Queen Creek Bridge, Carries South El Camino Viejo over Queen Creek, Queen Valley

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER AZ-99. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Carries South El Camino Viejo over Queen Creek Queen Valley; Pinal County; Arizona Latitude: Longitude: This coordinate represents the center point of the Queen Creek Bridge. The coordinate was obtained on 16 May using the Google Earth database. The coordinate s datum is North American Datum The owner of the Queen Creek Bridge has no restriction on release of this location to the public. Present Owner/ Occupant: Pinal County, Arizona is the present owner and occupant.

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER AZ-99. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Strategically located on the routes between Phoenix and Tucson and Phoenix and Globe, the Mesa-Superior Highway formed a pivotal route in central Arizona. The Queen Creek Bridge at Florence Junction provided an important crossing on that route. As such, this structure enjoys a degree of historical significance as an integral link on this regionally important transportation artery. Technologically, the bridge is significant as an exemplary long-span Luten vehicular arch. It is one of thirteen such arches found in Arizona, all of which were associated either through engineering or construction with the Topeka Bridge & Iron Company, the western representative of Daniel Luten s Indiana-based National Bridge Company.

Designed by a Topeka Bridge & Iron staff engineer and built by the company itself, the Queen Creek Bridge is thus closely associated with this important bridge firm. It is distinguished as the last Luten arch built on a state road, following such notable structures as the Ca on Padre Bridge, the Ca on Diablo Bridge, and the Gila River Bridge. After this, the highway department designed virtually all of its own structures without outside help. In unaltered and excellent condition, this bridge typifies an important Arizona bridge building trend.

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER AZ-99. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

This Historic American Engineering Record documentation of the Queen Creek Bridge was produced by Fraserdesign of Loveland, Colorado, for Pinal County, Arizona, under a subcontract agreement with EcoPlan Associates, Inc, of Mesa, Arizona. The county has proposed demolition of this structure, which has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This documentation is intended to mitigate the impact on the bridge by this action. Photographic recordation, field inspection and production of this documentation report of the Queen Creek Bridge were undertaken by Clayton Fraser, principal of Fraserdesign, in May QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 3) Part I. Historical Information A. Physical History: 1.

Date(s) of construction: Workers built the bridge from they completed it 6 May 2. Architect/Engineer: Leeson, Topeka KS. 3. Builder/Contractor/Supplier: Topeka Bridge and Iron Company, Topeka KS. 4. Original plans and construction: The original plans for the bridge are located in the bridge files at the Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona. They are reproduced in this report. 5. Alterations and additions: Other than the removal of the original builder s plate from the guardrail, the bridge is unaltered. B. Historical Context: In the Arizona Highway Department (AHD) began the engineering for a segment of the Mesa-Superior Highway in western Pinal County.

As one of the first federal aid projects in the state, one nearly twelve-mile segment of the route near Florence Junction was designated as Federal Aid Project 7, Section State forces began work on the grading and small drainage structures of the section in March The crossings of Queen Creek and its overflow channel north of Florence Junction, however, required more substantial structures, and for these the AHD bridge department delineated two long-span concrete bridges. (The proposed overflow channel bridge was later eliminated by raising the highway grade slightly, leaving the one span over the main channel.)1 For this the highway department selected a filled spandrel arch, similar to those it had employed previously at other crossings in the state.

The structural type was an elliptical arch developed by engineer Daniel B. Luten of Indianapolis. After concrete bridge construction in the United States experienced a marked increase, due largely to Luten s efforts. According to bridge historian James L. Cooper, Daniel B. Luten did more than any other single person to advance the movement from concrete-steel to reinforced con- crete bridge design. Patterned loosely after the patented arch reinforcing design of Josef 1 Clayton B. Fraser, Vehicular Bridges in Arizona. (Report for Arizona Department of Transportation, Appendix, Pinal County, Queen Creek Bridge. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 4) Melan, the Luten arch featured a filled spandrel configuration with a highly elliptical profile.2 Luten s arches were clearly innovative.

They were sophisticated in their reliance on steel reinforcing and allowed relatively thin concrete sections at midspan. The Luten System combines numerous improvements in arch reinforcement and construction, Luten stated in a brochure, increasing the strength and durability of the structure, and decreasing its cost. Great strength combined with minimum material, resulting in low cost, has been the constant aim in these improvements.

