Red & white brick, industrial buildings

[crusty_bint]

I think the arch is the critical part in the structure rather than the bricked up part which would have been retrofit. I think its just down to decades of dereliction compounded by uneven weathering on the brickwork and specifically the pointing. I'm sure everyone was sure it would be ok, sometimes these things do just happen though. The plant growth, btw, isn't /wasn't that bad (not by Glasgow standards anyway) and I dare say will be dealt with as part of their schedule of works.

p.s. LOVE your avatar anorak

[Socceroo]

....The windows are also circular rather than being formed with horizontal lintels which would have been stronger....

I hope you ain't a Structural Engineer...

[Matt Quinn]

....The windows are also circular rather than being formed with horizontal lintels which would have been stronger....

I hope you ain't a Structural Engineer...

I'm a bit baffled by this comment.... I'm not any kind of structural engineer or builder BTW; just someone with a passing interest in buildings and structures generally. And it's entirely possible I'm vocalising from my annular output port.....

Surely this ISN'T the same thing as considering whether to cut a square or circular port on a piece of sheet material such as the steel of a ship's hull or an aircraft fuselage? In such circumstances of course a circle IS preferable since it reduces the chances of a crack developing and passes the stress more evenly.

I can see why a brick arch is quite a strong thing and thus quite a good idea. Equally well an upside down arch seems like quite a bad idea as the force acting from above would surely tend to 'splay' the arch apart? Thus a circle built from bricks (effectively two arches; one inverted) is, when loaded from above, going to want to become ovoid inflicting a somewhat 'sideways' force on the bricks surrounding it. This is probably fine if the structure is fairly complete as these sideways forces will dissipate downwards via the vertical columns and forces from adjacent windows will tend to cancel each other out. But I can see Anorak's point in suggesting that this is an inherently 'weaker' form of construction; especially in the context of a building that has been disrupted in this way...

If the window were formed from horizontal lintels the load from above would surely be passed straight down with less tendency to 'bow' outward and thus 'blow apart'? Therefore surely Anorak is quite correct in his assertion?

However; it has to be said, it wouldn't be half as pretty....

[crusty_bint]

An arch is the most efficient way of carrying load. Roman aquaducts don't have square arches, neither to gothic cathedrals or railway viaducts.

This was an accident people, not a design flaw and not a malicious devloper.

[HollowHorn]

An arch is the most efficient way of carrying load.

Agreed as to cost & lightness, but is it stronger than a solid wall? I've no idea.

[crusty_bint]

The building was never designed to have solid walls so it should (in theory at least) have been able support it's own weight when you cosider the weight of the roof (which it had also been designed to carry) had been removed. But as I said previously, I dare say removal of those later additions was one of the contributing factors in the collapse.

[Matt Quinn]

An arch is the most efficient way of carrying load. Roman aquaducts don't have square arches, neither to gothic cathedrals or railway viaducts.

This was an accident people, not a design flaw and not a malicious devloper.

Sorry; I'm till baffled. I didn't suggest an arch WASN'T the most efficient way of carrying the load, nor did (I think) anorak.... But a circular hole isn't an arch... And the basic question, I believe, was which is stronger in the context of a brick wall; a round window or a square window. Which of course leads us on to the equally troublesome and pressing question of who would beat who in a square go... Humpty or Teddy?

T'was indeed an unfortunate accident; is anyone doubting that? Let's hope they manage to come up with an suitably effective solution to restoring the damage.

[crusty_bint]

Yeah, Anorak did in his initial post A circle is two arches and if anything, thecircilar window/aperture is acting as a further weight relieving mechanism as a hole weighs a lot less thank a brick wall.

[Matt Quinn]

Yeah, Anorak did in his initial post A circle is two arches and if anything, thecircilar window/aperture is acting as a further weight relieving mechanism as a hole weighs a lot less thank a brick wall.

Did he? I must have missed that point...

I'm reminded of the experiment with halved eggshells where you can support quite a bit of weight with them thick-end-down ...but, inverted, the 'splaying' force shatters them.

Obviously I can see that the weight saving is significant. And can imagine the download being spread more readily around the arch and down into the 'pillars'. I'm thinking though this is one for a proper scientific explanation involving many pints of Guinness and the backs of several beermats. (any excuse!)

As you say; this is more likely to be down to knackered pointing and the general 'worn-outness' of the structure. Though I am tempted to wonder if the additions were providing any additional support and how much the physical jarring involved in removing them would have pushed the original wall closer to collapse.

I imagine somebody somewhere has already beaten themselves up over this one....

...And my money's on Humpty

[crusty_bint]

[Socceroo]

You are all vocalising from your annular output ports.....

An upside down Arch would be a bad idea, but a circular window is not an upside down Arch. The top half of the circular window acts like an Arch. Whether the bottom half of the window is circular or whether it was a horizontal cill would not make much difference as the loads are transferring down past the windows.

As Crusty says Roman Aqueducts and indeed a lot of ancient surviving buildings have been built with Arches not horizontal lintels.

[HollowHorn]

As Crusty says Roman Aqueducts and indeed a lot of ancient surviving buildings have been built with Arches.

For reasons pertaining to cost & lightness

[glasgowken]

Can't remember if this one has been done, it's in Broad St.
(Apologies for the shitty pics, taken on my phone, and it was raining )

[johnnyanglia]

Hi, I believe the coloured brick style is called polychromatic and not polychrome. The white staining from bricks is salt leaching out. This is called efflorescence.

[glasgowken]

Rather nice example on McPhail St