decided to build of concrete. 
In all the investigations and dis- 
cussion of these questions at that time, 
I was acting as the Engineer of the 
Board and participated with them and 
was thoroughly in accord with their 
decision, 
The contract was made with the 
Simpson Bros. Corp. for the construe- 
tion of this standpipe and a bond filed 
with them guaranteeing the structure 
from leakage for the period of one 
year from its completion. The work 
was very carefully done by the con- 
tractors and every effort made by 
them to secure a perfect job. On fill- 
ing the structure with water two leaks 
developed, one the more serious being 
due to the opening up of a crack at 
the top of the urst course from the 
bottom and on the southwest side of 
the structure. The second appeared 
about 15 feet above the base upon the 
same side. These were ‘in both cases on 
joints between successive days’ works. 
There was not then nor has there been 
since to my knowledge, any leakage at 
points other than these joints. Sev- 
eral efforts were made by Simpson 
Bros. to make the structure water- 
tight at these joints by various water- 
proofing compounds but they were un- 
They were finally made 
tight by caulking over them with 
strips of heavy lead dovetailed into 
the walls above and below the joints. 
After this had been done, the struc- 
cure was practically water-tight except 
for a very slight dampness near the 
bottom joint which was reported by 
me to the Board in 1911, the date of 
my last official connection with the 
structure. 
A reference to the reports of the 
Water Board for the ‘years ending 
February 1, 1912, February 1, 1913 and 
December 31, 19138, show no reference 
to leakage in the standpipe. The re- 
port for the year ending December 31, 
1913, states that in December of that 
year, water was drawn from the stand- 
pipe for the purpose of examination 
and cleansing, but shows no record of 
leakage. For two years at least after 
February, 1911, there was to my knowl- 
edge practically no leakage from the 
structure. In the course of time, how- 
ever, the lead strips over the joints 
above referred to, were pushed into the 
joints by the pressure of the water and 
eventually cracked the lead causing the 
two old leaks to re-appear. This al- 
successful. 
lowed considerable leakage and as a 
result during the excessively cold 
weather of two years ago, when for a 
week-or more the thermometer was be- 
low zero, the ac*ion of the frost broke 
off a large patch over the upper crack 
above described. This patch extended 
to the outer ring of re-enforeing metal 
only, the concrete behind this being 
firm and exceedingly hard. As soon 
as possible this was repaired by the 
Board of Water Commissioners by 
caulking the joints with lead wool so 
that any further waterproofing ma- 
terial placed over them could not he 
forced into the joints and fractured. 
Several rings of felt and asphalt were 
placed over the inner surface of the 
structure, well enclosing the leaks and 
these rings protected by a 4-inch brick 
wall. The result of this treatment has 
NC RET Ss EOS Bea RE ize 
been excellent and the leakage since 
that time has been practically negligi- 
ble. ‘his in the main is the treatment 
which I understand the Water Board tu 
have recommendel to the town at its 
annual meeting last March, This was 
investigated by the Finance Commit- 
tee and received their approval. 
It is interesting to note that the ex- 
perience of the great majority of places 
Where concrete structures have been 
built has been similar to that of Man- 
chester, a few to a lesser extent and 
many.to a greater extent. The litera- 
ture on concrete standpipes has been 
quite meagre. Since the year 1889, io 
the close of the vear 1914, there have 
been some forty-two concrete stanc- 
pipes built in this country and there 
are now some in the course of con- 
struction. Among the Engineers de- 
signing them are found the names of 
some of the leading Engineers of the 
country including several of the United 
States government. At the meeting of 
New England Water Works association 
in March, 1915, several valuable and 
interesting papers were presented upon 
this general subject and that of water- 
proofing concrete structures. The dis- 
cussion of these papers was participated 
in by many Hngineers and Water Works 
ofhcials connected with them. The gen- 
eral concensus of their experience ay- 
pears to be that while a re-enforced 
concrete standpipe is a much _ safer 
structure than a metal standpipe andl 
is free from many of the dangers at- 
tendant upon them, yet if the water 
depth exceeds about 50 feet they 
should receive a waterproof lining in- 
dependent of the concrece. In other 
words the re-enforced concrete struc- 
ture well proviaes the structural 
strength to retain the water, but must 
have in addition an elastic lining io 
completely waterproof it. This is the 
result of some fifteen years experience 
and appears to me to be most sound. 
Complete waterproofing of this sort 
has been done in Attleboro, Mass., and 
in Westerly, Rhode Island, where the 
heights of water are 100 feet and 70 
feet respectively. 
The bond filed by the Simpson Bros. 
Corp. was intended to guarantee to the 
town a structure water-tight and free 
from defective parts for a period of 
one year from tlte date of its com- 
pletion, This would be for a period 
of one year ending July 20, 1910, on 
which date the contractors were ad- 
vised that the structure was not water- 
tight within the construction of the 
contract and bond in my judgement. 
Subsequent to that date the contrac- 
tors made the repairs which I have de- 
scribed and for a period of at least 
two years the structure was free froin 
leakage of any consequence. So far as 
my knowledge goes the contractors 
have never been 1ormally released from 
their bond. I am not at all clear as 
to just what their responsibility is at 
the present time, having in view the 
fact that for a considerable period the 
structure showed not enough leakage 
to merit its being called to their at- 
tention by the Water Board. In anv 
‘ase, however, it would seem to me 
clear that the measure of their respon- 
sibility under their bond would be for 
what damage could be shown to have 
. 
resulted from defects occurring or de- 
veloping within one year from the con-’ 
clusion of their work or up to July 20, 
1910. “The: 
I question if the amount of this da- 
mage could be shown to exceed one 
thousand dollars. If this is the case 
J have ‘grave doubts as to the business 
wisdom of a suit for this amount 
which in all probability would involve. 
costs much exceeding the above sum 
and require a considerable time. . 
In my mind the situation develops 
itself into this. The Water Commis- 
sioners of 1909, after careful investi- 
gation which I personally know was 
most painstaking and thorough, decided 
in the line of the best advice and ex- 
perience then obtainable to build a 
concrete standpipe, having every rea- 
son to believe that it would be entire- 
ly successful. Experience since that 
time has shown that that belief was 
nos entirely well founded but that 
such defects as have arisen have been 
found to be common to nearly all such 
structures. It has further been found 
by experience here as well as else- 
where that by the addition of a proper 
lining of waterproofing, the structure 
can be made permanently water-tight 
ab a reasonable expense. We have a 
concrete structure which is absolutely 
safe as far as its strength is concernei, 
but not water-tight from the concrete 
alone, but it can be made so, It igs. 
proposed in the recommendation of the 
Committee upon Investigation of the 
Standpipe to allow it to last as long 
as it will without repairs and to then 
construct a new s‘andpipe of metal. In 
other words it is proposed to throw 
away a structure costing about $31,090 
and spend in addition something more 
than $20,000 to replace it at some: fu- 
ture time when with the expenditure 
at the present time, of from $3000 to 
$6000 a permanent result may in all. 
human probability be obtained. With 
this recommendation I cannot for a 
moment agree and it seems to me that 
is not justified by the facts in the 
case, : 
ECONOMY IS 
WEALTH 
Which means that the best 
is the cheapest. This ap- 
plies to printed matter as 
well as other lines. 
Let us do your next order 
of printing. We can save 
you money. 
BREEZE PRINT 
Nov. 26,1915. 
