The Collapse of Runway 9/27
Why Runway 9/27 at Memphis International
is going to collapse
by Guy
Cobb
When
the Hurricane Creek drainage tunnel was installed beneath Runway 9/27 at
Memphis International Airport in 1985 it was never intended to support the
static weight load of the new runway constructed in 2009. Below is a photo of the tunnel’s north
entrance taken in 2006.
The three 10-inch-thick support walls you
see in the photo above are the only supports holding up Runway 9/27 at the
location where the tunnel and runway cross (see tunnel path below). The capacity of these three walls to hold up
the runway is conditional based on their size, the gauge and spacing of the
reinforcing bars or “rebar” contained within the walls, and their continuity
with the rest of the tunnel. Above you
can see how the Airport Authority blocked our access to the second tunnel with
a tractor. The two inner tunnels have
the most ceiling damage seen in the photograph below.
Above is a Google Earth satellite image of
Runway 9/27 at Memphis International Airport. The red line represents the
tunnel’s underground path starting from the South traveling North beneath
Runway 9/27 then past the FedEx SuperHub Facility. The path of the tunnel was laid out
specifically to avoid passing beneath the FedEx SuperHub.
Above is a Google Sketchup
drawing of the Hurricane Creek tunnel structure. The red lines shown at the center designate
the placement of the five walls that are being crushed by the weight of the new
Runway 9/27 which runs across the ceiling of the tunnel.
Above is a 2009 construction diagram
displaying the tunnel’s path beneath Runway 9/27. The five dashed lines shown in the diagram
between the red arrows running at a horizontal angle are the five walls of the
Hurricane Creek Tunnel beneath the runway.
Above is a 1984 cross-section diagram of the
Hurricane Creek Tunnel. The tunnel is
nearly 60 feet wide and only supported by the three 10-inch-wide
by 14-foot-tall inner walls.
In 2006, prior to the cancellation of FedEx’s A380 Airbuses, the Airport Authority commissioned a study by AFRAM Corporation to see if the airport’s infrastructure would be able to support the 1.3 million pound aircraft. AFRAM’s two critical factors specific to the tunnel were the size and spacing of the tunnel wall’s reinforcement bars (rebar) and the amount of ground cover between the tunnel’s ceiling and the bottom of the runway.
AFRAM’s calculations required from 6 to 10 feet of ground cover between the top of the tunnel and bottom of the runway and #8 rebar at 6 inch spacing. This construction diagram below is proof that the rebar inside the tunnel’s support walls is #4 gauge rebar at 12 inch spacing (half AFRAM’s original recommendation) based on the tunnel’s 1984 construction diagram below. See box below in red which states “#4 @ 12 Each Way Each Face”.
It’s critical to note that AFRAM published one study of which two versions were released. AFRAM’s original study and calculations were based on the size and weight of the 2006 asphalt runway, not the significantly heavier loads of the new concrete runway. Here is proof. On page 1 paragraph 2 of the original AFRAM study, under the Hurricane Creek Culvert section, Engineer and study author, Benjamin Bovee of AFRAM, stated the following:
“It should be noted that for covers greater than and equal to 3’, a uniform weight for 18” of pavement was used, in addition to the remaining cover of soil.” Read Report
The new runway is 20” of concrete and has four additional layers of cement, a bituminous base course, crushed aggregate, and a soil cement mixture and the entire runway above the tunnel was raised an additional 6 to 10 feet to correct what FedEx Pilots referred to as “the dip” and the Memphis Airport Authority referred to as a “profile deficiency.”
No new study was ever commissioned to calculate the effects of the new concrete runway’s significantly heavier loads upon the Hurricane Creek tunnel. We know this because of this email sent by Sara Hall, the Memphis Airport Authority’s (now former) Legal Counsel to Guy Cobb on January 7, 2010:
“In
response to your request for a “second study”, we have identified a February 6,
2007 structural analysis of the existing Hurricane Creek Box Culvert, Taxiway
Yankee Tunnel and Winchester Road Tunnel related to the structural requirements
of the Airbus A-380. This study was performed by Benjamin Bovee, Structural Designer for AFRAM Corporation.
This study concludes: “The Hurricane Creek Box Culvert evaluation concluded
that the structure can handle the loads of the Airbus A-380 as long as the
soil/cover depths are at least 6’-0”. It was determined from a field
survey that the actual cover over the box is at least 10’0”. This
concludes that the box can sufficiently handle the loads imposed by the
A-380.” As you are probably aware, FedEx has decided to use the Boeing
777 instead of the Airbus A-380. The payload of the Boeing 777 is much
less than that of the Airbus A-380 making a loaded Boeing 777 a much lighter
aircraft.”
