I am a licensed professional civil engineer.
Brayman Construction Corp. did some work recently on the bridge in 2009, including stringer and floorbeam repairs and rehabilitation across the entire bridge. My friend may be able to give them a call.
We don't know the official bridge number for this bridge; there is a historical bridge number. It is not the same.
However, we cannot just call up anybody we want and ask for plans. Since both my friend and I work for a consulting firm, we are limited as to what we can actually say or request. Even when people have the drawings, they are not usually given out for free, and reproduction is not necessarily cheap. The Denver Public Library can charge a hundred dollars per page (of old steam loco blueprints).
So, as modelers/hobbyists, we don't necessarily know more than the rest of you all.
The 68 page .pdf posted in the link above is awesome, and my friend Chris did not have that document. Thank you all who posted so far. More info is welcome if you know of it.
John Mock
7j43k Also, on page 138 of the document is mention that it was designed for two GANTLET tracks (they say gauntlet). So their were going to be 4 tracks approaching the bridge. Whether that's the way it was built or the way it stayed, I do not know. Ed
Also, on page 138 of the document is mention that it was designed for two GANTLET tracks (they say gauntlet). So their were going to be 4 tracks approaching the bridge. Whether that's the way it was built or the way it stayed, I do not know.
Ed
Yes. Plate IX following Page 152 shows track and tie arrangement.
The designers distinguish between freight trains and passenger trains. I don't know when or if anything has changed.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Looking at the "office drawing" again, there is a particularly interesting area.
Between the 7th and 8th panel from each outer end of the cantilever, there is a vertical member. It has TWO stabilizing members attached. AND. Not at the same point!
That looks to me to be the strangest "joint" I have ever seen on a truss. And I notice it is gone in the other drawing. And also on the real bridge. WHAT was the person thinking?
If anyone out there has a stranger piece of truss design, I'd surely like to see it.
dknelson It sounds like our OP's friend has professional qualifications and credentials that might enable him to request and be granted access to the plans where you or I would be denied. I am fascinated by bridges but am entirely an amateur on the topic.
It sounds like our OP's friend has professional qualifications and credentials that might enable him to request and be granted access to the plans where you or I would be denied. I am fascinated by bridges but am entirely an amateur on the topic.
I think actual plans for this bridge exist and can be found . . . somewhere, somehow; either in the public domain, or in some sort of quasi-pirated (or actually pirated) form online. And without much trouble. Certainly some school or some library somewhere has some. It was a very famous bridge in its day, so soon after the collapse of the Quebec Bridge. And it still is. I have a set of detailed construction and fabrication plans for the Eiffel Tower (Le Tour de 300 Meters), and if I found those without much trouble, I suspect other researchers (including the OP) with a bit of effort could find the ones of interest for this thread.
For bridge foamers in the US, the link I provided to HistoricBridges is a good place to start. To start. You need to click on the links and check the references and read the bibliographies. One thing leads to another, and another thing leads to another, and so forth. It ain’t hard.
Regarding Page 166 . . . I got the link to that particular document from the first link and dutifully posted it here. It is an abstract of a (then) current major engineering project recorded in a trade journal in an effort to help keep engineers and other interested parties aware of what’s happening (what was then happening). A Reader’s-Digest-Condensed-Cliff-Notes version of the project. Even though it contains a fairly detailed description and analysis of the project, it (apparently) lacks minutiae regarding the use of oddly-arranged members in sub-divided trusses. If I really, really wanted that info, I suppose I’d start with the footnotes and bibliography. Maybe a treatise on finite element analysis. Personally, what I found interesting is that the floor of the bridge was designed to not only carry (two) fully-loaded trains upright on the rails but also deal with the live load of catastrophic derailments. I also liked the special loading test after completion of the bridge: eight locomotives and twenty freight cars made up into two trains, one for each track. But that’s me.
I’m also curious to hear from the OP regarding what he and his colleague plan to do with the plans. Not nosy, just curious.
There is an interesting and artistic -- almost frightening -- photo of the P&LE bridge in David Plowden's great book, Bridges, the Spans of North America (page 186) and on page 178 Plowden remarks that even in 1910 Lucius's eyebar and pin connection was criticized by fellow professionals who felt that the relatively "new" riveting method was superior. Perhaps some of the anomlies and oddities that have been noted are a consequence of the eyebar/pin connection system.
Dave Nelson
While studying two drawings that [other] Ed linked to (his first, and the one "in the office"), I noticed some differences in the members.
