Car Park Designers' Handbook (Part 05 of 05)

9.
4 Access In some cases it may be prudent to separate disabled spaces from the
main parking area by introducing a separate access and egress point.
Disabled drivers, understandably, tend to reduce the inflow rate,
which, in large car parks that are used intensively, could pose a
problem. It is also of benefit for disabled drivers to readily identify
the special provision, be confident of gaining access and, possibly, pro-
vide direct access to a shop mobility unit. Differential tariff options can
also be introduced.
Disabled drivers and carers 163

Fig. 10.1 Cycle and motorcycle parking
164
10 Cycles and motorcycles
10.1 Discussion The growth in motorcycle ownership and other powered two wheelers
(PTWs) has created an ever increasing pressure on the need to provide
adequate facilities for their safe and secure parking. A study of the
London Congestion Area found that 33% of the total capacity of ‘on
street’ parking was occupied by motorcycles.
Motorcycles and bicycles share the highway with four-wheeled
vehicles. In an open road environment, as a result of their relative
lack of manoeuvrability and protection for the rider, they are much
more vulnerable to accidents than other types of road user. They are
considerably narrower than four-wheeled vehicles and are able to
manoeuvre in smaller areas but they are much less stable at low
speeds.
Within most parking facilities, vehicles are parked at right angles
immediately at the sides of the traffic aisles (see Fig. 10.1) and, in the
main, have to reverse across the aisles in order to turn towards the
exit. The relative narrowness of traffic aisles and the problems of low
speed control for two-wheeled vehicles can put them at an even greater
accident risk than when on the streets outside. In the case of angled
parking, with even narrower aisles, the problem is exacerbated.
Over recent years an increase has been noted in proposals for cycle
and motorcycle parking within car parks. Some have been sensibly
located at street level and provided with separate entry and exit
points, while others have been proposed wherever there has been
spare space occurring on any or all parking levels and must share the
car access. There is no legislation covering this provision and it is
generally left to the designer or the client to specify the numbers and
locations that they consider to be reasonable. Often it is a case of
what can be fitted in without losing car spaces.
On safety grounds alone, it is good policy to separate two- and four-
wheeled vehicles by the provision of separate parking zones, each with
its own access location. Motorcycle, PTWs and, in particular, bicycle
provision, should only be considered adjacent to the main vehicle
access level. It also needs to have direct street access to be attractive
to riders.
10.2 Cycle parking Often a requirement by planning authorities, cycle parking needs to
be designed so that its location does not interfere with pedestrian
movements. Typically, bicycle parking is free of charge and anchor
frames such as Sheffield stands are used to enable cycles to be secured
(see Fig. 10.2). An alternative is to provide a lockable security
cage that provides complete protection against theft and vandalism.
This is particularly effective in railway stations for commuter use.
They do, however, require more space for any given number of cycles
than the Sheffield stands. Cycle lockers can also be provided (see
Fig. 10.1).
10.3 Motorcycle Motorcycles are self-supporting and can be restrained at the rear (see
parking Fig. 10.3). When they are free standing they can be awkward to
manoeuvre backwards out of confined spaces and consideration
should be given to a layout that enables them to be pushed forward
Cycles and motorcycles 165

Fig. 10.2 Anchor stands
enable cycles to be secured
Fig. 10.3 Motorcycles can

be restrained at the rear
out of the stand. Large motorcycles occupy a space of about

2800 mm 1300 mm. Side by side they can be located at a spacing of
1300 mm. Powered two wheelers of smaller size can, if justified, have
their own reduced dimension parking area with a bay size of
2500 mm 1000 mm. However, supervising the use of different sized
parking stands can be an unrealistic exercise. It is recommended that
the areas be marked as a zone rather than bays unless it is intended
to use them as ‘metered’ bays.
The resting surface should be hard and sufficiently strong so as to
resist the point load exerted by the motorcycle stand. Standard
tarmac exposed to solar gain can soften in hot weather and materials
such as grass blocks should be avoided. The surface should have
good drainage with gullies kept clear of the bays to avoid loss of
dropped keys and be near level to avoid motorcycle instability. The
site of bays should be close to the main entry point to attract use and
be in an area subject to casual surveillance by other bikers and passers
by. To add to the security, adequate lighting and inclusion on CCTV
coverage should be included.
10.4 Lockers A major problem for many motorcyclists and some cyclists is in finding
somewhere for their special clothing: helmets, leathers, boots, rainproof
wear, etc. Metered anchors with helmet lockers are an option as are
lockers situated close to supervised areas, to reduce the incidence of
theft and vandalism.
166 Car park designers’ handbook

10.5 Fiscal control It is unreasonable for motorcyclists to have to pay the same amount for
their parking as motorists, yet if they were to proceed through the
vehicle control barriers in a payment on foot system they would incur
the same charges. A separate entry/exit allows a differing charge rate.
A flat payment could be charged on either entry or exit, or by a pay
and display system.
Cycles and motorcycles 167

Fig. 11.1 TV screen room
168
11 Security
11.1 Discussion Security, or the lack of it within some car parks, is a major issue with the
parking public. The statistics indicate, however, that personal danger is
more perceived than actual. Feelings of insecurity can be engendered
when walking though a dimly lit car park late at night not dissimilar
to those developed when walking through, say, a dark street on a
dull evening. The actual danger is minimal, but the perceived danger
creates fears that, if not allayed, could result in the car park being
shunned by many motorists.
The advent of CCTV has seen a great leap forward in car park security.
However, it cannot see around bends or corners. Curvi-linear or circular
aisles are restricted in this respect. More curves mean more cameras,
more screens, more staff and more expense.
Feelings of security are also enhanced by a reduction of internal
vertical structure. Structures spanning clear over each bin are prefer-
able to those where columns and shear walls are located adjacent to
the aisles, behind which potential felons can lurk. It has been proven,
by competitive construction over the years, that properly designed
clear-span structures are no more expensive to construct than those
with internal columns.
The Safer Car Parks scheme is promoted throughout the UK and
provides an award system for approved facilities with specialist
advice from police and other security experts. It recommends standards
to be achieved for the safety of motorists and pedestrians and includes
advice on the design of external landscaping to foil attempts at conceal-
ment by felons.
11.2 Lighting, music The requirement for general lighting is covered in Chapter 13. However,
and CCTV bright lighting enhances the feeling of security and dark areas should be
avoided. Soft relaxing music can be helpful, especially late at night and
the knowledge that CCTV cameras are supervising one’s movements
can be very reassuring. It also helps if two-way communication could
be achieved between the customer and the supervising staff. Such
measures can go a long way to dispelling feelings of insecurity for both
men and women when in these buildings and eliminate any thought of
separating the sexes.
A major advance in the improvement of car park security has been
the adoption of CCTV that improves surveillance from a fixed vantage
point (see Fig. 11.1) and has the ability to record anti-social activities.
To take the best advantage of making the most efficient use of this high-
tech surveillance, the car park needs to be designed accordingly. The
presence of surveillance cameras should be highlighted with signs and
visible cameras. An efficient layout should eliminate blind corners
and reduce the incidence of internal obstructions such as columns
and walls to an absolute minimum, especially when adjacent to the
traffic aisles. Overly short distances that make inefficient use of the
system should be avoided. Overcoming design inadequacies merely by
installing more cameras does not readily solve the situation. It has
been established that the maximum time that operatives can monitor
up to six screens effectively is about two hours. After that, they need
to stand down for two hours at least. The more screens that have to
Security 169
be monitored the more rapidly that an operative’s effectiveness is
reduced to an extent that a display of anti-social behaviour cannot be
recognised as such. Increasing the surveillance staff will solve the
problem, but the car park running costs will also increase.
Circular car park layouts are the most inefficient shape to monitor,
followed by curvi-linear forms that might look good but do nothing
for security issues. Split-level layouts restrict the width available for
surveillance and the best shapes for security are with straight decks
and a construction system that spans clear over traffic aisles and their
adjacent stalls. (Generally, 15.600 m for one-way-flow layouts and
16.500 m for two-way-flow layouts.)
For security to be really effective it needs ‘manpower’ to provide a
visual presence, undertake surveillance and be on call to assist: informa-
tive signing also helps. Knowing precisely where to go for assistance can
relieve a sense of unease. (Signing issues are covered in Chapter 14.)
11.3 See and be One of the major worries is for people to enter an enclosed stairwell and
seen be assaulted without being seen by others. Closed circuit television can
play a major role but the provision of glazed areas that enable any
potential attacker to be exposed to public gaze also helps. Wherever
there are areas where the public is vulnerable to attack, glazed doors,
windows or glass walls are desirable. There should be no hiding place
for anti-social behaviour. Vision panels in lift and lobby doors onto
decks should be provided and at a height that disabled pedestrians in
wheelchairs can see through.
11.4 Women-only car One solution thought to be able to eliminate the feelings of insecurity
parks among women when using car parks has been to propose the introduc-
tion of ‘women-only’ car parks. Mainly proposed by politicians, the
subject is aired publicly every few years, but there are a number of
reasons why such a proposal is impractical, such as:
. What is to prevent a man from cross-dressing and driving into the car
park and what socially acceptable procedures can be implemented to
prevent this happening?
. Most car parks are not difficult to enter by way of the open sides, or
fire escape doors, or even hidden in someone’s vehicle.
. The operator will become even more responsible for the safety of the
user. Construction, supervision and insurance costs will rise, to be
reflected in increased parking charges.
. Who, or what authority, is prepared to underwrite the cost of intro-
ducing such a scheme?
. Will there be enough women drivers of a nervous disposition in any
one place to justify their introduction?
. The location of such a car park advertises where women can be found
alone in the streets outside as they make their way to and from it. It
will become a focal point of attraction for those who prey on the
female sex.
Proposals for women-only car parks should be resisted.

