Name?

(Farquharson, 1940)

PM3110
Mr. ?

[UNIT 4 ASSIGNMENT 1:
SIMULATION CASE STUDY 7.2
THE TACOMA NARROWS
SUSPENSION BRIDGE]

The Tacoma Narrows

Suspension Bridge

Name?
PM3110
17 Jan 2014

Case Analysis:
I.

Executive Summary
This Case Analysis was conducted based on the Project failure of the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge in Washington State which took place in 1940. This case is an important
one for a lot of reasons but the one that stands out the most is that todays engineers
gained very insightful knowledge about the effects of Dynamic loads on Structures. The
bridge spanned a distance of 2,800 feet with an approach at each end both 1,000 feet, yet
it was only designed for two lane traffic. There are three key factors that contributed to
the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and they are; the width-to-length ratio of
construction, the substitution of key structural materials, and the choice of location for
the bridge construction geographically.

II.

Statement of the Problem

The obvious problem was that the project was a complete failure that only lasted four
months after its completion. There were signs of funding issues with the first design
causing the State of Washington to ask for Federal assistance. What were mentioned in
the case study were a few pre-cursers to the Project completion and contributing factors
that had surfaced after the fact.

Funding was tight for Washington State for the initial $11 million Project
Federal assistance needed from the Public Works Administration (PWA),
but it came with stipulations for another Bridge Engineer to redesign the

bridge.
Bridge failure ultimately after only four months of being in service
Engineer responsible was Leon Moisseiff of Moran and Proctor, a Bridge
Architectural consulting firm from New York.

The Tacoma Narrows

Suspension Bridge

III.

Name?
PM3110
17 Jan 2014

Causes of the Problem

The pre-cursers that should have thrown up red flags to the Engineers and Project
Manager were as follows:

The bridge exhibited noticeable signs of strange behavior at the slightest

breeze before it was even opened to traffic.

Locals that used the bridge complained about getting seasick from the
rolling motion of the bridge. The bridge was named Galloping Gertie
by the locals because of the noticeable motion (Washington State DOT,

2005).
Traffic surveys did not justify the construction of a bridge with multiple

lanes in either direction.

Washington State Toll Bridge Authority (WSTBA) changed the original
engineer Clark Eldridge for a more well-known engineer, Leon Moisseiff,
at the request of the Public Works Administration (PWA) in order to
receive a 45% funding assistance for the project (Washington State DOT,

2005).
They tried to make the scheduled June 30th completion date by pushing to
complete 200 feet of the deck per day.

The issues that were apparent after the bridge was completed and open for public
transportation are as follows:

The first one is the width-to-length ratio construction; the bridge was too

narrow for the length that it spanned.

The next one is the fact that they substituted key structural materials, such
as the change with the girders on the sides of the bridge. The original
plans had open girders designated as the type to use but was changed to
solid girders which ended up creating drag as the wind blew across the

bridge.
Torsional oscillation or Torsional Flutter as it has become to be called
by engineers today was determined as the main cause of failure
(Washington State DOT, 2005). The scientific method needed to come to

The Tacoma Narrows

Suspension Bridge

Name?
PM3110
17 Jan 2014
this conclusion was not available in 1940, therefore the cause was

determined a mystery.
The last key factor that should have been thought about well ahead in the
planning stages of this project was the bridges geographic location. Just
like many other things, Location is Key, the project management team
should have had a geologist on the team for just this very reason .

IV.

Decision Criteria and Alternative Solutions

The Project Managers as well as the Washington State Toll Bridge Authority
(WSTBA) did not take risk assessment into consideration when deciding to change the
design of the bridge. This more than likely was due to the fact that they needed the
funding assistance from the PWA and that they put all of their trust into the reputation of
Leon Moisseiff as a Bridge Engineer. One key factor to that decision that could have
made a difference was the fact that Moisseiff had never worked solely on a project; he
usually worked with a team of engineers which more than likely had a different
perspective on all the decisions being made and offered varied input on the designs being
developed.
The best alternative solution is the one that they did not choose in the first place. In
other words the State of Washington could have brought Moisseiff onboard with the
Project Management Team as a consultant but not totally disregard the original design by
Eldridge. By Washington State bringing Moisseiff in as part of the Project Management
Team they could have secured the funding needed, but not necessarily would have had to
alter the original design. Washington State could have satisfied the stipulations of the
agreement with PWA and still received the funding, but only use Moisseiff as a consultant
for his advice and not for him to actually redesign the bridge plans.

The Tacoma Narrows

Suspension Bridge

V.

Name?
PM3110
17 Jan 2014

Risk Assessment
There are several risk factors that should have been weighed but seem to have been
ignored. These contributing factors may have been assessed in the original plan and
design of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge by Clark Eldridge, but completely overlooked or
disregarded by Leon Moisseiff when he decided to redesign the bridge. Moisseiffs
decision to redesign the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in order to make it more to his
Modernistic Art Deco style and a more flexible, lighter bridge for $4 million less than
the original budget is what was to be in my opinion the point of failure for the project.
Below is the list of risk factors that accounted for the failure of the project (Washington
State DOT).

Category

Probability

Impact

Risk Level

Site Location

90

98

High = 88%

The Width-to-Length ratio of the bridge

100

98

High = 98%

Change of the Original Design

100

95

High = 95%

Solid Girders instead of Open Girders

95

95

High = 90%

High Winds

80

88

Medium/High = 70%

Funding Issues

75

80

Medium = 60%

Water Current is 8.5 Mph

65

70

Low/Medium = 45%

Time Constraint / Deadline June 30, 1940

65

74

Low/Medium = 48%

Below is an illustration of the Quantitative risk analysis for the project.

The Tacoma Narrows

Suspension Bridge

VI.

Name?
PM3110
17 Jan 2014

Risk Mitigation
The best risk mitigation that could have been done for this utter failure would have
been for the Project Managers to pay attention to all of the pre-cursers that were
previously mentioned. Another thing that could have been done was to not have deviated
from the original design of the bridge just to save some money and a chance of possibly
making a bigger name for yourself in the engineering world. Attention to details could
have diverted the disaster that ultimately cost the State of Washington more money to
scrap the failure and have to rebuild a whole new bridge.
References

The Tacoma Narrows

Suspension Bridge

Name?
PM3110
17 Jan 2014
Works Cited

Farquharson, F. B. Tacoma Narrows Bridge central span twisting before collapse. Tacoma
Narrows Bridge Collection. University of Washington, Tacoma. Retrieved Jan 17, 2014,
from http://content.lib.washington.edu/u?/farquharson,36
Pinto, J. K. (2010). Project Management Achieving Competitive Advantage (Second Editon ed.).
Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved Dec 15, 2013
Washington State DOT. (2005). Tacoma Narrows Bridge Machine: 1940 Narrows Bridge - The
Machine. Retrieved Jan 17, 2014, from wsdot.wa.gov:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TNBhistory/Machine/machine2.htm#4
Washington State DOT. (2005). Tacoma Narrows Bridge Machine: Lessons from the Failure of a
Great Machine. Retrieved Jan 17, 2014, from wsdot.wa.gov:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TNBhistory/Machine/machine3.htm#2
Washington State DOT. (n.d.). Tacoma Narrows Bridge machine. Retrieved Jan 17, 2014, from
wsdot.wa.gov: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tnbhistory/machine/machine2.htm