mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Unlike rock ‘n’ roll high school or even Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonalds, the rocking ‘n’ rolling done by the infamous bridge known as “Galloping Gertie” that spanned the Tacoma Narrows was fun for exactly no one. Soon after it was built in 1940, the half-mile suspension bridge that linked Tacoma, Washington to Gig Harbor began to exhibit a strange wavelike motion rippling up and down its length during light breeze conditions, even though it was built to withstand winds of up to 120 MPH. Thanks to Damn Interesting for the cogent explanation as to why:
“Even in a light breeze, Gertie’s undulations were known to produce waves up to ten feet tall. Sometimes these occurrences were brief, and other times they lasted for hours at a time. But the matter wasn’t considered terribly urgent because the winds were causing longitudinal waves along Gertie’s center span– waves which traveled back and forth along the length– which did not put undue stress on the roadbed. The structure was not at risk, nor did it create unsafe driving conditions.”
At least, that’s what they thought until the morning of November 7, 1940, when a wind blowing a mere 42 MPH caused the bridge to “abandon her usual rippling action in favor of a never-before-seen twisting motion which increased in intensity at an alarming rate,” eventually collapsing into the water 195 feet below. You can see it for yourself in this newsreel clip of the incident:
Exactly why the bridge behaved this way remained a mystery until sometime after the fact. We’ll explain, after the jump.
“Examination of the film, the bridge’s remains, and tests with scale models determined that resonance was responsible for Gertie’s demise. Due to the design decision to replace the lattice supports with “I” beams, the wind was unable to pass under the structure as readily as it it passed over it, causing a difference in pressure much like an airplane wing. Once there was sufficient sway to tilt the deck slightly, aerodynamics caused the roadbed to twist to the point that it sprang back, causing a repeating cycle of back-and-forth twisting. During this process, the steadily blowing wind added more and more energy to the vibrations.”
There was only one fatality from the bridge collapse…there was a dog in the car that was on the bridge.
It’s my understanding that the bridge structure was thinner and lighter due to the use of the I-beams, which increased its flexibility.
posted by Stephen on 1-18-2007 at 2:45 pm
That is SO weird!I’d seen the film clip before, but I didn’t know that was concrete tisting like that. You’d think it would develop cracks long before the collapse. But what do I know?
posted by Miss Cellania on 1-18-2007 at 8:23 pm
I read about this in around 1970. If I remember they also attributed it to the ratio of bridge width (and depth of the deck) to main span length and lightweight decks. At that time it was thought that thin long bridges were beautiful and each new bridge decreased the ratio. This low ratio impacted the bridges torsional ridgidity. A very narrow, thin and long bridge is more likely flutter in the wind. They quickly looked at other bridges that had low ratios. If I remember correctly because of the analysis of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse, the Bronx Whitestone Bridge had trusswork added to the roadway to increase it’s torsional ridgidity.
-Stew
posted by Stew on 1-19-2007 at 10:57 am
Why the hell didn’t the guy in the car let the dog out? It didn’t even appear to me that the man was running in the clip.
posted by M.A. McClavey on 1-20-2007 at 4:30 pm
A few years ago, one of the major stereo companies used this clip to sell car speakers. The clip played much faster than it does here, and the shaking stops when the driver of the car on the bridge turns off his stereo. Near as I can tell, no dogs were injured.
posted by Paul on 1-22-2007 at 1:51 pm
I remember hearing about this before, and seeing the video, but never with the commentary from the newsreel.
I do remember the ad that Paul’s talking about, and thinking it was pretty funny at the time.
posted by boliyou on 1-6-2008 at 11:48 pm