Pugh Ford Bridge

Information and Findings From DHPA Historic Bridge Survey

Statement of Significance

The pin-connected trusses are of rather standard design. The spans retain their original members, including latticed guardrails.

"Divers resident freeholders of Flatrock and German Townships" petitioned County Commissioners in June 1903 to build a bridge across Pugh Ford, as the nearest crossing was then more than 2 miles away. This put locals at a disadvantage for transporting goods and persons to and from Indianapolis along the State Road (now US 31). Despite their concerns, the county took 6 years to begin construction.

The Commissioners caused a stir in 1909 when they awarded the bridge contract to the National Concrete Company for a concrete-arch bridge. This was completed in 1909, but was destroyed less than a year later during a February 1910 flood. The bridge's designer, Daniel Luten, remarked that he could not see how the bridge could have been washed out, given the amount of piling specified in the plans. The County, however, had ignored the plans and used no piling whatsoever. The ensuing lawsuit was settled out of court after the prestigious Engineering News investigated and found the county at fault. The two parties supposedly split the cost of the new bridge down the middle; in reality, the County paid $4,450, and Luten, $650.

With a less than pleasant view of concrete bridges now in mind, the Commissioners voted in 1911 to build an iron bridge to replace the failed concrete span. Surprisingly, they contracted Luten's company to build the new bridge abutments. The Elkhart Bridge and Iron Company, a major bridge builder in Indiana as well as Michigan and Wisconsin, completed the new span by August, 1911.

Architectural Description

Seated upon a concrete pier, abutments, and wingwalls, this two-span, pin-connected Pratt through structure extends 256' in eight panels for each span. Laced channels provide the intermediate verticals, a pair of die-forged eyebars serve as diagonals, a pair of adjustable and cylindrical rods counter the diagonals in the three most central panels. The I floor beams are U-bolted to the lower pins. The bridge carries an asphalt and metal pan deck with a 16' roadway and 14'6" of vertical clearance.

Other Information

Previous Structure: The National Concrete Company constructed a Luten-design filled-spandrel arch here in 1911 which, when washed out, became a matter of contention between the contractor and the commissioners.

Surveyed Structure: Luten and the National Concrete Company negotiated a settlement with the county in which National Concrete agreed to build abutments and pier for a new steel replacement bridge for the modest charge of $1,050. Luten and his associates also secured a special price from the Elkhart Bridge Company for the superstructure at $3,400. Contracts for the same were consummated in May 1911. H. C. Deist, a civil engineer charged to inspect the new substructure, reported in August "that the pier has been built better than the plans called for and that some steel was placed in abutments when no steel was specified." He also noted that the tops of the abutments were not as wide as the plans called for. Francis F. Gosch, the superintendent of construction of the Pugh Ford Bridge, reported that the substructure was "better and stronger than the plans called for." Seated upon the new concrete substructure, the trusses of the superstructure are each divided into eight panels by intermediate verticals of laced channels. A pair of die-forged eyebars serve as diagonals, a pair of adjustable and cylindrical rods counter the diagonals in the three most central panels. The bridge maintains 14 feet and 6 inches of vehicular clearance above the roadway. The I floor-beams, U-bolted to the lower pins, carry an asphalt and metal pan roadway.

The pin-connected trusses are of rather standard design. The spans retain their original members, including latticed guardrails.

Asphalt and metal pan deck replaced with timber by 1994 [SHPO database]

Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes