The Collapse Stadium Roof

Disclaimer: diagnosis was made based on my limited knowledge, experience ,data and information. It
may be right or wrong. The purpose is just to share knowledge
Causes and Effect Of The Collapsed Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin
Stadium Roof

1.0 Introduction

Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium is a multi-purpose stadium in Kuala
Terengganu, Malaysia, constructed by a South Korean construction firm. Together with
the adjacent Mini Stadium, it forms the centrepiece of Terengganu Sports Complex. It
was used mostly for football matches. The stadium holds 50,000 people and is named
after the reigning Terengganu Ruler, Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin. The biggest stadium in
the East Coast region of Peninsular Malaysia, it was built to replace Sultan Ismail
Nasiruddin Shah Stadium as the state's main stadium. Sultan Mizan Zainal
Abidin himself, who was then the 13thYang DiPertuan Agong officiated the stadium on
10th May 2008. Its first major use was as the main venue for Sukma Games 2008

2.0 Collapse of the roof

On June 2, 2009, a major part of the roof construction collapsed under normal weather
conditions, including the section above the royal box. It was only about a year after the
stadium was officially opened. Witness accounts indicated that a long loud sound similar
to a jet engine noise was heard as the roof fell to earth in pieces. A number of staff
were in the stadium during the collapse, with preparations for varsity staff games being
made. In addition to the games getting cancelled, many pieces of equipment were
either damaged or destroyed and vehicles parked nearby being damaged. Fortunately,
no casualties were reported.

3.0 Elimination of probable causes for the collapse
Elimination of probable causes for the collapse had to be done at
three stages ( processes ) of:-
a. Design
b. Construction
c. Operation and maintenence.

a. Design stage

The design had to comply with all the requirements of
certain specified code of practices. The output from
Structural Design Processes were translated into drawings
and specifications.

b. Construction Stage

During construction processes System must be established
to enusre the construction will be done in accordance with
the drawings and specification. Processes in these System
includes materials acceptance, quality control, verification
and validation and records management.

c. Operation and Maintenance Stage

During Operation and Maintenance the owner must ensure
the usage of the facilities comply with the intended purpose
and design.
From the statement by Public Work Department the major cause for the collapse of the
roof was identified to be the design fault and inappropriate materials. There were
also reports of sporadic loud bangs and structure damage prior to the collapse. One of
the structural repair jobs on the roof was scheduled on the day of the collapse itself,
along with some electrical repair works being carried out on other part of the stadium.
As of June 2010, the cleaning work and relocation of the collapsed roof were not
finished.
In News Strait Times dated J une 3, 2009 stated that the consultant engineer was
charged over Terengganu stadium collapse

Based on the charge sheet, Wan Manan from consultant company was alleged to have
acted like an approved examiner in issuing a document dated Jan 15, 2009 on the main
roof truss system and its related works for the proposal to construct the main stadium,
known as the Terengganu Sport Complex.
He is alleged to have signed and submitted the document to the state Public Works
Department (PWD) director Rosli Zainal which was also tantamount to deceiving the
then State Secretary Datuk Mokhtar Nong into believing he was the approved examiner.
The incident occurred less than a year after the handover of the stadium to enable the
state to host the Malaysia Games (Sukma) in May 2009.

4.0 Causes of Collapse of the Stadium Roof Structure
The Reports by the Investigation Committee highlighted a few factors which could have
contributed to the failure of the roof structures as summarised below :-
1. The design was inadequate
2. The roof was not erected properly resulting in misalignment
3. No quality control on Site
4. Materials and Workmanship not in accordance to specifications
5. Alternative designs from Contractor was adopted without proper analysis
The above sounds too familiar and so common in our construction industry. Almost
every sites are faced with these issues. In fact, structures are very resilient and would
not have been catastrophic in collapse, even if under designed. The concept of limit
state design takes account of this, allowing collapse to be progressive rather than
catastrophic. Only steel framed structures are more prone to collapse especially during
erection period, and particularly for 3D space frame structures.
Here is a causes of the collapse :-
i. The design was inadequate
The committee also determined that the main cause of the collapse
to be, among others, faulty design with failure to take into account
the support condition of the roof structure.

