No engineer would expect a steel bridge to stand up if the detailing were left to the judgment or convenience of the mechanics of the shop, yet in many reinforced concrete designs but little more thought is given to the connections and continuity of the steel than if it were an unimportant element of the structure.  Such examples, as illustrated by the retaining wall in Fig. 2, are common, the reinforcing bars of the counterfort being simply hooked by a 4-in.  U-bend around those of the floor and wall slabs, and penetrating the latter only from 8 to 12 in.  The writer can cite an example which is still worse—­that of a T-wall, 16 ft. high, in which the vertical reinforcement of the wall slab consisted of 3/4-in. bars, spaced 6 in. apart.  The wall slab was 8 in. thick at the top and only 10 in. at the bottom, yet the 3/4-in. vertical bars penetrated the floor slab only 8 in., and were simply hooked around its lower horizontal bars by 4-in.  U-bends.  Amazing as it may appear, this structure was designed by an engineer who is well versed in the theories of reinforced concrete design.  These are only two examples from a long list which might be cited to illustrate the carelessness often exhibited by engineers in detailing reinforced concrete structures.

In reinforced concrete work the detailer has often felt the need of some simple and efficient means of attaching one bar to another, but, in its absence, it is inexcusable that he should resort to such makeshifts as are commonly used.  A simple U-hook on the end of a bar will develop only a small part of the strength of the bar, and, of course, should not be relied on where the depth of penetration is inadequate; and, because of the necessity of efficient anchorage of the reinforcing bars where one member of a structure unites with another, it is believed that in some instances economy might be subserved by the use of shop shapes and shop connections in steel, instead of the ordinary reinforcing bars.  Such cases are comparatively few, however, for the material in common use is readily adapted to the design, in the ordinary engineering structure, and only requires that its limitations be observed, and that the designer be as conscientious and consistent in detailing as though he were designing in steel.

This paper deserves attention, and it is hoped that each point therein will receive full and free discussion, but its main purport is a plea for simplicity, consistency, and conservatism in design, with which the writer is heartily in accord.

S. BENT RUSSELL, M. AM.  SOC.  C. E. (by letter).—­The author has given expression in a forcible way to feelings possessed no doubt by many careful designers in the field in question.  The paper will serve a useful purpose in making somewhat clearer the limitations of reinforced concrete, and may tend to bring about a more economical use of reinforcing material.