waterloo bridge engineering report

8/11/2019 Waterloo Bridge engineering report

1/34

1308001-005 Waterloo CltrR02.docx

www.SchifferGroup.comwww.SchifferGroup.comwww.SchifferGroup.comwww.SchifferGroup.com TheTheTheThe WolverineWolverineWolverineWolverine Building,Building,Building,Building, 1011 E. Eighth1011 E. Eighth1011 E. Eighth1011 E. Eighth StreetStreetStreetStreet 231.360.6190231.360.6190231.360.6190231.360.6190

TTTTrrrraaaavvvveeeerrrrsssseeee CCCCiiiittttyyyy,,,, MMMMiiiicccchhhhiiiiggggaaaannnn 44449999666688886666

September 16, 2014

Julie Bolthouse - Fauquier County Field OfficerPiedmont Environmental Council45 Horner StreetWarrenton, VA 20186

RE: Structural Review of the Historic Waterloo Bridge, Rte. 613 Over theRappahannock River, Fauquier & Culpeper Counties, Virginia

Dear Ms. Bolthouse:

Please find the enclosed structural review prepared by The Schiffer Group, Inc.(SGI) as the culmination of our field visit to the bridge this summer along withWorkin Bridges and Bach Steel.

Thank you for including us in your efforts to explore whether this significantstructure can be preserved. As you will find as you dive into the report, it is our

opinion that restoration/preservation of the bridge is a viable option.

Should you find the need for additional assistance (i.e.: testing, structuralmodelling and analysis, etc.) in the future on this or other projects, please do nothesitate to contact us. Please also keep us informed as you continue forward onthis project; we are very interested to hear what the final outcome for this bridgewill be.

Once again, we appreciate having had the opportunity to work with you on thisexciting project we wish you the best as you proceed forward.

Respectfully Submitted by,

THE SCHIFFER GROUP, INC.

James B. Schiffer, P.E.Principal

Encl: Structural Report (33 pgs.)


2/34

STRUCTURAL REVIEW OF THE HISTORIC WATERLOO BRIDGE

Rte. 613 Over the Rappahannock River

Fauquier & Culpeper Counties, Virginia

Prepared 2014 By:


3/34

WATERLOO BRIDGE (VDOT Nbr. 6906) REVIEW

WaterlooRpt02rv01.docx Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As stated by the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) and others, we agree

that the Waterloo Bridge is a valuable piece of the history of Culpeper and

Fauquier Counties and if feasible, that this historic bridge should be rehabilitated

and remain open for vehicle traffic.

It is with this charge that the Workin Bridges team was engaged to review the

condition of the bridge and approaches in order to:

Assess the condition of the structure (see photos, Appendix A)

Review available structural documentation

Prepare preliminary budget estimates for bridge restoration to be

considered during evaluation of the options to reopen Route 613

(Waterloo Road) whether that will be for vehicular, bicycle, or

pedestrian traffic.

As a result of this study, a summary of the findings are as follows:

1) It has been reported that prior to closure the bridge carried a daily

average of 670-840 vehicles.

2) Beginning in 2007 it was suggested that the bridge be scheduled in the

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 6-Year Plan forreplacement.

3) For the last ten years minimal maintenance has occurred; this is

consistent with the recommendation for scheduled replacement.

4) The last notable maintenance items to the structure were:

a. Superstructure painting over existing paint (2004)

b. Occasional timber deck plank and curb replacements (Various yrs)

c. Shimming of truss bearings (2007)

d. Repair of the north approach rail on the upstream side (2007, 2008)

e. Replaced diagonal L3-U4 with cable/turnbuckle assembly (2009)


4/34



f. Isolated beam ends with significant section loss retrofitted with

channels and angles (2011)

g. Isolated tuckpointing at masonry piers (2013)

5) No reductions in load rating (3 ton) were made prior to the January 15,

2014 closure of the bridge.

6) The bridge was closed January 15, 2014 when it was determined that

the deterioration was too severe to continue to allow traffic to use the

bridge, per VDOT spokesman interviewed by Fauquier Now.

7) During the Workin Bridges teams site survey of conditions conducted on

June 27th and 28th this year we did not observe conditions differing

substantially from the inspections carried out over the last ten years.

Based on these findings and the information that follows here, it is our opinion

that this bridge is a viable candidate for restoration to (limited) vehicular use.

We have therefore prepared a recommended restoration cost estimate (see end

of this report) that may be used during the review of optimal solutions to the

closure by VDOT and the stakeholders.

DESCRIPTION

As excerpted from the Historic Architectural & Engineering Record HAER-VA-112

- Waterloo Bridge report, the Waterloo Bridge is a bridge whose distinctive ironand steel Pratt through-truss dates to the late 19th century, spans the

Rappahannock River and links Waterloo and Old Bridge roads in Culpeper

County to Jeffersonton Road in Fauquier County.

Details regarding the history, type, and size of bridge, members and spans is

contained within the Historic Architectural & Engineering Record HAER-VA-112 -

Waterloo Bridge, see Appendix B.

The Conclusions & Estimates section at the end of this report was prepared

based on the information contained in this HAER-VA-112, our on-siteobservations, and the following Research of Period Structures section that

follows here.


5/34



RESEARCH OF PERIOD STRUCTURES

Materials

Metallurgical tests of the framing elements were not taken, however we are

fairly certain the framing systems consist of a combination of wrought iron and

structural steel elements. The reasons being:

Year of Construction (1878 (per VTRC 98-R3)) - Steel beams were

introduced for general use in 18841,2therefore the availability of steel would

have been somewhat limited in 1878. Prior to the introduction of steel, the

material of choice was either a form of cast iron or wrought iron. Cast iron,

as the name implies, was cast into the desired shape. Wrought iron was

mechanically worked and mechanically formed into the desired shape. Cast

iron tended to be strong in compression, however lacked in ductility and was

weak in tension. Early iron bridges were often constructed of cast iron

compression members and wrought iron tension members in the shape of

bars. Cast iron use in bridges was discontinued circa 18803. Rolled wrought

iron shapes (channels and standard beam sections) were introduced in

18614and remained in use until the end of the century, at which time steel

was in widespread use.

Observations - Both steel and wrought iron structural elements are rolled,

which leads to similar shapes. Wrought iron members are also typically built

up by riveting together iron plates or small rolled shapes5. Delaminated

edges resulting from mechanical working can sometimes be observed in

wrought iron elements. We did observe some delamination of one of the

compression flange cover plates. The built up truss compression elements

and the delaminated plate are indications that the truss elements are

wrought iron.

We have also observed on bridges of this era that transverse beam elements

were often made of rolled steel. A manufacturer's stamp which is

characteristic of rolled steel is typically used to determine whether larger

1Alexander Newman, p.1062Llewellyn Edwards3Ibid.4Ibid.5Alexander Newman, p.107


6/34



beams were made of steel and not iron. We did not have access to examine

the floor beams directly but will assume that they were made of steel at this

time.

Known Use - The use of wrought iron elements in pre turn-of-the-century

bridge construction is well documented. Some aspects regarding field and

laboratory testing of similar bridge elements is referenced later in this

report.

It is our opinion elements that form the truss portion of the bridge are of

wrought iron construction and that the larger transverse deck beams and

beams in the approach span (later construction, 1918-19) are of steel.

Material Strengths and Allowable Stresses:

Published allowable design stresses for wrought iron formed between 1850 and

1900 generally range from 10,000 psi to 14,000 psi6,7,8. Data was reviewed

from two studies that evaluated strength properties of wrought iron taken from

same era truss bridges. A national study of wrought iron in historic bridges9

resulted in a minimum tested yield strength of 32 ksi and a minimum tested

failure strength of 48 ksi. We typically target an allowable stress value for

wrought iron of 12,000 psi, which aligns with period design stresses. Tests on

similar structures also indicates that a selected design stress of 12,000 psi

would provide a factor of safety of 2.6 against yield and 4.0 against failure,

which exceed factors of safety per current design standards.