What is significant about this statement by Ms. Hall is the
removal of the critical “rebar” requirements as a factor in AFRAM’s
calculations. The fact is that AFRAM was
asked to clarify some aspects of the original report by removing any questions
or concerns about the tunnels rebar. Here are the two AFRAM Executive Summaries
specific to the Hurricane Creek tunnel:
AFRAM Study –
Executive Summary (September 14, 2006):
“The Hurricane Creek Box Culvert evaluation shows that the
box can handle the loads of the Airbus A380 as long as the soil/cover depths
above the box are at least 3’ deep. For
depths less than this, the box will be overstressed and should be strengthened
to handle the loads. Also, if the soil cover is less than 6’, additional reinforcing will be
required to account for the short length of the J-bars. In Addition, the interior wall reinforcing
needs to be confirmed that #8 bars at 6” spacing was used. If less steel was used, the interior walls
may need to be reinforced.”
AFRAM Study Revised
– Executive Summary (February 6, 2007):
Hurricane Creek Box Culvert:
“The Hurricane Creek Box Culvert evaluation concluded that
the structure can handle the loads of the Airbus A-380 as long as the
soil/cover depths are at least 6’-0”. It was determined from a field survey
that the actual cover over the box is at least 10’-0”. This concludes that the box can sufficiently
handle the loads imposed by the A-380.”
The
significance here is not only were critical structural requirements removed
from the original AFRAM study but Kimley-Horn, the
Memphis Airport Authority’s primary contractor for the construction of the new
runway, based their structural calculations for the new runway on the
dimensions of the old runway.
This is why the new runway is sinking and the tunnel’s interior support
walls are being crushed beneath it.
Videos recorded in April 2010 of the damaged walls beneath Runway 9/27
(Click images to watch videos)
A Look at the Calculations
AFRAM stated in their study that if a 1.3 million pound A380 were parked on top of the Hurricane Creek tunnel without any ground cover, the walls of the tunnel would not be able to support the aircraft. This was a baseline to show that the three interior support walls cannot support 1.3 million pounds placed directly on top of the tunnel.
See below a weight comparison between the old and new runway.
|
Old Runway 9/27 surface and sub-surface materials |
Square foot weight in pounds |
Lbs per inch |
Depth of layer |
Area over tunnel in feet |
Weight on tunnel ceiling in pounds |
|
Asphalt |
140 |
11.6 |
14” |
15,000 |
2,436,000 |
|
Crushed Aggregate |
150 |
12.5 |
8” |
15,000 |
1,500,000 |
|
*Dirt between runway & tunnel |
100 |
8.3 |
120” |
15,000 |
14,940,000 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
18,876,000 |
|
New Runway 9/27 surface and sub-surface materials |
Square foot weight in pounds |
Lbs per inch |
Depth of layer |
Area over tunnel in feet |
Weight on tunnel ceiling in pounds |
|
Portland Cement Concrete |
150 |
12.5 |
20” |
15,000 |
3,750,000 |
|
Porous Bituminous Base Course |
100 |
8.3 |
4” |
15,000 |
498,000 |
|
Cement + Aggregate |
150 |
12.5 |
8” |
15,000 |
1,500,000 |
|
Soil Cement Combination |
140 |
11.6 |
20” |
15,000 |
3,480,000 |
|
*Dirt between runway & tunnel |
100 |
8.3 |
120” |
15,000 |
14,940,000 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
24,168,000 |
*The MSCAA maintains that a 10 foot layer of ground cover is still in place above the tunnel and beneath the new runway.
Weight Difference in pounds = 5,292,000
The
September 19, 2004 FedEx MD-11 Accident
In September 2004 a FedEx MD-11 was involved in an accident while landing on Runway 9/27. The NTSB report stated that the aircraft landed 30 feet off-center and suddenly pitched upward after landing and then bounced. Concerned the aircraft would “porpoise” the pilot decided to perform a “go around” to land on another runway. When he did the tail of the plane struck the runway and was observed by ground personnel dragging for approximately 3000 to 4000 feet. If the tail of the plane dragged for 3000 to 4000 feet, as witnessed by ground personnel during the attempt to take off again, then the tail-strike distance plus the distance covered when the jet landed would have caused the tail of the plane to drag across the top of the Hurricane Creek tunnel’s path.
