"The Water Has To Be Released En Masse Otherwise The Dams Would Have Been Broken Apart"

[Mitker]

It's the second time I read the same assesment in different news and I have some difficulty getting it.

In short, does this really mean that these dams have been build following a design that doesn't allow them to resist their water content?

I used to believe this is the very idea behind erecting a dam...

Some light here, anyone?

The sentence in its wider context:

"In spite of heavy storms this year, water levels in general have not been significantly worse than the great floods in 1995. More investigation is needed on water releases from the dams this year and in 1995. Water resources experts from Plamod Maiklad to Dr Smith Thammasaroj have asserted that floods could have been avoided. I was told that a Cabinet member spoke to irrigation and electricity officials not to release the water from dams, in spite of heavy downpours in September, so there would be enough water for farmers. "I shall assume sole responsibility for this," he said.

The delay in releasing water from dams, particularly Bhumibol Dam, in the North has caused mayhem because the water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart. This Cabinet member has not yet come out to assume any responsibility for his decision that caused unprecedented floods (...)

source: The Nation, Opinion, Oct 27, 2011

[Moonrakers]

I do believe that is nonsense, some of them were literally overflowing.

[poanoi]

Thailand has the opportunity to construct a couple of large dams that would both prevent flooding and generate electric very cheap

[ARISTIDE]

It's typical Thai way of thinking/ guessing set that often doesn't rely on logic or reason. Dams should be able to resist the water at least twice as much it is intended for. And that is what Engineers are suppose to do.

[Mitker]

Thanks. I feel less alone

[theblether]

Of course this all assumes that the dams were properly constructed in the first place. One of the most famous examples of dam failure was in the US a few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam

Dams can fail you know, and water release is part of dam management. By the looks of this story it has been political interference in the conduct of the water release that has caused the problem.

[jackr]

I think they confuse 'braking apart' with overflowing. They won't (shouldn't) break apart, but if you don't release beforehand and they overflow, there could potentially be more volume escaping (depending on catchment area inflow and Ping River volume in this case) than could be released by the sluices alone.

[Berkshire]

It's typical Thai way of thinking/ guessing set that often doesn't rely on logic or reason. Dams should be able to resist the water at least twice as much it is intended for. And that is what Engineers are suppose to do.

Why don't you just admit it, Aristide? You really have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

[Swiss1960]

In short, does this really mean that these dams have been build following a design that doesn't allow them to resist their water content?

I used to believe this is the very idea behind erecting a dam...

In theory, you are right... but not in the current practical situation... every engineer, whether building houses, dams, nuclear plants or embankments, will do a worst case szenario and add this worst case szenario to the security margin + 10-20% on top... normally, it is even requested in some building laws. Of course there is always the question whether those top-up security margins have really been built or just been paid for by the government...

So let's assume a dam or an embarkment is built to resist two weeks of high rain and completely filled up lakes or rivers... the dams and embarkments would hold that... but here we talk about 2 months of this situation... look what happened in New Orleans with the dams... you can not build security margins for worst worst worst worst case scenarios... nobody will pay for that...

The most dangerous situation you will find with natural embankments (stones and earth). After weeks of high water levels, these embankments are completely soaking wet and get weaker every day... till you either release the water or they will break.

Google broken dams... you find articles from all over Europe, this is not specific to Thailand... we just had such situations in Switzerland few weeks ago...

[kerryk]

"The water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

Has anyone answered this question yet, if so I missed it. Why does, "the water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

[Swiss1960]

"The water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

Has anyone answered this question yet, if so I missed it. Why does, "the water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

This is my 5 cents to this question which I have posted:

So let's assume a dam or an embarkment is built to resist two weeks of high rain and completely filled up lakes or rivers... the dams and embarkments would hold that... but here we talk about 2 months of this situation... look what happened in New Orleans with the dams... you can not build security margins for worst worst worst worst case scenarios... nobody will pay for that...

