Early Reinforced Concrete

Frank Newby

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Topic: History
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351942317
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

This volume traces the process by which reinforced concrete emerged during the 19th century as the successful building material of today. Early work on testing the strength of cements led into a period of experimental work by a number of engineers, notably in Britain, France and America, to devise successful systems of embedding iron in concrete in such a way that the two materials would act together to carry imposed loads. The papers take the story to the early years of the 20th century and provide a thorough review of the gradual evolution of ideas and the contributions of individuals to this technology.

1
Sir Robert Smirke: a pioneer of concrete construction

J. Mordaunt Crook

Today Sir Robert Smirke (Plate V) is remembered as a Greek Revivalist, the architect of the British Museum. But his reputation as the most successful architect of the Regency period was due to his proven ability as business man and builder rather than to his popularity as a stylist. Born in 1780, knighted in 1832, he remained throughout a long life (he died in 1867) an essentially eighteenth century figure, independent of architectural competitions, basing his enormous practice both public and private on an interlocking network of Tory patronage. His most powerful patrons were the Earl of Lonsdale, Earl Bathurst and Sir Robert Peel. Thus, in 1815, he joined John Nash and (Sir) John Soane as a member of the triumvirate of government architects attached to the Office of Works: the three architect-princes of the Regency era. But besides being a fashionable stylist, an Establishment architect par excellence, Smirke was a pioneer of cast iron and concrete construction at a time when the functions of architect and engineer were not readily distinguishable. His status as an innovator rests not only on his use of concrete for foundations, cast iron for beams, girders and braces, and wrought iron for ties, joists and supports, but upon his interest in heating and ventilation,¹ his use of novel measuring techniques and his employment of quantity surveyors to ensure accurate accounting.² His importance as a constructor lay less in invention than in publicity: in his use of novel methods and materials in several widely publicised commissions. His influence on contemporary constructional technique, as in matters of style, was enormous. "Mr. Smirke," remarked one critic, "is preeminent in construction: in this respect he has not his superior in the United Kingdom."³

This Paper trespasses on dangerous ground: it is an historian's attempt to assess Smirke's significance as an engineer. Although it deals only with Smirke's use of concrete foundations; it could never have been written without generous help, notably that of Professor A. W. Skempton. Smirke may or may not have been the first person in this country to combine the use of concrete foundations with the use of cast iron beams. But if the data collected here has any value at all, he must surely be regarded as a key figure in the development of modern structural techniques in England. The evidence has been divided into four sections dealing with the construction of Millbank Penitentiary, the state of contemporary opinion as to the use of concrete, the development of the Savoy Precinct and Smirke's later use of concrete foundations.

I. Millbank Penitentiary

The frequency with which Smirke was invited to underprop a building in a state of "rigor mortis" won him from J. W. Croker's lips the title of "the Dr. Baillie of architects." This was his function at the County Courts, Carlisle (1810-12), Millbank Penitentiary (1817-22), and the London Custom House (1825-27). At Carlisle he inherited a building already "in a falling state . . . under circumstances which made it out of the question to ask for an estimate." Designed by Telford in 1807, and incompetently executed by the county surveyors John Chisholme and Peter Nicholson, the piling foundations proved inadequate and had to be reconstructed by Smirke.¹ At this stage it seems unlikely that he used any form of concrete. It was his "rescue" operation at Millbank which first demonstrated, on a grand scale, the value of concrete foundations.

The Millbank Penitentiary (Plate VI) for "offenders of secondary turpitude"² was opened in 1816 after a prolonged and troublesome period of gestation. The project originated in the humanitarian ideals of Jeremy Bentham, John Howard, Sir William Blackstone and Sir George Onesiphorous Paul. In 1794 Bentham contracted for the erection of a "Panopticon" Penitentiary "as far as strength is concerned, solely of cast iron and wood, in which the cast iron will greatly predominate."³ Acting as feoffee for the Crown he purchased a 54-acre site from the Marquess of Salisbury for £12,000.⁴ But his inability to fulfil the contract for £36,000, plus a certain amount of official ill will, caused the scheme to languish until Romilly revived it in 1810. Bentham was awarded £23,000 to cover the cost of his expenses, and an Act of 1812 appointed three Supervisors, Lord Farnborough, George Holford and the Reverend Mr. Becher, to organise a public competition for new designs.⁵ Prizes of £200, £100 and £50 were awarded to W. Williams, C. A. Busby and J. Harvey. Revised plans by Williams were then submitted to Thomas Hardwick who agreed to supervise the works for a commission of 2 per cent. on his estimate of £239,725 plus £42,690 for foundations.⁶ Dissatisfied with this low remuneration, and pessimistic as to the suitability of the marshy site, Hardwick resigned in 1813 and was replaced by Harvey.

