reported in your paper of December 3, 1908, p. 608, are liable
because of the small size of the specimens to lead to divergent
conclusions, a few remarks with reference to them may not be out of
place at this time.

"1. It is evident that the columns were all smaller, being only 9
in. square, than is considered good practice in practical
construction, because of the difficulty of properly placing the
concrete around the reinforcement.

"2. The tests of columns with flat bands, _A_, _B_, and _C_, in
comparison with the columns _E_, _D_ and _F_, indicate that the
wide bands affected the placing of the concrete, separating the
internal core from the outside shell so that it would have been
nearly as accurate to base the strength upon the material within
the bands, that is, upon a section of 38 sq. in., instead of upon
the total area of 81 sq. in. This set of tests, _A_, _B_ and _C_,
is therefore inconclusive except as showing the practical
difficulty in the use of bands in small columns, and the necessity
for disregarding all concrete outside of the bands when computing
the strength.

"3. The six columns _E_, _D_ and _F_, each of which contained eight
5/8-in. rods, are the only ones which are a fair test of columns
longitudinally reinforced, since they are the only specimens except
the plain columns in which the small sectional area was not cut by
bands or hoops. Taking these columns, we find an average strength
38% in excess of the plain columns, whereas, with the percentage of
reinforcement used, the ordinary formula for vertical steel (using
a ratio of elasticity of steel to concrete of 15) gives 34% as the
increase which might be expected. In other words, the actual
strength of this set of columns was in excess of the theoretical
strength. The wire bands on these columns could not be considered
even by the advocates of hooped columns as appreciably adding to
the strength, because they were square instead of circular. It may
be noted further in connection with these longitudinally reinforced
columns that the results were very uniform and, further, that the
strength of _every specimen_ was much greater than the strength of
the plain columns, being in every case except one at least 40%
greater. In these columns the rods buckled between the b