Any word how bad of set back this will be? Will they go back to the drawing board with a new concept for an indoor facility ?

(07-25-2017 06:11 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Any word how bad of set back this will be? Will they go back to the drawing board with a new concept for an indoor facility ?

All of the materials will have to be replaced, most likely including the entire foundation. They are still doing the "investigation" but as a couple of people on here have alluded to, it's almost certainly a result of not having adequate cross bracing.

Not sure what the delay will be, but my guess is at least 5-6 months past the expected date of late this year. It's not a design issue, but a construction issue. My guess is they have more engineering support during construction next time.

Having lived in Central/South Central Arkansas and also parts of Texas and Mississippi, I know ya'll have some insane weather down yonder. I've seen what coastal weather does when it headbutts the central stream and I've seen its' effects. We lost several planes to a tornado that ripped through Little Rock Air Force Base not too horribly long ago. I was overseas at the time, but I saw the impact for the following 2 years. I hope you get your facility built relatively close to schedule, and ya'll keep yer heads down.

PS
I also remember the pounding you gave App the first year.

Guys, Not a case of a inexperienced design company or construction company. Same basic design, architect company as Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, Virginia Tech and same identical design structurally as UAB. The side steel supports, roof support structure is the same on all of these type buildings no matter if they are going to be completely enclosed or open on the sides like USA and UAB. The steel fabrication was done by the same company and the steel erection phase was the same company as other buildings. Only difference is the length of USA's facility was to be 30 yards longer than any of the others to allow a extra practice area for linemen or other sports....Could the extra length have been a contributing factor. Gotta believe architects, construction guys would have taken that into consideration....They had erected all of the upright sections of the building. 140 yards long and 70 yards wide....

Mobile had received about 18" of rain already in July and June was even wetter.....The day of the collapse a storm dropped about 11/2 " of rain in about 30 minutes......

My guess (not a engineer) is somehow the constant heavy rain, over a long period of time, may have dislodged some of the compacted fill under or around the hurricane proof footings, which are required by the State of Alabama building commission in this area. When the wind on that day came thru with the thunderstorm it may have caused a small amount of movement in one or more of the uprights because the soil may not have been stable underground. Wouldn't take much movement to start a cascade and take it down....

If some of you guys are engineers, chime in.....

(07-26-2017 10:42 AM)hgolfman405 Wrote:  Guys, Not a case of a inexperienced design company or construction company. Same basic design, architect company as Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, Virginia Tech and same identical design structurally as UAB. The side steel supports, roof support structure is the same on all of these type buildings no matter if they are going to be completely enclosed or open on the sides like USA and UAB. The steel fabrication was done by the same company and the steel erection phase was the same company as other buildings. Only difference is the length of USA's facility was to be 30 yards longer than any of the others to allow a extra practice area for linemen or other sports....Could the extra length have been a contributing factor. Gotta believe architects, construction guys would have taken that into consideration....They had erected all of the upright sections of the building. 140 yards long and 70 yards wide....

Mobile had received about 18" of rain already in July and June was even wetter.....The day of the collapse a storm dropped about 11/2 " of rain in about 30 minutes......

My guess (not a engineer) is somehow the constant heavy rain, over a long period of time, may have dislodged some of the compacted fill under or around the hurricane proof footings, which are required by the State of Alabama building commission in this area. When the wind on that day came thru with the thunderstorm it may have caused a small amount of movement in one or more of the uprights because the soil may not have been stable underground. Wouldn't take much movement to start a cascade and take it down....

If some of you guys are engineers, chime in.....

I'm an electrical engineer.

I understand some of those words.

