Engineer Bob Ortblad claims the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program is misrepresenting the risk of the current I-5 bridges collapsing during an earthquake
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) is misrepresenting the risk of the current I-5 bridges collapsing during an earthquake.
The IBR claims that liquefaction will cause the I-5 bridges to fail, similar to the Niigata Bridge in Japan, which had only nine 52-foot-long, widely spaced piles per pier. In contrast, the I-5 bridges have 100-foot-long, tightly spaced wood piles (90 per pier) that compact the soil, making them resistant to liquefaction.
A Japanese study has demonstrated that closely spaced wood piles enhance soil compaction and serve as a “fail-safe against liquefaction damage.” The IBR plans to use only six drilled shafts per pier, which will not effectively improve soil compaction. Additionally, the IBR’s bridge design may be less resilient to earthquakes than the current I-5 bridges. The IBR’s bridge trusses will be twice as long, twice as wide, fifty feet higher, and five times heavier. Its 120-foot piers will rest on only six drilled shafts (up to 250 feet long) in uncompacted soil.
The increased weight and height of the IBR bridge, combined with its support on uncompacted soil, may make it less resilient than the current bridges during an earthquake. Resilience is defined as the capacity to withstand or quickly recover from damage. Consequently, repairing any earthquake-induced damage to the existing bridges would be much faster than repairing a significantly larger and heavier IBR bridge.
Bob Ortblad MSCE, MBA
Seattle
Also read:
- VIDEO: WA and OR lawmakers irked as update on I-5 Bridge costs still missing
Washington and Oregon lawmakers expressed frustration after planners failed to provide updated cost estimates for the I-5 Bridge replacement during a recent legislative oversight meeting. - Opinion: Atmospheric River events mean even less clearance for vessels crossing under the proposed Interstate Bridge Plan
Neighbors for a Better Crossing argues that high river levels from atmospheric river events further reduce vessel clearance under the proposed Interstate Bridge design, creating long-term navigation risks on the Columbia River. - Letter: Worried about a replacement bridge?
Sharon Nasset raises concerns about congestion, bridge capacity, and unanswered questions surrounding inspections and decisions tied to the I-5 bridge replacement effort. - Opinion: IBR promotes ‘giving away’ historic interstate bridges while withholding cost estimate for replacement
Neighbors for a Better Crossing argues the IBR program is promoting demolition of the historic Interstate Bridges without releasing updated cost estimates or current seismic data to justify replacement. - Opinion: Bikes in crosswalks
Doug Dahl explains how Washington law treats bicycles as both vehicles and pedestrians, depending on where and how they are being ridden.
