View Full Version : Beijing airport looses its roof
Lantern10
24th Nov 2011, 23:09
Wonder if heads will roll
'Torn open': Wind rips roof off $2.8 billion terminal - Travel - News - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45426215/ns/travel-news/#.Ts7bsVtaecM)
Wouldn't like to be the engineer who signed of on this!:eek:
It's "loses" not "looses"
Not so far from the truth.
The roof just happened to be a bit loose and it's lost :8
Dan Winterland
25th Nov 2011, 01:25
I was there that night. The delays were being blamed on the strong wind. I was wondering how the wind could delay movements as although windy, not much worse than Europe in the winter. But if the terminal roof was lying on the runway - I can see why!
ETOPS
25th Nov 2011, 08:11
It's "loses" not "looses" - :ugh:
jabird
28th Nov 2011, 22:04
As with so many things, that would be an airport bearing the 'Designed in the UK (Foster & Co), Made in China' label.
PAXboy
29th Nov 2011, 02:29
from the article;
One of the architects behind Beijing Terminal 3, which opened in time for the 2008 Olympics, told the Associated Press that inadequate materials or installation — not design flaws — were to blame for Tuesday's structural failure.
No? Really? It wasn't a design flaw? The design had zero to do with it? The design had taken into account where it was going to be made?
Phew, that's alright then. :hmm:
jabird
29th Nov 2011, 03:08
Yes, quite separate issues.
Yellow Pen
29th Nov 2011, 03:11
Indeed, the design was probably fine, and it's not the architects job to take into account local construction standards. It's the engineers who are responsible for ensuring the thing is built to the architects design.
jabird
29th Nov 2011, 03:12
Sorry to elaborate - in London, Foster built (or co-designed) a bridge which wobbled. That was a design flaw. It was rectified, and the bridge is now an icon of London, the wobbly bits forgotten about.
The airport design will have considered the risks of high winds, tropical storms and earthquakes. If the contractors cut corners, that is not the fault of the architect, although there should be an inspection process.
My understanding from the case study at Stansted is that Foster was extremely fussy, and would reject units that had only tiny flaws. That is ok when you have a reasonable schedule to work to, but with the rush to build the largest, in competition with Dubai at the same time, quality control has clearly gone out the window - although it can now also take the easier exit via the roof ;)