The first drawing represents the bridge as built.
The drawing in the office does not. If you study it, you will find 7 panels that are not in agreement with the bridge as built.
I would think the "office bridge" was a preliminary drawing. Fair enough. But it is interesting that such significant changes were made later. You MIGHT think someone didn't know how to design a bridge.
I also spent some time looking at a photo of the bridge. It is certainly a gorgeous structure. It reminds me a bit of the Queensboro Bridge in New York (probably my all-time bridge favorite).
Page 166 talks about subdivided trusses. And especially a problem with the meeting of the sub-vertical and the bottom chord. I don't see anything there that talks about the horizontal element connecting to the midpoint of the verticals.
Those horizontals can only be there to minimize side flexure of the verticals when under compression (see Ray, above). I would imagine this was done to enable a somewhat lighter vertical member than would otherwise be required.
A thought experiment:
To envision how this works, consider the lowly 2x4. Cut a very short piece, say 4 inches, set it up vertically, and load it downwards until it fails. Now find a nice long one. A 12 footer. Start loading it vertically the same as the short one.
Will it support the same load as the short one? It should, as it's got exactly the same cross-section. I doubt it will, though.
But if you restrict horizontal movement on that 12 footer at the halfway point, it then can carry the vertical load of a 6 footer.
7j43k ROBERT PETRICK PS The answers Ed and Track Fiddler (and maybe others as well) are looking for are in the document at this link: ASCE Transactions Which page? Ed
ROBERT PETRICK PS The answers Ed and Track Fiddler (and maybe others as well) are looking for are in the document at this link: ASCE Transactions
PS The answers Ed and Track Fiddler (and maybe others as well) are looking for are in the document at this link: ASCE Transactions
Which page?
166
7j43k Track fiddler Dave. I viewed the link you provided. Interesting stuff. Something I've never seen before. I have never seen a horizontal member going into a vertical member in the middle of a triangle. Kind of makes me wonder if those where critical points in the design that allowed a little relief for Flex instead of stressing joints elsewhere. Track fiddler Edit. Hopefully John can comment on that. He would know. Would deflection be a relevant term for this ? It would seem the only value for those horizontal members would be in lessening deflection when the verticals are in compression. They surely can't really load into the side of a member, can they? I, too, would like to hear more. Ed
Track fiddler Dave. I viewed the link you provided. Interesting stuff. Something I've never seen before. I have never seen a horizontal member going into a vertical member in the middle of a triangle. Kind of makes me wonder if those where critical points in the design that allowed a little relief for Flex instead of stressing joints elsewhere. Track fiddler Edit. Hopefully John can comment on that. He would know. Would deflection be a relevant term for this ?
Dave.
I viewed the link you provided. Interesting stuff. Something I've never seen before.
I have never seen a horizontal member going into a vertical member in the middle of a triangle.
Kind of makes me wonder if those where critical points in the design that allowed a little relief for Flex instead of stressing joints elsewhere.
Track fiddler
Edit. Hopefully John can comment on that. He would know. Would deflection be a relevant term for this ?
It would seem the only value for those horizontal members would be in lessening deflection when the verticals are in compression. They surely can't really load into the side of a member, can they? I, too, would like to hear more.
The term deflection is more typically applied to horizontal beams, but you're generally correct in the purpose of those horizontal members. They are there to prevent lateral buckling (which I suppose could be considered a sideways deflection).
Ray
Finally. Thanks for the picture Robert. I'm glad you found it.
That's got to be it. I see the horizontal members going into the center of the vertical sides of the triangles.
You found it !
Ed.
I remember when I first learned bridges have rotation I just said what, are you kidding me ? Until I understood it.
For that reason Bridges have shoes with a big pin in the joint of the shoe so when heavy loads go over the bridge and the bridge flexes such a minor amount, rotation occurs where the bridge is fastened to the pier.
The shoe compensates the minut rotation, but is significant, relieving stress where it would otherwise transfer to other critical joints in the bridge structure.
The few things I've learned about bridge engineering over the years. There's so much more I don't know.
Interesting stuff isn't it Ed ?
If this is the bridge the OP is looking for:
Here is a link: Historic Bridges of Pennsylvania
Tons of info there. Many historical construction photos and dozens of detail (current) photos.
The OP's friend might have to do a bit of forensic work to develop plans, but that could be a very interesting project.
Yes we'll have to wait and see Ed. Speculatory assumption that only makes sense we're riding on here.