Published allowable stresses for early steel range from 12,500 psi to 16,000

psi10 depending on the application. We typically target an allowable value of

12,500 psi as published for bridge use. This selected allowable stress provides

for a factor of safety against material failure of 4.8.

The allowable stresses as noted above are based on design approaches that

would have prevailed at the time the bridge was constructed. Current design

allows for higher allowable stresses up to 55% of yield, which results in 17,600

6Alexander Newman, page 105.7Robert Gordon, page 395.8Herbert Ferris, page 5.9Robert Gordon, page 395.10Herbert Ferris, page 5.


7/34



psi for a yield stress of 32,000 psi. The difference in allowables stems from an

increased understanding of loads, materials and behavior of materials that has

occurred through the years. Although we will analyze structures in respect to

period design approaches, we usually also consider current allowables in

evaluating recommendation options.

Timber design values, more so than other standard construction materials, are

difficult to determine. Timber is often given general classifications or grades

based on visual observation of the wood. Allowable stresses could vary

considerably depending on an assigned classification. Lumber purchased today

have classifications noted on individual pieces. When working with older

structures such as this, particularly roughhewn timbers, the grade of the timber

is not known, nor is it feasible to determine capacity without strength testing of

a sufficient number of elements to form statistical conclusions. We generally

use a lower grade of mixed southern pine when the grade is not known. Our

observations of the timber deck planks and are relatively clear and true, which

would correspond to a higher grade of lumber, however, due to age we typically

use the lowest grade of mixed southern pine per AASHTO tables, which results

in a basic bending allowable stress of 875 psi. The allowable stress can be

increased 15% due to the use of distributed loading, and increased 15% due to

relatively short live load duration, resulting in an adjusted target allowable of

1160 psi.

Fatigue Strength:

Fatigue is the loss of capacity of an element due to cyclic stresses. This loss of

capacity means that an element could fail well before it is stressed to the

theoretical failure strength. The general approach to develop data for fatigue

evaluation is to cycle through a select stress range until the material fails. This

process is repeated multiple times until a correlation is developed between the

applied stress range and the number of cycles to failure. The fatigue limit is the

maximum stress which can be applied repeatedly without causing failure.11

The reason that fatigue is discussed in this report is that a structure that is 129

years old has cycled though loading many times in its lifetime. Applying an

Estimated Average Daily Traffic as report (we would use the high 840 ADT) will

produce well over 10,000,000 occurrences of traffic passing over the bridge.

11Carl Keyser, page 63.


8/34



This number of loading occurrences is well into the range of those that could

detrimentally impact the capacity of a structure.

To incorporate the impact of fatigue as it relates to the condition analysis, we

recommend consulting three sources; steel fatigue limits as described by

AASHTO, a study titled "The Evaluation of Wrought Iron for Continued Service in

Historic Bridges" by Robert Gordon and a study performed on Iowa bridges by

W.W Sanders titled "Ultimate Load Behavior of Full-Scale Truss Behavior".

In general, wrought iron is perceived to be superior to steel in resisting

corrosion and fatigue conditions.12,13 Adherence to AASHTO steel requirements

would limit the maximum allowable stress range to 24 ksi. This form of truss

dictates that elements are either in tension or compression without variation,

which then dictates a maximum applicable stress of 24 ksi. A fatigue stress of

24 ksi indicates that if the maximum stress does not exceed 24 ksi, the number

of cycles will have little impact on capacity.

The Gordon study concluded that "The wrought iron used in historic bridges, if

initially of good quality, can continue to give its original service indefinitely if

protected from corrosion and the bridge's design load limitations are

respected."14

Many fatigue studies have been performed. These tests are typically made on

elements that had already been in use approximately +75 years at the time of

the study. These tests typically show that there was considerable life remaining

in the tested elements.

It is our opinion that an applied stress limitation of approximately 12,000 psi for

wrought iron and 12,500 psi for steel will allow for continued service of the

bridge.

Conclusions:

While full analysis of the bridges and approaches remaining capacity is outside

the scope of our contract, we note that it is due to this research and our

12T.B. Jefferson, page 6113Wrought Iron, page 4.14Robert Gordon, page 398


9/34



experience with similar structures, that we conclude that restoration is a viable

option. We therefore make the following recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS & BUDGETS

Recommendations:

In order to make long lasting improvements that are secure, we recommend

considering the following scenario for restoration:

1) Consider full dismantlement. This will allow:

a. Final removal of the lead based paints

b. Thorough (bare metal) examination of members requiringreplacement and/or repair

c. Suitable work locations to safely, economically, and efficiently

make these modifications.

2) Install rails and guardrails that will satisfy low speed vehicular loading.

3) Improve the northside grading to divert drainage from the piers and

bents.

4) Remove the trees at the southside pier.

5) Retain ownership of the bridge by VDOT so that state resources and

qualified contractor selection can remain in place.

6) Retain the historic use limited vehicular one-lane traffic.

7) Restore the bridge while maintaining the historic methods of construction

(both material and methods (hot riveting, etc.)).

In order to evaluate the feasibility of following these recommendations we offer

the recommended budget that follows.


10/34



Budget:

1 /

(3% .)1 / $33,675 $33,675

2 /

1 / $32,160 $ 32,160

3 /

3 $15,000 $ 45,000

4. (),

1 / $ 101,600 $ 101,600

5 1 / $28,400 $ 28,400

6 1 / $20,580 $ 20,580

7 / / . 1 / $ 150,000 $ 150,000

8 , , 1 / $ 230,000 $ 230,000

9 ( ,

, ,.)1 / $15,800 $ 15,800

10 8 $3,000 $ 24,00011 8 $8,960 $ 71,680

12 2 $4,200 $ 8,400

13 / 1 / $17,640 $ 17,640

14

30 $1,176 $ 35,280

15 40 $2,125 $ 85,000

16 26 $65.00 $ 1,690

17 1 / $42,600 $ 42,600

18 1 / $ 107,680 $ 107,680

19 ,

1 / $35,000 $ 35,000


11/34



20 () 1 / $20,000 $ 20,000

21 (7.5'

)1 / $10,000 $ 10,000

22 1 $10,000 $ 10,00023 / 1 $10,000 $ 10,000

24 / 1 $20,000 $ 20,000

25

26

27

$ 1,156,200

20% $ 231,200 $ 231,200

( ) $ 1,387,400

20% $ 277,500 $ 277,500

( &

)$ 1,664,900

10% $ 138,700 $ 138,700

$


12/34



FOOTNOTES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Edwards, Llewellyn Nathaniel, A Record of History and Evolution of Early American

Bridges, Orono, Maine: University Press, 1959.

Ferris, Herbert W. Iron and Steel Beams 1873 to 1952: Historical Record Dimensions andProperties, Rolled Shapes, Steel and Wrought Iron Beams and Columns, Chicago:

American institute of Steel Construction, 1990.

Gordon, Robert and Robert Knopf,Evaluation of Wrought Iron for Continued Service in

Historic Bridges, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE, July/August 2005.

Jefferson, T.B. and Gorham Woods,Metals and How to Weld Them,

Cleveland, Ohio: Welding Engineer Publication, Inc., Second Edition, January 1990.

Keyser, Carl A.,Materials Science in Engineering, Second Edition,

Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company: A Bell & Howell Company, 1974.

Newman, Alexander, P.E., Structural Renovation of Buildings: Methods, Details, andDesign Examples, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Sanders, W.W., Jr., H.A. Elleby, F.W. Klaiber, Ultimate Load Behavior of Full- ScaleHighway Truss Bridges, Ames, Iowa: Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State University,

September 1975.

Wrought Iron: Characteristics, Uses and Problems, U.S. General Services Administration,Historic Preservation Technical Procedures.


13/34

Appendix A

Structure Photos


14/34

Appendix A


15/34

Appendix A


16/34

Appendix B

HAER Report


17/34

WATERLOOBRIDGE

Bridge

o

6906)

SpanningtheRappahannockRiver

a t

Virginia

Route

613

Waterloo

Culpeper

County

Virginia

HAER No.

