CENTRAL CIRCULATION AND BOOKSTACKS The person borrowing this material is re- sponsible for its renewal or return before the Latest Date stamped below. You may be charged a minimum fee of $75.00 for each non-returned or lost item. Theft, mutilation, or defacement of library materials can be causes for student disciplinary action. All materials owned by the University of Illinois Library are the property of the State of Illinois and are protected by Article 16B of llllnoit Criminal Law and Procedure. TO RENEW, CALL (217) 333-8400. University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign DEC 2 0 2001 When renewing by phone, write new due date below previous due date. L162 Page four lev a I fo d DANIEL B. LUTEN DESIGNING AND CONSULTING ENGINEER INDIANAPOLIS Born at Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1869. Was graduated from University of Michigan in 1 894 with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Was then appointed Instructor in Civil Engi- neering at University of Michigan, assistant to Prof. Charles E. Greene, one of the foremost authorities on arch analysis and author of Greene’s Graphic Method of Truss and Arch Analysis. Resigned this position after one year to become Instructor in Civil Engineering at Purdue University, Eafayette, Indiana, in full charge of instruction in arch design, stereotomy, and theory of hydraulics. Conducted numerous experiments on arches and reinforced concrete and published numer- ous articles on these researches in Engineering News, Engineering Record, and other technical journals. Resigned from the Faculty of Purdue University in 1900 to prac- tice engineering and after one year in general practice, entered actively on the design of reinforced concrete bridges. For the past ten years has followed this specialty exclusively, and in that time has supervised the design and erection of over four thousand reinforced concrete arches of which the accompanying pages show some one hundred examples. Has an organized staff of eleven assistant engineers and twenty- four associate engineers located in every part of the United States. Member of the Western Society of Engineers, Member of the American Society of Engineering Contractors, and President of the Indiana Engineering Society. Page five 49877 BRIDGE 816, C. & L. M. RY., LIMA, OHIO Twin spans of 60 feet each For the Ohio Electric Railway Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1907 BRIDGE 816, C. & L. M. RY., LIMA, OHIO Same as above Showing details of piers and copings Page six CARTERSBURG BRIDGE, CARTERSBURG, INDIANA Twin spans of 90 feet each For the Indianapolis & Western Railway Company, Indianapolis, 1906 LINN GROVE BRIDGE, LINN GROVE, INDIANA Twin spans of 79 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Adams County, Decatur, Indiana, 1907 Page seven SAN LUISITO BRIDGE, MONTERREY, MEXICO Twin spans of 74 feet each For Slices, de Hernandez Hnos., Monterrey, Mexico, 1908 SAN LUISITO BRIDGE. MONTERREY, MEXICO Same as above Showing interior of market house superstructure, entirely of reinforced concrete with passageway lined with market booths on each side Page eight sax LUisrro bridge, moxterrey, Mexico See opposite page Showing bridge in flood of August, 1909, which destroyed a large part of the City of Monterrey with loss of 3,000 lives. See Engineering Xews, September 23, 1909 sax LUisrro bridge, moxtf.rrev, Mexico Same as above Showing the bridge after the flood, with no damage to bridge and with slight damage to market house superstructure. Holes caused by two telegraph poles afterward found inside the superstructure Page nine KENNEBEC BRIDGE, WATERVILLE, MAINE Four spans of 85 to 135 feet each For the Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway, Waterville, Maine, 1910 KENNEBEC BRIDGE, WATERVILLE, MAINE Same as above Showing location adjacent old steel bridge, and narrow roadway and great height of concrete bridge 60 feet above water Page ten NASHUA HUDSON BRIDGE, NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE Five spans of 88 to 100 feet each For the City of Nashua and Town of Hudson, New Hampshire, 