I must admit curiosity is getting the best of me.
PRR8259 Hello folks-- A coworker of mine, a bridge structural drafter/designer, is looking for plans of the P&LE truss bridge over the Ohio River. If there's actually more than one, he's looking for the historic, big, continuous truss bridge. All he's ever been able to find is a rough sketch, and it would be much more helpful if anyone acutally has the old plans. Thank you. John
Hello folks--
A coworker of mine, a bridge structural drafter/designer, is looking for plans of the P&LE truss bridge over the Ohio River. If there's actually more than one, he's looking for the historic, big, continuous truss bridge.
All he's ever been able to find is a rough sketch, and it would be much more helpful if anyone acutally has the old plans.
Thank you.
John
Records for every bridge over the Ohio River (and all other navigable rivers in the US) are maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Can you be specific which one you are referring to? P&LE? Also, are you sure continuous truss is the style you are looking for? The links provided by gmpullman are interesting, but all of them show cantilever truss bridges; none of them is a continuous truss.
I know of one specific continuous truss bridge over the Ohio, and it is certainly a big one and historic, but it is a C&O bridge now in the CSX family. I built an N-scale uncompressed model of it. All I had was a rough sketch, a few details, and a lot of photos.
Hi, John
I'm not sure if you are familiar with this site?
http://images.library.pitt.edu/pittsburgh/
It takes a while to learn how to search the site but once you do, I'm sure you will find hours worth of fascinating browsing.
There are literally hundreds of construction photographs of the Ohio River Bridge project here.
Below are some random examples:
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=hpicasc_ci;med=1;q1=AIS.1982.23.PH;size=20;c=hpicasc;back=back1506715638;subview=detail;resnum=894;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid=x-8223.1107.rr;viewid=20120412-HPICASC-0064.TIF
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=ic_all;xc=1;g=imls;sort=dc_da;q1=ohio%20river%20bridge;size=20;c=hpicasc;c=hpicchatham;c=hpiccma;c=hpiccmnh;c=hpichswp;c=hpicmonroeville;c=hpicnpl;c=hpicoakmont;c=hpicphlf;c=hpicpitcairn;c=hpicpointpark;c=hpicpso;c=hpicrsc;c=hpicusc;back=back1506716021;subview=detail;resnum=15;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid=x-8223.540b.rr;viewid=20120307-HPICASC-0149.TIF
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=hpicasc_ci;med=1;q1=AIS.1982.23.PH;size=20;c=hpicasc;back=back1506715429;subview=detail;resnum=766;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid=x-8223.970.rr;viewid=20120413-HPICASC-0136.TIF
There is a photo showing the drawing you need that looks like it was taken in the P&LE's (assistant) engineer's office!
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=ic_all;xc=1;g=imls;sort=dc_da;q1=ohio%20river%20bridge;size=20;c=hpicasc;c=hpicchatham;c=hpiccma;c=hpiccmnh;c=hpichswp;c=hpicmonroeville;c=hpicnpl;c=hpicoakmont;c=hpicphlf;c=hpicpitcairn;c=hpicpointpark;c=hpicpso;c=hpicrsc;c=hpicusc;back=back1506716021;subview=detail;resnum=13;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid=x-8223.536.rr;viewid=20120307-HPICASC-0145.TIF
There is a huge repository of historic Pittsburgh and surrounding area photographs here! Hope that helps,
Might be some useful information at the following links:
https://loc.gov/pictures/item/pa3716/
https://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/pa/pa3700/pa3716/data/pa3716data.pdf
Genuine bridge plans can be exceptionally challenging to track down for the "civilian." I was lucky enough to find a copy of the final report (hardcover) by the engineering firm that created and installed a large bridge for the Illinois Central, but I never again found anything like it available for sale, at least not in the usual railfan locations and sources.
If we are thinking of the same bridge, it is a through pin-connected cantilever and "simple" truss designed by Albert Lucius, built by the McClintic-Marshall construction company and finished in 1910.
The railroad (CSX) obviously would have the plans. It might be that the Coast Guard or whatever other government authority over the navigable stream would have the plans. The Beaver County (Pa.) civil engineering office MIGHT have plans.
I assume the rough sketch you refer to is the same one in this document, but note that it has a bibliography at the end which might suggest good sources for the plans in old engineering magazines and the like.
http://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/pa/pa3700/pa3716/data/pa3716data.pdf
Good luck in your quest.