http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-40986193

There seem to be a distinct lack of rebar in the bit that's fallen off.
That can't be right surely?

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 19/08/2017 17:18, Tim+ wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-40986193

There seem to be a distinct lack of rebar in the bit that's fallen off.
That can't be right surely?

Tim

That's what I thought too. It goes a long way to explaining why that bit
fell off. It will be interesting to see whether they can effectively
check the rest of it for structural integrity. My guess is that they
will have to demolish the whole lot. More than one multi-storey car park
in Norwich has gone the same way (due to deterioration of the concrete
rather than lack of rebar). Even one of the replacements had structural
issues a few years later.

--
Biggles

Most of them have suffered from lack of maintenance generally and water gets
in the cracks etc, and metal inside rusts. I'm expecting several around
here to be condemned soon. Bloody eyesores they are.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Biggles" wrote in message
news
On 19/08/2017 17:18, Tim+ wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-40986193

There seem to be a distinct lack of rebar in the bit that's fallen off.
That can't be right surely?

Tim

That's what I thought too. It goes a long way to explaining why that bit
fell off. It will be interesting to see whether they can effectively check
the rest of it for structural integrity. My guess is that they will have
to demolish the whole lot. More than one multi-storey car park in Norwich
has gone the same way (due to deterioration of the concrete rather than
lack of rebar). Even one of the replacements had structural issues a few
years later.

--
Biggles

On 19/08/2017 17:44, Biggles wrote:
On 19/08/2017 17:18, Tim+ wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-40986193

There seem to be a distinct lack of rebar in the bit that's fallen off.
That can't be right surely?

Tim

That's what I thought too. It goes a long way to explaining why that bit
fell off. It will be interesting to see whether they can effectively
check the rest of it for structural integrity. My guess is that they
will have to demolish the whole lot. More than one multi-storey car park
in Norwich has gone the same way (due to deterioration of the concrete
rather than lack of rebar). Even one of the replacements had structural
issues a few years later.

--
Biggles


Concrete 'cancer'. Inadequate rebar, not covered by sufficient
concrete (made worse by the decorative fluting which allows
water to penetrate more deeply).

Concrete 'cancer'. Inadequate rebar, not covered by sufficient
concrete (made worse by the decorative fluting which allows
water to penetrate more deeply).




Looking on Google Streetview it appears to have had some additional tubular
steel supports on the exterior to pass some loads down to the ground.

On 19/08/2017 17:44, Biggles wrote:
On 19/08/2017 17:18, Tim+ wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-40986193

There seem to be a distinct lack of rebar in the bit that's fallen off.
That can't be right surely?

Tim

That's what I thought too. It goes a long way to explaining why that bit
fell off. It will be interesting to see whether they can effectively
check the rest of it for structural integrity. My guess is that they
will have to demolish the whole lot. More than one multi-storey car park
in Norwich has gone the same way (due to deterioration of the concrete
rather than lack of rebar). Even one of the replacements had structural
issues a few years later.

--
Biggles



Actually, looking at that silver people carrier, I suspect it rammed
into the wall in reverse which is which why its wheels are hanging
over the edge. That retaining wall has an L shaped bottom which
looks like it was attached to the precast flooring sections with
rebar. where the man is attacking with a breaker is the top surface
so you wouldn't expect to see any rebar there.

Whatever weakness had built up in the structure because of concrete
'cancer' was exposed by the sudden impact.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
Actually, looking at that silver people carrier, I suspect it rammed
into the wall in reverse which is which why its wheels are hanging
over the edge. That retaining wall has an L shaped bottom which
looks like it was attached to the precast flooring sections with
rebar. where the man is attacking with a breaker is the top surface
so you wouldn't expect to see any rebar there.

Whatever weakness had built up in the structure because of concrete
'cancer' was exposed by the sudden impact.

Ah, now it becomes a bit clearer why there are vehicles with their rear
wheels hanging (or else almost hanging) off the floor. I'd thought that the
wall was flush with the vertical pillars and horizontal beams on that floor,
and that therefore the collapse had also made vehicles roll backwards. But
looking at the floor above, it extends another metre or so, so part of the
floor has snapped off, back to the level of the horizontal beam.

The silver Transit-type van doesn't appear to have any damage to its rear
end, which you'd expect if it had hit the wall hard enough to snap it off.

