Columbus Metropolitan Library
License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
View this photo at digital-collections.columbuslibrary.org
BH Photo #279973
Greetings!
I'm checking the facts for website and book I am writing and this bridge is listed here as a Multiple Kingpost. However, it doesn't appear to fit the descriptions, drawings, and other photos I have of Multiple Kingpost bridges.
However, because I am not an engineer nor an expert in covered bridges, I would like any information you might have that may have as to would make this bridge a Multiple Kingpost.
You may check out my listing of the bridge at https://ohioscoveredbridgesbypaulfarrier.wordpress.com/2017/...
Warm regards,
Paul Farrier
Hello Paul,
I think one of the problems is that this isn't a 'real' covered bridge, as it looks the National Bridge Inventory identifies this as a pre-stressed concrete beam. There are quite a few of these around, and it gets kinda tricky to assign a genuine covered bridge truss type to them as they generally are more stylized and only loosely conform to the real patterns.
Generally I try to avoid assigning historic truss types to these as I feel that it might muddy the waters for others researching/visiting genuine covered bridges. For example this one up in my neck of the woods: http://bridgehunter.com/ny/essex/kissing/ has a resemblance to a Town Lattice, but since it doesn't work as one and is only decorative I think its inappropriate to pass it off as such. Instead I simply identify it as a covered plate girder, since the actual bridge is a plate girder type. Therefore on yours I would refer to that as a Covered stringer bridge, with a notation that the roof support has a truss like appearance, as it doesn't directly conform to any genuine type.
Hope that helps!
-Michael