Inventors at Work, with Chapters on Discovery

Roofs and small bridges may be built much alike . . . The queen-post truss, adapted for bridges in the sixteenth century, was neglected for two hundred years and more . . . A truss bridge replaces the Victoria Tubular Bridge . . . Cantilever spans at Niagara and Quebec . . . Suspension bridges at New York . . . The bowstring design is an arch disguised . . . Why bridges are built with a slight upward curve . . . How bridges are fastened together in America and England.

Roofs and Bridges Much Alike.

Rails are girders used by themselves: girders are often combined in trusses; of these much the largest and most important are employed for bridges. There is now under construction near Quebec a cantilever bridge whose channel span of 1,800 feet will be the longest in the world. See page 29. It will take us a little while to understand how so bold a flight as this was ever dared. We will begin with a glance at a truss of the simplest sort, such as we may find beneath the roof of an old-fashioned barn. A pair of rafters, AB and AC, are inclined to each other at an obtuse angle, and are fastened to the horizontal beam, BC, at B and C. Their apex, A, is joined to BC by the king-post, AK, which binds the three strongly and firmly. This whole structure makes up a triangle, and so does each of its halves, ABK and AKC. No other shape built of straight pieces will keep its form under strain. Take in proof say four pieces of lath and unite them with a freely turning pin at each corner to make the frame, ABCD; it is easily distorted by a slight pull or push; but insert cross-pieces, AC and BD so as to divide the square into triangles, and at once the frame resists any strain not severe enough to break the wood or crush its fastenings. As the roof presses down the frame ABC, its sides, AB and AC, tend to slide away at their lower ends, B and C, but this is prevented by the horizontal beam, BC, which while it holds them in place is itself so stretched as to be held level and straight. This calling into play of tension constitutes the chief merit of the truss, and enables it in roofs and bridges to span breadths impossible to simple beams bending downward under compressive strains. Not only in houses, but in ships, the truss has great value; it was introduced in this field by Robert Seppings of Chatham, in England, about 1810. To resist the pressure of grinding ice, the “Roosevelt” is built with trusses of great strength. She sailed in 1905, under Commander Peary, for a voyage of Arctic discovery.

Were our barn roof flat instead of sloping to form a truss, its supporting timbers, under compression, would have a decided sag from which BC is free. When we fashion a small model of a king-post truss, its sides, AB and AC, must be of metal or wood because they will be in compression; the king-post, AK, and the base, BC, which will be under tension, may be of rubber or cord. Always as in this case the parts of a truss exposed to compression must be of rigid material. When a part may be of cord, rope or wire, we know that it is resisting tension.[2]

[2] A model easily put together illustrates the truss in its simplest form. Take a pair of wooden compasses, each half of which is 15 inches long, such as are sold for blackboard use by the Milton Bradley Co., Springfield, Mass., at 50 cents. At each tip fasten, by the ring provided with the compasses, a chair castor such as may be had at any hardware store. Join the tips of the castors by a rubber strip. Holding the compasses upright, and applying pressure from the hand, they will extend until the rubber will be so stretched as to become almost perfectly horizontal. Various weights may in succession be suspended from the compass-joint, replacing manual pressure, and serving to measure the exerted tensions.

Wrought iron exerts about as much resistance to compression as to tension; so does steel. For this reason, and on account of their great strength, they have immense value in building. Cast iron can bear only about one sixth as much tension as compression, so that it is useful as foundations, for the bed-plates of engines and machinery and the like, but is unsuitable for girders. Wood is much stronger under tension than compression; in white pine this proportion is as eight to one. In designing timber bridges the strains are, therefore, as far as possible, arranged for tension.

DE, HO, queen-posts.]

Interborough Power House, New York.]

Let us now enter another barn, about one half wider than the first, and look upward at its rafters. We see its roof sustained by timbers disposed as DCMH, to avoid the undue weight necessary for a design resembling that of our first roof, ABC. Instead of one upright post, AK, as in that case, we have now two, DE and HO, called queen-posts, sustaining the horizontal beam, CM. In large modern roofs the simple queen-post is modified and multiplied, as in the main power house of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, West 59th St., New York. Returning to our simple queen-post design, let us imagine a creek flowing between walls spanned by DCMH; that truss and a mate to it, parallel at a distance of say ten feet, would easily carry a roadway and give us a bridge. A truss for a bridge must be much stronger than for a roof of equal span, because a bridge has to bear moving loads which may come upon it suddenly, giving rise not only to serious strains but to severe vibrations, all varying from moment to moment.

Palladio’s Long Neglected Truss.