VA-il:

94

WATL.

PHOTOGRAPHS

WRITTEN

HISTORICAL

AND

DESCRIPTIVE

DATA

HISTORIC AMERICANENGINEERING RECORD

NationalParkService

Northeast

Region

U.S.CustomHouse

200

ChestnutStreet

Philadelphia,PA

19106


18/34

HISTORIC

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

RECORD

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(BRIDGE

NO.

906)

HAERNo .VA-112

LOCATION

StateRoute

613

over

th e

RappahannockRiver,

Waterloo,

Fauquier

nd

ulpeper

ounties,

irginia.

SGS

Jeffersonton,

A

uadrangle,niversal

ransverse

Mercator

Coordinates:

8.247260.4286810

DATEOF

CONSTRUCTION

1885,918-1919

BUILDER

PRESENT

OWNER

SIGNIFICANCE

PROJECT

INFORMATION

Virginia

Bridge&

Iron

Company,Roanoke,Virginia

VirginiaDepar tment

ofTransportation

The

WaterlooBridge

resentsrepresentativeexamples

f

tw otypesof

bridge

technology.tfeatures

a

pin-connected

ironandsteel

Prat t

throughtrusstypicaloflate

nineteenth

century

factory-manufactured

bridges,andaseries

of

early

twentiethentury

teel

eam

eck

pans

upportedy

reinforced

concrete

piers.

TheWaterlooBridge

wasecorded

n

993-1994

byhe

Cultural

Resource

Groupof

Louis

Berger

&

Associates,

Inc. ,

Richmond,

Virginia,

fo r

the

Virginia

Department

of

Transportation

(VDOT) .

he

recordation

was

under taken

pursuantto

provisions

of

a

Programmatic

Memorandumof

Agreement

Draft)

mong

he

ederal

ighway

Administration,DOT ,

he

irginia

HPO,

ndhe

Advisoryounciln istoricreservation

oncerning

managementofhistoric

metal

russridgesnVirginia.

Projectersonnel

ncluded

ichard

.

asella,

Architectural

Historian,ndRobTucher ,

Photographer.


19/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(Bridge

No.6906)

HAERNo .VA-H2(Page2)

DESCRIPT ION

TheWaterlooBridge

(VDOT

Bridge

No.

6906)

consists

of

a

pin-connected

metalthrough

truss

mainspan,believedtohavebeen

built

in

885,

nd

fifteen

steelbeamdeck

spanserectedin

1918-1919.

The

bridge

carriesa

single lane of Virginia

State

Route 613in anortheast-southwest

directionover

th eRappahannockRiver,

about

400 '

south

of

th e

confluence

withCarter 'sRun,

aributary

treamFigure

).

he

bridge

onnects

Fauquier

County

n

he

east

id e

with

CulpeperCounty

on

th e

west

side.tthepointo fthebridge ,ther iverbed

isapproximately80 '

wide ,

with

an

east

floodplain

approximately

120 '

in

width

and

a

west

floodplain

approximately

140 'inwidth.hemaximum

depth

of th e

river

is

typically

1 *

inmidsummer .

he

immediate

arearoundhe

ridge

s

eavily

wooded,

orderedy

pen

armlandsnd

widely

paced

residences.

he

east

bank

of th e

river

increases

grade

rapidly

as

itclimbs

th e

southernfootof

Piney

Mountain.

o

the

north

of

the

bridge,

ordering

Carter 's

Run,

are

expansive

flat

farm

pastures

andfields.

Tothe

westandsouth

of th e

bridge

are

rollingfarmlandsand

woodlands.

Waterloo

Bridge

has

an

overalllengthof367 '",consistingof

the

truss

span,

00 '

ong;the

eastapproach

ofsevendeck

spans,

with

an

overall

length

of124'8";andth ewestapproachof

eight

deck

spans,

with

an

overalllengthof

142'5".

The

center

structure

isan

iron

andsteel

Pratt

throughtruss

100 'in

length,5 '8"

in height ,

an d

13 '

nwidth,

with

eight

panelseach

2'

6"

wide.

hetruss

spans

th e

riverbed

a ta

height

of

28'Figure2).

The

riveted

bar-lattice

posts

re

8"

5"

verall,

made

up

of

two

rolled

Tee's ,

"

2-3/8" ,

connectedby1-1/4"

x10"

singlebar-lattice.

opchordsandinclined

end

postsare

riveted

box

sections,

2"

x6-5/8"overall,builtwith

3/8"top

plate,

6"

x1-3/4"side

channels,and

4"

x

12"

x

5/16"

stay

plates

spaced

4'4"

oncenter.

ottom

chords

consist

of

tw o

loop-welded

eye-bars ,

3"x

3/4" ,

with

th eexception

of th e

chords

connecting

th e

endpostandth e

first

post,

which

ar e

1-3/16"

square

(Figure

3).

The

diagonals

consistof

tw o

7/8"

diameterrods

with

loop-welded

eyeslocatedinall

but

th e

end

panels.

ingle

counters

ar e

located

in

the

four

centerpanels

andconsist

of

7/8"

diameter

loop-

weldedeye-barswithsleeve

nuts.

ipverticalsconsistof

tw o7/8"

diameter

loop-welded

eye-

bars.

Posts,

chords,

nddiagonals

ar e

connected

with -3/4"

pins.

Portal

strutsarelatticegirderswith

Tee

flangesand

bar-lattice

webs.

he

bottomflange

of the

portal

strut

curves

downwardandisboltedto

th e

en dpostto

provide

integral

portal

bracing.

Top

lateral

struts

are"

rolled

I-beams,

pin-connectedtoeach

post.

way

bracesare

Tee's ,

attached

withbolts.

Toplateral

bracing

consistsoftw o7/8" iameterloop-weldedeye-bars.


20/34

WATERLOOBRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

906)

HAER

No.VA-112(Page3)

The

11'

wide

roadway

isedgedwith

6"x6"woodcurbingraised6"

off

th eflooring

with

wood

blocking

spaced

approximately

4'

n

center.

he

4"

2"

pressure-treated

wood

flooring

is

attached

to

the

steel

stringers

with

carriageboltsandsteeldeckclips.

he

floor

is

carried

by

five

10 " 4"

I-beam

stringers,

paced

2 '

9"

n

center.

he

floor

beams

are

also

10 " 4"-

beams,

hung

fromthebottom chord

pins

at each postby

1"

squareU-boIts

and

hex

nuts.

here

ar eondloor

eams.

ottomateral racingonsists ftw o /8 "od s

ith

bothends

threaded,

connected

to

th e

endsof th efloorbeamswithskewbackbrackets.

he

trussrideson

fourmetalbearings;

each

approximately13 "square,madeupwith

plateandsix1-1/2"

rollers,

spaced2"on

center.

The

truss

rests

onstone

piers

constructedof

random

rubbleand ashlar

masonry,

erected

in

1885

with

later

additionsto

increase

their

height.

he

piers,

which

stand

21 'above

the

surrounding

ground,

are

battered

and

measure

approximately

6 '

x

5 '

t

the

top

and

21 '

x

8'

t

th e

base.

The

east

and

west

approachesare

steelbeam

deck

bridgesof

identicalconstruction.he

east

approachhassixspansmeasuring

7'

9"andonespan

measuring

18'

2",

at

an

averageheight

of

17'above

the

floodplain.

hewest

approachha s

sevenspans

measuring

17'

9"andon espan

measuring8'

2",

t

an

average

eight

of

19 '

bove

the

loodplain.

he

fifteen

deck

spans

consist

offive9"

4-1/2"

steel

I-section

stringers

spaced

2 '

"

n

center .

he

flooring

is

as

previously

described,

and

thestringers

rest

directly

onth e

concrete

piers.

The

teeleckectionsfth e ridge

est

onpenreinforced

oncrete

piers

ndeinforced

concrete

abutments.

hese

structures

wereuilt

by

the

Virginia

Bridge

&

Iron

Companyn

1918

and

1919

(Fauquier

County

Board

of

Supervisors

1918:345-348,

919:398) .

