David H. Morrison's Columbia Bridge Works of Dayton, Ohio was noted for its bridges dating from the 1870s through the 1890s that utilized a large number of rolled beams in its members rather than built-up beams that were more common in the period due to the limited size and/or potentially a higher cost of rolled I-beams caused by the limited technology and facilities of the iron/steel mills of the period. In other cases, Morrison designed bridges to use pairs of smaller rolled I-beams which would be held together by square blocks placed between the pairs. The company's widespread use of rolled I-beams was unusual for this period in history. However, the use of rolled beams by the Columbia Bridge Works in the 1880s foretold of a trend that would spread throughout the bridge world, but amazingly not until decades later. In this sense, Columbia Bridge Works was far ahead of its time.
The Columbia Bridge Works, particularly on its earlier bridges like the Peevy Road Bridge, also display an extremely wide range of unusual and distinctive design details that are vastly different from anything seen on other bridges of the time. Columbia Bridge Works simply did not conform to any of the traditional truss and beam details in use during the period. Even if the the bridges do not retain the distinctive, ornate builder plaques, the identity of Columbia Bridge Works bridges is painfully obvious by way of the design.
The Peevy Road Bridge displays a particularly wide range and unaltered set of these unusual details. The struts on the bridge are rolled I-beams. The top chord and end posts are an unusual design composed of a rolled I-beam with a rolled angle riveted to the to each flange. The vertical members of the bridge are two rolled I-beams which are held together with "packing blocks" placed between the pairs and riveted to the I-beams. The bottom chord of the bridge is composed of simple flat bars without eyes, similar to the bottom chords that appeared on many bowstring arch/truss bridges of the 1870s. The bottom chord sections are spliced near the bottom chord connections via trios of small pins, a most unusual detail. The diagonal members of the bridge are equally unusual. Some of the diagonals are rods that end in eyes short of the top or bottom chord and are attached to short pairs of bars by a pin. These bars in turn run the remaining distance and connect to the actual bottom chord connection. On the top chord, some of the diagonal members instead run through the top chord and are connected to the top chord by way of the threaded rod and nut method similar to that often seen on those bowstring arch/truss bridges of the 1870s. Finally the general design of the bridge's bearing and shoe casting is atypical, partly on account of the abnormal design of the end post and the bottom chord. Here, the end post terminates in a three-fingered casting that has a pin running through it as well as the two bottom chord bars and the cast "shoe" that also functions as a sole plate for the bearing.
This bridge is considered by the Historic Bridge Inventory to be one of the most significant bridges in Pennsylvania that documents the development of the metal truss bridge. HistoricBridges.org agrees with this assessment. Among the small collection of Columbia Bridge Works bridges surviving in the country, this bridge stands out as one of the least altered and early examples, and also one of the examples that displays the greatest quantity and variety of unusual design details that defines the Columbia Bridge Works identity. The beautifully decorated bridge retains good aesthetic integrity as well, with plaques remaining as well as the beautiful cast iron caps that fit over the top of the end posts and the ends of the top chord. The ornate portal bracing knee castings remain as well. The only major thing missing on the bridge is its original railings. Based on the empty holes seen on the vertical members and end posts, it appears that the original railings were very lightweight pole railings.
The bridge remains in decent condition and because of its significance, the bridge should be given high preservation priority, and any rehabilitation projects for this bridge should be carefully designed to be respective of the historic integrity of the bridge. Future work on the bridge should also include the removal of the existing railings which are not original and installation of railings that are not mounted to the trusses and are instead mounted into the deck. This will protect the historic bridge trusses from possible damage during a vehicular collision.
Information and Findings From Pennsylvania's Historic Bridge Inventory
Discussion of Bridge
The one span, 102'-long metal Pratt thru truss bridge is supported on concrete-capped stone abutments with flared wingwalls. It is one of the most important bridges in the state illustrating the evolution of metal truss bridge technology, and it is historically and technologically significant . It is remarkably complete, and it has idiosyncratic details that reflect designer David H. Morrison's thinking about truss members and connections including the "hollow cylinder" verticals with "packing blocks" and the "flat bar chords."
Discussion of Surrounding Area
The single lane bridge carries a township road over a stream in a forested setting with a late-19th century brick house and a stone and brick mill building beyond one quadrant. The other quadrants are wooded. The bridge is at a T intersection.
Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes
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.