Quick disclaimer: I’m moving to a new office, so forgive the mess, and the reverb.
On Jun 11, 2023, a fuel tanker truck caught fire on an exit underneath
Interstate 95 in Northeast Philadelphia. The fire severely damaged the northbound bridge,
eventually causing it to collapse. Sadly, the driver of the truck was killed in the crash,
but fortunately there were no other injuries or deaths. Although it didn’t collapse,
PennDOT officials said that the southbound bridge was also compromised in the fire and had to be
demolished. All of I-95 through a major part of Philly was shut down for a couple of weeks,
and (as of this writing) the off-ramp underneath it will likely will be closed for the near
future as the bridges are rebuilt. Fires at bridges haven’t really been a major concern
for transportation engineers in the past, but increasingly, they’re becoming a more
serious problem. The cost to rebuild I-95 may pale in comparison to the indirects costs of
having the highway shut down for so long. Or maybe not - it’s hard to say. Let’s talk about
what happened and how engineers think about fire hazards at bridges. I’m Grady and this
is Practical Engineering. In today’s episode, we’re talking about the I-95 bridge collapse.
The details in the intro are really all the details we know at the moment. A tanker truck
crashed below the bridge, eventually leading it to collapse. There are some wild videos taken
by motorists on I-95 during the fire, probably only minutes before the bridge fell, with the
road deck sagging significantly. Fortunately, emergency crews were able to shut down the
highway before anyone was seriously injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has had a
crew on site to begin their investigation, but knowing the meticuluous pace at which they work,
it will likely be a year or more before we get their report. But, the basics are pretty clear
already. And in fact, even though we don’t know all the details of this particular event, we’ve
seen similar collapses on several occasions. And the sequence of events is almost always the same.
In 2002, fire caused the main span of the I-20 interchange in Birmingham, Alabama to sag by 3
meters or 10 feet, necessitating replacement of the bridge. Cause of the fire? A crashed
fuel tanker. In 2006, a temporary part of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway in New York collapsed
during a fire. Again, the cause of the fire was crashed tanker truck under the bridge. 2007:
The MacArthur Maze Interchange in Oakland, California collapsed during a fire from a
crashed fuel tanker. 2009: A bridge over I-75 in Detroit collapsed after a tanker
truck crashed into the overpass. 2013: A diesel tanker crash damaged a bridge in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania that had to be demolished. 2014: A gasoline tanker exploded on I-65 in Tennessee,
destroying two overpass bridges. Of course, this isn’t just a US phenomenon. In 2012,
a tanker overturned in Rouen, France damaging the Mathilde bridge over the Seine River and
requiring part of it to be replaced. And of course, bridge fires don’t only come from
tanker truck crashes. In 2017, a massive fire under I-85 in Atlanta, Georgia that resulted
in collapse happened because someone set fire to construction materials stored below the bridge.
Incredibly PennDot was able to reopen this bridge a mere two weeks after it collapsed
with a pretty clever solution. Rather than wait until the original bridges could be rebuilt to
get I-95 back open, they decided to simply build a temporary embankment instead. After
the demolition of the fire-damaged bridges was complete, the less-critical off-ramp
below the bridges remained closed so that crews from PennDOT’s emergency contractor,
Buckley & Company, could fill the area in and simply pave over the top. My friend Rob,
built a little model of this on his channel you should check out after this.
This temporary highway wasn’t built using soil or crushed rock, the typical backfill
material used in roadway embankments (at least not mostly). That stuff is heavy,
so most roadway embankments have to be built slowly to allow time for the foundation to settle
as each layer is added to the top, a process that can take months or even years. (Not an option in
this case.) Plus there are sewer lines below the existing road that could have been overloaded by
a mountain of backfill on top. Instead, the design called for lightweight backfill called
foamed glass aggregate. I have a whole video we produced earlier this year about different types
of lightweight backfills and how they work, so check that out if you want to learn more. This
foamed glass aggregate is not cheap, many times the cost of standard backfill. But, it’s strong
enough in compression to support the overlying roadway without overloading the foundation below
which would lead to settlement over time or damage to underground pipes. I actually
have some of it here in the studio. It feels kind of like floral foam, just a lot stronger.
The other innovative design aspect of the temporary embankment is that it leaves room
on either side for the permanent repairs to the bridge. Eventually the City needs
this off-ramp back open for travel, after all. The emergency embankment is sited in the center of the
right-of-way to give as much space as possible for the next phase of the repairs that will
replace the bridges. That also required that both sides of the embankment have a retaining wall,
in this case mechanically stabilized earth walls that use reinforcing elements between each
layer of backfill to keep the tall structure from collapsing. I’ve also done a few videos
explaining MSE retaining walls if you want to learn more about them. The basics are easy to see
in this drone footage. The reinforcement turns the backfill itself into a stable wall, making it able
to both withstand vertical loads and hold back the rest of the embankment backfill. I built a
little MSE cube many years back and put one of my car tires on top to show how strong it really is.