On 19/08/2017 19:17, NY wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message
news
Actually, looking at that silver people carrier, I suspect it rammed
into the wall in reverse which is which why its wheels are hanging
over the edge. That retaining wall has an L shaped bottom which
looks like it was attached to the precast flooring sections with
rebar. where the man is attacking with a breaker is the top surface
so you wouldn't expect to see any rebar there.

Whatever weakness had built up in the structure because of concrete
'cancer' was exposed by the sudden impact.

Ah, now it becomes a bit clearer why there are vehicles with their rear
wheels hanging (or else almost hanging) off the floor. I'd thought that
the wall was flush with the vertical pillars and horizontal beams on
that floor, and that therefore the collapse had also made vehicles roll
backwards. But looking at the floor above, it extends another metre or
so, so part of the floor has snapped off, back to the level of the
horizontal beam.

The silver Transit-type van doesn't appear to have any damage to its
rear end, which you'd expect if it had hit the wall hard enough to snap
it off.


Looking at other news photos it looks like the car park was already
under renovation and that would be the most likely cause of the collapse.

eg

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253


--
Adam

On 19/08/2017 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Most of them have suffered from lack of maintenance generally and water gets
in the cracks etc, and metal inside rusts. I'm expecting several around
here to be condemned soon. Bloody eyesores they are.
Brian


In the picture a transit van has reversed into a wall and knocked it off
the deck of the car park.

The question is does the wall have to stop a transit van going through
it or not?
The car park shows no signs of falling down.

On 19/08/2017 21:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2017 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Most of them have suffered from lack of maintenance generally and
water gets
in the cracks etc, andÂ* metal inside rusts. I'm expecting several around
here to be condemned soon. Bloody eyesores they are.
Â* Brian


In the picture a transit van has reversed into a wall and knocked it off
the deck of the car park.

The question is does the wall have to stop a transit van going through
it or not?
The car park shows no signs of falling down.


On second thoughts it is falling to bits.

On 19/08/2017 22:01, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2017 21:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2017 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Most of them have suffered from lack of maintenance generally and
water gets
in the cracks etc, and metal inside rusts. I'm expecting several around
here to be condemned soon. Bloody eyesores they are.
Brian


In the picture a transit van has reversed into a wall and knocked it
off the deck of the car park.

The question is does the wall have to stop a transit van going through
it or not?
The car park shows no signs of falling down.


On second thoughts it is falling to bits.

Yup I think some of the deck came off as well as the wall, and just
dropped the rear wheels of the van in the process.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/08/2017 20:44, ARW wrote:
On 19/08/2017 19:17, NY wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message
news
Actually, looking at that silver people carrier, I suspect it rammed
into the wall in reverse which is which why its wheels are hanging
over the edge. That retaining wall has an L shaped bottom which
looks like it was attached to the precast flooring sections with
rebar. where the man is attacking with a breaker is the top surface
so you wouldn't expect to see any rebar there.

Whatever weakness had built up in the structure because of concrete
'cancer' was exposed by the sudden impact.

Ah, now it becomes a bit clearer why there are vehicles with their rear
wheels hanging (or else almost hanging) off the floor. I'd thought that
the wall was flush with the vertical pillars and horizontal beams on
that floor, and that therefore the collapse had also made vehicles roll
backwards. But looking at the floor above, it extends another metre or
so, so part of the floor has snapped off, back to the level of the
horizontal beam.

The silver Transit-type van doesn't appear to have any damage to its
rear end, which you'd expect if it had hit the wall hard enough to snap
it off.


Looking at other news photos it looks like the car park was already
under renovation and that would be the most likely cause of the collapse.

eg

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253

Yup, this image shows it better:

http://i4.nottinghampost.com/incomin...0817JT1-16.jpg




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Biggles wrote:

On 19/08/2017 17:18, Tim+ wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-40986193

There seem to be a distinct lack of rebar in the bit that's fallen off.
That can't be right surely?

Tim

That's what I thought too. It goes a long way to explaining why that bit
fell off. It will be interesting to see whether they can effectively
check the rest of it for structural integrity. My guess is that they
will have to demolish the whole lot. More than one multi-storey car park
in Norwich has gone the same way (due to deterioration of the concrete
rather than lack of rebar). Even one of the replacements had structural
issues a few years later.