Theopen

reinforced

concretepiersconsisto f tw o

square

columns

supporting

a

squarepier

cap.

Thejunction

of

th e

columnandca pisreinforcedwith

a

diagonal

gusset

at

th e

inside

corners,

creating

a

polygonalportal.hisfeaturewas

built

into

th e

form

work,

ndeachpierwas

cast

in

place

as

asingle

unified

structure.

he

piersare14'

x2'andvary

in

height

with

th e

terrain

between

13 '

an d

20'.hereare

a

total

of thirteenpiers,

ix

supporting

th eeast

approach

and

sevensupportingth e

west

approach.

The

endspansof

th e

approachesreston

reinforced

concrete

beveledwingabutments .he

east

abutmentwascastinplaceontop

of

anearlierrubblemasonryabutment.

The

bridge

railings

consist

of

tw ohorizonalrowsof2"

teelpipe,

at

heightsof

28"

nd46" ,

attached

with

U-bolts

tovertical

2-1/4"

angles,

pacedapproximately3'on

center .


21/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(BridgeNo.

906)

HAER

No.VA-112(Page4)

HISTORICAL

INFORMATION

Background

WaterlooBridgendheettlementroundtanraceheir

rigins

ohemid-eighteenth

century

when

fa rms

were

established

along

th e

fertile

Rappahannock

River

Valley.

he

broad

section fthealley,ormed

t

heonfluencewithCarter 's

Run,

ffered

arge

racts

f

relativelyflatarable

and

aswell

aswaterpower.

lasgow

merchantsontrolled

th e

tobacco

t radein

the

Piedmontregion

of

Virginia,

and

they

encouraged

th ebuilding

ofroadsand

stores

fo r

th e

purchaseof

tobacco

and thesaleof

merchandise.

bout

1749,

th e

LowerDumfriesRoad

was

created

to

connectthemouthof Carter 's

Runan dth esettlement

there,

known

asWaterloo,

withFauquier

and

Allentown

Pike

andDumfriesRoad,hereby

forming

a

triple junctionatthe

FauquierCountyCourthouse(Groome1927:202).

As

he

nterior

f irginia

ecame

ore

hickly

ettled,

illagesre w

p

long

he

Rappahannockt

oints

which

offeredords r

alls.

s

arlys

794,

hemerchants

f

Fredericksburg

ecognizedhepotential

benefits

fopening

avigation

onth eRappahannock

River.

canalthat

utilized

th er ivercould

connect

th e

markets

at

Fredericksburgtoth efarms

andforestsof

four

counties:

Fauquier,

Culpeper,

Loudoun,andRappahannock.

n

at tempt

in

thatyear

tocapitalizea

canal

companyfailed,aswould

repeated

attempts

madeeveryfewyears

until

1829,when

construction

finally

began.

ou r

locks

were

constructedby831,peninga

shortsectionofth elower

Rappahannock

jus t

above

Fredericksburg,

u tfloods

and

financing

problems

repeatedly

stalled

th eproject.

Waterloo

was

planned

as

th e

northern

terminusof

the

canal,

and

much

of

th e

development

of

th e

village

was

undoubtedly

based

on

th e

commerce

that

th ecanal

would

surely

bring

(Callaham

1967:17) .

In848,heVirginialegislature,onvincedofth evaluefth e

project,

ranted

100 ,000

to

complete

the

canal.

Work

immediately

progressed

to

Weatley

* s

Mill

just

north

of Kelly'sFord,

about

fifteen

miles

south

of

Waterloo.

he

northern

andfinalsectionof thecanal,from Porter's

LockstoWaterloo,

covereda

distance

ofthreemiles.hecontractorfo r

this

section

failed

to

completeth eprojectdue

toeavyrainsndth e

nabilityopayhis

workers.

it h

a

vested

interestin

seeing

the

projectfinished,

Waterlooresident

and

builderJohnSpillmanArmstrong

and

is rother-in-law

Joe ettletepped

orwardnd

were

warded

heontractFauquier

County

Bicentennial

Committee

1959:110;

cheel

1982:148).

John

Spillman

Armstrong

was

one

of

theearlyresidents

of Waterloo

andbought

a

400-acre

farm

on

th e

Culpeper

sideof

the

river

sometime

in

th e

late

830s

r

early

840s.rmstrong

had

workedsnperator

f

awmill

nd

ristmill

nd

ecamenownn

here a

s

n

accomplished

uilder.

rmstrong

nd

ettle

inished

he

canal

head

ofschedulend

each

earned

$10,000

plusa

$2,500

bonus

(WorksProgress

Administration

1978:299).


22/34

W TERLOOBR IDGE

(Br idgeNo. 906 )

HAERNo.VA-112Page5)

Upon

ts

completion

n

849,

heana l

oute

tretchedifty-eight

miles

rom

Water loo

o

Fredericksburgandconsisted

offourteen

miles

of

d ugcanal ,forty-four

locks,

andtwentydams .

Cana l

barges

ransported

lour,

imber,

nd

arm

roducts

down

he

anal

nd

brought

um p

plas ter

back

o

eground

or

ertilizer

Callaham

967 :34 ;

Works

Progress

Administration

1978:302) .

Dur ing

ts

constructionndorhehortim etpera ted ,heanalbrought rosperi tyo

Waterloo.

ith

he

money

e

maderominishinghe

anal ,

ohn

Armstrong

ought

he

ne ighbor ing

800-ac reD r.RoseFarm.e

laid

ou t

a

townwithstreetsand

lotsonhis

newland

and

putp torendwoarge

warehouses

which

he

ented

oMess rs .ettlendKnox.

Armst rong

also

boughtalarge,s team-poweredcircular

sawmi l l

in

Bal t imoreandhad

it

brought

up

rom

Fredericksburg

yightoxen .he

awmi l l

was

he

irstof

it s

in d

nth e

reand

attrac tedwideattention.

rmstrongsuppl ied

th e

l umber

forth econstruction

of

houses ,

tores,

and

factories,

which

was

proceed inga tarapidpaceon

both

s ides

of

th e

river

(Fauquier

County

Bicentennia lCommit tee 959 : 113 ,14;

Works

ProgressAdminist rat ion

978 : 299 ) .

Onth eFauquiers ideofth eiver , longtimeresidentandargeandownernamedKeithlaid

ou t

his

ropertyntowha t

he

called

the

Factory

Lot.y852,heFactoryLotonsistedof

threestores, largewoolenmill ,

acana lboatshop,ablacksmithshop,

and

severa l

warehouses .

The

early

plans

of

Armstrong

and

Keith

are

notbelievedtobe

ex tant ,

nor

is

th e

precise

number

of

housesn

th e

community

onrecord,

utbasedon

he

commercial

activities

tleas tsevera l

dozenamiliesmustaveivednheillageFauquierountyicentennialommit t ee

1959 :115 ;WorksProgressAdministration1978:299 ) .

In

852 ,

he

Orange

nd

Alexandr iaRai lway

ndth eManassas

GapRai lwaybeganoperation

in

th e

region

andsentashock wavethroughth eRappahannockValley.herailroads,

compared

to

th ecanals ,

ould

movegoods thalfth ecost,n

afraction

of

th e

t ime ,egardless

ofic eor

floods.

hedea th

blow

dealt

byth erai l roads

was

swif tandsure:he

canal

ceased

operation

in

1853 ,neve rhaving

returned

a

profitto

it s

investors.hecanalhadcost$372,000andwassold

in868or$1,500

(Fauquier

County

Bicentennial

Commi t t e e959:112) .

In

853 ,ollowing

he

f inancial

ollapse

ftheana l ,Waterloo's

irst

known

r idge , 200'

wooden

s truc ture,wasconstructed .

side

from

th eobvious

benefi tsof

unitingtheeastandwes t

parts

f

he

i l lage,

he

r idge

t imulated

ross-county

oad

rafficnd

urther

s tablished

Water loo

as

commerc ia l

cente r

(Scheel

982 :137) .