An investigation committee established by the Public Works
Department to determine the cause of the collapse at the RM292mil
stadium underlined several crucial factors in a detailed 60-page
confidential report submitted to the state government one year
after the incident.

ii. The roof was not erected properly resulting in misalignment
We must consider not only what loading conditions might effect a
structure, but also how those loads are transfered from their point
of origin through the structure to the ground. Strucutral design
decisions concerning the structural framing system will dictate this
flow of forces. The most direct path from the point of loading to the
ground will create the most efficient structure. The continuity of this
line of transfer is essential. However, this direct path is not always
possible. As a matter of fact, due to the nature of live loads this path
is constantly changing.

iii. Materials and Workmanship not in accordance to specifications

Among the factors cited were serious engineering flaws, shoddy
workmanship, inferior materials and lack of expertise in the key
project management team.

iv. No quality control on Site, staff not competence
It also stated that the project management team did not have the
necessary skills and competence to manage a project of such
magnitude and complexity.

v. Alternative designs from Contractor was adopted without proper analysis
The committee also determined that the main cause of the collapse
to be, among others, faulty design with failure to take into account
the support condition of the roof structure. Technical staff at site
dont know (not competence) what to do when they received
alternative design from contractor. They must sent to the designer
enginer to analysis the alternative design.

4.0 Effect from Sports Stadium collapse
The effect from the sport stadium collapse as summarised below :-
i. Bad Image to our construction industry to the world

ii. Our local consultant engineer cant meet a world class requirement
iii. Public thinking all the person involve especially Public Work Department (JKR)
and consultant involve with the corruption. For this case the MACC has swung
into action and began investigating the manner the contracts were awarded for
the Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium (The Star today). Is corruption involved?


iv. Black list our local consultant engineer and penalized
In News Strait Times dated J une 3, 2009 stated that the consultant
engineer was charged over Terengganu stadium collapse
Based on the charge sheet, Wan Manan Wan Ngah Principal from consultant
company was alleged to have acted like an approved examiner in issuing a
document dated Jan 15, 2009 on the main roof truss system and its related
works for the proposal to construct the main stadium, known as the
Terengganu Sport Complex.

He is alleged to have signed and submitted the document to the state Public
Works Department (PWD) director Rosli Zainal which was also tantamount to
deceiving the then State Secretary Datuk Mokhtar Nong into believing he was
the approved examiner

v. Image of engineer of Public Work Department (JKR) not so good. Now all the
JKR engineer from state of Terengganu already transfer to JKR Malaysia and
must take a course to make their competent especially to manage and
supervise big project and make knowledge in design

vi. No more work to be given to consulting engineer

vii. The damage was extensive, as practically the whole east wing came crush
down, a few cars were damaged. The contractor was a South Korean
Company while the Consultants were local Malaysians. Government going to
spent about RM35mil (US$10mil) for repaired works.

viii. In News Strait Times dated J une 3, 2009 stated that the consultant
engineer was charged over Terengganu stadium collapse
Based on the charge sheet, Wan Manan from consultant company was
alleged to have acted like an approved examiner in issuing a document dated
Jan 15, 2009 on the main roof truss system and its related works for the
proposal to construct the main stadium, known as the Terengganu Sport
Complex.

He is alleged to have signed and submitted the document to the state Public
Works Department (PWD) director Rosli Zainal which was also tantamount to
deceiving the then State Secretary Datuk Mokhtar Nong into believing he was
the approved examiner

It was reported in June 2009, in Kuala Terrengganu, Malaysia, that the roof
of a RM300 mil (US $90 mil) Sports Stadium collapse suddenly just after it
was recently completed.

Since the works were still within the defects liability period which is usually 12 months
or more for such a massive project, the cost of remedial works were borne by the
Contractor. What other issues involved would be under the relevant authorities.
An Investigation Committee was immediately set up with involvement from the Public
Works Department, Ministry of Works, Related Agencies, Experts, and an extensive
report was later compiled.
From the statement by Public Work Department the major cause for the collapse of the
roof was identified to be the design fault and inappropriate materials. There were
also reports of sporadic loud bangs and structure damage prior to the collapse. One of
the structural repair jobs on the roof was scheduled on the day of the collapse itself,
along with some electrical repair works being carried out on other part of the stadium.
As of June 2010, the cleaning work and relocation of the collapsed roof were not
finished.

Some of the photographs of the roof stadium collapse would be revealing :-


Aerial Picture of the
Collapsed Roof. Note that
the other structures are
intact, it is only the roof
which failed and the roof is
actually a Proprietary Space
Frame Structure, and not
designed and fabricated by
local contractors on site.
Note also that Space Frames
are all Pinned Jointed and
designed based on direct
forces, tension or
compression.


Part of the Roof Structure
which shows the Space
Frames involved



More pictures showing the
extensive collapse of the
whole roof.
Note that Space Frames are
interdependent on each
other for strength. It is very
weak and unstable until it is
erected and forces are
transmitted from top down.
It is also very sensitive and
any failure would be more of
a "domino effect"



Extensive Lives would have
been lost had the Sports
Stadium been occupied
during the Malaysia Games !
Designers and particularly
Structural Engineers must be
acutely aware that any
structures you do must never
fail under any circumstances,
as any failures could result in
collapse and lost of lives, not
to say very costly.

