The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-03-29
BORROWED CODE
 NOT HALF BAD
Harry Porter Declares, How ever, that Specifications for Concrete Are Over Strenuous.

TOT COuCI6G0 A10 OVC1
 Strenuous.
 The following discussion of the pro- posed building code for this city has been prepared by Harry F. Porter, who is an authority upon concrete en- gineering, and who is now a member of the concrete engineering depart rnent of the Chicago Street Railways:
 Anent the. Building Code:l Aside from the issue that has been raised as to the method whereby it has been compiled and the reputed exorb1tant fee therefor, the writer. who has ex- amined the code at the request of a Building Commissioner, begs to state the following:
 In the first place the two codes men tioned by no means are ideal. neither the Underwriters nor the Cleveland; but the Underwriters is in many re- spects the broader. The Cleveland lent; in others not SD good. With re- spect to the use of concrete, plain ana reinforced, neither code represents the best and latest practice in the average of large cities of this country Nor does the proposed Bridgeport code. as it now stands. represent the best and latest practice in this important art. Many of the working stresses quoted, for instance. are far too conservative; concrete is too good material. and too tried and proven, to be handicap ped in this manner. The writer sug- gested to the Building Commissioners that the code, before being finally adopted, be presented to a council of experts in building construction, men technically skilled. who are familiar with the best and latest practice in communities where the building art is in advance of what 1t Is in this city, for their criticism. He would suggest such men as Richard L. Humphreys, president of the National Association of Cement Users. and U. s. Govern ment Fix pert. and Sandford B. Thonp- son. author of Concrete: Plain and Reinforced''. and 8 member of the American Society Of Civil Engineers on Reinforced Concrete. The advice of such men would be invaluable.
 the peTsonne1 of the cornzr1ittee ap- pointed to revise the code, the writer ventures to suggest that, with a sin gle exception, it includes no technically trained man. certainly no engineer. How such a committee could draft an original code, or cull one intelligently, is at least difficult to conprehend, men in the country. professionally, have struggled for years to settle just such issues as are boldly settled In Bridgeport'S new code.
 On the whole, the code as 1t now stands is not bad; but it might be inn proved. Certainly the sections with and more liberal working stresses al- lowed. There are also many repet1- tions. a bad feature always of codes, which should be so explicit as to need no repetftions. The language. too. in some places Is very loose, and it is hard to get the clear meaning. A building code. like a. statute, should be nothing, if not clear, definite, and ex- plicit in statement.
 Then, too, there is no provision made for amendment. The Building Com suitable restrictions. to make such amendments to the code from time to time as may be found necessary, so as to enable him to correct things that features that grow out-of-date. with out the forma1ity Of a complete revis- ion. which we have seen is a some
 Finally. there should be a court of appeal provided Both the Cleveland and the Underwriters Code provide code. It is important that it should, 1 no matter if the authority is not in vested in a single individual. An ap- peal would safeguard in two ways: CD It would guarantee to the builder and owner a square deal; @ It would tend to imbue the commissioners with justice fin making close decisions.
 Proniscuous appealing could be cir curnvented by providing for forfeit, Code calls for forfeit of the latter sum. Then. one thinking of appealing from. & decision. would be certain to fention sure 6eore S5 ne sn or a1n eun money. If sustained, he shall be re- inbursed. and the expenses of the ap- peal borne by the commissioners; if the decision of the commissioners is sustained, then in addition to 1oosing his forfeit. he pays the expenses in- volved.
 Now fs the time to modify the code ln these important particulars; after adopted it will be too late to complain. If we are going to have a good code, &1J what we think it is. It. will be an mistake if it Is presented for adoption before every single bone of contention has been threshed out, the expression smoothed out and the improved. and the very latest and best practice in freproof construction embodied.
 Yours for the good of Bridgeport, HARRY FRANKLIN PORTER. C. E. 1