The San Francisco call., 1907-06-16


future earthquakes are very much more
severe than any that have occurred
there is no reason why San FRANCISCO
should not be rebuilt as successtul
commercial enterprise. 1t seems hlghly
improbable that earthquakes viii ever
be much more severe than the one OF
April Is, 1906. There is no doubt that
the city can be rebuilt so that, although
II may suffer damage from future
earthquakes. this damage VIII not be at
ali fatal ard the city viii not burn up
as the result OF it"-John stephen
SeweIl, captain engineer corps, Z. :. A
ssWhen we can plainly see as we may,
looking. backward. that nearly all of
this destruction and suffering might
have been prevented by wise foresight
and provision we feel that we must
send a warning 70 all the cities of the
world. Any city that disregards this
warning viii be guilty of great
crime-"-Frank Soule. dean college of
civil engineering, University Of Cali
fornis-
'The San Francisco disaster demon
sersred that the lessons taught by the
Chicago and Baltimore fires are still
uniearned. The same faults in con-
struction continue to be repeated. The
only sure way to remedy grave defects
OF this character is to enact strict
building laws which viii compel an OBJ
Eervance of the essentials for fireproof
structures" - Richard L. Humphrey,
secretary of the national advisory
board on fuels and structural materials
end expert in charge of the structural
materials division OF the geological
survey.
In the above words three Of the best
known experts on structural materials
he
fuI yet practical lesson that has been
learned from the terrible disaster that
cost 500 lives and a property loss of
S5oo.0oo 200.
Acting in cooperation with the tech
nologic branch of the geologic survey,
these experts visited the scene Of deso-
lation and ruin wrought by the earth
quake and fire shortly after the
catastrophe Captain Sevell officially
represented the war department at the
time: Professor Frank Soule was acting
In behalf of the geological survey. and
Richard L. Humphrey. now expert In
charge of the structural materials divi-
sion of the survey, was on the ground
representinz the national advisory
board on fuels and structural materials.
Their reports tell San Francisco and
other cities of the world how to be pre-
pared for earthquakes and also how TO
prevent general conflagFations. The
experts find much carelessness in build
ing methods not only in San Francisco
but also throughout the country
That reinforced concrete structures,
properly built. are the best not only to
withstand earthquake shocks but also
fire is the opinion of these experts
sEwELL's SUGGESTIONS
The conclusions of Captain Sewell in
regard to the most effcient type of
building for San Francisco contain
some striking suggestions He says:
For very tail buildings the best type of con-
etr1ction is undoubtedly steel frame. but IL
way as the Cal building The steel brscing
IN this building undoubtedly saved the masonry.
In buildings such the new Chronicle and the
hionadnocE, the effect of the vibration was really
eounteracted by the masonry and the masonry
was much shattered Some OF It was preclpi-
fsted into the street from the Chronicle, The
Rislto and other buildings Naked steel frames
Of the same type came through without serious
damage. but they did not have the additional
stresses due 10 the vibration Of great load OF
masonry. floor construction and contents IN the
upper stories. did the finished buildings.
Il is not right 70 run the risk Of precipitatng
fhe masonry into the streets the heads or
pAssersby might have happened in the case
OF the unbraced steel frame buildings bad the
earthquake occurred ST q later hour in the day.
Besides. if the bracing is dependent upon ma
sOnry which is seriously shattered by the stress
II IS expected TO resist, the factor of safety
against general collapse is manfestly too small.
The steel frame construction should therefore be
thoroughly brsced-
IN nv Judgment, to secure the best results.
II should also be inclosed with walls Of re-
snforce6 concrete. IN which case ii would be
alnost impossible 10 throw the walls of. The
proper artistic treatment Of this material would
seem 70 be very important problem for the
architects in place ike San Francisco. It's
great utility IN earthquake shocks cannot be
6nished with ordinary masonry walls however
complete bonding of all face bricks with full
ether form is adequate Nothing but Portland
cement should be allowed in any portion of the
seei frame IL the Te bess possbe 81 way y ane
much more securely than is ordinarily the
tz5 feet as an extreme limit. reinforced concrete
alone can undoubtedly be designed TO give
very good results when subjected TO either earth
quake or FIRE. But the brscing OF reinforced
concrete building Of any height TO resist earth
euakes Is matter for serious study.
Any building Of considerable height in an
psrthquske country should have as little mass
In the superstructure possible. consistent
Nth other necessary Qualities But this limit
ng Of mass does not mean that the nimsy floors
and partitions heretofore in use should be con-
ktnued- In fact. 70 make the buildings proof
hat they VIII have to be at least as heavy as
fhey have been. but changes in distribution Of
would be made By any careful and skillfui de-
CONCRETE Is SAFEST
For the ordinary commercial building where
Be used, I am Of the opinion that reinforced
Eoncrete is the safest and most practicable
1olution In. place Ike San Francisco
Where reinforced concrete iE used throughout.
whether the building is very tail not. great
rare should be taken with the design and exc
sut1on Of the connections between columns and
members OF the floor system
From the effect fortfhcations and from the
Rnect on nonofthic and massive concrete struc-
lures elsewhere II seems Justif2ble to conclude
that solid monolfthic concrete structure OF any
sort ie secure against damage in earthquake
country unless II should happen 70 lie across
the line OF the slip; IN that case the damage
might be fatal and it might not That would
fepend altogether the amount of the slip
and the intensity Of the forces accompanying it.
Professor Frank Soule declares in his
report that the failure of some of the
methods OF fireproofing in San Fran
cisco rs directly traceable to the COM
xnands OF owners to their architects 10
cheaper, as far as practicable. the fire.
proofing and the construction general
ly in order TO secure greater interest
on their investment This cheapen-
fng" he declares, has often occurred
in spite OF the protests of the designer
snd It is in an entirely wrong. direction,
for rates OF insurance are largely re-
duced with improvements in hreproof-
ing and as the cost of the steel frame
and its proper fireproofng seldom ex-
ceeds 81 per cent of the cost of the
building, it seems wise to protect the