University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A coastal development idea for Gulf of Thailand to improve global trades

(USC Thesis Other)

A coastal development idea for Gulf of Thailand to improve global trades

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT IDEA FOR GULF OF THAILAND TO
IMPROVE GLOBAL TRADES

by
Chanin Chuen-Im
________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(CIVIL ENGINEERING)

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Chanin Chuen-Im

ii

DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation work to my beloved family. My parent
who is always loves and encourages me. My lovely wife, Dr. Chatrapa
Hudthagosol, always be with me through the difficult time. I could not finish this
dissertation without you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people have provided their help and encouragement during this
dissertation study. This work would not have been done without them.
I would like to specially thank my advisor, professor Jiin-Jen Lee, who not only
gave me the great opportunity to pursue a Ph.D. degree at the University of
Southern California, but also provided invaluable advice, assistance, and
encouragement throughout the whole study.
I would like to thank other members of the dissertation committee, Professor
Carter Wellford, Huang Leung Wong, Iraj Nasseri, and James Elliott Moore, for
their guidance and help.
I would like to thank all of the group members, Xiu Ying Xing, Zhiqing Kou,
Mehrdad Bozorgnia, Hyoung-Jin Kim, Ben Willardson, Yuan-Hung Tan,
Shentong Lu, Ziyi Huang for their friendship since I came to USC.
I also would like to thank my family for their continuous support and belief.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLE vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABSTRACT xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Objective of the Study 1
1.2 Scope of the Study 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY 5
2.1 Suez Canal 5
2.1.1 The Important of Suez Canal 9
2.1.2 Canal Characteristic and Capacity 10
2.1.3 Operation 13
2.1.4 Environmental Impact 15
2.2 Panama Canal 18
2.2.1 Canal Function 21
2.2.2 Canal Tolls 24
v

CHAPTER 3 PRELIMINARY STUDY 27
3.1 The Proposed “Siam Canal” 27
3.2 The Potential Benefits due to Siam Canal Project 33
3.2.1 Siam Canal will Save Time of Transportation 34
3.2.2 Siam Canal will Save Energy 36
3.2.3 Siam Canal will Solve Sea Pirate or Terrorist Problems 39
3.2.4 Siam Canal will Expand Thailand Fishery 43
3.3 Initial Design of The Proposed Siam Canal 45
3.4 Canal Line Consideration for Siam Canal 50
3.5 The Estimated Construction Cost for Siam Canal Project 57
3.5.1 The Cost of Expropriation 59
3.5.2 The Cost of Excavation and Construction 62
3.5.3 The Cost of Cable Stayed Bridge 63
3.5.4 The Total Cost of Siam Canal Project 68
3.6 Will There be Enough Vessels Passing Siam Canal to Make 69
Siam Canal Profitable?
3.7 Economic Analysis 81
3.7.1 If the Cost of Siam Canal is $22,180 Million Dollar 82
3.7.2 If the Cost of Siam Canal is Increased by 10% 85
3.7.3 If the Cost of Siam Canal is Increased by 20% 87
3.7.4 If the Cost of Siam Canal is Increased by 30% 90
3.7.5 If the Cost of Siam Canal is Increased by 40% 92
vi

CHAPTER 4 NUMERICAL METHOD 96
4.1 Governing Equation 96
4.2 Boundary Conditions 97
4.2.1 Partial Absorption Boundary 98
4.2.2 Bottom Friction 99
4.2.3 Entrance Loss 100
4.2.4 Wave Transmission through Porous Breakwater 101
4.3 Siam Canal Modeling and Results 102
4.4 Comparing Simulation Results with Field Measurements 111
4.5 Mode from the Simulation Model 125
4.6 Compared the Response Curve and Mode Before 128
and After Siam Canal
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 134
REFERENCES 137

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Distance saving by using Suez Canal 10
Table 2.2 Vessel Traffic through Suez Canal 14
Table 3.1 Population Density per million square meters 32
Table 3.2 The distance and time saving using Siam Canal compare to existing 35
three routes.
Table 3.3 Factors contributing to the overall cost of piracy 42
Table 3.4 Thailand treasury account balances from 2007 to 2011 58
Table 3.5 The estimated expropriation cost of agriculture zone 61
Table 3.6 The estimated expropriation cost of the residential zone 61
Table 3.7 The construction cost index from 2002 to2012 66
Table 3.8 Total cost of the proposed Siam Canal 69
Table 3.9 The statistic of vessels using Malacca strait from 2001 to 2010 71
Table 3.10 Number of containers port throughput the countries that are able 75
to use Siam Canal
Table 3.11 Thailand’s income from different percentage of container using 76
Siam Canal
Table 3.12 The total dead weight ton around the world 77
Table 3.13 The total dead weight ton only Asia legend 78
Table 3.14 Thailand’s income from different percent of DWT using Siam Canal 79
Table 3.15 Thailand’s total income from all the vessel types by difference 80
Percentage of the total vessels
Table 3.16 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal 82
Table 3.17 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal 83
Table 3.18 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal 83
viii

Table 3.19 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal 84
Table 3.20 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal 84
Table 3.21 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal 85
Table 3.22 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal 85
Table 3.23 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal 86
Table 3.24 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal 86
Table 3.25 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal 87
Table 3.26 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal 87
Table 3.27 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal 88
Table 3.28 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal 88
Table 3.29 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal 89
Table 3.30 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal 89
Table 3.31 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal 90
Table 3.32 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal 90
Table 3.33 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal 91
Table 3.34 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal 91
Table 3.35 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal 92
Table 3.36 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal 92
Table 3.37 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal 93
Table 3.38 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal 93
Table 3.39 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal 94
Table 3.40 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal 94
Table 4.1 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 112
factor : January
Table 4.2 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 113
factor : February

ix

Table 4.3 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 114
factor : March
Table 4.4 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 115
factor : April
Table 4.5 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 116
factor : May
Table 4.6 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 117
factor : June
Table 4.7 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 118
factor : July
Table 4.8 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 119
factor : August
Table 4.9 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 120
factor : September
Table 4.10 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 121
factor : October
Table 4.11 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 122
factor : November
Table 4.12 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 123
factor : December
Table 4.13 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification 124
factor : Year Average
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 The sea routes around the world 2
Figure 1.2 Location of the proposed Siam Canal compared with existing 3
three routes
Figure 2.1 Location of Suez Canal 6
Figure 2.2 Suez Canal linking the Mediterranean to the Red sea 8
Figure 2.3 The development of the cross section area of Suez Canal 12
Figure 2.4 Graph show number of vessels and net ton 15
Figure 2.5 Port of Suez 16
Figure 2.6 Location of Panama Canal 18
Figure 2.7 Panamax cargo vessel 20
Figure 2.8 Comparison between Panamax and Post Panamax container vessel 21
Figure 2.9 Lock used to lift the vessel in Panama Canal 22
Figure 2.10 Lock used to lift the vessel in Panama Canal 23
Figure 2.11 Twenty-foot equivalent unit container 25
Figure 2.12 Disney Magic Cruises 26
Figure 3.1 The new Siam Canal Route compared with the existing three routes 29
Figure 3.2 Location of Siam Canal 33
Figure 3.3 Fuel consumption compare to ship size 37
Figure 3.4 Queen Elizabeth II 38
Figure 3.5 World-Wide incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships 40
from 1 January to 31 December 2011
Figure 3.6 The incidents that occurred from January to March 2012 only in 41
South East Asia
Figure 3.7 The density of the family that works in fishery business 44
Figure 3.8 The preliminary sketch of Siam Canal 45
xi
Figure 3.9 The size of the large vessel 46
Figure 3.10 The cross section of Siam Canal 47
Figure 3.11 Cable stayed bridge 48
Figure 3.12 Rama XIII Bridge 48
Figure 3.13 Rama IX Bridge 49
Figure 3.14 Mega Bridge 49
Figure 3.15 Physical geography of Thailand 50
Figure 3.16 Three possible lines for Siam Canal 51
Figure 3.17 The closer view of the Siam Canal line A 53
Figure 3.18 The closer view of the Siam Canal line B 55
Figure 3.19 The closer view of the Siam Canal line C 56
Figure 3.20 The Closer view of the land type in the area of Siam Canal line B 60
Figure 3.21 Cross section of Siam Canal 62
Figure 3.22 Rama VIII Bridge 65
Figure 3.23 The pictures of bulk carrier 72
Figure 3.24 The picture of tanker vessel 73
Figure 3.25 The picture of container vessel 74
Figure 4.1 Calculation domain 97
Figure 4.2 Location of Simulation Model 103
Figure 4.3 Mesh of Simulation Model 104
Figure 4.4 Demonstration Location for Model 105
Figure 4.5 Response Curve at Point A without Siam Canal 107
Figure 4.6 Response Curve at Point A with Siam Canal 107
Figure 4.7 Response Curve at Point B without Siam Canal 108
Figure 4.8 Response Curve at Point B with Siam Canal 108
Figure 4.9 Response Curve at Point C without Siam Canal 109
Figure 4.10 Response Curve at Point C with Siam Canal 109
xii
Figure 4.11 Response Curve at Point D without Siam Canal 110
Figure 4.12 Response Curve at Point D with Siam Canal 110
Figure 4.13 Observed Tidal Wave : January 112
Figure 4.14 Observed Tidal Wave : February 113
Figure 4.15 Observed Tidal Wave : March 114
Figure 4.16 Observed Tidal Wave : April 115
Figure 4.17 Observed Tidal Wave : May 116
Figure 4.18 Observed Tidal Wave : June 117
Figure 4.19 Observed Tidal Wave : July 118
Figure 4.20 Observed Tidal Wave : August 119
Figure 4.21 Observed Tidal Wave : September 120
Figure 4.22 Observed Tidal Wave : October 121
Figure 4.23 Observed Tidal Wave : November 122
Figure 4.24 Observed Tidal Wave : December 123
Figure 4.25 Mode @ 51.5 hours from 90 degree incoming wave 125
Figure 4.26 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 30 degree incoming wave 126
Figure 4.27 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 60 degree incoming wave 126
Figure 4.28 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 90 degree incoming wave 127
Figure 4.29 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 120 degree incoming wave 127
Figure 4.30 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 150 degree incoming wave 128
Figure 4.31 Compared Response Curve at Point A between Before and After 129
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
Figure 4.32 Compared Response Curve at Point B between Before and After 129
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
Figure 4.33 Compared Response Curve at Point C between Before and After 130
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
xiii
Figure 4.34 Compared Response Curve at Point D between Before and After 130
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
Figure 4.35 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After 131
“Siam Canal” at 30 degree
Figure 4.36 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After 131
“Siam Canal” at 60 degree
Figure 4.37 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After 132
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
Figure 4.38 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After 132
“Siam Canal” at 120 degree
Figure 4.39 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After 133
“Siam Canal” at 150 degree
xiv

ABSTRACT
For a long time since ancient history international trade was used to exchange
capital, goods, and service. There are several modes of transportation but people
have been using marine transport as a main transportation mode for certain
types of good and commodities in global trades. The pioneers of marine
transports in Greek, Roman, and China used sea routes to sell and buy goods for
their respective kingdoms. Until now more than 80 percent of transporting goods
around the world is still by sea even though the speed of sea transportation is
much slower compared to air or ground transportation. Since the most
disadvantage of marine transport is its slow speed, what can be done to
decrease the time of transportation by sea.
Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and the
Panama Canal connecting Caribbean Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are the best
examples of the man-made canals that show the necessity and the importance of
what the alternative sea routes could do. This dissertation study presents a new
route of Man-made canals that could make the shipping faster and more effective
for Asian Region (between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean).
At the present time, transportation between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean are
mainly from the existing three routes : Malacca Route, Sundra Route, and
Lombok Route. By introducing a man-made canal herein called “Siam Canal”
which will be located in Thailand. Siam Canal which connects the Andaman Sea
xv

and Gulf of Thailand can shorten the travel distance between Pacific Ocean and
Indian Ocean up to 3,500 kilometers or 7 days of travel time.
This dissertation research presents preliminary study of Siam Canal which will
include the proposal of Siam Canal, the potential benefits using Siam Canal, the
initial design of the proposed Siam Canal, environmental problems, and the
economic and engineering feasibility study of the proposed Siam Canal.
Environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” are
addressed. The wave and tide condition, before and after the construction of the
“Siam Canal” are simulated by a finite element numerical model for the Gulf of
Thailand region.
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Objective of the Study
For a long time since ancient history international trade was used to exchange
capital, goods, and service. There are many ways of transportation but people
have been using marine transport as a main transportation mode in global
trades. The pioneers of marine transports in Greek, Roman, and China used sea
routes to sell and buy goods for their respective kingdoms. Until now more than
90 percent of transporting goods around the world is still by sea even though the
speed of sea transportation is much slower compared to air or ground
transportation. There are many international sea routes for trading around the
world as shown in Figure 1.1. Most of these travel routes are natural but some
are man-made. Since there are many natural sea routes around the world
already, why would people build man-made canals? The answer is very simple
and straightforward, using man-made canals could make the shipping easier and
more effective. Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea,
and the Panama Canal connecting Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean are the best
examples of the man-made canals that show the necessity and the importance of
what the alternative sea routes could do.
At the present time, transportation between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean are
mainly from the existing three routes Malacca Route, Sundra Route, and Lombok
Route as shown in Figure1.2.
2

Figure 1.1 The sea routes around the world (Source: Giant Logistic LTD)

Every year, there are more than 500,000 ships of all sizes passing through these
three routes, Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok Routes (Thai’s Senate). It would be
advantageous from the economic point of view if one can shorten the travel
distance between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean. By introducing a man-made
canal herein called “Siam Canal” which will locate in Thailand. Thailand is located
in Southeast Asia and the geography of Thailand with its southward elongated
orientation, blocks the path to Southeast Asia for marine traffic to and from the
Middle East region. The land that blocked the path is actually fairly narrow with
the narrowest region at about 100 km. A man-made canal herein called “Siam
Canal” which connects the Andaman Sea and Gulf of Thailand we can shorten
3
the travel distance between Pacific Ocean and Middle East region. This is similar
to the Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and the
Panama Canal connecting Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.

