The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-16
THE HOLES PROVE NOTHING
At Least, So Says Vallejo Contractor
Of Those Concrete Founda-
tions.
Concrete Is Generally Spoiled in the
Mixing That of the
Ferry.

a. LIE Jeune, architect and contractor at
Vallejo, joins in the shuttlecock criticism
of the ferry depot foundations which has
been going on between engineers, archi-
tects and contractors for some time past.
In communication to THE CALL he says
In regard to the controversy now going on in
your valued daily about the solidity of the
piers for the new depot in your city notice
that the Governor has appointed another ex-
six-inch holes instead of smaller ones. 1t
seems to me that 1t makes little difference
whether the drilled holes are six inches or six
feet III regard to the intended test-that is, has
the concrete been well made? The intention,
as understand it, is to put the drilled-out dust
to chemical analysis.
claim that the most perfect ANALYSIS in this
case can prove nothing as to the. solidity of the
foundation and piers. All the ana1yZer can do
is to tell u.s.. more or less exactly, how much
carbonate of lime, silica, oxide of iron,
alumina, etc, there is contained in the sample
submitted to him, but in what condition those
ingredients were when put in the piers he is
Ignorant OF. The cemenU may have been of good
quality when manufactured, but may have
been q damp setn when used, too much
water may have been used or the whole may
have been improperly mixed: The best cement
may be "killed" (and it generally is) in the
mixing. Further, the cement and the mixing
may have been perfect and not kept sufficiently
moist when ''set
Chemical analysis could not at it's pest prove
any OF those vital points and consequently
cannot, IN my OplnlOn IN any way settle the
question whether or not the cement is as hard
as 1T should be, considering the time it has
been in the piers.
l will go little further in the subject and
approach few points which, in my mind, are
most important Supposing that the piles have
been driven as well as the circumstances per-
mitted and the cement has been properly
mixed and is or will be hard as desired, the
question remains: Will it support the heavy
superstructure of brick and stone? Are those
materials best adapted for building on piles
that are confessed by the expert inspectors to
be suspended in the mud?
In my opinion the prime object in designing
the plans for the building should have been to
have as little weight on the piers as is consis-
tent with the skin friction of the piles. Would
not an iron structure have been the proper
material to use under the circumstances?
Now, suppose that the piles have been well
driven and the cement has been properly
mixed, and is or will be as hard as desired, the
question remains: viii it support the heavy
superstructure?
Is it safe to put that class of a building on
piles that are confessed by the expert inspect
orS to be suspended in the mud''?
In my opinion the prime object of the Com
missioners in selecting q plan should have
been safety through lightness OF structure, and
IL seems to me that it would be better for the
future stability of the same if the whole mass
OF concrete was with McGinty, sat the bottom
OF the sea-"