An Engineer's Explanation Of Suvernabhumi Problems

[p1p]

At the beach or a river bank, take a handful of sand and hold it tightly in your fist. Now submerse it in water. No matter what you do, the sand will escape and the mass you are holding will become smaller and smaller.

Sand is an acceptable base for concrete only if it is never exposed to water in significant quantities. If it becomes saturated with water, it becomes a liquid as well.

Suvarnabhumi's runways and taxiways were built on saturated soils. Some of this soil, highly plastic in composition, was removed and replaced as it could never be compacted sufficiently to keep it from 'oozing'. However, not all of this soil was removed. 'Marginal' material was permitted to remain. Some of this material should have been removed. In other places and at other times during the prolonged sub-structuring of the area, different medthodology was applied. Some contrators accepted existing sub soils, some mixed new fill in, and some replaced questionable fill. This was done over several years and as of consequence, the substrate beneath the runways and taxiways is not uniform. All soils will eventually subside under load, if they subside at different rates, cracks will appear as well as several other obvious problems.

The use of sand as a leveling fill on top of this questionable substrate is only acceptable if the sand is never permitted to become permeated with moisture. The runways and taxiways are crowned, higher in the middle. At the sides of them there are weep screeds to permit any moisture that may percolate up through the substrates to be carried off by the sand before subsidence can occur. However, if the ditches into which the screeds drain become filled with water, the water will flow out into the sand. Subsidence will be inevitable. During the recent rainy season, all the drainage ditches surrounding the runways and taxiways became filled with water. Undoubtedly, some of the sand beneath the areas has flowed out and voids remain. There are no measures in place to prevent this reverse flow at present.

Can the runways and taxiways as built be repaired? No. Considering the quantity of ground water in the surrounding area, and the uneven and un-uniform substrates, the only permanent remedial action is to remove most of the runway and taxiways, remove the substrate materials and replace it with clay bearing compactable fill. Sand will no longer be required if the fill is sufficiently impermeable. The alternative to this is driving piles through the substrates and, in essence, standing the runways and taxiways upon them as bridges.

The problems with these two remedial solutions is, respectively, finding enough clay bearing fill and transporting it to the airport would be extremely difficult, very costly, and time consuming. The driven piles however, would probably be even costlier. However, unless one of these two measures is undertaken, the problems of cracking and subsidence will never be eliminated. The fact is, you cannot build a live load structure on mud, a swamp. The swamp must be drained and unacceptable substrate materials replaced so the area experiences only uniform subsidence. This was not done in places, and haphazardly done in other areas. The runways and taxiways are doomed.

As for the terminal building itself. It was observed that several AC arc welders were used when the steel superstructures were built. To put it short, terse and succinct: the building must be condemned. Only DC or DC reverse welding is acceptable for structural load bearing welding. With casual inspection this, AC welding, can be noted in many places. The entire structure is unsound and will suffer some catastrophic destruction during an earthquake or severe winds. To contribute to this impending hazard, many of the building materials are not of acceptable construction standards and will become projectiles in the event of catastrophic destruction. Non safety glass and non structural, non re-enforced 'filler' walls and joints but two examples.

Compounding the inherent deficiency in construction, the board of the AoT has complained that they have been unable to get their hands on the blue prints of the terminal building. However, even if all the blueprints were readily available, the actual -as built- construction will never be accurately documented. Undoubtedly substandard materials and workmanship has gone into virtually all phases of construction. This is blatantly obvious to any engineer who takes even a casual stroll through the building. Large patches of mortar may be seen covering over sections of structural concrete walls. Inaccurate alignment of load bearing members speaks clearly of shoddy construction practices. This list is almost endless. In essence, a pristine example of how not to construct a building.

Egress and ingress, a required and carefully regulated safety feature of all public areas has been severely compromised throughout the entire building. A US Fire Marshall travelling through the airport best described: "Plain and simple, it's a fire trap. It's deadly. A building like this would never have been opened to the public in America". To explain his comment, ignoring the choked passageways and confusing layout of the floor plan, simply follow the very basic tenet of public safety. Stand in any area in a modern public building and you will see emergency exit signs and other assists in the event of an emergency in clear view. You have to search long and hard to find even the most rudimentary of evacuation planning, signage and routing just about everywhere in Suvarnabhumi.