1910 NASHUA HUDSON BRIDGE, NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE Same as above, nearing completion Showing details of cantilever sidewalk projecting six feet. Construction of bridge begun June 25, completed November 25, 1910 Page eleven HORLICK PARK BRIDGE, RACINE, WISCONSIN Span of waterway, 65 feet For the Board of Park Commissioners of Racine, Wisconsin, 1907 SANTA BARBARA BRIDGE, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA Span of waterway 44 feet, skew 45 degrees For the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara, California, 1908 Page twelve BROOKFIELD BRIDGE, BROOKFIELD, INDIANA Span of waterway, 50 feet For the Board of Commissioners of Shelby County, Shelbyville, Indiana, 1908 RIPLEY BRIDGE, RIPLEY, NEW YORK Span of waterway, 80 feet For the Town Board of Ripley, N. Y., 1908 Page thirteen PITTSBURGH STREET BRIDGE, NEWCASTLE, PENNSYLVANIA Twin spans of 75 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Lawrence County, Newcastle, Pennsylvania, 1909 Page fourteen PITTSBURGH STREET BRIDGE, NEWCASTLE, PENNSYLVANIA Same as above Showing clear roadway, approach grades and concrete lamp posts FREDERICKSBURG BRIDGE, SALEM, INDIANA Twin spans of 80 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Washington County, Salem, Indiana, 19,10 FREDERICKSBURG BRIDGE, SALEM, INDIANA Same as above Showing behavior of arches in excessive Hood. No damming of river, no obstruction to debris Page fifteen WHITE LICK BRIDGE, PLAINFIELD, INDIANA Three spans of 45 to 55 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Hendricks County, Danville, Indiana, 1910 Page sixteen WHITE LICK BRIDGE, PLAINFIELD, INDIANA Same as above Showing middle span, extremely light piers and unequal arches balanced by distortion of arches MAIN STREET BRIDGE, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Three spans of 85 feet each For the Board of Public Works, Greenville, South Carolina, l l )10 MAIN STREET BRIDGE, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Same as above Showing details of railing and parapet Page seventeen RED BRIDGE, HUNTINGTON, INDIANA Twin spans of 105 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Huntington County, Huntington, Indiana, 1907 HORLTCK PARK BRIDGE, RACINE, WISCONSIN Twin spans of 50 feet each For the Board of Park Commissioners, Racine, Wisconsin, 1907 Page eighteen KING ARROYA BRIDGE, LA JUNTA, COLORADO Twin spans of 60 feet each For the Beard of Commissioners of Otero County, La Junta, Colorado, 1910 PEN FIELD BRIDGE, BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN Twin spans of 30 feet each For the Town Board of Penfield Township, Battle Creek, Michigan, 1' '07 Page nineteen KEMP BRIDGE, WABASH, INDIANA Span of waterway, 60 feet For the Board of Commissioners of Wabash County, Wabash, Indiana, 1906 Page twenty FAIR GROUNDS BRIDGE, DES MOINES, IOWA Span of waterway, 12 feet For the Iowa State Fair Association, Des Moines, Iowa, 1910 BLAIR BRIDGE, OVER POTOMAC RIVER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Span of waterway, 55 feet For the Maryland State Roads Commission, Baltimore, Maryland, 1910 SIMPSON'S CREEK BRIDGE, ORAL, WEST VIRGINIA Span of waterway, 40 feet For the County Court of Harrison County, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 1910 Page twenty-one YOUNG’S CREEK BRIDGE, FRANKLIN, INDIANA Twin spans of 57 feet 6 inches each For the Board of Commissioners of Johnson County, Franklin, Indiana, 1906 Page twenty-two YOUNG'S CREEK BRIDGE. FRANKLIN, INDIANA Same as above Showing stone arch of five 20-ft. spans in background STONY CREEK BRIDGE, BELLEFONTAINE, OHIO Two spans of 60 and 20 feet each For the Ohio Electric Railway Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1907 MARINE CREEK BRIDGE, FORT WORTH, TEXAS Twin spans of 45 feet each For the Forth Worth Stock Yards Company, Fort Worth, Texas, 1910 Page tzvcnty-three Page twenty-four Page twenty- five MAUMEE BRIDGE, WATERVILLE, OHIO Twelve spans of 75 to 90 feet each For the Ohio Electric Railway Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1907 MAUMEE BRIDGE, WATERVILLE, OHIO