|
| | | | |
Material | |1,814.71| 1,814.71| |
---------------------+---------+--------+----------+---------------+---------
Total | | |$16,578.29| |
=============================================================================

DISCUSSION

MAURICE C. COUCHOT, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--It appears to the
writer that in the design of this structure two features are open to
criticism. The first is that such a high structure was built of plain
concrete without any reinforcement. Even if the computation of stresses
did not show the necessity for steel reinforcement, some should have
been embedded in the work. As a matter of fact, the writer believes
that, with the present knowledge of the benefit of reinforced concrete,
a structure such as this should not be built without it. This applies
mainly to the tower below the tank.

The second feature, which is still more important, refers to the
insertion of a shell of smooth steel plate to take the stresses due to
the hydrostatic pressure, and also to insure against leakage in the
walls of the tank. The 6-in. shell of plain concrete outside the steel
shell, and the 3-in. shell inside, do not work together, and are
practically of no value as walls, but are simply outside and inside
linings. Although the designer provided lugs to insure the adhesion of
the concrete to the plate, such precaution, in the writer's opinion,
will not prevent the separation of the concrete from the smooth steel
plate, and, at some future time, the water will reach and corrode the
steel. It would have been better to have reinforced the wall of the tank
with rods, as is generally done. The full thickness would have been
available, and less plastering would have been required. Furthermore,
the adhesion of concrete to a smooth steel plate is of doubtful value,
for, in reinforced concrete, it is not the adhesion which does the work,
but the gripping of the steel by the concrete in the process of setting.

L. J. MENSCH, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--This water-tower is
probably the sightliest structure of its kind in North America; still,
it does not look like a water-tower, and, from an architectural point of
view, the crown portion is faulty, because it makes the tank appear to
be much less in depth than it really is.

The cost of this s