The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-02-24
GRAB RIDDLED
BY Mr.. DOREMUS
Leakage in Conduit, He Declares, Is
Due Largely to Poor
Concrete. {
PLASTER NOT NECESSARY
HE CoNCURs WITH CITY ENGI.
NEER ON ONLY ONE POINT.

NEER ON ONLY ONE POINT.
In two-hour talk before the combined
committees on engineering and water
works of the city council, A F. Dore-
mus, consulting engineer on the Big
Cottonwood conduit shot the proposed
conduit grab of the "Ameriean'i party
leaders so full of holes that he left its
promoters gasping for breath when he
finished.
In only one particular, did Mr. Dore-
mus concur with the recommendations Of
City Engineer L. G. Kelsey. He agreed
that the conduit should be covered with
earth at all points practicable He failed
to concur in the recommendations that
the walls of the conduit should be in
creased in thickness from six inches to
eight inches, and that the inside Of the
conduit should be covered with cement
plaster. He charged leakage to poor con-
crete used by the contractor.
So far as thickening the walls was con-
cerned, Mr.. DOremus concurred with the
suggestion made by Engineer George NJ.
Bacon in his Interview in The Herald
yesterday morning that, If 1t be neces-
sary to strengthen the walls at all, IL
can be done more cheaply and just as
! effectively by increasing the number Of
twisted steel rods which are imbedded in
| the concrete.
Kelsey Talks for Grab.
Councilman T R Black presided over
| the meeting which was held in the
! mayors office. City Engineer Kelsey
/ spoke first. He said the conduit was not
/ water tight. and that. as at present con-
/ structed, there would be a leakage OF
! 100000 gallons per day. 1t should be
/ pIastered, he declared, on the inside He
| urged covering it with earth as a means
/ of protection to the outside of the con-
! duit and also TO make the water cooler
| on summer DAYS He wanted the walls
thickened so that they would be better
/ able to Withstand force both from with
/ in and from without
! Does it leak everywhere or. just in
/ spots2" demanded Councilman F. s
Fernstrom.
mo, not everywhere" admitted the
! engineer. There are a few feet where
it leaks and a few where IT does not 1t
/ varies that way all along.
Mr.. Kelsey put IN good WoTu mere
| for Contractor p. J. Moran and declared
/ that he was doing the work better than
the specifications require him TO DO
/ Councilman r. s Wells remarked that
/ the proposed extras constituted a
| fearful arraignment'' of the engineers
who made the original plans. and Coun-
Gilman NJ. Z. Mulvey criticised the
spending Of s16055 to date on engineer
ing work in connection with the conduit.
Doremus FaVors Covering.
Mr.. Doremus. who was in the room.
| was asked to give his opinion of Mr..
/ Kelsey's recommendations, and he did
! so at considerable length. He said, IN
! fixed the location of the conduit, but
| that he had agreed with the other en-
! gineers as to the general principles upon
/ which il should be fixed.
| Those who located it, he thought. might
have made mistakes He said that, in
his judgment, the conduit should nave
been put entirely in the hill instead Of
/ being built partly exposed. He also
criticised the facts that the forms for
curves were not all of the same radlus,
but said that that fact was practically
| irnmatpriaI
Mr.. Doremus concurred with Mr.. KeI-
sey that so far as practical, the CONDUIT
he pointed out that some portions 1t
would be impossible thus to cover
without great expense. Mr.. DoremuS
said that while he himself had held the
title of consulting engineer. he had real
ly been an assistant engineer
Thickness of the Walls.
Regarding the thickness Of the walls,
Mr. DOreTnus declared that il was impoS-
sible for him to saw whether or not they
| should be made stronger. He decried the
pronosition that the walls should be OF
Uniform thickness throughout the entire
length of the conduit and SAID that IheII
thickness should be determined IN an III
stances by the quality OF the materldi OF
soil through which the conduit passes. No
two feet of the soil was exactly the Same
| he asserted. He COntended -thaI Co,h-
petent man should be placed on tie
ground to determine how thick the walls
should be at every point
'sAr. Kelsey's proposition to increase
the thickness two inches leaves us IN eA-
lactI,T the same dilemma as when we start
ed he said. 'SiX inches probably IS not
thick enough in all places; in many places
six inches would be ample. II we are 70
have a uniform thickness, why eight
i inches any more than six VINO Is 20 qe-
terrnine how thick the walls shoqiu De,
and how is it to be determined II Hld iI
he that at some places the walls ShOuld
be twelve inches thick You ougnt 20
have a man on the ground constantly 10
NIy DoTemIds asserted that the same re-
suit could be obtained by reinforcing the
sfx-inch walls with more twisted steer
rods Engineer Kelsey denied TINS. out
cave no reason for his denial. Mr. Dore-
mus reminded him that in the conStruc-
tor of concrete water tanks the walls
are often made not to exceed three lnches
in thickness
Puts 1t Up to Moran.
In regard to leakage Mr. Doremus put
the blame for that squarely on the shoul-
ders Of Contractor Moran
'fThere never was a conduit of any de
scription that wouldn't leak some; ne
said; but concrete, properly prop0ruoned
, and skiIfuIly laid. should convey water
, 1 without any considerable loss The ten
dencv of porous concrete IS TO close up
with use. Especially is this true where II
CONVEYS water full OF mineral substances
and silt such as our Utah water The
conduit is bound to leak more when 1t IS
new; il will always leak some even II you
| master the inside Of it. 1t coIA5 down
, therefore. to a financial question, as to
! whether YOU want to plaster IL
NV observation Of the conduit IS that
If leaks only in spots. We will say that
, n,e square foot in ten leaks. Now, If
nine feet can be so laid that they viii not
| leak to any considerable degree there
= isn't any reason why the tenth foot can
: he laid that way. 1t depends on who does
the work
: Continued on Page 2.