Fig. 12.1 Rheims
172
12 Underground parking
12.1 Discussion The tenets contained in Chapters 3 to 9 are the same for underground
car parks as for those above ground. In practice, the only difference is in
the design of the sub-structure. In all other respects they can be consid-
ered to be the same as for an enclosed car park above ground. The main
problems that occur are to do with earth pressure and keeping the water
out. The provision of mechanical ventilation, fire and smoke control is
given in Chapter 18.
The drum shape of a circular car park is well suited to being located
underground and the unused space in the middle can provide ventila-
tion, services and escape facilities. However, such layouts cannot, prac-
tically, incorporate separated flow routes, so their capacity should be
limited to 400 spaces when used by the general public. When large-
capacity layouts are proposed the layouts will not differ greatly from
those proposed above ground.
The cost of an underground car park per car space, in general terms,
is at least twice that for an efficiently designed, open sided, car park
above ground. Running costs are also higher. In many countries
(such as France, see Fig. 12.1) underground car parks are government
subsidised, but in the UK public car parks, usually, have to be paid
for by commercial enterprises or the general public. Other than in
exceptional circumstances, such as the centre of a major conurbation
where the need is great and land is at a premium, it is difficult to justify
their construction on economic grounds, no matter how socially
desirable they might be.
Underground parking 173

Fig. 13.1 Criterion Place, Leeds, at night
174
13 Lighting
13.1 Discussion Car parks in the past have frequently been dull and dingy places that
created a sense of unease, especially in the minds of nervous pedestrians.
Current British Standards specify a much improved lighting standard
(see Fig. 13.1) with uniformity requirements that avoid the occurrence
of poorly lit areas. Higher lux levels are specified for entry and exit
conditions
ˇ and ramps. CCTV can operate with relatively poor light
levels but good, maintained lighting assists in promoting a sense of
well-being and confidence in those who use the facility.
Painting the structure a light colour, especially the underside of the
decks, can transform the appearance of a dull and dingy park, and
gains a significant uplift in reflectivity. Lux levels can be improved to
an extent that, sometimes, an increase in wattage is unnecessary. Consid-
eration at the design stage to such factors as the reflectivity of soffits and
the efficiency of the fittings to be adopted can result in significant reduc-
tions in running costs. The lighting chosen needs to be demonstrably
vandal resistant and it is good practice to minimise the exposure of
conduit serving the lighting by casting it into the deck structure.
Lighting does not have to be ‘all on or all off’. In a large car park
it can be zoned, external rows can be turned off early leaving the
internal lights on longer. Light controls can be made photosensitive
and turn the lights off automatically when no one is moving on a
particular deck. However, entering a darkened deck and hoping that
the lights will come on automatically can be disconcerting. It is also
disconcerting if they switch themselves off before a driver is ready to
drive away.
Top deck lighting can be designed to a lesser lux rating than the inter-
mediate parking levels. Planning requirements may limit the height of
lighting masts and ‘overspill’ light pollution. Foggy weather can also
be a factor affecting lux levels in some parts of the country.
13.2 Emergency Illuminated signs should be installed at locations such that in the event
lighting of a power failure at night they can guide pedestrians to the nearest
escape route. They should incorporate back-up battery power located
either in each individual sign or from a central battery source and
should conform to the requirements of BS 5266: Part 1.
Lighting 175
Fig. 14.1 Harrogate car park interior
176
14 Signage
14.1 Discussion Signs and notices should advise, direct, be easily understood and easily
recognisable. Even when travelling at low speeds in an enclosed area the
driver’s workload can be relatively high and a proliferation of difficult
to read signs and notices only serves to confuse. Conversely, too few
directional signs can create a sense of unease. The best circulation
layouts are those where the need for signage is minimal.
To cater for drivers with little knowledge of English, where possible,
signs should be graphic and incorporate symbols readily found on the
public highway. ‘One-off’ graphics should be reserved for commercial
branding or other site-specific uses (as shown on Fig. 14.1). Guidelines
should be consulted for pedestrians with sight problems, such as the use
of Braille and for disabled drivers, such as the positioning of lift
buttons, viewing panels, etc. There will also be a need to provide
signs for protection of liability, such as ‘Don’t leave valuables’,
‘Don’t fill petrol’, and located so as not to conflict with other direction
or advice signs.
To assist the motorist there should be a combination of deck
markings and overhead signs located at key changes of direction. In
one-way-flow layouts, signs over the traffic aisles showing single
arrows in the direction of the traffic flow and no entry symbols when
going in the wrong direction, should occur frequently. Pedestrians
need to identify the level they are on and then be directed towards
the principal access core. This can be helped by colour coding each
floor level and having floor level indicator signs immediately outside
the lift doors. If there is more than one access core then each should
be identified with a unique reference such as the street name onto
which it exits. Working on the basis that some motorists will be
unfamiliar with the car park, clear directions to the inflow search
path will be required, together with advice as to whether the traffic
aisles are one-way or two-way and preferably, indications of the
parking status in traffic aisles adjacent to the main circulation route
(variable message signs).
14.2 Directional Direction arrows are a familiar symbol for deck markings and overhead
signs signs. Arrows painted on the decks are viewed obliquely and need to be
large and long. Most turns will be at right angles and the arrow sign
showing this should be clear and unequivocal. Where a large car park
incorporates a rapid inflow route that can bypass full or traffic con-
gested decks, variable message signs will also be useful in advising
motorists to avoid the aisle ahead and take the rapid route to another
deck level. This will improve dynamic efficiency and assist in reducing
driver frustration.
Motorists will also require directional arrows coupled with ‘EXIT’
signs when leaving the car park. Where a rapid and ‘excluded’ outflow
route is incorporated it should be clearly marked at each direction
change to avoid mixing with the inflow route.
Pedestrians readily understand signs incorporating a walking man,
coupled with an arrow showing the direction of travel. It is also
common practice to provide a 1 m-wide painted strip on the deck
with the walking man graphic to one side of the traffic aisle, leading
Signage 177
to the access core. Pedestrians are made to feel secure by this action, but
it should be borne in mind that the painted strip remains part of the
traffic aisle and they are being channelled immediately behind the
parking bays. It renders them vulnerable to vehicles leaving their
parking bays, particularly when reversing. Children running ahead or
lagging behind their carers can be obscured from the driver’s view
and are put at risk.
With right-angled parking and a one-way traffic flow, pedestrians and
cars share a 6 m-wide aisle and have a reasonable aisle width to ‘see and
be seen’ but, when angled parking is adopted, aisle widths, say, for 458
parking can reduce to 3.600 m and, in so doing, place vehicles and
pedestrians into close proximity.
Control signs, such as, no entry, permit parking only and authorised
disabled drivers only, and similar signs should be designed such that
they stand out clearly from the directional signs. Where signs have
highway-approved equivalents showing the maximum allowable
speed, give way, stop, no entry and similar, the highway designs
should be adopted so that drivers will more readily conform to them.
14.3 Information Motorists and pedestrians need to know precisely where they are
signs parked. When in a hurry to keep an appointment, catch a train or
simply deal with children, it is easy to forget to note the whereabouts
of a particular car on a large-capacity deck and even the floor level
on which it is parked. Numbers painted at the ends of bays assist in
locating the vehicle on a particular floor and in really large-capacity
layouts, block zoning (A, B, C etc.) can also help. The colour coding
of individual levels also assists drivers to remember their parking
floor level.
Overhead signs specifying the deck level and, where applicable, the
specific zone, provide a good reminder and themes showing unusual
characters, such as bears, giraffes and horses or, boats, trains and
planes can be stencilled around a parking floor. If they are repeated
sufficiently frequently they can be a good ‘memory jog’. The repeated
use of colour as bands on columns and walls also aids recall. Signs
showing the parking level together with the appropriate character
should be prominently displayed at the entrances to the access core,
with repeat signs within the core.
The location of pay stations in payment-on-foot and pay-and-display
systems need to be shown, preferably by using overhead signs that can
be seen from a reasonable distance. With a payment-on-foot system
drivers need to be informed that they are required to pay before return-
ing to their vehicles. The preferable locations for this are at the entry
point and when they first enter the stair core as pedestrians. A plan
of each floor level is useful in larger car parks to provide information
on destination points.
Advice signs to conform with legislation or limit the operator’s
liability should be located so as to be visible, but not conflict with
key directional signs and not distract motorists. The type of sign and
colour should not be the same as the direction and principal informa-
tion signs (see Fig. 14.2).
14.4 Variable These consist of metal-sensitive loops or infrared beams built into
message sign ramps, access ways or stalls. Connected to electronic signs, they provide
systems information on the parking availability for a complete facility, deck,
section, or even an individual stall, dependent upon the chosen
system (see Fig. 14.1). Vehicles, passing over these loops or through
beams, activate the relevant signs, informing drivers of the parking

