DOCSLIB.ORG

Slab,Beam &Girder Bridges in Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SLAB, BEAM & GIRDER BRIDGES IN OREGON HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT BRIDGE NO. 8739, MOUNTAIN AVE OVER INTERSTATE 5, ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY OREGON, LOOKING SOUTH 259-Foot long Precast Concrete Girders (1963) with Type A/B Bridge Rail, Modified with Protective Fencing June 2003 Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation Salem, Oregon Prepared by George Kramer, M.S., HP Senior Preservation Specialist Heritage Research Associates, Inc. Eugene, Oregon May 2004 SLAB, BEAM & GIRDER BRIDGES IN OREGON HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT PREPARED FOR THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY GEORGE KRAMER, M.S. HP SENIOR PRESERVATION SPECIALIST HERITAGE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. EUGENE, OREGON MAY 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PART 1.0 HISTORIC OVERVIEW 5 1.1 Geographic Boundaries 5 1.2 Temporal Boundaries — 1900-1966 5 1.3 Slab, Beam and Girder Bridge Construction 6 1.4 Timber 8 1.5 Steel 11 1.6 Concrete and its Application in Bridge Construction 14 1.6.1 Early Concrete Bridges in Oregon 16 1.7 Slab, Beam, and Girder Bridges: A Simplified Typology 22 1.7.1 Slab Bridges 23 1.7.2 Beam and Girder Bridges 24 1.7.3 Pre-cast and Pre-stressed Concrete 27 1.7.4 Box Girders 29 1.7.5 Frame Bridges 30 1.8 Concrete Bridge Designs, Post-WWII Aesthetics 31 PART 2.0 SBG BRIDGES IN OREGON 36 2.1 The Oregon Bridge Inventory 36 2.2. Previous Identification of Historic Slab, Beam and Girder Bridges 39 2.3 Post-War SBG Bridges 42 2.3.1 Bridge Rail Design 43 A. The "Picket Fence" Steel and Concrete Rail 44 B. ODOT Types "A" and "B" (Three Stripe) 46 C. Standard One-Pipe Rail - ODOT Types "C" and "D" 48 D. Steel Tube Rails (2-Tube and 3-Tube) 50 E. Type "F" (New Jersey) Bridge Rail 51 F. Other Bridge Rail Modifications 53 2.3.2 Girder and Beam Designs 54 A. Standard Cast-in-Place 54 B. "Haunched" Cast-in-Place 55 C. Pre-cast I-Beams (Panel-sided) 57 D. Box Girders 58 E. Timber Decks 59 F. Timber Beams 60 G. Steel Beams and Girders 60 H. Composite Design 60 2.3.3 Vertical Columns and Piers (Bents), Concrete 61 2.3.4 Timber Substructural Elements 65 - ii - PART 3.0 EVALUATION 67 3.1 Assumptions 67 3.2 Applying the Evaluation Process to SBG Bridges 67 3.2.1 Integrity 68 3.2.2 Periods of Significance, 1900-1945 and 1946-1966 70 A. First Period of Significance: 1900-1945 70 B. Second Period of Significance: 1946-1966 71 3.2.3 Bridge Technology & Construction Milestones 71 3.3 Evaluation Criteria 73 PART 4.0 TREATMENT 76 4.1 Preservation of Selected SBG Bridges 77 4.2 Future Studies and Interpretation Opportunities 78 4.3 SBG Bridges —Links in Highway History 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 APPENDIX A Slab, Beam, and Girder Bridge Registration Requirements 87 APPENDIX B OBI Bridge Examples by Type 90 - iii - LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Slab, Beam and Girder Bridges, in Section 6 1.2 Beam and Girder Bridges, in Plan and Section 7 1.3 Log Bridge, Klamath Falls-Lakeview Highway 8 1.4 Bridge 1084, Timber Stringer Construction 10 1.5 Bridge 29C77, Rapp Road at Wagner Creek 10 1.6 Pudding River [Red] Bridge on Arndt Road 11 1.7 Haunched Steel Deck Girder Bridge, John Day Hwy 12 1.8 The Medford Viaduct, Looking NE 13 1.9 Type of Concrete Bridge Erected Along Pacific Highway 17 1.10 Wagner Creek Bridge, Former Pacific Highway 18 1.11 Horsetail Falls Bridge/Steinman Overcrossing 19 1.12 Parrott Creek Bridge on the Pacific Highway at New Era, 1928 21 1.13 Typical Slab Bridge Design, Oregon Examples, 1929 23 1.14 Common Concrete Slab Bridge Types 24 1.15 Girder & Slab Bridges, in Section 26 1.16 Typical Concrete Deck Girder Sections 26 1.17 OSHD Standard Handrail Type “A” 17-Feb-1916 28 1.18 Typical Pre-cast “I” Girder/Beam Bridge Section 29 1.19 Typical Pre-cast I-Beam Overpass, Interstate 5, Lane County, OR 29 1.20 Typical Box Girder Bridge Section 30 1.21 Box Girder Overpass on Interstate 5, Douglas County 30 1.22 Perry Over-crossing, Baker-Unity Highway, 1939 31 2.1 Post-1966 Concrete Overpass, Interstate 5, Lane County 43 2.2 Typical Oregon Bridge Rails of the late-1930s 44 2.3 Standard Steel Handrail, 1949 (revised to 1954) 45 2.4 Pudding River Bridge, with “Picket Fence” Type Bridge Rail 45 2.5 Picket Fence Bridge Rail and Concrete Transition Detail 46 2.6 “Three Stripe” Bridge Rail, Mohawk Bridge Lane County, 1958 47 2.7 Type A & B Bridge Rail 47 2.8 Type A/B Bridge Rail, Isaac Constant Bridge, Jackson County 48 2.9 Standard One-Pipe Parapet Rail 49 2.10 One-Pipe Parapet Rail, Bear Creek/I-5 Bridge #8890N, Built 1962 49 2.11 “Two Pipe” Variant, Rail Types C/D 50 2.12 Standard 2-Tube Curb Mount Rail, Details 50 2.13 Standard 3-Tube Curb Mount Rail, Elevation 51 2.14 “Type F” Bridge Rail, Typical Section 52 2.15 Type F Retrofit of Existing Bridge Rail 52 2.16 Type A Rail, Retrofit, Bridge No. 7572A 53 2.17 Protective Fencing, Type “A” 54 2.18 Umatilla River Bridge at Echo Umatilla County, Bridge #1165 55 - iv - 2.19 Pacific Highway (I-5) Overpass at Anlauf-Elkhead, Lane County 56 2.20 Luckimute Bridge from Downstream, February 1956 56 2.21 Haunched Girder, Isaac Constant Bridge, Jackson County 57 2.22 Typical Pre-Cast I-Beam with “Panel” Sides 58 2.23 Scholls Ferry Overcrossing at Highway 143, Washington County 58 2.24 Timber Beam Bridge with Typical Wood Bridge Rail 59 2.25 Mills Bridge over Wilson River (Bridge No. 1868) 61 2.26 Isaac Constant Bridge #697, Central Point, OR 62 2.27 Round Section Piers, Bridge No. 8738N, Jackson County 63 2.28 "Barbell" Type Piers Supporting a Rolled Steel Beam Bridge 64 2.29 Flat Panel Concrete Pier 64 2.30 Various Monolithic Concrete Bridge Pier Designs 65 2.31 Timber Trestle Section 66 4.1 Gervais Road Undercrossing 77 4.2 Interstate 5 Ribbon Cutting, Medford, Jackson County 81 - v - SLAB, BEAM & GIRDER BRIDGES IN OREGON HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT MAY 2004 INTRODUCTION Driving Interstate 5 from the Oregon-California border in the Siskiyou Mountains north through Oregon to the Interstate Bridge over the Columbia River, is slightly more than 308 miles according to most maps. Making that drive, somewhere near the halfway point, you pass Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Bridge No. 7593, a small 13 by 12 foot concrete box culvert in northern Douglas County. Less than two miles later, actually 1.92 miles, you drive across Bridge No. 7569A, a three span reinforced- concrete deck girder that crosses Buck Creek. Neither of these structures, the first built in 1953 and the second in 1981, are particularly remarkable. If you are like the vast majority of the thousands who cross them every day, it’s unlikely that you would give them, or the stretch of the Interstate between them, any special notice. But that 1.92 mile stretch between these two unremarkable, entirely functional, structures, is one of the longest pieces of uninterrupted pavement on Interstate 5 — pavement without a bridge, a culvert, an overpass, underpass, or other similar feature as documented in the Oregon Department of Transportation’s 2002 Bridge Log.1 “Limited access highways” such as Interstates 5 and 84, or any of the other connecting routes, such as I-105 in Eugene or I-205 and I-405 in Portland, quite simply wouldn’t be possible in a mountainous, river and creek rich state such as Oregon without a vast network of connecting features like bridges 7593 and 7569A. And, since the entire Interstate system was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the vast majority of its bridges are of slab, beam, and girder design, the proverbial “basic bridge” form. Most are built of concrete — an ancient material that was so particularly well suited to the construction of modern highway bridges that examples can today be found virtually everywhere an automobile can go. Approximately 6,500 bridges carry traffic throughout Oregon, and significantly contribute to the movement of goods, services and people upon which much of the state’s economy relies. ODOT and cities or counties manage approximately 2,680 and 3,800 of the bridges, respectively. Over half of the State-owned and a third of the local agency bridges were built prior to 1960. Over two-thirds of Oregon’s State-owned bridges were built in the 1930s and 1950s. Hundreds were built between 1945 and 1961, during a post-World War II era when a design and construction philosophy of material economy and precise engineering of reinforcement details drove bridge planning and construction in the state. This was the case, for example, in developing much of the Interstate Highway system in Oregon. 1 A slightly longer section, 2.03 miles, separates Bridge 8229B, on Hwy 210, from Seven Mile Lane, on I-5, in Linn County, but 8229B is documented as part of the Corvallis-Lebanon Highway, not I-5. - 1 - SLAB, BEAM & GIRDER BRIDGES IN OREGON HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT MAY 2004 State-owned bridges during this time were designed and built in accordance with American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) standards contained in Specifications for Highway Bridges, and using design parameters in large part based on contemporary truck weights, volumes and speeds.
Recommended publications
  • Timber Bridge History Booklet for Web.Qxp

