Atheist Discussion

Full Version: Multi-level Car Parks Could Face Serious Risk of Collapse
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Multi-level car parks around the world including in Australia could
face serious risk of structural failure and collapse due to the
increasing weight of electric vehicles (EVs) on aging infrastructure,
according to experts.

With some public and private car parks having been built decades
ago when cars were smaller and significantly lighter in weight, there
is a growing concern that as more and more EVs hit the road, the
added weight of these vehicles will cause serious issues.

Multi-level car parks could face serious risk of structural failure.

The average EV weighs significantly more than traditional petrol or
diesel cars, largely due to their battery systems. As an example the
top-spec Tesla Model X has a kerb weight of 2,467kg, which means
its Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 3,069kg would far exceed
most expectations of weight requirements in the past.

Other models that may eventually find their way to Australia such as
the GMC Hummer EV weigh over 4,000kg, which makes its GVWR an
incredible 4,800kg. The battery pack alone weighs over 1,300kg,
about the weight of a small car equipped with an internal-
combustion engine.

The RAM 1500 REV we saw in New York last week (confirmed for
Australia) has a gigantic 229kWh battery and is expected to have a
kerb weight of over 4,000kg, which would make its GVWR even
higher than the Hummer.

        Panic

https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/8154...le-weight/
To be fair, a lot of those parking garages were built before everyone and his mother started driving these humongous SUVs, too.  I mean, do you REALLY need a Hummer to go to the grocery store?
Multi-level car parks make me nervous as a matter of principle. There's a shopping mall in town where it seems that they're always doing repairs to their two-level parking area, and I've been expecting it to collapse eventually. Fortunately they also have a lot of regular surface parking and I can get to the same parts of the mall without wondering if my Corolla will still be intact when I get back.
The car park slab that collapsed in NYC last week
was constructed in 1925, and had four outstanding,
unremedied safety reports listed against it.

Apparently it was originally designed as a roof slab
rather than a slab meant to bear dynamic loading.

—Ouch!
The lawyers are gathering!

[Image: giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47x3j9tf6k0ecybicuz5...y.gif&ct=g]
(04-23-2023, 03:37 PM)Minimalist Wrote: [ -> ]The lawyers are gathering!

[Image: giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47x3j9tf6k0ecybicuz5...y.gif&ct=g]

Aren't they always tho?  Whistling
(04-23-2023, 02:34 PM)SYZ Wrote: [ -> ]The car park slab that collapsed in NYC last week
was constructed in 1925, and had four outstanding,
unremedied safety reports listed against it.

Apparently it was originally designed as a roof slab
rather than a slab meant to bear dynamic loading.

—Ouch!

Let's park cars on a 100 year old roof. What could go wrong?
(04-23-2023, 08:25 PM)skyking Wrote: [ -> ]Let's park cars on a 100 year old roof. What could go wrong?

The Brooklyn Bridge is 154 years old, with a steady traffic jam of SUVs bearing down on it every day.  Age alone is not determinative.

However, there're more than parking structures taking weight that exceeds expectations at the time of design.  Not just vehicles but people are heavier.  A "ton" of people could easily be fewer than 10 persons.  Half a dozen at a diet camp could weigh a ton.  On the Golden Gate Bridge's 50th birthday in 1987 vehicle traffic was closed off and pedestrians only crowded onto the structure.  Their weight flattened the roadway so much the bridge was kept closed so engineers could survey the structure for damage (none was found).

I suspect we'll see more structural failures of diverse architecture in coming months and years.
Static weight stresses beyond the design engineering of a small structure are different than fluid stresses over a much-larger structure. Those humans on the Golden Gate travel much slower than cars, while overweight cars parked for hours in an old structure in predetermined spots inflict continual stress onto specific areas.
(04-23-2023, 11:58 PM)airportkid Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2023, 08:25 PM)skyking Wrote: [ -> ]Let's park cars on a 100 year old roof. What could go wrong?

The Brooklyn Bridge is 154 years old, with a steady traffic jam of SUVs bearing down on it every day.  Age alone is not determinative.

However, there're more than parking structures taking weight that exceeds expectations at the time of design.  Not just vehicles but people are heavier.  A "ton" of people could easily be fewer than 10 persons.  Half a dozen at a diet camp could weigh a ton.  On the Golden Gate Bridge's 50th birthday in 1987 vehicle traffic was closed off and pedestrians only crowded onto the structure.  Their weight flattened the roadway so much the bridge was kept closed so engineers could survey the structure for damage (none was found).

