Back to First Page.
The Apparent Reserve Load Carrying Capacity
of Covered Bridges
by John H. Weaver, P.E.
March 20, 2000 - I have often been intrigued by the apparent reserve load carrying capacity
of covered bridges, that is, their apparent ability to carry loads beyond their analyzed limits to do
so. I realize that there may be material properties which explain this phenomenon to some extent,
such as moisture content, superior mechanical properties of old growth timber, etc. I participated
in the evaluation review of some of these material properties when we sponsored materials
studies of the Hopkins and Paper Mill bridges.
I think, however, that secondary structural and
appurtenant members of these bridges may also explain some of the reserve capacity. These
members are curbs, upper chord truss bracing, the roof system, wood flooring and floor beams
acting as a plate unit, outside nailers attached to the trusses, etc.
Here is my theory: Although we at VAOT
(myself included) have often (conservatively) only analyzed (for laid bearing capacity)the trusses
of these bridges, we should make some estimate of the structural contributions from secondary
and appurtenant components. On many covered bridges floor beams interlock with the trusses
and the longitudinal flooring is attached to these members. Also upper lateral cross-bracing
between trusses and roof rafters (with boarding) contribute to structural integrity by shear
connection to the trusses.
Are these reasonable assumptions? I think they
are, if the covered bridge components and attached members are in good condition with no
obvious signs of detachment. I think this applies to many cases. Also shear connection of
secondary or appurtenant members does not require anything more than spikes or notches to
develop only a small fraction of structural enhancement. However, the better the shear
connections, the greater the potential enhancement.
Were these secondary and appurtenant
members originally intended to structurally enhance the covered bridges? Probably not. Their
primary purpose was to keep the bridge dry or to provide bracing or to channel traffic.
Nevertheless I think they do provide structural enhancement.
To apply my theory I analyzed the Sanderson
Bridge: Plank lattice type with effective span of 111 feet. Just for comparison, I assumed the
existing bridge members in new condition and compared an analysis of live load capacity of the
trusses alone to capacity with enhancement due to the composite contribution from a small
portion of the secondary and appurtenant member sections. I limited the contribution to what
could be expected from very limited shear transfer at rafter fastenings. The live load capacity of
the composite (enhanced) section was 40% greater than that of the trusses alone. I consider this
to be a substantial increase.
[John Weaver, of VTrans Structures (Vermont Agency of Transportation) was the design
engineer on the Irasburg covered bridge project.]
Return to top
Joe Nelson, P.O Box 267, Jericho, VT 05465-0267
This file posted March 13, 2001, revised April 26, 2007