12.01.2013 Views

the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks

the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks

the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

IGNORE THE PAST AT YOUR PERIL 55<br />

suspension bridges were severely damaged or destroyed by <strong>the</strong> wind be-<br />

tween 1818 and 1889.<br />

By <strong>the</strong> late 19th century, bridge engineers were building less fl ex-<br />

ible and heavier bridges to avoid problems with wind. John Roebling, for<br />

example, had incorporated <strong>the</strong> lessons <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past into his landmark 1883<br />

Brooklyn Bridge, which he consciously designed to handle strong wind.<br />

But by <strong>the</strong> early 20th century, those earlier lessons were fading. Princeton<br />

civil engineering pr<strong>of</strong>essor David P. Billington wrote that Roebling’s<br />

“historical perspective seemed to have been replaced by a visual preference<br />

unrelated to structural engineering.” A major suspension bridge<br />

hadn’t failed since 1889, but as Petroski points out, “<strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> failure<br />

does not prove that a design is flawless. . . . it appears to be a trait <strong>of</strong> human<br />

nature to take repeated success as confirmation that everything is<br />

being done correctly.”<br />

It wasn’t. By <strong>the</strong> 1930s, even <strong>the</strong> massive Golden Gate Bridge, for<br />

which Moisseiff had been a consulting engineer, was behaving badly on<br />

windy days. Its chief engineer reported a 1938 incident in which a cluster<br />

<strong>of</strong> ripples traveled along <strong>the</strong> bridge’s roadway like an incoming set <strong>of</strong> surfable<br />

waves. That landmark bridge eventually was retr<strong>of</strong>itted to make it<br />

more stable.<br />

Moisseiff was aware that wind posed a problem, but according to<br />

Hobbs he believed, like most o<strong>the</strong>r engineers at <strong>the</strong> time, that wind was<br />

far less a factor in stressing a bridge than heavy traffic and poor workmanship.<br />

He’d even tempted fate by designing <strong>the</strong> Tacoma Narrows Bridge<br />

with an impermeable, eight-foot-high side panel running along <strong>the</strong> outside<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> roadway that acted like a sail, maximizing <strong>the</strong> wind’s impact.<br />

Bridge designers knew that wind occasionally moved bridges from side to<br />

side, and <strong>the</strong>y usually adjusted <strong>the</strong>ir designs for that lateral movement, or<br />

deflection—a <strong>the</strong>ory credited mostly to Moisseiff, who claimed his Tacoma<br />

Narrows design would withstand a broadside wind <strong>of</strong> 120 miles per<br />

hour, and could deflect twenty feet.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!