-
-
.
.
， ， ,
.

} :
~ .^^！---
* • • →→→--·w- ----
`~~~~*~~~~~*~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~ ….………………~:
~~~~ ~~~~ - ~~~~~ ~~~~ -…?
•¿taeae！！！--***
§-
<ſ• -
•k •|-
-->•- -
•Aº.-*
-×
--***
）.--~~~~.~~~~~.
IITITITITUTITIIITInſtrum IITIIITIETTmIIITTITITITITITITITIIIITITIII
0
[]
ſ
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
0
0
[]
ſ.
D
[]
}
ſ
[]
|
[]
|
D
[]
[]
D
[]
�
�
|－
ſae;
•••æ********************






TRIAL BY FIRE AT SAN FRANCISCO
The Evidence of the Camera
PUBLISHED BY
NATIONAL FIRE PROOFING COMPANY
PITTSBURG NEW YORK CHICAGO
BOSTON PHILADELPHIA WASHINGTON
CLEVELAND MINNEAPOLIS LOS ANGELES
ST. LOUIS
LONDON, ENGLAND
“A building that is of non-combustible
material alone, is not fireproof
“A building that is thoroughly fireproof
may have a destructive fire within it but
the building itself will not be wrecked or
destroyed.” -
—From “What is a Fireproof Building.”
a y º 'º -> * > .
tº
--- º
Estimates of Fire Loss and Insurance
at San Francisco
$300,000,000 - Total Loss
$220,000,000 - Insurance
50,000 Buildings destroyed
-*-
º
13;
=\
"
.
Comparison of Fire Loss in Europe and
the United States
Fire Loss Loss
- Annual Population per
Country Years Average 1901 Capita
Austria . . . . 1898-1902 $7,601,389 26, 150,597 $0.29
enmark . . . 660,924 2,588,919 .26
France . . . . 1900-1904 11,699,275 38,595,500 .30
Germany . . . 1902 27,655,600 56,367, 178 .49
Italy . . . . . 1901-1904 4, I 12,725 32,449,754 . 12
Switzerland . . 1901-1903 999,364 3,325,023 .30
Or an average loss per capita of $0.33.
- Fire Loss Loss per
State Five Years Average Population Capita
Maine . . . . . 1901-5 $2,240,158 694,647 $3.22
Massachusetts. . 1901-5 6,285,891 2,844,068 2.21
New Hampshire 1901-5 1,174,061 4|1,588 2.85
Ohio . . . . . 1901-5 7,502,561 4, 157,545 |.80
Giving an average of $2.12 loss per capita.
The total loss in the United States, as reported
in the Chronicle tables and by the Journal of
Commerce, was $866,617,705 for the five years
ending with 1905, or an average of $173,323,541
per annum, which, upon a population basis of
70,000,000 gives a per capita loss of $2.47.
From ‘Report of National Board of Fire Underwriters













-
RE THE EARTHQUAKE
º
* *
º - - º-º-º-º-º-º:
SAN FRANCISCO DURING THE FIRE
-- a
SAN FRANCISCO AFTER THE FIRE




º
." *. goek pot to make 1Y)01) read * *
|º bat to make them thinkº
|| C. • *222s2. ezezz
H|** –
D||[]



“The whole success of fire
proof construction depends pri-
marily upon the materials
employed, and none should be
used that do not possess the
necessary qualities.”
General William Sooy Smith.
-
º
CALLAGHAN ESTATE BUILDING
This structure was what is known as a
Class B. building. The columns and girders
were steel but the floors and beams support-
ing the same were of wood. Note 4 inch
thick concrete covering around steel columns
secured in place by one-eighth steel wire
wrappings. The photographs show that the
concrete failed to resist the action of the fire
notwithstanding it was bound to the column
by wire.
-
ſ
C


“The great advantages pos-
sessed by Cement or concrete as
a fireproof material are its low
heat conducting power and its
very small expansion under heat.
These advantages however are
entirely offset by the fact that it
loses its strength under heat, is
ruined by water applied during a
fire and will disintegrate after a
fire if not during the fire itself.
Disastrous results may follow
from confidence in a building
protected with such a material.”
J. S. Dobie,
“Digest of Physical Tests and Laboratory
- -
ractice
CALLAGHAN ESTATE BUILDING
A close examination of the concrete
showed same to be absolutely dead and so
soft and sandy that it would readily crumble
between thumb and finger.
The failure of the concrete to remain on
the columns coupled with the condition of
the concrete would indicate that it had been
completely disintegrated by the heat.

Metallath and plaster covers
for steel columns were inade-
quate.
Report of
Capt. John Stephen Sewell, U.S.A.
Corps of Engineers
FAIRMONT HOTEL
Columns covered with wire lath and
plaster were generally defective.
Fairmont Hotel
In the
alone 37 such columns
building have settled down about seven
buckled and a portion of the floors of the
feet from normal position.


Materials which are individ-
ually destructible by fire cannot
be made fireproof by combining
them.
FAIRMONT HOTEL
Corridor Sixth Floor.
Metal lath,
A typical condition
wire
and plaster partitions.
of such partitions.


Dependence for fire protection
upon materials which are non-
combustible but not fireproof, is
an oversight of the fact that the
destructive quality of fire is heat.
FAIRMONT HOTEL
Fairmont Hotel—Corridor Second Floor.
