Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="NJCuse97, post: 1213969, member: 5058"] Because the question was asked about a page back, the challenges with "adding" a rigid roof to the Dome is in large part (OK entirely) due to the structural design of the facility. I am not a structural engineer, and I am only familiar with the design as an alum who attended as many football, basketball, and lacrosse games (heck I've even gone ot a few soccer games there) as well as a Pink Floyd concert in the mid 90s (summer 1994?). I lived in Lawrinson, so I guess I've seen a lot of it from a lot of angles. Anyway, the idea is this... the bottom bowl is essentially self supported. The structure of the outer walls is there to help support the upper tier, and to support themselves as there is a lateral or cantilever load that a wall standing up 40-50 feet unsupported needs to handle. That load is one of the reasons the design employs the use of tilted up pre-cast concrete double Ts. (think Dome stomp). These are typically used as a floor or roadway structure. The other I am sure was for speed of erection. They are brought in on a truck and craned into place. Once they are in place, they are done. They are pre-cast, so while that allows them to be made in a warehouse, and shipped, saving precious time (concrete takes time to dry, or cure) it is very difficult to imagine altering their structural capacity using more concrete and rebar. As we all know from being pushed out of the Dome while leaving, the roof is primarily held up by air pressure and should exert very little load (downward force anyway) onto the walls of the building (and therefore they aren't likely to have been designed to handle any such load). The only way I can imagine adding a rigid roof (no matter the roof material) is to add structure to the outside. Think buttresses, or the much cooler flying buttresses, and if that didn't do it, look up a picture of a medieval cathedral, like Notre Dame. The problem with that as a prospect is the density of the site. As I said, I've walked around the Dome a fare share of times. The space along three sides is very tight (Archibald is very close on the east side, Steele and the law complex on the north side, and there is a road on the south side that along with all those other spaces, will most likely need to be maintained for emergency access (fire trucks and possibly even code required fire separation). This was one of the reasons the IPF is not built right next to Manley. Other thoughts they will need to consider include snow load, and removal. The current roof is teflon coated so that the snow never really sticks. This is a big reason the life of the roof is 20-25 years, the teflon wears off. If a rigid roof is put in, it may have different caracteristics that will shed snow differently or could build up ice in a way the currentl convex roof does not and that would impact design/available space around the building too. sheets of ice sliding off a roof is a real concern, and even if addressed with melting (energy costs) or ice breaking devices, there is still a material dump (snow or ice) that could be very different from today's scenario. The west side of the Dome is the most open, but also the tallest span. That will only serve to significantly increase the cost of any exoskeleton or built enclosure, as there is a longer structural span, and/or more building material to be considered. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?