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

A Pier CONSTRUCTION IN 1OnOlulu mar
Dor is TO be investigated by the SEN
ate as well as by the house. Senator
ChilIingworth says that he will intro
duee a resolution for such an investL
cation the first OF next week and that
the committee will work as far as
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 ii would have been
logical at the outset, that II is impos-
sible from the sketch to definitely de-
teTmine costs and generally CRITICS
ing the plan. II was expected this
morning that this report would be
presented at meeting Of the board
| which was to be held at 1880 this
1 afternoon. -.
| To the Board of Harbor Commission.
ers of the Territory OF Hawaii
i Gentlemen: Referring to your re-
4 quest that We report on the merits Of
the pile-supported deek-slab anchor
age scheme presented to you by your
] chairman, Mr.. Charles r. Forbes, on
the evening of March 6, 1917, we res
pectfulIy request that we be excused
from making a detailed report on the
merits OF this plan, for the following
/ reasons: % ia |..t
/ 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 and OF adequate strength for
the loads to be superimposed, the ex-
pensive bulkhead wall on Piers and
- might have been omitted, as well
as practically the entire fill. We are
of the opinion that the proposal to
build this deck-slab now, as an addi-
tion to the present structure, is so
utterly preposterous as not TO deserve
serious consideration from US.
It Is an engineering axiom that
foundation must be proportional to
its load. II is our understanding that
wharf shed, or similar building, is
in the future to cover part 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
ment of the structure and the distribu-
! ton of its weight depends, to large
extent. the arrangement and disposi-
tion of material In the proposed deck.
slab.
In addition to the details of the sup
erstructnTe itself. 1t is necessary to
an intelligent substructure design
that very definite ideas as to other
features of wharf equipment should
be in existence, especially as to thel
presence or otherwise of steam or
electric railway tracks, and transpor-
tation machinery such as. conyeyors
and stationary or movable cranes.
IL 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 substructure 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, 1t is impossible
to make even an approximate estimate
OF cost, which would be necessary in
report on the merits of the plan
In our opinion, Il would be extreme
~ unwise to construct a 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 wharves are
finally contaminated, there will UNI
aoubtediv be heavy freight piled in !
these wharf sheds. In the o. r. & /. i
Co.'S warehouses II Is customary at |
present TO pile sugar with mechanical
stackers 81 to % bags high, this |
height being that of the~lower chords
of the roof trusses of the warehouse. !
This loading produces a pressure on
the floor In excess OF 1000 lbs. per
square foot
In the o. R. & L. Co.'S wharf sheds, |
cement in bags is piled by hand in |
stacks Is bags high, producing pres
sure on the floor space Of about US
pounds per square foot.
These are present-day loadings. II |
is only reasonable to assume in the
future, with the probably higher sheds
and later equipment that will be used
on Piers and 9, the floor loads in
their wharf sheds will at times equal !,
or exceed 1000 pounds per square foot.
Any arrangement which would for all
time limit these floor loads to 5oJ
pounds per square foot, we consider
extremely inadvisable.
We cannot admit that Mr.. Forbes
estimate of cost of the proposed deck.
slab is even approximately correct.
Mr.. Forbes gives the floor area of the
proposed structure as 1861 square
feet and his estimate of cost is $54,-
$50. or at the rate of s1.10 per square
foot In the american Civil Engi-
neers' Pocket Book" third edition, pp.
Rear Admiral F. r. Harris,
now chief Of the bureau of yards and
docks, gives the following prices per
square foot for concrete structures of
the same general nature as that pro-
posed by Mr.. Forbes:
Olongapo, p l., U. S. Navy Yard.
Pier B. reinforced concrete cylinders,
bents II It. &C, cost per square foot,
$3.50.
Puget Sound, Washington, U. S.
NAVY Yard Dfar live iood Am He |