Exactly

wha t

impac t

th e

loss

ofthe

canal

had

onWater looin

th e

ensuing

eight

years

is

unclear

and

erhaps

rrelevant

n

ight

of

th e

vents

ha t

befell

he i llage

with

he

onset

of

the

Civ i l

War .

n

861,

nne

of

th earlyki rmishes

of

he

war

n

Virginia , enera l

hieldswas

defeated

y

tonewall

acksonnd assedhroughWaterlooon iseturnoWashington.

Edward

Armstrong,John's

son,was

4

years

olda tth et ime

and

rememberedwatch ing

from


23/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

6906)

HAERNo.VA-112(Page6 )

a

illtops

hieldsburned

he

actory

buildingsnd

warehouses.

iller's

Woolen

factory,

owned

by

MiddletonMiller

nd

BrentGreen,adbeenmanufacturing

clothfor

Confederate

uniforms.

ngered

y

he

estruction

of

his

illage,

nd

gainst

is

athers

trict

rders,

Edward

ran

awayand

joined

th eConfederatearmy.

everalmonthslater,

after

th efirst

battle

of

Manassas,

General

Beauregard

passed

through

Waterloo

in

his

fall

back

to

Richmond.o

slow

ny

dvance fUnionorces,

e

urnedheridge

Fauquier

County

icentennial

Committee

1959:117;

Scheel

982:136,37).

The

followingJune,

General

John

Pope

was

given

command

of

about38,000

troops

in

Virginia,

withorders

toconsolidate

th e

corps

of

McDowell ,

Fremont,

and

Banksand

assist

McClellan

in

hisadvance

onRichmond.isorderscalledfo r

himtoholdalinealongth e

Rappahannock

River

to

prevent

an

advanceon

Washington

byGeneral

Lee 's

troops.op e

had

a

wood

bridge

brought

up

from

Alexandria

in

sections

to

replace

the

on e

burned

by

Beauregard.

y

August,

Pope's

ncampment

tretched

rom

Carter 's

Run

hrough

Waterloo

nd

own

o

auquier

Springs.

ickett's

divisionof

McDowell 's

corpswastationed

at

Waterloo

Bridge(Fauquier

County

Bicentennial

Committee

1959:117).

Meanwhile ,ackson's

menadvancedn

Washington

around

Pope's

ight

lank,

ording

he

Rappahannock

atHinson'sMill,justashortdistance

north

of

th eWaterlooBridge.

ope's

men

were

involved

with

skirmishesatthe

bridge

with

about6 ,000 forcesof

R.H.

Anderson'sdivision

from

August24o

27,

862.

op e

tried

nvain

to

burnth ebridgetoprevent

th e

dvance,

unaware

that

th ebattlefor

th e

bridge

was

a

diversionand

thathehadbeenoutflanked.

pon

discovery

of

Jackson's

position,Pope

turned

his

roopsorth

to

meet

Jackson

in

th e

Second

Battle

of

Bull

Run

(Johnson

and

Buel

887:516).

During

th ewinter

of

1862,Pope's

troopscampedalong

th eRappahannockValley,establishing

a

base

of

operations

at

Waterloo.

ll

of

th ebuildings

that

had

notbeendestroyed

by

Shields

were

torn down

and

used

to

build

shelters

for

th esoldiers.nly

tw o

houses

werespared,ne

beingth e

home

ofJohn

Armstrong

on Waterloo

Farm.

eneral

Sedgwick

used

thehouse

as

his

headquarters,

nd

temainstanding

today

Culpeper

Historical

Society

974:55;

auquier

CountyBicentennialCommittee

1959:122;

Johnson

andBuel887:452).

HistoryofWaterloo

Bridge

Bridgeshave

spannedth e

Rappahannock

River

since

1798

when

thefirst

was

built

at

th e

Great

Forkofth eHazelRiver.

y

840,

ridges

were

in

existence

downstreamfrom

Waterloo

at

Weatley's

Mill

andKelly'sFord.

n

1853,

Thomas

Ingrambuiltthe

firstbridge

a t

Waterloo.

The200 '

woodstructurewas

officially

known

as

the

Sperryvillean dRappahannock

Turnpike

TollBridgebutcommonly

called

th eBridgeat

Waterloo.

y

the

start

ofth e

CivilWar ,he

Waterloo

bridge

was

th eonlysurviving

bridge

overth eRappahannock,utbyth eendof

the


24/34

WATERLOO

BR IDGE

(Bridge

No.906 )

HAERNo.

VA-112

Page7)

first

yeart

oo

ell,urned

y

eneral

Beauregard

n

his

etreat

rom

ManassasSchee l

1982 : 136 ,37) .

After

th eWar,Culpeper

County

appointed

a

newcommissiontooverseetherebui ld ing

of

roads

andbridges.

n

June

867,

JohnArmstrongndWilliam Browning

were

iventh econtract

to

rebuild

he

r idge

everal

miles

outh

of

Water loo t

FauquierSprings

Schee l

982 : 232 ) .

t

is

not

knownwhentheWater loobridge

wasrebuilt;

oweve r ,

ccording

to

Edwa r d

Armstrong,

th enew br idgewasa

wood

s truc turebuilt byhisfathershortlyafter

th eFauquierSpr ingsbr idge

(Fauquier

CountyBicentennialCommit tee

959 : 117 ) .

The

first

ment ion

of

a

br idge

at

Water loo

incounty

records

was

in

th e

Minutes

of th e

Fauquier

CountyBoard

of

Supervisor'sMeet ingof

March

5,875.

nunnamedperson, robablyJohn

S.

Armstrong,

epresentedto

th e

boardthatth e

bridge

wasina

dangerous

conditionfor

want

ofrepairs"

Fauquier

County

Board

of

Supervisors

875:76 ) .

he

board

ecommended

hat

Mess rs .KirbyandCurtisinspectth ebr idgeandeportbacktotheboarda tthenextmeeting.

Superv i sor

ames

D.

Kirbynd

Commiss ionerof

Roads

Mr.Curt isnspectedhe

bridge

he

followingweekandoundit

want ing

repairs

to

th e

exten t

of

50

dollars ,

nd

thereupon

appropriated

am eor

purchasinglumberto

bedel iveredtoth espotandemployingsomecompeten tpersonto

repair

aid

bridge

nd

ender

he

am e

afe

Fauquier

County

Board

fSupervisors

1875:72].

The

f inal

bill

fo r

the

repairs

came

to

$281 .20 ,

one

third

of

which

was

paid

by

Culpeper

County.

Kirbywaspaid$10.40mileageandper

diem

for

inspectingth erepairsatthebr idge(Fauquier

County

Board

of

Supervisors875:74) .

JohnArmstrongandhis

son

Edwardd idth e

majority

of

th erepairworkonth ebr idgeover

the

ensuing

years .n1876,

John

w as

paid

$55

toeffect"emergency

repairs

to

render

it

temporarily

safe"FauquierBoard

of

SupervisorsCounty

1876:93,

02,04) .

In

878,dwa rd

Armstrong

was

aid300

ndohnArmstrong

19 .75orepairso

he

bridge.his

was

izable

um

ndrobablynvolvedubstantial

ebuilding

of

he

wood

s truc tureFauquierCounty

Board

ofSuperv i sors878:141) .

dward

Armstrong

otedin

his

memoirs

hat

th e

br idge

was

swept

away

by

floods

everal

imes

nd

rebuilt

by

is

father

nd

himself ;

this

was

undoubtedly

oneofthose

occasions

(Work ProgressAdministration

1978:300).

The

irstment ionofan

iron

bridge

atWater looncounty

records

son

Augus t

20,

885 ,

with

th efollowing

entryn

th eFauquier

County

Minutes :


25/34

WATERLOOBR IDGE

(Br idge

No.

906 )

HAERNo.

VA-112

a

e

8

)

Board

appoints

R.H .