Same as above Showing pier details and roadbed Page twenty- six MAUMEE BRIDGE, WATERVILLE, OHIO See opposite page Bridge carrying work-train with 100-ton locomotive MAUMEE BRIDGE, WATERVILLE, OHIO Same as above Showing completed bridge under electric traction, 60-ton car Page twenty-seven WAYNE STREET BRIDGE, PERU, INDIANA Seven spans of 75 to 100 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Miami County, Peru, Indiana, 1905 Page twenty-eight WAYNE STREET BRIDGE, PERU, INDIANA Same as above Showing pier details and long spans on light piers WAYNE STREET BRIDGE, PERU, INDIANA See opposite page Showing great area of waterway possible in an arch bridge WAYNE STREET BRIDGE, PERU, INDIANA Same as above View at highest flood record, within three feet of crown Page twenty-nine PLAINFIELD BRIDGE, PLAINFIELD, INDIANA Five spans of 35 to 42 feet each For the Terre Haute, Indianapolis &: Eastern Railway Company, Indianapolis, 1906 Page thirty PLAINFIELD BRIDGE, PLAINFIELD, INDIANA Same as above Showing pier details and cambered coping MINERS FORD BRIDGE, TOLA, KANSAS Three spans of 70 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Allen County, Iola, Kansas, 1907 SHELBURNE FALLS BRIDGE, SHELBURNE FALLS, MASSACHUSETTS Five spans of 69 to 80 feet each. Skew 45 to 54 degrees For Shelburne Falls & Colraine Street Railway, Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, 1908 Page thirty-one PIPE CREEK BRIDGE, LOGANSPORT, INDIANA Twin spans of 70 feet each. Skew, 30 degrees I r or the Board of Commissioners of Cass County, Logansport, Indiana, 1905 Page thirty-two PENDLETON BRIDGE, PENDLETON, INDIANA Twin spans of 75 feet each Ear the Board of Commissioners of Madison County, Anderson, Indiana, 1909 PATRICK FORD BRIDGE, CAYUGA, INDIANA Twin spans of 55 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Vermillion County, Newport, Indiana, 1907 HEDGES BRIDGE, CLINTON, INDIANA Twin spans of 89 feet each For the Board of Commissioners of Vermillion County, Newport, Indiana, 1908 Page thirty-three SOUTH BRIDGE. COLUMBIAN PARK. LAFAYETTE. INDIANA Span of waterway, 40 feet For tlie Board of Park Commissioners, Lafayette, Indiana, 1902 WEST BRIDGE, COLUMBIAN PARK, LAFAYETTE, INDIANA Span of waterway, 30 feet For the Board of Park Commissioners, Lafayette, Indiana, 1902 Page thirty-four NOW LA XI) AVENUE BRIDGE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA Span of waterway, 30 feet For the Board of Public Works, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1903 Page thirty- fire PLYMOUTH ROCK BRIDGE, PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS Span of waterway, 15 feet For the Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, 1907 OCOYA BRIDGE, PONTIAC, ILLINOIS Four spans of 60 feet each For the Bloomington, Pontiac & Joliet Electric Railway, Pontiac, Illinois, 1909 IOWA RIVER BRIDGE, DECORAH, IOWA Twin spans of 81 feet each For the Board of Supervisors of Winneshiek County, Decorah, Iowa, 1906 Page thirty-six PUTNAM BRIDGE. PUTNAM, CONNECTICUT Four spans of 60 feet each For the Town Board of Putnam, Connecticut, 1911 BANKER'S FORD BRIDGE, SHELBY VILI.E. INDIANA Twin spans of 57 feet 6 inches each For the Board of Commissioners of Shelby County, Shelbyville, Indiana, 1905 Page thirty-seven 2 ® EAST WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA Span of waterway, 65 feet, skew 20 degrees For the Board of Public Works, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1904 EAST WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA Same as above Showing details of railing, spandrel ends and camber in coping Page thirty-eight \ SANTA ROSA BRIDGE, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA Span of waterway, 90 feet For the City of Santa Rosa, California, 1910 WEST UNION BRIDGE, WEST UNION, IOWA Span of waterway, 65 feet For the Board of Supervisors of Fayette County, West Union, Iowa, 1909 Page thirty-nine RED BRIDGE, HUNTINGTON, INDIANA Roadway 16 feet. See page 18 Showing permanent character of roadway and parapets Page forty HEMLOCK STREET BRIDGE, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA Roadway 60 feet