Posted on 05/24/2004 1:23:53 PM PDT by Gamecock
PARIS (Reuters) - New cracks have appeared at a Paris airport terminal, a day after part of the roof collapsed, and the airport's head has vowed to tear the terminal down if an investigation finds it is unsafe.
Terminal 2E at Charles de Gaulle airport has been closed to passengers since Sunday's accident killed four people, but workers spotted the cracks as they cleared the rubble.
"A certain number of cracks were observed in a second zone that is identical in design to the area where the roof collapsed," Rene Brun, director of operations at the airport, told reporters on Monday.
"Given our concerns about what happened on Sunday and for precautionary reasons, we decided to evacuate it."
Concrete, metal and glass crashed down onto a waiting area in terminal 2E on Sunday morning, bringing down a large section of the long tube-like building at Paris' biggest airport -- minutes after passengers saw and heard cracks in the roof.
Permanent closure of the showcase building would be a big blow to the finances and image of operator Aeroports de Paris (ADP) as it prepares for partial privatisation, but ADP chairman Pierre Graff said safety was the top priority.
"If all the (structural) rings which make up this terminal are beyond repair, we will raze everything to the ground," he told Le Parisien newspaper in an interview. "We will take no risk in terms of safety."
Firemen said they had retrieved four bodies from the rubble, revising the death toll down from five. The search could last days and it was not clear if there were more bodies under the rubble, a fire brigade spokesman said.
FLGHTS AND PASSENGERS REDIRECTED
The futuristic terminal, used mainly by national carrier Air France, opened only 11 months ago and is intended eventually to handle 10 million passengers.
Covered by a domed roof perforated with small windows that bathe it in light, the terminal cost 750 million euros (502 million pounds) and was hailed as a triumph of engineering and design.
Its about 60 daily flights are being diverted to other terminals at the airport in Roissy, on the northeastern outskirts of Paris.
The collapse has raised questions about the design and construction, and whether the terminal was built too fast.
Hubert Fontanel, who oversaw construction of the terminal for ADP, declined to speculate on the reasons for the roof's collapse until a judicial investigation is complete.
He said that during construction, ADP had found cracks in some supporting pillars but they had been reinforced with carbon fibres. He denied construction had been rushed or that ADP opted for a futuristic cylindrical design without regard for safety.
"The design is avant garde but the building was conceived with the strictest technical requirements and is made of classic materials like cement," he said.
Architect Paul Andreu flew back from China where he is working on an opera house. "I can't explain what happened. I just don't understand it," he told L'Humanite newspaper.
Andreu and ADP said they adhered to all required security checks. They said the terminal's opening last year was delayed by just over a week because of problems such as electricity installations, which had nothing to do with the bigger structure.
Even so, shares in French construction firm Vinci, which helped build the terminal, ended down 1.9 percent on Monday.
Analysts said the accident dented ADP's image and could delay plans to partially privatise it in 2005. "This has to be a significant embarrassment," one said.
While futuristic on the outside, the insides are very ordinary and insufficient care was taken with design and mixing of concrete in building the overhead utilidor. Better to have exposed utilities.
Probably will be the same sort of thing. Having been around the ocnstruction industry for many years [residential mostly,] I would put the integrity of contractors/builders right up there with lawyers and used car salesman IMO. Bait and switch is part of their job description unless you get an honest one. I think this French outfit should surrender now.
http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/hyatt/hyatt1.htm
During January and February, 1979, the design of the hanger rod connections was changed in a series of events and disputed communications between the fabricator (Havens Steel Company) and the engineering design team (G.C.E. International, Inc., a professional engineering firm). The fabricator changed the design from a one-rod to a two-rod system to simplify the assembly task, doubling the load on the connector, which ultimately resulted in the walkways collapse.1
The fabricator, in sworn testimony before the administrative judicial hearings after the accident, claimed that his company (Havens) telephoned the engineering firm (G.C.E.) for change approval. G.C.E. denied ever receiving such a call from Havens.2
On October 14, 1979 (more than one year before the walkways collapsed), while the hotel was still under construction, more than 2700 square feet of the atrium roof collapsed because one of the roof connections at the north end of the atrium failed.3 In testimony, G.C.E. stated that on three separate occasions they requested on-site project representation during the construction phase; however, these requests were not acted on by the owner (Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation), due to additional costs of providing on-site inspection.4
Even as originally designed, the walkways were barely capable of holding up the expected load, and would have failed to meet the requirements of the Kansas City Building Code.5
The hanger rod detail actually used in the construction of the second and fourth floor walkways is a departure from the detail shown on the contract drawings. In the original arrangement each hanger rod was to be continuous from the second floor walkway to the hanger rod bracket attached to the atrium roof framing. The design load to be transferred to each hanger rod at the second floor walkway would have been 20.3 kips (90 kN). An essentially identical load would have been transferred to each hanger rod at the fourth floor walkway. Thus the design load acting on the upper portion of a continuous hanger rod would have been twice that acting on the lower portion, but the required design load for the box beam hanger rod connections would have been the same for both walkways (20.3 kips (90 kN)).11
The hanger rod configuration actually used consisted of two hanger rods: the fourth floor to ceiling hanger rod segment as originally detailed on the second to fourth floor segment which was offset 4 in. (102 mm) inward along the axis of the box beam. With this modification the design load to be transferred by each second floor box beam-hanger rod connection was unchanged, as were the loads in the upper and lower hanger rod segments. However, the load to be transferred from the fourth floor box beam to the upper hanger rod under this arrangement was essentially doubled, thus compounding an already critical condition. The design load for a fourth floor box beam-hanger rod connection would be 40.7 kips (181 kN) for this configuration. ..........
Had this change in hanger rod detail not been made, the ultimate capacity of the box beam-hanger rod connection still would have been far short of that expected of a connection designed in accordance with the Kansas City Building Code, which is based on the AISC Specification.
"I remember reading about the mall walkway collapse. IIRC, the plans were unclear on how the walkway should be attached. Well, actually, I'm being gracious. The way the architect drew up the structure, it could not be built as shown, so the contractor improvised."
I believe it was in Kansas City. Contributing to the collapse was the load and the fact that the crowd was there for a swing band get together and were dancing and swaying to the music on the walkway.
Yours and my memory both.
Faulty design + poor construction = dead people. Lovely.
Just as ugly, too.
Agreed, just as ugly, too.
What do you expect from a nation that thinks Michael Moore is stupendous.
I Suspect that "Money Concerns" MAY HAVE "Sabotaged" the Construction of this "Showpiece Building!!"
Somehow, I Believe that "Politically Motivated Engineering Shortcuts" were the Demise of this Structure!!
ON The WHOLE, the "French" are "Above-Average Engineers!!"
A BUNCH OF FRENCH POLITICAL "HEADS" should "Roll" over this Arcitectural Disaster.
We'll See!
Doc
LOL -- I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm experiencing equal parts pleasure in watching the humiliation of the French and revulsion at my ability to experience said pleasure. This is proof that socialism will never work. It's just too much a part of our nature to savor the suffering of your fellow man (unfortunately, this is also why socialism will always have an appeal).
Construction was OK, original design was unworkable and insufficient.
That's it. Thanks for posting the details.
On the other hand, engineers everywhere have produced designs that weather, wear, and function badly, and was ugly from day one.
I am ashamed of myself, but damn, this is just too rich!
If they have to tear down the entire terminal, which is looking like a serious possibility, then Air France is going to have a serious problem. This terminal is the only one at CDG that is designed to operate the Airbus A380-800 of which Air France has 10 on order and four more on option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.