Scribd
Upload
21 views5 pages

27 Passage 2 - London Swaying Footbridge Q14-26

The London Swaying Footbridge, designed by Arup, Foster and Partners, and Sir Anthony Caro, opened on June 10, 2000, but experienced significant swaying due to pedestrian movement, leading to its closure for safety concerns. Engineers discovered that the swaying was exacerbated by the synchronized movements of pedestrians, prompting a series of tests to understand and mitigate the issue. Ultimately, research programs were launched to quantify the forces involved and improve the bridge's performance.

Uploaded by

vuong.ieltspackage
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views5 pages

27 Passage 2 - London Swaying Footbridge Q14-26

The London Swaying Footbridge, designed by Arup, Foster and Partners, and Sir Anthony Caro, opened on June 10, 2000, but experienced significant swaying due to pedestrian movement, leading to its closure for safety concerns. Engineers discovered that the swaying was exacerbated by the synchronized movements of pedestrians, prompting a series of tests to understand and mitigate the issue. Ultimately, research programs were launched to quantify the forces involved and improve the bridge's performance.

Uploaded by

vuong.ieltspackage
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Passage 2 London Swaying Footbridge

SECTION 2
READING PASSAGE 2
You should spend about 20 minutes on Question 14-26 which are based on Reading
Passage 2 below.

London Swaying Footbridge


A
In September 1996 a competition was organized by the Financial Times in association
with the London Borough of Southwark to design a new footbridge across the Thames.
The competition attracted over 200 entries and was won by a team comprising Arup
(engineers), Foster and Partners (architects) and the sculptor Sir Anthony Caro.
B
The bridge opened to the public on 10 June 2000. Up to 100,000 people crossed it that
day with up to 2000 people on the bridge at any one time. At first, the bridge was still.
Then it began to sway, just slightly. Then, almost from on moment to the next, when
large groups of people were crossing, the wobble intensified. This movement became
sufficiently large for people to stop walking to retain their balance and sometimes to
hold onto the hand rails for support. It was decided immediately to limit the number of
people on the bridge, but even so the deck movement was sufficient to be
uncomfortable and to raise concern for public safety so that on 12 June the bridge was
closed until the problem could be solved.
C
The embarrassed engineers found the videotape that day which showed the center span
swaying about 3 inches side to side every second. The engineers first thought that winds
might be exerting excessive force on the many large flags and banners bedecking the
bridge for its gala premiere. What’s more, they also discovered that the pedestrians also
played a key role. Human activities, such as walking, running, jumping, swaying, etc.
could cause horizontal forces which in turn could cause excessive dynamic vibration in
the lateral direction in the bridge. As the structure began moving, pedestrians adjusted
their gait to the same lateral rhythm as the bridge. The adjusted footsteps magnified the
motion – just like when four people all stand up in a small boat at the same time. As
more pedestrians locked into the same rhythm, the increasing oscillations led to the
dramatic swaying captured on film.
D
1
Passage 2 London Swaying Footbridge

In order to design a method of reducing the movements, the force exerted by the
pedestrians had to be quantified and related to the motion of the bridge. Although
there are some descriptions of this phenomenon in existing literature, none of these
actually quantifies the force. So there was no quantitative analytical way to design the
bridge against this effect. An immediate research program was launched by the bridge’s
engineering designers Ove Arup, supported by a number of universities and research
organizations.
E
The tests at the University of Southampton involved a person walking ‘on the spot’ on a
small shake table. The tests at Imperial College involved persons walking along a
specially built, 7.2m-long platform which could be driven laterally at different
frequencies and amplitudes. Each type of test had its limitations. The Imperial College
tests were only able to capture 7 – 8 footsteps, and the ‘walking on the spot’ tests,
although monitoring many footsteps, could not investigate normal forward walking.
Neither test could investigate any influence of other people in a crowd on the behavior
of the individual being tested.
F
The results of the laboratory tests provided information which enabled the initial design
of a retro- fit to be progressed. However, the limitations of these tests was clear and it
was felt that the only way to replicate properly the precise conditions of the Millennium
Bridge was to carry out crowd tests on the bridge deck itself. These tests done by the
Arup engineers could incorporate factors not possible in the laboratory tests. The first of
these was carried out with 100 people in July 2000. The results of these tests were used
to refine the load model for the pedestrians. A second series of crowd tests was carried
out on the bridge in December 2000. The purpose of these tests was to further validate
the design assumptions and to load test a prototype damper installation. The test was
carried out with 275 people.
G
Unless the usage of the bridge was to be greatly restricted, only two generic options to
improve its performance were considered feasible. The first was to increase the stiffness
of the bridge to move all its lateral natural frequencies out of the range that could be
excited by the lateral football forces, and the second was to increase the damping of the
bridge to reduce the resonant response.

2
Passage 2 London Swaying Footbridge

Questions 14-17
Choose FOUR letters, A-H.
Write the correct letters in boxes 14-17 on your answer sheet.
Which FOUR of the following situation were witnessed on the opening ceremony of the
bridge?
A The frequency of oscillation increased after some time.
B All the engineers went to see the ceremony that day.
C The design of the bridge astonished the people.
D Unexpected sideway movement of the bridge occurred.
E Pedestrians had difficulty in walking on the deck.
F The bridge fell down when people tried to retain their balance.
G Vibration could be detected on the deck by the pedestrians.
H It was raining when the ceremony began.

Questions 18-22
Complete the following summary of the paragraphs of Reading Passage 2
Using NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the Reading Passage for each answer
Write your answers in boxes 18-22 on your answer sheet.

After the opening ceremony, the embarrassed engineers tried to find out the reason of
the bridge’s wobbling. Judged from the videotape, they thought that
18…………………………. and 19………………………….. might create excessive force on the
bridge. The distribution of 20……………………….. resulted from human activities could
cause 21……………………………. throughout the structure. This swaying prompted people to
start adjusting the way they walk, which in turn reinforced the 22………………………..

3
Passage 2 London Swaying Footbridge

Questions 23-26
Complete the table below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from Reading Passage 2 for each answer.
Write your answers in boxes 23-26 on your answer sheet.

Research programs launched


by universities and organizations
Universities / People Activity
Limited ability to have 7-8
Test at 23………………… footsteps

‘walking on the spot’ at


Southampton Not enough data on
24…………………

Crowd test conducted by Aim to verify 26………………………..


25………………

4
Passage 2 London Swaying Footbridge

ANSWER

14. A
15. D
16. E
17. G
18. winds
19. (the) pedestrians
20. horizontal forces
21. (excessive dynamic) vibration
22. motion
23. Imperial College
24. normal forward walking
25. (the) Arup engineers
26. (the) design assumptions

You might also like