Friday, November 13, 2015

Detectadas más rajaduras....La Estrella de Panamá

Panamá

Nacional

Detectadas más rajaduras en nicho de esclusa del Pacífico

miércoles 11 de noviembre de 2015 - 12:00 a.m.En un memorándum, el diseñador pone al tanto al consorcio Grupo Unidos por el Canal sobre nuevas fisuras halladas entre la compuerta número cinco y seis

Adelita Coriat
acoriat@laestrella.com.pa

El 25 de septiembre pasado, un memorándum de Consultores Internacionales dirigido a Michael Newbery, gerente de diseño de la empresa Montgomery Watson Harza, IV Groep y Tetratech, contratada por el consorcio Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC), informaba de una nueva rajadura en el nicho 3 de la esclusa del Pacífico de la ampliación de la vía interoceánica de Panamá.

‘La fisura transversal, de una longitud de 25 a 30 metros, está ubicada ‘aguas arriba' (upstream) de la junta de la construcción de la puerta deslizante número 6. El agua fluía de esta fisura', se lee en la nota que envía John Duque, ingeniero estructural.

Se trata de una fisura adicional a otras detectadas en el mismo nicho (3) del Pacífico, cuyas fotografías le dieron la vuelta al mundo al momento de ser inundadas las esclusas a finales de agosto pasado. Una vez se vació, los ingenieros se percataron de esta nueva rajadura, que no tiene relación con la anterior.

‘Lo primero que se te ocurre —asegura Jorge De La Guardia, director ejecutivo de la División de Administración del Proyecto de Esclusas de la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP)—, es que hay una relación entre amba s cosas, pero los expertos de Grupo Unidos Por el Canal (GUPC) determinaron que era otro tipo de falla, no similar a la primera', expresa el ingeniero de la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá.

Se trata de una fisura producto de la tensión de la superficie del concreto, según la explicación dada a La Estrella de Panamá por De la Guardia. Según el ejecutivo, GUPC debe investigar las presiones hidrostáticas, ‘puesto que en teoría es que existe una tensión por abajo que empujó en alguna parte y tiró a partir la parte de arriba', añadió.

GUPC no respondió a este medio acerca de esta falla en particular. Después de haber enviado un cuestionario a la empresa, ésta envió un comunicado de dos párrafos en el que hace alusión a los daños detectados en agosto pasado y que se publicaron en los medios de todo el mundo: ‘Consultores Internacionales (CICP) realiza las pruebas en todas las fases del proyecto. Además, para estas correcciones adicionales se utiliza de forma simultánea 20 maquinas de perforación, de las cuales 14 ya se encuentran en obra y las demás llegarán en barco procedentes de Estados Unidos e Italia, así como subcontratistas especializados', se lee.

‘Es un error de diseño', asegura De la Guardia. La experimentada empresa Montgomery Watson Harza, IV Groep y Tetratech, es la encargada de este trabajo.

Según el ingeniero Humberto Reynolds, miembro American Society of Civil Engineers, el hecho de reconocer que se trata de un error de diseño, ‘podría causar un conflicto entre el diseñador y GUPC. Esto cuesta mucho dinero, de ser, así el diseñador puede ser demandado'.

Lo preocupante para la ACP, es que hasta el momento, GUPC no ha presentado un diagnóstico puntual sobre estas nuevas rajaduras.

Antes de emitir un diagnóstico, según De La Guardia, es necesario efectuar los trabajos de reforzamiento para evitar las rajaduras en todos los nichos; tres del Pacífico y los tres en el sector Atlántico, a pesar de que en estos últimos no se detectaron este tipo de fallas.

Según De La Guardia, GUPC está revisando las presiones hidrostáticas. ‘Se hacen unas perforaciones para medir la altura en que está el agua y la presión que ejerce sobre la estructura que también está rodeada de roca', indicó De la Guardia.

POSIBLE ALTERNATIVA

Ante esto, la solución más sencilla que han propuesto los más de 50 especialistas que han analizado la situación, es hacer un drenaje para liberar el exceso de agua. ‘No es un desagüe propiamente sino de presión. Al sacar el agua que hace presión solucionas eso', expresó el ingeniero de la ACP.

