The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 4 (1926) > Issues > Issue 5 > Discussion on Production of Structural Steel Sections by Ewart S. Andrews
Name of File 4453-04-05.pdf cached at 15/12/2017 02:38:29 - with 2 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\ad\adbdb8e3-1c51-490f-84c9-1ac558ce217e.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\adbdb8e3-1c51-490f-84c9-1ac558ce217e_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: adbdb8e3-1c51-490f-84c9-1ac558ce217e_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Discussion on Production of Structural Steel Sections by Ewart S. Andrews

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. Mitchell Moncrieff, M.Inst.C.E., Vice-president) said that members would agree with him that Mr. Andrews had furnished an interesting paper of an extremely practical kind, and he was now looking forward to seeing a kinematograph film which, he understood, would be projected to illustrate some of the things that had been said. The paper carried his mind back for thirty-five years, to the time when, as a young man, he designed a bridge in wrought iron, and it was put out to tender. The managing director of one of the tendering firms, an old friend of his, said, “Why did you design it in wrought iron?" He replied that he did so because more was known about wrought iron than anything else. His friend then said, “You should design it in steel.” He thereupon said that he would re-design it in steel, and he did so, on which his friend said, “But we have a lot of trouble in steel. Why, some of the bars we had in our yard last week cracked right across.” “In that case,” was his reply, "we had better go back to wrought iron.” The bridge, however, was built in steel.