In a stirring call to action, Professor Amorn Pimanmas, the esteemed president of the Thailand Structural Engineers Association (TSEA), is urging vigilant preparedness among building owners. As recent tremors from Myanmar rippled through to Bangkok, the need for enhanced structural vigilance has never been clearer. During an insightful forum aptly named “After the Quake” — a collaborative effort by the Bangkok Post Plc and Chulalongkorn University’s Communication Arts — Professor Amorn highlighted the precariousness underscored by the March 28 earthquake. This unsettling tremor originated from the notorious Sagaing Fault, a geological menace coursing below Mandalay, Bago, and Yangon.
Though the epicenter lay over 1,000 kilometers away from the bustling veins of Bangkok, the distant seismic shiver startled the city’s infrastructure. “This fault is a steadfast neighbor we cannot wish away; our only certainty is its persistence,” quipped Professor Amorn, underscoring the perpetual volatility looming beneath.
The event was, rather hauntingly, an “unintentional test” of Bangkok’s architectural endurance. While the city’s skyline largely stood strong, the same was not true for the under-construction State Audit Office (SAO), which crumbled dramatically. With a critical eye, Professor Amorn attributed the collapse to flawed design, specifically criticizing the lift shaft walls — pivotal supports — which betrayed the structure, leading to its untimely vertical descent. “Buildings are meant to sway, dance in resilience, not fall as if rehearsing for gravity’s embrace,” he lamented.
The quake left its subtle mark, weaving minor cracks into the cityscape and whispering reminders in the walls of several dozen other structures. Yet, Professor Amorn reassures that demolition isn’t the panacea for safety. Instead, he champions modern engineering marvels, urging owners to arm their edifices with contemporary materials like carbon fiber. Not only can these innovations fortify against cracks, but they also ensure steel doesn’t betray its steadfastness with a bend.
Further aligning Bangkok with seismic-savvy regions like Japan, Professor Amorn advocates for seismic sensors, costing under 30,000 baht each. These affordable gadgets can serve as guardians, delivering pivotal real-time data to assess a building’s nerve during trembles. Alongside, he gestures towards practices seen in Japan: from flexible metal foundations to gel pads designed to guard against Newton’s fateful laws when the earth calls for a dance.
The professor’s gaze also scan the geographic horizons to the foreboding Srisawat Fault, lurking a mere 200 kilometers away, whispering the potential for a magnitude 7.5 menace. His message rings clear: “We have the chance, the responsibility, to gird our bulwarks, particularly around the sinewy lifelines of lift shafts.” His hope is a clarion call, a chance to sidestep history’s harsher lessons and fortify before a mighty quake vies for its name in record and ruin alike.
Thus, with wisdom and concern intertwined, Professor Amorn’s voice rises as both warning and guide, charting a course to ensure Bangkok stands proud, prepared, and protected against whatever tremors the earth’s mantle may ungraciously toss its way.
Professor Amorn’s proactive approach is commendable. Bangkok cannot afford to ignore seismic threats.
But how effective can these preparations really be? Isn’t it more about luck when an earthquake hits?
It’s less about luck and more about preparedness and resilience. Look at Japan; their readiness saves countless lives.
Or maybe Japan just gets lucky more often.
Seismic sensors sound like a solid investment. I’m curious, how often do regular buildings collapse in Bangkok due to earthquakes?
Professor Amorn is making it sound like Bangkok is on the brink of disaster. Is it really that bad?
Not yet, but complacency is dangerous. It’s about preventing potential rather than reacting post-disaster.
I just feel like it’s a lot of pressure to put on building owners. What about government responsibility?
Shouldn’t it be a shared responsibility? Individuals can’t just rely on the government for everything.
This is exactly why I’m investing in carbon fiber tech for my projects. It’s not just about safety, but also building resilience.
It’s always ‘invest more money in safety’. But what if some people simply can’t afford it?
True. But even basic measures can prevent major disasters. It doesn’t always have to cost a fortune.
Fair point. Still, safety shouldn’t be a luxury.
If you can’t afford safety, maybe you shouldn’t be involved in constructions.
I think the lift shaft focus is key. If we can fix those, a lot can be saved in case of quakes.
Has this professor ever lived through a major quake outside Bangkok? Experience changes plans.
Experience informs strategy, but predictive analysis and preparation can prevent disaster.
I appreciate the focus on technology and innovation. It’s a must in today’s age.
Perhaps the solution isn’t more technology, but reverting to older, proven designs?
Old designs have been surpassed for a reason. We should focus on new tech!
I teach my students to brace in place during quakes. Preparedness starts with education.
But how can you teach something that might happen once in a lifetime?
Hopefully Professor Amorn’s advice and the integration of new technologies will help prevent future disasters.
Rather than critiquing, why don’t business owners come together and sponsor community projects for better building codes?