Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-09-06
WHY THE TOWER rELL
Report Of the COnsmisst0m Of lnQuiry
Submitted Today.

OF sAND-THE REPORT SAYS THE woNpKR n, NOT
THAT IT TELI, Bot THAT IT STOOD AT AL
Mr.. Clifford Richardson placed on District Com
missioner Webb's desk, about 10 80 this morning.
bulky Envelope and number Of large photo
graphs This was the report OF the commission
appointed By the Commissioners August q ITO In
veStigate all the circumstances connected with
and pertaining 10 the falling OF the tower OF the
Church OF the Covenant at the corner Of 18TH and
streets northwest" on August o. The photo
| graphs were views made OF the church and the
site OF the tower before and after the debris was
cleared away and were nled with the report as
exhibits. The report was signed by the three
members OF the commission-Bernard X Green,
civil engineer; Thomas B. Entwisle, inspector OF
buildings, and clifford Richardson, inspector OF
asphalt ana cementS, ID. e.
| DESCRIPTION OF TIE CONTRACTION OF tn. TOWER
The report gives q detailed description Of the
construction of the fallen tower, which had q
height OF 1873 feet inches above the concrete foot
| Ing. The masonry OF the tower had been finished
excepting few pieces Of the last coping course
stone and the four terminals for the corner tur
| rets, one or two days work OF the maSons "When
the height Of go feet was reached at the beginning
| or The winter" the report says, "a few slight
cracks were observed in the water table and still
cou Sc and in the joints OF the rubble foundation
Just below the water table. AS the work went on
through the spring and summer these cracks in
creased In size and others continually appeared in
| various parts, generally distributed throughout
the base Of the tower from the sandstone tablets
down Into the foundation walls The growing un-
easinesS OF the contractor and building committee
two before the TALL, real anxiety. They did not
Iail to notify the architects, VINO made examina.
lions and assuring reports, as we show below, and
who allowed the work TO proceed.
THE TOWER CRUMBLlNG.
Finally, in the afternoon OF August 81, large
stone In the south door, opening on the nrst loor
was heard to crack with loud report, followed
from hour TO hour by other cracks, and especially
vertical one In the west Jamb Of the same door
way, which opened several inches, the wall Sepa-
rating at Its center like clam shell. This was
observed at its maximum about o'clock In the
evening, and several small pieces or mortar and
stone were heard to fall from an apparent height
OF twenty feet inside the tower at The same time
thoroughly alarmed by this time, the contractor
the sidewalks and all approaches TO the tower to
De Darricaded, and directed the Waterman TO re-
main outside OF the building curing the night
High wind gusts had occurred at intervals during
Tile day and again about the middle OF the night
suIleient To have produced sight Earring effect
upon the tower, and undoubtedly Fastening the
crumbling observed. The watchman heard occa-
sional Cracks during the night until :35 O'Clock
In the morning. While he stood on the n street
sidewalk. between 1Stn street and Connecticut
avenue In company with q policeman, the two
men heard continued sounds Of cracking stone
followed quickly by the falling OF several pieces Of
stone villain the tower, and in a few moments OBJ
served the lower portion OF the masonry crush and
bulge, and
TIE WHOLE MASS SINK DOWN VERTICALLY
upon its own base, crumbling into q pyramldal
heap Of stones and sand, and nlling the air with
dense cloud OF dust. 1t is Significant also, that
the Souni OF the fail was heard BY few persons In
The nsighoorhood, being more like that OF an ava
lanche OF gravel and sand than OF strongly CO.
herent stonrwork requiring much force to break It
up. The eye witnesses say that the belIry came
down intact and erect until IL reached the heapng
pile, where IL went TO pieces and was scattered
uniformly over IT,"
CONDITION OF THE CHURCH AFTER THE FALL OF THE
The report then gives an account of the condi-
OF the church after the fall OF the tower. The
lower half Of the north and west foundation walls
OF the tower remained in position, showing but
sight signs OF having sustained great weight, but
dication that the concrete foundation yielded In
the least degree. The building was erected after
the plans and speeifcations OF J: G. Cady Co..
under contract with the building committee OF the
church, MIR. John Edwards, ST., OF this city, dong
all The masonry as SUD contractor. The report
gives length the essential parts OF the specica-
lions and the provisions or the builders contract
bearing upon the construction OF the tower. The
drawings, the report says, show that the fOunda-
zion walls were TO be entirely rubble masonry and
the superstructure OF dressed stone and rock faced
ashlar, backed up with ruoble masonry, The
were Carefully and tntelligently made by the ar
ehitects, and the assumptions upon which they
We're based correct, except in our opinion the
strength OF mortars for rubble masonry.
THE WEIGHT PER SQUARE INCH
borne by the low piers into which the bases OF
the tower walls were divided by the doorways, did
not exceed 140 10 100 pounds, some 10 IL gross
tons per square foot liable to momentary increase
BY the highest WINDS to 12 or Is tons preSSureS,
not TOO great for good brick work In hydraulc
cement mortar. AS, however, the cellar walls were
but four inches thicker than the piers they were
called upon 10 sustain, and having little lateral
support, with none at all about the inner
corner. the same load per foot was prac-
tically borne by their upper portions, and
as the poor bond OF the masonry may have distri-
outed II over larger area Under the specinca-
tons the stone or the foundation walls consisted
OF blue gneiSs rubble; that OF the superstructure
walls OF three kinds, soft Ohio sandstone light
colored Schistose granite and Seneca sandstone
ruboie used for backing. From q careful ex.
animation Of the remaining parts OF the foundation
walls the report goes on. 'the fractured and sha-
ken ends OF the standing church walls, Shapes and
sizes OF the building stones, quality or the mortar
used and noting the almost entire absence OF iron
Clamps, anchors or other ties to De found In the
developing cracks all about the lower sections. we
are at 10 loss 10 discover
THg ELEMENTS OF WEAKNESS
that existed In the tower masonry The founda
tion walls were but ordinary work seriously def.
Gent In large stones strong bonding or good NOR
the existing church wallis All OF the rubble was
composed OF stones that could be handled Uy hand
no derrick or purchase having been employed.
The dressed sandstone Was well cut and set, and
although extremely SOFT not a serious element OF
weakness In the general construction had all parts
been equally well built. 1t was used however
for the water-table, and also In shallow courses
alternating with ashlar and receiving the pressure
OF the latter in undue proportion, because OF
the compressible nature OF tine rubole backing and
the general shallowDeSs OF the ashlar That the
backing was compressed so as to drag down the
aShlar 10 some extent, was indicated by an inward
cant or the water table, which Increased with the
general yielding. The ashlar facing Consisted
almost entirely OF thin slabs having, generally,
the scantest, toughest, and most absurd semblance
OF bed joints, formed more by scabbling than by
any cutting worthy the name. 1t was laid up
almost entirely without anchors or clamps. OF
which but thrilling number were found In the
runs The backing OF the superstructure was the
both within itself and to the front stones being
composed Chiefly OF shapeeSS CHUNKS and chips as
SemUled more Ike heap or stones than a
masonry, capable OF sustaining much weight
There were but few or the long and nat pieces
needed In SUCH masonry 10 prevent the laterpene-
load. Finally the mortar, the great dependence
for strength In rubble masonry, was Practically
worthless, nor did II well Nil the intensified
Hardly two particles OF II were found sticking
together In the heap OF ruins, which II filled Ike
nne dry sand. Neither did II adhere to the stones
which m ST have been laid without being properly
soaked with water and probably not weIGel at
all. Mortar from The standing walls crushes TO
sand when lightly grasped In The hands. II is eyi-
dent also that the lime and the cement were not
wellincorporated. The cement used must either
have been OF a very poor quality or improperly
used The report gives the result OF tests made py
the Commission and then goes on to say:
"'sCcH CEMENT Is UNFIT FOR USE
In any important work, and In this case was prob
ably a detriment rather than q reinforcement OF
t.a