View Information About HSR Ratings
This bridge features two concrete through girder spans with girders with a top chord that angle upwards, forming a deeper (taller) girder over the pier. Aesthetically, the bridge's design is similar to Ohio's unusual curved chord through girders, although this bridge has what would be more accurately called tapered girders. The bridge is today abandoned and deteriorated.
The Historic Bridge Inventory suggested the bridge's pier was added, however this seems unlikely. The pier seems integrated in the bridge, and if this bridge was ever a single span bridge it would have been about the same length as the largest of Michigan's curved chord through girders, which required very deep (tall) girders, far taller than this bridge. The pier is likely part of the original design.
Ohio's Historic Bridge Inventory made the decision to write off nearly all examples of concrete through girder bridges as non-historic. In particular, Ohio's curved chord through girder bridges were included in this exclusion. Only a handful of states have been found to have concrete curved chord through girder bridges, and Ohio is along with neighboring Michigan one of only two states that seems to have built this unusual and aesthetically pleasing variety of concrete girder in any notable quantity. This decision to exclude concrete through girder bridges is very unusual, and is in direct conflict with the historic bridge inventory of neighboring Michigan. Even more unusual, one of the reasons given for this decision is because the concrete through girder bridge never became popular and never directly led to a popular bridge type. This statement does not take into account the importance of documenting and preserving bridges that are of an unsuccessful bridge type. They nevertheless document the evolution of bridge design in America, and because the bridge type never led directly to other similar bridge types, this means surviving examples are uncommon. Concrete girder bridges demonstrate that concrete was an experimental bridge material in the early 20th Century. Bridge builders had not yet realized that concrete could be used to build more efficient and adaptable bridge types, and instead used concrete to adapt familiar bridge types like the through plate girder into a concrete equivalent. The effect of excluding this bridge type has been profound in Ohio. Concrete through girder bridges are being demolished and replaced at a very rapid rate and soon there may be no surviving examples remaining in the state. It would have been nice to see some of the more intact examples of this bridge type identified as historic: representative examples of a specific bridge type that was briefly popular during a period of Ohio's history.
Information and Findings From Ohio's Historic Bridge InventorySetting/Context The bridge carries a 2 lane road over a stream in a rural area of active farms. The bridge has been closed to traffic since 1997. Physical Description The 2 span, 89'-long, reinforced-concrete thru girder bridge has paneled, shaped girders. It appears that a mid-span pier was added at a later date. Integrity According to county inspection reports, there is significant spalling and exposed reinforcing bars. Summary of Significance The 1924 thru girder bridge is an undistinguished example of a standardized bridge type in use from the mid 1910s to 1930s. It is not technologically significant. Reinforced-concrete thru girder bridges are composed of a pair of cast-in-place longitudinal girders and transverse floorbeams or deck slab (the former is the case with most Ohio examples) that are connected by the arrangement of the steel reinforcing bars. The roadway passes between the paired girders, which are the main supporting members and also serve as railings. The girders are commonly very large in appearance (18" to 30" wide and 4' to 6' deep) and have deep panels to save on weight. The depth of the girders is related to span length with the longer the span the greater the depth. In many cases, the girders are shaped to achieve the greatest depth of beam at mid-span where it is required to support the design moments (stresses). The shaped girder is a design detail to accommodate longer and/or wider spans and/or heavier design loads, it is not aesthetic. Like other reinforced-concrete bridge types, including the slab and T beam, the thru girder appeared nationally and in Ohio during the first decade of the 20th century. The oldest surviving example in the state, dated to 1905, is located in Morrow County (5930669, Phase 1A Survey, 2008). In Ohio, the type does not appear to have been widely used until after its adoption as a state standard in 1915. Of the approximately 60 identified surviving examples, only three are confirmed to predate 1915. Between 1915 and 1924, the department issued standard plans for thru girder bridges in span lengths ranging from 27' to 65' and roadway widths from 16' to 24', which account for the vast number of Ohio's surviving examples. They also developed an unusual, and perhaps unique to Ohio, cantilevered thru girder design that was adopted as a standard in 1922. The only known surviving example of the cantilevered design is in Gallia County (2742322).The thru girder bridge type played a prominent role in state and county efforts to improve Ohio's roads and bridges in the 1920s, but over time it proved to be one of the least successful of the standard designs and its use was diminishing by 1929 and had ended by 1940. The majority of Ohio's surviving examples (35 of 60) date from 1922 to 1930. Over time, the thru girder proved to be less economical than T beams for the same range of span lengths and was limited to relatively narrow roadway widths (about 24' max.). By 1928, George A. Hool, a noted authority on reinforced-concrete bridge construction, reported that "from a standpoint of economy, the thru girder should not be built except where insufficient headroom or other local conditions prevent the use of the deck girder [T beam]." Thru girders were also difficult to widen, a concern that was increasingly on the minds of bridge engineers by the late 1920s.The body of engineering knowledge soon reached the conclusion that thru girders were not as successful or versatile as other standard types. The thru girder can be viewed as a 'dead end' in the evolution of bridge technology, and this limits the bridge type's significance. Many state highway departments did not use thru girders or stopped building them in the 1920s. And even though Ohio's engineers continued to use thru girders somewhat longer than engineers in many other states, they reached the same conclusions about their disadvantages. The thru girder's contribution to the historical development of Ohio's highways simply was not as great as many other standard types because of its limitations and shorter period of use. Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: No |
Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):
Search For Additional Bridge Listings:
Bridgehunter.com: View listed bridges within 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) of this bridge.
Bridgehunter.com: View listed bridges within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of this bridge.
Additional Maps:
Google Streetview (If Available)
GeoHack (Additional Links and Coordinates)
Apple Maps (Via DuckDuckGo Search)
Apple Maps (Apple devices only)
Android: Open Location In Your Map or GPS App
Flickr Gallery (Find Nearby Photos)
Wikimedia Commons (Find Nearby Photos)
Directions Via Sygic For Android
Directions Via Sygic For iOS and Android Dolphin Browser
USGS National Map (United States Only)
Historical USGS Topo Maps (United States Only)
Historic Aerials (United States Only)
CalTopo Maps (United States Only)
© Copyright 2003-2024, 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.