[PeaceBlondie]

I thought every swamp dweller knew how to catch crocodiles and alligators:

FIRST, YOU DRAIN THE SWAMP.

[Pink Mist]

We know the problem what is the solution, back to Don Muang is my idea

[jimbabe]

We know the problem what is the solution, back to Don Muang is my idea

but who was incharge of this? Wherewerethe engineers? Were they not listened to? Is thisTakins folly?

[p1p]

We know the problem what is the solution, back to Don Muang is my idea

but who was incharge of this? Wherewerethe engineers? Were they not listened to? Is thisTakins folly?

Engineers were there but, as with so many things in Thailand, Mr Big needed his 50%. So there was not enough money to do the job properly.

I truly wish the populace of Thailand could be educated how truly damaging this atmosphere and acceptance of corruption really is. A shake of the head and muttering of "This is how things are/have always been done" is simply not good enough. This country could have been an Asian powerhouse to rival Japan if corruption could have been solved fifty or so years ago. Third or fourth world cesspool beckons if it is not overcome by the current generation. Cobra Swamp is but a symptom of worse to come.

[PhilHarries]

Check out this article in the Bangkok Post http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/12Feb2007_news01.php .

The following is a short section of the article.

A drain should have been put in place to take water from beneath the taxiways and runways of Suvarnabhumi airport, says an expert investigating problems there.

Foreign engineers might not be aware that the airport's site was once a swamp, said the expert, who asked not to be named.

"The panel investigating problems at the airport must look into what was known about water levels," he said.

Sand had been used to fill swamp during construction of the airport, but an embankment around the airport, which was built later, complicated the problem as it in effect held water inside the enclosed area, stopping it from draining out.

A member of the inquiry panel, Suebsak Prombun, said his group was investigating the cause of problems there, but was not responsible for bringing those responsible to justice.

At this stage the committee believed that cracks and subsidence in the taxiways had been caused by underground water which had existed since construction of the airport began.

I don't for a minute believe that the engineers were not aware that it was a swamp before, the old name nong ngoo hao (cobra swamp) was a pretty good clue.

Back to Don Muang? Read on:

Bannawit Kengrian, chairman of the National Legislative Assembly's committee on Suvarnabhumi airport, said the airport should be completely closed for repairs.

Don Muang airport was fully prepared and low-cost airlines were willing to move there. Adm Bannawit said Suvarnabhumi would eventually close for repairs as no airline would dare use airports with cracks.

He said he would discuss the relocation of low-cost airlines, and domestic and international flights at the next cabinet meeting, if damage were found at both runways at Suvarnabhumi.

The government will decide the airport's fate on Wednesday. Earlier, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said he would prefer the airport to remain open while the problems were corrected.

Seconds out, round one!

[Old Man River]

I truly wish the populace of Thailand could be educated how truly damaging this atmosphere and acceptance of corruption really is. A shake of the head and muttering of "This is how things are/have always been done" is simply not good enough.

Sadly, you are correct that people will say that corruption is as it always has been, unless they are specifically made to financially pay for the repairs to the new airport or costs of new additions to DM if this is the choice. Unless there is a real price to be paid, not increased taxes down the line to service the debt incurred, then it will always be someone else's problem.

[cdnvic]

The only thing positive I can get out of that report is that the terminal should provide sufficient rubble to make a decent bed to lay the new runways on.

[lomatopo]

Are you the author of this 'article'? If so you really need to provide documented references, attribution for the quotes and observations and identify the quote sources. If you are not the author then could you identify the source of the article?

"It was observed...", by whom?

"A US Fire Marshall said...", name please.

"However not all this soil was removed...", source please.

"The list is almost endless..." but only one example is provided?

An Editor wouldn't know where to start with this article and a Publisher wouldn't publish it, thank goodness for the Internet where no one knows if you're a dog (to paraphrase the orignal New Yorler cartoon).

Edited February 12, 2007 by lomatopo

[sriracha john]

Can the runways and taxiways as built be repaired? No.

The runways and taxiways are doomed.

The entire structure is unsound and will suffer some catastrophic destruction during an earthquake or severe winds.

A US Fire Marshall travelling through the airport best described: "Plain and simple, it's a fire trap. It's deadly.

I like excitement as much as the next guy.... but not at the speed jets reach on takeoff nor at the volume of debris involved while dodging around a collapsing terminal.

[Swelters]

I have some specialized background in this topic and though I have not studied the specifics of the airport cracking problem I don't believe that the technical suggestions made in this thread about sand, swamp, etc are the most likely explanation.

The whole lower Choa Phraya basin including Bangkok and the airport area is underlain by many meters of very soft clay. If you pile a meter of earth fill on top of the ground, settlement will be initiated and eventually over a period of months and years, amount to about one-half meter but may vary from natural variations in the soil underground. This being the case, adding fill and pavement is a tricky business and must be done either at an uniform rate or very carefully timed and monitored so that differential movement does not develop (and continue for years) resulting in damage and offset to any pavements. There are no practical alternatives to this procedure. You cant use piles as you do on almost all buildings.

Attempting to rush the job or not keeping an exact account of what you are doing where is bound to result in serious problems. It is easy to imagine the possibility of project engineers losing control of the situation due to management changes, pressures to speed up the job, and so forth. I would not be surprised if this turns out to be the root of the problems, which because of their progressive nature are going to be very difficult to correct if my explanation is right.

The majority of major world airports have similar potential for problems because major cities are located in port areas at the mouths of major rivers and these areas are more often than not underlain by difficiult soil condtions. Political interference in the site engineering is always dangerous because political motives tend to be short-term and opportunistic. Engineers may be afraid to confront the demands of the Big Men and simply say, "if that's what they want, then who am I to stand up to them?" They need only to see what happened to the Bangkok Post reporters who were fired for raising the issue.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Swelters

[marshbags]

I thought every swamp dweller knew how to catch crocodiles and alligators:

FIRST, YOU DRAIN THE SWAMP.

As these are being drained to catch aeroplanes

Then you lay an adequate drainage system to run off any future water that builds up.

Then as we are in Thailand, make sure it is clear of all the stuff that,s usually left in the road construction drains before laying the top surfaces and doing the usual 50-50 job of sealing them.

marshbags

Edited February 12, 2007 by marshbags

[gummy]

Hopefully as it is perceived the US Fire Marshall ( Dillon ? ) would condem the airport per-se, then the sooner the word gets around to all other US citizens the better. Given their abilty to turn any situation into a crisis and push the panic button, then perhaps they will all perceive it is far too dangerous to travel here hence relieving Thailand of another "shed" full of US experts. Mind you if it was rumoured that Bin Laden was an AOT Director, 50% of Americans would probably believe it. So brilliant are they at knowing the answers, how many kilometres of freeway were destroyed at the last major Earthquake in Los Angeles as they had not been designed to the then current ( at the time of construction) earthquake design data parameters? Should have asked their old friends Japan for advice perhaps?

[slimdog]

Bangkok's new airport runway is safe

Bangkok (dpa) - A two-week investigation into about 100 cracks that have appeared on the taxiways and a runway of Bangkok's new 3.9-billion-dollar Suvarnabhumi Airport found that the damage is less serious than expected, inspectors said Monday.

"Judging from our two-week investigation, I'm confident that the runway is safe," said Tortrakul Yomnak, a chief engineer for the Airports of Thailand government agency, which led the inquiry.

Full story: http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=116747

[qualtrough]

While there are no doubt problems with the new airport, and perhaps some serious ones at that, this entire issue is mainly one of competing factions in Thailand. You have a group of people who are seeking to discredit Taksin and anything associated with his policies, and they are therefore going to exaggerate any problems to make their case seem stronger. There are also those who lost out at Don Muang, and they too are eager to see those who benefitted at Suvanaphum get their comeuppance. Local papers, particularly the two English-language dailies, are not distinterested parties, and in fact are highly partisan. In light of those facts I would advise people here to take any 'facts' presented by either side with a large grain of salt. The OP's unattributed 'facts' are just one example of what I am talking about.

