File photo for reference only

 

Xin Ke Yuan Steel Ltd faces increased scrutiny after rejecting safety test results from the Iron and Steel Institute of Thailand. The tests revealed that their 32mm and 20mm deformed steel bars failed to meet safety standards. These bars were utilised in the construction of a building that collapsed during last Friday's earthquake in Bangkok, drawing attention to potential faults in steel integrity.

 

The Rayong-based company denies the findings and has requested further testing from the Thailand Automotive Institute. They argue that this institute's lab is better equipped to measure boron levels, a critical factor in steel quality assessments.

 

Authorities are not taking these concerns lightly. Industry Minister Akanat Promphan revealed multiple violations during a December 2024 inspection of Xin Ke Yuan Steel. As a result, operations were suspended, and 2,441 tonnes of steel products worth 50.1 million baht were confiscated in early January.

 

 

 

A ministry-led task force visited Xin Ke Yuan's Nong Lalok factory earlier this week to enforce compliance and demand sales records for the confiscated products. Thitipas Chotedechachainan, the task force leader, reminded the company of their obligation to account for their steel's origins and warned of legal repercussions if any barred products were moved or sold illicitly.

 

Though further testing at the Thailand Automotive Institute is permitted, the company initially submitted results from the Iron and Steel Institute for its factory establishment. As the investigation continues, the stakes remain high for Xin Ke Yuan, whose products' compliance—or lack thereof—could have far-reaching implications following the earthquake disaster, reported The Nation.

 

-- 2025-04-04

 

 

The design of the building was supposed to be Quake proof  meaning the building was to be flexable to a degree (sway and absorb shock)Boron, when added to steel rebars, significantly enhances hardenability, leading to increased strength and durability, particularly in low-carbon steels, making them suitable for applications requiring high strength and toughness. If boron content in steel rebars exceeds certain limits, it can lead to problems like reduced toughness, embrittlement, and increased hardness, especially during welding, potentially causing cracking and snapping. Using Boron steel in rebars are also not good at load bearing

The steel they buy to make the rebar will be supplied with batch mill certs.

 

Were those certs bogus ?

 

Xin Ke Yuan Steel should have independent testing done.. not at the Thai institute... there is several in Thailand that can do this.

40 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

The Rayong-based company denies the findings

 

I would not expect a Chinese company to say anything different.

15 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

The steel they buy to make the rebar will be supplied with batch mill certs.

 

Were those certs bogus ?

 

Xin Ke Yuan Steel should have independent testing done.. not at the Thai institute... there is several in Thailand that can do this.

Oh yes the heat certs at best guess  bogus for sure

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Xin Ke Yuan Steel Ltd faces increased scrutiny after rejecting safety test results from the Iron and Steel Institute of Thailand. The tests revealed that their 32mm and 20mm deformed steel bars failed to meet safety standards. These bars were utilised in the construction of a building that collapsed during last Friday's earthquake in Bangkok, drawing attention to potential faults in steel integrity

Now they need to test all the concrete for it's integrity.

I wonder who owns the company (substantially, as opposed to 'on paper') ...

This Chineese company  has a Thai  constuction worker earning 10,000 baht a month as the major shareholder and Chineese proxy. 

Chineese employees tried to remove dozens of documents from the site. 

This reeks of corruption by Chineese and Thai developers. 

As I said, in a previous post  only trust an external testing facility.. eg Australia, then there will be no ongoing back and forth arguing, also making testing much more transparent, with no chance of corruption.

9 minutes ago, jippytum said:

  constuction worker earning 10,000 baht a month

 

 

And you know this how ?

If the govt confiscated the defective steel back in January why are they telling the company they have to account for any movement of those materials? They shouldn't have been in the companies possession.

3 minutes ago, Dan O said:

If the govt confiscated the defective steel back in January why are they telling the company they have to account for any movement of those materials? They shouldn't have been in the companies possession.

 

Because the company was still fully operational, despite an order to cease operations

Might be a good time to QC the steel used in HSR construction and that submarine on order.

 

42 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

And you know this how ?

Report in this mornings English language Thai newspaper.

33 minutes ago, brianburi said:

Report in this mornings English language Thai newspaper.

 

Ok thanks.

 

Will go have a look.

1 hour ago, bamnutsak said:

Might be a good time to QC the steel used in HSR construction and that submarine on order.

 

The reinforcing is all QC tested under requirements verified by the Supervision Consultant. 
Just the same as is required on all construction projects, including the auit office that collapsed.
However, from what is happening now it creates concern whether it can be trusted.
Its not just the HSR, there are many elevated structures for highways and rail lines.
Your point is valid and FYI, the department of transport is already looking much more closely at the HSR work and there are extra tests already carried out this week on samples from some of the HSR steel reinforcing.
 

2 hours ago, Dan O said:

If the govt confiscated the defective steel back in January why are they telling the company they have to account for any movement of those materials? They shouldn't have been in the companies possession.