The queen-post truss was remarkably developed by Palladio, a famous Italian architect of the sixteenth century. Two of his designs, here given in outline, are from his work on architecture published in 1570; their contours, little changed, are in vogue to-day. Strangely enough the trusses of Palladio, for all their merit, passed out of notice until their principles were revived and improved by Theodore Burr, in 1804, in a wooden bridge over the Hudson at Waterford, New York. This bridge had spans respectively of 154, 160 and 180 feet, stretches impossible to single wooden beams. Professor J. B. Johnson, an eminent engineer, says that this is the most scientific design ever invented for an all-wooden bridge; during fifty years it stood unrivaled as a model for highway purposes in this country. The Burr bridges were usually covered in, so as to resemble the roofs we began by inspecting. In a truss bridge each part bounded by two adjacent uprights, as DOEH in the queen-post figure on page 21, is a panel; every part under compression, as DO, HE, is a strut, post, or column; every part subject to tension as DE, HO, is a tie.

DO, HE, struts. DE, HO, ties. DHEO, panel.]

In 1830 as the first American railroad train sped on its way, a new era dawned for the bridge builder as well as for his neighbors. At once sprang up a demand for bridges longer and stronger than those which in the past had served well enough. A score of wagons laden with wheat or potatoes were a good deal lighter than a locomotive followed by a train of loaded freight cars. A market-wagon, too, could easily be taken aboard a ferry-boat, but for an engine and its cars a bridge was imperative, if the stream were not so wide as to forbid all opportunity to the bridge builder. His response to the demands of the railroad was two-fold. First in the use of metal instead of wood, beginning with iron rods to bind together frames of timber. As iron became cheaper and its value more and more evident, he employed it for additional parts of his structure until at last he built the whole bridge of iron.

To-day good steel is so cheap that railroad bridges are seldom reared of anything else. Besides using stronger materials, the designer has gradually improved the form of his structure, not only in its parts but as a whole, so that to-day, strength for strength, a bridge may be only one tenth as heavy as a bridge of fifty years ago. Advances in form have been due to experience as one type has been compared with another; meanwhile the mathematicians have carried their analysis of strains as far as the extreme complexity of their problems will allow, greatly to the betterment of designs.

In building a bridge, as in rearing many other structures, girders of various contours are used. In bridge building the I-beam is most employed. When the roadway proceeds on the top chord, as DH, in the queen-post figure, page 21, we have a deck bridge; when it is built on the bottom chord, as CM, we have a through bridge.

The Burr Bridge Simplified by Howe and Pratt.

The Burr bridge of 1804, already mentioned, included an arch and was in part sustained by struts projecting from abutments. These features were omitted by William Howe in the bridge which he patented in 1840, and which was, as far as is known, the first successor to a design of Palladio in employing a simple truss for long spans. The Howe truss was built of wood, except its terminal tie-rods, which were of iron; it has been repeated thousands of times throughout the world. In 1844 Thomas W. and Caleb Pratt patented a bridge which in design was the converse of Howe’s. Its diagonals of iron were used in tension, while its vertical struts of timber were in compression; in the Howe pattern the diagonals were in compression, the verticals in tension. This plan, by shortening the struts, diminished the cross-section necessary in a truss. When wrought iron took the place of wood for bridges, the Pratt design became the most popular of all, combining as it did more desirable features than any of its rivals. To-day for long spans the Baltimore truss is much in favor. Its stresses, that is, its resistances to change of form under strain, are readily ascertained; the shortness of its panels means strength; and its diagonals have the inclination which wide and varied experience has shown most desirable. The roadway, it will be observed, is upheld by sub-verticals, that is, by verticals which reach the floor from half the height of a panel.

An important study concerns itself with the intensity and distribution of strains, first in girders, next in trusses, and lastly, in bridges as units, all with intent to ensure the best possible designs throughout. In this field of inquiry the pioneer was Squire Whipple, a maker of mathematical instruments in Utica, N. Y., who published in 1847 his analysis of the strains in a truss bridge due to its own weight and to its moving loads. With the laws of these strains in mind he devised several bridges of great merit, the most noteworthy being reared in 1852 on the Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad, seven miles north of Troy, which did service until 1883; its sides or web system had ties extended across two panels in double intersection.

In a long truss bridge, which in its entirety may be regarded as a girder of the utmost size, the cross pieces between the main beams of the structure are much less heavy than if continuous plates, of no more strength. The original form of the Victoria Bridge at Montreal was that of a continuous tube of iron, square in section; it has given place to a truss bridge of five times greater capacity which weighs only twice as much. (Illustrations of both on pages 27 and 28.)