    Timber Bridge History Booklet for Web.Qxp

    Printed on Member & recycled Supporter paper TimberTimber TrestleTrestle BridgesBridges inin Alaska Railroad Corporation P.O. Box 107500 • Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7500 (907) 265-2300 • Reservations • (907) 265-2494 AlaskaAlaska RailroadRailroad TTY/TDD • (907) 265-2620 www.AlaskaRailroad.com This History booklet is History also available online by visiting AlaskaRailroad.com Publication Table of Contents “The key to unlocking Alaska is a system of railroads.” — President Woodrow Wilson (1914) The Alaska Railroad at a Glance . 3 Alaska Railroad Historical Overview. 5 Early Development & Operations. 5 Revitalization & World War II . 6 Rehabilitation & Early Cold War . 7 Recent History . 7 About Timber Trestle Bridges . 8 History of Timber Trestle Bridges . 10 in the United States History of Timber Trestle Bridges . 13 on the Alaska Railroad Bridge under constructon at MP 54. (ARRC photo archive) Status of Timber Trestle Bridges . 18 on the Alaska Railroad Historical Significance of Alaska . … progress was immediately hindered 20 Railroad Timber Trestle Bridges by numerous water crossings and abundant muskeg. Representative ARR Timber Bridges . 20 Because a trestle was the easiest and cheapest way to negotiate these barriers, a great many of them were erected, Publication Credits . 22 only to be later replaced or Research Acknowledgements . 22 filled and then forgotten. — Alaska Engineering Commission (1915) Bibliography of References . 22 Cover photo: A train leaves Anchorage, crossing Ship Creek Bridge in 1922. (ARRC photo archive) 01 The Alaska Railroad at a Glance early a century ago, President Woodrow Wilson charged the Alaskan Engineering Commission with building a railroad connecting a southern ice-free harbor to the territory’s interior in order to open this vast area to commerce.
  • Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge

    Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge

    Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge Andreas Greuel T. Michael Baseheart, Ph. D. Graduate Research Assistant Associate Professor of Civil University of Cincinnati Engineering Cincinnati, Ohio University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Bradley T. Rogers Engineer LJB, Inc. As part of the FHWA (Federal Highway Admin- Dayton, Ohio istration) High Performance Concrete Bridge Program, two full-scale truckload tests of Bridge GUE-22-6.57 were carried out. The main ob- jectives of these tests were to investigate the static and dynamic response of the high perfor- Richard A. Miller, Ph. D. mance concrete (HPC) structure. A secondary Associate Professor of Civil Engineering objective was to investigate the load transfer University of Cincinnati between the box girders through experimental Cincinnati, Ohio middepth shear keys. The structure was loaded using standard Ohio Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) dump trucks. A model test of the bridge was conducted as well. It was found that the bridge behavior is well predicted using sim- ple models. The bridge behaves as a single unit and all girders share the load almost equally. Bahram M. Shahrooz, Ph. D. The dynamic behavior of the bridge is typical Associate Professor of Civil for comparable structures. Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio 60 PCI JOURNAL he use of high performance con- located on US Route 22, a heavily in that the Ohio box girder has only a crete (HPC) can lead to more traveled two-lane highway near Cam- 5 in. (127 mm ) thick bottom flange Teconomical bridge designs be- bridge, Ohio. rather than the 5.5 in.
  • Review on Applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof

    Review on Applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof

    International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056 Volume: 03 Issue: 05 | May-2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Review on applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof. P. J. Salunke2 1Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Maharashtra, India 2Head, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Maharashtra, India ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - This paper gives a brief introduction to the 1874. Use of steel led to the development of cantilever cantilever bridges and its evolution. Further in cantilever bridges. The world’s longest span cantilever bridge was built bridges it focuses on system and construction of balanced in 1917 at Quebec over St. Lawrence River with main span of cantilever bridges. The superstructure forms the dynamic 549 m. India can boast of one such long bridge, the Howrah element as a load carrying capacity. As box girders are widely bridge, over river Hooghly with main span of 457 m which is used in forming the superstructure of balanced cantilever fourth largest of its kind. bridges, its advantages are discussed and a detailed review is carried out. Concrete cantilever construction was first introduced in Europe in early 1950’s and it has since been broadly used in design and construction of several bridges. Unlike various Key Words: Bridge, Balanced Cantilever, Superstructure, bridges built in Germany using cast-in-situ method, Box Girder, Pre-stressing cantilever construction in France took a different direction, emphasizing the use of precast segments. The various advantages of precast segments over cast-in-situ are: 1. INTRODUCTION i. Precast segment construction method is a faster method compared to cast-in-situ construction method.
  • Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges

    Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges

    10/23/2014 Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications • Bridges are used to span across distances that are difficult to otherwise pass through. • Rivers • Deep gorges • Other roadways Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges • There are four basic types of bridges – Arch – Beam – Suspension – Cable‐stayed • Each type has different design and is therefore better suited to different applications 1 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Instead of pushing straight down, the weight of an arch bridge is carried outward along the curve of the arch to the supports at each end. Abutments, carry • These supports, called the abutments, carry the load the load and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward. and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • When supporting its own weight and the • Today, materials like steel and pre‐stressed weight of crossing traffic, every part of the concrete have made it possible to build longer arch is under compression. and more elegant arches. • For this reason, arch bridges must be made of materials that are strong under compression. New River Gorge, – Rock West Virginia. – Concrete 2 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Usually arch bridges employ vertical supports • Typically, arch bridges span between 200 and called spandrels to distribute the weight of 800 feet. the roadway to the arch below. Arch Bridges One of the most revolutionary arch bridges in recent years is the Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge in Franklin, Tennessee, which was opened to traffic in 1994. It's the first American arch bridge to be constructed from segments of precast concrete, a highly economical material.
  • What to See in Portland Update2009

