a factory in Rochester, a hotel in California.  All these had columns with longitudinal rods; all were extensive failures—­probably the worst on record; not one of them could possibly have failed as it did if the columns had been strong and tough.  Why use a microscope and search through carefully arranged averages of tests on nursery columns, with exact central loading, to find some advantage in columns of this class, when actual experience is publishing in bold type the tremendously important fact that these columns are utterly untrustworthy?

It is refreshing to note that not one of the writer’s critics attempts to defend the quoted ultimate strength of a reinforced concrete column.  Even Mr. Thompson acknowledges that it is not right.  All of which, in view of the high authority with whom it originated, and the wide use it has been put to by the use of the scissors, would indicate that at last there is some sign of movement toward sound engineering in reinforced concrete.

In conclusion it might be pointed out that this discussion has brought out strong commendation for each of the sixteen indictments.  It has also brought out vigorous defense of each of them.  This fact alone would seem to justify its title.  A paper in a similar strain, made up of indictments against common practices in structural steel design, published in Engineering News some years ago, did not bring out a single response.  While practice in structural steel may often be faulty, methods of analysis are well understood, and are accepted with little question.

FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote E:  Transactions, Am.  Soc.  C. E., Vol.  LXVI, p. 431.]

[Footnote F:  Loc. cit., p. 448.]

[Footnote G:  Engineering News, Dec. 3d, 1908.]

[Footnote H:  Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, 1905.]

[Footnote I:  Tests made for C.A.P.  Turner, by Mason D. Pratt, M. Am.  Soc.  C. E.]

[Footnote J:  Transactions, Am.  Soc.  C. E., Vol.  LVI, p. 343.]

[Footnote K:  Bulletin No. 28, University of Illinois.]

[Footnote L:  Bulletin No. 12, University of Illinois, Table VI, page 27.]

[Footnote M:  Professeur de Stabilite a l’Universite de Louvain.]

[Footnote N:  A translation of Professor Vierendeel’s theory may be found in Beton und Eisen, Vols.  X, XI, and XII, 1907.]

[Footnote O:  Cement, March, 1910, p. 343; and Concrete Engineering, May, 1910, p. 113.]

[Footnote P:  The correct figures from the Bulletin are 1,577 lb.]

[Footnote Q:  Engineering News, January 7th, 1909, p. 20.]

[Footnote R:  For fuller treatment, see the writer’s discussion in Transactions, Am.  Soc.  C. E., Vol.  LXI, p. 46.]

[Footnote S:  See “Tests of Metals,” U.S.A., 1905, p. 344.]