Downmanto

aud i t

settle

and

adjus t

th e

accountsbe tween

Counties

ofFauquierndCulpeper

rowing

utof

he

rectionof

two

ron

r idges

nd

he

subsequent

epairs

here to

t

Fauqu ie r

Whi te

Sulphur

Spr ings

nd

at

Water loo

and

o

makereportFauqu ie rCountyBoardof

Supervisors885:266] .

There

were

o

urtherntriesnth ecounty

ecords

relat ingpecificallyothebridgecontract

orts

erec tion,nor

any

record

ofDownman's

report .

Miscellaneous

small

repai rs

weremade

toth e

br idge

over

th e

next

fourteen

years ,ncluding

an

awa rd

of$20

to

R.A.

Reedfor

damage

tohis

colt

while

crossing

th eWaterloo

Bridge. os t

likelytheserepairs

were

toth e

wood

decking

orth e

woodapproaches

rather

thanth emeta l

truss

(Culpeper

ountyoard

f

Supervisors

892 :3 35 ;

auquier

ounty

oard

fupervisors

1889 : 364 ,

65 ) .

On ep tember

8,

899 , pecia lmeet ingwasalledyFauquier

County

concerning

he

substantial

epairs,

s t imated

t

400 ,equired

or

heridge.

t

as

rdered

hat

Rappahannock

nd

Culpeperounties

e

pproached

or contribution

o

he

effort

ndhat

repairsote ad entilhey

ommit ted

unds .lthough

ot

pecifically ent ioned ,

RappahannockCountyres identsmus t

have

madefrequent

useof

th e

bridge

andwereherefore

askedoontr ibute

heir

a ir

hare

of

th e

maintenance .

he

epairs

weremadebyGeorge

Mason ,

ho

as

a id

384.15

y

auquier

ounty ,

fwhich$125 asontributedy

RappahannockCounty

nd

$100

by

Cu lpepe rCounty

FauquierCounty

BoardofSupervisors

1899 :172-173 ,

75 ,

80 ,

07) .

In

June

911 ,

Fauquier

County

ound

thatth e

bridge

approacheswere

again

n

need

of

repairs

and

nsafeor

ravel,

nd

gain

ontac tedCulpeper

nd

appahannock

ountiesor

contribution

Fauquier

CountyBoard fSupervisors

1911:100).

ver yearater, it ho

response

rom

it sne ighbor ing

counties ,

FauquierCountyen t

them

each

notice

that

"Water loo

Br idgeis

n

suchastateof

decaytha t

practicallyanewbridgewillhaveto

beconstructed,

hat

saidbr idge

is

considered

angerous

ortravel

and

unless

put

in

good

conditionwill

haveto

be

closed"Fauquier

County

Boardof

Supervisors

912 :152) .t

was

not ntil yearater ,n

September

913 ,

hatepai rs

were

made

by

heFauquier

County

Center

Distr ic tRoadGang .

The

Fauquier

County

ecords

o

not

showha tth e

other

counties

ever

contributedto

the

cost

of

th e

repairs

(FauquierCounty

Boardof

Supervisors

913 : 181 ) .

By

May

917,

he

br idge

was

n

such

poor

condition

that

ajointcommi t tee

fromboth

counties

as

wellsnteres tedi tizensmetat

th e

r idge

o

nspecttnddiscuss

he

i tuation.

t

was

agreed

at

th et ime

tobuild

anew

bridge

(o r

rather,

ew

approach

spans) ,

hat

Fauquier

County

wouldpay

three

fifths

of

th e

cost,andthatCulpeper

County

would

pay

tw ofif ths.

urthermore,

bids

woulde

ought

s

oon

s

ossible

or

th e

constructionof

either

teeloraoncre te

bridge,

ccording

toSta te

Highway

Commiss ion

plans(Fauquier

County

Boardof

Supervisors


26/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

6906 )

HAER

No.

VA-112

Page

9)

1917:312,

325) .

WhenCulpeper 's

bridgecommittee

met

in

July,he

t e rms

of

th e

agreement

had

changed:

Fauquier

County

would

pay

three

fourths

of

th e

cost

and

Culpeper

County

would

pay

on e

fourth.

hey

also

noted

in

theirrecord

that

th e

approaches

and

supports

were

to

be

of

concrete.

pparently,oncrete

adeen ointofsome

iscussion.

t

th e

east,

t

was

probably

trumped

as

a

permanent

solution

to

th efrequent

repairsdictated

by

th e

ever

flooding

RappahannockRiver(Culpeper

County

Board

ofSupervisors

917:216).

On

March

21 ,

918,

th e

Fauquier

County

Bridge

Committeereceived

bids

rom

the

Virginia

Bridge

&

Iron

Company

of

Roanoke(hereafterreferred

toas

Virginia

Bridge)and

theChampion

Bridge

ompany

f

Wilmington,hio,ccording

o

lansndpecifications f

th e

tate

HighwayCommissioner.irginiaBridgeactuallysubmittedtwo

bids:7 ,050 .00

tobuild

th e

bridge

ccording

ohetate lans,

ndn

lternate

id f

$6,030.00

o

uildhe

ridge

according

to

their

ow n

company

plans.he

bids

did

not

include

th e

cost

of

th e

lumber

for

th e

decking.

he

ommittee

oved

o

ccept

he

ower

id

ubmitted

y

irginia

ridge,

conditional

upon

th eacceptance

ofthe

agreement

by

Culpeper

Countyandthe

approval

ofth e

alternate

lans

y

he

tate

Highwayommissioner.

ulpeper 's

oardmet

April

,

nd

followedFauquier 'sead

y

ranting

he

ameonditionalpproval.owever ,William

Glidden,

BridgeEngineerfor

th e

State,rejected

the

alternateplan,

and

on

April

18 ,

Fauquier

County

acceptedVirginiaBridge's

initialbidof $7,050 tobuildth e

bridge

accordingtoth e

state

plan

(Culpeper

County

BoardofSupervisors

1918:445;

FauquierCounty

Board

ofSupervisors

1918:345,

348).

Construction

began

November

21 ,

918,

nd

n

December

9 ,

Fauquier

greedtomake

partial

payment

of

$3 ,000

to

Virginia

Bridge.

t

was

noted

in

th e

record

that

it

appears

that

all

steel

workdelivered

and

that

enoughwork

complete

to

justify

this

payment

but

this

does

not

meanBoard

illmakenymore

ayments

ntilompletion"Fauquier

County

Board

f

Supervisors918:373).

The

new

concrete

and

steel

approach

spans

werecompleted

on

February

23 ,919,

andth efinal

statement

of

its

costwasecorded

n

July

28,

919,

s

ollows

FauquierCountyBoard

of

Supervisors919:398) :

VirginiaBridge&

Iron

Co.,

contract

,050 .00

extra

excavations

by

order

of

Committee

99 .06

B

M

Butler ,

or

lumber

43.43

J

S

Hutton,

building

approaches

and

superintendingwork 88.08

J

S

Hutton,nspecting

work .0 0

E

WAllen,nspectingwork6.67

Total

cost

9,436.24


27/34

WATERLOOBRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

6906)

HAER

No.

VA-i i2 (Page

1 0 )

The

final

entry

in th ecounty

records

regarding

Waterloo

Bridge

appearedin

1922

from

Fauquier

County's

Supervisor

ofRoads.

pon

inspection,th e

Supervisor

found

that

th e

bridge

ha d

been

damaged

y

he

hauling

f

excessive

oads.

e

etermined

ha t

th e

r idge

was

unsafe

nd

closed

it

to

traffic

n

excessof

six

tons

(Fauquier

County

Board

of

Supervisors

922:75).

