The collapse of the Isabela-Cagayan Bridge has sparked discussions about infrastructure safety and an apparent design flaws.
The President has pointed design deficiency as a key factor behind the disaster. However, the bridge’s designer, Engr. Alberto C. Cañete, is not rushing to conclusions. Rather than engaging in the blame game, he emphasizes the need for a proper Forensic Engineering Investigation to uncover the real cause of the bridge collapse.
Was it truly a structural design issue, or were there other contributing factors? Well, it could be construction methodology, quality of materials, or unreasonable overloading, right?
This article explores both perspectives, breaking down the science behind forensic engineering and why a thorough investigation is crucial before assigning fault.
Forensic Engineering Investigation is the Only Way To Go
In the case of the Isabela-Cagayan Bridge, retrofitting had already been performed before its collapse. Thus, raising concerns about its effectiveness and execution. Following the collapse, forensic engineering plays a crucial role in determining the real cause of failure.
A third-party forensic engineering analysis examines all possible causes—design, construction methodology, material quality, environmental factors, and maintenance history—before determining what truly led to the collapse.
Relying on assumptions instead of facts can hinder progress and prevent valuable lessons from being learned. If we are to improve infrastructure safety and engineering standards, a science-based, unbiased investigation is the only way forward.
What is Forensic Engineering Investigation and Who Conducts It?
Forensic engineering investigation is the process of analyzing structural failures, material defects, or engineering-related accidents to determine their causes. It involves applying engineering principles, material testing, and data analysis to understand why a structural failure occurred.
Key Aspects of Forensic Engineering Investigation:
- Failure Analysis – Examining collapsed structures, damaged buildings, or malfunctioning materials to identify weaknesses.
- Site Inspection & Evidence Collection – Gathering physical evidence, taking measurements, and documenting conditions.
- Material & Structural Testing – Checking the quality, durability, and integrity of construction materials.
- Load & Stress Analysis – Evaluating whether the structure was subjected to forces beyond its design capacity.
- Code & Standard Compliance Review – Comparing the design and construction with existing engineering codes and regulations.
- Expert Reporting & Recommendations – Providing findings, causes, and possible solutions, often used in legal cases or policy changes.
Investigators will analyze multiple factors, including the bridge’s original design, the retrofitting process, material integrity, and the impact of the excessive load. The key steps in this investigation include:
- Structural Simulation: Using modeling software to simulate potential failure scenarios.
- Site Inspection: Examining debris patterns, fractures, and any visible structural weaknesses.
- Material Testing: Assessing whether construction materials met safety standards and performed as expected.
- Load Analysis: Reconstructing the weight distribution and stress levels leading up to the collapse.
Average Timeline for a Forensic Engineering Investigation
Total estimated duration is about 6 months to years. For high-profile cases (like a bridge collapse), the investigation can stretch beyond a year, especially if it requires courtroom testimonies or further government reviews.
Final Thoughts: When Retrofitting Isn’t Enough
Take note that the Cabagan-Santa Maria Bridge is a newly-built bridge. It wasn’t even properly turned over to the DPWH. But, it had already undergone retrofitting in its early young life. Yet, despite the additional reinforcements, the collapse still happened.
This raises critical questions:
- Was the retrofitting properly designed and executed?
- Were the right materials with the right specs used?
- Or was it properly constructed according to correct engineering methodology?
A failure of this scale demands more than surface-level explanations. It requires an unbiased forensic engineering investigation. It will determine whether the failure was due to unavoidable factors or something more preventable.
In a system where infrastructure projects often involve layers of decision-making, one can’t help but wonder if every layer was built on integrity. But then, maybe, it might also just been because of the overloading all along. We are just thinking too logically.