En el nicho número dos del Pacífico, también se notó una fisura, más delgada que la primera -la del número 3- lo curioso es que ambas están ubicadas en el mismo sitio y en forma transversal. Cuando los especialistas se percataron de esta casualidad, provocó más preocupación.

‘El problema ahora es estudiar muy bien estas fisuras y la posible conexión con la otras rajaduras. Aparentemente hay una conexión entre el lateral y la fisura nueva. Eso puede ser por una junta, o un sello', manifestó De la Guardia.

Lo que agrava el panorama, es que el desahogo de la presión es una hipótesis, más no un diagnóstico definitivo. Lo importante, según De la Guardia, es establecer cuál es la posible conexión entre ambas filtraciones, la de agosto y ésta.

En el Atlántico, en el nicho número tres no se encontraron fisuras. Sin embargo De La Guardia asegura que ‘hay que examinar, no mirar, y esto no se ha hecho porque tiene agua, hay que secarlo antes', asegura.

Sin embargo, para Reynolds la situación es delicada.

Opina que los ‘quicios dañados deben repararse en base a un diseño que contemple la solución del problema, y si actualmente se encuentran en fase de investigaciones no han hecho el diseño que solicita la ACP', manifiesta.

A su juicio, hasta que no exista un diseño final aprobado y que debe ser presentado por GUPC a la ACP. ‘Si se da el visto bueno, entonces involucraría al Canal y lo que resulte de esta decisión sí es comprometedor para la ACP', expresa Reynolds.

¿Cuánto tiempo tomará esto?

Es la pregunta que se hace De La Guardia en las reuniones semanales con GUPC. ‘Pero todavía no pueden dar un tiempo estimado o un diagnóstico, necesitan investigar más', apunta.

Reynolds considera que estas fisuras son una bomba de tiempo si la corrección del diseño original no se logra. ‘Soy de la opinión de que la ACP tiene en sus manos un gran pleito que lo manejarán silenciosamente, pues si esto sale a la luz pública producirá graves situaciones para todos, y la posición de la ACP se verá muy comprometida ante la ciudadanía', concluye el también miembro emérito e insigne de la Sociedad Panameña de Ing enieros y Arquitectos.

MEMORÁNDUM DEL 25 SEPT.

Estatus y causas de las fisuras halladas en el nicho 3 de la esclusa

El 12 de septiembre se probó la puerta rodante número 5 del nicho 3 de la esclusa del Pacífico.

Después de vaciar la cámara de la puerta rodante 6m se observaron unas rajaduras en la estructura entre la puerta deslizante cinco y seis. La fisura radiaba aguas arriba en dirección a la intersección de la linea central longitudinal de la cámara de la esclusa y la puerta deslizante número 6

También se halló una rajadura transversal de aproximadamente 25 a 30 metros de la que salía agua.

La estructura soportó una presión hidrostática por encima de lo previsto en el diseño.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Home Economy Two new sets of cracks in the new PanCanal locks

Economy

Two new sets of cracks in the new PanCanal locks

November 11, 2015

Why is a construction problem that yields this concrete core sample being called a design flaw? Because if it is properly diagnosed as a bad concrete pour and properly resolved by tearing out the faulty concrete and redoing the work, that would cause major new delays and probably bankrupt construction companies in Spain, Italy and Panama and possibly some of their suppliers, insurers and lenders as well. Calling it a design flaw allows for a quicker, cheaper and shorter-lasting fix and for those responsible for the bad concrete to litigate with designers in an attempt to pass off some of the costs of their mistake to others.

New cracks in the new locks as the ACP looks for new revenue sources

by Eric Jackson

La Estrella’s Adelita de Coriat, having obtained a memo by a consulting firm for the GUPC consortium that’s building the new Panama Canal locks, reports that two new sets of cracks have been found in the new Cocoli Locks. One of the new problems is a previously unreported and allegedly unrelated fissure in the number three Pacific Locks sill, and now we are told of a “thinner” crack in the number two locks sill, in about the same part of the structure as the one initially discovered in the number three sill this past August.

