in the same way it is now, as it will still be in use for the CB & East stands.

I've been thinking the same for a while. I'm not entirely convinced they will!

But also not really yet persuaded enough otherwise.

It is something @HelloCity has been mentioning as well, and maybe I am misunderstanding what you both mean here.

But from what I can see, it almost looks like they will interrupt the cablenet and stop/restrain it at the junctions to the sides, and the new roof will have its own that sits higher, and the two don't tie in. If by that you mean the top cable ring above the roof. If it is something else, we are talking different things then.

It looks to me like the cable supports from G.L N4-10 are held by the one pier, and GL. N11-17 by the other. The new roof will do almost the exact same but off the new piers. Up to GL N3 the, cable is supported by the tower on the left spiral, and from N18 on exact same off the right spiral on the opposite side.

It is like they will build the new roof supported independently over the existing one, then stop the cable at both sides, then remove that whole section of N4-N17, the lot of it. Unless there is a cable underneath that I'm not noticing.

Be interesting to see if it was built in similar sections initially, and whether that can happen to one whole side of it.

 

[HelloCity]

I've been thinking the same for a while. I'm not entirely convinced they will!

But also not really yet persuaded enough otherwise.

It is something @HelloCity has been mentioning as well, and maybe I am misunderstanding what you both mean here.

But from what I can see, it almost looks like they will interrupt the cablenet and stop/restrain it at the junctions to the sides, and the new roof will have its own that sits higher, and the two don't tie in. If by that you mean the top cable ring above the roof. If it is something else, we are talking different things then.

It looks to me like the cable supports from G.L N4-10 are held by the one pier, and GL. N11-17 by the other. The new roof will do almost the exact same but off the new piers. Up to GL N3 the, cable is supported by the tower on the left spiral, and from N18 on exact same off the right spiral on the opposite side.

It is like they will build the new roof supported independently over the existing one, then stop the cable at both sides, then remove that whole section of N4-N17, the lot of it. Unless there is a cable underneath that I'm not noticing.

Be interesting to see if it was built in similar sections initially, and whether that can happen to one whole side of it.

I believe the comment is that the current supports hold up the original cable net and how that original cable net will be supported when they pull out the current supports.

This transfer of loads will arguably the hardest part of the project. I suspect the new roof supports will carry the load of the new roof AND the original cable net.

 

[Coatigan]

I believe the comment is that the current supports hold up the original cable net and how that original cable net will be supported when they pull out the current supports.

This transfer of loads will arguably the hardest part of the project. I suspect the new roof supports will carry the load of the new roof AND the original cable net.

Do you mean temporarily? I suspect a fair bit of propping, probably.

Permanently, I think the same as you with your last line. Albeit at different levels, the two won't actually tie in, if that makes sense.

 

[HelloCity]

Do you mean temporarily? I suspect a fair bit of propping, probably.

Permanently, I think the same as you with your last line. Albeit at different levels, the two won't actually tie in, if that makes sense?

No, permanently.

The current masts help form a complete cable ring which supports the original roof.

Without the original masts in place the integrity of the original cable net will be affected. They’ll therefore need to transfer the load from those removed masts onto the new supports.

These new supports would then support the new roof and the old cable net, different from the new South Stand where they built around the old supports and with the new roof supports only supporting the new roof.

 

[Mike N]

Looking out from SS3 last night at the lovely sunset, it occurred to me that we probably won’t see that view again. I presume that the new stand will be blocking the view by August?

 

[Coatigan]

No, permanently.

The current masts help form a complete cable ring which supports the original roof.

Without the original masts in place the integrity of the original cable net will be affected. They’ll therefore need to transfer the load from those removed masts onto the new supports.

These new supports would then support the new roof and the old cable net, different from the new South Stand where they built around the old supports and with the new roof supports only supporting the new roof.

In that case, I don't think they will (complete the ring). I think they will split it. If we are talking about the same thing here. I'll post images in a bit to clarify what I'm on about, in case we are talking cross purposes.

 

[Centurions]

No, permanently.

The current masts help form a complete cable ring which supports the original roof.

Without the original masts in place the integrity of the original cable net will be affected. They’ll therefore need to transfer the load from those removed masts onto the new supports.

These new supports would then support the new roof and the old cable net, different from the new South Stand where they built around the old supports and with the new roof supports only supporting the new roof.

Yes, that's how I see it. They can't compromise the integrity of the cable net by removing a part of it. It's either all or nothing.

 

[Coatigan]

Yes, that's how I see it. They can't compromise the integrity of the cable net by removing a part of it. It's either all or nothing.

why not?

 

[Gray]

The purple is what is built so far. The blue is what is yet to be built, of the towers, before the structure can transfer. The green is the existing structure and stand that will be removed when that happens.

Same ones over both the proposed and as existing for easier referencing. And also in blue over a screengrab of the drone video, to show roughly the rest of the tower to come.

The skybar element that hangs over the entrance bridges between the two towers and will bolt to the sides built so far, but hasn't yet started.

View attachment 114816View attachment 114817View attachment 114818

I've previously jokingly called it steelwork kerplunk, but it really is so damn complicated and at the same time impressive, how they are working round the existing and will then have to work round the new to remove the existing. Like one big of twister, with structure.

Highlights imo how much bigger the new stand will be and the amount of extra seats to what now makes the existing north stand look quite small, in comparison.