Fig. 14.2 Sign schedule
status and preventing needless circulation through areas that are

already full with parked vehicles. Their inclusion can often be of signif-
icant benefit to circulation efficiency.
14.5 Emergency Fire escape and emergency exit signage must conform to BS 5266: Part
signs 1 and be located in appropriate positions, together with additional
directional signs. They must be illuminated and incorporate recharge-
able batteries that, in the event of a power failure at night, will
enable pedestrians to find their way to a fire escape.
Signage 179
Fig. 15.1 Protected drainage
180
15 Drainage
15.1 Discussion Drain locations should be considered during the design process and not
added in as an afterthought. They should be inconspicuous, easy to
maintain and located where they cannot suffer damage from vehicles
(see Fig. 15.1). When located where damage can occur, protective meas-
ures such as hoops or protective posts should not be located such that
they intrude into the parking stalls, especially where they reduce the
available width.
In the UK, drainage should be designed in accordance with BS 8301
and BS EN 12056. Exposed roof parking decks located directly over
shops, offices or other habitable areas should be designed for full
storm intensity (75 mm per hour) to ensure the system is capable of
coping with a flash flood, otherwise a lower intensity can be used
(50 mm per hour). Stair cores need special attention to ensure that
drainage falls do not channel water into them, particularly as mobility
regulations have negated the use of thresholds.
It should not be necessary to provide U-bends on outlets from the
upper parking decks. It should be sufficient to provide this feature on
the lowest level only. Open-sided car parks have their gully outlets
vented to fresh air, even when they are within the perimeter of the
building. On the intermediate decks water occurs only intermittently,
allowing material on the underside of vehicles to drop off, be washed
towards the drains, where, if U-bends are incorporated, it solidifies,
builds up and can, eventually, block them. Occasional maintenance,
if carried out, can overcome the problem, but U-bends are an
unnecessary feature.
Some authorities’ regulations require that the roof deck drainage be
separated from that on the intermediate decks. The incidence of petrol
and oil leaks is low at any time but it is argued that such leaks into the
drains from intermediate decks can be more concentrated than from a
weather-exposed roof deck, even though extended periods of dry
weather can occur. A petrol interceptor is required to intercept the
intermediate located drains before the system enters the main sewer
but if the roof drainage is to be separated it means that twice as
many down-pipes will be necessary.
Minimum drainage falls of 1.67% (1 in 60) are recommended on
exposed decks although 2% (1 in 50) are to be preferred to better
contend with structural deflections. Where joints occur between decks
and are used for movement it is sometimes possible to leave them
open and provide a drain under to catch the rainwater. Proprietary
cast-in slot drains are, visually, less intrusive but can be difficult to
make watertight, especially if used in suspended slabs. On some
awkward shaped sites it is desirable to rotate part of the structure
through 908 or more. Unless carefully considered, this could lead to
problems in creating falls that are compatible at the change of direction.
Facilities for draining and washing-down decks should be provided
at each level and spaced such that the length of hosepipe to be used
can cover all of the deck area.
Drainage 181
Fig. 16.1 Fire fighting
182
16 Fire escapes, safety and fire fighting
16.1 Discussion The first rule for fire safety relates to the provision of adequate escape
routes for pedestrians. Unless otherwise agreed with the local fire
officer, the number and position of fire escape stairs should be located
such that they comply with the maximum allowable pedestrian travel
distances, shown in Approved Document B of the Building Regulations.
Although cars parks are not specifically referred to in Table 3, they are
usually classed as Purpose Group 7, i.e. storage and other non-
residential for intermediate decks and Purpose Group 2–7, plant
room or rooftop plant for top, exposed decks.
16.2 Escape The limitations on travel distances are as follows:

distances . Intermediate decks – 25 m for available escape in one direction only.
. 45 m for available escape routes in more than one direction.
. Top, exposed decks – 60 m for available escape in one direction only,
100 m for available escape routes in more than one direction.
16.3 Fire safety Fire engineering predictions and an assessment of the likely conditions
that will occur during actual fires (as shown in Fig. 16.1) should be
carried out, together with an ongoing fire safety management system:
a particularly relevant matter when the car park adjoins another build-
ing, such as a shopping centre, leisure facility or a cinema. A typical fire
safety strategy for a car park scheme should incorporate the following
elements:
. A suitable fire alarm system using manual break-glass contacts at
each fire exit with auto-detection in lift shafts and lift motor rooms.
. A means of control of smoke and fuel vapour hazards usually com-
bined with the proposed method of ventilating the car park, i.e.
natural or mechanical.
. Means of escape calculations for exit provisions (see Section 16.6).
. Escape lighting (in accordance with BS 5266: Part 1) to provide
luminaries continuously energised for up to three hours by internal
or central battery standby to give full or reduced lighting output
from the lamps of the luminaries.
. Maintained exit and emergency fittings provided over door exits to
stairwells, changes in direction and fire exit doors.
. Provisions for disabled pedestrians, i.e. escape routes suitable for
their use and refuges in an enclosure providing resistance to fire for
up to half an hour (escape stairway landings).
. Compartmentation between car park decks and fire escape stair/lift
shafts, basement floors and adjoining buildings containing different
fire-fighting measures.
16.4 Fire-fighting The issue of vandalism has led to the removal of portable fire-fighting
measures equipment such as extinguishers and hose reels from being freely avail-
able on parking floors. They are now, quite frequently, located in an
attendant’s office, if there is one, or in manual break-glass cabinets
located adjacent to the staircase exit doors.
It has long been recognised that the fire load in car parks is not
particularly high and vehicle fires do not spread. Many fire officers
Fire escapes, safety and fire fighting 183

nowadays ensure that the occupants have been evacuated and then
leave the fire to burn out, rather than risk the safety of their personnel,
unnecessarily, in fighting the fire.
Dry-risers should be located in the escape stair cores with an external
inlet box provided at an appropriate level for fire service vehicles and
outlet valves for hose connection at each floor level.
When the building is more than 18.000 m above, or 10.000 m below,
the fire service vehicle access level, it should be provided with fire-
fighting lifts. Some fire officers have interpreted this Building Regulation
requirement as 18.000 m measured to the highest enclosed or covered-
over deck level: open-deck roof parking being excluded from this
assessment.
16.5 Sprinklers Approved Document B of the Building Regulations acknowledges that it

is not essential to install sprinklers. Modern mechanical ventilation
systems are available that use impulse and jet fans to ensure that
smoke will be contained, channelled through an air corridor and
guided towards the extract point. It is now possible to keep one side
of a burning vehicle clear of smoke, thereby aiding visibility and the
approach of the fire service personnel.
16.6 Fire escapes The requirements for fire escapes are provided in Sections 8.2 and 8.3
(see Figs 8.3 and 9.2).

Fig. 17.1 Barrier control
186
17 Fiscal and barrier control
17.1 Discussion Parking free of charge in a structured car park is, very nearly, a thing of
the past. Ignoring the site value, the average cost per car space, for an
efficiently designed new-build facility, is £7500 to £8500 at 2005 prices.
Add to that the running and staffing costs, the rates, utility charges,
interest charges, an allowance for maintenance and a reasonable
profit margin, and it can be seen that £1 per hour is not an unreasonable
amount. Even so, it implies that every parking space will be used
efficiently during the course of a week.
17.2 Control systems There are several types of control systems that enable payment to be
made:
. Payment on exit – where a time-stamped ticket is dispensed upon
entry (see Fig. 17.1) and handed back to an operative in a kiosk
when leaving. Payment is then assessed on the time difference. The
main ongoing cost of this system is that of having an operative
manning the exit station at all open times.
. Pay and display – a system whereby motorists assess the amount of
time that they will be staying and pre-pay accordingly. The ticket
is then affixed to the vehicle window. Fines are imposed for an
over-stay and money is not returned for an under-stay. When
adopted by a private operator the imposition of fines can be difficult.
The ticket dispensers are relatively economical to install and barriers
at the exit are not an essential feature. However, an entry barrier that
prevents the car park from becoming over-crowded is desirable to
eliminate the possibilities of vehicle congestion.
. Payment on foot – a similar system to pay on exit but the timed ticket
is inserted into an automatic pay station when leaving: upon payment
of the correct amount, the ticket is stamped and can then be inserted
into a ticket acceptor at the exit that operates the barrier. The ticket is
time limited to prevent motorists from short-circuiting the system.
This is the most expensive type of control but is essentially fairer
than pay and display and eliminates the possibilities of fraud where
operatives are involved. A typical installation for a 750-space
multi-storey car park would be as follows:
Four pay stations, a central computer with mouse, keyboard, screen,
printer and UPS-intercom facility, manually operated automatic till.
Two entry ticket spitters, two exit ticket readers, four rising arm
barriers. Cables and loops. The total cost of such a system will be
£80 000, approximately (2005 prices).
. Payment by mobile phone – this is a fairly new system that is gaining
interest in the UK and operates on the basis of paying for parking
charges over the telephone. A number is given at the meter or
ticket machine and a text message or phone call is made purchasing
an amount of parking time. The vehicle registration number is given
and details are entered into a central computer to which parking
wardens can refer and check that payment has been made. Drivers
can set up an account and charges are added to their telephone
bill. Payment can be debited against a credit or debit card. Some sys-
tems are also set up to ensure that drivers receive a timely reminder
Fiscal and barrier control 187