Figure 1.2 Location of the proposed Siam Canal compared with existing
three routes

If the proposed “Siam Canal” is realized, a new route between the Pacific Ocean
and Indian Ocean could shorten the ship’s travel distance by 1,000 km to 3,500
km depended on the original route that the ship have used and can save the
travel time by 2 to 7 days. Lot of money can be saved because each ship has to
4
spend millions of dollar to operate depended on the size of the ship. Thailand
government can correct the fee from the ship that want to use Siam Canal and
make lot of benefits from the canal.

1.2 Scope of the Study
The second chapter use Suez Canal and Panama Canal as literature survey.
Siam Canal will be a man-made canal and there would not be any better
example than Suez Canal and Panama Canal because these two are the most
important and well known canals in the world. Siam Canal can learn almost
everything from Suez and Panama Canal for example the problems on how to
build, the efficient of the canal, what to hope for after the canal, how to operate
the canal, and etc.
The third chapter would be preliminary study of Siam Canal which will include the
proposal of Siam Canal, the potential benefits from Siam Canal, the initial design
of the proposed Siam Canal, environmental problems, and the economic and
engineering feasibility study of the proposed Siam Canal. This chapter will
discuss the necessary of Siam Canal.
Possible environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” are
evaluated in chapter four. The wave and tide condition, before and after “Siam
Canal” is being simulated by a finite element numerical model. The numerical
simulation is based on the modeling of mild slope equation with the boundary
conditions representing the various features encountered in the Gulf of Thailand.
5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY
As mention in the introduction Siam Canal will be a man-made canal similar to
Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and the
Panama Canal connecting Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean. There for this study
will use Suez Canal and Panama Canal as case studies.

2.1 Suez Canal
The Suez Canal is an artificial canal in Egypt extending from Port Said to Suez
and connecting the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea. It is one of the world's
most important waterways. It is recorded that Egypt was the first country to dig a
canal across its land with a view to activate world trade (Suez Canal
Authority). The Suez Canal is considered to be the shortest link between the east
and the west due to its unique geographic location. Figure 2.1 shows the map
and location of Suez Canal. It is becomes one of the most important international
navigation canal in the world.
The idea of linking the Mediterranean sea with the red sea by a canal dates back
to 40 centuries as it was pointed out through history starting by the pharaohs era
passing by the Islamic era until it was dredged reaching its current condition
today. It is considered to be the first artificial canal to be used in Travel and
Trade (Suez Canal Authority). The Whole Idea of establishing a canal linking
6
between the red sea and the Mediterranean dates back to the oldest times, as
Egypt dredged the first artificial canal on the planet’s surface. The pharaohs
dredged a canal link in between river Nile and the red sea.

Figure 2.1 Location of Suez Canal
(Source: www.geography.howstuffworks.com)
7
The Suez Canal is actually the first canal directly linking the Mediterranean to the
Red sea as shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3. The first efforts to build a canal
came from the Egypt expedition of Napoleon Bonaparte, who hoped the project
would create a devastating trade problem for the English. Though this project
was begun in 1799 by Charles Le Pere, a miscalculation estimated that the levels
between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea were too great (estimating that
the Red Sea was some ten meters higher than that of the Mediterranean Sea)
and work was quickly suspended. Then, in 1833, a group of French intellectuals
known as the Saint-Simoniens arrived in Cairo and they became very interested
in the Suez project despite such problems as the difference in sea levels.
Unfortunately, the Saint-Simoniens were devastated by a plague epidemic. Most
of the twenty or so engineers returned to France. In Paris, the Saint-Simoniens
created an association in 1846 to study the possibility of the Suez Canal once
again. In 1847, Saint-Simoniens confirmed that there was no real difference in
the levels between the Mediterranean and Red Seas. In 1858 La Compagnie
Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez (Universal Company of the Maritime
Suez Canal) was formed with authority to cut a canal and to operate it for 99
years, after which ownership would return to the Egyptian government. The
company was originally a private Egyptian concern, its stock owned chiefly by
French and Egyptian interests. In 1875 the British government purchased Egypt's
shares.
8

Figure 2.2 Suez Canal linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea
(Source: www.bbc.co.uk)
The pilot study estimated that a total of 2,613 million cubic feet of earth would
have to be moved. Excavation of the canal actually began on April 25th, 1859,
and the canal was completed on November 17, 1869 (Suez Canal Authority).
The barrage of the Suez plains reservoir was breached and waters of the
Mediterranean flowed into the Red Sea and the canal was opened for
international navigation.
The Suez Canal is a sea level Canal and the height of water level between the
lowest and the highest tidal range is 0.65 m in the north and 1.9 m in the south.
9
The banks of the Canal are protected against the wash and waves, generated by
the transit of ships, by revetments of hard stones and steel sheet piles
corresponding to the nature of soil in every area. On both sides of the Canal,
there are mooring bollards every 125 m for the mooring of vessel in case of
emergency, and kilometric sign posts helping locate the position of ships in the
waterway (Fitzgerald, 1978). The navigable channel is bordered by light and
reflecting buoys as navigational aids to night traffic. Suez Canal was considered
to be one lane canal. Most of the canal is limited to a single lane of traffic, but the
canal has 4 doubled zone with 6 bypasses (total length 80.5 Km) are located
along the Canal, and this allows the transit of ships in both directions.

2.1.1 The Important of Suez Canal
The geographical position of the Suez Canal makes Suez Canal the shortest
route between Asia and Europe as compared with the original route through
Cape of Good Hope. The Canal route achieves saving in distance between the
ports north and south of the Canal, the distance saving through the canal as
shown in the table 2.1. The table shows that Suez Canal can save the distance
from 3,315 miles (from Tokyo to Rotterdam) to 9,887 miles (from Jeddah to
Piraeus) which mean Suez Canal can save months of travel time and tons of
gas.
10
Table 2.1 Distance saving by using Suez Canal
From To Distance (Nautical Miles) Saving
Suez Canal Cape Miles %
Ras Tanura Constanza 4,144 12,094 7,950 66
Lavera 4,684 10,783 6,099 57
Rotterdam 6,436 11,169 4,733 42
New York 8,281 11,794 3,513 30
Jeddah Piraeus 1,320 11,207 9,887 88
Rotterdam 6,337 10,743 4,406 41
Tokyo Rotterdam 11,192 14,507 3,315 23
Singapore Rotterdam 8,288 11,755 3,647 29

2.1.2 Canal Characteristic and Capacity
When opened for navigation for the first time in 17 November 1869, it was about
8 meters (about 26 ft.) in depth and the largest ship load that can pass through
was 5,000 tons, which was typical for ships sizes in these days. As the ships
developed and increased its sizes, the canal needed to be developed. The
canal was developed to take ships with depth of 35 feet and its water area to be
1,200 m
2
by the end of 1956. The Egyptian administration was keen to develop
the Navigation canal even more on different stages. In May 1962, the water
11
area of the canal was to reach 1,800 m
2
and the allowed depth to 38 feet. In
June 1966, a development was to be executed on 2 stages as it was
announced the depth would reach 48 and 58 feet consecutively. This program
was started, but was soon halted due to the war that erupted on the 5th of June,
1967. It was reopened for international; navigation in June 1975 after purifying it
from the ships that sank in its bottom during in the 1967 and 1973 wars. The
development projects then started again by the Egyptian administration and
received to ships of a 210,000 tons load, after increasing the water area to
4,800 m
2
and a ship draft of 62 ft. with a length of 191.80 km. The ship draft
reached 66 feet in 2010, this stage taking all container vessels; about 17,000
container vessels; as well as taking all bulk vessels world wild. Figure 2.3 shows
the development of the cross section area of Suez Canal since the opening in
1869 until now.
At present time the canal allows passage of ships up to 20 m (66 ft) draft or
240,000 deadweight tons, deadweight tons is a measure of how much weight a
ship is carrying or can safely carry. It is the sum of the weights of cargo,
fuel, fresh water, ballast water, provisions, passengers, and crew. The term is
often used to specify a ship's maximum permissible deadweight. Although it may
also denote the actual DWT of a ship not loaded to capacity and up to a
maximum height of 68 m (223 ft) above water level and a maximum beam of
77.5 m (254 ft) under certain conditions. Some supertankers are too large to use
12
the canal. Others can offload part of their cargo onto a canal-owned boat to
reduce their draft, transit, and reload at the other end of the canal.

Figure 2.3 the development of the cross section area of Suez Canal
(Source: suezcanal.org)

13
The main alternative is travelling around Cape of Good Hope at the south of the
African continent. This was the only route before the canal was constructed, and
recently when the canal was closed. It is still the only route for ships which
are too large for the canal.

2.1.3 Operation
By 1955 approximately two-thirds of Europe's oil passed through the canal.
About 7.5% of world sea trade is carried via the canal today (suezcanal.org). In
2008, a total of 21,415 vessels passed through the canal and the receipts from
the canal toll $5.381 billion. Average cost per-ship is roughly $251,000.00. New
Rules of Navigation that constitute an improvement over the older ones were
passed by the board of directors of the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) to organize
vessels and tankers transit that came into force as at 1 January 2008. The most
important amendments to the Rules include allowing vessels with 62-foot (19 m)
draught to transit and increasing the allowed breadth from 32 meters (105 ft) up
to 40 meters (130 ft) following improvement operations, as well as imposing a
fine on vessels using divers without permission from outside the SCA inside the
canal boundaries. The amendments also allow vessels loaded with dangerous
cargo, such as radioactive or inflammable materials, to transit after bringing
conformity with the latest amendments provided by international conventions.
The SCA will also have the right to determine the number of tugs required to
14
assist warships transiting the Canal to achieve the highest degree of safety
during transit. The vast canal can handle more ship traffic and larger ships than
the Panama Canal. Table 2.2 shows the number of Vessel Traffic through Suez
Canal from 1995 to 2011.
Table 2.2 Vessel Traffic through Suez Canal
Year NO(Vessel) Net Ton (1000)
Total Daily Avg. Total Daily Avg.
1995 15,051 41 360,372 987.3
1996 14,731 40 354,974 969.9
1997 14,430 40 368,720 1,010.2
1998 13,472 37 386,069 1,057.7
1999 13,490 37 384,994 1,054.8
2000 14,142 39 439,041 1,199.6
2001 13,986 38 456,113 1,249.6
2002 13,447 37 444,786 1,218.6
2003 15,667 43 549,381 1,505.2
2004 16,850 46 621,253 1,697.4
2005 18,224 50 671,951 1,841.0
2006 18,664 51 742,708 2,034.8
2007 20,384 56 848,163 2,323.7
2008 21,415 59 910,059 2,486.5
2009 17,228 47 734,450 2,012.2
2010 17,993 49 846,389 2,318.9
2011 17,799 49 928,880 2,544.9
15

Figure 2.4 Graph show number of vessels and net ton

2.1.4 Environmental Impact
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 created the first salt-water passage
between the Mediterranean and Red seas. Although the Red Sea is about 1.2 m
(3.9 ft) higher than the eastern Mediterranean, the current between the
Mediterranean and the middle of the canal at the Bitter Lakes flows north in
winter and south in summer. The current south of the Bitter Lakes is tidal, varying
with the height of tide at Suez. The Bitter Lakes, which were natural lakes,
blocked the migration of Red Sea species into the Mediterranean for many
decades, but as the salinity of the lakes gradually equalized with that of the Red
16
Sea, the barrier to migration was removed, and plants and animals from the Red
Sea have begun to colony the eastern Mediterranean.

Figure 2.5 Port of Suez (Source: cruisetimetable.com)
The Red Sea is generally saltier and more nutrient-poor than the Atlantic, so the
Red Sea species have advantages over Atlantic species in the salty and nutrient-
poor eastern Mediterranean. Accordingly, most Red Sea species invade the
Mediterranean biota, and only few do the opposite. This migratory phenomenon
is called Lessepsian migration or Erythrean invasion. Also impacting the eastern
Mediterranean, starting in 1968, was the operation of Aswan High Dam across
the River Nile. While providing for increased human development, the project
17
both reduced the inflow of freshwater and ended all natural nutrient-rich silt from
entering the eastern Mediterranean at the adjacent Nile Delta (Higiro, 1964). This
provided less natural dilution of Mediterranean salinity and ended the higher
levels of natural turbidity, additionally making conditions more like those in the
Red Sea. Invasive species originated from the Red Sea and introduced into the
Mediterranean by the construction of the canal have become a major component
of the Mediterranean ecosystem, and have serious impacts on the Mediterranean
ecology, endangering many local and endemic Mediterranean species. Currently
about 300 species from the Red Sea have been identified in the Mediterranean
Sea, and there are probably others yet unidentified. The Egyptian government's
intent to enlarge the canal has raised concerns from marine biologists, fearing
that this will worsen the invasion of Red Sea species in the Mediterranean.
Construction of the Suez Canal was preceded by cutting a small fresh-water
canal from the Nile delta along Wadi Tumilat to the future canal, with a southern
branch to Suez and a northern branch to Port Said. Completed in 1863, these
brought fresh water to a previously arid area, initially for canal construction, and
subsequently facilitating growth of agriculture and settlements along the canal.