(07-26-2017 11:01 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 10:42 AM)hgolfman405 Wrote:  Guys, Not a case of a inexperienced design company or construction company. Same basic design, architect company as Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, Virginia Tech and same identical design structurally as UAB. The side steel supports, roof support structure is the same on all of these type buildings no matter if they are going to be completely enclosed or open on the sides like USA and UAB. The steel fabrication was done by the same company and the steel erection phase was the same company as other buildings. Only difference is the length of USA's facility was to be 30 yards longer than any of the others to allow a extra practice area for linemen or other sports....Could the extra length have been a contributing factor. Gotta believe architects, construction guys would have taken that into consideration....They had erected all of the upright sections of the building. 140 yards long and 70 yards wide....

Mobile had received about 18" of rain already in July and June was even wetter.....The day of the collapse a storm dropped about 11/2 " of rain in about 30 minutes......

My guess (not a engineer) is somehow the constant heavy rain, over a long period of time, may have dislodged some of the compacted fill under or around the hurricane proof footings, which are required by the State of Alabama building commission in this area. When the wind on that day came thru with the thunderstorm it may have caused a small amount of movement in one or more of the uprights because the soil may not have been stable underground. Wouldn't take much movement to start a cascade and take it down....

If some of you guys are engineers, chime in.....

I'm an electrical engineer.

I understand some of those words.

I will just add to the speculation by saying that those columns would surely be bolted to some pretty deep piers and they most likely would not have been ok'd to bolt the structure to them without the test cylinders showing them to be strong enough to proceed..

(07-26-2017 10:42 AM)hgolfman405 Wrote:  Guys, Not a case of a inexperienced design company or construction company. Same basic design, architect company as Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, Virginia Tech and same identical design structurally as UAB. The side steel supports, roof support structure is the same on all of these type buildings no matter if they are going to be completely enclosed or open on the sides like USA and UAB. The steel fabrication was done by the same company and the steel erection phase was the same company as other buildings. Only difference is the length of USA's facility was to be 30 yards longer than any of the others to allow a extra practice area for linemen or other sports....Could the extra length have been a contributing factor. Gotta believe architects, construction guys would have taken that into consideration....They had erected all of the upright sections of the building. 140 yards long and 70 yards wide....

Mobile had received about 18" of rain already in July and June was even wetter.....The day of the collapse a storm dropped about 11/2 " of rain in about 30 minutes......

My guess (not a engineer) is somehow the constant heavy rain, over a long period of time, may have dislodged some of the compacted fill under or around the hurricane proof footings, which are required by the State of Alabama building commission in this area. When the wind on that day came thru with the thunderstorm it may have caused a small amount of movement in one or more of the uprights because the soil may not have been stable underground. Wouldn't take much movement to start a cascade and take it down....

If some of you guys are engineers, chime in.....

I wasn't suggesting earlier that this was due to inexperienced design, but as I have experience in assembling similar (not identical) structures it would appear possible that not having it temporarily guyed off played a role. The comment I bolded above is one I find interesting. IF that one photo that was supposedly taken one hour prior to failure is accurate, then I would wonder design-wise why the top of the roof didn't have continuity of the lateral supports.

Obviously closer inspection will determine if there was shearing or "local" failure of structural elements but in a few of those photos there are clear displays of lateral torsional buckling on the beams, so whether the footings gave or the wind exceeded the minimums necessary to create this, it led to the observed dissonance.

When we were in a build of a tower and caught between sections where permanent guys were installed, we would either shut down construction until the next day or tie off with temporary guys (usually nylon ropes every 120 degrees). OSHA regs (at least back in the day) wouldn't let you go over 20 ft unsupported, and for the most part military specs followed OSHA guidances. Also, we usually had to have our concrete pours done for permanent towers 30 days prior to allow for sufficient curing times.

I'm not a pro, but I can't say I've ever seen any ongoing construction where a significant portion of the roof joists aren't braced as Eagle22 mentioned.

I would think if the wind is blowing on that side that load is transferred down to the the beams where the joists are attached and causes them to to bend and bow a bit, which could've ripped all the connections between the lower part of the frame and those joists. Those braces basically help distribute the load over a greater part of the roof.