Looks like the cube built by PennDOT will hold up even more cars than mine!
To their credit, PennDOT kept a live feed of construction going for most of the project.
You can see the flurry of activity as workers and equipment build the embankment up to the
level of the highway on either side. Traffic was rerouted onto the temporary embankment
starting June 24th. But, why did a fire cause so much damage in the first place?
We, collectively, put a tremendous amount of research and engineering into the fire resistance
of buildings and tunnels, but when it comes to fires at bridges, we know a lot less. In fact,
most bridges in the world are designed with little, if any, consideration for
fire resistance. Neither the Eurocode or the US bridge design criteria address fires or have
any guidelines or requirements for how or when to engineer against them. Of course, we think about
thermo-mechanical behavior of bridges all the time. I have a video all about thermal expansion
and contraction of large structures. But, when you get above a few hundred degrees, there just hasn’t
been much consideration. And the reasons for that are kind of obvious, at least at first glance.
Less then 3% of US bridge failures between 1980 and 2012 resulted from fire. Compare
that to hydraulic damage from scour and flooding that makes up nearly 50% of all
failures. That alone isn’t enough reason to ignore fires in the design codes. After all,
earthquakes make up only 2% of those failures, and we spend considerable
resources and engineering to design bridges against seismic loads. But,
you also have to consider safety. Even when bridges collapse due to fire,
people are rarely injured because most places have robust emergency response capabilities. Roads are
closed well before a fire is able to significantly weaken a structure. The relative infrequency of
serious fires at bridges and their unlikelihood of causing a public safety issue mean that we just
don’t devote a lot of resources to the problem right now… at least not proactive resources.
The National Fire Protection Association does have some guidance for fires at bridges,
but it’s nebulous. They don’t recommend what fire loads should be considered, how to protect a
bridge against fire, or how to analyze a structure after a fire. And, the guidelines only apply to
bridges longer than 1000 feet or 300 meters. When you think about bridges, you often think about
these long-span structures over major valleys or waterbodies. They’re iconic, but they’re also just
the tip of the iceberg when it comes to bridges. In the US alone, there are over half a million
bridges in service today, and nearly all of them are short-span bridges used mainly for grade
separation (to let streams of traffic cross each other without interruption). They’re overpasses,
structures you traverse every day without even noticing. But you definitely notice when one of
these bridges is taken out of service. Bridges used for grade separation are more vulnerable to
fires because, unlike the ones over waterways, a tanker truck can crash underneath one where
the fire is most likely to cause damage. But protecting them is not as easy as it might seem.
A robust engineering guideline for design of bridges against fires would actually be
pretty complicated. There are so many different variables and scenarios, and we really don’t
have any collective agreement about what level of protection is appropriate. What would be the fuel
source, footprint, flame height, intensity, and duration of the fire? With that information, we
can try to predict the response. How does the heat transfer from the fire to the structural elements
through radiation and convection, and how much do the structural elements increase in temperature as
a result? These are tough questions to answer on their own, but they still don’t get to the
heart of the matter, because what we really care about is how those structural elements respond.
What happens to the material properties of steel and concrete when they increase
in temperature way beyond what they were designed to handle? And more importantly,
how does the overall structure behave? You have thermal expansion, weakening of materials,
loss of stiffness, load redistribution, and a lot more. This is an extremely complicated scenario
just to characterize through engineering, let alone to design protections against.
And the biggest question right now seems to be “Should we?” Bridge fires are primarily economic
problems. As I mentioned, they rarely result in injuries or life safety concerns because the
roadway is closed ahead of failure. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t impacts,
and if you regularly drive on I-95 in Philadelphia (or any of the other roadways I mentioned before),
you definitely know what I’m talking about. Replacing a bridge is an expensive endeavor,
but the indirect costs that come with having a major highway closed
are often higher. When the MacArthur Maze in Oakland collapsed from a tanker fire,
the indirect costs of having the bridge out was estimated in the millions of dollars per day,
way more than the cost of reconstruction. In fact, the rebuilding job was bid with
a bonus to the contractor for each day ahead of schedule they were able to finish the job. SFGate
has a great story about how they got that bridge reopened in just 26 days that I’ll link below.