3 In an engineering article Luten explained his arch philosophy: An arch of concrete reinforced with embedded steel has all the permanence of stone; in fact, it is more permanent than the usual building stones, and has none of the limitations of steel, such as corrosion and crystallization; for concrete is but slightly affected by the elements, and the embedded steel is protected from rust and vibration. No painting or repairs are ordinarily required, and inspection is superfluous. A properly- designed reinforced-concrete arch will be in equilibrium under the fixed load. Reinforcement will be required in the arch ring to resist moving load stresses only, and the moving loads are small in comparison with the fixed load.

Such a structure, therefore, displays its material in an efficient form, and because of its useful application presents a beautiful appearance. Everyone knows that concrete is a material strong in compression. Its use in the arch without ornamentation, consequently, appeals to the eye. This is wholly apart from the relation of the bridge to its surroundings, in which harmony must be secured ordinarily by ornamentation of spandrels and railings. There is no harmony, for example, in adopting a segmental curve or parabolic arc for an earth-filled arch merely because it carries railway loading, when such curves are not the curves of equilibrium, for the loading.

Since the concrete arch is of pleasing form when properly designed, all that is necessary to make it harmonize with its surrounding is to limit the design to dignified details for rugged surroundings, and to embellish it with ornamentation for cultivated surroundings. No other bridge structure harmonizes so readily with its surroundings, no matter what they may be. . . For spans of less than 100 dignity of design can usually be best 2 Ibid. 3 Topeka Bridge & Iron Company, Reinforced Concrete Bridges: Luten Patents Owned by National Bridge Company (Topeka, Kansas: Luten, QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 5) secured for an arch bridge of moderate rise by the use of the earth-filled type with solid spandrels.

But a semi-circular arch can hardly be made to present a satisfactory appearance with solid spandrels, unless the depth of load over the crown be proportional to the rise, not an economical arrangement. For spans greater than 100 especially with great rise, the open-spandrel is usually to be preferred, and this accords fairly well with economy in this country, at the present cost for labor and materials.4 The key to Luten s arches, which he patented, lay in the reinforcing. He received his first U.S. patent for steel reinforcing in and over succeeding years took out a series of wide-ranging patents for reinforced concrete arches. By the Luten had obtained nearly fifty patents, covering virtually all aspects of concrete arch construction.

The Luten System is the result of eight years of experience in the design and erection of reinforced concrete arches, Luten stated in Upwards of forty improvements have been made for the purpose of decreasing its cost and increasing its strength, until now we have a stronger arch by fifty per cent than any other type that can be erected at the same cost. We have been to great expense in developing this structure and in advertising its advantages. We have consequently applied for patents on every improvement, and we now own more cost-saving patents on reinforced concrete arches than all other builders. 5 Luten s patents were so wide-ranging that it was almost impossible for a contractor to build a reinforced concrete arch without infringing on one of his designs.

For several years in the early-twentieth century, the engineer virtually controlled the concrete bridge industry in America. He protected his patents aggressively, demanding royalty payments from companies such as the Pueblo Bridge Company of Colorado, Stark in Iowa, and the Topeka Bridge & Iron Works of Kansas or collecting payments from the raft of lawsuits that his attorneys filed around the country.6 Luten s grip on the industry became so onerous that many in the engineering, construction and legal professions joined in protest in the Finally, in his dominance of the industry was broken in an Iowa court when many of his patents were ruled invalid. Luten continued designing and building concrete arches into the but his dominance in the industry had been broken.

As a result, with royalties no longer being paid to Luten by bridge companies, the reinforced concrete arch received increased use as a vehicular bridge type in the United States. 4 Daniel B. Luten, Arch Design; Specialization and Patents, Journal of the Western Society of Engineers XVII: 7 (September 5 Clayton B. Fraser, Vehicular Bridges in Arizona. Appendix, Pinal County, Queen Creek Bridge. 6 Ibid. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 6) Arizona first associated with Luten in That year state engineer Lamar Cobb was tasked with building a bridge on the Old Trails Highway over Ca on Padre a rock- walled chasm in Coconino County.

