The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-01-29
ROLLED STEEL.
Its General Use by PrOvi-
denCe Contractors.
Building Laws in Advance OF
Those Of New York.
An Experts Opinion of New Local
Office Structures.

NANRhN1 - 49,
Providence in the way downtown Office
buildings. lie looked at the Industrial
Trust C%ompany's building and admired
that, but had one unfavo:able criticism
He could not see any good reason Tor th'
cornice which surrounds the huiid ng
like a band midway between the roof aud
the sidewalk. lie also objected to The
pyramids which adorn the roof corners
OF the Francis building, but with these
two exceptions MS TO minor details he said
that the new Office buildings of this city
were most creditable in size, appearance
and the manner of their construction.
And as to their construction he went
on to say that Providence is far in adj
vance of New York city. So far as height
is concerned he said that Of course the
tsllest bu ldings Of Providence are pig
mics compared with Gotham's "sky
scrapers, but the structures here Will be
standing long alter the towering build
ings OF his own city are burned down or
torn down, not because of their height,
but on account OF the material used in
their construction.
Providence is in advance OF New York
inasmuch as the local building law does
not specify what kind OF metal shall be
used In the framework and the builders
avail themselves of the opportunity which
this option allows them to make use OF
the best material. In New York, on the
other hand, there is a building law, en-
acted in 1882, and now in force, which
compels contractors to use cast iron for
the framework of the big buildings, not
withstandiDg the fact that all the best
scientific evidence is In favor OF rolled
steel.
Mr.. George II. Thomson, the consult
ing engineer Of the Vermont Central
Railroad, and the designer Of the struc-
tural plan OF the New York Central's ell
evated tracks to the Harlem river, puts
the situation in a nutshell SO far as the
New York trouble is concerned.
Tie says that the trouble with the
present building laws is that scientific
progress has left them behind. The act
was Originally adopted in 1882, and has
since been amended i'm minor parts. Still
its provisions are ancient when adapted
to the up-to-dste requirements. In what
respect?
Well, when the laws were formed the
"sky scrapers' were not thought OF for
practical purposes in New York city.
Then, too, the use of rolled steel for
building purposes had not become current
practice as it is now. That is where the
hrfIdi,n la,yo paad ravisiop co that cop-
tractors may use rolled steel in the place
of cast iron, thus securing immensely
greater stability, pafety and value to all
large structures.
These old building laws, by their dis
elimination against rolled steel, make the
cost Of buildings in which it is used
much greater than where cast iron
Is used. IL you will examine section 4S3,
under the head Of strength of Col
umns," you will see that the permissible
unit working stress for cast iron is given
at 10, 900 pounds TO the square inch, whilo
rolled steel is given II, 900 pounds to the
square inch. Now this law recognizes
mat cast iron Is SO per cent. superior in
strength to rolled iron or steel. Such
legislative delusion Is not supported by
any valid reasoning known to the engi-
neering profession. Instead of cast iron
being 80 per cent. safer it is 30 per cent.
weaker. think you cannot find a single
engineer of good standing who will un-
dertske to controvert that statement.
III you will dig down to the root and
source Of the act Of 1882, i think you will
find 1t based upon personal interests-in-
terests of no small worth either. That is
the trouble with too many of our laws.
They are formed not in the welfare of the
great public, but are selfishly warped
with the personal interests OF some
powerful lobby, or, maybe, to serve the
business opportunities OF n few legisla-
tors and their conniving friends.
However, at the time the laws were
the discrimination against the use Of
rolled steel in buildings because then
steel was ain ost probibitorily expensive.
But six years ago steel began to cheaper.
Scientific discoveries and improved ma
chinery have brought the price down so
thuA IL AZ ihNn BtihiIttca ~ cittl IN
buildings could he substituted for cast
iron at no increased cost, and could add
to a buildings security and value most
materially.
Perhaps l need cite no stronger argu-
ment in my plea Tor steel than to call
your attention TO tho ncontrovertible fact
that steel has, in late years, entirely SUI
persedod iron in the construction Of
bridges. Fifteen years ago iron was used
by bridge builders most extensively, SUD
every o and then you read Of the col
lapse OF a structure which precipi,ated
a train with its hmuan freight into a
river or rsvine. You dent bear Of such
accidents so often now. The reason is
plain. Those collapsed bridges were cast
iron structures. The modern railroad
bridge l. Of rolled steel, snd accidents OF
the old days are now relatively rare
events. Now, IL railroads find the use 81
relied steel . much safer and more val
liable than cast iron, why should not build.
o-a9 Hut thfrp il no failfnad ofruc.,x.t