Hardwick's resignation was nicely timed: the foundations had already begun to sink. In 1812 Bentham had bored to a depth of 14 ft. and, on finding nothing but loose soil and peat, condemned the ground as unfit to support buildings. At first Hardwick was confident that these difficulties could be overcome by a "substruction" of wooden "planking" or sleepers. But the Supervisors thought differently. They discovered that at the "Bedlam" Hospital in St. George's Fields, James Lewis had used Yorkshire flags instead of sleepers. This prompted them to experiment with various materials tested by weights of 200-300 tons. Finally, disregarding a Blackheath architect named Alexander, who claimed knowledge of a secret and unique system of foundations,¹ they instructed Hardwick to seek advice from John Rennie, S. P. Cockerell, James Lewis and Robert Browne. This quartet recommended that the topsoil and alluvial substrata consisting of "vegetable earth, light clay and morelog" should be excavated and that upon the gravel bed should be laid "puddled walling" composed of "gravel or ballast only, having perpendicular sides, cast and mixed in lime-water, with a small quantity of sand".²

This report was dated 22nd January 1813, and Rennie's seems to have been the dominating voice. The terminology is confusing, but the ingredients of concrete seem to be there. Puddling was of course the crude method of packing suitable earth to make canals and ponds watertight.³ However, Hardwick's lack of interest, Harvey's incompetence and the Prison Supervisors' desire for economy made sure that this report was never fully implemented. It was a report, not a specification, and its recommendations were only made with regard to the main body of the building: the central chapel, the surrounding hexagon and the six radiating pentagonal salients, each three storeys high with angle turrets and a central "Taskmaster's Tower."⁴ (Plate VI (b)). Hardwick's brief tenure of office was almost entirely concerned with the construction of the outer walls and entrances. The Pentagon foundations were only begun in the summer of 1813, and Hardwick resigned in the autumn. The octagonal boundary wall was given a foundation of rammed rubble no more than two feet thick; and the outer lodge and gateway, with its massively rusticated archway designed by Hardwick, was founded partly on rubble and partly on piles.⁵ A few weeks before Hardwick's resignation the foundations of both wall and gateway began to subside.

For the next three years the Penitentiary was the responsibility of John Harvey. No reputable architect would accept a stipend of only 2 per cent. His gross inefficiency had already lost him one official appointment, at the Office of Woods and Forests.⁶ At Millbank he again proved gouty and incompetent. The Supervisors had been lulled into believing that with regard to foundations Harvey possessed "more experience... than many architects of greater general knowledge."⁷ Harvey first proposed an additional foundation of strong flat stones and then finding stone difficult to procure, used three courses of brickwork laid in Parker's cement.⁸ By May 1816 little more than one third of the building had been executed, £128,304 had been spent and £228,813 was still required.⁹ Less than three months after their arrival in June, the first prisoners (36 women from Newgate) in Pentagons I and II were "under considerable fear and alarm," as cracks and fissures began to divide the walls. At this point Harvey was dismissed and Smirke was called in at the usual rate of 5 per cent, commission.¹⁰

Under Hardwick and Harvey the contractors had been Messrs. Want and Richardson and Messrs. Joliffe and Banks. Smirke employed Samuel Baker and Sons. They were responsible for the reconstruction of three towers and the strengthening of foundations in Pentagons I and II; alterations to the foundations and then the erection of Pentagons III to VI; and the building of water machines, cornmills, reservoirs and sheds.¹ Smirke's reconstruction was partly based on Rennie's advice. Together they investigated the foundations and decided that there were two chief reasons for collapse: the sewers had been inadequately constructed and the artificial foundations were insufficiently firm and insufficiently wide. Tidal water had seeped through the sewer walls and had liquefied the subsoil which surrounded the narrow foundation trenches.² "The puddle or substratum of gravel," wrote Rennie, "has not been carried to a sufficient extent beyond the base of the outer walls of the pentagons and towers, and ... the substratum itself has not been carried up with lime water or what may more properly be termed thin Grout except for about 18 in. below the base of the wall,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• General Editor's Preface
• Introduction
• 1 Sir Robert Smirke: a pioneer of concrete construction
• 2 Concrete and the structural use of cements in England before 1890
• 3 W.B. Wilkinson (1819-1902) and his place in the history of reinforced concrete
• 4 Portland cements, 1843-1887
• 5 The emergence of reinforced concrete, 1750-1910
• 6 The origins of reinforced concrete
• 7 Hennebique and building in reinforced concrete around 1900
• 8 Agents of change: Hennebique, Mouchel and ferro-concrete in Britain, 1897-1908
• 9 The remarkable structures of Paul Cottancin
• 10 The era of the proprietary reinforcing systems
• 11 Architects and the reinforced concrete specialist in Britain, 1905-1908
• 12 Genesis of reinforced concrete construction
• 13 The Ward House: a pioneer structure of reinforced concrete
• 14 The first reinforced-concrete skyscraper: the Ingalls Building in Cincinnati and its place in structural history
• 15 The consulting engineer and early concrete bridges in California
• 16 Early reinforced concrete structures in New South Wales, 1895-1915
• Index
• Subject Index