Confiscated in name only as steel products were isolated at site for repurposing( sold for less demanding construction) . They are too heavy and bulky to actually moved. 
authority wanted to verify whether these faulty steel were sold to unsuspecting buyers or not.

18 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Oh yes the heat certs at best guess  bogus for sure

"For Sure" Where has that been established.?
In my experience the comment is not appropriate.
To my knowledge and experience it is extremely rare for the intial steel to be suspect, most of the problems found from reinforcing are due to faults in the rebar manufacturing process not in the steel supplied.

The testing of the rebar itself is the critical point in the verification of the material and its properties.
That is important to recognize.
If suppliers of steel were provinding bogus test certificates they would be found out fairly quickly and  be investigated that would result in closure of the mill. They would have to be idiots if they thought they could get away with it.
Falsifying mill tests of the reinforcing or supplying substandard products can more easily happen without being detected if there is not adequate attention paid to independent sampling and testing of the bars.
The testing of samples from site deliveries is specified in standards to protect against this.

CCP. 'nough said.

 

27 minutes ago, jojothai said:

"For Sure" Where has that been established.?
In my experience the comment is not appropriate.
To my knowledge and experience it is extremely rare for the intial steel to be suspect, most of the problems found from reinforcing are due to faults in the rebar manufacturing process not in the steel supplied.

The testing of the rebar itself is the critical point in the verification of the material and its properties.
That is important to recognize.
If suppliers of steel were provinding bogus test certificates they would be found out fairly quickly and  be investigated that would result in closure of the mill. They would have to be idiots if they thought they could get away with it.
Falsifying mill tests of the reinforcing or supplying substandard products can more easily happen without being detected if there is not adequate attention paid to independent sampling and testing of the bars.
The testing of samples from site deliveries is specified in standards to protect against this.

We are still in the dark in regarding testing of the steel  not 100% if certs have been  falsified to only way to test that is by chemical or MS testing, it is unknow if this has been carried out,  but i would not put this past the chineses to do this alter the certs, would like to know how you think they would be found out quickly of bogous mill/heat certs,  destructive testing is carried out as a matter of course but not chemical or ms testing and that is the oly way you could prove if a mill/heat cert is false part of this joint venture was a testing company for the material on site  dont you think money would have changed hands 

It is not normal on a delivery of steel reo to do destructive testing on each batch  you ask for the mill/heat cert which should give you all the info you require, without seeing what the spec calls for in reo it is unkown ? lots of questions can be asked about the steel  was boron added boron steel is not good for compressive load, or was it just carbon steel which is not good for prestressed concrete

As i said it is Not normal to request chemical nor MS testing to be done in a project  destructive testing yes but only if some thing is suspected

So Tofu construction has officially moved into Thailand. 

 

5 hours ago, brianburi said:

Report in this mornings English language Thai newspaper.

Which English language newspaper? There are quite a few.

11 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

We are still in the dark in regarding testing of the steel  not 100% if certs have been  falsified to only way to test that is by chemical or MS testing, it is unknow if this has been carried out,  but i would not put this past the chineses to do this alter the certs, would like to know how you think they would be found out quickly of bogous mill/heat certs,  destructive testing is carried out as a matter of course but not chemical or ms testing and that is the oly way you could prove if a mill/heat cert is false part of this joint venture was a testing company for the material on site  dont you think money would have changed hands 

It is not normal on a delivery of steel reo to do destructive testing on each batch  you ask for the mill/heat cert which should give you all the info you require, without seeing what the spec calls for in reo it is unkown ? lots of questions can be asked about the steel  was boron added boron steel is not good for compressive load, or was it just carbon steel which is not good for prestressed concrete

As i said it is Not normal to request chemical nor MS testing to be done in a project  destructive testing yes but only if some thing is suspected

perhaps getting mixed up between mill certificates for the raw steel (billets) and reinforcement testing.
I do not know what the MS is , do you mean mill cerificates for the raw steel. They include chemical composition.
Please can you read what i said again. The vulnerability is normally in steel end product certification.
Reinforcing steel has its own processing procedures that affect chemical composition.
Reinforcing steel output requires chemical composition tests by the factory as well as other properties.
There is the vulnderability that they can be falsified by a factory.
The end product is a critical point for sampling and testing  
Standards for independent sampling and testing DO include chemical composition.
"Key ASTM Standards for Rebar Testing: ASTM A615/A615M:
This standard covers deformed and plain carbon steel bars for concrete reinforcement, specifying requirements for chemical composition, mechanical properties, dimensions, and surface condition. 
Mandatory Tests: Chemical analysis, tensile test (measuring yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and elongation), bend test (assessing ductility), and dimensional measurements. "
I have previously ensured that project specified requirements match standards, arranged sampling and testing, even done the sampling myself and witnessed testing many times. And i have reviewed testing laboratories for their compliance with standards.

