Reply #37: Soldiers marching in formation are told to break step when crossing a bridge ...

[eppur_se_muova]

for precisely that reason.

But it was basically a design flaw; the original design would have been virtually impossible to implement. It would have required screw threads halfway along the length of a rod and screw threads at the bottom end to *both* be threaded through a hole in the two bridges at the same time. When this was replaced with a system of two rods both threaded at both ends, it looked equivalent, but as pointed out above, doubled the stress on the upper set of threads, which was what ultimately failed.

The whole problem could have been prevented if the architect had not insisted that the bridges be perfectly flat, straight, linear slabs, all for the sake of STYLE. If the bridges had been designed for function before style, they would have had arches or supports. It was only the insistence on a "modern", spare, rectilinear look that forced the engineering to the edge of what was practical.

Sounds like all the engineers got penalized, but I doubt the architect did. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the law in most states -- engineers are held liable for any failures of buildings they work on FOR LIFE, but architects aren't held legally responsible.