18
2.2 Panama Canal
The Panama Canal is 77 km. (48 mi) ship canal in Panama that joins the Atlantic
Ocean and the Pacific Ocean as shown in Figure 2.6. Panama Canal is a key
conduit for international maritime trade. Built from 1904 to 1914, annual traffic
has risen from about 1,000 ships in the canal's early days to 14,702 vessels in
2008.

Figure 2.6 Location of Panama Canal
(Source: www.geography.howstuffworks.com)
19
Panama Canal is one of the largest and most difficult engineering projects ever
made. The canal had a great impact on shipping between North Atlantic Ocean
and South Pacific Ocean, replacing the long distance of Cape Horn at the tip
of South America. A ship sailing from New York to San Francisco through the
canal travels 9,500 km (5,900 mi), well under half the 22,500 km (14,000 mi)
route around Cape Horn.
The concept of a canal near Panama dates to the early 16th century. The first
attempt to construct a canal began in 1880 under French leadership, but was
abandoned after 21,900 workers died, mostly from disease (particularly malaria
and yellow fewer) and landslides (Bakenhus, 1915). The United States launched
a second effort, incurring a further 5,600 deaths but succeeding in opening the
canal in 1914. The U.S. controlled the canal and the Canal Zone surrounding it
until the 1977. From 1979 to 1999 the canal was under joint U.S.–Panamanian
administration, and from 31 December 1999 command of the waterway was
assumed by the Panama Canal Authority, an agency of the Panamanian
government. While the Pacific Ocean is west of the isthmus and the Atlantic to
the east, the 8- to 10-hour journey through the canal from the Pacific to the
Atlantic is one from southeast to northwest. The maximum size of vessel that can
use the canal is known as Panamax as shown in Figure 2.7. A Panamax cargo
ship will typically have a DWT of 65,000-80,000 tons, but its actual cargo will be
restricted to about 52,500 tons because of draft restrictions in the canal. Now the
Panama Canal is presently undergoing major changes in infrastructure that will
20
allow the canal to expand its service capacity significantly beyond the existing
capacity of the canal. The expanded Panama Canal is expected to open in 2014
and will be able to take the vessel up to 12,000 ETUS (Panama Canal Authority)
as shown in Figure 2.8. The goal of the canal expansion is not to compete with
alternative routes, but instead to have enough capacity for the users of the canal
to better compete.

Figure 2.7 Panamax cargo vessel
21

Figure 2.8 Comparison between Panamax and Post Panamax container vessel
(Source: Panama Canal Authority)

2.2.1 Canal Function
A ship takes approximately 8 to 15 hours to pass through Canal depended on the
traffic of the canal. Half of the time was the waiting time while being lifted step by
step to a height of 85 feet (26 m.) in three sets of locks which are Gatun, Pedro
Miguel and Miraflores. Each lock chamber is 110 ft. (33.53 m.) wide and 1,000 ft.
(304.8 m.) long. Most of the trip through the canal is done with natural help, as
the ships are lifted up by water from sea level to the lake, from where they are
22
lowered to sea level again. Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10 shows the Lock that used
to lift the vessel step by step to a height of 85 feet (26 m.).

Figure 2.9 Lock used to lift the vessel in Panama Canal
(Source: Wikimedia.org)
23

Figure 2.10 Lock used to lift the vessel in Panama Canal
(Source: wikimedia.org)

Ships going from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean approach the Canal
through Lemon Bay passing the Cristobal breakwater. This span is 6 miles (10
km) long and 450 ft. (152 m.) wide and takes you through some sea level
mangroves. Gatun Lake, which ships travel for 23 miles is one of the largest
man-made lakes in the world. It covers an area of more than 163 square miles
(425 km²) and was formed by an earth dam across the Chagres River. When
navigating the lake you can see scores of small islands, which really are the tops
of former jungle hills. The level of the lake is controlled by use of 14 gates in the
24
Gatun Dam spillway. A hydro-electric plant at the dam provides part of the
energy needed by the Canal. The operation of the locks consumes a prodigious
amount of fresh water. Each time a ship passes through the waterway, about 52
million gallons of water, mostly from Gatun Lake, must flow into the locks and out
to sea. In all Panama Canal locks, chambers are filled and emptied by gravity,
water flowing through a series of 18-feet diameter tunnels allowing the filling and
emptying of a chamber in 30 minutes (Missal, 2008).
2.2.2 Canal Tolls
Tolls for the canal are decided by the Panama Canal Authority and are based on
vessel type, size, and the type of cargo carried.

For container ships, the toll is
assessed per the ship's capacity expressed in twenty-foot equivalent units or
TEUs as show in Figure 2.11. One TEU is the size of a container measuring
20 feet or 6.1 meter by 8 feet or 2.44 meter by 8 feet or 2.44 meter (World
Shipping Council). Effective May 1, 2009, this toll is $100.00 per TEU (Panama
Canal Authority). After expanded canal project, expected to be done in 2014,
Panama Canal will be able to take container ships up to 12,000 TEU which mean
$1,200,000 toll fee.
Passenger vessels in excess of 30,000 tons base on Panama Canal Universal
Measurement System (PC/UMS), known popularly as cruise ships, pay a rate
based on the number of berths, that is, the number of passengers that can be
accommodated in permanent beds. The per-berth charge is currently $92 for
25
unoccupied berths and $115 for occupied berths. Started in 2007, this charge
has greatly increased tolls for such vessels. Passenger vessels of less than
30,000 tons or with less than 33 tons per passenger are charged on the same
"per-ton" schedule as freighters. Most other types of vessel pay a toll
per PC/UMS net ton, in which one "ton" is actually a volume of 100 cubic
feet (2.83 m
3
). (The calculation of tonnage for commercial vessels is quite
complex.) As of fiscal year 2008, this toll is $3.90 per ton for the first 10,000 tons,
$3.19 per ton for the next 10,000 tons, and $3.82 per ton for the next 10,000
tons, and $3.76 per ton thereafter (Panama Canal Authority).

Figure 2.11 Twenty-foot equivalent unit container
(Source: containerliving.net)
26
Small vessels up to 583 PC/UMS net tons when carrying passengers or cargo, or
up to 735 PC/UMS net tons when in ballast, or up to 1,048 fully loaded
displacement tons, are assessed minimum tolls based upon their overall length,
according to the following, length of vessel toll up to 15.240 meters (50 ft)
$1,300,more than 15.240 meters (50 ft) up to 24.384 meters (80 ft) $1,400, more
than 24.384 meters (80 ft) up to 30.480 meters (100 ft) $1,500, and more than
30.480 meters (100 ft) $2,400.
The most expensive regular toll for canal passage to date was charged on May
16, 2008 to the Disney Magic Cruises as shown in Figure 2.12, which paid
$331,200. The least expensive toll was 36 cents to American adventurer Richard
Halliburton, who swam the canal in 1928. The average toll is around $54,000
(Panama Canal Authority).

Figure 2.12 Disney Magic Cruises
27

CHAPTER 3 PRELIMINARY STUDY
3.1 The Proposed “SIAM CANAL”
For a long time, people have been using marine transport as a main
transportation mode in global trades. The pioneers of marine transports in Greek,
Roman, and China used sea routes to sell and buy goods for their respective
kingdoms. Until now more than 90 percent of transporting goods around the
world is still by sea (Wayne K., 2004) even though the speed of sea
transportation is much slower compared to air or ground transportation. Just in
United State of America, U.S. Department of Transportation reports that 99
percent of the volume of overseas trade (62% by value) enters or leaves the U.S.
by ship (MTS-Marine Transportation System). Over 45 million TEUs (twenty-foot
equivalent units) were handled in 2006, with a value of nearly $1.3 trillion dollars.
The information presented by global financial institute show that sea
transportation has a major role in global economy and has direct effects on the
cost of good around the world. Statistics show that sea transportation increases
every year following the expansion of world trade in the present and in the future.
In the present, United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
shows that more than half of the ships in the world pass through the south
of Thailand and the numbers of ships are increasing every year.
There are many international sea routes for trading around the world. Most of
these travel routes are natural but some are man-made. Since there are many
28

natural sea routes around the world already, why would people build man-made
canal? The answer is very simple and straightforward, using man-made canals
could make the shipping easier and more effective. Suez Canal connecting the
Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and the Panama Canal connecting
Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean are the best examples of the man-made canals
that show the necessity and the importance of what the alternative sea routes
could do.
At the present time, transportation between Pacific Ocean and the Middle East
region are mainly from existing three routes as shown in Figure 3.1. The first
route is Malacca Route that goes through Strait of Malacca, which is a long and
narrow stretch of water between Malaysia and Indonesian Island. The Strait of
Malacca is one of the most important marine shipping routes in the world.
Malacca Route is the main shipping channel between the Indian Ocean and the
Pacific Ocean, linking major Asian economies such as India, China, Japan, and
South Korea. The second route is Sunda Route, which is located between the
Indonesian Islands of Java and Sumatra. It connects the Java Sea to the Indian
Ocean. The third route is Lombok Route, which also connects the Java Sea to
the Indian Ocean. Lombok route locates between the islands of Bali and Lombok
in Indonesia. Because Lombok Route is 250 meter in depth which is much
deeper than Malacca and Sunda Routes, big vessels that need more than 25
meter of water depth will use Lombok Route. If the “Siam Canal” becomes a
29

reality, it will be the fourth route. Figure 3.1 shows the new Siam Canal Route
(denoted as fourth route) compared with the existing three routes.

Figure 3.1 The new Siam Canal Route compared with the existing three routes
Countries in South East Asia will benefit directly from the Siam Canal. The map
shows that almost every country can use the Siam Canal because the Canal is
between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. If the Siam Canal is created,
countries on both sides of the canal will have a shortcut to travel internationally,
saving 1,000-3,500 kilometers per trip in transporting goods between Asian
30

countries. Not only will the Siam Canal shorten the time and save costs, it will be
safe from pirates because ships will not have to pass the Strait of Malacca such
as a vessel from India traveling to China can reach China without having to pass
the Strait of Malacca saving 4-5 days off the trip. If a large container vessels,
several hundred containers, are used each trip will save more than a few million
dollars. The Siam Canal will not only benefit Thailand, but will help develop the
economy of countries in Asia on both sides of Thailand. The Siam Canal will be a
main route in sea transportation in the South East Asia zone. Other than vessels
from Asia, international vessels from Europe, America and Middle East and from
the rest of the world will be able to use the Siam Canal too to save costs of
shipping. The Siam Canal will expand the world’s sea routes to major ports of
several countries without having to go around Singapore and the ships will be
safe from pirates in the Strait of Malacca. Luxury cruise ships from every part of
the world will be interested to travel to Thailand and to South East Asia. The
route passes several large cities in the region and will be a route that passes
more tourism attractions than the present.
The idea of “Siam Canal” is similar to the Suez Canal that connecting the
Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and the Panama Canal that connecting
Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean. This study used Suez Canal and Panama
Canal as case studies to begin exploratory investigation. The location of
proposed Siam Canal will be in the southern part of Thailand. Thailand is located
in Southeast Asia and the geography of Thailand with its southward elongated
31

orientation, blocks the path to Southeast Asia for marine traffic to and from the
Middle East region.
The land that blocks the path is fairly narrow with the narrowest region with
around 100 km. The Route of “Siam Canal” will pass through four districts in
Thailand, and they are Trang, Phatthalung, Nakhon Si Thammarat, and
Songkhla. This Route has the narrow distance of 120 km. Even though this is not
the narrowest area in Thailand that connects the two oceans but the population
in this area does not have high income. The average of the income shown in
table from National Statistical Office (NSO), www.nso.go.th, is around 80,000
baht per year or 2,420 U.S. Dollar per year. The average income for the whole
Thailand Kingdom is around 150,000 baht per year or 5,000 U.S. dollar (NSO,
2010).The density of the population in this area is also very low. The data from
the National Statistical Office shown that the density of the population in these 4
districts is around 120 people per million square meters as shown in Table 3.1,
with was very small compare to 3,500 people per million square meters in
Bangkok (NSO, 2010). Therefore, using this land for the construction of Siam
Canal would be another advantageous point because the Government can
create jobs for people in the area so they would have more incomes. The
preferred location to build the “Siam Canal is indicated in Figure 3.2.

32

Table 3.1 Population Density per million square meters

District Population Density per million square meter
Trang 125
Phatthalung 96
Nakhon Si Thammarat 112
Songkhla 147

33

Figure 3.2 Location of Siam Canal

3.2 The Potential Benefits due to Siam Canal Project
Building Siam Canal is a project that requires a big capital investment, and it
would be one of the biggest engineering projects in Thailand history. Therefore
34

the main part of this research will be centered on assessing the economic
feasibility of the project. In the country like Thailand the big capital cost is very
important because the government can use big amount of money to do many
development for the country. The following are lists of potential benefits that
could be expected from the “Siam Canal” project.

