Practice is always ahead of theory, and the writer claims that, with the great number of thoroughly reliable tests made in the last 20 years, the man who is really informed on this subject will not see any reason for questioning the points brought out by Mr. Godfrey.

The author is right in condemning sharp bends in reinforcing rods.  Experienced men would not think of using them, if only for the reason that such sharp bends are very expensive, and that there is great likelihood of breaking the rods, or at least weakening them.  Such sharp bends invite cracks.

Neither is there any question in regard to the advantage of continuing the bent-up rods over the supports.  The author is manifestly wrong in stating that the reinforcing rods can only receive their increments of stress when the concrete is in tension.  Generally, the contrary happens.  In the ordinary adhesion test, the block of concrete is held by the jaws of the machine and the rod is pulled out; the concrete is clearly in compression.

The underside of continuous beams is in compression near the supports, yet no one will say that steel rods cannot take any stress there.  It is quite surprising to learn that there are engineers who still doubt the advisability of using bent-up bars in reinforced concrete beams.  Disregarding the very thorough tests made during the last 18 years in Europe, attention is called to the valuable tests on thirty beams made by J.J.  Harding, M. Am.  Soc.  C. E., for the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad.[H] All the beams were reinforced with about 3/4% of steel.  Those with only straight rods, whether they were plain or patented bars, gave an average shearing strength of 150 lb. per sq. in.  Those which had one-third of the bars bent up gave an average shearing strength of 200 lb. per sq. in., and those which had nearly one-half of the rods bent up gave an average shearing strength of 225 lb. per sq. in.  Where the bent bars were continued over the supports, higher ultimate values were obtained than where some of the rods were stopped off near the supports; but in every case bent-up bars showed a greater carrying capacity than straight rods.  The writer knows also of a number of tests with rods fastened to anchor-plates at the end, but the tests showed that they had only a slight increase of strength over straight rods, and certainly made a poorer showing than bent-up bars.  The use of such threaded bars would increase materially the cost of construction, as well as the time of erection.

The writer confesses that he never saw or heard of such poor practices as mentioned in the author’s third point.  On the other hand, the proposed design of counterforts in retaining walls would not only be very expensive and difficult to install, but would also be a decided step backward in mechanics.  This proposition recalls the trusses used before the introduction of the Fink truss, in which the load from the upper chord was transmitted by separate members