Major Sewell’s comparison of a stirrup system and a riveted truss is not logical.  The verticals and diagonals of a riveted truss have gusset plates which connect symmetrically with the top chord.  One line of rivets or a pin in the center line of the top chord could be used as a connection, and this connection would be complete.  To distribute rivets above and below the center line of the top chord does not alter the essential fact that the connection of the web members is complete at the center of the top chord.  The case of stirrups is quite different.  Above the centroid of compression there is nothing but a trifling amount of embedment of the stirrup.  If 1/2-in. stirrups were used in an 18-in. beam, assuming that 30 diameters were enough for anchorage, the centroid of compression would be, say, 3 in. below the top of the beam, the middle point of the stirrup’s anchorage would be about 8 in., and the point of full anchorage would be about 16 in.  The neutral axis would come somewhere between.  These are not unusual proportions.  Analogy with a riveted truss fails; even the anchorage above the neutral axis is far from realization.

Major Sewell refers to shallow bridge stringers and the possibility of failure at connections by continuity or deflection.  Structural engineers take care of this, not by reinforcement for continuity but by ample provision for the full bending moment in the stringer and by ample depth.  Provision for both the full bending moment and the ample depth reduces the possibilities of deflection at the floor-beams.

Major Sewell seems also to have assumed that the paper was a general discussion on reinforced concrete design.  The idea in pointing out that a column having longitudinal rods in it may be weaker than a plain concrete column was not to exalt the plain concrete column but to degrade the other.  A plain concrete column of any slenderness would manifestly be a gross error.  If it can be shown that one having only longitudinal rods may be as bad, or worse, instead of being greatly strengthened by these rods, a large amount of life and property may be saved.

A partial reply to Mr. Thompson’s discussion will be found in the writer’s response to Mr. Mensch.  The fault with Mr. Thompson’s conclusions lies in the error of basing them on averages.  Average results of one class are of little meaning or value when there is a wide variation between the extremes.  In the tests of both the concrete-steel and the plain concrete which Mr. Thompson averages there are wide variations.  In the tests made at the University of Illinois there is a difference of almost 100% between the minimum and maximum results in both concrete-steel and plain concrete columns.

Average results, for a comparison between two classes, can mean little when there is a large overlap in the individual results, unless there is a large number of tests.  In the seventeen tests made at the University of Illinois, which Mr. Thompson averages, the overlap is so great that the maximum of the plain columns is nearly 50% greater than the minimum of the concrete-steel columns.