Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-15
engineers Send general ANSWER
T0FORBES' PLANONP|ER WORK

Dor is 10 be investigated by the sen
ate as well as by the house Senator
ChilIingworth says that he will intro
duce a resolution for such an invest
CATION the first OF next week and that
the committee will work as far al
possible with the house.
The committee OF engineers has
sent a report to the harbor board ask
ing to be excused from answering in
detail the Forbes alternative pier plan
but saying that IL would have been
logical at the outset that 1t is impos
sibIe from the sketch TO definitely de-
termine costs and generally CRITICS,
ing the plan. II was expected this
morning that this report would be
presented at a meeting of the board
which was to be held at 100 this
/ afternoon. :
To the Board of Harbor Commission
\ ers Of the Territory of Hawaii.
4 Gentlemen: Referring to your re-
quest that we report on the merits of
the pile-supported deck-slab anchor
age scheme presented to you by your
ichairman, Mr.. Charles r.. Forbes, on
!, the evening OF March 6, 1917, we res
tpectfully request that we be excused
from making a detailed report on the
merits of this plan. for the following
reasons: .... ~ ...
We consider that this would have
been "a. logical design to use in the
original wharf structure, extending to
and COVERING the location under dis
cussion. Had the structure been so
designed Snd of adequate strength for
the loads to be superimposed, the ex-
'Nsnsive bulAHead wall on Piers and
10 might have been omitted, as we'll
as practically the entire fill We are
OF the opinion-> that the proposal to
build this deck-sIAb now, as an addi-
ton to the present structure, is so
utterly preposterous as not TO deserve
serious consideration from US.
II Is an engineering axiom that
foundation must be proportioned to
its load. 1t is our understanding that
wharf shed. or similias building, is
in the future to cover past or all Of
the area which 1t is proposed to deck
over. AS far as We know, the details
of this structure have not yet been
decided upon. and upon the arrange
fment OF the structure and the dystribu-
ton of its weight depends, to aSlarge
extent. the arrangement and DISPOSE
ton of material in the proposed deck
slab.
In addition to the details Of the sup
erstructuJe itself, it is necessary 90
an intelligent substructure design
that very definite ideas as to otherl
faof,,roo NJ x,harF oo,,fnn,o,f sto,,ld
be in existence, especially as to the
presence or otherwise of steam or
electric railway tracks, and transpor-
tation machinery such as conveyors
and stationary or movable cranes.
II the structure is to be of the kind
suggested by Mr.. Forbes, II is essen
tai that comprehensive plans of this |
kind OF equipment should be prepared
before any substrueture work is be
gun.
The drawing which Mr.. Forbes sub
mitted. he correctly refers to as a |
sketch" From such sketch, incom-
plete in details and presumably drawn
without complete knowledge of the fu- |
ture superstructure. II is impossible /
to make even an approximate estimate !
Of cost. which would be necessary in
a report on the merits OF the plan.
In our opinion, it would be extreme
~ unwise to construct floor for the \
wharf shed having Safe supporting
capacity limited to 500 lbs. per square /
foot When the plans Of your board /
with reference to these wharyes are /
finally contaminated there will un-
ooubtedfv be heavy freight piled in
these wharf sheds. In the o. r. & L. =,
Co.'S warehouses IL is customary at
present to pile sugar with mechanical \
stackers 81 to 22 bags high, this
height being that Of the lower chords
Of the roof trusses of the warehouse.
This loading produces pressure on
the floor In excess of 1000 lbs. per
square foot.
In the o. r. & L. Co.'S wharf sheds,
GER ent In bags is piled by hand in
stacks Is bags high. producing pres
sure on the floor space of about 775
pounds per square foot.
These are present-day loadings. Iii
IS only reasonable to assume in the
'uture. with the probably higher sheds
Ind later equipment that will be used
"a ACAb o anu ., tue IOOI IOdOS III
heir wharf sheds will at times equal
n exceed 1000 pounds per square foot.
Any arrangement which would for all
line limit these floor loads to 5os
pounds per square foot, we consider
extremely inadvIsable.
We cannot admit that Mr.. Forbes
,stimate Of cost Of the proposed deck
lab is even approximately correct.
ir. Forbes gives the floor area Of the
proposed structure as 1861 square ,
Get, and his estimate of cost is $54,- ,
go, or at the rate of $1.10 per square
DOT. In the American Civil Engi-
leers' Pocket Book" third edition, DIP. ,
449-1450, Rear Admiral F. r. Harris, ,
low chief of the bureau of yards and .
ocks, gives the following prices per ,
quare foot for concrete structures of ,
he same general nature as that pro- !
'osed by Mr.. Forbes:
Olongapo, P. l., U. S. Navy Yard, !
Ter B. reinforced concrete cylinders, !
ents IL It. &C, cost per square foot, ,
$50.
Puget Sound, Washington, U. s. !
laVy Ward pior Ifxa Lad IAA H.. /