Point 8.—­The writer believes that this point is well taken, as to a great deal of current practice; but, if the author’s ideas are carried out, reinforced concrete will be limited to a narrow field of usefulness, because of weight and cost.  With attached web members, the writer believes that steel can be concentrated in heavy members in a way that is not safe with plain bars, and that, in this way, much greater latitude of design may be safely allowed.

Point 9.—­The writer is largely in accord with the author’s ideas on the subject of T-beams, but thinks he must have overlooked a very careful and able analysis of this kind of member, made by A.L.  Johnson, M. Am.  Soc.  C. E., a number of years ago.  While too much of the floor slab is still counted on for flange duty, it seems to the writer that, within the last few years, practice has greatly improved in this respect.

Point 10.—­The author’s statement regarding the beam and slab formulas in common use is well grounded.  The modulus of elasticity of concrete is so variable that any formulas containing it and pretending to determine the stress in the concrete are unreliable, but the author’s proposed method is equally so.  We can determine by experiment limiting percentages of steel which a concrete of given quality can safely carry as reinforcement, and then use empirical formulas based on the stress in the steel and an assumed percentage of its depth in the concrete as a lever arm with more ease and just as much accuracy.  The common methods result in designs which are safe enough, but they pretend to determine the stress in concrete; the writer does not believe that that is possible within 30% of the truth, and can see no profit in making laborious calculations leading to such unreliable results.

Point 11.—­The writer has never designed a reinforced concrete chimney, but if he ever has to do so, he will surely not use any formula that is dependent on the modulus of elasticity of concrete.

Points 12, 13, and 14.—­The writer has never had to consider these points to any extent in his own work, and will leave discussion to those better qualified.

Point 15.—­There is much questionable practice in regard to reinforced concrete columns; but the matter is hardly disposed of as easily as indicated by the author.  Other engineers draw different conclusions from the tests cited by the author, and from some to which he does not refer.  To the writer it appears that here is a problem still awaiting solution on a really satisfactory basis.  It seems incredible that the author would use plain concrete in columns, yet that seems to be the inference.  The tests seem to indicate that there is much merit in both hooping and longitudinal reinforcement, if properly designed; that the fire-resisting covering should not be integral with the columns proper; that the high results obtained by M. Considere in testing small specimens cannot be depended on in practice, but that the reinforcement is of great value, nevertheless.  The writer believes that when load-carrying capacity, stresses due to eccentricity, and fire-resisting qualities are all given due consideration, a type of column with close hooping and longitudinal reinforcement provided with shear members, will finally be developed, which will more than justify itself.