Stadium before collapse
Pic 2

Imagine if the collapse happened at this moment. Thousands of people will be killed and
injured!
Stadium after collapse

Please look these pictures for clues. It showed some tell tale sign that need to be confirmed
by measurements, analysis and testing

Pic 3 What were the sequence of failures before total collapse?

Pic 4 Observed the remaining space trusses attached to the concrete buttress

Pic 5

Pic 6

Pic 7 . The other concrete buttress. Observed similar pattern of failure

Pic 8 Concrete Buttress

Pic 9 See the large span between the concrete butress and the first column support along
the perimater

Pic 10

Pic 11

Pic 12
What were the possible forces acting on assemblage in the zone where the space truss
snapped? These forces originated from :Vertcally- Dead Load, Rain water loading!In plane
loading due to temperature effect, Horizontally(reversable)-wind loading and other
dynamic loading such as ground movement!

What were the Demand of all possible worst forces at the end of space trusses near the
concrete butresses? What were the Capacities of the steel members, connections and
assemblage against those forces?
Pic12a

Pic 12b


Pic 13

Pic 14

Pic15

Pic 16



Pic16a Click on the caption to enlarge the pic.
This photo showed the space frames were supported by connection at the column butress
and the columns along the perimeter of the stadium. This column free portion on both side
of the stadium looks unstable. The space frame was mainly supported by the columns
placed along the perimeter of the stadium.(See photo 18,12,20 and 22.
Question:
What was the adequacy of these columns to support the worst
loading from the space frame? Observe the size of the last perimeter
steel column assemblage?

Pic 17

Pic 18

Pic 19

Pic 20 The space truss were supported by steel columns along its
perimeter and the two concrete buttresses at the tips.

Pic20a View during construction

Pic21
Notice all column bases were dislodged at the its connection to the
concrete stump. Need to observe the mode of failure of the base
plate. It may be failure of the welds,shearing of bolts, prying of the
plate due to inadequate thickness or snapping of hold down bolt in
tension or any of their combination. I am sorry I dont have the
photos of this column to concrete stump connections

Pic 22


Pic 22a

Pic23
This photo showed the inclined, curved space frame was supported
only at two points i.e at the last perimeter columns and the concrete
stump(see pic 12). The photos showed the column free span was
very large maybe greater than 30 m.
The above configuration may create large torsional forces at the
column stump supports. (compare pic 1 with pic 28).
What was the worst torque at the ends of the space trusses where it
snapped?(see pic 7 & 8). What was the torsional capacities of the
space trusses at that section?

Pic 24a

Pic 24b

Typical Nodes

Typical Tubular members

Typical steel ball joints
HERE to see a more detail view of Pic 24b and what evidences can
you get on the failure of this zone to help you in the failure
investigation of this space trusses?
HERE to see a more detail view of Pic 21 and evidences on the
perimeter columns after collapse
Here are the evidences from Pic 24b.Similarly evidences can be
identified, categorised from other components of the structures.
From this pic it was observed ;
1. Buckling of inclined members(tube){Sign of load exceeding
Buckling capacities}
2. Pullout of the threaded screws from the ball joints{Sign of very
high tensile load in the tubular members exceeding its tensile
capacities}
Why the two tubular members buckled and the other members
threaded bolts were pullout of the steel ball joints?
This photo extracted from Pic23 shows Why the two inclined tubular
members buckled and the other members threaded bolts were
pullout of the steel ball joints.
The truss (self weight and any live load) P at an eccentricity e , any
horizontal load resulted from wind pressure, the dominating effect
of geometry and the ends restrains created large torsional forces at
the supports. These forces must be resisted by the inclined and
diagonal tubular members which were either in tension or
compression. These forces exceeded the axial compressive and
tensile capacities of the tubular members creating the observed
phenomena.
It is believed the buckling of the tubular compression strut triggered
the progressive collapse of the whole roof. A detailed structural
analysis as stated in the Member Behaviour will proof this diagnosis.