that the time booked is about to expire and are given the option of
purchasing more time.
. Tag system – used extensively on toll roads in Europe and now extend-
ing into car park use. An electronic tag is inserted into the windscreen
of the vehicle that can be read from cameras. It records the time of
entry and exit and bills are rendered accordingly. Drivers are not
required to take tickets on entry or when leaving; recognition of the
tag opens the barriers automatically. It is not in general use in the
UK as yet but is gaining interest. However, some provision must be
made for those who wish to enter the park and are not contributors
to the tag system (foreign visitors, rented or borrowed cars, occasional
drivers, etc.).
17.3 Barrier control Rising arm barriers are provided to provide a function and performance
as specified in BS 6571. The rising arm should have a fracture plate or be
mounted on a clutch system such that it can be broken off of pushed up
in an emergency. The lower edge of the arm should be cushioned so as to
minimise damage if the arm descends on a pedestrian.
Lane widths at barriers should not be wider than 2.350 m to avoid
stand-off situations where motorists are unable to reach the ticket
‘spitter’ or card reader without leaving their vehicle. Left turns onto
barriers should be avoided for the same reason unless the control
barrier is set back from the turn. To avoid roll-back situations,
gradients at barriers should be kept as flat as possible and preferably
no steeper than 1 in 30 (3.3%).
The number of barriers to be provided at the entrance and exit will
depend on the expected peak hour traffic flows. The typical working
capacity of a single ticket operated barrier will be approximately 350
Fig. 17.2 A typical barrier layout with a two-way central control point opening directly onto a thoroughfare

vehicles per hour. If a tag system were to be adopted, the figures per
barrier will rise, possibly up to 1000þ vehicles per hour.
In some town centre sites, where space is limited, a four barrier
requirement can be reduced to three by making the middle lane duo-
directional, incorporating a barrier at each end, one of which is
raised dependent on the intensity of the traffic flow in a particular direc-
tion. Where space is available, an additional barrier can be provided to
eliminate queuing problems caused by mechanical breakdowns that
occur from time to time (see Fig. 17.2).
Fiscal and barrier control 189

Fig. 18.1 Fan ventilation
190
18 Ventilation
18.1 Discussion Insufficient attention to ventilation problems can lead to a build up of

noxious fumes within the car park that can cause nausea and result in
the reduced use of the building by the parking public. Where car parks
are located underground, mechanical means of ventilation are almost
unavoidable, but when above ground it is possible to ventilate them
naturally or with mechanical assistance. Ventilation requirements are
not the result of precise analysis, but have developed empirically
through past experience. They are based upon common sense and
require a modicum of common sense to be used if, while satisfying
the requirements overall, local pockets of still air are allowed to
occur in which exhaust gases can build up.
Air is ‘lazy’ and must be directed if it is to be effective. It is of little use
locating an extract fan next to an open window. Where natural ventila-
tion is employed in a long, rectangular building, ventilating the two
flank walls will be quite effective. Where the building is square on
plan, distributing the required opening areas evenly around the peri-
meter can be equally effective. For non-rectangular shapes a common
sense approach to the requirements should be adopted.
Approved Documents B and F of the Building Regulations provide
guidance for compliance with the various conditions. BS 7346: Part 7
is soon to be published and will provide further guidance in respect
of assisted natural ventilation and mechanical ventilation.
18.2 Natural The basic tenets of natural ventilation are:

ventilation . By the provision of openings in the elevations at each floor level. The
requirements
total area of these openings should be at least 5% of the floor area.
Usually, when two sides only are ventilated, the required open area
is divided equally on each side but it is allowable for one side to
have as little as 1.25% of the floor area, in which case the other
side must increase to 3.75% in order to conform with the 5% require-
ment. Proximity to boundary conditions that reduce the allowable
open area on the boundary side can benefit from this rule.
. Two opposing sides can each incorporate 1.25% openings, but the
remaining 2.5% must be located somewhere on the other two
sides.
. The openings should be spread evenly along the wall lengths and, in
order to prevent the local build up of fumes within the parking areas,
extended lengths of solid-wall construction should be avoided, espe-
cially if they result in right-angled corners.
18.3 Mechanically When the opening areas total less than 5%, but more than 2.5% of the
assisted natural floor area, a mechanical ventilation method can be employed to boost
ventilation the movement of air (see Fig. 18.1). It should be capable of providing
requirements three air changes per hour, at least. Smoke vents at ceiling level may
be also be used when assessing the available open area.
18.4 Mechanical Fully enclosed basement and above-ground car parks must employ
ventilation mechanical ventilation systems that achieve minimum operating
requirements standards as follows:
Ventilation 191
. Six air changes per hour throughout the car park, increasing to ten
air changes per hour at exits, ramps and where vehicles are likely
to be queuing with their engines running.
. Limiting the concentration of carbon monoxide particles to no more
than 50 parts per million averaged out over an eight-hour period and
100 parts per million for peak concentrations at ramps and enclosed
exits. This system also requires to be operated at ten air changes per
hour throughout the car park during fire conditions. Occasionally,
this last requirement is relaxed when it forms part of an engineered
approach as discussed below.
Until recently, mechanical ventilation systems have adopted the use
of ducting to carry the air around, usually soffit mounted and incorpor-
ating inlet and outlet grilles. These systems tend to be visually intrusive
and expensive and are losing favour compared with the most recent
approach of using soffit-mounted jet or impulse fans. The systems are
based on ventilation principles developed from tried and tested
tunnel ventilation techniques and differ from traditional systems as
follows:
. Ducting is not used: soffit-mounted fans control the airflow both at
floor and ceiling height.
. Smoke management and control, not usually possible with ducts, is a
key feature of the system.
. In larger car parks the engineering design is based on a design fire size
rather than the simple air change requirements referred to in the
Building Regulations.
The basic principle is that main extract fans provide the air change
rate within the car park while the soffit-mounted fans control the air
direction. The internal environmental conditions are constantly moni-
tored by the use of carbon monoxide and smoke control detectors.
The system can be designed to such an extent that deck areas in the
vicinity of a fire can be kept free of smoke, thereby aiding access for
the fire-fighting personnel.

Fig. 19.1 VCM interior
194
19 Structure
19.1 Discussion There are many excellent books on structural design, both in steel and
reinforced concrete, and it is not intended that this chapter should
attempt to emulate them. Car park structures, however, have several
features that render them different from other types of building. They
are:
. A structure where the decks can be fully exposed to the elements.
. Decks that are subject to spillages of oil and petrol and, in inclement
weather, the importation of salt tracked in on tyres and dropping
from the underside of the vehicle. Also, in coastal regions, airborne
salts.
. High temperature variations, especially on exposed roof decks.
. Floor wear, especially where vehicles turn.
. Shrinkage-crack control and sealed construction joints to resist
rainwater leaking through the decks onto vehicles parked below.
. Impact resistance considerations to prevent vehicles breaking
through the external walls and also damaging vertical structural
elements within the building.
. Drainage that need not always be fully ‘trapped’ and drainage falls
that can be affected by structure orientation.
In many respects, they are more akin to bridge structures than they
are to urban buildings.
19.2 Construction Reinforced concrete is the most popular construction form used for car
materials park structures, either ‘cast in place’ or precast. Hybrid structures
comprising part in situ and part precast and/or pre-stressed occur
quite frequently, as does composite construction where in situ concrete
is bonded over a precast under-deck.
Structural steelwork is also used frequently, mainly as a framework
of columns and beams and also for resisting vehicle impact, but the
decks and internal walls are invariably constructed using concrete.
Steel-framed structures are, generally, a little lighter than concrete-
framed structures and fire resistance is not a major problem.
Properly designed and constructed, concrete car parks can have a life
expectation exceeding 60 years. Car parks with structural-steel frames
can also last a similar length of time, but incur greater maintenance
costs if proper procedures are carried out. From an initial construction
viewpoint, there is little cost difference between concrete and steel struc-
tures provided that both have been designed efficiently. The choice
between construction forms is more a matter of personal preference
and maintenance requirements than anything else, although considera-
tions such as irregularly shaped layouts, problems of access to the
construction site, construction programme and material transportation
problems could influence the final decision.
Other construction materials have been considered over the years,
such as timber frames and floors, and metal plate decking. Timber
deflects and, under moving loads, it vibrates to a greater extent than
steel or concrete; it swells and shrinks with varying climatic conditions
that render effective waterproofing of the joints more difficult; its fire
resistance is poor and its resistance to abrasion and impact is low.
Structure 195
Metal plate decking is relatively light but its unsupported span is low; it
has a high resistance to abrasion but waterproofing the numerous joint
runs is an expensive task and, unless it is securely fixed down to the
supporting structure, it will move around, tearing the joints.
19.3 Joints Measurements taken at a constant temperature over an extended period