A

search

ofth e

records

of

th e

BridgeDivision

of

th e

Virginia

Department

of

Transportation,

Culpeper

District,producedtw o

records

on

the

Waterloo

Bridge:an

"Original

Bridge

Report,"

dated

December

28,

1970,

and

a

"SupplementaryBridge

Report,"

datedAugus t

21,

1992.

he

1970report

listed

the

bridge

in

fair

condition

with

a

posted

weight

limit

of

eight

tons.he

1992

inspectionreport

found

the

bridge

tobein

poor

condition

and

reduced

it sweightl imit

to

three

tons,he

lowest

rate

permitted

without

closing.he

reportnoted

numerous

deficienciesinthe

bridge,

including

severe

rust,

missing

deck

bolts,

loose

diagonals

andcounters,

and

deteriorated

concrete

piers

and

abutments

(VDOT

1970,

992) .

Thomas

Pratt

and

the

Pratt

Truss

Thomas

Pratt

was

or n

n

Bostonn

812,

he

on

of

noted

Bostonrchitect

Caleb

Pratt.

Thomas

wasthoroughly

educated

by

his

fatherin

th e

sciences,ntered

Rensselaer

Polytechnic

Institute

at

age

14,

became

an

engineer

with

th e

United States Army

Engineers

a t

18,

and

began

a

professional

engineering

career

with

Boston

&Maine

Railroad

at

age

21.t

th e

beginning

of

his

career,

whichlasted

until

his

death

in

1875,

Pratt

was

probably

th e best

educated

bridge

engineer

n

America.

ratt

workedis

ntire

ife

n

he

mployof

arious

New

England

railroadcompanies,

including

th e

Providence

&

Worcester,

the

Hartford

&

NewHaven ,

and

th e

New

York

&

Boston

American

ociety

of

Civil

Engineers

ASCE]

876:332-333;

Condi t

1960:108).

Prattisbest

remembered

for

a

bridge

truss

he

designed

n842

that

consisted

of

tw o

parallel

chords

connected

by

vertical

wood

posts

in

compression

and

double

wrought

iron

diagonals

in

tension.he

design,

hile

imilar

n

appearanceo

th e

russecently

atented

yWilliam

Howe,unctionedtructurallyppositetohe

Howeruss,Howe

having

put

th eerticals

n

tension

and

the

diagonals

in

compression.Modern

engineers

consider

th e

Pratt

design

tobe

th e

first

scientifically

designed

truss

(Condit

1960:109) .

ratt

had

recognized

and

applied

a

basic

principlef

tructural

ngineering

o

russ

esign:

educing

he

ength

of

th e

ember

n

compression

reduces

th e

bending

moment,

allowing

members

of smallercross

section

to

beused

without

sacrificing

overallstrength.

he

basic

design

premiseof

a

truss

is

to

provide

equal

strength

withlessweightand

materialthana

olidbeam,nd

Pratt 'sinnovation

applied

that

principletoth edesign

of

the

componentsof

the

truss

itself.

In

844,

Prattandis

ather

were

ranted patent

fo r

tw o

truss

designs,

ne

with

parallel

chords

and

onewith

a

polygonaltopcord.

Either

designcouldbe

bui l t

of

a

combination

of


28/34

W TERLOO

BRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

906 )

HAER

No.

VA-H2(Page

11)

wood

and

i ron,

orjust

iron

alone.he

polygonalversionagainreflected

Pratt's

understanding

of

th epplication

of

mathemat ica l

principles

n

calculat inghe

forces

involved

and

th e

precise

st rength

of

the

mater ia l

equired

o

counterthoseforces .

ratt's

pa tent

was

r enewed

n

858.

Theuseofth e

Pratt

trussforth edeck

of

JohnRoebling's

Niagara

RiverSuspensionBridgen

1855

drewworldwideattentiontoth edes ignand

undoubted ly

contributed

toits

inc reased

usage .

One

of

Pratt's

bes t

works

was

theEastern

Railroad's

Merrimac

RiverBridge

at

Newburyport,

Massachuse t t s .heMerr imacbridge,omple tedn865 ,onsistedofeven

wooden

Pratt

trussesnd enterrawpan

f

ron

ASCE

876 : 334 -335 ;

Cooper889 :11 ;ohnson

1929 :179) .

In

ts

woodenform,

hePrat t

russ

ever

t tainedhe

popularity

ofth e

Howe

esign,

ut

y

1889

n

tsron

form

t

anked

irst

in

usage

Cooper

889:11) .

he

first

all-iron

Pratt

t russ

br idges

were

uilt

by

J.H.

Linville

for

th e

Pennsylvania

Railroad

n

850 .

pplication

of

the

Prat t

truss

n

its

original

orm

reached

highpoint

withthe

construction

of

th e

Erie

Railroad

Br idge

tortage,

ew

ork,

n875,

nd

he incinnat i

outhernailroad

r idge

t

Cincinnatiin1876,

both

earlylandmarksinrailroadbr idge

eng ineer ing .

iterallythousandsof

br idges ,

both

highwayand

rai lroad,

havebeen

buil t

following

th e

Pratt

design

or

some

variation

(Condi t 960 :111 ,12,02) .

The

VirginiaBridge

&

Iron

Company

TheVirginiaBridge

ndronCompany

was

oundedsheAmericanBridgeCompany

n

Roanoke

in

889

by

C.L.

Wentwor th ,

.B .

Hunter,

nd

C.L.

Michae l .

n

895 ,

he

company

was

ncorporated

she

Virg in ia

Bridge&

Iron

Company

VBI )

ndcapitalizedwith

$50,000

Roanoke

Times

966 ;Stevens

930 : 6 6 )

By

904 ,

he

company

was

th e

arges t

teelfabricating

company

n

th e

South,

withacapacity

of12 ,000tons

annual ly .heproductin e

consis ted

ofbridges,urntables,warehouseactory

buildings,ndgeneral

st ructural

ron

and

s teelwork.heompany

employed

75

meninthe

shops

nd

50menntheerec ting

epar tment .

he

plan t

covered0 .5

cres

nd

ncluded

3 0 0 'x0 '

r idge

hop,

arge

girderhop,ndevera l

maller

uildings.he

plant

was

located

n

heinesofheNorfolknd

Wes t e rn

RailroadndheSouthernRai l road .he

principalsat

th e

t imewere

W.E.

Robertson,

President;

C.E.Michael,

Secre tary ;

T.T.

Fishburn,

Treasurer ;

and

C.E.Hamlin,

Contract ing

Engineer

(Charlotte

County

1899 -1902 ;

Stone

Printing

&

Manufac tur ing

Company

904 : 36 -37 ) .

Growth

of

th e

company

cont inued

through

th e

early

wentieth

century,

nd

plants

were

built

in

Memphi s

in

908

and

in

Birmingham

in

1922

Roanoke

Times

1936 ) .y

934 ,

VBIemployed

800

people , roduc ing

5.4millioninproduct

nnually

with

offices

inBirmingham,Memphis,


29/34

W TERLOOBR IDGE

(Br idge

No.906 )

HAER

No.VA-H2(Page12 )

Atlanta ,

NewYork,

New

Orleans ,Los

Angeles,Charlotte,Dallas,andEl

Paso

Roanoke

Times

1934 ;

Stevens1930:66).

In

936 ,

BIbecame wholly

wned

ubsid iaryoftheTennesseeoal,ronand

Railroad

Company,

he

largest

producer

of

steelnth e

South

RoanokeTimes

936 ) .

In952 ,

VBI

was

merged

into

th e

Amer i c an

Br idge

Company ,

a

subsid iary

of

th e

United

States

SteelCorporationnd

he

argest

r idge

ompany

nheUni tedtates.BI'sacili tyn

Roanoke

servedasth e

headquarters

of

th e

Southern

Divisionof

th e

American

BridgeCompany

unti l965whenth e

plant

wasclosed(Uni ted

States

SteelCorporation 975:18 ,2) .

