New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-11-27

embellishments. All of this was SuppIe-
mvnted by a specification IN detail
strictly delimiting the grade OF steels 10
be used and the stresses to which they
were TO be subjected in the diner
ent members. Whatever details were
omitted in the contract plans, or what
ever errors may have occurred in the
strain sheets on which bids were in
vited. a conformity by the contractor 10
the specification limitations on stress al
lowances would have given safe bridge
for six tracks. one roadway and two
fOotwalks. This much seems To be In
disputable.
A contract modification, dated Decem-
her II. 1904. and later made with the ap-
prevail of the Board of Aldermen. as re-
quired 10y the city charter. for an addi-
tional expenditure of 100000 for two
additional tracks, made no other mOdi-
fication of the specification requirements
of the original contract. Even if the
original design had been OF the most in
appropriate type. instead of the regula-'
ton eantiiever style, the specification
requirements for allowable working
stresses on steel would have provided an
operative bridge for the full expectant
load, requiring probably an unecOnOmic
distribution of this material and waste
of money in consequence; but this would
be matter of no special concern 20 the
contractor working under contract to
supply the erected structure at so much
a pound for the material required under
the specifications. as in the case of the
Blackwelfs Island Bridge.
Although the Corporation Counsel in
his opinion states that the reports of the
engineering experts appointed to examine
into the safety Of the bridge are rather
complimentary than otherwise TO the
contractor the report of one of these
experts says: I'VE have made "A stress
sheet for the loads called for In the
specifications, but il was evident that
the structure could not safely carry
these loads. so We had 10 find the safe
carrying capacity of the structure"
This stress sheet. although not presented
with the report, was later produced by
the Bridge Commissioner. and showed
that under the specified Ioadings the
greatest stresses occurring in the nickel
steel eyebars over contract limitations
would have been - per cent: structural
steel eyebars. 30 per cent riveted ten
sion members. II per cent. and Tiveted
compression members. from - 10 10 per
cent
The same report also comments ON the
irregular and erratic character Of the
stresses which represents unequal utili-
zauon and therefore waste material"
and concludes that 1t seems probable
that good part OF the IS per cent IN
crease in dead weight during coDstr,Ic-
ton Is accounted for by metal wasted In
giving some members lower stresses than
other members performing a similar ser
vice At - per cent this waste repre-
Sents thirteen thousand tons, which al
contract prices means a loss Of 81 500 OAO
The report OF the other EXPERT in liz
opening paragraph says. Il understand
your Instructions as 10 this examination
10 be suth$ientiy broad 20 include the
general question OF safety and stability.
irrespective % the provisions Of the
specifications, in other words that this
examination Is not 10 be limited by those
provisions u Is difficult u see in what
sense this attitude Of the engineering ex-
pert. who had examined the work done
by the contractor. could be construed a.
rather complimentary than otherwise 20
the contractor" But in the FINDINGS 80
his report this same expert saws ,bat
computations for all the main truss
members Of the bridge show thar the
stresses produced by the prescribed con-
geSted live load. combined with the dead
load or with the dead load and wind
loading, are higher than prescribed as
permissible in the specifications and
higher than prudent 10 permit. although
practically not in excess Of the Hrrits
approved Ofor the Manhattan Bridge, hv
the commission Of exp, RI engineers IN
1903"
The language % this paragraph quoted
from The report q Professor William II
Burr one OF the experts. Is clear enough
In all conscience. and yet the Corpora-
ton Counse! says that it is rather COM
plimentary than otherwise 10 the CON
tractor The Condemnatory Iane,,.s,. ~
the paragraph is even more striking
when 1t IS known that the stresses ra,-
commended for the Manhattan Rri5ea IN,
the commission Of expert engineers in
1903 were for suspension bridge and
not for cantlever structure like the
Blackwels Island. Stresses that rnigb,
be permissible for one might be ahso-
lutely fatal il allowed upon the Other
class OF structure
Ii Is evident that the examininr enot-
neers " the Finance Department did
not take much stock in the opinion rem
dered by the Corporation Counsel FOR
the money claimed was not paid 10 the
contractor Instead the Controller was
advised To submit the matter again 10
the corporation Counsel for another
opinion. This was done on Decemhar
OF last year In d communication from the
Controller. I'm which he said.
In view OF the recent reports ~ tho -,
perts showing that the RlaCkweII's IsIarJ
bridge as bullt fails 20 meet the needs 20
us planned traHlc equipment. are th, CON
tractors pursuant 10 the terms aud speCi
HcaIlohs or uclr original or modified con
tracts III any way responsible?
The second report OF the Corporatio,
Counsel. made in response To this re-
quest from the Controller for guidance
Is even more remarkable than his first
report.
" y