of time show that concrete, cast in situ, shrinks as it gains strength by
an amount greater than that caused by increases in daily temperature:
so-called expansion joints are, in most cases, shrinkage joints. Narrow
and wide joints will grow by the same amount, but wide joints reduce
the tensile (tearing) stresses developed in the flexible jointing material.
It is also advantageous to fill the joints as late as possible in the
contract.
In precast concrete structures, much of the shrinkage will occur
before being introduced into a building and so joint shrinkage problems
will be reduced. However, the restriction of unit dimensions for trans-
portation and handling purposes results in a larger number requiring to
be sealed than for concrete structures cast in situ. Composite construc-
tion techniques where in situ concrete toppings are cast over precast
concrete units should be considered as in situ concrete structures for
jointing purposes.
Roof parking decks that incorporate a dark-coloured waterproof
membrane, when subjected to solar gain, can develop temperature
differentials of more than 40 8C between the upper and lower surfaces.
In these extreme conditions the upper surface will expand more than its
original construction dimension. Insufficient attention to joint locations
can result in cracking and even warping of the decks. Calculations to
establish the scale of these problems should be made when the struc-
tural form has been established.
19.4 Perimeter Vehicle impact is based upon a 1500 kg vehicle travelling at 10 mph or
protection 16 kph (4.45 m/sec) and vehicle barrier systems or structural cladding
should provide restraint without failing catastrophically. There are
several ways in which this can be achieved:
. Concrete walling, either cast in situ or pre-cast is, generally, the most
resistant to deflection under impact.
. Horizontal steel beams bolted between columns can deflect signifi-
cantly when impacted at the middle of the span. The longer the
beam, the greater will be the deflection. The height to the centre of
the horizontal member is generally taken as 450 mm with a minimum
depth of 200 mm to cater for vehicle bumper height variations. They
are generally constructed with their flanges vertical, the better to
resist horizontal impact forces.
. Proprietary restraint systems can deflect up to 400 mm, but the deck
must be sufficiently strong to resist the tearing out-forces exerted by
the steel uprights.
. Steel meshwork and wire cables are capable of deflecting up to
600 mm. They are simple to install on the intermediate floors but
the roof parking deck requires special attention. The design of the
barrier system should be such that impact deflections do not open
up gaps along the deck edges large enough to become dangerous to
pedestrians. Suitable measures should also be taken to prevent
non-structural cladding from being disturbed.
Impact forces reduce as barrier deflections increase and, in conse-
quence, vehicle damage is reduced. Impacting a non-yielding concrete
wall at 10 mph can result in the vehicle being crushed by 100 mm or

more, but if a flexible barrier is introduced vehicle damage can be
minimal. Extreme vehicle impact, however, is a relatively rare occur-
rence and such considerations should not overly influence designers
except when deciding upon the location of any non-structural external
walling relative to the barriers. Where a vehicle restraint system creates
a foothold below 550 mm above the deck level, pedestrian guarding
should be increased in height by a minimum of 1100 mm above the
foothold.
19.5 Concrete Finishes serve two functions: to make the car park safe and to augment
finishes its appearance. With the exception of the trafficked areas, surface finishes
to concrete should be fair faced and exposed corners chamfered.
Where it is intended to leave the decks exposed, the trafficked areas
should incorporate a lightly brushed finish to provide skid resistance.
Tamped finishes should be avoided as they interfere with drainage
paths and make it difficult to push trolleys, prams and wheeled luggage
across the surface. Salt, also, can build up in the hollows resulting in
premature corrosion. Smooth surfaces have low skid resistance, cause
tyres to squeal when cornering and leave tyre marks where vehicles
change direction. A smooth surface finish should only be specified
where a protective surface coating is to be applied.
A tamped finish should be applied to ramps to improve skid resistance.
The direction of tamping should be parallel with the slope to prevent
water and salts from building up in the hollows.
19.6 Protective Although concrete appears to be dense, it is, actually, open textured
coatings and relatively absorbent. Coatings serve two purposes: first to improve
the appearance and second to prevent water and salt ingress, especially
where constructional errors have been made and the correct cover of
concrete to the reinforcement has not been maintained.
Surface coatings are of two types:
. Painting that enhances the appearance and resists the passage of
water.
. Applications that incorporate anti-carbonation qualities.
Both of these coatings are thin and require to be applied to a smooth
substrate. Where used on decks as a waterproof membrane they
should incorporate skid resistant qualities. They significantly improve
the internal appearance of a car park and, due to their reflectiveness,
enable the lighting levels to be achieved more efficiently than when
concrete finishes occur.
Surface coatings for steelwork are mainly for corrosion protection.
When exposed to the elements ‘hot dip’ galvanising can last up to 20
years to first maintenance, depending upon the level of corrosion in
the atmosphere. When used on internally located steelwork it can last
much longer, 50 years or more, but it makes for a very austere appear-
ance. Ideally, a light-coloured paint finish can be applied after suitable
surface preparation of the galvanising. Alternatively, a high-quality
paint system can be applied, without galvanising, that can provide a
service life of up to 15 years when used externally and much longer
when used internally.
19.7 Waterproofing Deck waterproofing should create an impermeable layer sufficiently

flexible to bridge cracks that can expand and also to provide a suitable
running surface with adequate abrasion and skid resistance character-
istics. There are basically two types of waterproofing:
Structure 197
. Mastic asphalt that can be made more flexible by the introduction of
polymers.
. Elastomeric membranes that are much thinner, lighter and, unlike
mastic asphalt which is almost black, they can be coloured for differ-
ent applications and to reduce surface heating.
Both types of membranes have their limitations, particularly with
respect to lifespan: that for mastic asphalt can be guaranteed by specialist
contractors up to 20 years and for high-quality elastomeric membranes
up to 15 years. To ensure that they can be honoured over such long
periods of time, single-source, insurance-backed guarantees should be
provided.
If the roof parking deck is used in freezing conditions the formation
of ice will need to be treated to prevent accidents. Salt is usually spread,
in which case a waterproof membrane will also protect the concrete
from corrosive attack.
For reasons of economy and reduced performance demands, inter-
mediate deck membranes can incorporate a lower specification material
to that used in roof membranes, nevertheless, they should still be
capable of bridging over small cracks in the structure. Their location
renders them less susceptible to weathering and the effects of ultra-
violet light but they can be subjected to more intense traffic movements
and, hence, abrade more rapidly.
The cost of a waterproof membrane can be less than a third of that
for a lightweight roof covering a similar area, but the roof structure
can be made to last some 60 years with minimal maintenance and
enable all-year-round use to be made of the top deck, regardless of
the weather conditions.
19.8 Cambers Although not strictly part of the initial car park design process, it
should be appreciated that floors and beams deflect to varying amounts
dependent upon loading and stiffness: shallow members deflecting more
than deep members under the same loads.
Deflections can be divided into two parts: elastic and plastic. Elastic
deflection occurs when a member returns to its original position
after the removal of short-term loading and plastic deflection occurs
where long-term loading, such as self-weight and other imposed
loads have to be carried permanently: also called creep, it develops
over an extended period of time and results in a permanent ‘set’ in
the member.
Deflections can be calculated but, if the following span/depth
ratios are adhered to, they should be acceptable unless extreme loads
are imposed:
. For floors – 20 to 25.
. For beams – 14 to 18.
Floors and beams that are ‘simply supported’ will tend towards the
lower ratios and where continuous over supports they will tend towards
the higher ratios. The adoption of these ratios will, generally, limit
maximum eventual deflections to no more than 0.4% of the span.
As an example, the allowable long-term mid-span deflection on a
15.000 m-span beam could be 60 mm. If the floor slabs span 7.200 m
between the beams, their long-term mid-span deflection could be
30 mm. If the members were laid flat and without drainage falls,
ponding up to 90 mm deep could occur in the middle part of the
floor. An allowance for construction tolerances could see this figure
increasing to well over 100 mm. Gully outlets are generally located

adjacent to columns that remain at the high points and unless cambers
are built into the members and/or reasonable drainage falls adopted,
ponding may well be the result. It is recommended that cambers of
0.4% of the span be built into all load-bearing horizontal structural
members with spans exceeding 2400 m to avoid problems caused by
structural deflection.
Structure 199
Fig. 20.1 Sundials, Amersham
Fig. 20.2 St Peter’s, Leamington Spa
200
20 Appearance
20.1 Discussion Appearance is not just about the exterior envelope. It is essential to the
success of any car park that it should provide a safe and attractive
internal environment. Before the design of the external envelope is
fixed too firmly, consideration should be given to optimising the
available site area and creating an efficient vehicle circulation layout.
Allowing purely architectural considerations to determine the interior
design can often affect, adversely, dynamic and static efficiency and
increase the cost per car space beyond that which the client is prepared
to accept.
Multi-storey car parks are, basically, utilitarian buildings not too
dissimilar from large warehouses and in both cases it is, usually, the
aim of the client to gain maximum efficiency of use and economy of
construction. The main difference between them is their relative loca-
tions: warehouses frequently occur in commercial districts, docksides
and other transportation terminals, while car parks occur primarily
in urban centres and other highly visual locations.
For both, their architecture comprises mainly of an envelope con-
taining a functional interior. In the case of car parks the function is
that of containing cars efficiently, and effectively and providing an
adequate environment for pedestrians. In town centres, their massing
and shear bulk create unique visual problems, but also offer opportu-
nities for interesting sculptural compositions.
The economic construction of a car park structure usually involves
some form of modular construction on a fixed grid system. In the
case of a clear-span structure it will usually be 15.600 m (for one-way
flow) or 16.500 m (for two-way flow) in one direction and multiples
of the car bay widths in the other. An elevation treatment that allows
flexibility in the choice of these grid configurations will, in the case of
‘design and build’ projects, provide contractors with maximum choice
when considering the most appropriate structural framework for a
sub-contract package. It should be appreciated that modules of two
or three stall widths can produce the most economical solutions for
frameworks. Clear-span pre-stressed ribbed deck systems can also
provide economical solutions.
When terracing a car park elevation, and where parallel to the
structural grid, it should occur in modules of parking bay widths or,
preferably, on grid lines. Where located at right angles to the structural
grid, terracing will require columns to support the new deck edges. In
most cases, the columns will need to be carried down through the car
park where they will have an adverse effect upon parking efficiency
and user appreciation.
Car parks, nowadays, are bought and sold in increasing numbers and
market values depend more upon their popularity with the parking
public than on their external appearance. That does not mean to say
that appearance does not matter but that it should not detract, too
much, from the car park’s dynamic and static efficiency.
20.2 Appearance Many local authorities have their own requirements relating to
requirements the appearance of a car park. Typically these could include the
following:
Appearance 201
. Height, scale, massing and choice of materials to be sympathetic with
the adjoining buildings and environmental requirements.
. Stair and lift towers should be expressed by height and form to identify
pedestrian entry/exit locations.
. Where blank walls are unavoidable, elevation relief features and
decoration are advisable.
. The appearance and security aspect of ventilation openings can be
enhanced by the use of decorative grills and/or louvres.
. Glazing features should be added to stair and lift cores to aid lighting
levels and promote personal security.
. Parked cars should be screened from external view, but views out of
the car park from within should be promoted.
. Building forms and elevations at street level should be to a human
scale and incorporate weather protection, canopies and low-level
landscaping.
. Lightweight roof structures over the top deck or the inclusion of false
mansards are sometimes required to screen parked vehicles, espe-
cially when adjoining buildings overlook the car park.
In city and town centre sites it is becoming increasingly common for
local authorities to require commercial or retail areas be included at
street level, but where they intrude into the body of the car park they
can have an adverse affect on vehicle circulation routes and natural
ventilation. However, with careful creative planning from the outset,
such problems can be overcome.