3.2.1 Saving Time of Transportation
The distance and time comparisons of the present three routes which are
Malacca Route, Lombok Route, and Sunda Route with the Siam Canal Route are
shown in Table 3.2. From the table it shows the distance using the Siam Canal
route comparing to the strait of Malacca route (through Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Singapore) will save distance up to 1,200-1,400 kilometers which means the
vessels can save up to 2-3 days of travel. Sea Vessel velocity passing through
straits cannot exceed 12 nautical miles per hour or about 20 kilometers per hour
according to Marine Department of Malaysia (www.marine.gov.my). The
Siam Canal route comparing to the strait of Sunda route will be able to save the
distance up to 2,500-3,000 kilometers which means the vessels that use Siam
Canal will save up to 4-5 days of travel. The Siam Canal route comparing to
the strait of Lombok route will be able to save distance up to 3,000-3,500
kilometers which means the vessels that use Siam Canal will save up to 5-7 days
of travel. Although Siam Canal cannot save weeks or months like Suez Canal or
Panama Canal, saving up to seven days can be a huge advantage for business
35

Table 3.2 The distance and time saving using Siam Canal
compare to existing three routes.

The distance and time saving using Siam Canal compare
to existing three routes.
Distance saving compared to the following
Malacca Route 1,200-1,400 km.
Lombok Route 2,500-3,000 km.
Sunda Route 3,000-3,500 km.
Time saving compared to the following
Malacca Route 2-3 days
Lombok Route 4-5 days
Sunda Route 5-7 days
36

3.2.2 Saving in terms of energy
As calculated by the Energy Information Administration, U.S. domestic and
international shipping within U.S. waters consume about 1 quadrillion or 10^
15

gallon of fuel oil per year. This is roughly 20% of the energy consumed by the
U.S. residential sector in the form of natural gas in 2011 (Energy Information
Administration). For example one great bulk carrier consumed about 2,080,000
gallon per year which is equal to 4,160 compact cars (American Clean Skies
Foundation, 2012). Fuel consumption by a containership is mostly a function of
ship size and cruising speed. The bigger of the vessel and the higher speed will
consume more fuel. As shown in Figure 3.3, the vessel with the 8,000 TEUs
need fuel up to 300 tons per day or equal to 100,000 gallons per day (T. and P.
Carriou, 2009). If this vessel use Siam Canal instead of Sunda Route, it can save
up to 700,000 gallons of fuel just for one way trip. One gallon of diesel fuel is
about $3.5 per gallon that means the vessel can save almost 2.5 million U.S.
dollars.
37

Figure 3.3 Fuel consumption compare to ship size
Some vessel like Queen Elizabeth II as shown in Figure 3.4 with the full capacity can
uses up to 29 ft/gallon or 200 gallons per mile or 125 gallon per km
38

(www.en.wikipedia.org). Therefore saving a distance of 1,000 km means each ship can
save more than 125,000 gallon of gasoline if traveling in Siam canal instate of Malacca
Route. If using Siam Canal in stead of Lombok Route, the ship can save up to 375,000
gallon of gasoline. If using Siam Canal in stead of Sunda route, the ship can save up to
400,000 gallon of gasoline.

Figure 3.4 Queen Elizabeth II (Source: cbsnews.com)
39

3.2.3 The Siam Canal will Solve Sea Pirate or Terrorist Problems
The problems involving damages, caused by terrorist or pirates that raid or hijack
ships passing through those three original routes happen frequently. News on
cargo ship raids come up often because in the three routes, ships have to pass
straits that have many capes and islands that are good hiding places for terrorists
and pirates making it hard to prevent or eliminate. Ship officials wouldn’t want
risks in fighting these outlaws because the ship’s cargo values several million
dollars and the ships need to pass these routes often so they choose to pay
illegal escort or passing fees. According to the International Chamber of
Commerce, International Maritime Bureau (IMB) which is established in 1981 to
act as a focal point in the fight against all types of maritime crime as a
specialized division of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the report
of world-wide incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships from 1 January
to 31 December 2011 as shown in Figure 3.5.
40

Figure 3.5 world-wide incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships
from 1 January to 31 December 2011
From the graph it shows 331 incidents over the year of 2011 in these seven
locations which were recorded 75% of the total of 439 over the year. Just the
area of Malaysia and Indonesia had the total of 62 incidents which is almost 15
percent of the total incident around the world. In the map presented in Figure 3.6
41

shows the locations of the incidents that occurred from January to March 2012
only in South East Asia which will be the interesting point for the Siam Canal.

Figure 3.6 The incidents that occurred from January to March 2012
only in South East Asia
The report from One Earth Future Foundation (OEF) shows that the estimated
cost of piracy is between $6.6 and $6.9 billion in 2011. There are many factors
42

contributing to the overall cost of piracy for example, there were 31 ransoms in
2011 and the average ransom was $5 million dollar, so the total for ransom alone
was $160 million dollar.
Another major cost was the cost of increasing speed for the vessel. The reports
also showed that no ship that was traveling at 18 knots or faster has been
successfully hijacked. Increasing speed mean the large amount of fuel has to be
used. The vessel with 8,000 TEU used fuel about 100 tons per day when travel
below 17 knots but need fuel about 150 tons per day when using speed at 19
knots (T. and P. Carriou, 2009). Table 3.3 shows the factors contributing to the
overall cost of Piracy.
Table 3.3 Factors contributing to the overall cost of piracy
Factors Contributing to The Overall Cost of Piracy
Ransoms $160 million
Insurance $635 million
Security Equipment and Guards $1.06-$1.16 billion
Re-routing $486-$680 million
Increased Speed $2.7 billion
Prosecutions and Imprisonment $16.4 million
Military Operations $1.27 billion
Counter-Piracy Organizations $21.3 million
43

If Siam Canal become reality it will be much easier to manage the sea pirate
problems because all the ships will not have to go pass so many capes and
islands of Malaysia or Indonesia.
3.2.4 The Siam Canal Will Expand Thai Fishery
The fishery is one of the important industries for Thailand. In 2011, Thailand
made more than $3.5 billion dollar from fisheries which equal to 1.6 percent of
the total capital income (Department of Fisheries,Thailand). Thailand has over
60,000 families who work in fishery business which is about 200,000 people
(National Statistical Office, 2011). Therefore if Siam Canal becomes reality these
people will get direct benefit from the canal because Siam Canal will create an
opportunity for Thai fishing ships to use Thailand’s oceanic boundaries in both
side. The fisherman who lives in the east side can go fishing in the Andaman
coast on the west side which is an abundant source of fish. The Andaman coast
has more area than the whole northeast region of Thailand with boundaries to
the ocean boundary of India. The density of the family that works in fishery
business was shown in Figure 3.7. From the figure it shows that there are more
families who work in fishery business on the east side these people will get the
direct benefit because with the Siam Canal they will be able to find the fish in the
Andaman Coast side. More than 50,000 Thai fishing ships inside and outside the
Thai coast (Department of Fisheries) will receive benefits from being able to
travel and operate in both coasts reducing costs from fuel. These fishing ships
44

will be free from being caught in charge of invading neighboring country oceanic
boundaries. If Thai can increase the fishing product by 20 percent by using Siam
Canal, it means that the estimated of the overall income will be more than $700
million dollars per year.

Figure 3.7 The density of the family that works in fishery business

45

3.3 Initial Design of The Proposed Siam Canal

Figure 3.8 The preliminary sketch of Siam Canal
Figure 3.8 shows the preliminary sketch of Siam Canal which would be a two
lanes canal. Learned from the experience of Suez Canal, one lane canal is not
efficient because the ships have to go very slowly and require vast open spaces
for the ships from one direction to wait until the ships from the other direction
safely pass. It will be more expensive if make one lane canal first and expand it
into a two-lane canal later which is the problem that Suez Canal faces at the
present time. The size of the large vessel was shown in Figure 3.9. The regular
size of a big vessel is 50 meters wide or higher, therefore each lane of the
proposed Siam Canal should have a width of roughly 300 meters to ensure that
ships can go through the canal conveniently. The fully loaded large vessels
require a water depth of 30 to 35 meters, therefore it is suggested that Siam
46

Canal should have 40 meters in depth to support the large vessel, which could
be the main customers of Siam Canal.

Figure 3.9 The size of the large vessel

47

The cross section of Siam Canal was shown in figure 3.10. Siam Canal would not
have any problems with the large size of vessels.

Figure 3.10 The cross section of Siam Canal
Bridges across Siam Canal would be a cable stayed bridge as shown in Figure
3.11. The longest cable stayed bridge span is 1,104 meters name Russky Island
Bridge located in Russia, but the bridge for Siam Canal would have span only
350 meters, so building the bridge across Siam Canal would not be a problem in
term of engineering structure. In Thailand also has many cable stayed bridges,
for example Rama VIII Bridge as shown in Figure 3.12, Rama IX Bridge as
shown in Figure 3.13, and Mega Bridge as shown in Figure 3.14. From the
figures show that Thailand is capable of building cable stayed bridge, therefore it
should not be any problem for the bridge across Siam Canal.
48

Figure 3.11 Cable stayed bridge

Figure 3.12 Rama XIII Bridge
49

Figure 3.13 Rama IX Bridge

Figure 3.14 Mega Bridge

50

3.4 Canal Line Consideration for Siam Canal
Thailand has a long and narrow shape of land that block Pacific Ocean and
Indian Ocean as shown in Figure 3.15. Siam Canal will be one of the largest and
most important projects in Thailand history, therefore building Siam Canal would
need to consider where would be the best line to dig a canal to connect the two
sides of the ocean to construct the canal to give the maximum benefit for
Thailand. In this study three canal lines have been presented in Figure 3.16 to
evaluate which would be the best line of Siam Canal.

Figure 3.15 Physical geography of Thailand (Source: Thailand-maps.com)
51

Figure 3.16 Three possible lines for Siam Canal
The first line to be considered is line A, the beginning point of line A in the west
coast is Ban Rachagroon at south of Ranong and the finishing point in the east
coast is Lungsuan at Chumporn. The total distance of this route is 90 kilometers
which is the shortest distance to build a canal. This route is the closest route to
Bangkok, approximate 600 kilometers from Bangkok. There are some advantage
and also some disadvantages from this route. The clear advantage for this route
is it is the shortest route to build a canal which means it will cost less when
compare to other routes, but there are many disadvantages from this route. This
line of canal is too close to the Myanmar or Burma, border (about 30 kilometers
52

from the border), therefore it may cause political and security problems and
Myanmar can easily develop industries to compete with Thailand. At the present
time Myanmar has cheaper wage and cheaper investment cost, therefore
foreigner might turn to invest in Myanmar instead of Thailand.
Ships that used Sunda and Lombok Route which will be the main customers for
Siam Canal would have to travel longer because they have to go around the
Cape of Vietnam. Line A canal will pass mountains and canyons almost 50
kilometers of the total length which may not be appropriate for building ports,
industrial, and special economic zone development in the future. Another
disadvantage associated with the line A of Siam Canal on the east side is too
close to Ko Samui Island which is one of the most popular tourists destination in
Thailand. Ko Samui Island makes lot of money for the country therefore with
Siam Canal too close to the Island might be negatively impact the tourist
business in Thailand. Figure 3.17 shows the closer view of the area of proposed
Siam Canal line A.
53

Figure 3.17 The closer view of the Siam Canal line A
The second line to be considered is line B, the beginning point of line B in the
west coast is Signg at Trang and the finishing point in the east coast is Hou Sai
at South of Nakorn Sri Thammarat. The total distance of this route is 130
kilometers which will have the longest total length of the canal. The area of line B
is in the center of southern region and half from Myanma to Malay Peninsula and
Singapore. This route does not cause problems in national security (about 700
kilometers away from the Myanma border and about 500 kilometers from
Malaysia border). Ninety five percent of the populations in the area of the route
are Thai-Buddhists therefore a foreign intervention attempts to cause separation
will be hard to do. There are a few fundamental systems already ready in the
54

area such as Tungsong cement factory which can produce about 8 million tons of
cement per year and this area is also close to 3 domestic airports. This area is
capable for development in the future because the land in this area is a low land
so it is easy to develop new towns or economic zones in this area on both sides
along the canal. This area has low density population rate about 130 people per
square kilometer (NOS, 2010) which will cause less problem to expropriate the
land to make Siam Canal. The water level difference between the two sides is
only 25 centimeters which mean Siam Canal will not need a water gate for the
vessels. There are 23 local district administrations in this area and all of them
support and cooperate in making the canal line along the B route (There has
been 2 meeting since March, 2011). From the meeting, generally the reaction
has been positive to the proposed Siam Canal. Figure 3.18 shows the closer
view of the area of proposed Siam Canal line B.
55

Figure 3.18 The closer view of the Siam Canal line B
The last line to be considered is line C, the beginning point of line C in the west
coast is a little South of Guntang at Trang and the finishing point in the east coast
is Pattalung at Songkla. The total distance of this route is about 105 kilometers
which is 15 kilometers shorter than line B. The difference between this line and
line B is the canal line C will have to go through Songkla Lake which is the
largest natural lake in Thailand, located on the Malay Peninsula in the southern
part of the country. The Lake covers the area of 1,040 square kilometer and it is
the heart of the southern part of Thailand. Senators and Representatives of
Songkla province along with numerous Songkla Lake reservation clubs and
people of songkla does not want to have the canal pass through Songkla Lake.
Songkla Province has a high density population area about 350 people per
56

square kilometer (NOS, 2010) and the land cost is very high because the area in
Songkla is already developed, therefore this canal line C will have a very high
cost and can cause more social problems compared to another two line. It would
be difficult to develop special economic and industrial zone on both side of the
canal in the future because of the high density population as mentioned earlier.
The other important factor is this canal lline C is closer to the Thai and Malaysia
border, therefore it may cause political and security problems between two
countries in the future. Figure 3.19 shows the closer view of the area of proposed
Siam Canal line C.

Figure 3.19 The closer view of the Siam Canal line C
57

From all advantages and disadvantages discussed earlier, it shown that line B
would be the best route to construct the Siam Canal. It is the most convenient
choice to develop the new towns or new economic zones in the future after Siam
Canal is completed with less negative consequences to the people in the area.
Siam Canal line B will be the farthest distance from both side of Thailand
borderline. It is important because Thailand do not want to have any conflict with
its neighbors.

3.5 The Estimated Construction Cost for Siam Canal Project
The Siam Canal Project is a huge investment project for the country of Thailand
because Thailand is still an underdevelopment country and huge budget means
that the government can do so many things to develop the country. Thailand is
not a rich country, a treasury account balances in year 2011 was 521,290 million
baht or $17,400 million dollars. Table 3.4 shows the treasury account balances:
fiscal years 2007 to 2011 (Bureau of The Budget, Prime Minister’s Office).

58

Table 3.4 Thailand treasury account balances from 2007 to 2011

Thailand had set the national annual budget for the year 2011 at 2,183,000
million baht or $ 70,000 million dollar, therefore to increase national annual
budget have to be very careful.
59

The construction cost estimate for the Siam Canal Project will be calculated by
three main costs which are cost of expropriation, cost of excavation, and cost of
bridge across the canal.
3.5.1 The Cost of Expropriation
This study used Siam Canal line B to calculate the cost of expropriation because
Siam Canal line B is the best choice to create Siam Canal and Siam Canal line B
is also the longest line. The beginning point of line B in the west coast is Signg at
Trang and the finishing point in the east coast is Hou Sai at South of Nakorn Sri
Thammarat. The total distance of this route is 130 kilometers which is the longest
distance to build a canal. This route will cover three provinces: Trang,
Phatthalung, and Nakorn Sri Thammarat. In these three provinces they include
eight main districts: they are Gun-Trang, Wangwiseat, Huy-Yod, Rutchada,
Sribunpot, Don-Kanun, Cha-Oud, and Hua-Chri. Four districts are in Trang which
are Gun-Trang, Wangwiseat, Huy-Yod, and Rutchada. Two districts are in
Phatthalung which are Sribunpot and Don-Kanun. Another two districts are in
Kakorn Sri Thammarat which are Cha-Oud and Hua-Chri. The total area that
Thailand government have to expropriate is 520 kilometer square or 520,000,000
meter square, which already include 4 kilometers wide of the land along the Siam
Canal so the government can develop the area in the future from both sides of
the canal. Figure 3.20 shows that almost 90% of the area is an agriculture zone
60

with the cost of expropriation is very cheap and less than 10% of the area is
residental area where the cost of expropriation is expensive.

Figure 3.20 The Closer view of the land type in the area of Siam Canal line B
The treasury department of Thailand (www.treasury.go.th) gives details on the
average land price in Thailand mostly the land that close to the roads or streets.
Area that is in the agriculture zone which have no roads or streets pass through
have to be estimated by going in to the real area and ask from the locals. Table
3.5 shows the estimated expropriation cost of agriculture zone and table 3.6
shown the estimated expropriation cost of residential zone.

61

Table 3.5 The estimated expropriation cost of agriculture zone
District
Cost of Land(
Baht/1600m
2
) Total Area(m
2
) Total Cost (Baht)
Gun-Trang 72,500 49,140,000 2,226,656,250
Wangwiseat 57,700 32,760,000 1,181,407,500
Huy-Yod 52,000 57,330,000 1,863,225,000
Rutchada 48,500 24,570,000 744,778,125
Sribunpot 53,600 73,710,000 2,469,285,000
Don-Kanun 56,800 136,890,000 4,859,595,000
Cha-Oud 64,900 28,080,000 1,138,995,000
Hua-Chri 59,200 65,520,000 2,424,240,000

Table 3.6 The estimated expropriation cost of the residential zone
District
Cost of Land(
Baht/1600m
2
) Total Area(m
2
) Total Cost
Gun-Trang 1,300,000 5,460,000 4,436,250,000
Wangwiseat 890,000 3,640,000 2,024,750,000
Huy-Yod 750,000 6,370,000 2,985,937,500
Rutchada 680,000 2,730,000 1,160,250,000
Sribunpot 680,000 8,190,000 3,480,750,000
Don-Kanun 725,000 15,210,000 6,892,031,250
Cha-Oud 1,200,000 3,120,000 2,340,000,000
Hua-Chri 1,620,000 7,280,000 7,371,000,000

The estimated total costs of the expropriation are about 48,000,000,000 baht or
$1,600,000,000 dollar. The estimated costs of the expropriation in the agriculture
zone are about 17,000,000,000 baht or $570,000,000 dollar. The estimated costs
of the expropriation in the resident zone are about 31,000,000,000 baht or
$1,030,000,000 dollar.

62

3.5.2 The Cost of Excavation
The cost of excavation is the major cost of the Siam Canal project. The proposed
Siam Canal will be a trapezoidal shape in cross section as shown in Figure 3.21
with 130 kilometer long. The amount of earth that need to be removed would be
around 2 billion cubic meter for just one lane, but Siam Canal would be two lanes
canal therefore the total amount of the earth that need to be removed would be 4
billion cubic meter.
Figure 3.21 Cross section of Siam Canal
The data from Bureau of Budget Thailand gave the average cost of removing 1
cubic meter of earth as 76 baht or $3 dollars include moving the earth out of the
area. In this study the proposed Siam Canal has to dig the earth 40 meters deep
which is a lot deeper than the average projects, therefore the cost of removing
the earth could be up to 150 baht per cubic meter or $5 dollar per cubic meter,
63

therefore the total cost of the excavation would go up to 600,000 million baht or
$20,000 million dollar.
This cost could be higher if the contractors or subcontractors have to move the
earth far from the site, but Siam Canal Project will use that massive amount of
earth to pave up both sides of the canal. The amount of 4 billion cubic meter of
earth from digging can be used to pave up both sides of the canal up to 4
kilometer with the pave high 7 meter to 10 meter higher than the sea level to
accommodate an industrial towns or business zones in the future.

3.5.3 The Cost of Cable Stayed Bridge
The route of the proposed Siam Canal cut through two interstate freeways which
are freeway 403 at Trang and freeway 41 at Phatthalung. Siam Canal is a two
lane canal therefore the proposed Siam Canal project needs 4 bridges to
complete the transportation. Cable stayed bridge would be used for Siam Canal
project because the canal has a long span over 300 meters and it would be
better if the bridges do not have foundation posts in the middle of the canal so all
the vessels that will come and use Siam Canal can travel safe.
The cost of cable stayed bridge would be calculated by the cost of the previous
cable stayed bridge that was build in Thailand during 2000 to 2002, the Rama
Eight Bridge. The Rama Eight Bridge was a cable-stayed bridge crossing
64

the Chao Phraya River in Bangkok to solve traffic problem. The bridge was
opened on 7 May 2002 and inaugurated on 20 September, which is the birth
anniversary of the late King Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII), after whom it is named.
The bridge has an asymmetrical design, with a single pylon in an inverted Y
shape located on the western bank of the river. Its eighty-four cables are
arranged in pairs on the side of the main span and in a single row on the other.
The bridge has a main span of 300 meters (980 ft) and the total length of 475
meters, and was one of the world's largest asymmetrical cable-stayed bridges at
the time of its completion. Figure 3.22 shows the picture of Rama VIII Bridge.
The cost of Rama VIII Bridge was 3,170 million baht or $105 million dollar which
was approved by Mr. Chuan Leekpai, prime minister at a time (Bangkok
Metropolitan Administration, 2000).
65

Figure 3.22 Rama VIII Bridge
The Rama Eight Bridge has the length of 475 meters with the total cost of 3,170
million baht, therefore the average cost was 6.67 million baht per meter or $0.22
million dollar per meter. Since the Rama VIII bridge was build 11 years ago
therefore the cost of building mush be increased. To calculate the cost of Siam
Canal using the data from Rama VIII Bridge have to convert the cost of building
11 years ago and transfer to present cost. Real Estate Information Center (REIC)
gives the data on the construction cost index from 2002 to2012 as shown in
Table 3.7.

66

Table 3.7 The construction cost index from 2002 to2012
Year Quarter Construction Cost
Index
%Change
2002 Q1 100.0
Q2 100.4 0.4
Q3 101.4 1.1
Q4 101.5 0.0
2003 Q1 104.1 2.6
Q2 104.5 0.4
Q3 104.8 0.3
Q4 104.6 -0.2
2004 Q1 104.8 0.2
Q2 105.3 0.4
Q3 105.5 0.3
Q4 105.6 0.0
2005 Q1 106.4 0.7
Q2 106.9 0.5
Q3 106.8 -0.2
Q4 107.1 0.3
2006 Q1 110.4 3.1
Q2 110.8 0.4
67

Q3 112.6 1.6
Q4 113.2 0.5
2007 Q1 114.6 1.3
Q2 116.2 1.4
Q3 115.3 -0.7
Q4 114.6 -0.6
2008 Q1 115.3 0.6
Q2 116.6 1.2
Q3 116.4 -0.2
Q4 117.0 0.5
2009 Q1 119.4 2.1
Q2 119.4 0.0
Q3 119.4 0.0
Q4 120.9 1.3
2010 Q1 122.3 1.2
Q2 127.0 3.8
Q3 129.3 1.8
Q4 123.0 -4.9
2011 Q1 127.9 4.0
Q2 125.7 -1.7
Q3 126 0.2
68

Q4 125.9 -0.1
2012 Q1 127.7 1.4
Q2 127.9 0.2
Q3 128.8 0.7
Q4 129.6 0.6

Table 3.7 shown that since the time of the construction of The Rama VIII Bridge
in 2002 until present the construction cost have been increase almost 30 percent,
there for the estimate cost for Siam Canal Cable Stayed Bridge would be around
8.67 million baht per meter or $0.29 million dollar per meter. The Siam Canal
Bridge would have the total length of 500 meters with a span of 300 meters,
therefore the estimated cost would be 4,335 million baht or $145 million dollar.
There would be the total of four bridges, therefore the total cost of the bridges for
Siam Canal would be 17,340 million baht or $580 million dollar.

3.5.4 The Total Cost of Siam Canal Project
The construction cost estimate for the Siam Canal Project would be calculated by
three main costs which are cost of expropriation, cost of excavation, and cost of
bridges across the canal. From the data above the estimate cost of the
expropriation, the excavation, and the bridges have been calculated and show in
Table 3.8.
69

Table 3.8 Total cost of the proposed Siam Canal
Type of Cost Approximated Cost
Baht (Million)
Approximated Cost
Dollar (Million)
Cost of the expropriation 48,000 1,600
Cost of excavation 600,000 20,000
Cost of Bridges 17,380 580
Total Cost 665,380 22,180

The approximated total cost of the Siam Canal was 665,380 million baht or
$22,180 million dollar. More than 90 percent of the cost came from the cost of
excavation and the cost could be higher if there are difficulties or problems occur
during the project.

3.6 Will There Be Enough Vessels Passing The Siam Canal to
Make Siam Canal Profitable?
The Siam Canal Project is a high cost investment project for Thailand, the
estimated cost was $22,180 million dollar. The main objective of the project was
to help Thailand economy, therefore it is important that the project can make
profit. To make the project profitable means there should be enough vessel pass
through Siam Canal so Thailand’s government can correct fee from the vessel
70

enough to pay for the cost and also get benefit. While the vessels can pass
through the Malacca strait, Sunda strait, and Lombok strait for free, the costs of
passing through the Siam Canal must be less than the cost that the vessels have
to spend for the regular sea routes.
At the present time, there are around 75,000 vessels using the Malacca strait
each year (Marine Department of Malaysia). Table 3.9 shows the statistic of
vessels using Malacca strait from 2001 to 2010. The data from the table shows
that the number of the vessels using Malacca strait increase almost every year
and seem to keep going up. The average of the vessels using the Malacca strait
was 205 vessels per day. The vessels that used Malacca strait were the ships
that need less than 20 meters water depth, the vessels that need more than 20
meters water depth would have to use Sunda strait and Lombok strait which do
not have the data to confirm how many vessels using those straits therefore the
number of the vessels going through the south of the Siam Canal should be
much higher.

71

Table 3.9 The statistic of vessels using Malacca strait
from 2001 to 2010
Year Number of Vessel
2001 59,314
2002 60,034
2003 62,334
2004 63,636
2005 62,621
2006 65,649
2007 70,718
2008 76,381
2009 71,359
2010 74,136

There are many types of vessel that used for commercial cargo. All cargoes were
carried in general purpose holds, vessels are designed and built to carry specific
cargo type. The names give to the various vessel types reflect the types reflect
the type of cargo for which they are designed and build to carry. For example, A
bulk carrier is specially designed to carry cargo in bulk and the hatch cover and
hold design is focused on the carriage of raw dry cargo good, such as coal, or
72

grain, which are simply poured into cavernous holds then grabbed and bulldozed
out at the port. The pictures of bulk carrier were shown in Figures 3.23.