--
Biggles

What I find strange is that the Council have apparently told the BBC
that it is nothing to do with them because it is privately owned. I
would have thought that the council would be involved in both finding
out whether it had been built according to regulations and whether it
was a danger to the general public around. Unless no part of it is near
a public place, which seems unlikely.

--

Roger Hayter

En el artículo , ARW aXXXwadsworth@blueyond
er.co.uk escribió:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In message , at
00:06:33 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017, John Rumm
remarked:

Looking at other news photos it looks like the car park was already
under renovation and that would be the most likely cause of the collapse.

eg

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253

Yup, this image shows it better:

http://i4.nottinghampost.com/incomin...TERNATES/s1227
b/190817JT1-16.jpg

The question is: when were those pit-props put there. Before or after
the collapse?? Could easily be "after", as part of the process of
evacuating the trapped vehicles.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 04:59:29 on Sun, 20 Aug
2017, Mike Tomlinson remarked:
En el artículo , ARW aXXXwadsworth@blueyond
er.co.uk escribió:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...city-centre-nc
p-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its bumper
would have hit the parapet. Perhaps they should have roped off that line
of parking bays while they fettled around underneath.

The line of overhanging deck/parapet could have peeled away starting at
the scaffolding near the blue saloon, and running towards the entry/exit
ramps, before being halted by the pit-props.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:35:51 on
Sun, 20 Aug 2017, Roger Hayter remarked:

What I find strange is that the Council have apparently told the BBC
that it is nothing to do with them because it is privately owned. I
would have thought that the council would be involved in both finding
out whether it had been built according to regulations and whether it
was a danger to the general public around. Unless no part of it is near
a public place, which seems unlikely.

I agree. They surely have a duty to the public regarding the safety of
buildings in general, let alone (more) bits of buildings falling onto
the highway. They've even got a contract out:

http://www.sourcederbyshire.co.uk/co.../show/id/12347

Probably talking to the wrong department (parking rather than Building
Control).

NCP appear very relaxed - "a bit of the facia fell off - so what?"
--
Roland Perry

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , ARW aXXXwadsworth@blueyond
er.co.uk escribió:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

You are probably only seeing a small number of the cars, the front wheel
drive cars having already been moved

In message om, at
16:35:37 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017, FMurtz remarked:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

You are probably only seeing a small number of the cars, the front
wheel drive cars having already been moved

The indcident happened at 3.30am, and it was probably pretty empty.
Aren't all the three vehicles shown FWD?
--
Roland Perry

On 20/08/2017 07:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 04:59:29 on Sun, 20 Aug
2017, Mike Tomlinson remarked:
En el artículo , ARW aXXXwadsworth@blueyond
er.co.uk escribió:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...city-centre-nc
p-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its bumper
would have hit the parapet. Perhaps they should have roped off that line
of parking bays while they fettled around underneath.

The line of overhanging deck/parapet could have peeled away starting at
the scaffolding near the blue saloon, and running towards the entry/exit
ramps, before being halted by the pit-props.


No vehicle would hit the wall directly. There is (was) an armco barrier
stopping that happening (see images 22 and 26).

--
Adam

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 08:36:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message om, at
16:35:37 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017, FMurtz remarked:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...tre-ncp-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

You are probably only seeing a small number of the cars, the front
wheel drive cars having already been moved

The indcident happened at 3.30am, and it was probably pretty empty.
Aren't all the three vehicles shown FWD?

The (what I believe is a) Transit Connect Minibus (not a 'people
carrier' by our normal definitions) certainly is. ;-)

That said, I'm not sure all FWD vehicles could be guaranteed to drag
themselves clear with the rear wheels hanging over the edge, depending
on what sort of obstructions are hanging down under the vehicle and
possibly caught up on the edge (especially with a potentially smooth
car park floor)?

Cheers, T i m

In message , at 09:10:06 on Sun, 20 Aug
2017, ARW remarked:
http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...city-centre-nc
p-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its bumper
would have hit the parapet. Perhaps they should have roped off that line
of parking bays while they fettled around underneath.

The line of overhanging deck/parapet could have peeled away starting at
the scaffolding near the blue saloon, and running towards the entry/exit
ramps, before being halted by the pit-props.


No vehicle would hit the wall directly. There is (was) an armco barrier
stopping that happening (see images 22 and 26).

