South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1914-01-26
DEFECTIVE WORK BLAMED
FOR BUILDING COLLAPSE

CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE
tors OF the ShiveIy and Homer estates
officers of the Independent five and ten
cent stores, Architect Schneider and
Contractor Solarek. may all come
within the consideration Of the grand
jury.
Ignores Explosion Theory.
The report of the commission abso-
lutely ignores the explosion theory at
first advanced by the Independent
store people and held to by several OF
the witnesses.
In six typewriter pages it reviews
the original construction of the build
ings, viz: the Shively and Homer
buildings, describing the construction
OF the walls, construction OF the floors.
the partitions, and then takes up how
they were weakened by remodeling.
The purpose of the remodeling was
TO throw the ground floor of the two
buildings into one store. Here fol-
lows the plans, and the means by
which it was done and the commits
sion reports il.
The plans and specifications called
for the removal OF the center wall be-
tween the Shively and Homer buildings
on the first floor with the exception of
seven feet OF the wall in the front and
These plans further provided for a
new front and the cutting OF an open
ing five feet wide by seven feet high
in the center wall in the basement
How the Work Was Done.
The committee finds that the re-
modelling was done in the following
manner:
by placing a timber on the base
ment floor on each side Of the wall,
and a timber under the joists at the
basement ceiling line, and posts about
three feet on centers, set with hickory
wedges.
"In the first story a timber was
placed on top of the floor at each side
of the wall. Immediately underneath
the first story ceiling holes were cut
through the brick wall about four feet
ON center. and Trail placed through
each hole. At each end OF the Trail
post was run down from the Trail
to the timber on the floor; then
wedged up with hickory wedges. using
four Trails or needles and eight posts
to each beam section. Shores and
needles were set for aboU/ two sections
then the wall for the first column To-
cation was cut out. and a 12-inch by
24-inch by two-inch iron plate was set
on the wall a short distance below
the top of the first floor joists. (The
location of the first column was 20
feet and eight inches from the front
line of the building.)
After the plate referred to was set
and the column put in place, the wall
was cut out to within seven feet of
the front. A steel girder consisting of
two 12-inch 81 Il pound I-beamS
with three separatOrs and bolts was set
with one end on top of the column and
the other end on cast iron plate set
on the edge of the remaining seven
I
the tope of the I-beams and the brick
wall above was filled in with brick and
cement mortar, and wedged with slate
and wooden wedges. Then three Of
the needles at the front end and six
posts were removed and placed in an
other section. Then a slot was cut for
the second column and the same oper-
alton continued as on the first section
until the entire wall was removed.
THE brick wall above, including all
floors, roofs and ceilings, rested upon
brick piers at ends and four seven
inch cast iron columns of varying
thickness of metal, and five girder J.
beams, consisting of two 12-inch
I-beams. weighing 81 1-2 pounds per
foot each. The spans were u feet
eight inches in length, center to cen
ter The columns had integral caps
11X11x1 inches. supported by Jugs, and
rested on cast iron plates 12X12 by
two inches in thickness
Findings of Committee.
Careful calculations have been
made to determine the approximate
amount of weight per square inch
which the I-beams and columns were
required to support. These calcula-
tons have been made in the usual
way by determining the weight per
square foot of the roofs, floors, cell
ings, partition walls and the brick
party wall itself, together with such
live load as was on the second. third
and fourth floors of the south half of
the wrecked building, and the second
floor of the north half Of said build
ing.
BY this method of calculation your
committee finds approximately the fol-
lowing loads concentrated on that part
of the brick wall which extended from
the basement to a point a few inches
below the first floor line, which wall is
a part of the original party wall and
was not disturbed in the remodeling
of said building. Upon this wall were
placed the cast iron bearing plates
supporting the loads on the cast iron
column.
Your committee finds that, in the
remodeling of the building that col
lapsed, the load upon the party wall at
the first floor line had been changed
from a uniformly distributed load to
six concentrated loads, bearing re-
spectiVely upon the plates that sup
ported the columns and the two brick
pilasters at the east and west ends of
the building. These concentrated loads,
in some instances, amounted TO All
pounds per square inch, upon that por-
ton of the brick wall which was not
disturbed below the first floor line.
I'm other words, we find the load
that was uniformly distributed before
alteration over 3 feet and eight inches
OF brick wall and averaging about So
pounds per square inch, was, by the
alteration, concentrated on space OF
two feet of brick wall, averaging
about 400 pounds per square inch.
Your committee further finds that
the cast iron columns did not rest on
the center of the cast iron bearing
plates. thereby causing unequal bear
ing on the wall.
Your committee further finds that
in accordance with the best engineer
ing practice a wall OF this character.
Common brick laid in lime mortar),
should not be loaded more than 70
pounds per square inch. However.
!, M