Once you are in that situation (embankments filled to capacity for too long and getting weak and weaker), there is no more controlled (slow) water release possible but the urgent need to get out as much water in as short time as possible

[thaibeachlovers]

"The water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

Has anyone answered this question yet, if so I missed it. Why does, "the water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

This is my 5 cents to this question which I have posted:

So let's assume a dam or an embarkment is built to resist two weeks of high rain and completely filled up lakes or rivers... the dams and embarkments would hold that... but here we talk about 2 months of this situation... look what happened in New Orleans with the dams... you can not build security margins for worst worst worst worst case scenarios... nobody will pay for that...

Once you are in that situation (embankments filled to capacity for too long and getting weak and weaker), there is no more controlled (slow) water release possible but the urgent need to get out as much water in as short time as possible

Sorry. but I disagree. Any dam should ( but obviously some are not ) built to contain a certain amount of water, and have an overlow to release any water over it's capacity that does not rely on anyone deciding whether to release it or not. An analogy would be the pressure relief valve on a steam boiler.

Before anyone says that's not possible, the big dam in Cyprus has just such an overflow.

[thaibeachlovers]

"The water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

Has anyone answered this question yet, if so I missed it. Why does, "the water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

This is my 5 cents to this question which I have posted:

So let's assume a dam or an embarkment is built to resist two weeks of high rain and completely filled up lakes or rivers... the dams and embarkments would hold that... but here we talk about 2 months of this situation... look what happened in New Orleans with the dams... you can not build security margins for worst worst worst worst case scenarios... nobody will pay for that...

Once you are in that situation (embankments filled to capacity for too long and getting weak and weaker), there is no more controlled (slow) water release possible but the urgent need to get out as much water in as short time as possible

"look what happened in New Orleans with the dams"

Presume you mean the levees. In that case it was known that they would not be able to take the amount of water that breached them, but the politicians would not pay for them to be strengthened.

[Mitker]

It seems from some posts that time is a key factor that reduces the structural strengh of the dam when full. I didn't imagine that.

And if so, I agree with Thaibeachlovers and imagine there should be some model allowing for a progressive release instead of "en masse" (after 2 months), something one would expect only as an emergency option when a failure is already noticed.

nb: I checked the Teton dam case on YouTube/Wiki. Blame is rather put on wrong location (weak soil) in the first place rather than poor level management.

[onionluke]

This guy down the pub was saying that it can all go horribly wrong in seconds .

[tonybuak]

What on earth are you all talking about? A Dam is built to hold this much Excess water for only this long and then Oh my god look out! What about the structure further down that holds the bulk all year ,do you think they put more cement in that bit.

As as far as i can make out they just haven't realy got any thing in place to deal with it when they are full up, For Example I was in Bangkok last week and tied to get a canal boat from Ato B but there was no boats as there ws no water, NO WATER! So as far as i can see theyv'e got these canals but no Exit to take it out the other end, Most likly did have but sold it for divelopment.

Maybe they should get that Ital/Thai building company who built and is still building the BTS( to Pattaya I beleave) and stop them doing that and move all there Plant over to do something about the water problems.

thinkn they'v'e just goy to put some big pipes in place that go straight tp the sea or something

"The water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

Has anyone answered this question yet, if so I missed it. Why does, "the water has to be released en masse otherwise the dams would have been broken apart."

This is my 5 cents to this question which I have posted:

So let's assume a dam or an embarkment is built to resist two weeks of high rain and completely filled up lakes or rivers... the dams and embarkments would hold that... but here we talk about 2 months of this situation... look what happened in New Orleans with the dams... you can not build security margins for worst worst worst worst case scenarios... nobody will pay for that...

Once you are in that situation (embankments filled to capacity for too long and getting weak and weaker), there is no more controlled (slow) water release possible but the urgent need to get out as much water in as short time as possible

"look what happened in New Orleans with the dams"

Presume you mean the levees. In that case it was known that they would not be able to take the amount of water that breached them, but the politicians would not pay for them to be strengthened.

[Gary A]

Once again translation errors give our resident political experts ammunition to attack politicians and infrastructure projects. Major dams can release as much or as little water as they want. Do you really believe that water must be released en-mass?

[hhgz]

"One of the most famous examples of dam failure was in the US a few years ago."

The dam collapsed in 1976, quite a few years ago.

[kerryk]

Once again translation errors give our resident political experts ammunition to attack politicians and infrastructure projects. Major dams can release as much or as little water as they want. Do you really believe that water must be released en-mass?

