Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-15
engineers SEND GENERAL ANSWER
To FORBES PLAN ONPIfR WORK


Dor is to be investigated by the SEN
ate as well as by the house. Senator
ChIlingworth says that he will intro
duce a resolution for such an inyeSti-
cation the first OF next week and that
the committee will work as far as
possible with the house.
The committee OF engineers has
Isent a report TO the harbor board ask
ing to he excused from answering in
/ detail the Forbes alternative pier plan
but saying that IL would have been
logical at the outset, that IL Is impos-
sibIe from the sketch to definitely de-
termine costs and generally CRITICS
ing the plan IL was expected this
morning that this report would be
presented at meeting OF the board
which was TO be held at 1880 this
afternoon. IL
To the Board of Harbor Commission
ers OF the Territory OF Hawaii
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
chairman, Mr.. Charles r. Forbes, on
the evening OF March 6, 1917, we res
pectfully 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 logical design to use in the
+, original wharf structure, extending to
and covering the location under dis
cussion Had the structure been so
\ daoforoI 81 ~ Cd cfr for
/ the loads to be superimposed, the ex-
pensive bulkhead wall on Piers 5 and
/ 9 might have been omitted. as well
as practically the entire fill. We are
J 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.
II Is an engineering axiom that
! foundation must be proportioned 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 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
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 |
IL the structure Is to, be of the kind |
suggested by Mr.. Forbes. ii is essen. |
tai that comprehensive plans of this I
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. it 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, II would be extreme
ly unwise to construct floor for the
wharf shed having a 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 un-
ooubtedly be heavy freight piled in
these wharf sheds. In the o. r. & l..
Co.'s warehouses it is customary at
present to pile sugar with mechanical
stackers 81 TO 90 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 a pres
sure on the floor space of about 775
pounds per square foot
These are present-day loadings 1t
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 win at times equal
or exceed 1000 pounds per square foot.
Any arrangement which would for all
time limit these floor loads to 5o0f
pounds per square foot, we consider
extremely inadvisabIe.
We cannot admit that Mr.. Forbes
of cost OF the proposed deck.
slab is even approximately correct
Mt. Forbes gives the floor area of the
structure as 1861 square
feet. and his estimate of cost is S54,- ,
562, or at the rate of s1.10 per square ,
loot. In the American Civil Engk ,
1eers' Pocket Book third edition, PIP. ,
l449-l45O, Rear Admiral F. r. Harris,
now chief of the bureau of yards and
locks, gives the, following prices per
square foot for concrete structures of ,
he same general nature as that pro- !
posed by Mr.. Forbes: )
0longapo. P. l., U. s. Navy Yard,
Pier B. reinforced concrete cylinders, !
tents IL It. &C, cost per square foot, !
1850.
Puget Sound. Washington IT 6 .