This is a spectacular example of the Wrought Iron Bridge Company's work, a ten panel Whipple through truss with pinned connections. It is a fairly old structure as well, with an 1884 construction date. The bridge has been rehabilitated and as a result remains in good condition todat. Only 1.6 miles shy of being a Pennsylvania bridge, yet this Ohio bridge displays a completely different attitude toward how to treat metal truss bridges. Columbiana, despite demolishing a few bridges, is truss bridge paradise compared to how Pennsylvania treats historic truss bridges. Typical of Columbiana county, the rehabilitation of the Grimms Bridge included completely redoing the flooring system, and the deck is now a metal grate deck. Original lattice railings remain above the modern Armco railings. The bridge has been painted a silver/grey color. An uncommon style of v-lacing is present on the vertical members of the bridge. The lacing is not composed of rounded bars overlapping and sharing a single rivet, but instead a less common design of bars angled to line up with the edges of the vertical member channels are used, and each bar has two rivets at each end, and the bars do not overlap. The portal bracing is a lattice design. Builder plaques remain at both ends of the bridge, although a date plaque is missing in the center of the portal bracing at one end. The other end still has the date plaque though. The portal bracing design and the design of the plaques on it is a typical design for bridges built by the Wrought Iron Bridge Company during this period.
Information and Findings From Ohio's Historic Bridge Inventory
The bridge carries a 1 lane road over a stream in a sparsely developed, rural setting.
The 1 span, 155'-long, pin-connected, Whipple thru truss bridge has built-up compression members and eyebar or rod tension members.
Rehabilitated 1997, new floor, sandblasted and painted.
Summary of Significance
According to county records, the 1884 Whipple thru
truss bridge had its stringers and deck replaced in 1997. It was
painted. There was no adverse effect. The eligible recommendation of the
prior inventory remains appropriate. It is a complete and
technologically significant example of its type/design by a prominent
There are 13 examples of the bridge type important to the development and maturation of the pin-connected thru truss bridge. They date from 1881 and concentrated in the 1880s. Even though there are more than 12 extant examples in Ohio, each built in the 1880s has high significance based on overall scarcity (everywhere but in Ohio) of the design. This is a major and technologically significant bridge type. The bridge has high significance.
Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes
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.
Original / Full Size Photos
|A collection of overview and detail photos. 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.|
Mobile Optimized Gallery
|A collection of overview and detail photos. 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
© 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.