NB. Can you tell I plan to avoid other threads after last night and cocoon safely in here.

Thanks for that, very informative and great illustrations. Made things very clear.

 

[mcfcphil]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about building stadiums.

But, the north stand was originally the end with a temporary stand during the commonwealth games and was built after the event.

Maybe that makes the new north stand extension a bit easier if there’s an element of it having its own integrity?

 

[Centurions]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about building stadiums.

But, the north stand was originally the end with a temporary stand during the commonwealth games and was built after the event.

Maybe that makes the new north stand extension a bit easier if there’s an element of it having its own integrity?

No, for instance you can see the cable net in place even though there wasn't a roof to hang off it.

 

[Centurions]

why not?

If I'm understanding correctly you think they can cut part of the cable net away and just attach the ends to the new build some how? The stresses from the other 3 parts of the roof I suspect would put enormous loads on the joints at the ends and just wouldn't work.

The cable net has to work as a whole to support the front edge of the original roofs. The only way the cable net goes is if or when the W & E roofs get replaced.

Of course they're much smarter than I am so I may be wrong :)

 

[Coatigan]

No, for instance you can see the cable net in place even thought there wasn't a roof to hang off it.

Totally valid, and actually prompted to add that photo below. But I think the exact same applies regardless.

Yes, that's how I see it. They can't compromise the integrity of the cable net by removing a part of it. It's either all or nothing.

I wasn't being flippant with my 'why not' btw. I will expand on that.

It wouldn't have originally been built in one piece, that wouldn't be possible. It would have been built in sections/segments. As such, then surely it can be repaired in sections, replaced in sections, or dismantled in sections. And if that's the case then those sections/segments can also be replaced with other sections of a different design or configuration, IF, they perform the same role.

I am assuming by the cable net, you guys mean the red and blue highlighted in image 1 below. Deliberately used two colours to show the north and stand segments of that, and where the break is, and it is a pretty clean one.

Then the same image with the proposals crudely overlaid. To me, it looks like the existing north stand portion of that is being replaced by the new roof higher up, and the rest of the east and west stopped at the vertical junction to it. It is how they restrain those ends that it could hinge on. But I don't see the cable net continuing, I see it interrupted and replaced for that portion of the stand. It doesn't seem to appear below the roof either. There is a clean break betwen GL N4 to N17, imo. Could be wrong.



And an old image ofnthe cable net pre stand as mentioned by you and Phil

 

[HelloCity]

Totally valid, and actually prompted to add that photo below. But I think the exact same applies regardless.



I wasn't being flippant with my 'why not' btw. I will expand on that.

It wouldn't have originally been built in one piece, that wouldn't be possible. It would have been built in sections/segments. As such, then surely it can be repaired in sections, replaced in sections, or dismantled in sections. And if that's the case then those sections/segments can also be replaced with other sections of a different design or configuration, IF, they perform the same role.

I am assuming by the cable net, you guys mean the red and blue highlighted in image 1 below. Deliberately used two colours to show the north and stand segments of that, and where the break is, and it is a pretty clean one.

Then the same image with the proposals crudely overlaid. To me, it looks like the existing north stand portion of that is being replaced by the new roof higher up, and the rest of the east and west stopped at the vertical junction to it. It is how they restrain those ends that it could hinge on. But I don't see the cable net continuing, I see it interrupted and replaced for that portion of the stand. It doesn't seem to appear below the roof either. There is a clean break betwen GL N4 to N17, imo. Could be wrong.

View attachment 114841View attachment 114842

And an old image ofnthe cable net pre stand as mentioned by you and Phil


View attachment 114843

It’s below the roof still just as it is with the South Stand.



It would be interesting though if the CB and ES roofs can be supported on their own without the need for the loop now that the old roof loads of the NS and SS are not required to be supported.

 

[Coatigan]

If I'm understanding correctly you think they can cut part of the cable net away and just attach the ends to the new build some how? The stresses from the other 3 parts of the roof I suspect would put enormous loads on the joints at the ends and just wouldn't work.

The cable net has to work as a whole to support the front edge of the original roofs. The only way the cable net goes is if or when the W & E roofs get replaced.

Of course they're much smarter than I am so I may be wrong :)

Pretty much, although I responded before I saw this.

If you look at the roof walk diagram for example, you can see the step in height and plane between the east west cable net or ends, and the new above it, in same red/blue.

I would also doubt it is a coincidence that the 'bulgy' parts of the north stand sides happen to coincide exactly at the gridlines where the cable net junctions to the two northern supports, as I would imagine they wouldn't have wanted such odd shaped ends past the two quite clear tower elements and office/hotel blocks.

 

[cityontheup]

Just wondering what the general feelings are about this extension now, are we happy about its design, look and best use of space and resource ( money) ?

 

[Coatigan]

It’s below the roof still just as it is with the South Stand.

View attachment 114845

It would be interesting though if the CB and ES roofs can be supported on their own without the need for the loop now that the old roof loads of the NS and SS are not required to be supported.

I've seen that before, but it doesn't appear on other drawings or images so wasnt sure if it was just the way it is combined etc. Particularly as the cables to it look like they are the old ones which are presumably being removed.

Guess it will become apparent as it goes in a few months when we get to that stage. I'm open to both.