Mr. Goodrich characterizes the writer’s method of calculating reinforced concrete chimneys as crude.  It is not any more crude than concrete.  The ultra-theoretic methods are just about as appropriate as calculations of the area of a circle to hundredths of a square inch from a paced-off diameter.  The same may be said of deflection calculations.

Mr. Goodrich has also appreciated the writer’s spirit in presenting this paper.  Attention to details of construction has placed structural steel designing on the high plane on which it stands.  Reinforced concrete needs the same careful working out of details before it can claim the same recognition.  It also needs some simplification of formulas.  Witness the intricate column formulas for steelwork which have been buried, and even now some of the complex beam formulas for reinforced concrete have passed away.

Major Sewell, in his discussion of the first point, seems to object solely to the angle of the bent-up portion of the rod.  This angle could have been much less, without affecting the essence of the writer’s remarks.  Of course, the resultant, b, would have been less, but this would not create a queen-post at the sharp bend of the bar.  Major Sewell says that he “does not remember ever to have seen just the type of construction shown in Fig. 1, either used or recommended.”  This type of beam might be called a standard.  It is almost the insignia of a reinforced concrete expert.  A little farther on Major Sewell says that four beams tested at the University of Illinois were about as nearly like Fig. 1 as anything he has ever seen in actual practice.  He is the only one who has yet accused the writer of inventing this beam.

If Major Sewell’s statement that he has never seen the second point exemplified simply means that he has never seen an example of the bar bent up at the identical angle given in the paper, his criticism has not much weight.

Major Sewell’s comment on the retaining wall begs the question.  Specific references to examples have been given in which the rods of a counterfort are not anchored into the slabs that they hold by tension, save by a few inches of embedment; an analysis has also been cited in which the counterfort is considered as a beam, and ties in the great weight of the slab with a few “shear rods,” ignoring the anchorage of either horizontal, vertical, or diagonal rods.  It is not enough that books state that rods in tension need anchorage.  They should not show examples of rods that are in pure tension and state that they are merely thrown in for shear.  Transverse rods from the stem to the flange of a T-beam, tie the whole together; they prevent cracking, and thereby allow the shearing strength of the concrete to act.  It is not necessary to count the rods in shear.