I suspect we'll see more structural failures of diverse architecture in coming months and years.

My point which possibly flew over your head was it was designed as the roof, 100 years ago. Also, it did collapse.
(04-22-2023, 10:34 AM)SYZ Wrote: [ -> ]Multi-level car parks around the world including in Australia could
face serious risk of structural failure and collapse due to the
increasing weight of electric vehicles (EVs) on aging infrastructure,
according to experts.

Which experts are these who make the baseless accusations that our infrastructure is ageing? What slander!

Quote:With some public and private car parks having been built decades
ago when cars were smaller and significantly lighter in weight

You mean like those dainty chrome monstrosities of the 50s and 60s?

Quote:Multi-level car parks could face serious risk of structural failure.

Park. Fewer. Cars. This really isn't rocket surgery.


Quote:As an example the top-spec Tesla Model X has a kerb weight of 2,467kg, which means
its Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 3,069kg would far exceed
most expectations of weight requirements in the past.

So roughly the same weight as the Ford F-250 that most soccer moms drive?

Quote:Other models that may eventually find their way to Australia such as
the GMC Hummer EV weigh over 4,000kg, which makes its GVWR an
incredible 4,800kg. The battery pack alone weighs over 1,300kg,
about the weight of a small car equipped with an internal-
combustion engine.

The RAM 1500 REV we saw in New York last week (confirmed for
Australia) has a gigantic 229kWh battery and is expected to have a
kerb weight of over 4,000kg, which would make its GVWR even
higher than the Hummer.

Hey, EVs built by big, ridiculous truck companies weigh a lot. Didn't see that coming.

But hey, you keep worrying about how much a Hummer EV weighs while the planet burns.
I just went on a little google crawl and it's amazing how dense cars have become. Those dainty chrome beasts of the 50's and 60s had curb weights similar to, or less than, their modern counterparts (and direct descendants). Same or more weight on a shorter wheel base that's skinnier fender to fender. It's actually the big ass trucks and vans and suvs that have gotten lighter with longer wheelbases and wider stances as a consequence of competing over capacity. I spent the most time comparing f150s. Best selling in the us! The 75 and 23 f150s are both listed as weighing around 4klb. The 75 can carry about a ton, tow three. The 23 can carry a ton and a half, tow ten. The f150 Lightning can carry about a ton, tow six, with the extended package, for 100miles. Weighs 7klb. A Ranger, as added bit of trivia, is actually closer in size and capacity specs to older trucks and weighs a bit more than an f150 (excepting the ev) then or now. Supercab, ofc. That's what I'd drive if I were a soccer mom and din;t already drive an expedition. The 250 would be something like an f5 or f6 (that you'd have seen in the 50's) as far as weight but can haul 20klb as opposed to 10klb (which is what they say an expedition can tow, too, btw...). Weird, right?

Comparing a tesla to a hummer(ic) is informative. The tesla weighs more. So it's not an issue of big ridiculous truck companies making making evs that weigh alot. Big ridiculous truck companies have been doing more with less. Evs really do weight alot, and the trend as far as weight in cars has actually been for the smaller ones to get heavier and/or denser - conversion to ev will exacerbate that.

That's where the gas tax angle to evs gets it's legs. EVs will increase wear and do more damage to roads and parking. In our wildest fantasies..decreasing the number of cars on the road by half while simultaneously converting to an all ev fleet will incur the same or even greater cost in maintenance- to say nothing of the cost to build out the chargers - but there won't be a gas tax to pay for it. We need to come up with some way to generate that revenue, as a matter of pure practicality.

(ev semis are similar, but the issue there isn't the massively increased curb weight because that just eats into capacity and range in a capped regulatory scheme - which, in a roundabout way, would mean that we'd need roughly 25% more semis on the roads than now to match overall capacity - these do far more damage, and would also be without gas taxes)
I wouldn't get an EV yet, not until they solve some of the glaring problems, eg: charging infrastructure, charging time,  range, fire hazard, vehicle cost and in particular the moral issues associated with the child labour mining of cobalt and lithium, I'd only get an EV that used ethically sourced minerals in its batteries. Until then I'll stick to an ICE, with EVs starting at around £25-28,000 I can buy a lot of petrol servicing and MOT tests for that kind of money so if they're serious about wanting us to change they're going to have to do much better than they have been.