Matthew Roblez Comments on Bridge Safety Controversy

PHILADELPHIA, PA, June 17, 2013 (Press-News.org) Earlier this year, a bridge in Washington collapsed when it was hit by a truck--and according to structural engineer Matthew Roblez, the event has ignited a controversy in engineering circles. Specifically, engineers are increasingly concerned with how best to test and evaluate the safety and strength of a bridge structure. A recent Wall Street Journal article makes note of this growing controversy within the engineering community. Matthew Roblez has issued a new statement to the press, commenting on the article.

Roblez is passionate about engineering, and in fact is the part owner of McNeil Engineering. In his new statement to the press, he says, "Part of the role of the engineer is to ensure that structures are able to withstand common accidents, like auto collisions, without posing any dire threat of collapse or disrepair. The question that engineers are asking now, following the accident in Washington, is how this kind of thing was able to happen--and what steps we can take to prevent it from happening again."

According to the article from The Wall Street Journal, however, there are shortcomings associated with most qualitative and quantitative measurements of bridge safety. Charles Roeder, who teaches engineering in Seattle, states in the article that evaluating bridge safety is anything but an exact science. "The probability of failure depends upon imponderable factors," he says. "I don't think anyone knew that this truck would hit the Skagit River Bridge. Even if by some miracle someone knew that this specific truck would hit this specific bridge, they would not know that the bridge would collapse."

Sufficiency ratings can be used to determine how much force a bridge can withstand, but they do not necessarily take into account the bridge's performance should a truss or other structural component become compromised. Meanwhile, tests for redundancy--that is, for "backup" elements such as cables and trusses--are hard to define.

One thing that can be said with certainty is that older bridges are often in worse shape than new ones. In the past, bridges were built with the intention of standing for 50 years and then being replaced--but many of these bridges are now more than 100 years old, still standing tall. However, The Wall Street Journal notes that this is neither a specific nor a rigorous test of bridge safety, and that even many newer bridges tout 100-year lifespans but do not have substantive evidence to back it up.

Still another problem cited in the article is that "a projection of bridge lifespan implicitly assumes the bridge will get a certain level of maintenance."

"The article ends on a positive note, which is that new technologies have made it easier to evaluate bridge strength and stability in ways that previous, visual testing methodologies never allowed for," concludes Matthew Roblez. "In general, I do think bridges are becoming better-made and more reliable, and the methods for evaluating them are also becoming more effective."

ABOUT:

Part owner and principal of McNeil Engineering, Matthew Roblez graduated from the University of Utah with a bachelor of science in civil engineering. Since completing his degree, Roblez has earned board certification and licensure as a structural engineer. In addition to his daily work, Roblez has successfully published numerous technical articles and serves as an in-demand lecturer. 2013 celebrates his 20th year in the engineering industry.