Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-15
ENGINEERSSEND GENERAL ANSWER
TOFORBES' Plan PIER WORK

4 Tier construction IN ftOnOluiu mar
Dor Is, 20 he investigated by the sen
ate as well as by the house. Senator
Chilifngworth says that he will intro
duce a resolution for such an invest
cation the first Of next week and that
4 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 IL would have been
logical at the outset. that It is impos.
sible from the sketch to definitely de-
termine costs and generally CRITICS:
| ing the plan. 1t was expected this
morning that this report would be
presented at a meeting OF the board
which was to be held at 1870 this
afternoon.
To the Board OF Harbor Commission
ers Of the Territory OF Hawaii
Gentlemen: Referring 10 your re-
quest that We report on the merits Of
the pile-supported deck-slab anchor
age scheme presented to you by your
chairman, Mr.. Charles r. Forbes, on
the evening Of March s, 1917. we res
pectfully request that we be excused
from making 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 and of adequate strength for
the loads to be superimposed, the ex-
pensive bulkhead wall on Piers and
Q 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-
ton to the present structure, is so
utterly preposterous as not TO deserve
serious consideration from us.
1t Is an engineering axiom that a
foundation must be proportional to
its load II is our understanding that
a wharf shed, or similar building, is
in the future to cover part or all OF
the area which it 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 DISPOSE
ton. of material in the proposed deck
slab.
In addition to the details of the sup
erstructure. itself, it 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 the
presence or otherwise OF steam or
electric railway tracks, and transpor- |
tation machinery such as conveyors
and stationary or movable cranes |
III the structure is to be of the kind |
suggested by Mr.. Forbes, IL is essen |
L.al 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.
Dlete in details and presumably drawn
without complete knowledge of the flu
.ure superstructure, 1t is impossible
% make even an approximate estimate
u cost, which would be necessary in
! report on the merits of the plan
In our opinion, il would be extreme
y unwise to construct a floor for the
wharf shed having safe supporting
capacity limited to 500 lbs. per square
DOT When the plans of your board
Nth reference to these wharves are
inally contaminated, there will un-
loubtediv be heavy freight piled in
hese wharf sheds. In the o. r. & l..
sO.'s warehouses II is customary at
lresent to pile sugar with mechanical
Itackers 81 to % bags high, this
Height being that OF the lower chords
i the roof trusses of the warehouse.
This loading produces pressure on
he floor in excess of 1000 lbs. per
quare foot.
In the 0. r. & L. Co.'S wharf sheds.
ement in bags is piled by hand in
tacks Is bags high. producing pres
ure on the floor space OF about us
'ounds per square foot
These are present-day loadings 1t
5 only reasonable to assume in the
uture, with the probably higher sheds
nd later equipment that will be used
n Piers and 9, the floor loads in
heir wharf sheds will at times equal
r exceed 1000 pounds per square foot.
my arrangement which would for all
me limit these floor loads to sos
ounds per square foot, we consider !
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 !
roposed structure as 1861 square ]
.eE, and his estimate of cost is $54,.
81, or at the rate of S1.1O per square ,
lot In the American Civil Engi ,
GERS Pocket Book" third edition, PIP. !
i49-1450, Rear Admiral F. r. Harris,
ow chief of the bureau of yards and :
ocks, gives the following prices per :
luare foot for concrete structures Of :
lie same general nature as that pro- !
1sed by Mr.. Forbes:
Olongapo, P. l.. U. S. Navy Yard, .
Ter B. reinforced concrete cylinders, J
ants II It. &C, cost per square foot. !
$50.