    What to See in Portland Update2009

    What to see in Portland, OR - by Marco Behrmann 07/02/2004 1/3 WHAT TO SEE IN PORTLAND , OR _________________________________________ Listed below you will find a couple of sights and my personal favourites to do in Portland. Since Portland was my town of exchange I do not know as many things about the other cities like Eugene, Corvallis, Ashland or La Grande. However, it would be just great if somebody could add tips about their places similar to the ones here, too! Please feel free to forward them to me (marcobehrmann[at]web.de ). I do not want you to believe that just because I stayed in Portland, and have many tips here for Portland, that a year at one of the other Oregon cities is not the same exciting. The tips listed here, however, are interesting for all Baden-Wuerttemberg students in Oregon, because many things you can already see and experience during your orientation weeks. (BTW: This is almost everything I did (among other things, of course) within my 2 ½ weeks of re-visiting in June 2004; but it took me a year of living in the city in 2001/02 to figure out which were the hot tips ☺) Here are my personal Must-Sees Oregon History Center in SW Park blocks right south of PSU (This museum features very interesting and well researched exhibitions about the development of Portland as a city as well as about the whole Pacific Northwest as it was discovered from the sea and the Columbia River; good place to check out during your orientation weeks; you get a student reduction with ISIC or other student ID card) Council Crest Park (considered the highest spot in Portland; nice views to Mt Hood, Mt Adams, Mt St Helens and even Mt Rainier on some days as well as to Beaverton; take Bus 51 [Vista]; the Bus driver often feels himself as an informal Portland guide; tell him that you are visiting and he even might stop for you at nice viewpoints to take pictures.
  • Timber Bridges in South America

    Timber Bridges in South America

    Timber Bridges in South America Carlito Calil Junior, Laboratory of Wood and Timber Structures, Sao Paulo University, Brazil Abstract Beam Superstructures Timber bridges in South America predate the 19th Longitudinal beams superstructures are the simplest century. This paper provides an introduction of the and most common timber bridge type and consist of a many types of timber bridges currently used in South deck system supported by a series of timber beams America. The five basic types used, which are, the between two or more supports. Bridge beams are longitudinal beam, frame, truss, arch and suspension constructed from logs and sawn lumber, single or superstructures, are presented. Research on new bridge composite elements. designs, using tropical and reforestation wood species, has been developed in the Laboratory of Wood and Log Beams Timber Structures, Sao Paulo University in Brazil, on The simplest type of timber bridge in South America is prestressed timber bridge and decks composed with the log beam. It is constructed by placing round logs two diagonal layers of sawn wood connected with alternately tip and butt sections. The span of log beam wood dowels over composed longitudinal beams. We is limited to sizes and truck loads. The clear span of 5 will construct the first prestressed timber bridge in to 12 meters are most common (Figure 1). South America in this year using Eucalyptus Citriodora specie. In order to support high truck loads, LaMEM developed a longitudinal beam with composite Keywords: timber, briges, South America, Brazil configuration of two logs alternately tip and butt sections and connected with split rings and bolts Introduction (Figure 2).
  • Bridges for Planes, Trains, but Not Automobiles by David A

    Bridges for Planes, Trains, but Not Automobiles by David A

    bridges for Planes, Trains, buT noT auTomobiles By David A. Burrows, P.E., LEED AP BD+C ® British Airways 747 crossing beneath the Taxiway “R” bridge, June, 2012. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department. Copyright s described in the August edition of STRUCTURE® maga- zine, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport opened the first stage of their automated transit system, PHX Sky Train™, on April 8, 2013. Thousands of passengers have already boarded the Sky Train and experienced the comfortable five A th minute ride from the 44 Street Station through the East Economy Lot Station, over Taxiway “R” (more than 100 feet above Sky Harbor Blvd.), ending at Terminal 4. The next phase, known as Stage 1A, is currently under con- struction and continues Sky Train’s route from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3. Scheduled to be open in early 2015, Stagemagazine 1A, similar to the Stage 1 construction,S faces theT task ofR crossing U an active C T U R E taxiway. Unlike the first Stage’s crossing above Taxiway “R”, the current phase of construction crosses beneath Taxiways “S” and “T”. Both Stages’ taxiway crossings presented several design and construction challenges. A US Airways jet passes beneath the Taxiway R crossing with the PHX Sky Train overhead. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department. The World’s First In addition to the challenging geometry was the schedule constraint On Oct. 10, 2010, a celebration to mark the re-opening of Taxiway for constructing the bridge. Because the construction required the “R” was held by the City of Phoenix with members of the City’s taxiway to be closed, a limited shutdown period of six months was Aviation Department, designers, contractors and media watching possible due to airport operations.
  • Steel Bridge Design Handbook Vol. 13

    Steel Bridge Design Handbook Vol. 13

    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Bracing System Design Publication No. FHWA-HIF-16-002 - Vol. 13 December 2015 FOREWORD This handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples intended to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. Upon completion of the latest update, the handbook is based on the Seventh Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The hard and competent work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and prime consultant, HDR, Inc., and their sub-consultants, in producing and maintaining this handbook is gratefully acknowledged. The topics and design examples of the handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively. The contributions and constructive review comments received during the preparation of the handbook from many bridge engineering processionals across the country are very much appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of Bryan Kulesza with ArcelorMittal, Jeff Carlson with NSBA, Shane Beabes with AECOM, Rob Connor with Purdue University, Ryan Wisch with DeLong’s, Inc., Bob Cisneros with High Steel Structures, Inc., Mike Culmo with CME Associates, Inc., Mike Grubb with M.A. Grubb & Associates, LLC, Don White with Georgia Institute of Technology, Jamie Farris with Texas Department of Transportation, and Bill McEleney with NSBA. Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E. Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.
  • H. Doc. 108-222

    H. Doc. 108-222

    THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1865, TO MARCH 3, 1867 FIRST SESSION—December 4, 1865, to July 28, 1866 SECOND SESSION—December 3, 1866, to March 3, 1867 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1865, to March 11, 1865 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—ANDREW JOHNSON, 1 of Tennessee PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—LAFAYETTE S. FOSTER, 2 of Connecticut; BENJAMIN F. WADE, 3 of Ohio SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—JOHN W. FORNEY, of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—GEORGE T. BROWN, of Illinois SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—SCHUYLER COLFAX, 4 of Indiana CLERK OF THE HOUSE—EDWARD MCPHERSON, 5 of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—NATHANIEL G. ORDWAY, of New Hampshire DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—IRA GOODNOW, of Vermont POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—JOSIAH GIVEN ALABAMA James Dixon, Hartford GEORGIA SENATORS SENATORS REPRESENTATIVES Vacant Vacant Henry C. Deming, Hartford REPRESENTATIVES 6 Samuel L. Warner, Middletown REPRESENTATIVES Vacant Augustus Brandegee, New London Vacant John H. Hubbard, Litchfield ARKANSAS ILLINOIS SENATORS SENATORS Vacant DELAWARE Lyman Trumbull, Chicago Richard Yates, Jacksonville REPRESENTATIVES SENATORS REPRESENTATIVES Vacant Willard Saulsbury, Georgetown George R. Riddle, Wilmington John Wentworth, Chicago CALIFORNIA John F. Farnsworth, St. Charles SENATORS REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE Elihu B. Washburne, Galena James A. McDougall, San Francisco John A. Nicholson, Dover Abner C. Harding, Monmouth John Conness, Sacramento Ebon C. Ingersoll, Peoria Burton C. Cook, Ottawa REPRESENTATIVES FLORIDA Henry P. H. Bromwell, Charleston Donald C. McRuer, San Francisco Shelby M. Cullom, Springfield William Higby, Calaveras SENATORS Lewis W. Ross, Lewistown John Bidwell, Chico Vacant 7 Anthony Thornton, Shelbyville Vacant 8 Samuel S.
  • Steel Bridge Design Handbook

    Steel Bridge Design Handbook

    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Design Example 4: Three-Span Continuous Straight Composite Steel Tub Girder Bridge Publication No. FHWA-HIF-16-002 - Vol. 24 December 2015 FOREWORD This handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples intended to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. Upon completion of the latest update, the handbook is based on the Seventh Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The hard and competent work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and prime consultant, HDR, Inc., and their sub-consultants, in producing and maintaining this handbook is gratefully acknowledged. The topics and design examples of the handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively. The contributions and constructive review comments received during the preparation of the handbook from many bridge engineering processionals across the country are very much appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of Bryan Kulesza with ArcelorMittal, Jeff Carlson with NSBA, Shane Beabes with AECOM, Rob Connor with Purdue University, Ryan Wisch with DeLong’s, Inc., Bob Cisneros with High Steel Structures, Inc., Mike Culmo with CME Associates, Inc., Mike Grubb with M.A. Grubb & Associates, LLC, Don White with Georgia Institute of Technology, Jamie Farris with Texas Department of Transportation, and Bill McEleney with NSBA. Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E.
  • Over Jones Falls. This Bridge Was Originally No

    Over Jones Falls. This Bridge Was Originally No

    The same eastbound movement from Rockland crosses Bridge 1.19 (miles west of Hollins) over Jones Falls. This bridge was originally no. 1 on the Green Spring Branch in the Northern Central numbering scheme. PHOTO BY MARTIN K VAN HORN, MARCH 1961 /COLLECTION OF ROBERT L. WILLIAMS. On October 21, 1959, the Interstate Commerce maximum extent. William Gill, later involved in the Commission gave notice in its Finance Docket No. streetcar museum at Lake Roland, worked on the 20678 that the Green Spring track west of Rockland scrapping of the upper branch and said his boss kept would be abandoned on December 18, 1959. This did saying; "Where's all the steel?" Another Baltimore not really affect any operations on the Green Spring railfan, Mark Topper, worked for Phillips on the Branch. Infrequently, a locomotive and a boxcar would removal of the bridge over Park Heights Avenue as a continue to make the trip from Hollins to the Rockland teenager for a summer job. By the autumn of 1960, Team Track and return. the track through the valley was just a sad but fond No train was dispatched to pull the rail from the memory. Green Spring Valley. The steel was sold in place to the The operation between Hollins and Rockland con- scrapper, the Phillips Construction Company of tinued for another 11/2 years and then just faded away. Timonium, and their crews worked from trucks on ad- So far as is known, no formal abandonment procedure jacent roads. Apparently, Phillips based their bid for was carried out, and no permission to abandon was the job on old charts that showed the trackage at its ' obtained.
  • Timber Bridges Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance

    Timber Bridges Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance

    Timber Bridges Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance Michael A. Ritter, Structural Engineer United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Ritter, Michael A. 1990. Timber Bridges: Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance. Washington, DC: 944 p. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges the following individuals, Agencies, and Associations for the substantial contributions they made to this publication: For contributions to Chapter 1, Fong Ou, Ph.D., Civil Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff, Washington Office. For contributions to Chapter 3, Jerry Winandy, Research Forest Products Technologist, USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. For contributions to Chapter 8, Terry Wipf, P.E., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Structural Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. For administrative overview and support, Clyde Weller, Civil Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff, Washington Office. For consultation and assistance during preparation and review, USDA Forest Service Bridge Engineers, Steve Bunnell, Frank Muchmore, Sakee Poulakidas, Ron Schmidt, Merv Eriksson, and David Summy; Russ Moody and Alan Freas (retired) of the USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory; Dave Pollock of the National Forest Products Association; and Lorraine Krahn and James Wacker, former students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In addition, special thanks to Mary Jane Baggett and Jim Anderson for editorial consultation, JoAnn Benisch for graphics preparation and layout, and Stephen Schmieding and James Vargo for photographic support. iii iv CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 TIMBER AS A BRIDGE MATERIAL 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................. l- 1 1.2 Historical Development of Timber Bridges ............................. l-2 Prehistory Through the Middle Ages ....................................... l-3 Middle Ages Through the 18th Century ................................... l-5 19th Century ............................................................................