Those Armco barriers are not at the ends of parking bays, they are along
the *sides of ramps*.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:27:20 on
Sun, 20 Aug 2017, T i m remarked:

You are probably only seeing a small number of the cars, the front
wheel drive cars having already been moved

The indcident happened at 3.30am, and it was probably pretty empty.
Aren't all the three vehicles shown FWD?

The (what I believe is a) Transit Connect Minibus (not a 'people
carrier' by our normal definitions) certainly is. ;-)

Indeed.

It's registered as a Turneo/Transit, and I was basing my initial comment
on the fact I couldn't see a rear differential, and there was reportedly
no damage to any vehicles (which would include the underside,
presumably).

Confirmed: "Sharing few components with the much larger Transit, the
Transit Connect was based on the front-wheel drive C170 platform shared
with the international Ford Focus".
--
Roland Perry

On 20/08/2017 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:10:06 on Sun, 20 Aug
2017, ARW remarked:
http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...city-centre-nc

p-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially
with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its bumper
would have hit the parapet. Perhaps they should have roped off that line
of parking bays while they fettled around underneath.

The line of overhanging deck/parapet could have peeled away starting at
the scaffolding near the blue saloon, and running towards the entry/exit
ramps, before being halted by the pit-props.


No vehicle would hit the wall directly. There is (was) an armco
barrier stopping that happening (see images 22 and 26).

Those Armco barriers are not at the ends of parking bays, they are along
the *sides of ramps*.



The Armco at the side of the ramps is still there.

Look again at picture 26 along with picture 24. The Armco is still
attached to and is dangling from the end of the parking bay at the RHS
(above the crushed scaffolding). The rest of it landed on the lower
level ramp to the private car park underneath the NCP car park.

A look around street view

https://goo.gl/maps/ZDRVLrB5t5U2

gives a better look and feel of the layout than the photos in the newslink.


--
Adam

Roland Perry wrote:

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its bumper
would have hit the parapet.

There's an armco barrier that was bolted to the deck inside the parapet
wall, you can see it mangled on the ground ... presumably it was there
to prevent vehicles barging into the wall?

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 00:35:51 on
Sun, 20 Aug 2017, Roger Hayter remarked:

What I find strange is that the Council have apparently told the BBC
that it is nothing to do with them because it is privately owned. I
would have thought that the council would be involved in both finding
out whether it had been built according to regulations and whether it
was a danger to the general public around. Unless no part of it is near
a public place, which seems unlikely.

I agree. They surely have a duty to the public regarding the safety of
buildings in general, let alone (more) bits of buildings falling onto
the highway. They've even got a contract out:


Journalism at its most casual, inept and ignorant. Surely someone in
the chain of composition and editing could have recognised that that
paragraph was wrong, and either sent someone to find out more or simply
omitted it.



http://www.sourcederbyshire.co.uk/co.../show/id/12347

Probably talking to the wrong department (parking rather than Building
Control).

NCP appear very relaxed - "a bit of the facia fell off - so what?"


--

Roger Hayter

It happens that dennis@home formulated :
In the picture a transit van has reversed into a wall and knocked it off the
deck of the car park.

The question is does the wall have to stop a transit van going through it or
not?
The car park shows no signs of falling down.

It looks to me as if there is a cantelevered section of floor, beyond
the main floor, with a wall on the far edge of the cantelevered
section. It seems the cantelevered section has collapsed under the
extra weight of the van, taking the wall along with it.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:57:19 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:27:20 on
Sun, 20 Aug 2017, T i m remarked:

You are probably only seeing a small number of the cars, the front
wheel drive cars having already been moved

The indcident happened at 3.30am, and it was probably pretty empty.
Aren't all the three vehicles shown FWD?

The (what I believe is a) Transit Connect Minibus (not a 'people
carrier' by our normal definitions) certainly is. ;-)

Indeed.

It's registered as a Turneo/Transit,

(I couldn't make the reg out clearly so well done on that).

I believe they do the Tourneo in both the full fat and 'Connect' size
transits so that might not say it all. However, the style and size of
that van looked familiar to me. ;-)

FWIW, and ASFAIC, the full fat transits were originally RWD and then
you had the option or R or FWD but now they may only be in FWD (but
I've not checked). All the Connects are FWD AFAIK (for reasons you
state later).[1]


and I was basing my initial comment
on the fact I couldn't see a rear differential, and there was reportedly
no damage to any vehicles (which would include the underside,
presumably).

