The Silver Bridge Collapse
The collapse of the Silver Bridge is a great example of a terrible event with the cause of material
failure. The tragedy occurred by the bridge being busy hours of traffic and suddenly, the bridge
collapsed. They’re being witnesses that were worried about the bridge before the collapse
saying, “if you got stuck in the middle of the bridge, it would wave back and forth, back and
forth.” Others recognize fellow friends in the wreckage, and some lost their family members.
The collapse killed 46 people and two were never found after the bridge collapsed. The Silver
Bridge started being built in the 1920’s and completed in 1928. The bridge was the first of its
kind to use eye bar chains that had two force bar members, a unique anchorage system made
with reinforced concrete, and using rocker towers. The design for this bridge was cheaper than
using suspended wire cables like many other bridges. Since this was the first bridge of its kind,
when doing inspections on the bridge, they didn’t know how to check if the eye bars had any
problems. This bridge being a couple of decades old, that was their first mistake. Another
problem the bridge had was the whole structure and the eye bars lacked redundancy. This
means that if one part of the bridge breaks, everything falls with it and that is what happened.
Those mistakes caused a big problem with the bridge’s structure. The reason for the failure of
the bridge was mainly the corrosion in the eye bars and how there was no maintenance or
repairing done on them. Even though the bridge had $30,000 worth of repairs done on it, the
eye bars were the most important to be fixed by the bridge being decades old by then. The
corrective action for the Silver Bridge would involve not only the proper maintenance and
inspection of the eye bars but also consideration of alternative designs before continuing with
the eye bar suspension system. Initially, the issue wasn’t inherent with the use of eye bars
themselves, but rather with the inability to find a reliable and effective method for repairing the
eye bars when they were damaged. This lack of repair strategy raised serious concerns about
the long-term safety and structural integrity of the bridge. If a feasible solution for repairing the
eye bars could not be found, it would have been more prudent to explore alternative bridge
designs rather than continue with the eye bar system simply for the sake of cost-cutting. It
would have been wiser to prioritize the safety and durability of the structure by considering
different design approaches, even if they were more expensive in the short term. Relying on the
eye bar suspension, despite its limitations in terms of repair and maintenance, was a
shortsighted decision. Moreover, finding ways to repair the eye bars while simultaneously
considering and developing alternative bridge designs could have been a more balanced
solution, one that addressed both immediate repair needs and future safety concerns. The real
issue lay in the decision-making process of those in charge of the bridge's construction and
maintenance. Instead of focusing on the long-term stability and safety of the bridge, there
seemed to be a preference for cutting costs, even when it came at the expense of the bridge’s
structural integrity. This emphasis on saving money without fully considering the implications of
such decisions led to a flawed design and eventual failure.