Figure 3.23 The pictures of bulk carrier
Tankers carry liquid cargo in tanks. The most obvious example is the well known
oil tanker, but even within this generic type, each tanker is specifically designed
to carry a particular type of liquid cargo not just crude oil. Other liquid cargoes
would include petroleum products, chemicals, and even wine. The picture of
tanker vessel was shown in Figures 3.24.
73

Figure 3.24 The picture of tanker vessel
Container vessels are the most common vessel to carry all other type of good
around the world. Most container vessels carry their cargo in standard size
containers, normally 20 ft. unit (TEU). The regular size of the twenty foot
equivalent unit is 20 feet long with 8 feet wide and 8 feet tall. The picture of
container vessel was shown in Figures 3.25.

74

Figure 3.25 The picture of container vessel
There was no certain data about how many vessels using the Sunda route or
Lombok route, so this study will use the number of containers and number of
deadweight tons that travel to the countries around South East Asia to calculate
the income that Siam Canal can correct from commercial vessels.
United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) established in
1964. UNCTAD promotes the development-friendly integration of developing
countries into the world economy. UNCTAD has progressively evolved into an
authoritative knowledge-based institution whose work aims to help shape current
policy debates and thinking on development, with a particular focus on ensuring
75

that domestic policies and international action are mutually supportive in bringing
about sustainable development. At the present time, UNCTAD has 194 countries
as a member. The information about container, 20 TEU, port throughput the
countries that are able to use Siam Canal are shown in Table3.10 annually from
2008-2010.
Table 3.10 Number of containers port throughput the countries that are able to use
Siam Canal
Year 2008 2009 2010
World Total 516,255,115 472,273,661 540,693,119
Australia 6,102,342 6,200,325 6,668,075
Cambodia 258,775 207,577 224,206
China 115,941,970 108,799,934 130,290,443
China, Hong Kong 24,494,229 21,040,096 23,699,242
China, Taiwan 12,971,224 11,352,097 12,501,107
India 7,672,457 8,014,487 9,752,908
Indonesia 7,404,831 7,255,005 8,482,636
Japan 18,943,606 16,285,918 18,098,346
South Korea 17,417,723 15,699,663 18,542,804
Malaysia 16,093,953 15,922,800 18,267,475
Myanmar 180,000 163,692 190,046
Philippines 4,471,428 4,306,965 4,947,039
Singapore 30,891,200 26,592,800 29,178,500
Sri Lanka 3,687,465 3,464,297 4,000,000
Thailand 6,726,237 5,897,935 6,648,532
Viet Nam 4,393,699 4,936,598 5,983,583
Total 277,651,140 256,140,189 297,474,943

76

Table 3.10 shows that more than 50 percent of the containers around the world
came to Asia which able to use Siam Canal to save their cost of transportation. If
only 10 percent of these container using Siam Canal, it means almost
30,000,000 containers per year. For the fee, using Panama Canal as a case
study, Panama Canal charged $100 dollar per container for a fee, but since Siam
Canal can save time of travel less than Panama Canal, so Siam Canal would
charge only $75 dollar per container. In this case Thailand’s government can
make $2,250 million dollar per year for container vessels only. Table 3.11 shows
how much money Thailand’s government can make with the different percent
used of the containers through Siam Canal.
Table 3.11 Thailand’s income from different percentage of container using
Siam Canal
Percent of containers using
Siam Canal
Thailand’s Income (Million
Dollar)
10% 2,250
20% 4,500
30% 6,750
40% 9,000
50% 11,250

77

For Bulk Carrier Vessels and Tanker Vessels, UNCTAD also have the statistic
data around the world from 1980 to 2012. In this study, only the Bulk Carrier
Vessels and Tanker Vessels that go through Asia have been used to estimate
the incomes that Siam Canal could get benefit. UNCTAD gave data measured by
the dead weight ton of the vessels as show in table. Table 3.12 shows the total
dead weight ton around the world and Table 3.13 shows the total dead weight
ton only Asia legend.
Table 3.12 The total dead weight ton around the world
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Oil tankers (1000
ton) 356,109 382,975 407,881 418,266 450,053 474,846 507,454
Bulk carriers
(1000 ton) 349,721 367,542 391,127 418,356 456,623 532,039 622,536
Total (1000 ton) 705,830 750,518 799,008 836,622 906,676 1,006,885 1,129,990

78

Table 3.13 The total dead weight ton only Asia legend
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Oil tankers (1000
ton) 79,072 84,127 86,591 85,634 91,475 98,679 111,619
Bulk carriers (1000
ton) 86,818 91,894 98,783 104,622 113,772 134,630 165,624
Total (1000 ton) 165,890 176,021 185,374 190,255 205,247 233,309 277,242

Table 3.13 shows that almost 25 percent of the total Bulk carriers vessels and
Tanker vessels has gone through Asia every year and increasing every year. The
total of 277,242,000 tons of good went to Asia in 2012. For the fee, using Suez
Canal as a case study, Suez Canal charged about $6 dollar per DWT for a fee,
but since Siam Canal can save time of travel less than Suez Canal, so Siam
Canal would charge only $4 dollar per DWT. If only 10 percent of these volumes
using Siam Canal, it means almost 28,000,000 DWT per year. In this case
Thailand’s government can make $112 million dollar per year from bulk carrier
vessels and tanker vessels. Table 3.14 shows how much money Thailand’s
government can make with the different percent used of the total volume through
Siam Canal.

79

Table 3.14 Thailand’s income from different percent of DWT using
Siam Canal
Percent of DWT using
Siam Canal
Thailand’s Income (Million
Dollar)
10% 112
20% 224
30% 336
40% 448
50% 560

Table 3.11 shows income that Siam Canal could make from the containers
vessels and Table 3.14 shows the income that Siam Canal could make from bulk
carrier vessels and tanker vessels. Table 3.15 shows the total income from all
the vessel types by difference percentage of the total vessels in the world. From
Table 3.15 shows that Siam Canal can make a lot of income for Thailand to help
Thailand’s economy and Thailand’s government can get the money due to the
cost of Siam Canal project back in a short time.

80

Table 3.15 Thailand’s total income from all the vessel types by difference
percentage of the total vessels
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Thailand’s Income (Million
Dollar)
10% 2,362
20% 4,724
30% 7,086
40% 9,448
50% 11,810

Table 3.15 shows that if only 10 percent of the combination of container vessels
and the bulk carrier vessels and tanker vessels change from using the natural
three routes: Malacca Route, Sunda Route, and Lombok Route to use Siam
Canal Route, Thailand can make an income up to $2,362 million dollars per year.
If 20 percent of the total vessels decide to use Siam Canal Thailand can make an
income up to $4,724 million dollars per year and it can go up to $11,810 million
dollars per year if 50 percent of the total vessel use Siam Canal.

81

3.7 Economic Analysis
Building Siam Canal is a project that required large capital investment, and it
would be one of the biggest engineering project in Thailand history therefore the
main part of this research will be centered on assessing the economic feasibility
of the project. All costs and benefits are converted to the Net present worth
(NPW) or net present value (NPV) to determine the pay back period of the
proposed Siam Canal Project.

Where Bk = Benefit from the project
Ck = Cost of the project
i = Interest rate
n = Number of year that will get pay back
k = Year of that Cost or Benefit
82

This study will use different assumed of interest rate and different percentage of
benefit and different cost to find the pay back period. The original cost of the
project is $22,180 million dollar and the operation cost is $300 million dollar per
year when Siam Canal open. One of the key factors affecting the outcome
depends on the number of vessels choose to use the Siam Canal. This canal
adoption rate is of course an indeterminate factor at the present time. We can
assume different canal adoption rate range from 10% to 50% of the existing total
vessel traveling at the present time.
3.7.1 If the cost of Siam Canal is $22,180 million dollar.
Table 3.16 to Table 3.20 show pay back period of the proposed Siam Canal
when the estimated cost of the project is $22,180 million dollar with the assumed
interest rate of 4% to 9%.
Table 3.16 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
10% 4% 28
10% 5% 32
10% 7% -
10% 9% -

83

Table 3.17 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
20% 4% 16.75
20% 5% 17.50
20% 7% 20
20% 9% 23.25

Table 3.18 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
30% 4% 14.24
30% 5% 14.75
30% 7% 15.5
30% 9% 17

84

Table 3.19 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
40% 4% 13
40% 5% 13.25
40% 7% 14
40% 9% 14.75

Table 3.20 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
50% 4% 12.25
50% 5% 12.5
50% 7% 13
50% 9% 13.5

85

3.7.2 If the cost of Siam Canal is increased by 10%
Table 3.21 to Table 3.25 show pay back period of the proposed Siam Canal
when the estimated cost of the project is increased by 10% and become $24,398
million dollar with the assumed interest rate of 4% to 9%.
Table 3.21 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
10% 4% 33
10% 5% 40
10% 7% -
10% 9% -

Table 3.22 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
20% 4% 18
20% 5% 19
20% 7% 22
20% 9% 28

86

Table 3.23 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
30% 4% 15
30% 5% 15.25
30% 7% 16.75
30% 9% 18.5

Table 3.24 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
40% 4% 13.35
40% 5% 14
40% 7% 14.5
40% 9% 15.25

87

Table 3.25 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
50% 4% 12.75
50% 5% 13
50% 7% 13.5
50% 9% 14.25

3.7.3 If the cost of Siam Canal is increased by 20%
Table 3.26 to Table 3.30 show pay back period of the proposed Siam Canal
when the estimated cost of the project is increased by 20% and become $26,616
million dollar with the assumed interest rate of 4% to 9%.
Table 3.26 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
10% 4% 36
10% 5% 47
10% 7% -
10% 9% -

88

Table 3.27 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
20% 4% 19
20% 5% 20
20% 7% 24
20% 9% 33

Table 3.28 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
30% 4% 15.5
30% 5% 16
30% 7% 18
30% 9% 19.5

89

Table 3.29 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
40% 4% 14
40% 5% 14.25
40% 7% 15
40% 9% 16

Table 3.30 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
50% 4% 13
50% 5% 13.25
50% 7% 14
50% 9% 14.5

90

3.7.4 If the cost of Siam Canal is increased by 30%
Table 3.31 to Table 3.35 show pay back period of the proposed Siam Canal
when the estimated cost of the project is increased by 30% and become $28,834
million dollar with the assumed interest rate of 4% to 9%.
Table 3.31 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
10% 4% 40
10% 5% 58
10% 7% -
10% 9% -

Table 3.32 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
20% 4% 20
20% 5% 21
20% 7% 26
20% 9% 41

91

Table 3.33 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
30% 4% 16
30% 5% 16.25
30% 7% 18.75
30% 9% 21

Table 3.34 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
40% 4% 14.25
40% 5% 14.5
40% 7% 15.75
40% 9% 17

92

Table 3.35 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
50% 4% 13.25
50% 5% 13.75
50% 7% 14.25
50% 9% 15.25

3.7.5 If the cost of Siam Canal is increased by 40%
Table 3.36 to Table 3.40 show pay back period of the proposed Siam Canal
when the estimated cost of the project is increased by 40% and become $31,052
million dollar with the assumed interest rate of 4% to 9%.
Table 3.36 Pay back period assumed 10% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
10% 4% 44
10% 5% 84
10% 7% -
10% 9% -

93

Table 3.37 Pay back period assumed 20% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
20% 4% 20.75
20% 5% 22.25
20% 7% 28
20% 9% -

Table 3.38 Pay back period assumed 30% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
30% 4% 16.5
30% 5% 17.25
30% 7% 19
30% 9% 23

94

Table 3.39 Pay back period assumed 40% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
40% 4% 14.5
40% 5% 15
40% 7% 16.25
40% 9% 18

Table 3.40 Pay back period assumed 50% of vessel using Siam Canal
Percent of Vessel using
Siam Canal
Assumed Interest Rate
(%)
Pay Back Period (Year)
50% 4% 13.5
50% 5% 14
50% 7% 15.75
50% 9% 16.75

From the total of 100 cases, 70% of these cases show that the proposed Siam
Canal can get the pay back period within 20 years. If the interest rate is less than
5%, seventy eight percent of these cases show that the proposed Siam Canal
can get the pay back period within 20 years. If 20% of the total vessels use Siam
Canal each year and the interest rate is less than 5%, the maximum pay back
95

period for Siam Canal project will be 22.25 years with the original cost is
increased by 40%.

96

CHAPTER 4 NUMERICAL METHOD
Possible environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” are
evaluated. The relative dimension of the proposed Siam Canal is very small
compared with the Gulf of Thailand or with the long waves characteristic
dimension generated in the Gulf of Thailand except in the opening area of the
canal to Gulf of Thailand. Possible modifications to long waves by the proposed
Siam Canal in the Gulf of Thailand is simulated by a numerical model utilizing a
finite element numerical model.
4.1 Governing Equation
The basin response model first developed by Lee (1998) was used in the
numerical simulation. It can be used for arbitrary shape harbor basin with
variable water depth. The model incorporated the effect of the wave reflection,
refraction, diffraction, and boundary absorption, bottom friction, and separation
loss at the harbor entrances. The governing equation is the mild slope equation
derived by Berkhoff (1972):
  0
2
     


C
C
CC
g
g
(4.1)
Where   y x,    is the horizontal variation in velocity potential.

k
C

 is wave celerity.
97

 






   
kh
kh C
G
C
C
g
2 sinh
2
1
2
1
2
is wave group velocity.

kh
kh
G
2 sinh
2

k is wave number.
 is wave frequency.
h is water depth
4.2 Boundary Conditions
The modeling area is divided into two parts, the inner area and the outer area, as
shown in Figure 4.1. The inner area includes the harbor and a connected
semicircular area. The half ring-shaped outer area has a radius of infinity (Lee
and Xing, 2004).