Appendix A
A selection of new cars registered in the UK (2004):

Length Width Height Sold Market share
Minis (under 3000 mm long)

Smart Fortwo 2500 1515 1549 36,171 1.4%
Superminis (3001–4000 mm long)
Citroën C4 3850 1667 1519
Ford Fiesta 3917 1683 1432
Honda Jazz 3810 1665 1490
Mini 3626 1688 1396
Nissan Micra 3715 1660 1540
Peugeot 206 3835 1652 1432
Renault Clio 3773 1639 1417
Seat Ibiza 3953 1698 1441
Toyota Yaris 3640 1660 1500
Vauxhall Corsa 3817 1646 1440
VW Polo 3897 1650 1465
All superminis 839,604 33.7%
Small family (4001–4400 mm long)
Audi A3 4286 1765 1423
Citroën C3 4260 1773 1458
Ford Focus 4342 1840 1497
Honda Civic 4285 1695 1495
Nissan Almera 4197 1455 1448
Peugeot 307 4202 1746 1510
Renault Megane 4209 1777 1457
Toyota Corolla 4180 1710 1475
Vauxhall Astra 4249 1753 1460
VW Golf 4204 1759 1485
All small family cars 729,116 28.4%
Large family (4401–4800 mm long)
Audi A4 4586 1772 1427
BMW 3 Series 4520 1817 1421
Ford Mondeo 4731 1812 1429
Honda Accord 4665 1760 1450
Jaguar X-Type 4672 1789 1392
Mercedes C-Class 4526 1728 1426
Peugeot 407 4676 1811 1445
Renault Laguna 4576 1772 1429
Rover 75 4749 1761 1393
Toyota Avensis 4630 1760 1480
Vauxhall Vectra 4596 1798 1460
VW Passat 4703 1746 1462
All large family cars 459,635 17.9%
4 4 (up to 4800 mm long) 179,439 7.0%
MPV (up to 4800 mm long) 121,000 4.7%
Sports (up to 4800 mm long) 73,940 2.9%
Total (under 4800 mm long) 2;438;905 96:0%
Executive (up to 5000 mm long) 82,153 3.2%
Luxury (up to 5800 mm long) 5,700 0.25%
MPV (4801–5000 mm long) 4,000 0.14%
4 4 (4801–5000 mm long) 11,000 0.4%
Total (all vehicles) 2;567;269 100:0%

2004 figures
Source: SMMT MOTOR INDUSTRY FACTS, 2005
WHAT CAR? ROAD TEST DIRECTORY, 2005
203
References
British Parking Association (1970) Technical Note # 1: Metric Dimensions for Car
Parks – 908 Parking. BPA, Haywards Heath.
British Parking Association (1980) Multi-storey Car Parks in Shopping Centres and
Office Blocks. Report of a seminar in October. BPA, Haywards Heath.
British Standards Institution (1995) Code of Practice for Building Drainage
(declared obsolescent). BS 8301, London.
British Standards Institution (1996) Vehicle Parking Control Equipment. Specifica-
tion for Pay-on-Foot Parking Control Equipment. BS 6571, London.
British Standards Institution (1999) Emergency Lighting. Code of Practice for the
Emergency Lighting of Premises Other than Cinemas and Certain Other Specified
Premises Used for Entertainment. BS 5266, London.
British Standards Institution (1999) Barriers in and About Buildings. Code of
Practice. BS 6180, London.
British Standards Institution (2000) Components for Smoke and Heat Control
Systems, Part 7 ‘Ventilation requirements’. BS 7346, London.
British Standards Institution (2001) Design of Buildings and Their Approaches to
Meet the Needs of Disabled People, Section 8.8.8 ‘Pedestrian ramps’. BS 8300,
London.
Building Regulations (K1 Section 2 and Approved Documents B and F). HMSO,
London.
Ellson, P. B. (1969) Parking: Dynamic Capacities of Car Parks, Report LR 221.
Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
Highway Code. HMSO, London.
Hill, J. D. and Shenton, D. (1985) Multi-storey Car Parks. British Steel Corpora-
tion, London.
Institution of Structural Engineers (2002) Design Recommendations for Multi-
storey and Underground Car Parks. IStructE, London.
Road Test Directory (2005) What Car? April.
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd (2005) Cars Sold in 2004.
SMMT, London.
204
Index
Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and diagrams.
access ways 13, 14, 15 full, two-way-flow 140, 141

see also ramps turning circles 139
dynamic capacity 27–28 two full, one-way-flow 142, 143
aesthetics of design 200, 201–2, 202 circular sloping decks 124, 125
circular sloping deck types 124, 125 see also CSD series
air change rates, ventilation 192 user-unfriendliness 125
aisles circulation design, simplicity 37–8
angled stalls 11 circulation efficiency
dead ends 38 angled stalls 38–40, 39
inflow capacity 36 crossovers 38
minimum widths importance of 35–6
one-way-flows 13 indicating 34
two-way-flows 13 combined flat and sloping decks
pedestrians in 11 internal cross-ramps
with angled parking stalls 11 see also VCM and WPD series
ramp entries 21 pedestrian access 91
ramp projections into 17 combined helix
reduced one- and two-way-flows
one-way-flows 11, 19 side connected 70, 71, 80, 81
two-way-flows 12 one-way-flow, side connected 82, 83
turning between 12, 13 contra-flow rapid exit, one-way-flow types 56, 57
vehicles crossing 26–7 control signs 178
viewing angles 8 control systems
widths 10–11 barriers 186
angled stalls 10 exit 38
angles 11, 12 numbers of 189
circulation efficiency 38–40, 39 two-way-flow 188
design implications 39–40, 39 disabled drivers 163
dynamic efficiency 29 pay and display 187
minimum dimensions 13 payment by mobile phone 187–8
pedestrians in aisles 11 payment on exit 186, 187
ramp widths 21 payment on foot 187
tag systems 188
barriers 186 crossovers 13, 14, 15
exit 38 avoiding 38
numbers of 189 manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
two-way-flow 188 CSD 1 (circular deck/two-way-flow) 126, 127
Birmingham airport, car park 152 static efficiency 127
cycle parking
camper vans 6 lockers 164, 165
capacities stands for 165, 166
medium stay car parks 31
short stay car parks 31 decks
tidal car parks 32 combined flat and sloping 91
car parks directional markings 177
see also multi-storey car parks drainage falls 181
as motorists’ destination influences 1–2 dynamic capacity 28–9
user friendly 2, 37–9 exposed
CCTV 168, 169–70 effects of rain 26
optimum monitoring 169–70 roofing 33–34, 195–6
presence of 169 stopping distances on 27
changes of use, car parks 2–3 temperature differences 196
circular decks, two-way-flow 126, 127 waterproofing 33
circular ramps 22, 24 flat, with internal ramps 103
end frost prevention 198
one-way-flow 114, 115 gradients 25
two-way-flow 116, 117 level indicators 176, 178
205
decks (continued ) entries 26
metal plate 196 exits 26
surface abrasion 198 ramps 27–8
washing-down facilities 181 dynamic efficiency, angled stalls 29
waterproofing 197–8
deflections, structural 198–9 efficiency see circulation efficiency; dynamic efficiency;
design static efficiency
aesthetics 200, 201–2, 202 emergency signs 179
angled stalls, implications 39–40, 39 lighting 175, 179, 183
briefs 4–5 entries
existing 37 dynamic capacity 26
questionnaires 4 two-wheeled vehicles 165
design and build projects 201 environment, aesthetics 200, 201–2, 202
Design recommendations for multi-storey and ER 1 (full circular ramps/two-way-flow) 140, 141
underground car parks (Des. Rec.) 1 alternatives to 141
ramps 16, 16 ER 2 (full circular ramps/one-way-flow) 142, 143
dimensions as alternative 141
disabled parking stalls 162, 162 alternatives to 143
stalls ER 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 144, 145
area per car space 31 alternatives to 145
length 9 ER 4 (storey height straight ramps) 146, 147
width 9, 27 ER 5 (stadium-shaped interlocking ramps) 148, 149
disabled drivers ER 6 (circular interlocking ramps) 150, 151
see also disabled pedestrians exit barriers, ticket insertion 38
flat and sloping decks 75 exit routes
hillside car parks 161 dynamic capacity 26
separation of 163 rapid 36
sloping parking decks 59 exits
tariffs for 163 emergency 183
disabled parking stalls 160 ramps, headroom 15
dimensions 162, 162 two-wheeled vehicles 165
legal requirements 161 external ramps 138, 139
location see also ER series
parameters 161–2
random 162 FIR 1 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/right angles) 102,
numbers 161 104, 105
supervision 162 alternatives to 105
disabled pedestrians circulation efficiency 35
see also disabled drivers static efficiency 105
fire escapes 156, 183 FIR 2 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 106, 107
lift buttons 177 alternatives to 107
ramps 15, 156 static efficiency 107
refuges for 154 FIR 3 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/parallel) 108,
viewing panels 177 109
double helix alternatives to 109
interlocking, one-way-flow 68, 69 static efficiency 109
one-way-flow FIR 4 (one-way-flow/one-way ramps) 110, 111
end connected 64, 65 alternatives to 111
side connected 72, 73, 86, 87 static efficiency 111
two-way-flow, end connected 66, 67 fire alarms 183
drainage fire escapes
deck falls 181 access to 153–4
gully outlets 198–9 disabled pedestrians 156, 183
location 181 distances from 155–6, 183
petrol interceptors 181 horizontal 155
protection of 180 routes to 183
roofs 181 stairs as 153, 154–5
stair cores 181 fire fighting 182, 183–4
ventilating 181 lifts 184
washing-down 181 smoke containment 184
driver frustration sprinklers 184
complex designs 37–8 fire lobbies 154–5, 154
potential conflict 49, 51, 129 fire regulations, stairs as fire escapes 153
stall searching 35, 73 fire safety strategies 183
dry-risers 154, 184 flat decks
dynamic capacity external ramps, capacity 31
decks 28–9 internal ramps 103