I think there would always be some sort of damage if you drop a
vehicle onto components that weren't designed to carry that sort of
weight (like exhausts or sills etc) but you could get lucky and have
it land on say the rear suspension arm mounts (which are generally
quite substantial) you might get away with it. But agreed, not the
sort of 'damage' that you would typically get when you drop a lump of
concrete *on* a vehicle or one fully drops off a ledge etc. ;-)

Confirmed: "Sharing few components with the much larger Transit, the
Transit Connect was based on the front-wheel drive C170 platform shared
with the international Ford Focus".

Quite. Our daughters Connect is parked outside and we have bought
several parts for it that were labeled Focus / Connect / Others
(Transit / Mondeo / Fiesta?).

Cheers, T i m

[1] Except this one: ;-)

https://passionford.com/forum/restor...h-connect.html

On 20/08/2017 10:20, ARW wrote:
On 20/08/2017 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:10:06 on Sun, 20 Aug
2017, ARW remarked:
http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/g...city-centre-nc


p-350253

Looking at those, my first thought is that the deck overhang past the
horizontal support is rather large for such a thin deck, especially
with
the weight of the vertical fluted fascia panel perched on the end.

Also noticeable that the rear wheels of the silver people carrier are
actually past the horizontal support - compare with other parked cars
whose rear wheels are more or less sitting on the horizontal beam
underneath (see image 23).

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its
bumper
would have hit the parapet. Perhaps they should have roped off that
line
of parking bays while they fettled around underneath.

The line of overhanging deck/parapet could have peeled away starting at
the scaffolding near the blue saloon, and running towards the
entry/exit
ramps, before being halted by the pit-props.


No vehicle would hit the wall directly. There is (was) an armco
barrier stopping that happening (see images 22 and 26).

Those Armco barriers are not at the ends of parking bays, they are along
the *sides of ramps*.



The Armco at the side of the ramps is still there.

Look again at picture 26 along with picture 24. The Armco is still
attached to and is dangling from the end of the parking bay at the RHS
(above the crushed scaffolding). The rest of it landed on the lower
level ramp to the private car park underneath the NCP car park.

A look around street view

https://goo.gl/maps/ZDRVLrB5t5U2

gives a better look and feel of the layout than the photos in the newslink.



And some better photos (sorry but it's the Daily Star)

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...e-car-dangling



--
Adam

On 20/08/2017 10:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
It happens that dennis@home formulated :
In the picture a transit van has reversed into a wall and knocked it
off the deck of the car park.

The question is does the wall have to stop a transit van going through
it or not?
The car park shows no signs of falling down.

It looks to me as if there is a cantelevered section of floor, beyond
the main floor, with a wall on the far edge of the cantelevered section.
It seems the cantelevered section has collapsed under the extra weight
of the van, taking the wall along with it.

You seem to be correct.

There is another car perilously close to the edge too, implying the
floor went further. The floor above is similar.

Something tells me it's all going to come down and rebuilt.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:54:06 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

And some better photos (sorry but it's the Daily Star)

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...e-car-dangling

And you can see from there the 'sprung mounted' Armco that is quite
common in such places.

Assuming it was sufficiently spaced from the wall that a vehicle
hitting it gently didn't bend it back to the wall (it would have to
'spring a load of brackets to do that) so that you got a shock load
onto the wall / cantilevered floor, it (the cantilever) does look like
it's just too thin to reliably support any real weight (over and above
itself and the wall etc) and not with any additional shock loads or
decay.

I think the main floor part are often pre cast drop-in 'beams' with
block infill and a solid surface floated over that?

As has been mention ... there seems to be a distinct lack of rebar
visible on any of the broken edges. Nothing 'dangling' off it in any
case?

Given the worst case loading scenario would be a (or several) fully
loaded small van like the Transit Connect (with it's short rear
overhang) where the rear axle could be on the cantilever rather than
the car-park floor itself ... the chances are that overhang wouldn't
typically see much load?

Unless the Tournio did actually hit the barrier and that was the final
straw for that bit of concrete section, even if it had arrived loaded
(with people in this case) I wouldn't have though it was that heavy
(judging by the relatively light loads our daughters LWB connect can
carry or tow) enough to put any critical strain on a properly designed
structure. It would certainly apply a greater load on the cantilever
than an average and especially 'booted' car though?

