This is a well-preserved example of a state highway Parker truss in Indiana noted for its arched portal bracing.
Information and Findings From DHPA Historic Bridge Survey
Statement of Significance
R. L. Schutt of Indianapolis, Indiana, won an $118,373.20 contract in July 1947 to build a two-span, state-design structure consisting of a 61-ft. 6-in. I-beam approach and a 175-ft. Parker through-truss upon a concrete substructure. The bridge was officially not completed until the beginning of March, 1948. The ISHC used a revised version of its fifth-generation standard plan #1551 for a 175-ft., riveted, Parker through-truss span with a 28-ft. roadway plus a pair of 2-ft. walks also inside the trusses. Truss depth varied from 23 ft. at the portal to 34 ft. 4 in. at midspan. Each truss carried eight panels, the outer two at 20 ft. 3 in. and the inner four at 23 ft. 6 in. Every top chord member is differently sloped; none is parallel with the lower chord; and all were fabricated from a pair of 15- in. channels (@40# for the endposts, third, and fourth panels, and @53.9# for the second). For the lower chord, 10-in. I-beams grow in weight from the outer panels (@66#) to the inner-most one (@100#). The state used rolled I-beams in some truss web members. The verticals or posts consist of two forms and weights: the hip and the fourth are 10-in. I-beams (@33#); the second and third are fabricated from a pair of laced 10-in. channels (@15.3#). To protect the quite-tall trusses against wind and vehicle-induced stress, substantial latticed struts and heavy upper sway framing buttress the verticals above 15 ft. of roadway clearance. The portals used latticed sections, too. While a 10-in. I-beam (@37#) provided the second-panel diagonal, the others used a pair of laced 10-in. channels (@15.3#). None of the panels was countered. The ISHC prescribed 33-in. I floor-beams (@200#) riveted to the verticals above the lower chord. Ten rows of rolled I-beam stringers attached to the floor-beams' sides varied in depth and weight by placement. The 20-ft. panels used 16-in. Is; the 23-ft. 6-in. ones relied on 18-in Is. Outside stringers were lighter than inner ones. Weights varied on 20-ft. panels from 36 lbs. (outer) to 50 lbs (inner); on the 23-ft. panels from 50 lbs to 55 lbs. Together, the floor-beams and the stringers carry the concrete deck. Angles supply each lower sway-bracing member. Tube-channel-and- post rails lined the inner sides of the trusses, and coped concrete approach rails with bush- hammered panels funneled traffic into the spans. This bridge provides one of several extant--and certainly one of the latest--examples of this fifth-generation standard plan for a fairly-long through-truss span. The trusses retain their original members. The metal guardrails and the concrete approach ones remain. The concrete deck has been replaced.
References Indiana State Highway Commission, Structure, #75-J-3653; Contract, #2814; Superstructure Standard, #1551.
Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes
Original / Full Size Photos
|A collection of overview and detail photos. This gallery offers photos in the highest available resolution and file size in a touch-friendly popup viewer. Alternatively, Browse Without Using Viewer|
Mobile Optimized Photos
|A collection of overview and detail photos. This gallery features data-friendly, fast-loading photos in a touch-friendly popup viewer. Alternatively, Browse Without Using Viewer|
Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):
View Bridge Location In:
© Copyright 2003-2020, 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.