Accord ingo

A

Survey

an d

Photographic

InventoryofMetalTruss

Bridgesn

Virginia,

865-

1932,

tudy

conductedby

he

VDOTResearchCounci l

n

973 ,

he

VirginiaBridge&Iron

Company

built

a

total

of

sixty-five

truss

br idges

nVirginia.

he

company

builtsixother

truss

br idges

nddi t iono

he

Waterloo

Bridge

within

he

Culpeper

VDOTConstructionDistrict

(Deib le r1973) .

ne

other

VB I

br idge ,ClarktonBr idge(VDOT

Br idge

No.6902 ) ,n

Charlotte

County ,

s

nc luded

inth e

seventeen

istoricmeta l

truss

r idgesecorded

byVDOT

n

993 -

1994 ,

ofwhichthisreport

is part .

BIBL IOGRAPHY

AND

REFERENCESCITED

AmericanSocietyof

Civi l

Engineers

ASCE]

1876emoirofThomasWillis

Pratt.n

Proceedings

of

theAmericanSocietyof

Civil

Engineers,

ol .

,

873-1875 ,

p.

32 - 3 3 5 .

Boatner ,Mark

M .

1959

he

Civil

War

Dictionary.

Dav id

McKay&

Co.,

New

York .

Callaham,Donald

S.

1967he

Rappahannock

Canal.

Master's

thesis.Amer i c anUnivers i ty .

CharlotteCounty

1899 -1902etter

rom

Virginia

r idge

ndron

o.

o

he

r idge

Commissionersf

Charlotte

nd

Halifax

Counties .

Located

n

Court

Papers,

8994902.

File

Box

0-16,

vai lablea t

th e

Circui tClerk'sOffice,

CharlotteCourthouse,

Virginia.

Cond i t ,Car lW .

1960

merican

Building

Art,

he

Nineteenth

Century.

Oxford

Univers i tyPress,New

York.


30/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(BridgeNo.6906)

HAERNo.

VA-U2 (Pagc

13 )

Cooper,

Theodore

M .

1889mericanailroad

Bridges.

ransactionsfhemerican

ocietyf

Civil

Engineers,

o.418,

vol.

21,

July

889.

Culpeper

County

BoardofSupervisors

1875-1930 Minutes

of

theMeetingsoftheCulpeperCounty

Board

of

Supervisors.Located

at

th eCulpeperCountyCourthouse,

Culpeper,

Virginia.

CulpeperHistoricalSociety,

Inc.

1974

istoric

Culpeper.

Culpeper

Historical

Society,

Inc. ,

Culpeper,

Virginia.

Deibler,

Dan

1973

Survey

and

Photographic

Inventory

of

Metal

Truss

Bridges

in

Virginia,

865-

1932.

VirginiaDepartmentof

Transportation

Research

Council,

Charlottesville.

DeParis,

The

Comte

1883

istory

of

theCivil

War

inAmerica.Porter

&

Coates,

Philadelphia.

Evans,M.

Louise

1955

nOld

Timer

in

Warrenton

Fauquier

County.VirginiaPublishingCompany,

Warrenton,

Virginia.

FauquierCounty

BicentennialCommittee

1959

auquier

County

Virginia

1759-1959.

Fauquier

County

Bicentennial

Committee,

Warrenton,

Virginia.

FauquierCounty

Board

of

Supervisors

1875-1922 Minutes

of

theMeetingsofthe

Fauquier

County

Board

of

Supervisors.Located

at

th e

Fauquier

CountyCourthouse,

Warrenton,

Virginia.

Groome,H.C .

1927auquierDuringthe

Proprietorship.RegionalPublishing

Co.,

Baltimore.

Johnson,

Allen

(editor)

1929

ictionary

of

American

Biography.

Charles

Scribner 's

Sons,

New

York.

Johnson,

Robert

U .,andClarence

C.

Buel

(editors)

1887

attles

andLeaders

ofthe

Civil

War.The

Century

Company,

New

York.

Livermore,William

Ruscoe

1913

he

Storyofthe

Civil

War.

G.P.

Putnam&

Sons,

New

York.


31/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

6906)

HAER

No.

VA-i i2 (Page

1 4 )

Roanoke

Times

1934

irginia

Bridge

Formed

Here.

Roanoke

Times,

anuary9 , .p . Available

at

Roanoke

Public

Library,

Roanoke,

Virginia.

1936

irginia

Bridge

nd

ronCo.

old

To

BirminghamConcern,

RoanokeTimes,

January

24,

n.p.Available

at

Roanoke

Public

Library,

Roanoke,Virginia.

1966

riginalWasena

Bridge

Served

Ore

Mines

in 1880s.

Roanoke

Times,

January

24 ,

n.p.

Available

atRoanoke

PublicLibrary,Roanoke,

Virginia.

Ropes,

John

Codman

1898heStoryof

the

Civil

War.

.P .

Putnam&Sons,

NewYork.

Scheel,

Eugene

M .

1982

ulpeper,

A

Virginia

County:

HistoryThrough

920.

he

Culpeper

Historical

Society,

Culpeper ,

Virginia.

Stevens,George

Raymond

1930

nEconomic

and

SocialSurveyofRoanokeCounty.Nopublisher. Availableat

RoanokePublicLibrary,

Roanoke,Virginia.

StonePrinting

&

Manufacturing

Company

1904

oanoke,

The

Magic

City

of

Virginia.

tone

Printing

&

Manufacturing

Company ,

Roanoke,

Virginia.

Available

atRoanokePublicLibrary,

Roanoke,

Virginia.

Thompson,T.

Kennard

1892

ridgeBuildinginAmerica.Engineering

Magazine.

October,

892.

United

States

SteelCorporation

1975

merican

ridge

ivision, History

nd

rganization.

United

States

teel

Corporation,August1 ,

975.

Virginia

Department

of Transportation

[VDOT]

1970,

992 Bridge

Records. VDOTCulpeper

District

Office,

Culpeper,Virginia.

Welcher,

Frank

J.

1993

heUnion

Army,

1861-1865.Indiana

University

Press.

ndianapolis.

WorksProgressAdministration

1978

ldHomeandFamiliesofFauquierCountyVirginia,

The

WPARecords.Virginia

Book

Company,

Berryville,Virginia.


32/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(Bridge

No.

6906 )

HAER

No.VA-112

(Page5)

MIL

F IGURE

:

Location

Map

SOURCE:USGSJeffersonwn,A,.5MinuteQuadrangle,1966

Photorevised

1983)


33/34

WATERLOO

BRIDGE

(BridgeNo.

906)

HAERNo .

VA-H2

Page

16 )

ITEM

NOT

AVAILABLE

Thisitemha sbeenremovedfrom th eformaldocumentationfor

this

structure

because:

th e

itemis registeredorotherwise protected underth e

1976

Copyright

Actas

amended

and

therebyineligible

to

enter

the

publicdomain

as

formalHABS/HAER

documentation

th e

copyright

status

of

th e

item

is

not

possible

to

establish

due to

a

lack

ofsufficient

bibliographical

information

in

th e

formaldocumentation

Items

protected

bycurrentcopyright

law

mayinclude-butare no t

limited

tophotographs,prints,drawings,letters,maps,unpublished

manuscripts,

photoalbums,theses,dissertations,books,an d

periodicals.

u


34/34

WATERLOO'BRIDGE

(BridgeNo.906)

HAERNo .

VA-112(Page7 )

ITEM

NOT

AVAILABLE

Thisitemha sbeenremovedfromtheformaldocumentation forthis

structurebecause:

theitemisregisteredorotherwise protectedunder

th e

1976

Copyright

Act

as

amendedan d

thereby

ineligible

to

enterth e

public

domainasforma HABS/HAER

documentation

thecopyrightstatus

of

th e

item

is

not possibleto

establishdue

to

a

lackof sufficientbibliographical

informationi n th e

formal

documentation

Items

protected

bycurrent

copyright

lawmay

includebut

arenot

limited

to-photographs,

prints,drawings,

letters,

maps,

unpublished

manuscripts,

photoalbums,theses,

dissertations,

books,

an d

periodicals.

FIGURE

3 :

Original

Bridge

Report,

BridgeNo.

6906,

SOURCE;

Virginia

DepartmentofTransportation

waterloo bridge engineering report

Documents