It will be interesting to see the results of any enquiry to find out
if any mistakes / shortcuts were found in it's construction. Makes you
think more of the sort of building work you hear of in India or Spain
rather than England eh! ;-(

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

As has been mention ... there seems to be a distinct lack of rebar
visible on any of the broken edges. Nothing 'dangling' off it in any
case?

there seems to be an 'L' of rebar down the wall and under the
cantilevered deck, but it only just seems to reach the main beams, I'd
expect it to go a couple if feet into the main deck?

En el artículo om,
FMurtz escribió:

You are probably only seeing a small number of the cars, the front wheel
drive cars having already been moved

The collapse happened at 4am, so the park was probably mostly empty.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 20/08/2017 11:56, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:54:06 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

And some better photos (sorry but it's the Daily Star)

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...e-car-dangling

And you can see from there the 'sprung mounted' Armco that is quite
common in such places.

Assuming it was sufficiently spaced from the wall that a vehicle
hitting it gently didn't bend it back to the wall (it would have to
'spring a load of brackets to do that) so that you got a shock load
onto the wall / cantilevered floor, it (the cantilever) does look like
it's just too thin to reliably support any real weight (over and above
itself and the wall etc) and not with any additional shock loads or
decay.

I think the main floor part are often pre cast drop-in 'beams' with
block infill and a solid surface floated over that?

As has been mention ... there seems to be a distinct lack of rebar
visible on any of the broken edges. Nothing 'dangling' off it in any
case?

Given the worst case loading scenario would be a (or several) fully
loaded small van like the Transit Connect (with it's short rear
overhang) where the rear axle could be on the cantilever rather than
the car-park floor itself ... the chances are that overhang wouldn't
typically see much load?

Unless the Tournio did actually hit the barrier and that was the final
straw for that bit of concrete section, even if it had arrived loaded
(with people in this case) I wouldn't have though it was that heavy
(judging by the relatively light loads our daughters LWB connect can
carry or tow) enough to put any critical strain on a properly designed
structure. It would certainly apply a greater load on the cantilever
than an average and especially 'booted' car though?

It will be interesting to see the results of any enquiry to find out
if any mistakes / shortcuts were found in it's construction. Makes you
think more of the sort of building work you hear of in India or Spain
rather than England eh! ;-(

I think one can conclude that the design / construction was
inadequate... in reality a car should be able to crash at speed into the
side wall, and even break through it, but you would not expect the floor
to fail along the whole side of the car park or the side wall to fail
away from the impact site.

(I get the impression that cars hitting the sides of car parks at speed
is a quite common occurrence - you only need see the number of reports
of cars that manage to leap across streets from a high level and land up
in or on buildings the other side of the road. Usually drivers with
automatic transmission and a stuck throttle cable - they start it, think
"oh its making a bit of noise", ignore that, then slap it in gear
anyway. Next thing they know, it sets off like a scaled cat and does a
good Batmobile stunt!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:51:19 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

As has been mention ... there seems to be a distinct lack of rebar
visible on any of the broken edges. Nothing 'dangling' off it in any
case?

there seems to be an 'L' of rebar down the wall and under the
cantilevered deck, but it only just seems to reach the main beams, I'd
expect it to go a couple if feet into the main deck?

At least, and maybe one bar every 100mm or so (from what I've seen of
such projects).

I understand the difference made to the bending / tensile strength of
concrete by adding some steel reinforcement is enormous.

I saw a basic engineering science program on TV where they cast a
small concrete 'bridge' (to go across a couple of bricks) and when
someone stood on it it failed immediately. They cast another of the
exact same CSA and mix but with a bit a rebar up the middle and that
not only resisted being stood and jumped on and also didn't collapse
when also being hit with a club hammer (but it did fracture etc).

Concrete may be fine for anchoring fence posts but not good for making
them ... without reinforcement that is. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:17:34 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:
snip

It will be interesting to see the results of any enquiry to find out
if any mistakes / shortcuts were found in it's construction. Makes you
think more of the sort of building work you hear of in India or Spain
rather than England eh! ;-(

I think one can conclude that the design / construction was
inadequate...

I wonder if anyone will get it in the neck for that if proven to be
the case?

in reality a car should be able to crash at speed into the
side wall, and even break through it, but you would not expect the floor
to fail along the whole side of the car park or the side wall to fail
away from the impact site.

Agreed.

