Although their appearance is quite different, this bridge functionally appears to be based on the ideas behind the unique concrete curved chord through girder bridges designed and built in Michigan. The design was simple, yet it was not known to be built widely outside of Michigan's borders. Ohio has a small number of remaining concrete curved chord girders, however and each remaining example should be considered historically significant. The design essentially consisted of taking the standard concrete girder bridge and adding an arch shape to the girders. This was likely done to increase strength, improve efficient use of materials, and enhance the physical appearance of the structure. Ohio did not build as many of the unusual curved chord through girder design Most of Ohio's concrete curved chord through girders do not appear to be larger than 60 feet, and many appear to be right at that sixty foot length.
This bridge is an example of the most common Ohio design, with distinct end posts, a smooth curve, and inset rectangles on the girder face.
HistoricBridges.org disagrees with not only the Not Eligible finding of the Historic Bridge Inventory, but also the philosophy upon which that decision was based. Ohio's Historic Bridge Inventory basically wrote every single curved chord through girder off as Not Eligible, failing to list even large, early, or unaltered examples as significant. The reason given for this was apparently because the bridges did not contribute to the development of bridges in Ohio. However, HistoricBridges.org still believes the bridges are important in the context of Ohio bridge history because they document the fact that the development of bridge design was not perfect, and in some cases, bridge types were proliferated throughout the state before engineers ultimately decided that they were not the best type of bridge to be building. Also, the inventory makes the comment that the curved aspect of the girder is "not aesthetic." While certainly, the curve of the girder serves an engineering purpose, it actually does also serve an aesthetic purpose, since curves are an aesthetic element in bridge design. A separation of aesthetic and structural purpose may be required in modern bridges, where aesthetics are (if present at all) are confined to superficial decorations on the bridge. However, with historic bridges like this one, aesthetics and structural function were not exclusive. Engineers developed aesthetics that were not superficial but were instead functional parts of the bridge structure. This bridge is an example of this technique.
Information and Findings From Ohio's Historic Bridge Inventory
The bridge carries a 2 lane road over a stream in a rural area of active farms.
The 1-span, 59'-long, reinforced-concrete thru girder bridge has paneled, shaped girders with blocky end posts and articulated floorbeams. It is supported on concrete abutments.
Alterations in 1980 unspecified and not apparent from photos.
Summary of Significance
The 1928 thru girder bridge is a late and 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.
Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: No
Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):
Search For Additional Bridge Listings:
© Copyright 2003-2022, 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.