Revealed: why the wobbly bridge wobbled
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The mysterious wobble of the Millennium Bridge which caused the £18.2m "blade of light" to sway dangerously was caused by the tiny foot adjustments people make to keep their balance, a scientist believes.
On its opening day on 10 June 2000, the Millennium Bridge began to wobble so violently after thousands of pedestrians tried to walk across that it had to be closed. The 320m-long suspension bridge, connecting the financial district of the City of London to Bankside in south London, had been hailed as a "pure expression of engineering structure". Until now, it was assumed that the fault was that its design had failed to take into account the tendency of pedestrians to synchronise their leg movements.
But a re-evaluation by John Macdonald, senior lecturer in civil engineering at Bristol University, found that the wobble was caused by the tiny forces on the bridge generated when each foot is adjusted during walking to keep a person's balance.
The Millennium Bridge problem was solved by fitting 91 dampers to absorb lateral and vertical oscillations. It re-opened in 2002 after the changes cost an extra £5m.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments