Introduction
Many people including myself travel over
bridges each and every day without giving it a second thought. Recently though
bridge failures have been in the news which is something many of us would
prefer not to hear. One of the most recent bridge failures happened back in May
of 2013; when a bridge in Washington state collapsed. Though no one was hurt in
this incident, but it brought back many memories of the 2007 bridge collapse of
the I-35 bridge.
The Article
An article by Fox News titled "Washington bridge collapse caused by truck hitting span, authorities say" was written on May 24, 2013 (Author not given). This is a good article to analyze for mechanical engineers because the article was written using facts that can be proven or statements from people that are involved with the bridge collapse. The article on the I-5 bridge collapse was written days after the event and only presents what had happened and the early thoughts officials have on why the bridge collapsed. The article uses logos (logic) and tends to stay away from emotions or ethics so I believe it is a good article to demonstrate how mechanical engineers are looking at this tragic event.
The Article
An article by Fox News titled "Washington bridge collapse caused by truck hitting span, authorities say" was written on May 24, 2013 (Author not given). This is a good article to analyze for mechanical engineers because the article was written using facts that can be proven or statements from people that are involved with the bridge collapse. The article on the I-5 bridge collapse was written days after the event and only presents what had happened and the early thoughts officials have on why the bridge collapsed. The article uses logos (logic) and tends to stay away from emotions or ethics so I believe it is a good article to demonstrate how mechanical engineers are looking at this tragic event.
Background Information
The bridge that failed in Washington state
was the interstate 5 bridge that connects Seattle to Canada. This bridge was
constructed in 1955 and up to this point in time had not had any issues. The
I-5 bridge on average supported roughly 71,000 vehicles a day, many of which
were on their way to Canada. The I-5 bridge collapsed into the Skagit River
where rescuers quickly responded and pulled three people from their cars
following the bridge collapsing. Due to the bridge collapsing traffic issues
became a concern between Seattle and Canada with the upcoming Memorial day just
a couple days away. With the collapse of the I-35 bridge, many bridges were
inspected and their safety was brought into question. The I-5 bridges safety was
one of those bridges that received a sufficiency rating of 47 out of a possible
100. Even with this poor rating the bridge should not have collapsed like it
had.
Reasoning
Many questions were raised once the
survives were rescued and everyone was safe. First was how could another bridge
collapse on its own? Did the gusset plates fail again? Could a rating of 47
been wrong and in fact the bridge was in worse shape than originally thought to
be? The first question to be answered was that many people thought that
the gusset plates had failed again, well this was a false statement. The
section of the I-5 bridge is a different type of bridge compared to the I-35
bridge and the gusset plates should not have been a factor. With the collapse
of the I-35 bridge many bridges were inspected to make sure that no other
incidents would occur. With this mass inspection of bridges many were found to
be in poor condition but all were given a good enough rating to continue to be
in service. In fact many people believed that the inspectors were rating
bridges on the cautious side and giving worse ratings for bridges than they
actually deserved so the rating of 47 should have been a sufficient rating for
the bridge and it should not have collapsed on its own. Investigators got their
answer as to why the bridge collapsed shortly after starting their
investigation. A tractor trailer (Semi) with an oversized load was at the scene
when the bridge collapsed. The early report states that the tractor trailer
with it’s over sized load struck an overhead beam thus causing the bridge to
fail and collapse. This eased many people’s minds knowing that it was human
error instead of a design flaw; but it has had an impact on the civil and
mechanical engineering fields.
Impact on ME's
This incident has had some impact on both
civil engineers and mechanical engineers. Bridges and structures in general are
built with a factor of safety so that even with the structure being hit it
should not fail. So why did the I-5 bridge collapse? The answer is rather
obvious, with the structure receiving a rating of 47 the design engineers never
took into account about the age of the bridge and the wear factor that 58 years
had on the bridge. With this incident and previous incidents many mechanical
engineers are working to ensure that they will not happen again. With new
technology and metal alloy blends becoming available mechanical engineers are
looking into material that will hold up to the wear and tear of being out in
the elements for 50 plus years. Mechanical engineers are also looking into how
the factor of safety changes with time. It has become obvious that the factory
of safety used for this bridge did not take into account the age of the bridge;
so with each incident mechanical engineers are using computer software to help
understand how to design and build a better structure with materials that will
last.
The biggest thing that struck me about this article is the rating that the bridge received after inspection. I know Engineers apply large safety factors to bridges and infrastructure. But 47 out of 100 rating! That doesn't make it sound safe at all and totally unreliable. I believe that the government needs to invest more into inspecting bridges and to assure the population that they are safe. Recent technologies are coming out to test the reliability of the bridge. I just hope it doesn't become a common theme for older bridges to collapse on their own.
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with Josh here. I saw the 47 out of 100 and thought that it would have been considered a bad rating. Also, how was age of a bridge not considered? I feel like those types of inspections have been around long enough for people to realize that maybe time takes its toll on structures. It seems to me like the safety rating system should be reevaluated a little bit. I also like how you connected it to the 35W bridge.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how something has to go terribly wrong before there is a fix. You stated that since the I35W collapse gusset plates had been tested more frequently. Why was the bridge as a whole not tested fore safety? I think more testing needs to be done on bridges before they can be rated safe.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Alex here. Reevaluation of the current safety inspection system needs to be done in retrospect of these recent bridge collapses. This is unacceptable to keep occurring.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read about the bridge's background, especially its safety rating. I would have liked to see a few more links, though, because it would be nice to learn more about how bridges are rated, etc.
ReplyDelete