Extracted from Pic23
3. ruptured of the members(tubes) and the nodes. {Sign of very high
tensile load in the tubular members and the steel ball joints
exceeding its tensile capacities}
a) Analyse the structure and determine the maximum axial forces in
members. Confirm these members behave as intended i.e
compression or tension. Thsese forces are the demand. (Note: In the
vicinity of the cantilever around the perimeter columns the top boom
will be in tension and the bottom boom will be in compression. The
inclined diagonals may be in tension or compression. Similarly for
members at the concrete butress supports.)
b) Determine the axial capacities(compression or tension) of these
members.
c) Determine the factor of safety i.e ratio of capacities/Demand for
the critical members.The member with lowest factor of safety will
probably collapse first.
Do the 4 steps analysis as stated in Member Behaviour for
progressive collapse .
Based on the observation, evidences,results of analysis and
diagnosis it is then we do the elimination processes to zoom in the
most probable cause of the collapse. It may be due a combination of
causes.
Testing

We start by doing some actual 1) components and 2) representative
samples tests cut from the collapse space truss components.
The representative sample tests will yield basic properties of the
materials(steel tubes) such as the Yield Stress and Yield strain, %
elongation, rupture stress and strain and so on.
These basic properties should be used to estimate the component
compressive or tensile strength of the members.
Next we do the component test to determine and confirm the
capacities of the tubular members especially in compression, tensile
capacities of the threaded bolts and tensile and compressive
capacities of the steel ball joints, and compression capacities of the
sleeves and the end cones(see typical node above). See pg. 90 of
ref. 10 for Load tests on space truss connections.
Probable Causes
Compare the results of Strucutral Analysis with what observed on
site or evidences obtained from site. If the results dosnt telly with
what observed on site, your analysis was wrong. Revised your
structural analysis.
Compare the materials properties results obtained from tests with
the what were in the drawings and specification.
Determine what does not comply with the specified Code of
practices, drawings and specification.
In most cases, at the Diagnosis Stage, simple hand calculation will
do (without using computer softwares etc). Softwares are only used
to check and confirmed the diagnosis. The FUNDAMENTALS are the
most important in the failures investigation . Understanding the
fundamentals will guide us to answer a lot of key questions e.g
What, Where, Why ,How the failure happened? It will help us on
what to focus during the investigation and saving time on
unncessary processes e.g there is no necessity to test the concrete
strength of the buttresses or column stumps as the pictures showed
all the steel ball connected to the conrete components were intact.
We can eliminate the strength of the concrete in the investigation
even by looking at the pictures. So the focus should be on the steel
space frame and its components. Decisions on what type of analysis,
type of tests, location of samples to be tested and frequency of
sampling, selection of components to be tested shall be decided
during the desk study .
Allowable
compressive stress versus selenderness l/r ratio; fy=240
from ref 3
Pic 24c

Pic 25
Both photos Pic24a & Pic 24b showed the space frame snapped at
the ball joint connections. The ball joint connections fixed to the
concrete stump were intact.
Questions:-
1. What are the magnitude forces in the members and joints at this
point of failure under worst combination of loading acting on the
whole roof structure?
2. What were the capacities of the members and connections at this
point of failure?
Simillar questions should be asked for the columns and connections
along the perimeter that support the roof structures
Since this part of the structures was subjected to cyclic loading the
steel members and joints may fail by fatigue. Fatigue considerations
are important because the consequent failure is generally sudden
and at a stress level much lower than the ultimate stress.
Questions:-

Will the configuration and assemblage of members and joints as
shown in fig 25 being able to withstand the worst forces at this
location? Definitely it cant because it snapped at this point. Why?
What did the assemblage indicated ?
The configuration and assemblage of members and connections as
shown in fig 25 were not suitable for any reversal of loads such as
wind or dynamic loading.
Shah Alam Stadium


Pic 26

Pic 27
The latticed shell roofs were supported rigidly on all three sides


Pic 28
The shape(see the dominating effect of geometry in attached article) and the ends restrains
are very important in this egg shell like structures.
Hold an A4 size paper along the shorter edges with you left and right hand respectively.
Move your hands a bit towards each other so that the paper form a curves. The distnace
between the fingures of the hands is the span of the thin shell; It can span thousands of
time of its thickness.
Now hold the paper just along one of the longitudinal edge. The paper cant even supports
its own weight.
The three edges must be designed to provide the required rigidity(see Shah Alam
Stadium(pic 28).
Loads applied to the shell are carried by in general through a combination of bending and
stretching(inplane membrane tension or compression of struts) actions, which generally
vary from point to point.
For flat roof shell or latticed shells bending was the dominant









Proprietary Space Frame



The above sounds too familiar and so common in our construction industry. Almost
every sites are faced with these issues. In fact, structures are very resilient and would
not have been catastrophic in collapse, even if under designed. The concept of limit
state design takes account of this, allowing collapse to be progressive rather than
catastrophic. Only steel framed structures are more prone to collapse especially during
erection period, and particularly for 3D space frame structures.
The BIG Question is "Who is responsible for this?"
It is natural for everyone to point at the Contractor first and then the
Consultants, but in many cases the Employer or Owner are to be blamed. Investigations
can never be final and the cases will drag on for ages usually to the courts. The best
approach is to AVOID this ever happening to you and your projects, whether you are a
Contractor, a Consultant or an Employer. In almost all cases, this can be avoided.