Even if there are serious problems with the new airport it would be in Thailand's best interest to make it work. The costs of reopening Don Muang, maintaining two airports, and creating an infrastructure that will allow quick connections between the two would probably far outweigh the cost of remedying any problems at the new airport. Closing it would be a tremendous fiasco and the cause of embarrassment even worse than at present. I think some cooler heads realize this and I wonder if the Don Muang plans will eventualize.

Edited February 12, 2007 by qualtrough

[lomatopo]

Local papers, particularly the two English-language dailies, are not distinterested parties, and in fact are highly partisan.

Please elaborate on your perceptions? Other than selling more papers how and why are they 'interested' and "highly partisan". Many people here seem very well informed, it would help us novices if you explained and elaborated on your statements.

[kriswillems]

I think the last sentence of the next article explains why the new government would like move back to the old airport.

bangkokpost, 12 feb 2007

Suvarnabhumi runway declared safe

(dpa)

A two-week investigation into about 100 cracks that have appeared on the taxiways and a runway of Bangkok's $3.9-billion-dollar Suvarnabhumi Airport found that the damage is less serious than expected, inspectors said Monday.

"Judging from our two-week investigation, I'm confident that the runway is safe," said Tortrakul Yomnak, a chief engineer for the Airports of Thailand government agency, which led the inquiry.

The appearance of cracks and ruts only four months after the airport opened on September 28, has proven a major embarrassment for Thailand, which has touted the new facility as securing Bangkok's position as South-East Asia's aviation hub.

The cracks, mostly found in the taxiways and at the tip of the east runway where jets start off, has also led to speculation that Suvarnabhumi might need to be closed for major repairs.

But the investigation into the problem has revealed that the cracks are primarily on the surface and do not indicate a major problem with the engineering work below the tarmac, Tortrakul said.

Tortrakul, who two weeks ago was warning that the airport might need to be closed for three years, concluded Monday that repairs to the runway, one of two at the airport, would take at most one month or a few hours.

He refused to directly answer reporters' questions as to whether Suvarnabhumni would need to be closed for repairs.

Thailand has been sending mixed signals about Suvarnabhumi Airport, which has become part of a broader political struggle.

Suvarnabhumi was a pet project of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted by a military coup on September 19 on charges of corruption and dividing the nation.

Thaksin, a billionaire telecommunications tycoon turned politician, claimed responsibility for pushing the 3.9-billion-dollar project through to completion although he was heavily criticized for rushing construction and allowing corrupt deals to flourish.

Last week, the cabinet agreed to allow both Don Muang, the capital's old airport, which closed to commercial flights on September 28, and Suvarnabhumi to operate as international airports.

A decision to actually reopen Don Muang has not yet been announced.

Don Muang, which served as the capital's airport for 92 years, is on land owned by the Air Force, which has always benefited financially from the commercial airport

[backflip]

"I have some specialized background in this topic...I don't believe that the technical suggestions made in this thread about sand, swamp, etc are the most likely explanation...I would not be surprised if this turns out to be the root of the problems...if my explanation is right."

Both sides of your mouth are working overtime.

[britmaveric]

Cost cutting measures were the issue - easier to graft dosh. Anyways its a bloody mess and the worst is yet to come I'm afraid.

[jumnien]

"Don Muang, which served as the capital's airport for 92 years, is on land owned by the Air Force, which has always benefited financially from the commercial airport"

Says it all, doesn't it?

[gummy]

"Don Muang, which served as the capital's airport for 92 years, is on land owned by the Air Force, which has always benefited financially from the commercial airport"

Says it all, doesn't it?

Does it? The Royal Thai Airforce is part of the National Government asset bank is it not ? Who owns the freehold to the new airport's land ?

[sriracha john]

Political interference in the site engineering is always dangerous because political motives tend to be short-term and opportunistic. Engineers may be afraid to confront the demands of the Big Men and simply say, "if that's what they want, then who am I to stand up to them?"

There was never any political interference with the engineering at the airport, was there?