Figure 4.1 Calculation domain
98

There are different types of boundary condition that have been used to generate
the model for this study.
4.2.1 Partial Absorption Boundary
The solid boundary such as a vertical wall or a natural beach and the energy
releasing boundary such as a river outlet can be treated as that energy is
partially absorbed and partially reflected (Lee, 1969). The energy flux out through
the boundary is formulated using a second-order scheme as
2
2
2 s k
i
k i
n 

  

  
 

(4.2)
where  is the absorption coefficient with a range of 1 0    . It should be
mentioned that for partially absorbing boundaries, the changing of absorption
coefficient  may represent different boundary conditions. When 0   , it
represents fully reflecting condition, i.e. 0 


n

. When 1   , it represents fully
absorbing condition. The relation between absorption coefficient and reflection
coefficient R for an incident wave angel
i
 is

 
 
2
2
2
2
cos 2 cos
cos 2 cos
    
    
 
 
 
i i
i i
R (4.3)

99

4.2.2 Bottom Friction
The energy dissipation due to bottom friction is described as an instantaneous
energy flux throughout the bottom:

b b f
U E  
(4.4)
where
b
 is the instantaneous complex shear stress at the bottom, which can be
formulated by the water particle velocity near the bed as

b b b b
U U K  
2
1
 (4.5)
where
b
K is a dimensionless friction coefficient. The particle velocity near the
bed is
) 2 exp(
cosh
1
t i
kh s
U
b
b
 








 


 (4.6)
With introducing a bottom friction coefficient,
b b
U gK f
2
1


, the energy flux
through bottom becomes
  ) 2 exp(
cosh
1
2
2
t i
kh
f
g
E
f
 


 






 (4.7)

100

In order to get the frequency domain formulation, the energy flux is integrated
over time and space, the result of the bottom friction energy flux is
    dA
kh
f
i
t i
g
dtdA E
A A
f
2
2
cosh
1
2
2 exp 











 
  
(4.8)
The bottom friction coefficient can be obtained based on the bottom roughness
study by Jonsson (1976) and Jonsson and Carlsen (1976). The resulted formula
is

25 . 0 75 . 0
2 . 0
b bf
C g f  

 for 100 6 . 1  
bf
b
C


b
g f 

15 . 0  for 6 . 1 
bf
b
C

(4.9)
where
kh
a
b
sinh
  ,
bf
C is the Nikuradse roughness height, a is wave amplitude.
4.2.3 Entrance Loss
The quadratic entrance head loss at the harbor entrance is applied in this model,

U K
g
U
U f
g
U
f H
e e e
   
2 2
0
2
(4.10)
In which
0
2
U
g
f
K
e
e

,
e
f
is the dimensionless entrance loss coefficient.
0
U
is the
averaged velocity at the harbor entrance computed considering no entrance loss,
101

U
is the new entrance velocity to be computed considering the entrance loss in
the model. Thus the relationship of the complex velocity potentials at the
entrance can be written as
g
U
U f
i
g
e
2
2 2 1

         (4.11)
The weighted residual method is used to find the functional for the harbor
entrance,
ds
g
U
U f
i
g
C C F
e g
E
e








  


2
0 2 1
*

    (4.12)
Where
1
 and
2
 are the velocity potential before and after the harbor entrance.
4.2.4 Wave Transmission through Porous Breakwater
Wave energy is considered as partially transmitted and partially absorbed when a
wave passes through a porous breakwater. The transmitted wave potential
T
 is
assumed to be proportional to the incoming wave potential
i


i T
T T i
K ikK
nn
 

 


(4.13)
where
T
K is the transmission coefficient through the breakwater.

102

The integrated wave energy transmission can be written as

  
 


  
T T
T
T g f
ds
n
CC t i
g
dtds E

 

2
1
) 2 exp(
   
1
exp( 2 )
2
g T i T i
T
i t CC K ikK ds
g

  

  


22
1
exp( 2 )
2
g T i
T
i t C i K ds
g

  

  

(4.14)
4.3 Siam Canal Modeling and Results
Figure 4.2 shows the location of the model which is located in Gulf of Thailand.
The size of Gulf of Thailand is very big from North to South along the coast line is
about 650 miles or 1,050 kilometers and the width of the Gulf of Thailand is about
250 miles or 400 kilometers.
103

Figure 4.2 Location of Simulation Model
As shown in the Figure 4.3, the main blocks of the mesh are superimposed. The
model grid contains 85,476 nodes and 20,964 elements. The outside semicircle
has a radius of 120 miles or 1,930 kilometers. The incoming wave direction used
in the simulation is illustrated by the arrow outside the semicircle, which are 30
104

degree, 60 degree, 90 degree, 120 degree, and 150 degree to the diameter of
the semicircle. Tides are long waves and most of them will be reflected by the
vertical boundary. However considering the natural beach, the reflection
coefficient used here for the beach is 0.97.

Figure 4.3 Mesh of Simulation Model

105

Four locations were chosen for the demonstration, which are noted in Figure 4.4.
Point A (Ko Si Chang),Point B (Ko Mattaphon), Point C (Pak Phanang), and
Point D (Pak Nam Pattani) are located in Gulf of Thailand where Pak Nam
Pattani and Pak Phanang and Ko Mattaphon are located at the west side of the
Gulf, Ko Si Chang is located in the North side of the Gulf of Thailand.

Figure 4.4 Demonstration Location for Model
106

The response curves at Pak Nam Pattani, Pak Phanang, Ko Mattaphon, and Ko
si Chang form different incoming wave direction are plotted. Figure 4.5 shows
the plot at point A from 5 different incoming wave directions with out Siam Canal.
Figure 4.6 shows the plot from point A from 5 different incoming wave direction
with Siam Canal. Figure 4.7 shows the plot from point B from 5 different incoming
wave direction with out Siam Canal. Figure 4.8 shows the plot from point B from
5 different incoming wave direction with Siam Canal. Figure 4.9 shows the plot at
point C from 5 different incoming wave directions with out Siam Canal. Figure
4.10 shows the plot at point C from 5 different incoming wave directions with
Siam Canal. Figure 4.11 shows the plot at point D from 5 different incoming wave
directions with out Siam Canal. Figure 4.12 shows the plot at point D from 5
different incoming wave directions with Siam Canal. The response curves are
plotted as amplification factor R (ratio of wave height
r
H at the indicated location
to the incident wave height i
H
, ri
R H H 
) and kl. The response curves show that
the first mode which is called the pumping mode at all locations are at 51.5
hours, 52.5 hours, 53.5 hours, and 56.5 hours respectively. Only at point A, Ko Si
Chang, that the second mode is almost as high as the first mode, but at point B
and point C and point D there are very small amplification factor.

107

Point A Ko Si Chang with out Siam Canal
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
kl
Amplification Factor R
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
51.5 Hour 12.5 hour

Figure 4.5 Response Curve at Point A with out Siam Canal

Point A Ko Si Chang with Siam Canal
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
kl
Amplification Factor R
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
51.5 hour 12.5 hour

Figure 4.6 Response Curve at Point A with Siam Canal

108

Figure 4.7 Response Curve at Point B with out Siam Canal

Figure 4.8 Response Curve at Point B with Siam Canal

Point B Ko Mattaphon with Siam Canal
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
kl
Amplification Factor R
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
12.5 hour 52.5 hour
Point B Ko Mattaphon with out Siam Canal
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
kl
Amplification Factor R
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
12.5 hour 52.5 hour
109

Figure 4.9 Response Curve at Point C with out Siam Canal

Figure 4.10 Response Curve at Point C with Siam Canal

Point C Pak Phanang with Siam Canal
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 5 10 15 20 25
kl
Amplification Factor R
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
53.5 hour 12.5 hour
Point C Pak Phanang with out Siam Canal
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 5 10 15 20 25
kl
Amplification Factor R
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
53.5 hour 12.5 hour
110

Point D Pak Nam Pattani with out Siam Canal
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
kl
Amplification FactorR
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
56.5 hour 12.5 hour

Figure 4.11 Response Curve at Point D with out Siam Canal

Point D Pak Nam Pattani with Siam Canal
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
kl
Amplification FactorR
30 degree
60 degree
90 degree
120 degree
150 degree
56.5 hour 12.5 hour

Figure 4.12 Response Curve at Point D with Siam Canal

111

4.4 Comparing Simulation Results with Field Measurements
Four tide gauge stations were used for comparison. The location of these 4
locations is indicated in Figure 4.4. All tidal records are shown from Figure 4.13
to Figure 4.25 to compare with the simulation data. Since the station Pak Nam
Pattani is the closest to the inlet of the Gulf of Thailand, it was chosen as the
reference point to compute the amplification factor. The tidal ranges at 4
locations are normalized by the corresponding tidal ranges at Pak Nam Pattani to
get the amplification factors, as well as the normalized amplification factor with
the same reference point from the simulation at 12.5 hours, are obtained and
listed from Table 4.1 to Table 4.13.

112

Observed Tidal Wave : January
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.13 Observed Tidal Wave : January
Table 4.1 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
January
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7905 0.7618 3.76
Ko Mattaphon 0.5714 0.5580 2.41
Ko Si Chang 3.3810 3.2270 4.77

113

Observed Tidal Wave : February
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.14 Observed Tidal Wave : February
Table 4.2 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor:
February
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7890 0.7618 3.57
Ko Mattaphon 0.5780 0.5580 3.58
Ko Si Chang 3.3578 3.2270 4.05

114

Observed Tidal Wave : March
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.15 Observed Tidal Wave : March
Table 4.3 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
March
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7788 0.7618 2.24
Ko Mattaphon 0.5769 0.5580 3.39
Ko Si Chang 3.4038 3.2270 5.48
115

Observed Tidal Wave : April
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.16 Observed Tidal Wave : April
Table 4.4 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
April
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point
Din the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7732 0.7618 1.49
Ko Mattaphon 0.5722 0.5580 2.54
Ko Si Chang 3.4410 3.2270 6.63

116

Observed Tidal Wave : May
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.17 Observed Tidal Wave : May
Table 4.5 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
May
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point
Din the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7833 0.7618 2.82
Ko Mattaphon 0.5730 0.5580 2.69
Ko Si Chang 3.4831 3.2270 7.93

117

Observed Tidal Wave : June
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.18 Observed Tidal Wave : June
Table 4.6 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
June
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point
Din the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7778 0.7618 2.09
Ko Mattaphon 0.5741 0.5580 2.88
Ko Si Chang 3.5185 3.2270 9.03

118

Observed Tidal Wave : July
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Fiugre 4.19 Observed Tidal Wave : July
Table 4.7 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
July
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7808 0.7618 2.49
Ko Mattaphon 0.5890 0.5580 5.56
Ko Si Chang 3.6849 3.2270 14.17

119

Observed Tidal Wave : August
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.20 Observed Tidal Wave : August
Table 4.8 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
August
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7778 0.7618 2.09
Ko Mattaphon 0.5833 0.5580 4.54
Ko Si Chang 3.7639 3.2270 16.63

120

Observed Tidal Wave : September
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.21 Observed Tidal Wave : September
Table 4.9 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
September
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7805 0.7618 2.45
Ko Mattaphon 0.5732 0.5580 2.71
Ko Si Chang 3.5976 3.2270 11.48

121

Observed Tidal Wave : October
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.22 Observed Tidal Wave : October
Table 4.10 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
October
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point
Din the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.8012 0.7618 5.16
Ko Mattaphon 0.5929 0.5580 6.25
Ko Si Chang 3.4330 3.2270 6.68

122

Observed Tidal Wave : November
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.23 Observed Tidal Wave : November
Table 4.11 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
November
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7909 0.7618 3.82
Ko Mattaphon 0.5818 0.5580 4.26
Ko Si Chang 3.3909 3.2270 5.08

123

Observed Tidal Wave : December
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hr)
Wave Hight (m)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D

Figure 4.24 Observed Tidal Wave : December
Table 4.12 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
December
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated
Amplification Factor
(Normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point Din
the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7946 0.7618 4.31
Ko Mattaphon 0.5804 0.5580 4.01
Ko Si Chang 3.4107 3.2270 5.69

124

Table 4.13 Comparison between the observed and simulated amplification factor :
Year average
Location Observed
Amplification Factor
(normalized by Pak
Nam Pattani) Point D
in the map
Simulated Amplification
Factor (Normalized by
Pak Nam Pattani) Point
Din the map
Difference
%
Pak Nam
Pattani
1.0 1.0 0
Pak Phanang 0.7855 0.7618 3.11
Ko Mattaphon 0.5787 0.5580 3.71
Ko Si Chang 3.4719 3.2270 7.59

The last column in Table 4.1 to Table 4.13 lists the differences between the
observed and computed amplification factors. It can be seen that the
amplification factor form the computed model is a little bit lower than the
observed one. The maximum difference from year average is 7.59% as shown in
Table 4.13 can proves the accuracy and reliability of the numerical model.