Road construction often seems slow, and part of the reason is to keep
the costs down. It’s not very efficient to dedicate expensive resources like equipment,
engineers, and specialty construction crews to a single project. Instead,
resources get spread across many jobs so that people, crews, vendors, and equipment can stay
busy. Even if seemingly slow progress is often frustrating to see, it’s usually
less a result of incompetence or corruption and more just government agencies trying to
be good stewards of limited public resources. But a major bridge failure changes that math.
Fabricators, equipment suppliers, painters, truckers, operators, and laborers are all
willing to set aside their other obligations for the right price. And government agencies
will happily devote their engineers and inspectors to sit and wait for questions or problems to arise
on a single job if the politicians can deliver the funds for it. In the industry, they call it
“accelerated construction.” It comes at a steep price, but sometimes that price is worth it.
Like the MacArthur Maze, I-95 is a busy stretch of roadway, carrying roughly 150,000
vehicle trips per day. Some of that traffic was redistributed to other routes,
but some of the capacity was simply lost while the roadway was out. That means
deliveries were cancelled, workers had trouble reaching their jobs,
emergency response times went up, and more. The gridlock was not as apocalyptic as predicted,
but there were still some major slowdowns. In most large American cities, unexpectedly
closing a major highway has real economic consequences through lost commercial shipping,
lost productivity, lost retail sales, more wear and tear on roadways not meant to accommodate
the detour traffic, and a lot more. And those indirect costs play into the consideration in
whether or not its worth it to include fire protection in the design of highway bridges.
But what’s on the other side of that equation? Of course it would have been worth the cost to
protect this one bridge in Philly from a tanker fire if we knew it was going to happen, but would
it have been worth the cost of protecting all the bridges just in case? Or is that gold-plating our
infrastructure where it’s not really needed? We know adding highway capacity induces traffic
demand, but we also know the corollary. Reducing capacity decreases traffic demand as people find
alternatives to making trips in cars, and maybe a highway bridge outage isn’t quite as
big a deal as the politicians and news coverage suggest. And maybe investing in some diversity
in our transportation infrastructure and giving people better alternatives to driving can do more
good than putting that money toward protecting bridges against the unlikely event of a fire.
Like a lot of things in engineering, the costs and risks and alternatives aren’t that easy to weigh
out. Your answer might depend on how many fuel tanker trucks you see on your everyday commute.
The International Associaiton for Bridge and Structural Engineering has a group working on
guidelines for designing bridges against fire hazards. That’s a long way from incorporating
fire protection in the design codes, but it will at least give engineers some tools to include fire
resistance in designs where the situation calls for it. That group is scheduled to finish their
work later in 2023, but hopefully PennDot is able to get I-95 fully repaired before then.
It’s easy to look at a big city like Philadelphia and be a little bit overwhelmed trying to
wrap your head around how it grew into the place it is today. Cities are complicated;
the result of millions of little decisions by citizens, politicians, engineers,
and urban planners. But every once in a while, all those little decisions add up to something
almost serendipitous, like the canals of Venice, Central Park in New York City, or the incredible
Metro System in Shanghai. My friend Dave from the City Beautiful channel has a whole series about
the biggest moments in the greatest cities on Earth. I was blown away to see the ways Shanghai
built out the world’s largest metro system in less than 30 years in the soft clay soils of the area.
Maybe you’ve noticed what I have over the past few years, which is that all my favorite TV
networks are just running reality shows, and the best video content that I actually enjoy
watching is being made my independent creators. And maybe because this is my situation too,
but my absolute favorite videos are made by people who have real education and experience to back it
up. Dan of the Coding Train is college professor in computer art. Devin from Legal Eagle is really
a lawyer. And Dave of City Beautiful is an urban planning professor at CalPoly. There’s just
something special about videos that are written and produced by a subject matter expert instead
of someone who just knows how to produce a video. Dave’s series, Great Cities, is only available on
Nebula, the streaming platform built by and for independent educational creators, including me.
Nebula is the answer to the question of what could happen if the best channels on YouTube
didn’t have to cater to an algorithm. What if viewers supported creators directly instead
of supporting their advertisers? And it just keeps getting better and better:
totally ad-free videos from excellent educational channels, original series and specials that can’t
be found anywhere else, and even classes from your favorite creators like Devin from Legal
Eagle and Thomas Frank. And right now, you can get 40% off an annual plan by using the
link below. That’s less than $3 a month. My videos go live on Nebula the day before they
come out on YouTube. If watching videos like this one is what you do for fun or to relax,
you should have the best viewing experience on the internet, especially when it’s practically
free like it is right now at the link below. Thank you for watching, and let me know what you think!