After determining that a 136-foot span was needed, Cobb contracted with the Topeka Bridge & Iron Company, western representative of Luten s National Bridge Company, for the bridge s design and construction. Topeka Bridge & Iron designed a 140-foot Luten arch with a 16 -wide roadway. As delineated by Luten himself, the arch sprang from concrete abutments and featured Luten s trademark elliptical profile. A Topeka Bridge & Iron crew began substructural excavation in September completing the bridge in A few months after the Ca on Padre Bridge was completed, Cobb contracted with Topeka Bridge & Iron for design of a second arch span, over Ca on Diablo just west of Two Guns, also on the Old Trails Highway.

Luten engineered the 128-foot arch himself for Like the Ca on Padre Bridge, the Ca on Diablo arch featured an elliptical arch and a roadway that cantilevered from the arch walls over concrete brackets. The Ca on Diablo Bridge was completed in March by local contractor Thomas Maddock of Williams.8 Cobb designed the third arch himself, with assistance from Luten. Without first consulting with the Arizona State Engineer, the Navajo County Board of Supervisors in had contracted with the El Paso Bridge & Iron Company to erect a 128-foot truss on a county road over the Little Colorado River, three miles southeast of Holbrook. Completed in the bridge lasted only until April 14, when the Lyman Dam at St. Johns burst and swept away it and four other metal bridges downstream.

The site [for the Holbrook Bridge] was a poor one and foundations faulty, stated Cobb.9 He acted immediately to survey a new site feet upstream from the original for a suitable replacement structure. That summer, with help from Luten, Cobb designed a long-span Luten arch for the replacement structure. A state work force began excavating for the foundations of the new bridge in September and work continued without incident until a flash flood washed the centering timbers away in January The men resumed work soon after, rebuilding the centering and eventually completing the bridge in March. With a span length of 174 feet, the Holbrook Bridge was extraordinarily long.

Promotional literature published by the National Bridge Company indicates that this is the longest concrete arch ever built in the United States using Luten s patented technology.10 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 7) The next year Thomas Maddock succeeded Cobb as state engineer. Like Cobb, Maddock soon enlisted the assistance of Topeka Bridge & Iron for a major highway span, but the circumstances this time were quite different. One of the unfinished projects that Mad- dock inherited from Cobb involved a crossing of the Gila River near Clifton. Cobb had designed a steel bridge, but he did not remain state engineer long enough to see this design executed.

Steel shortages caused by World War I drove the price of the metal arch well beyond the budget, however, and the design was scrapped. So was the design for a single long-span concrete arch. Eventually, the state hired Leeson, engineer for Topeka Bridge & Iron, to design a two-span Luten arch. The Gila River Bridge was built by convict labor that year.11 Maddock s successors, Atwood and Lefebvre, contracted for a handful of other Luten arches in the state. One crossed the Agua Fria River in Maricopa County. And a 100-foot arch spanned Willow Creek in Yavapai County; another spanned Silver Creek in Cochise County.

Because Luten arches used a proprietary design, which was protected vigorously by Daniel Luten and his attorneys, they were perceived as more expensive than other highway bridge types. For this reason, they were rarely built by Arizona s individual counties or municipalities. Two notable exceptions were the Kelvin and Winkelman bridges, built under contract with Pinal County in Most of the Luten arches in Arizona were constructed by the state highway department. For the Queen Creek crossing, the department in contracted with the Topeka Bridge & Iron Company of Kansas to build the bridge over the creek s main channel.

AHD would supply the cement and steel for just over Topeka Bridge & Iron would design and build the structure for In November Topeka engineer Leeson designed a 120 span with a 16 arch rise, springing from solid concrete abutments set into a solid rock substrate. As drawn, the bridge featured a 20 -wide cambered deck over earth fill, bounded on both sides by concrete guardrails with cast balusters set between paneled bulkheads. Under the direction of AHD inspector James Bone, the contractor worked over the winter and spring, completing the Queen Creek Bridge on May 6, (Figure Six). It was the last Luten arch built in the state. The highway was later designated as U.S.

60 and in was realigned over a new bridge on Queen Creek nearby, rendering the Queen Creek arch bridge a county-owned structure on a secondary road. This structure now carries local traffic in essentially unaltered condition. It is presently scheduled for replacement.13 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 8) Part II. Structural/Design Information A. General Statement: 1. Character: The Queen Creek Bridge typifies the Luten arch, a structural type patented by Daniel Luten and built in large numbers across the country. With its distinctive profile and reinforcing design, this filled spandrel arch was used extensively on Arizona roads throughout the and 2. Condition of fabric: The Queen Creek Bridge is structurally unaltered and in generally good condition. B.

