Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-22
DETAILED REPLY
TO PIER PROBERS
MADE BY FORBES
Harbor Beard Now Considering
His Answer With Mass OF
Papers in Controversy

the investigating engineers who drast.
fcally criticized the plans Of Piers 5.
3 and 10. and raped Forbes himself
This reply, submitted to the board
last week. is part Of the mass Of pa
pers relating to the controversy which
the board is now considering and
which may soon be the subject OF a
special meeting. Since Forbes reply
was drafted, he has orally set forth
his position. as told by the Star.Bul-
letin last night
His detailed reply TO the engineers
criticism follows:
March 10, 1911.
Board OF Harbor Commissioners,
Honolulu. I. II
Gentlemen:
Commenting On the reply received
from the Committee OF Investigating
Engineers, Piers s, 8 and 10, i beg to
call attention to the fact that these
gentlemen were raid to render certain
services to the Territory OF Hawaii.
Certain Questions were asked these
gentlemen and by resolution OF the
Board of Harbor Commissions they
were requested to pass on certain tech
meal questions referred to them. This.
these gentlemen. In their communion
ton refused to do and in what seems
to be childish and petulant spirit OF
personal antagonism they elaborate
on their reasons therefore.
Gentlemen of the Beard OF IIarbor
Commissioners: ! propose to answer
these statements paragraph by para.
graph and to also answer the queries
Of the Board which this Committee OF
Investigators refuse to answer. The
following paragraph numbers relate
to successive paragraphs OF the reply
of this Committee
Paragraph 1: ! beg to call the atten-
ton Of the Beard to the fact that
these gentlemen. in open meeting
gave unqualified opinions as to the
desirahility of the solution OF the diff
culties in regard to the anchorage
system Piers and 9 as recommend
ed by the Chairman of The Board, only
qualifying Their statement by an opin-
ion as to the excessive cost OF the
structure.
Must be Protection -
The bulkhead wall. while It's loea-.
ton might have been changed had
a different design been selected, could
have in no way been Omitted. The
layman of ordinary intelligence will be
as quick to realize the necessity TO
provide for adequately protecting the
earth embankments underneath the
structure in question as will the train
ed engineer.
Regarding the expensive ill.," Il
would have been In any case absolute
ly necessary to remove large amount
of material from the herths alongside
the wharvesl in question and TO dredge
stable slcres. for this excavation. This
material, il not deposited behind the
wharf w1ll, mlIst have been OF neces-
sity taken care Of elsewhere and pro-
badly at a large added cost to the
Territory. rs to li.e proposition OF
constructing reinforced slab, as re-
commended by me, being preposterous.
bility of constructing an anchorage
system consisting OF 14"xlf concrete
tie members NOT reinforced against
beam loads and supported entirely by
insufficient wooden piles spaced 16
feet on centers, where said members
would have to Withstand. without fail
ure. the stresses set up by an earth
and deek load. including live load, OF
approximately 1000 lbs. per lin. IT,.
and this considering only the weight
directly over tie beam itself while I'm
actual practise much greater forces
might be brought to bear. This is the
scheme, gentlemen, that was recon-
nnende1 ny this committee.
The following question from the
American Civil Engineers pockesboOk
is very illuminating: Page 1448. Para
graph %, Cd Edition:
Filled In piers consist OF walls
similar to quay walls of masonry, or
of the platform type, the interior be-
ing filled with earth; when properly
built they arc permanent and unyieId.
ing and require little or no repair
work, other tiian that due to the settle
ment of the filling usually occurring
only during the first few years Of use.
Sucf settlement ercyents the pier
from being paved or kect level during
the period Of settlement
Paragraph 2 j desire to absolutely
refute the statement az to the status
OF the srperstructure design. This
design has so far progressed that Il
can be taken up definitely in connec-
tion with the construction Of its re.
Quisite foundation. This matter
should, and must &c considered in con-
neetioa with the Dertien 81 the struc.
ture lying below the deck and before
the deck slab Is placed
cenies Accusation
Referring to the last sentence OF
this paragraph, desire to advise the
gentlemen OF tiie committee that this
office at no tine contemplated support
ing any portion OF the snperstrrctuTo
on the deck slab as they seem to infer.
that not being or ordinary procedure
in structures of this kind We pro
rose 20 suppor- oul superstrncture
columns On adequate foundations
going down to sus table bearing mate
rails to saFe the territory a very con-
sum by desicn.ng these foun-
daticns to simultaneously perform
their functions for 5eth wharf deck
and the superstrhcture
6Ccnffnued on pagn 81