Photo Courtesy Indiana DHPA in August 2007
BH Photo #185743
Information From DHPA Historic Bridge Survey
From Indiana DNR/DHPA
Statement of Significance:
The designer of this bridge had to alter standard through-girder plans to accommodate a considerable skew. The bridge is nicely decorated.
Because of its greater rigidity, the reinforced concrete through girder can be extended beyond the T-beam's ordinary limit of span (40' - 60' long). In a through structure, a pair of girders - large beams that receive their loads from other beams - flank the roadway and usually carry the deck above floor beams (which run from girder to girder and whose reinforcing rods are interlocked with those of the girders). The through girder is preferred where the roadway is not far above stream level and T-beams could obstruct the watercourse more than would girders which do some of their carrying above the level of the roadway.
The girders of this 41' structure are offset from one another by 30 degrees. Each girder is 3'5" high and 18" wide, spans 37', paneled, and with coping. Transverse floor beams carry a concrete deck and a 17'4" asphalt roadway. The girders rest upon concrete abutments which are in turn flanked by wingwalls.
- Concrete Through Girder bridge over Pike Creek on Mahalasville Road
- Morgan County, Indiana
- Replaced by a new bridge
- Built 1925
- Rein conc girder (trans girder) floor beam system
Length of largest span: 38.7 ft.
Total length: 40.7 ft.
Deck width: 17.1 ft.
Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
- Also called
- Morgan County Bridge #30
- Approximate latitude, longitude
- +39.35583, -86.29889 (decimal degrees)
39°21'21" N, 86°17'56" W (degrees°minutes'seconds")
- Approximate UTM coordinates
- 16/560405/4356499 (zone/easting/northing)
- Quadrangle map:
- Average daily traffic (as of 2008)
- Inventory numbers
- INNBI 5500024 (Indiana bridge number on the National Bridge Inventory)
BH 46970 (Bridgehunter.com ID)
- Inspection report (as of March 2008)
- Overall condition: Poor
Superstructure condition rating: Poor (4 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Fair (5 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Poor (4 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 34.2 (out of 100)
View more at BridgeReports.com
- May 4, 2018: Updated by Mike Daffron: Replaced by a new bridge w/ new photos
- November 11, 2010: Essay added by Nathan Holth
- November 11, 2010: Added by James Baughn