The point made by Mr. Godfrey in regard to the fallacy of sharp bends is patent, and must meet with the agreement of all who pause to think of the action really occurring.  This is also true of his points as to the width of the stem of T-beams, and the spacing of bars in the same.  As to elastic arches, the writer is not sufficiently versed in designs of this class to express an opinion, but he agrees entirely with the author in his criticism of retaining-wall design.  What the author proposes is rational, and it is hard to see how the problem could logically be analyzed otherwise.  His point about chimneys, however, is not as clear.

As to columns, the writer agrees with Mr. Godfrey in many, but not in all, of his points.  Certainly, the fallacy of counting on vertical steel to carry load, in addition to the concrete, has been abundantly shown.  The writer believes that the sole legitimate function of vertical steel, as ordinarily used, is to reinforce the member against flexure, and that its very presence in the column, unless well tied across by loops of steel at frequent intervals, so far from increasing the direct carrying capacity, is a source of weakness.  However, the case is different when a large amount of rigid vertical steel is used; then the steel may be assumed to carry all the load, at the value customary in structural steel practice, the concrete being considered only in the light of fire-proofing and as affording lateral support to the steel, increasing its effective radius of gyration and thus its safe carrying capacity.  In any event the load should be assumed to be carried either by the concrete or by the steel, and, if by the former, the longitudinal and transverse steel which is introduced should be regarded as auxiliary only.  Vertical steel, if not counted in the strength, however, may on occasion serve a very useful practical purpose; for instance, the writer once had a job where, owing to the collection of ice and snow on a floor, which melted when the salamanders were started, the lower ends of several of the superimposed columns were eaten away, with the result that when the forms were withdrawn, these columns were found to be standing on stilts.  Only four 1-in. bars were present, looped at intervals of about 1 ft., in a column 12 ft. in length and having a girth of 14 in., yet they were adequate to carry both the load of the floor above and the load incidental to construction.  If no such reinforcement had been provided, however, failure would have been inevitable.  Thus, again, it is shown that, where theory and experiment may fail to justify certain practices, actual experience does, and emphatically.