(I get the impression that cars hitting the sides of car parks at speed
is a quite common occurrence

I think the main support posts seem to, considering how often you see
them clad in steel, protected by some Armco or covered in car paint
stripes! ;-(

- you only need see the number of reports
of cars that manage to leap across streets from a high level and land up
in or on buildings the other side of the road. Usually drivers with
automatic transmission and a stuck throttle cable - they start it, think
"oh its making a bit of noise", ignore that, then slap it in gear
anyway. Next thing they know, it sets off like a scaled cat and does a
good Batmobile stunt!)

Or between the car park and a boat even. ;-(

http://www.mosesinsurance.com/Portal...esized-600.jpg

Cheers, T i m

jim wrote:

Wonder if the? expansion? bolts fixing the armco barrier started a
fracture?

I think the bolts were closer to the wall than to where the floor
snapped away, but I don't suppose there'd be many takers to drill the
holes if they knew how little rebar was in there ...

Andy Burns Wrote in message:
Roland Perry wrote:

Although the people-carrier is nearer the edge, I don't think its bumper
would have hit the parapet.

There's an armco barrier that was bolted to the deck inside the parapet
wall, you can see it mangled on the ground ... presumably it was there
to prevent vehicles barging into the wall?


Wonder if the? expansion? bolts fixing the armco barrier started a
fracture
?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"T i m" wrote in message
...
- you only need see the number of reports
of cars that manage to leap across streets from a high level and land up
in or on buildings the other side of the road. Usually drivers with
automatic transmission and a stuck throttle cable - they start it, think
"oh its making a bit of noise", ignore that, then slap it in gear
anyway. Next thing they know, it sets off like a scaled cat and does a
good Batmobile stunt!)

Is that how a lot of these accidents occur - often involving elderly
drivers. I'd assumed that the driver put their car in gear, touched the
throttle slightly too hard and then panicked and hit the accelerator instead
of the brake to get them out of the mess.

In a manual you'd have several opt-outs: you could press the clutch, you
could take your foot off the accelerator and the car would probably stall
rather than carry on crawling forward.

In any automatic car I'd always let the brake off cautiously, ready to
re-apply it if the car did something unexpected, and then if all was well,
transfer my foot to the accelerator to drive off.

Or between the car park and a boat even. ;-(

http://www.mosesinsurance.com/Portal...esized-600.jpg

That must have been going at a fair speed to jump across the gap and land
with its front end on the boat rather than nose-diving into the water.


The only time I had problems with a stuck throttle cable was on my mum's
(manual) car when I was learning to drive. I came to a steep up-hill so I
changed down into second and pressed the accelerator down. As I came towards
the top of the hill and changed up into third, the engine raced a bit but I
thought I'd just cocked up the clutch/accelerator co-ordination. When I
changed up into fourth, it happened again but I let the clutch up before my
brain was fully engaged and had processed "that's twice I've cocked up - if
there another explanation?". And the car, now on the level, took off like a
scalded cat.

My first instinct was to press the clutch to disengage the engine that was
propelling the car out of control, but I realised that it was not a good
idea to relieve a fast-racing engine of all its mechanical load (!) so I
pressed the footbrake hard and very gingerly turned off the ignition key,
taking care to only turn the engine off, to the "accessory" position and not
so far as to engage the steering lock (*) and let the car slow down, only
then did I press the clutch to avoid the car lurching to an abrupt halt. It
was a bit unnerving. My dad and I looked under the bonnet and sure enough
several strands of the clutch cable had freyed off and were jammed inside
the sheath of the cable. It was my dad who had the challenge of driving the
car back home, using the slow-running control of the choke to vary the
engine speed and not touching the accelerator pedal at all. All went well
until we stopped to turn into the drive, and then he instinctively touched
the throttle to set off, and the car careered down the drive towards the
lounge window. He left some impressive skid marks in the gravel!

(*) I've since learned that steering locks don't work that way: the steering
will remain free even if you turn the key right to the off position, and
will only lock if you remove the key.

Andy Burns Wrote in message:
jim wrote:

Wonder if the? expansion? bolts fixing the armco barrier started a
fracture?

I think the bolts were closer to the wall than to where the floor
snapped away, but I don't suppose there'd be many takers to drill the
holes if they knew how little rebar was in there ...




Ah right. I was imagining some sort of pedestrian walk way behind
the armco.

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/