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra walk past a statue of a Thai classical giant during an inspection tour at Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok on Thursday, May 25, 2006. The Thai government said Thursday it will push ahead to open Bangkok's new international airport by September and rush to mend troubles from a leaking roof down to runway cracks.

AP

"Problems? What problems? Hurry up and finish this .... hurry.... hurry... fill the cracks with loose gravel... it's ok.... Hurry... the election is coming soon.....just patch the roof, it'll be ok.... Hurry.... we have to open! We have to have it open when people go to the polls and vote for me... HURRY!!! I'm the Expert here... I'll have you know I HAVE A PhD!!!!"

[kriswillems]

From bangkok post, 12 feb:

"Don Muang, which served as the capital's airport for 92 years, is on land owned by the Air Force, which has always benefited financially from the commercial airport"

From wikepedia (about royal thai airforce):

As of 2006, the Commander of the Air Force was Chalit Pookpasuk, who was also a Deputy of the Council for National Security that seized power during the 2006 Thailand coup.

Edited February 12, 2007 by kriswillems

[jumnien]

I guess that explains why we never saw any actual photos of "cracks"....

[ovenman]

Political interference in the site engineering is always dangerous because political motives tend to be short-term and opportunistic. Engineers may be afraid to confront the demands of the Big Men and simply say, "if that's what they want, then who am I to stand up to them?"

There was never any political interference with the engineering at the airport, was there?

Got any pictures of Mr Big and his band of merry lackeys camping at the new airport site a few years back, trying to nudge the process along? I'm sure that staged event was both inspirational and helpful to all those involved in the construction.

Edited February 12, 2007 by ovenman

[ballbreaker]

Should have asked their old friends Japan for advice perhaps?

That might not be a good idea. I remember the 1995 Kobe earthquake knocked down one their freeways.

[qualtrough]

Local papers, particularly the two English-language dailies, are not distinterested parties, and in fact are highly partisan.

Please elaborate on your perceptions? Other than selling more papers how and why are they 'interested' and "highly partisan". Many people here seem very well informed, it would help us novices if you explained and elaborated on your statements.

You are indeed a novice if I need to explain to you why newspapers in Thailand might be highly partisan. Not enough space here for me to get you up to speed on that front sorry to say.

You also write that people 'seem well-informed.' They do?? 'Seems' like you can find just about any new airport fact you want nowadays, both pro and con. That was the point of my post, which seems to have escaped you. The real issue here is not the safety of the airport and the cost of fixing it. The real issue revolves around the parties that stand to gain or lose if Don Muang reopens. Another poster kindly copied an article that spells it out pretty clearly (hint: men in blue) in case you missed it.

Edited February 12, 2007 by qualtrough

[sriracha john]

Political interference in the site engineering is always dangerous because political motives tend to be short-term and opportunistic. Engineers may be afraid to confront the demands of the Big Men and simply say, "if that's what they want, then who am I to stand up to them?"

There was never any political interference with the engineering at the airport, was there?

Got any pictures of Mr Big and his band of merry lackeys camping at the new airport site a few years back, trying to nudge the process along? I'm sure that staged event was both inspirational and helpful to all those involved in the construction.

sorry, I don't and I don't believe they exist....

More than likely after the sun went down... and the media left, they nipped over to the Oriental Hotel for some comfy suites. Then in the morning their limo drivers brought them back for some fresh media coverage of their hardships.

Edited February 12, 2007 by sriracha john

[meom]

Political interference in the site engineering is always dangerous because political motives tend to be short-term and opportunistic. Engineers may be afraid to confront the demands of the Big Men and simply say, "if that's what they want, then who am I to stand up to them?"

There was never any political interference with the engineering at the airport, was there?

When did they actually start to construct (back filling etc) the new airport? Was this during Thaksin reign or did they start already earlier before he came to power?

[PeaceBlondie]

Shall we start a betting pool (without money) as to when Swamp-bunny will reopen? And if it's closed for longer than it was open, do we get to reopen the old pool as to when the airport would really, actually open? I don't think it's permanently open yet. This is a trial run that's failing.