The memo that forms the core of La Estrella’s story, by the US-British-Dutch consulting consortium of MHW, Iv-Groep and Tetra Tech, cites the two previously undisclosed cracks and GUPC claims that the “new” problem in sill three is unrelated to the one that became apparent when water began leaking during testing in August. Don’t worry, GUPC assures us — the problems only appeared when the locks were subjected to water pressures greater than they will have to withstand during normal use of the locks. (Resistance to a possible earthquake along the Pedro Miguel Fault that runs near the locks? They don’t get into that.) La Estrella also quotes Panama Canal Authority (ACP) exec Jorge De La Guardia and independent civil engineer Humberto Reynolds, with the former reiterating the GUPC’s original claim that the problem is a design flaw and the latter noting the legal consequences of a design flaw claim, wherein GUPC might be suing a design subcontractor for redress. But if the ACP has received the GUPC formal report on the problem with its recommendations for a solution, the press and public have not been privy to that. Informally the GUPC has been saying since early on that the problem is a design flaw and that the solution is the injection of cement into the cracks and insertion of more rebar rods into the structure. That would be a relatively cheap and quick fix. The ACP, while avoiding taking a hard and fast official position, has responded with silence from canal administrator Jorge L. Quijano but statements from lower level canal managers accepting the GUPC’s diagnosis and its idea of a fix.

Any conventional building inspection take on those core samples from the problematic sill number three, however, would whether or not there is a design problem identify a faulty concrete pour that results in a honeycombed structure that can’t properly hold water. Any fix less than tearing out the bad concrete and pouring it anew would be substandard and unlikely to last as long as a proper repair. But that would be quite expensive and time-consuming, especially now that problems have been found in a second sill upon which locks gates slide. Those sorts of delays and added costs would also aggravate business, political and public relations problems that the ACP has independent of the cracks in the new locks.

The PanCanal problem of the moment as reported in the international shipping press has to do with long delays — up to 10 days — for ships waiting to transit the waterway. Part of that appears to be related to some regular maintenance on the Pedro Miguel Locks that people who work for the ACP have told The Panama News has not gone well. The ACP says that to address the problem non-urgent maintenance is being put off, the tugboat crews, pilots, line handlers and mule operators will be working extra hours and there will be booking changes to discourage certain sorts of ships (those under 300 feet long and those that regularly show up at certain intervals without special reservations) from coming through Panama at this time.

The Panama Canal has financial problems that go back to the conception and referendum campaign for the canal expansion, events before Quijano’s shift as administrator. The expansion was predicated on a ludicrous on its face projection in canal usage — the ACP was essentially telling Panamanians that the United States would export all of its industrial production to China and still be a vibrant consumer society that would import a steadily increasing volume of Chinese goods. Any journalist who questioned that was blacklisted by the ACP, but it never got to that point with most of the corporate mainstream news organizations, whose managements were bribed into credulity by huge advertising purchases at public expense by the “yes” campaign. In any case the usage projections, and the associated revenue plan for the canal expansion, were quickly proven wrong. The income shortfall was met by raising canal tolls. However, the higher tolls drove many shippers to other routes, particularly those between East Asia and Atlantic ports opting for the Suez Canal instead of Panama.

The Panama Canal is in financial pain and this problem is not just short-term. To address it the ACP is looking at non-canal businesses such as a new port in the Corozal and Diablo area, a fossil fuel power plant and an oil and gas pipeline. At the same time, ACP revenues are being looked at to address other national problems such as an anticipated shortage in the Seguro Social retirement fund. It becomes a set of political problems due to public institutions upon whose turfs the ACP would tread, private businesses that don’t want new competition and politicians who would rather not see government revenues flow away from their easy reach into an expanded Panama Canal Authority. When the Varela administration submitted the ACP’s proposal for the Corozal-Diablo port to the legislature earlier this year, it only got one supporting vote in the National Assembly’s Public Infrastructure and Canal Affairs Committee.