flat decks with internal ramps HER 4 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 134,
see also FIR series 135
multi-bin systems 103 alternatives to 135
ramp gradients 103 HER 5 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 136,
flat and sloping deck layouts 75 137
see also FSD series alternatives to 137
disabled drivers 75 hillside conditions
pedestrian movements 75 disabled drivers 161
four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles 6 multi-storey car parks 15
Freyssinet, Eugene 1
frost prevention, decks 198 impacts
FSD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 76, 77 protection from 196–7
as alternative 79 speeds 26, 196
alternatives to 77 inhabited layouts, definition 33
static efficiency 77 interlocking double helix, one-way-flow type 68, 69
FSD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 78, interlocking ramps
79 circular type 24, 150, 151
as alternative 53 stadium type 24, 148, 149
alternatives to 79 internal environmental monitoring 192
static efficiency 79
FSD 3 (combined helix/side connected/one- and kerbs, pedestrian separation by 24–5
two-way-flows) 80, 81
as alternative 51, 53 lengths
alternatives to 81 parking stalls 9
static efficiency 81 standard design vehicles 6, 10
FSD 4 (combined helix/side connected/one-way-flow) levels, optimum numbers 33
82, 83 lifts
as alternative 51 buttons, disabled pedestrians 177
alternatives to 83 capacity per hour 158
static efficiency 83 considerations for 153
FSD 5 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 74, door widths 157, 161
84, 85 fire fighting 184
alternatives to 85 long stay car parks 153, 157
static efficiency 85 medium stay car parks 153, 157
FSD 6 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86, short stay car parks 153, 157
87 space requirements 157
FSD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86, supermarket requirements 156–7
87 tidal car parks 157
FSD 8 (single helix/one-way-flow/internal ramp) 88, 89 lighting 174
alternatives to 89 controls 175
static efficiency 89 emergency 175, 179, 183
signs 175, 185
gradients fittings, headroom 25
parking decks 25, 59 and painting 175
disabled drivers 59 security 169, 175
sloping 59 top decks 175
ramps limosines
pedestrian 24 in multi-storey car parks 7
vehicle 15, 16–17, 16, 18, 103 stretched 7
single storey rise 103 lockers
ground clearances, standard design vehicles 7–8, 10 cycles 164, 165
helmets/clothes 166
half external ramp types 128, 129 long stay car parks 9
see also HER series capacities 31
capacity 31 flat and sloping decks 75
driver conflict in 129 lifts 153, 157
half external ramps, vehicle 126, 127 recommendations for 55, 57, 63, 97
half spirals, one-way-flow types 130, 131
headroom 25 main terminal car parks see long stay car parks
light fittings 25 manoeuvring envelopes (ME)
height historical 1–2, 2
limitation gantries 25, 25 ramps 18, 19, 20
standard design vehicles 6, 10 stall access 18, 19, 20
helix see combined helix; double helix; single helix market values, multi-storey car parks 3
HER 1 (half spiral/one-way-flow) 130, 131 MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) 112, 114, 115
HER 2 & 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 130, 131 as alternative 121
alternatives to 133 alternatives to 115
Index 207
MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) (continued ) one-way-flow
static efficiency 115 aisle widths
variations 115 minimum 13
MD 2 (two-way-flow/one circular end ramps) 116, 117 reduced 11, 19
alternatives to 117 circular ramps 22, 24
static efficiency 117 preference for 8
variations 117 ramp widths 20–1
MD 3 (one-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119 one-way-flow types
static efficiency 119 see also one- and two-way-flow types
MD 4 (two-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119 combined, threeþ bins wide 50, 51
static efficiency 119 combined helix, side connected 82, 83
MD 5 (two-way-flow/sloping decks/10 stalls wide) 118, contra-flow rapid exit 56, 57
119 double helix
static efficiency 119 end connected 64, 65
MD 6–8 (one- and two-way-flows 8 stalls wide) 120, 121 side connected 72, 73, 86, 87
as alternative 123 end ramps 95, 96
alternatives to 121 circular 114, 115
static efficiency 121 excluded outflow 28–9, 29, 42, 46, 47
MD 9–11 (one- and two-way-flows/8 stalls wide/split full circular ramps 142, 143
levels) 122, 123 half spiral 130, 131
alternatives to 123 interlocking double helix 68, 69
static efficiency 123 internal ramps 92, 93
medium stay car parks 9 one-way ramps, separated 110, 111
capacities 31 rapid outflow 44, 45
large-capacity 45 capacity 31
lifts 153, 157 circulation efficiency 35
recommendations for scissors ramps 48, 49
combined flat and sloping decks 93, 97 at right angles 106, 107
sloping decks 61, 73 single helix
split level decks 47, 57 internal ramps 88, 89
message signs, variable 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9 rapid outflow 63, 64, 78, 79
metal plate decks 196 straight ramps 132, 133, 144, 145
minimum dimension layouts 113 end located 134, 135, 136, 137
see also MD series two-way ramps
underground 112, 113 at right angles 104, 105
motorcycle parking parallel 108, 109
free-standing 164, 165–6, 166 warped decks 100, 101
hard surface 166 outflow
helmet/clothes lockers 166 excluded rapid 46, 47
security surveillance 166 rapid 44, 45, 62, 63
motorists’ destinations, car park influences 1–2 overhead signage 176, 177
multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) 6
multi-storey car parks (MSCP) painting, light colours 175
aisle viewing angles 8 parking stalls see stalls
categories 9 partially sighted, guidelines 177
changes of use 2–3 pay and display 187
first 1 pay stations, signs 178
hillside conditions 15 payment
market values 3 by mobile phone 187–8
running costs 187 on exit 186, 187
sale of 2–3 on foot 187
music, and security 169 pedestrians
see also disabled pedestrians
natural ventilation 191 access flat and sloping decks 91
angled stalls 11
obstructions, between parking stalls 9–10 encumbered 26
occupancy fire escapes
maximum 154 access to 153–4, 183
notional 153–4 distances from 155–6, 183
one- and two-way-flow types stairs as 153, 154–5
combined, threeþ bins wide 52, 53 flat and sloping decks 75
combined helix guard rails 197
side connected 70, 71, 80, 81 lifts 153
eight stalls wide 120, 121 ramps 16
split-level 122, 123 gradients 24
single ramp 98, 99 layouts 156, 156
ten stalls wide 118, 119 split-level decks 43