FedEx Express, the FAA and the Memphis Airport Authority worked together to keep damage to the tunnel’s three support walls caused by the accident hidden and the accident kept out of the press. Based on the NTSB report, the accident caused significant damage to the aircraft’s airframe and could have of easily resulted in a crash in South Memphis and yet I cannot find any mention of the accident anywhere in the press (contact me if you are aware of any story in the news related to this accident).
Below is a Google Earth satellite photo of Runway 9/27 in February 2004, seven months prior to the FedEx MD-11 accident in September. FedEx pilots refer to this section of Runway 9/27 as “the dip” or “the hump.” Sara Hall, the Memphis Airport Authority’s former Legal Counsel provided details about this section of the runway in this email received on March 5, 2010:
“In approximately 1985, the runway was open
cut in this location to construct the Hurricane Creek box culvert. The
lines you identify appear to be the two outer edges of the section of pavement
that was replaced after the Hurricane Creek box culvert was constructed.
Then in approximately 1989, the center keel section of the runway was replaced
which explains why you do not see the lines or joints for the pavement section
in the center of the runway.” – Sara Hall, MSCAA Legal Counsel
Through the Freedom of Information Act I requested the inspection records for the Memphis International Airport runways for the year 2003. The following is my question and the response I received from Winsome A. Lenfert, Manager of the FAA’s Airports Division for the Southern Region (letter dated August 23, 2011) specific to the above photograph of Runway 9/27 in 2004:
The Google Earth image below
of Runway 27 was captured on February 28, 2003 and shows the location directly
above the Hurricane Creek Tunnel. The
Memphis Airport Authority’s attorney, Sara Hall, confirmed for me that the two
largest vertical fractures are the location where the runway was “open cut” in
1985 to install the tunnel.
Could you
explain why the FAA’s 2003 inspection record section 139.305 - .307
PAVED/UNPAVED AREAS makes no mention of the runways large fractures and cracks?
“At
the time of the 2003 annual inspection, no large fractures and cracks were
found to be in existence on the runway surface.
Safety was furthered [sic] assured with the
airport’s daily self-inspection program.”
Winsome A. Lenfert, FAA Mgr., Airports Division
Without the introduction of Google Earth satellite photographs and the validation of the existence of the above runway fractures by Sara Hall, Lead Counsel for the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, the flying public would never have known that that the condition of Runway 9/27 had degraded to the point you see in the photograph. Below is the actual inspection record for the Memphis International Airport Runway for 2003:
Below is the same section of Runway 9/27
directly above the tunnel in November of 2006. I reported this shadowing taking
place along the old “open cut” lines to FedEx Express Management in 2007 after
seeing this satellite photo using Microsoft Bing Maps. I also reported this to the Memphis Airport
Authority’s former Chief of Planning, Tom Clarke, on January 18, 2007 (see page
11 of my Enterprise
Vulnerability Study 001).
Above is another image of the same location
from a different angle. You can see that
the runway has a distinct pattern developing along the 1985 “open cut” line
between the arrows.
Above is an aerial photograph taken on
December 10, 2009, only ten days after the new runway was opened. You can see a circular pattern (seen here
inside the red square) has developed directly above the Hurricane Creek Tunnel
crossing.
“To my knowledge, there have been no reports from our Airfield
Maintenance staff or others of any observations of structural failures or
damage in the box culvert. If FedEx personnel have observed any
structural damage, please provide the details and we will investigate.”
[Tom Clarke
email to Guy Cobb, sent Friday, January 12, 2007 6:51 PM]
Below are photographs of tunnel ceiling damage on the FedEx property taken in April 2010
Based on AFRAM’s engineering study which stated there needed to be a minimum of 6 to 10 feet of “cover” or earth between the tunnel ceiling and any aircraft passing over the tunnel, we know the taxiways that cross the tunnel near the FedEx SuperHub have no cover. These images show the type of damage AFRAM was describing in their study.
The image above shows the original tunnel which was installed on the FedEx property prior to the 1985 tunnel which was installed on Airport property. .
Above is a photograph of the
section of the Hurricane Creek Tunnel installed in 1985. You can see the pre-fabricated “lay-in-place”
ceiling panels referenced in Kimley-Horn’s
May 2010 report. If you do not see
these lay-in-place ceiling panels you know that you are in a section of the
tunnel that is on FedEx property.
Above you can see where the wall
directly below Runway 9/27 was replaced (to the right) and where the wall was
struck by a vehicle which knocked a large piece of the concrete loose (red
circle). The Airport Authority continue
to deny these walls are damaged or that they were replaced after their original
1985 construction and yet you can see that the dirt, mold, and color patterns
between these two sections does not match. All five tunnel walls directly
beneath Runway 9/27 have broken away from their adjoining walls.