As has so often been the case, supporting the Panama Canal administration’s request has been promoted as something akin to a matter of patriotism. Why part of the nation’s ports regulation and management scheme should pass from the Panama Maritime Authority to the ACP, and why canal pilots’ warnings that a port in the proposed place would be a navigation hazard are invalid, might be questions treated as beside the point were it, say, 2006. But nearly a decade later the claims of ACP management genius have worn thin and scandals are eating away at the authority’s reputation. The presence on the ACP board of one Nicolás Corione Pérez Balladares, a construction executive and alleged fixer in a huge bribery and kickback scheme for the construction and renovation of Panama’s courthouses, does not help. Nor do the lowball bid and inherent familial conflict of interest — the winning bidder included a company owned by the family of the canal administrator at the time — that have Panama dealing with the GUPC consortium in the first place. Panamanians may not get an accounting from ACP management, but also may be less willing to hand out blank checks.

~ ~ ~

taken from The Panama News

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

TECH PANAMA CANAL

The New Panama Canal Is Leaking Water—And Money

David Z. Morris

@davidzmorris

NOVEMBER 2, 2015, 10:15 AM EST

As the opening date for the Panama Canal expansion has been delayed several times, merchant ships must continue using the old Pacific-Atlantic link.Photograph by Rodrigo Arangua — AFP/Getty Images

Cracked concrete may further slow down expansion project, which has already faced major hurdles.

As early as August, grim videos emerged showing water streaming through cracked concrete at the Pacific end of the ongoing Panama Canal expansion project. The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has since acknowledged that leaks developed during stress testing of the new locks.

ACP tentatively stated that the leak won’t cause further delays, but samples taken from the massive concrete structure have shownapparently serious problems, and ACP is still waiting on a full assessment from the project’s contractor, Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC).

If the leaks do cause delays, they would be added to the long list for a project has also faced massive cost overruns and bitter contract disputes. The initial target opening date for a bigger canal was October 2014, to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the original canal. But that was first pushed back to April 2015, and then to the current target of April 2016. The ACP has previously downplayed the likelihood of delays, only to reverse itself.

The relationship between ACP and GUPC has shown plenty of cracks too. As Fortunepreviously reported, those familiar with the project have long believed that the initial winning bid from GUPC—a consortium of Spanish, Belgian, Italian, and Panamanian firms—was unrealistically low at $3.2 billion (of an overall $5.3 billion initial tab). This was much lower than competing bids, and even below initial government cost estimates.

The circumstances of the bidding process were questionable. The contract was awarded under previous Canal administrator Alberto Alemán Zubieta, who was also former CEO of Constructora Urbana, S.A. (CUSA), the Panamanian wing of the winning GUPC consortium. Zubieta’s cousin Rogelio E. Alemán is now CUSA’s vice president (link in Spanish). In 2010, Spain’sEl Pais discovered leaked documents (link in Spanish) that quoted Juan Carlos Varela, then vice president and now president of Panama, saying, “When one of the bidders bids $1 billion less than the next, there is something very wrong.”

Since then, delays have been caused by labor disputes, issues with materials, and GUPC’s attempts to, in essence, renegotiate its initial low bid. This peaked with a January 2014 demand by GUPC that $1.6 billion in cost overruns be covered by APC. GUPC threatened to stop work if its demands weren’t met, a crisis barely averted through a partial settlement.

Every delay of the canal expansion also delays global trade growth. The new, widened channel will allow for the passage of much larger ships, which is widely anticipated to increase trade volumes, in particular, between Asia and the U.S. East Coast. This anticipated growth has triggered harbor deepening and infrastructure investment at ports along the U.S. East Coast, which could face extended underutilization if the canal expansion is delayed further.

The necessity of the canal expansion has been highlighted over the past week, as a growing backlog of ships waited as long as five days to pass through the current canal. In mid-October, the Panama Canal Authority announced that the canal moved a record 340.8 million tons, a historical high and a 4.3 percent increase over 2014.

APC has said that it expects a full assessment of the leaking locks from GUPC within three weeks.

Subscribe to Data Sheet, Fortune’s daily newsletter on the business of technology.