signage 177–8 roofs
sloping decks 59 exposed decks 33–4, 195–6
and vehicle ramps 15 drainage 181
kerb separation 24–5 running costs, multi-storey car parks 187
petrol interceptors, drainage 181
plans, availability 178 Safer Car Parks scheme 169
powered two wheelers (PTW) sales, multi-storey car parks 2–3
facilities for 164, 165 scissor-type ramps 22, 23
separate entries and exits 165 one-way-flow (SLD 3) 48, 49
scissors ramps
rain one-way-flow types 48, 49
effects on decks 26 at right angles 106, 107
effects on stopping distances 27 SD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 60, 61
ramps (pedestrian) 16 as alternative 55, 63, 77, 97
gradients 24 alternatives to 61
regulations 43 congestion 61
split-level decks 43 static efficiency 61
ramps (vehicle) SD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 62, 63
see also access ways alternatives to 63
aisles, projections into 17 static efficiency 63
circular 22, 24 SD 3 (double helix/end connected/one-way-flow) 64, 65
one-way-flow 142, 143 as alternative 67, 69, 89, 101
two-way-flow 140, 141 alternatives to 65
cross- 13, 14, 15 static efficiency 65
dynamic capacities 27–8 SD 4 (double helix/end connected/two-way-flow) 66, 67
end 95, 97 as alternative 67, 69, 89
circular 114, 115, 116, 117 alternatives to 67
exits, headroom 15 static efficiency 67
gradients 15 SD 5 (interlocking double helix/one-way-flow) 58, 68, 69
recommended 16–17, 16, 18 as alternative 51, 53, 67, 89
ground clearance on 7–8 static efficiency 69
half external 126, 127 SD 6 (combined helix/side connected/one- and
interlocking two-way-flows) 70, 71
circular type 24, 150, 151 alternatives to 71
stadium type 24, 148, 149 static efficiency 71
internal 88, 89 SD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72,
internal cross- 91 73
manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20 alternatives to 73
open-aspect 14 static efficiency 73
outer clearances 14, 15 SD 8 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72, 73
pedestrians and vehicle 15 alternatives to 73
scissor-type 22, 23 static efficiency 73
scissors, one-way-flow types 48, 49, 106, 107 searching
separated, one-way-flow types 110, 111 stalls
side-by-side 22 inefficient 51, 53, 81, 83
storey height 17, 18, 103, 105 traffic congestion 73, 81
straight security
one-way-flow 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 144, CCTV 168, 169–70
145 car park shapes 170
storey height 146, 147 optimum monitoring 169–70
two-way, one-way-flow types 104, 105, 108, presence of 169
109 lighting 169
widths motorcycle parking 166
and aisle entry efficiency 21 music as aid 169
angled stalls 21 public perceptions 169, 170, 175
one-way-flow 19, 20–1 women-only car parks 170
turning circles 22, 23 short stay car parks 9
two-way-flow 22 capacities 31
rapid exit routes 36, 78, 79 large-capacity 45
refuges, disabled pedestrians 154 lift requirements 156–7
reinforced concrete structures 195 lifts 153, 157
finishes 197 recommendations for
life expectation 195 combined flat and sloping decks 93, 97
shrinkage joints 196 sloping decks 61, 73
retail outlets split-level decks 47, 57
short stay car parks 26 retail outlets 26
supermarkets, lift requirements 156–7 side-by-side ramps 22
Index 209
signage advantages 43
control 178 pedestrian ramps in 43
deck levels, indications 176, 178 popularity 43
deck markings, directional 177 sports utility vehicles (SUV) 6
emergency 179 sprinklers 184
lighting 175 staff parking see tidal car parks
headroom 25 stairs
overhead 176, 177 cores, drainage 181
pay stations 178 as fire escapes
pedestrians 177–8 fire lobbies 154–5, 154
schedule 179 fire regulations 153
variable message 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9 widths 155
single helix stalls
one-way-flow see also angled stalls; disabled parking stalls; parking
internal ramps 88, 89 decks
rapid outflow 62, 63, 78, 79 access, manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
two-way-flow dimensions
flat and sloping decks 76, 77 area per car space 31
sloping decks 60, 61 length 9
SLD 1 (one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 44, 45 width 9, 27
as alternative 47, 57 driver searches 35
alternatives to 45 dynamic capacity 27
capacity 31, 45 obstructions between 9–10
circulation efficiency 35, 45 rectangle 6, 9
static efficiency 45 searching
SLD 2 (one-way-flow/excluded outflow) inefficient 51, 53, 81, 83
as alternative traffic congestion 73, 81
to FSD series 89 static efficiency 30–1
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73 standard design vehicles (SDV)
to SLD series 45 see also vehicles
to VCM series 95 95factor 6, 10
alternatives to 47 departures from 6, 7
static efficiency 47 ground clearance 7–8, 10
SLD 3 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 48, 49 height 6, 10
as alternative 81, 85, 93 length 6, 10
alternatives to 49 turning diameters 8, 10
capacity 31 wheelbase 7, 10
static efficiency 49 width 6, 10
SLD 4 (combined one-way-flows, threeþ stalls wide) static efficiency
50, 51 definition 30
alternatives to 51 external bins 30
circulation efficiency 51 internal bins 31
SLD 5 (combined one- and two-way-flows, 3þ bins single bins 30
wide) 52, 53 two-bin layout 30
as alternative 83 steelwork 195
alternatives to 53 coatings 197
static efficiency 53 storey height ramps 17, 18, 103, 105
SLD 6 (two-way-flow/combined ramps) 54, 55 structure
as alternative 49, 61, 77 alternative materials 195
alternatives to 55 deflections 198–9
static efficiency 55 reinforced concrete 195
SLD 7 (one-way-flow/contra-flow exit) 56, 57 finishes 197
as alternative 97, 99 life expectation 195
alternatives to 57 shrinkage joints 196
static efficiency 57 steelwork 195
sloping parking decks (SD) coatings 197
see also SD series supermarkets, lift requirements 156–7
definition 59 surveillance see CCTV; lighting; security
disabled drivers 59 swept paths, turning circles 22, 23
parking gradients 59
pedestrian considerations 59 tag systems of payment 188
smoke tariffs see control systems
control 184, 192 temperature differences, exposed decks 196
detectors 192 tidal car parks 9, 49
speed limits, imposition of 27 capacities 32
split-level decks (SLD) with flow reversal 69
see also SLD type series lifts 157

recommendations for capacity 31
flat and sloping decks 97 static efficiency 93
sloping decks 61, 63, 65, 69 VCM 2 (one-way-flow/end ramps) 94, 95
split level decks 49, 55, 57 as alternative
two-way-flow, ramps 21–2 to FSD series 85, 89
top decks see decks, exposed to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73
turning circles to SLD series 57
circular ramp systems 139 within VCM series 93, 99
minimum dimension layouts 113 alternatives to 95
standard design vehicles 8, 10 static efficiency 95
swept paths 22, 23 VCM 3 (two-way-flow/single ramp) 96, 97
two-bin layout, static efficiency 30 as alternative 49, 55, 61, 77
two-way-flow alternatives to 97
aisle widths static efficiency 97
minimum 13 VCM 4 (one- and two-way-flow/single ramp) 98, 99
reduced 12 as alternative 57, 61
circular decks 126, 127 alternatives to 99
circular ramps 24 static efficiency 99
end 116, 117 vehicles
full 140, 141, 142, 143 see also standard design vehicles
traffic congestion 61 camper vans 6
vehicles crossing 26–7 four-wheel drive 6
two-way-flow types limosines
see also one-and two-way-flow types in multi-storey car parks 7
with combined ramps 54, 55 stretched 7
double helix, end connected 66, 67 new registrations by type 203
single end ramp 96, 97 sports utility 6
single helix, sloping decks 60, 61 ventilation
air change rates 192
underground parking 172 fans 190, 191–2
constraints 173 natural 191
efficiency 173 underground parking 190, 191–2
minimum dimension layouts 112, 113 viewing panels, for disabled pedestrians 177
ventilation 190, 191–2
uninhabited layouts, definition 33 warped parking decks 91
USA, high level parking 33, 34 see also WPD series
user-friendly car parks 2, 37–9 washing-down facilities, decks 181
user-unfriendly car parks 125 waterproofing decks 197–8
wheelbase, standard design vehicles 7, 10
variable message signs 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9 widths
VCM 1 (one-way-flow/internal ramps) 90, 92, 93 aisles 10–11
as alternative minimum 13
to FIR series 105, 107, 109, 111 parking stalls 9
to FSD series 81, 83, 85, 89 stairs 155
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73 standard design vehicles 6, 10
to SLD series 45, 47, 51, 53, 57 women-only car parks 170
to WPD series 101 WPD 1 (warped deck/one-way-flow) 100, 101
within VCM series 95, 99 alternatives to 101
alternatives to 93 static efficiency 101
Index 211

Car Park Designers&#39; Handbook (Part 05 of 05)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Car Park Designers&#39; Handbook (Part 05 of 05)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

9.

Disabled drivers and carers 163

Cycles and motorcycles 165

Fig. 10.3 Motorcycles can

out of the stand. Large motorcycles occupy a space of about

166 Car park designers’ handbook

Cycles and motorcycles 167

170 Car park designers’ handbook

Underground parking 173

178 Car park designers’ handbook

status and preventing needless circulation through areas that are

16.2 Escape The limitations on travel distances are as follows:

Fire escapes, safety and ﬁre ﬁghting 183

16.5 Sprinklers Approved Document B of the Building Regulations acknowledges that it

184 Car park designers’ handbook

Fiscal and barrier control 187

188 Car park designers’ handbook

Fiscal and barrier control 189

18.1 Discussion Insuﬃcient attention to ventilation problems can lead to a build up of

18.2 Natural The basic tenets of natural ventilation are:

192 Car park designers’ handbook

19.3 Joints Measurements taken at a constant temperature over an extended period

196 Car park designers’ handbook

19.7 Waterproofing Deck waterproofing should create an impermeable layer sufficiently

198 Car park designers’ handbook

Fig. 20.2 St Peter’s, Leamington Spa

202 Car park designers’ handbook

A selection of new cars registered in the UK (2004):

Minis (under 3000 mm long)

Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and diagrams.

access ways 13, 14, 15 full, two-way-ﬂow 140, 141

206 Car park designers’ handbook

208 Car park designers’ handbook

210 Car park designers’ handbook

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

Car Park Designers' Handbook (Part 05 of 05)

Car Park Designers' Handbook (Part 05 of 05)