125

4.5 Mode from the simulation model
From the response curve the first mode of the bay (also called the pumping
mode), in which the amplification of wave in Gulf of Thailand at the highest point
occurs at the 51.5 hours. Figure 4.9 shows the mode at 51.5 hours from an
incoming wave direction 90 degree.
From the recorded data of wave high in Gulf of Thailand has shown that the tidal
range was at 12.5 hours, so in Figure 4.10 shown the mode at 12.5 Hour from an
incoming wave direction 90 degree.

Figure 4.25 Mode @ 51.5 hours from 90 degree incoming wave
126

Figure 4.26 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 30 degree incoming wave

Figure 4.27 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 60 degree incoming wave

127

Figure 4.28 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 90 degree incoming wave

Figure 4.29 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 120 degree incoming wave
128

Figure 4.30 Mode @ 12.5 hours from 150 degree incoming wave

4.6 Compared the response curve and mode before and after
“Siam Canal”
Possible environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” are
evaluated. The wave and tide condition, before and after “Siam Canal” is being
simulated by a finite element numerical model. Figure 4.31 to Figure 4.34 show
the response curve from 90 degree incoming wave direction at point A, B, C, and
D respectively, before and after the construction of “Saim Canal”. Figure 4.35 to
Figure 4.39 shows the mode at 12.5 hours from 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 degree
incoming wave direction, before and after the construction of “Siam Canal”.
129

Compared Response Curve at Point A
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
kl
Amplification Factor R
Before Siam Canal
After Siam Canal

Figure 4.31 Compared Response Curve at Point A between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
Compared Response Curve at Point B
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
kl
Amplification Factor R
Before Siam Canal
After Siam Canal

Figure 4.32 Compared Response Curve at Point B between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
130

Compared Response Curve at Point C
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
kl
Amplification Factop R
Before Siam Canal
After Siam Canal

Figure 4.33 Compared Response Curve at Point C between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
Compared Response Corve at Point D
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
kl
Amplification Factor
Before Siam Canal
After Siam Canal

Figure 4.34 Compared Response Curve at Point D between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree
131

Figure 4.35 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 30 degree

Figure 4.36 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 60 degree
132

Figure 4.37 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 90 degree

Figure 4.38 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 120 degree
133

Figure 4.39 Compared Mode at 12.5 hour between Before and After
“Siam Canal” at 150 degree

From Figure 4.31 and Figure 4.39, show that both amplification factor and mode
from before and after the construction of “Siam Canal” is almost identical. The
effect due to the introduction of the proposed “Siam Canal” appears to be quite
small in changing the tidal levels. With this small change of wave and tide
condition, it appears that the proposed Siam Canal would not negatively affect
Gulf of Thailand. All beaches in Gulf of Thailand would not be negatively
impacted by the construction of Siam Canal.

134
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
As discussed in previous chapters, we knew that people have been using marine
transport as a main transportation mode in global trades. More than 80 percent of
transporting goods around the world is still by sea even though the speed of sea
transportation is much slower compared to air or ground transportation. Since the
most disadvantage of marine transport is its slow speed, this dissertation gave
you a coastal development idea for gulf of Thailand to improve the global trades
with is a man-made canal herein called “Siam Canal” which will be located in
Thailand to connect the Andaman Sea and Gulf of Thailand. We can shorten the
travel distance between Pacific Ocean and Middle East region up to 3,500
kilometers, which means 7 days of travel.
The location of proposed Siam Canal will be in the southern part of Thailand.
Thailand is located in Southeast Asia and the geography of Thailand with its
southward elongated orientation, blocks the path to Southeast Asia for marine
traffic to and from the Middle East region. The land that blocks the path is fairly
narrow with the narrowest region with around 100 km. A few canal lines have
been chosen and compared the advantages and disadvantages. The best canal
line which is canal line B has been chosen to be the best option to build the Siam
Canal. The total distance of this route is 130 kilometers with low density of the
population along the canal line which will have a lot less problems to move
people to the new area. This route does not cause problems in national security
135
because it is far away from the border (about 700 kilometers away from the
Myanma border and about 500 kilometers from Malaysia border). Even though
Siam Canal will give tremendous benefits to Thailand, we do not want to have
any problems with our neighbors.
The following are the potential benefits that could be expected from the “Siam
Canal” project. The new Siam Canal Route can save the distance up to 3,500
kilometers compared to the old three routes which are Malacca Route, Sunda
Route, and Lombok Route. Saving distance also means saving time of
transportation, in this study shows that the vessels can save up to 7 days of
travel if they use the new Siam Canal Route. Siam Canal can help the vessels
save their fuel up to 100,000 gallons per day and if Siam Canal become reality it
will be much easier to manage the sea pirate problems which are one of the
majors problems of sea transportation these day because all the ships will not
have to go pass so many capes and islands of Malaysia or Indonesia which are
the most common area where the incidents happened.
The main part of this research will be centered on assessing the economic
feasibility of the project. All costs and benefits are converted to the Net present
worth (NPW) or net present value (NPV) to determine the pay back period of the
proposed Siam Canal Project. The construction cost estimate for the Siam Canal
Project would be calculated by three main costs which are cost of expropriation,
cost of excavation, and cost of bridges across the canal. The benefits cost
136
estimate for the Siam Canal Project would be calculated by the number of
vessels and containers that might come to use Siam Canal. The study showed
that from the total of 100 cases, 70% of these cases showed that the proposed
Siam Canal can get the pay back period within 20 years which is very good risk
for the investment.
Possible environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” are
evaluated. The relative dimension of the proposed Siam Canal is very small
compared with the Gulf of Thailand or with the long waves characteristic
dimension generated in the Gulf of Thailand except in the opening area of the
canal to Gulf of Thailand. Possible modifications to long waves by the proposed
Siam Canal in the Gulf of Thailand is simulated by a numerical model utilizing a
finite element numerical model. The results from the model showed that there are
very small changes of the wave characteristic in Gulf of Thailand, therefore the
environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” is not a
significant problem.

137
REFERENCES
American Clean Skies Foundation 2012, Publications, (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.cleanskies.org/category/publications

Bakenhus, R. E., H. S. Knapp, et al. (1915). The Panama canal : comprising its
history and construction, and its relation to the navy, international law and
commerce. New York, J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Statistic year 2000. (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.bangkok.go.th/th/main

Berkhoff, J.C.W. (1972). “Computation of combined refraction-diffraction.” Proc.
13th Coast. Eng. Conf., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 471-490.

Bureau of The Budget, Prime Minister’s Office of Thailand. (WWW. Page) URL
http://bb.go.th/bbweb/.

Committee on The Marine Transportation System (CMTS), U.S. Department of
Transportation, Resources, (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.cmts.gov/Resources/Index.aspx

Department of Fisheries of Thailand, Statistic, (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.fisheries.go.th/it-stat/

Fitzgerald, P. H. (1978). The great canal at Suez, its political, engineering, and
financial history : with an account of the struggles of its projector,
Ferdinand de Lesseps. New York, AMS Press.

Higiro, F. S. G. (1964). The United Nations' contribution in the settlement of the
Suez Canal crisis (1956) : an evaluation of the United Nations' mechanism
as a peace keeping instrument, University of Southern California.: iii, 177
leaves.

138
International Chamber of Commerce, International Maritime Bureau (IMB), IMB
Piracy Reporting Centre (WWW Page) URL http://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy-
reporting-centre.

Lee, J.J., Lai, C.P., Li, Y. (1998). “Application of computer modeling for harbor
resonance studies of Long Beach & Los Angeles harbor basins.”
Proceedings of 26th International Conference on Coastal Engineering,
ASCE, 1,196-1,209.

Lee, J.J. (1969). “Wave induced oscillations in harbors of arbitrary shape.”
Report No. KH-R-20, W.M. Keck Laboratory, Caltech (266 pages).

Lee, J.J. and Xing, X.Y. (2008). “Chapter 25: Computer modeling for harbor planning
and design.” Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering. Edited by Young C.
Kim, World Scientific Publishing Company.

Marine Department of Malaysia, Jabatan Laut Malaysia, Statistic. (WWW. Page)
URL http://www.marine.gov.my/jlmeag/index.asp

Missal, A. (2008). Seaway to the future : American social visions and the
construction of the Panama Canal. Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin
Press.

National Statistical Office (NSO), Ministry of Information and Communication
Technology of Thailand, Statistic Data. (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.nso.go.th/en/stat.htm

One Earth Future Foundation, The Economic Cost of Piracy 2011. (WWW. Page)
URL http://www.oceanbeyondpiracy.org.

Panama Canal Authority, Maritime Services (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.Pancanal.com/eng/op/index.html

139
Real Estate Information Center of Thailand, Info Service. (WWW Page) URL
http://www.reic.or.th/InfoService/InfoMain.aspx

Royal Thai Navy of Thailand, The Hydro Department (WWW. Page). URL
http://www.navy.mi.th

Suez Canal Authority, Maritime Services (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.suezcanal.org

T. and P. Carriou (2009). Fuel Surcharge Practices of Container Shipping Lines :
Is it About Cost Recovery or Revenue Making?, IAME Conferrence,
Copenhagen

Thailand house of Senate, The Senate Electronic Library (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.library.senate.go.th

The Treasury Department of Thailand, Ministry of Finance. (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.treasury.go.th

United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Statistic.
(WWW. Page) URL http://www.unctad.org/en/pages/statistics.aspx

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas. (WWW. Page). URL
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/.

Wayne, K (2004). “Post OPA 90 Vessel Oil Spill Differentials: Transfers Versus
Vessel Accidents”, Maritime Policy and Management 01/2004, 225-240

World Shipping Council, Home (WWW. Page) URL
http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/containers

Abstract (if available)

Abstract For a long time since ancient history international trade was used to exchange capital, goods, and service. There are several modes of transportation but people have been using marine transport as a main transportation mode for certain types of good and commodities in global trades. The pioneers of marine transports in Greek, Roman, and China used sea routes to sell and buy goods for their respective kingdoms. Until now more than 80 percent of transporting goods around the world is still by sea even though the speed of sea transportation is much slower compared to air or ground transportation. Since the most disadvantage of marine transport is its slow speed, what can be done to decrease the time of transportation by sea. ❧ Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and the Panama Canal connecting Caribbean Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are the best examples of the man‐made canals that show the necessity and the importance of what the alternative sea routes could do. This dissertation study presents a new route of man‐made canals that could make the shipping faster and more effective for Asian Region (between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean). ❧ At the present time, transportation between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean are mainly from the existing three routes: Malacca Route, Sundra Route, and Lombok Route. By introducing a man‐made canal herein called “Siam Canal” which will be located in Thailand. Siam Canal which connects the Andaman Sea and Gulf of Thailand can shorten the travel distance between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean up to 3,500 kilometers or 7 days of travel time. ❧ This dissertation research presents preliminary study of Siam Canal which will include the proposal of Siam Canal, the potential benefits using Siam Canal, the initial design of the proposed Siam Canal, environmental problems, and the economic and engineering feasibility study of the proposed Siam Canal. Environmental impacts due to the construction of the “Siam Canal” are addressed. The wave and tide condition, before and after the construction of the “Siam Canal” are simulated by a finite element numerical model for the Gulf of Thailand region.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Computational fluid dynamic analysis of highway bridge superstructures exposed to hurricane waves

PDF

Oscillations of semi-enclosed water body induced by hurricanes

PDF

Hydrodynamic modeling and feasibility study of harnessing tidal power at the Bay of Fundy

PDF

Numerical analysis of harbor oscillation under effect of fluctuating tidal level and varying harbor layout

PDF

Application of the adaptive river management approach to Ayamama River in Turkey

PDF

Numerical and experimental study on dynamics of unsteady pipe flow involving backflow prevention assemblies

PDF

Feasibility of using a lined portion of the Los Angeles River for artificial recharge

PDF

Vibration of nearby structures induced by high-speed rail transit

PDF

Effect of the air blast on glazing systems safety: structural analysis of window panel responses to air blast for mitigating the injuries from flying glass

PDF

Optimum cleanup scenarios for VOC's and perchlorate in Baldwin Park Operable Unit, San Gabriel Valley, southern California

PDF

Train induced vibrations in poroelastic media

PDF

Wave method for structural system identification and health monitoring of buildings based on layered shear beam model

PDF

The development of a hydraulic-control wave-maker (HCW) for the study of non-linear surface waves

PDF

Vision-based studies for structural health monitoring and condition assesment

PDF

Scalable evacuation routing in dynamic environments

PDF

Optimum multimodal routing under normal condition and disruptions

PDF

Lateral sound flanking transmission at curtain wall mullions: an empirical investigation to identify controlling mechanisms

PDF

Online learning algorithms for network optimization with unknown variables

PDF

Electrokinetic transport of Cr(VI) and integration with zero-valent iron nanoparticle and microbial fuel cell technologies for aquifer remediation

Asset Metadata

Creator Chuen-Im, Chanin (author)

Core Title A coastal development idea for Gulf of Thailand to improve global trades

School Viterbi School of Engineering

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Civil Engineering

Publication Date 08/18/2014

Defense Date 08/14/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag coastal development,global trades,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Lee, Jiin-Jen (committee chair), Moore, James Elliott, II (committee member), Nasseri, Iraj (committee member), Wellford, L. Carter (committee member), Wong, Hung Leung (committee member)

Creator Email chanin17@yahoo.com,chaunim@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-461327

Unique identifier UC11286877

Identifier etd-ChuenImCha-2821.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-461327 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChuenImCha-2821.pdf

Dmrecord 461327

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Chuen-Im, Chanin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA