HistoricBridges.org Menu: HistoricBridges.org Menu:

Divider

HistoricBridges.org: Bridge Browser

Advertisements:
Bach Steel - Experts at historic truss bridge restoration.

Divider

Grange Road Bridge

   


Grange Road Bridge

Primary Photographer(s): Nathan Holth

Bridge Documented: Summer 2005 and March 25, 2010
View Photos
and Videos
View Maps
and Links

Key Facts

Facility Carried / Feature Intersected
Grange Road Over Stoney Creek
Location
Rural: Clinton County, Michigan
Construction Date and Builder / Engineer
1923 By Builder/Contractor: Price Brothers Company of Lansing, Michigan and Engineer/Design: Michigan State Highway Department

Technical Facts

Rehabilitation Date
Not Available or Not Applicable
Main Span Length
90 Feet (27.4 Meters)
Structure Length
92 Feet (28 Meters)
Roadway Width
20 Feet (6.1 Meters)
Spans
1 Main Span(s)
NBI Number
19200023000B020

Historic Significance Rating (HSR)

Bridge Documentation

Learn about Michigan's Unique Concrete Camelback Bridges

The Grange Road Bridge, built in 1923, is among the older examples of Michigan's beautiful and historic concrete camelbacks, also known as curved chord through girder bridges, yet it remains in remarkably good condition. The Grange Road Bridge is an example of the 90 foot plan, which was the largest span size included in the set of state standard plans for this bridge type.

The bridge retains an excellent degree of historic integrity as well.

There is no weight limit posted for this bridge, which has a 20 foot wide deck and carries a light to medium volume of rural arterial traffic. Because of its historic integrity, good structural condition, and rural location, this bridge should be given preservation priority.

Recommended Future Preservation Work

When concrete develops severe deterioration, it becomes very difficult to rehabilitate the bridge, and even harder to execute such a rehabilitation without destroying or covering up much of the original bridge material. There is currently what appears to be minor and isolated deterioration on the bridge. This means the time for corrective action is now. Costs for repair will be lower, and the life of the historic bridge can be extended longer and more effectively by taking action now.

There is minor cracking at the center of the girders and also at the end posts. There is also minor spalling and delaminating around sections of reinforcing rods (rebar) on the bridge. Repair of these areas is recommended before they expand into the more widespread spalling that plaques many other examples of this historic bridge type.

There is dirt buildup along the edges of the deck next to the girders, which is substantial enough to support weeds in the summer. This should all be removed from the bridge deck, an easy fix that will reduce the presence of moisture on the bridge.

Drainage for the bridge, which appears to be an original feature on the bridge, has a minor design flaw. The drains are positioned such that water exits the drain and tends to run down the side of the portion of the girder which extends below the deck. Installation of pipes within the existing drains which would carry the water beyond the bottom of the girders before discharging it into the river below would correct this problem.

Finally, although the practice is widespread, an asphalt wearing surface has been placed upon the concrete deck of the bridge. It is the opinion of HistoricBridges.org that the problems caused by laying asphalt on top of concrete decks on historic bridges (moisture entrapment, lack of inspection/repair access) outweigh any benefit that such a surface may provide.

Michigan's Concrete Camelback Bridges

All of Michigan's surviving curved chord through girders should be considered historically and technologically significant. The bridges are historically significant because they represent a unique and innovative design developed by the Michigan State Highway Department in its earlier years of bridge construction.

The bridges should be considered technologically significant as well. By incorporating a curve into the design, Michigan State Highway Department not only increased the efficiency of the design, they also greatly increased the aesthetic value of the bridges. The graceful curves of this bridge type, complemented by architectural details such as inset rectangles and pierced openings, make them among the most aesthetically pleasing of bridge types ever encountered. Straight chord through girder bridges are generally considered among the more plain and less visually appealing types of historic bridges. The aesthetic qualities of the curved girder bridge, those qualities being an integral and functional part of the bridge and not a decorative facade, should be considered to be a technologically significant feat: an extremely effective union of function and form.

Also, the 90 foot plan concrete camelbacks, including the Grange Road Bridge are all noteworthy on a national level because they are among the longest spans seen in concrete through girders throughout the country. They represented the maximum potential of the bridge type, which had a short life because it was limited as a practical structure type in terms of span length and deck width. Most concrete through girders (including the small number of curved chord examples outside Michigan) throughout the country appear to have been limited to no more than 60 feet. With their 90 foot spans, Michigan's 90 foot plan concrete camelbacks push beyond this number considerably.

Statewide, very few examples of this bridge type have been preserved or have evidence of a preservation commitment. Further, the number of examples of this bridge type have been dropping rapidly over the years. Considering that in recent years, Michigan has begun to emerge as a leader in truss bridge preservation, it is reasonable to consider concrete camelback bridges to be the most threatened type of historic bridge in Michigan.

The bridge type has become rare through attrition in Michigan, and the rarity of the bridges today only adds to the significance of those remaining examples.

Divider

Photos and Videos: Grange Road Bridge

Available Photo Galleries and Videos

Click on a thumbnail or gallery name below to visit that particular photo gallery. If videos are available, click on a video name to view and/or download that particular video.

 
View Photo Gallery
2010 Bridge Photo-Documentation
Original / Full Size Photos
A collection of overview and detail photos, taken March 25, 2010. For the best visual immersion and full detail, or for use as a desktop background, this gallery presents the photos for this bridge in the original digital camera resolution.
View Photo Gallery
2010 Bridge Photo-Documentation
Mobile Optimized Gallery
A collection of overview and detail photos, taken March 25, 2010. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem (dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer
View Photo Gallery
2005 Bridge Photo-Documentation
A collection of overview and detail photos, taken Summer 2005. This photo gallery contains a combination of Original / Full Sized photos and Mobile/Smartphone Optimized (Reduced Size) photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer

View Maps
and Links

Divider
 
Home Top

Divider

About - Contact

© Copyright 2003-2017, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.