Part 609: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, fifth and final section
While researching the Temple Theatre in Detroit, I encountered an interesting article about an 1898 theater roof collapse. It was published in the “Detroit Free Press” (2 Dec. 1898, page 2). Here is the fifth and final section of the article.
Col. Wood’s Book.
When Col. Wood took the stand in the afternoon he produced the book that contained the record of all the trusses he had built in fireproof theaters. The book had the description and amount of the materials used in all theaters H said that he did not figure the carrying capacity of the Detroit Opera House truss, but had it done by Chief Engineer Fowler, of the Youngstown Bridge Co. The Witness then illustrated how the load to be carried by one of the opera house trusses which had a span of 96 feet 8 inches thick was figured. For the weight of the concrete for the roof, which was two inches thick, the concrete when dry was figured at 15 pounds to the square foot, top dressing and slate 13 pounds, snow 25 pounds and the corrugated iron trough 2 1/4 pounds, making for the roof a total of 55 ¼ pounds to the square foot, actual weight.
For safety this weight was figured at 60.4 pounds to the square foot, making a total of 90.493 pounds. To this was added the weight of the roof beams and girders, bringing the total weight to be carried by the truss up to 96,973 pounds, or 48 tons. The truss itself weighed 8 ½ tons and would carry 61 tons as a safe load, according to the figures of the engineer who determined it. The carrying area of the truss is 1,496.23 square feet. This showed that the truss of the opera house is many tons within the factor of safety.
Mr. Frazer, for the sake of comparison then had Col. Wood figure the load carried on the Wonderland truss, which weighed only three and a half tons. Using the same basis of computation, the concrete roof of the Wonderland building, which was four inches thick, was figured at thirty pounds to the square foot, the composition and gravel at 4 ¼ pounds and snow at twenty-five pounds, although only ten pounds was actually allowed by the architects. This made the load fifty-nine and a quarter pounds per square foot, which figured up a total of about forty tons.
The prosecutor then called attention to the fact that the Detroit Opera House the eight and a half ton truss carry forty-eight tons, while in the Wonderland building a truss weighing but three and a half tons carry forty tons.
In explaining the differences in the construction of the structural steel work in the two buildings, Col. Wood said that in the Detroit Opera House the roof beams were six inches wide and weighed twelve and a half pounds. They run longitudinally, four feet apart, with a 15-foot span. In the Wonderland building he said that the girders ran longitudinally, while the beam ran transversely. The latter, he said, were 9-inch “I” beams, spaced twelve feet apart. Asked which was the better, he said in the Detroit Opera House the beams tended more to hold the truss in place and in addition, it had a diagonal braces. Being only four feet apart, each one had a carrying area of sixty feet.
The attention of Col. Wood was called to the fact that Arthur Scott had testified that the 22 feet 2-inch “I” beam running from the front of the Wonderland building to the truss, was partly held by a brace six feet from the truss, and he was asked his opinion of such construction. He said that if he were to indicate the construction, he would have a beam running to the truss heavy enough to carry the intended load.
More Technical Talk
Prosecuting Attorney Frazer brought out the fact that in the Detroit Opera House there were three trusses between the proscenium wall and the dividing wall, a distance of 66 feet and 3 inches, while in Wonderland there were but two trusses in the distance of 63 feet 8 inches. Col. Wood said that the conditions were not the same, the opera house being wider; and therefore, it was necessary to use three trusses, putting them close together, so as to avoid using heavier ones.
Going back to the construction of the “I” beam, and the fact that it was rested partly on a brace, the witness said that different architects had different views of construction. He believed tha the brace helped to carry the load, but did not think that it carried half the distance between itself and the wall for the same load. Col. Wood favored a strong beam, resting on the truss, to using any braces.
In this connection, Col. Wood stated that John Scott had told hi that his brother, Arthur Scott, was an engineer.
When asked his opinion of the roof, Col. Wood said that he had only made an examination since the collapse and that he depended on the judgment of men he knew were authorities regarding roofs. They had told him that the girders and beams were too light.
“Those familiar with cinder-concrete construction,” he said, “know that there is s spring to the beams. When the cinder-concrete is knitting, it must be allowed to remain quiet. If it is pounded, you are simply mashing it up. The beams should be stiff enough so as to not disturb the concrete.
Concerning the rook, he said that he was not competent to say what it should carry, though he could with some difficulty figure out such a problem. He stated that he submitted a quarter-inch drawing of the Wonderland truss to an engineer company and was told that if it had been properly detailed, constructed and erected it would undoubtedly carry the load intended for it. Col. Wood said that he had been unable to furnish the company with any particulars regarding the plates, or distance between the beams. In answer to Mr. Frazer, he said that the company found that the sizes of steel indicted by him could be combined to hold the necessary load.
“Do you know what made this fall down?”
“No; we all have our opinion.”
“What’s yours?”
Why the Roof Fell.
“Well, my opinion is that there was a general weakness in the whole roof and a general lack of attention to details in the construction, not alone in the roof. I do not want to reflect on the steel construction, as I do not know that the engineering company fulfilled its contract, according to the designs submitted to them. The 5-inch roof beams were overloaded.”
Here Mr. Frazer broke in wit another question, and Col. Wood did not get through expressing his opinion.
He was not of the opinion that under the conditions that prevailed at Wonderland the 5-inch beams would have sagged. Witness stated that the DeMan system was not used on the Detroit Opera House, but that the estate did the work, letting it out to Vinton & Co. for 5 percent of the cost. Col. Wood said that cinder and cement had been shown to make fireproof concrete as the cinders were the residue of coal after everything else had burned, and the cement in the process of manufacture had to be subjected to a greater heat than a fire could cause. He was asked why the workmen of the Wonderland building simply had to light a fire on top of the concrete and then shovel it off, and he replied:
“They may only be shoveling what they had disturbed before.”
It was his opinion that the concrete ought to settle hard in two weeks so that the false work could be removed.
Attorney Boynton’s Question.
When questioned by Attorney Boynton regarding his business career, Col. Wood said that before becoming an architect he had been a decorator and before that a builder. He told an interesting story of his first business venture in Chicago, in order to pay this theological college debts, and said that after his first year the money came so fast at that time he continued as a decorator. His first theater, he said, was built at Cedar Rapids, Ia., and the first fire-proof theater he built in Memphis, Tenn. He showed the jury the plans of the truss used in that construction of that theater and said that it was the typed used in the Detroit Opera House, he having never used any other. He did not know the name of the truss, but said that it was a truss suspended from the top cord. Asked why he had always used it, he said that it was the first one given him by the engineer in whose hands he placed the matter, and as the truss had always proved satisfactory he had continued to use it. Before using that truss, he had always used the old Howe truss in the non-fire-proof theaters. Col. Wood showed the plans of some ten trusses he had built upon, on e now in the process of construction at Kansas City and the plan of another he recently drew for a theater he is to build in Denver.
Regarding the first interview in John Scot & Co.’s office, Col. Wood said that Mr. Wiggins left after a short time. There was no one else there and witness continued to talk with John Scott. He told the latter that all the plans should be drawn in one office, to which Mr. Scott was agreeable.
“I think,” said Col. Wood, “that I began some preliminary sketches the next day. Mr. Scott told me that his brother was an engineer., had had a good deal of experience and handled the steel work in their building. I did not tell him that I was engaged to do the steel work. No reference was made to my connection with the Detroit opera house.”
Adjournment was taken, with Col. Wood still on the stand.”
The end of the article.