over 30-ft. span Showing permanent character of roadway and railings COJN'IRY CLUB BRIDGE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA Roadway 16 feet over 30 ft. span Showing permanent character of roadway and railings WHITELICK BRIDGE, PLAINFIELD, INDIANA Roadway 24 feet. See page 16 Showing permanent character of roadway and spindle railing Page forty-one CLIFTY CREEK BRIDGE, ADAMS, INDIANA Span of waterway, 80 feet For the Board of Commissioners of Decatur County, Greensburg, Indiana, 1904 Page forty-two CLIFTY CREEK BRIDGE, ADAMS, INDIANA Same as above Showing details of railing, cambered coping and low wings with extended spandrels SEVENTEENTH STREET BRIDGE, BOULDER, COLORADO Span of waterway, 70 feet For the City of Boulder, Colorado, 1906 SEVENTEENTH STREET BRIDGE, BOULDER, COLORADO Same as above Showing details of roadway, spandrel ends and railings Page forty-three ADVANTAGES OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGES Concrete bridges are permanent improvements. Concrete bridges require neither painting nor repairs. Concrete bridges have no wooden floors that are periodically out of repair. As time passes, traffic on our highways grows heavier; steel and wooden bridges grow weaker; concrete bridges grow stronger. To build a concrete bridge then, is just plain common sense. Concrete bridges are flood-proof and frost-proof, rust-proof and fire-proof. A concrete bridge once built, is built for all time. A concrete bridge is the only bridge that grows stronger as it grows older. Concrete bridges are built with home labor and materials. The money expended for a concrete bridge returns directly to the tax-payers. DO PERMANENT BRIDGES PAY? READ THIS: A county with excellent credit and no indebtedness, hut using all its income for current expenses, desires to build a small highway bridge of fifty-foot span. The county borrows from a bank S1,000 and buys a steel bridge with wooden floor. At intervals of five years the bridge is refloored at a cost of about 5100 for each renewal. At intervals of eight years the bridge is repainted at a cost of S50 for each painting. Now, at the end of twenty-five years, in spite of painting and floor renewals, the steel bridge is worn out and must be replaced with a new structure. The interest on the 51,000 borrowed at the bank has amounted to 500 each year on a six per cent basis and the 51,000 still remains unpaid. The county has then paid for the first twenty-five years the following amounts : Interest on 51,000 at 560 per year 51,500 Reflooring every five years, four times 400 Repainting every eight years, two times 100 52,000 a total of 52,000 which amounts to 580 per year, and the 51,000 originally borrowed still unpaid and must now be increased to 52,000 or do without a bridge. The county then borrows another 51,000 and builds a new bridge of the same kind. For the next twenty-rive years the cost per year runs 5140 because of the interest on the additional 51,000, and the county is in debt 52,000. At the end of fifty years the county will be paying at the rate of 5200 per year and be in debt 53,000. At the end of seventy-five years the county will be pay- ing at the rate of 5260 a year and be in debt 54,000. And at the end of one hundred years it will be paying at the rate of 5320 a year and be in debt 55,000. It takes no financier to see that the building of temporary steel or wooden bridges will lead to bankruptcy or to higher tax rates. Suppose instead that a permanent concrete bridge had been erected costing nothing for repairs and repainting, but costing a third more than the steel bridge in first cost, the only charge to the county would have been 580 for interest and an indebtedness of 51,333.33, which would never need be increased for that bridge. If money can be borrowed at a lower rate on a bond issue, say at four per cent, the showing is even more favorable for a concrete bridge, and the county can then afford to pay fifty per cent more for concrete. The State of Kansas has passed a law that no steel bridge shall be built when a concrete bridge can be secured for one-third greater cost.