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

4 DOT - " DC- ulNCbNA6dNCo " tuC cCl
ate as well as by the house Senator
Chfllingworth says that he will intro
duce resolution for such an invests
CATION the first Of next week and thai
1.-THE committee win work as far as
possible with the house. --z
The committee of engineers has
sent a report 10 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
sible from the sketch 70 definitely de,
itermine costs and generally CRITICS.
morning that this report would be
presented at a meeting of the board
which was to be held at 1880 this
afternoon.
To the Board OF Harbor Commissions
ers OF the Territory OF Hawaii
i 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 q 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-
pensiye 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-sIab now, as an addi-
ton to the present structure, is so
utterly preposterous as not TO deserve
serious consideration from US.
y 1t Is an engineering axiom that a
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 it is proposed to deck.
lover. 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 .conyeyors
and stationary or movable cranes.
III the structure Is to be of the Kind
suggested by Mr.. Forbes, A is essen
tial that comprehensive plans of this
kind Of equipment should he prepared
before any substructure work is be-
gun.
The drawing which Mr. Forbes sub. |
mitted. ne correctly refers to as
sketch Prom such a sketch. incom.
piete 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 |
q report on the merits of the plan.
In our opinion. It 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
contaminated, there will un.
ooubtedlv be heavy freight piled in
these wharf sheds. In the o. r. & L. !
Co.'s warehouses 1t is customary at /
present to pile sugar with mechanical |
stackers 81 10 % bags high, this
height being that of the lower chords I
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 1
pounds per square foot.
These are present-day ioadings. I'll
Z 'onIv reasonahIh 10 assume n tbei
'uture, with the probably higher sheds 4
Ind later equipment that will be used