Description: The Queen Creek Bridge is comprised of a single filled-spandrel, reinforced concrete arch, which springs symmetrically from concrete abutments braced against the solid rock walls of the creek s wash. Following the proprietary shape of its inventor, Daniel Luten, the arch is not truly elliptical or segmental, but rather has more of a horseshoe profile, with arched haunches at the abutments. The Queen Creek Bridge spans 120 between the abutments and has a 16 arch rise from the spring points to the midpoint intrados. The arch s radius ranges from 129 -8 at the abutments to 154 -10 at midpoint. Reinforced with continuous steel bars along the length of the arch, which range from 1 to 1 diameter, and transverse steel bar reinforcing, the structural arch is 12 wide over its length.

Over this rests the 15 -thick concrete spandrel walls on both sides, which contain the arch s earth fill. Over the fill rests a 30 -deep reinforced concrete deck, reinforced like the arch over its length with continuous steel bars. The 20 -wide cambered concrete deck cantilevers from the arch on both sides over twenty-three 5 -3 -long tapered concrete brackets spaced at slightly more than 3 on center. The construction drawings (Figures Two to Five) indicate that each bracket has curved undersides, but the bridge was built using a straight-line bottom edge with drip groove close to the outside edge. The bridge s roadway is lined on both sides with solid concrete curbs and guardrails, lined with cast concrete decorative balusters.

A 2 -2 -wide concrete wall is positioned at midspan on each side; 8 -0 -wide bulkhead walls are positioned at the four corners. These have incised lines in the concrete. C. Mechanicals/Operation: The bridge has no mechanical systems. D. Site Information: QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 9) The Queen Creek Bridge spans Queen Creek at a broad desert crossing some two miles north of Florence Junction, in western Pinal County. Positioned generally north-south over the intermittent watercourse, the bridge originally carried the Mesa- Superior Highway about thirty-eight miles southeast of Mesa. It is one of two identical structures intended for this location; the other bridge planned here was to span an overflow channel of Queen Creek to the south.

The second structure was abandoned during the engineering process, however, by raising the highway grade slightly. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 10) Part III. Sources of Information A. Primary

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER AZ-99. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Leeson, Concrete Bridges. Transactions of Kansas Engineering Society, Luten, Daniel B. Arch Design; Specialization and Patents, Journal of the Western Society of Engineers XVII: 7 (September MacDonald, Thomas H. Bridge Patent Litigation in Iowa. The Iowa Engineer, January State of Arizona, Highway Department. Queen Creek Arch Bridges. Construction drawings, 28 November Located at Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona. Topeka Bridge & Iron Company, Reinforced Concrete Bridges: Luten Patents Owned by National Bridge Company. Topeka, Kansas: Luten, B. Secondary Arizona Highway Department. History of the Arizona Highway Department. Unpublished manuscript, Fraser, Clayton B. Vehicular Bridges in Arizona.

Report for Arizona Department of Transportation, State of Arizona, State Engineer. Fifth Biennial Report of the State Engineer to The Governor of the State of Arizona: Phoenix: Republican Print Shop,1922. Fourth Biennial Report of the State Engineer to the Governor of the State of Arizona: Phoenix: Republican Print Shop, Second Report of the State Engineer to the State Highway Commission: and Phoenix: The McNeil Company, Third Biennial Report of the State Engineer to the Governor and Commission of State Institutions: Phoenix: Arizona State Press, C. Likely Sources Not Yet Investigated: None. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 11) Figure 1: Location Map, from USGS Florence Junction, Arizona, 7 -minute quadrangle map. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No.

AZ-99 (Page 12) Figure 2: Elevation and section of bridge, Leeson, 29 November Arizona Department of Transportation. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 13) Figure 3: Bridge details, Leeson, 29 November Arizona Department of Transportation. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 14) Figure 4: Abutment details, Leeson, 29 November Arizona Department of Transportation. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 15) Figure 5: Form details, Leeson, 29 November Arizona Department of Transportation. QUEEN CREEK BRIDGE HAER No. AZ-99 (Page 16) Figure 6: Queen Creek Bridge, Arizona State Archive.