So are you going to give us the correct translation or just pretend to know what it is?

[jombom]

If you google Bhumidol Dam, you will see it took 6 years to fill it, between 1964 and 1970. Filling it, meant getting it to 70% of capacity --- say 10% per year.

So, for it to move from 70% to 100% of capacity, in 2 or 3 months tells it's own story. In a normal country, there would be a public enquiry.

My view, is that because of lack of developing further dams, the existing ones were forced to perform beyond specification.

The emergency spillway on Bhumidol was closed, according to the Nation. In my experience, I have never heard of an emergency spillway being closed.

[Gary A]

Once again translation errors give our resident political experts ammunition to attack politicians and infrastructure projects. Major dams can release as much or as little water as they want. Do you really believe that water must be released en-mass?

So are you going to give us the correct translation or just pretend to know what it is?

I don't know the correct translation or pretend to know. A little research will certainly reveal that this is NOT correct;

"The Water Has To Be Released En Masse Otherwise The Dams Would Have Been Broken Apart"

I suspect they are talking about earthen dikes rather than the major dams. Earthen dikes will be destroyed if allowed to overflow and will indeed disintegrate from the rushing water.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Gary A

[kerryk]

Once again translation errors give our resident political experts ammunition to attack politicians and infrastructure projects. Major dams can release as much or as little water as they want. Do you really believe that water must be released en-mass?

So are you going to give us the correct translation or just pretend to know what it is?

I don't know the correct translation or pretend to know. A little research will certainly reveal that this is NOT correct;

"The Water Has To Be Released En Masse Otherwise The Dams Would Have Been Broken Apart"

I suspect they are talking about earthen dikes rather than the major dams. Earthen dikes will be destroyed if allowed to overflow and will indeed disintegrate from the rushing water.

So what we have here is a resident non expert telling a resident expert he does not know the proper translation by saying I don't know either. Have I got that right? Isn't it proper procedure when you allege someone has the wrong translation that you know the correct one?

[Gary A]

Once again translation errors give our resident political experts ammunition to attack politicians and infrastructure projects. Major dams can release as much or as little water as they want. Do you really believe that water must be released en-mass?

So are you going to give us the correct translation or just pretend to know what it is?

I don't know the correct translation or pretend to know. A little research will certainly reveal that this is NOT correct;

"The Water Has To Be Released En Masse Otherwise The Dams Would Have Been Broken Apart"

I suspect they are talking about earthen dikes rather than the major dams. Earthen dikes will be destroyed if allowed to overflow and will indeed disintegrate from the rushing water.

So what we have here is a resident non expert telling a resident expert he does not know the proper translation by saying I don't know either. Have I got that right? Isn't it proper procedure when you allege someone has the wrong translation that you know the correct one?

You seem to have an aversion to logic and would rather nit pick my opinion of a poor or bad translation. Why is that?

[Mitker]

Once again translation errors give our resident political experts ammunition to attack politicians and infrastructure projects. Major dams can release as much or as little water as they want. Do you really believe that water must be released en-mass?

So are you going to give us the correct translation or just pretend to know what it is?

I don't know the correct translation or pretend to know. A little research will certainly reveal that this is NOT correct;

"The Water Has To Be Released En Masse Otherwise The Dams Would Have Been Broken Apart"

I suspect they are talking about earthen dikes rather than the major dams. Earthen dikes will be destroyed if allowed to overflow and will indeed disintegrate from the rushing water.

Original translation may be questioned but the text cites the source as saying "delay in releasing water from dams, particularly Bhumibol Dam, in the North has caused mayhem because the water has to be released en masse...".

To my opinion, that leaves little room for confusion with earthen dikes, even in aproximative translation.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Mitker

[kerryk]

You seem to have an aversion to logic and would rather nit pick my opinion of a poor or bad translation. Why is that?

Because the nit is the basic issue. If the dam people were told by a minister in government to not release the water in violation of their own policy that is why the flooding started. In other words the system would have worked without political interference. I think this was the case and that the translation was accurate or close to accurate. If you can provide a better translation I am all eyes for reading it and finding out I am wrong. :jap: