Engineering for Rehabilitation

of Historic Metal Truss Bridges

By Frank J. Hatfield, P.E.
Professor Emeritus, Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this

paper was presented at the 7th
Historic Bridges Conference in
Cleveland, Ohio, in September 2001,
and was published in the proceedings
of that conference.

Introduction
The Calhoun County Historic Bridge
Park southeast of Battle Creek,
Michigan, displays a collection of reha-
bilitated metal truss bridges for use Figure 1. The rehabilitated 133rd Avenue bridge, installed at the Calhoun
and enjoyment by pedestrians. From County Historic Bridge Park.
the perspective of a structural engi-
neer, it was instructive to investigate
the general feasibility of rehabilitating • Gale Road bridge, a pin-connected • Charlotte Highway bridge, manufac-
century-old metal truss highway skewed Pratt through truss built in tured by the Buckeye Bridge
bridges for pedestrian service consis- 1897 by the Lafayette Bridge Company and erected in 1886. Prior
tent with modern standards for safe- Company. Originally spanning 122 to its recent removal (Figure 3), it
ty1,2,3 and historic integrity14. ft. (37 m) over the Grand River in crossed the Grand River in Ionia
Engineering aspects of rehabilitation Ingham County, Michigan, this County with a span of 177 ft. (54 m)
are discussed for bridges that are now bridge currently is being re-erected and was one of very few double-
in the Park, specifically: in the Park. intersection Pratt truss bridges
remaining in Michigan9.
• 133rd Avenue bridge (Figure 1), a
pin-connected half-hip Pratt pony Six other bridges have been procured
truss spanning 64 ft. (19.5 m), erect- and are awaiting rehabilitation before
Feasibility
ed in 1897 by the Michigan Bridge being put in the Park, including these Investigation of feasibility involves
Company to cross the Rabbit River that also will be discussed comparing historic and modern specifi-
in Allegan County, Michigan. cations for bridge design, particularly
• Tallman Road and Bauer Road those governing materials and loads.
• Twenty Mile Road bridge (Figure 2), bridges, nearly identical pin-connect- During the period when the project
a 70 ft. (21 m) long riveted Pratt pony ed Pratt through trusses that bridges were built, standards were
truss that spanned the St. Joseph spanned about 90 ft. (27 m) over the promulgated by individual iron and
River in Calhoun County. Physical Looking Glass River in Clinton steel producers, bridge designers and
features hint that this bridge was County. Manufactured by the Penn manufacturers, owners (typically
designed for railway service. The Bridge Company and erected in municipal governments) and textbook
builder has not been identified and 1880, they are two of Michigan’s authors. These standards were numer-
several sources date construction to oldest through trusses9. ous and varied; those cited are repre-
the early twentieth century. sentative rather than comprehensive.

Welding Innovation Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 2001

Strength of Metals
Although the quality of structural steel
has been perfected over the past cen-
tury, the strength of low carbon steels
usually used in bridges has not
changed significantly (Table 1).
However, the allowable stresses used
by bridge designers increased as con-
fidence and understanding developed.
This is reflected in the trend toward
lower factors of safety illustrated by
Tables 1 and 2. Early bridge designers
used factors of safety as high as six to
compensate for lack of quantitative
information. Today, based on results of
a century of research and experience,
factors of safety of two or less are typ- Figure 2. The rehabilitated Twenty Mile Road bridge, shown in its new position
ical. Modern specifications may allow at the Historic Bridge Park.
larger stresses in the old steel and
wrought iron members of a historic
bridge than did its designer.

Live Load
An old highway bridge may have
become deficient in strength due to
the increased weight of trucks. In 1916
Waddell17 advocated designing Class
C bridges for a single 6 ton (53 kN)
truck weight, and Class A bridges for
an 18 ton (160 kN) truck, noting that
“Almost all of the old highway bridges
are incapable of carrying these new
live loads with safety.” The smallest

Modern specs may allow

larger stresses in the members
of a historic bridge
than did its designer
design vehicle load currently recog- Figure 3. Lifting the Charlotte Highway bridge from its original abutment. This
nized is a two-axle truck weighing 15 end was lowered onto a barge prior to hauling the bridge across the river and
tons1 (133 kN). However, historic up the other bank.
metal highway bridges were designed
to carry uniformly distributed loads in
addition to, or in lieu of, concentrated listing current design values for pedes- Wind Load
axle loads to assure safety for lines of trian bridges2. Ranges reflect levels of In contrast to distributed live loads,
wagons or automobiles, livestock, and service. This table demonstrates that, design wind loads have increased sig-
crowds of people, the latter being the in general, the published design loads nificantly. In 1901 Waddell advocated
larger, or governing, distributed load. for old highway bridges exceed the design loads of 250 and 150 lb/ft.
current requirement for pedestrian (3.65 and 2.19 kN/m) on the loaded
Table 3 traces the trend and variations bridges. Bridges with long spans and and unloaded chords, respectively, for
in design values for distributed live designed for rural service may be class A bridges with spans of 150 ft.
loads on highway bridges as well as exceptions. (46 m) or less16, but by 1916 he had

Welding Innovation Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 2001

Table 1. Tensile strengths of steel and factors of safety for tension fracture at net section.

Yield stress, Ultimate stress, Allowable stress

minimum, minimum, on net section, Factor of
Grade of
Source Year ksi ksi ksi safety for
Steel
(MPA) (MPA) (MPA) fracture
Pottsville Iron
1887 15.6 (108)
& Steel Co.7
Carnegie Phipps
1889-1893 for bridges 12.5 (86)
& Co.7
IATM10 1900 medium 35 (241) 60 (414)
16 (110) 3.8
Waddell16 1901 medium 35 (241) 60 (414) 3.3
18 (124)
Burr and Falk4 1901 3.5 to 6.0@
Copper12 1909 medium 10 to 25 (69 to 720)# 2.4 to 6.0#
Michigan13 1910 medium 30 (207) 60 (414) 15 (103) 4.0
Bethlehem Steel Co.7 1907-11 moving loads 12.5 (86)
Waddell17 1916 medium 35 (241) 60 (414) 16 (110) 3.8
Ketchum12 1920 medium 16 (110)
pre 1905 26 (179) 52 (358) 26 (179)* 2.0*
AASHTO3 2.0*
1905-36 30 (207) 60 (414) 30 (207)*
AASHTO1 current ASTM A36 36 (248) 58 (400) 29 (200)* 2.0*
* for inventory rating, less than 100,000 load cycles
@ depending on span # depending on type of load, including impact factor

Table 2. Tensile strengths of wrought iron and factors of safety for tension fracture.
Yield stress, Ultimate stress,
minimum, minimum, Allowable stress Factor of
Source Year Grade of Steel ksi ksi ksi safety for
(MPA) (MPA) (MPA) fracture
Carnegie Kloman & Co.7 1873 wrought iron 14 (97) 3
Waddell15 1883 iron 26 (179) 50 (345) 8 to 12.5 (55 to 86)# 4.0 to 6.2#
Phoenix Iron Co.7 1885 12 (83)
IATM11 1900 refined iron 25 (172) 48 (331)
test iron class A 25 (172) 48 (331)
test iron class B 25 (172) 50 (345)
stay-bolt iron 25 (172) 46 (317)
Waddell16 1901 wrought iron 26 (179) 50 (345) 13 (90) 3.8
AASHTO3 wrought iron 14.6 (101)*
* for inventory rating # depending on service class and influence area

increased those values to 320 and the vertical projection of each truss
Structural Analysis and Design
180 lb/ft.17 (4.67 and 2.63 kN/m). The and of the deck, plus 300 and 150 The components of each of the reha-
Illinois Highway Department designed lb/ft. (4.38 and 2.19 kN/m) on the bilitated project bridges were analyzed
for the larger of 25 lb/ft.2 (1.2 kN/m2) loaded and unloaded chords, respec- to estimate design stresses associated
on the vertical projection of each truss tively (this lineal load is not required with internal forces caused by speci-
and of the deck, or 300 and 150 lb/ft. for pedestrian bridges), plus 20 lb/ft.2 fied combinations of loads1 and acting
(4.38 and 2.19 kN/m) on the loaded (0.96 kN/m2) upward on the deck. on the original uncorroded member
and unloaded chords, respectively12. Clearly, historic bridges are unlikely to cross-sections. Allowable stresses
Modern specifications1,2 are much have been designed for the wind loads were computed from assumed materi-
more demanding, requiring design for currently mandated. al properties3 and specified factors of
wind loads of 75 lb/ft.2 (3.6 kN/m2) on

Welding Innovation Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 2001

Table 3. Uniformly distributed design live loads for highway bridge trusses in
pounds per square foot (kN/m2). meet at a common point, bending is
induced in the end post and top chord.
Span
Source Year The second peculiarity of the Tallman
50 feet 100 feet 200 feet
(15.2 m) (30.5 m) (61.0 m) Road bridge is that each lower chord
eyebar spans two deck panels and
100 100 100
Whipple5 1846 has three eyes: one at each end and
(4.79) (4.79) (4.79)
one in the middle. When gravity load
100-70 75-50 60-40 is applied to a truss, the panel points
ASCE5 1875
(4.79-3.35) (3.59-2.39) (2.87-1.92) near midspan typically deflect down-
100-80 90-80 70-60 ward more than those near the ends.
Waddell15 1883
(4.79-3.83) (4.31-3.83) (3.35-2.87) If the truss conforms to the ideal con-
170-113 149-98 120-80 ditions, the members rotate but remain
Waddell*16 1901
(8.14-5.41) (7.13-4.69) (5.75-3.83) straight as the panel points deflect.
125-100 125-94 100-69 Obviously this behavior cannot be
American Bridge Co.*4 1901
(5.99-4.79) (5.99-4.50) (4.79-3.30) achieved by a three-hole eyebar.
100 100 100 Thus, these unusual lower chord eye-
Michigan Highway Comm.13 1910 bars are subject to bending as well as
(4.79) (4.79) (4.79)
axial tension.
161-107 144-95 119-80
Waddell*#17 1916
(7.71-5.12) (6.89-4.55) (5.70-3.83)
Ketchum*12 1920 151-116 126-89 103-60 Strength Not Predicted by
(7.23-5.55) (6.03-4.26) (4.93-2.87) Conventional Truss Analysis
125 100 85 Conventional analysis predicts that the
Illinois Highway Comm.12 1920
(5.99) (4.79) (4.07) lower chord of a single-span through
120 93 50 truss is always in tension when the
Wisconsin Highway Comm.12 1920
(5.74) (4.45) (2.39) bridge is carrying gravity load.
67 65 65 However, the lower chords in the end
AASHTO (pedestrian)#2 1997
(3.21) (3.11) (3.11) panels of the Charlotte Highway
bridge were observed to be slack (i.e.,
* Prescribes an impact factor, which is included in the tabulated values # For 16 foot (4.88 m) deck width subjected to compression rather than
tension) when the bridge was in ser-
safety1. For each component and load subject to transverse force (shear) or vice in its original location. Those
combination, the allowable stress was bending. This assumed behavior is members remained slack after the
divided by the design stress. A ratio achieved if the members are straight vehicular railings and deck were
less than unity indicates need for mod- and connected at their ends by friction- removed in preparation for moving the
ification, while a ratio greater than less pins, longitudinal axes of members
unity suggests that an acceptable level are concentric at connections, and
of safety may be achieved without
completely restoring corroded sections
loads are applied to the truss only at
connections. Real trusses conform to
Design wind loads
(in general, significant damage was this idealization only approximately but have increased
repaired in the interest of historic
integrity and esthetics). The three
member forces may be computed with
sufficient accuracy if the design
significantly
rehabilitated project bridges were approaches the ideal conditions.
found to have adequate capacity for bridge from its masonry abutments.
pedestrian loading. The Tallman Road bridge displays two However, when the bridge was freed
peculiar details that are contrary to the from its inoperative expansion bear-
Unusual Features ideal conditions and to subsequent
practice. The most obvious is the hip
ings, that end appeared to move
inland several inches and cracks
The structural analysis of a truss usu- joint, which has two pins rather than opened where the wingwalls join the
ally is a routine procedure. To simplify one. One pin carries the vertical eyebar abutments. Apparently the upper
computations, the structural engineer and the other carries the diagonal eye- chord and end posts had been func-
assumes that each member transmits bar pair. Because the longitudinal axes tioning as an arch as well as restrain-
force only in the direction of its longitu- of the inclined end post, top chord, ing displacement of the heavy
dinal axis. That is, the member is not vertical and diagonal members do not abutments and fill.

Welding Innovation Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 2001

 detailed modeling of connections may
make it possible to quantify additional
strength.

Inadequate Resistance
to Wind Load
By modern design standards, the
rehabilitated project bridges had inad-
equate resistance to wind load. It was
necessary to employ a provision1 that
permits design wind speed to be
adjusted from a nominal 100 MPH
(45 m/s) to reflect favorable local
conditions. The inland location of the
Park and the low and sheltered sites
of the project bridges justify a design
wind velocity of 70 MPH (31 m/s).
Despite the resulting 50% reduction
Figure 4. Severely corroded sections of the Twenty Mile Road bridge were of wind force, the original anchor
replaced by welding new steel to sound original material. bolts typically were inadequate, and
each of the three bridges manifested
other deficiencies.
Prior to lifting the six-panel Bauer resistance to compression, it seemed
Road bridge from its original abut- likely that the trusses would collapse. Analysis of the 133rd Avenue bridge
ments, the contractor removed railings, The fact that the lift was accomplished predicted that modern design wind
decking and stringers. Then a lifting without damage attests that the upper loads would cause net axial compres-
sling was attached to the upper lateral chord, hip joints and end posts pos- sion of the windward lower chord eye-
struts at the third points of the span. sess significant bending strength. bars. Since eyebars have negligible
Conventional truss analysis predicts resistance to compression, they would
that the bottom chord will be com- Conventional truss analysis may buckle and the truss would become
pressed when the bridge is lifted in this underestimate the strength of a metal unstable. This was corrected by
manner. Since the bottom chord con- truss bridge. More comprehensive installing an unusually heavy deck to
sists of eyebars, which have negligible analysis techniques coupled with create enough tension in the lower
chord to counteract the compression
induced by wind. Alternatively, it may
have been possible to rely on the deck
or upper chord to stabilize the trusses
as suggested in the preceding section.

The deck lateral ties of the Twenty

Mile Road bridge were evaluated
using the assumed strength of steel
produced before 19053 and found to
be inadequate. The ties, like other
parts of this bridge (Figure 4) were too
badly corroded to be salvaged.
Replacing them with new steel, in the
original sizes, was sufficient to provide
the required wind resistance.

Structural analysis showed that the

original portal braces of the Gale Road
bridge were inadequate. Vertical struts
had been arc welded to the lattice
panels sometime after construction,
Figure 5. Forge-welded loop eyebars like these are obsolete. apparently to correct perceived weak-

Welding Innovation Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 2001

 Ellerby et al6 demonstrated that frac- References
ture may occur at a forge weld rather 1. AASHTO (1996), Standard Specifications for
than in the body of a bar, sometimes Highway Bridges, sixteenth edition, Am.
at a load significantly less than the Assoc. State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
design strength of the bar. As part of 2. AASHTO (1997), Guide Specifications for
the same investigation, twenty-six Design of Pedestrian Bridges, Am. Assoc.
wrought iron loop eyebars were State Highway and Transportation Officials.
repeatedly loaded to working stress 3. AASHTO (2000), Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges 1994, second edition as
level. The number of load cycles to revised by the 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000
Figure 6. Dye penetrant inspection of failure suggests that the bars could Interim Revisions, Am. Assoc. State Highway
a forge weld. have remained in highway service for and Transportation Officials.
many more decades. When fatigue 4. Burr, C. E., and Falk, M. S. (1905), The
Design and Construction of Metallic Bridges,
fractures finally did occur, they were in John Wiley and Sons, New York.
ness, and localized bending of hori- the loops (except for two bars, which 5. Edwards, L. N. (1959), A Record of History
zontal members occurred after these initially had large cracks at forge and Evolution of Early American Bridges,
reinforcements were installed. The welds). The investigators speculated University Press, Orono, Maine.
6. Ellerby, H. A., Sanders, W. W., Jr., Klaiber, F.
original portal braces will be retained that repeated flexing of the loops was W., and Reeves, M. D. (1976), Service Load
a critical factor and noted the deleteri- and Fatigue Tests on Truss Bridges, J.
ous effect of poor fit on the pin. Structural Division, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers,
Conventional truss analysis n. ST 12, Dec., p. 2285-2300.
7. Ferris, H. W., ed. (1990), Iron and Steel
may underestimate The usual practice for the project
bridges is to inspect eyebar eyes and
Beams 1873 to 1952, tenth printing, Am. Inst.
of Steel Construction.
the strength of a bridge forge welds visually and by ultrasonic 8. Galambos, T. V., ed. (1988), Guide to Stability
and dye penetrant methods (Figure 6). Design Criteria for Metal Structures, fourth edi-
tion, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
for display but not installed on the Cracks are ground out and bars are 9. Hyde, C. K. (1993), Historic Highway Bridges
rehabilitated bridge. The replacement built back to original profile by arc of Michigan, Wayne State University Press,
portal braces have larger connection welding. Testing has shown that care- Detroit.
gussets than the originals, and the lat- ful arc welding restores full strength6. 10. IATM (1900), Proposed Standard
Specifications for Structural Steel for Bridges
tice is steel angles of the same width and Ships, Bulletin 8, May, Proceedings, v. I,
as the original flat bars. The configura-
tion and overall dimensions of the
Conclusion Int’l. Assn. for Testing Materials - Am. Section,
p. 81-86.
original portal braces are duplicated. Selected historic metal truss bridges 11. IATM (1900), Proposed Standard
Specifications for Wrought Iron, Bulletin 17,
that are rehabilitated to near-original May, Proceedings, v. I, Int’l. Assn. for Testing
Features Not Covered in Current condition can satisfy modern safety
standards for pedestrian service. This
Materials - Am. Section, p. 129-134.
12. Ketchum, M. S. (1920), The Design of
Specifications is demonstrated by the bridges on Highway Bridges of Steel, Timber and
Concrete, second edition rewritten, McGraw-
Pony trusses and loop eyebars (Figure display in the Calhoun County Historic Hill Book Co., New York.
5) are obsolete, and there are no cur- Bridge Park. 13. Michigan, State of (1910), General
rent standards to guide assessment of Specifications for Highway Bridges, Third
these features. Pony trusses are prone Biennial Report of the State Highway
Commission, Wynkoop Hollenbeck Crawford
to lateral instability of the top chords.
That is, the bridge tends to fold inward
Acknowledgements Co., Lansing, Mich.
14. NPS (1992), The Secretary of the Interior’s
under heavy load. The two rehabilitat- Dennis A. Randolph, Managing Standards for the Treatment of Historic
ed pony trusses were checked for sta- Director, Calhoun County Road Properties, U. S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Preservation
bility by Holt’s method8 and both were Commission and Board of Public Assistance Division, Washington.
found to have adequate factors of Works, developed the concept for 15. Waddell, J. A. L. (1883), General Suggestions
safety for pedestrian loading. the Historic Bridge Park and provides as to the Conditions Proper to be Required in
direction and support. The project Ordinary Iron Highway Bridge Construction,
Transactions, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, v. 12,
Single-load tests of seventeen director is Vern Mesler and the p. 459-478.
wrought iron loop eyebars reported by historian is Elaine Davis. 16. Waddell, J. A. L. (1901), De Pontibus: a
Pocket-Book for Bridge Engineers, first edition
second thousand, John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
17. Waddell, J. A. L. (1916), Bridge Engineering,
first edition second thousand, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.

Welding Innovation Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 2001