FYI, and for others reading, the review and inspections of HSR work have been confirmed including some  testing of steel reinforcing (and it included chemical composition). See following link if the forum allows it.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16TT9ZJXgv/

 

14 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Might be a good time to QC the steel used in HSR construction and that submarine on order.

 

Done for HSR, I dont know about the submarines.
Review and inspections of HSR work have been confirmed including some testing of steel reinforcing
See following link if the forum allows it.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16TT9ZJXgv/

 

9 hours ago, jojothai said:

perhaps getting mixed up between mill certificates for the raw steel (billets) and reinforcement testing.
I do not know what the MS is , do you mean mill cerificates for the raw steel. They include chemical composition.
Please can you read what i said again. The vulnerability is normally in steel end product certification.
Reinforcing steel has its own processing procedures that affect chemical composition.
Reinforcing steel output requires chemical composition tests by the factory as well as other properties.
There is the vulnderability that they can be falsified by a factory.
The end product is a critical point for sampling and testing  
Standards for independent sampling and testing DO include chemical composition.
"Key ASTM Standards for Rebar Testing: ASTM A615/A615M:
This standard covers deformed and plain carbon steel bars for concrete reinforcement, specifying requirements for chemical composition, mechanical properties, dimensions, and surface condition. 
Mandatory Tests: Chemical analysis, tensile test (measuring yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and elongation), bend test (assessing ductility), and dimensional measurements. "
I have previously ensured that project specified requirements match standards, arranged sampling and testing, even done the sampling myself and witnessed testing many times. And i have reviewed testing laboratories for their compliance with standards.

FYI, and for others reading, the review and inspections of HSR work have been confirmed including some  testing of steel reinforcing (and it included chemical composition). See following link if the forum allows it.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16TT9ZJXgv/

 

 I am Very familiar with ISO and ASTM standards  ( MS is a common nick name for Mass spectrometry)    astm standard for rebar also covers  "Mass per meter" ASTM A615/A615M-16  this goes into the rebar Structural Integrity and Load-Bearing Capacity also the profile,  according to earlier news the rebar failed the Mass per meter test,

and you are correct there is a vulnerability in the system has been known for years,  mill /heat cert forgery  not only for the billet from the furance but in product of pipes rebar ect  ASTM is a compicated Standard and very stringent now there is another problem in the mix  we are asumming !! that the steel IS to comply with ISO/ASTM standard China has its own standards !!  never worked with chinese standards

if you note they do not say what standard they are testing too

35 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

never worked with chinese standards

if you note they do not say what standard they are testing too

 

I'm not claiming any expertise since I'm a mechanical and not a civil engineer.  But you could start here for hot rolled:  GB 1499.2-2024, and here for cold rolled:  GB 13788-2024.  But as you pointed out, there's no clarification for what standard they tested to.

 

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not claiming any expertise since I'm a mechanical and not a civil engineer.  But you could start here for hot rolled:  GB 1499.2-2024, and here for cold rolled:  GB 13788-2024.  But as you pointed out, there's no clarification for what standard they tested to.

 

 British standard dought they would have been used ! I have been a Quality manager on many projects like this over the years Mech and Civil  dont do electrical

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

 British standard dought they would have been used ! I have been a Quality manager on many projects like this over the years Mech and Civil  dont do electrical

 

GB in this context is GuoBai.  Guo is national...  Bai, I don't know...

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

GB in this context is GuoBai.  Guo is national...  Bai, I don't know...

ah ok chinese !!  worked for chinese before on joint venutre but never chinese standards !!  the way chinese work is very old fashion  they use wet straw bedding to cure concrete as an example  do not like using excavators rather flood the job with men and shovels  weird !!

2 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

 I am Very familiar with ISO and ASTM standards  ( MS is a common nick name for Mass spectrometry)    astm standard for rebar also covers  "Mass per meter" ASTM A615/A615M-16  this goes into the rebar Structural Integrity and Load-Bearing Capacity also the profile,  according to earlier news the rebar failed the Mass per meter test,

and you are correct there is a vulnerability in the system has been known for years,  mill /heat cert forgery  not only for the billet from the furance but in product of pipes rebar ect  ASTM is a compicated Standard and very stringent now there is another problem in the mix  we are asumming !! that the steel IS to comply with ISO/ASTM standard China has its own standards !!  never worked with chinese standards

if you note they do not say what standard they are testing too

Understood thanks. We have to expect the tests were done to THai standards that are based on the western standards.
China has standards, yes, many based well on western standards and many translated into english. They have to be identified on HSR works. They have built enough HSR in china, and have standards specific to HSR.
We found that the chinese do not have to create specifications for a lot of HSR Project requirements to suppliers and for products because they are already in national standards. 
They have standard checklists for works that have to be used. For Civil works there are a large number.
They do not have to create them from scratch (previous jobs etc) on each Project as we tend to do in the west.

As well as rebar steel, High stength bolts can be just as serious a problem. Had major issues in two mega projects, false records for end product, one on a  big airport terminal caused major cost and delays.