The photo above is an April 2009
construction photo of the new Runway 9/27.
The red circle marks the location where the tunnel passes beneath Runway
9/27. There were no provisions made for
the reinforcement of the tunnel walls despite the significantly heavier load of
the new runway.
Based on
AFRAM’s original calculations as to how much weight the tunnel can support we
now know that there is between 5 and 10 million pounds of excess weight
overloading the tunnel.
SO
HOW CAN YOU TELL IF THE WALLS ARE DAMAGED AND OVERLOADED?
This overload
would cause tremendous stress to the tunnel’s three inner support walls. What would the walls look like if they were
overloaded? The following are photos
taken of the walls directly below Runway 9/27. You can clearly see that
the walls are bulging outward from the center. You can also see that the newer
wall to the right has separated from the older adjoining tunnel wall on the
left along the seam. Someone has
attempted to patch where the wall has been struck and damaged by a vehicle’s
bumper. There are multiple walls beneath
the runway that show vehicle damage caused by bumper level impacts.
Below is
another wall directly beneath the runway. You can see where it has separated 2
to 3 inches from the wall to the left and is now bulging out at the
center. The survey marker “27”
designates the wall’s location directly below the runway.
This image below shows how the newer wall (to the right) directly below the runway has fractured and broken away from the adjoining wall and is bulging outward at its center due to the excessive weight of the runway above. At the bottom of the photograph you can see where there was an attempt to hide damage to the wall by using concrete patch (bottom center).
A survey crew left this message during the
creation of their May 2010 Kimley-Horn
study. Like this image, which was never
meant to be seen, the report unsuccessfully attempted to cover up the full
damage to the tunnel; in particular the walls directly beneath the runway.
In summary, without an appropriate bridge span over the tunnel, Runway 9/27 will continue to crush the top of the Hurricane Creek tunnel until the #4 rebar inside the walls finally snaps causing the runway to collapse.
Above is the Memphis Shelby County Airport
Authority’s April 2009 online newsletter describing the reconstruction of
Runway 9/27. A
2003 General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that the average time to plan
and safely construct a new runway was from ten to fourteen years. The Runway 9/27 project was “Fast Tracked”
and completed in 8 months.
None of the concrete used in the new runway is reinforced. Using rebar in the new runway would have taken too long to complete. The project was forced by FedEx Express to be completed by December 1st, 2009; in time for FedEx’s busiest month. No additional funding or time was allocated to reinforce the tunnel beneath the runway even though FedEx Express Management and the Memphis Airport Authority both knew of the tunnel’s defects.
PHOTO INDEX of THE HURRICANE CREEK TUNNEL
These photos taken of the Hurricane Creek tunnel (comprised of four individual tunnels) on April 17, 2010 should once and for all prove that the three interior tunnel support walls will not hold up beneath the weight of the new runway. As you can see in these pictures, the weight of the new runway has already caused the walls to break away from the adjoining walls. This will only worsen until the rebar which the AFRAM Corporation warned in their first report was too small; will eventually snap leaving no support for the runway which will collapse. After clicking on each image link, you can click each picture to see a much larger image.
|
Photos |
Date of Photo |
Description for
Tunnels “A” “B” “C” “D” |
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Surveyor location marker in tunnel “D” at “12+00” which translates into 1200 yards + zero feet (warning: some profanity) |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Surveyor location marker in tunnel “D” at “12+00” which translates into 1200 yards + zero feet (warning: some profanity) |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Ceiling damage |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Wall buckling beneath runway 9/27 |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Close-up of wall buckling and spot where someone patched it |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Close-up of wall buckling |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Bottom section of wall buckling |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Opposite wall showing buckling |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Surveyor location marker at “27+00” is beneath Runway 9/27 |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Wall buckling beneath runway 9/27 |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Wall buckling beneath runway 9/27 |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Not sure what this is but supposedly it smelled like jet fuel and oil |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Graffiti |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Graffiti |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Graffiti |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Wall beneath runway 9/27 meeting tunnel wall |
|
|
April 17, 2010 |
Drainage tunnel |
IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE ABOUT HURRICANE CREEK, ANONYMOUSLY OR OTHERWISE, YOU MAY CONTACT ME AT guy@guycobb.com
|
This documentation and the author, Guy Cobb, are protected by the United States Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Section 806 -- Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies Who Provide Evidence of Fraud; the False Claims Act; the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act For the 21st Century (AIR21) Public Law 106-181, April 5, 2000 49 USC Section 42121 Subchapter III – Whistleblower Protection Program and the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act, Article 4 Section 1553. |
|
|
|
|
