Mr. Worcester is not logical in his criticism of the writer’s method of reinforcing a chimney.  It is not necessary to assume that the concrete is not stressed, in the imaginary plain concrete chimney, beyond that which plain concrete could take in tension.  The assumption of an imaginary plain concrete chimney and determinations of tensile stresses in the concrete are merely simplified methods of finding the tensile stress.  The steel can take just as much tensile stress if its amount is determined in this way as it can if any other method is used.  The shifting of the neutral axis, to which Mr. Worcester refers, is another of the fancy assumptions which cannot be realized because of initial and unknown stresses in the concrete and steel.

Mr. Russell states that the writer scarcely touched on top reinforcement in beams.  This would come in the class of longitudinal rods in columns, unless the reinforcement were stiff members.  Mr. Russell’s remarks, to the effect that columns and short deep beams, doubly reinforced, should be designed as framed structures, point to the conclusion that structural beams and columns, protected with concrete, should be used in such cases.  If the ruling motive of designers were uniformly to use what is most appropriate in each particular location and not to carry out some system, this is just what would be done in many cases; but some minds are so constructed that they take pleasure in such boasts as this:  “There is not a pound of structural steel in that building.”  A broad-minded engineer will use reinforced concrete where it is most appropriate, and structural steel or cast iron where these are most appropriate, instead of using his clients’ funds to carry out some cherished ideas.

Mr. Wright appreciates the writer’s idea, for the paper was not intended to criticize something which is “good enough” or which “answers the purpose,” but to systematize or standardize reinforced concrete and put it on a basis of rational analysis and common sense, such a basis as structural designing has been or is being placed on, by a careful weeding out of all that is irrational, senseless, and weak.

Mr. Chapman says that the practical engineer has never used such methods of construction as those which the writer condemns.  The methods are common enough; whether or not those who use them are practical engineers is beside the question.

As to the ability of the end connection of a stringer carrying flange stress or bending moments, it is not uncommon to see brackets carrying considerable overhanging loads with no better connection.  Even wide sidewalks of bridges sometimes have tension connections on rivet heads.  While this is not to be commended, it is a demonstration of the ability to take bending which might be relied on, if structural design were on as loose a basis as reinforced concrete.

Mr. Chapman assumes that stirrups are anchored at each end, and Fig. 3 shows a small hook to effect this anchorage.  He does not show how vertical stirrups can relieve a beam of the shear between two of these stirrups.