Partitions of expanded metal wire and
plaster. There was evidently only moderate
heat in this corridor as the plastering appears
uninjured. It will be observed however that
the double metal lath partition is expanded
and bulged sufficiently to destroy alignment
of the plaster cornice which appears but
slightly injured. Note large section of metal
lath at right. It is torn from its fastenings
and lays on one side a useless wreck.

Insufficient column protection
was, I estimate, the cause of 90
per cent of the damage actually
done to the structural parts of
the injured buildings.
‘Report of
F. W. Fitzpatrick,
Secretary International Society Building
Commissioners
，ſae.
（№ſſºſ
·
（ ）
（ ）ſae……………………·
º|-
FAIRMONT HOTEL
First Floor.

“Where suspended ceilings
were used and moderate heat
prevailed the ceilings proved a
great protection to the concrete
floors. Under severe heat the
added protection was of little
FAIRMONT HOTEL
First Floor.
value.”
Report of
E. V. Johnson
Vice President National Fire Proofing Co.
... tº sº,
II, §
fºr
º *

The basic principle of fire-
proofing is isolation. Protect
every open area from every other
open area.
FAIRMONT HOTEL
Vestibule.

“By far the greatest damage to
this building was caused by the
inferior expanded metal lath and
plaster column protection. *
Had a few thousand dollars
been spent in providing suitable
column protection, a hundred
thousand dollars in repairs would
probably have been saved."
A. L. A. Himmelwright, C. E.
The San Francisco Earthquake & Fire
‘Published by the Roebling Construction Co.
-*. **
::: :::
-
-|
|
-
-
º
º
º
º
º
º
º
FAIRMONT HOTEL
Second Floor, looking North on east
corridor. Note every column buckled.


“The essential characteristics
of a fireproofing material for
buildings are:
1st It must be itself incombustible.
2nd It must be as nearly as possi-
ble a non-conductor of heat.
3rd It must be strong and durable.”
General William Sooy Smith
ST. FRANCIS HOTEL
Typical imterior of room. Partitions of
hollow clay tile.

“Given a porous or semi-
porous terra cotta to start with—
of hard burned brittle material,
of adequate thickness and weight,
with heavy webs and partitions
to all blocks, with well rounded
fillets at all corners, and no
better fire resisting material can
be used.”
J. K. Freitag, C. E.
Author Fireproofing of Steel Buildings
ST. FRANCIS HOTEL
Typical Corridor

A building that is only half
fire proof is like a house divided
against itself. It cannot go
through the trial unscathed.
sº
*Sº
=s
ST. FRANCIS HOTEL
Lobby


“That concrete is incombus-
tible cannot be denied; that it will
not disintegrate under fire cannot
be maintained.
Rudolph P. Miller
Chief Engineer Bureau Buildings
City of New York
ST. FRANCIS HOTEL ANNEX
In course of construction. Reinforced
concrete floors totally destroyed. Note con-
dition of concrete remnants on sides of beams.

“There is certainly not a city
in this country today which is -
free from the conflagration
hazard. More, there is not a
city which is not in great peril
from this danger.
From “Che City Unburnable.” - -
-
ST. FRANCIS HOTEL, EXTERIOR
Before the Earthquake.
º
ST. FRANCIS HOTEL, EXTERIOR
After the Fire.







“We have not been able to
locate a single instance in which
structural damage resulted from
failure of the terra cotta protec-
tion when it was applied in a
reasonably thorough manner."
The Brickbuilder, June, 1906.
SHREVE BUILDING
Condition of vault protected by hollow tile.

- º
… º
º
-
“The architectural functions
of partitions and their fire resist-
ing arrangement should be
worked out together.”
“At least 95 partition construc-
tions out of 100 show that the
architectural functions of parti-
tions are utilized while their fire
resisting functions are hardly
considered.”
J. K. Freitag, C. E.
Author Fireproofing of Steel Buildings,
UNION TRUST BUILDING
Eighth Floor. Note condition of hollow
tile floor arches. Damage nominal. Typi-
cal throughout this building. The earth-
quake did great damage to walls and light
hollow tile partitions all through the city.
This is demonstrated by the fact that many
such were shaken down in buildings where
there was no fire whatever — notably the
Ferry Building.

“Hitherto architects and en-
gineers who devote themselves to
reinforced construction appear to
be so confident of the strength
and stability of this new struc-
tural material under all conditions
that they fail to give reasonable
attention to the fire resisting
qualities of the materials they use;
being quite content to declare
that steel rods embedded in con-
crete must be more fire-resisting
than any other combination of
materials.”
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
Jºſſember Executive Board British Fire
‘Prevention Committee.
JOHNSEN BUILDING
This building was four stories high; built
with cast iron columns and steel girders,
spaced 16 feet from center to center.
The steel girders were fireproofed on the
sides with concrete, between these girders
concrete beams with steel reinforcement
were set, spaced 5 feet from center to center.
On top of these concrete beams and forming
part of the same, a 4-inch thick concrete
slab floor was spread over the entire area.
This is a typical reinforced monolithic con-
crete construction, so far as the portion be-
tween the steel girders is concerned. A
careful examination of the photographs will
show that the reinforced concrete beams
failed to fulfill their mission. It will also be
observed that these concrete beams were
protected with a metal lath ceiling, but not-
withstanding this additional protection the
floors of the building were completely
wrecked.

“Reinforced-concrete is
claimed by its advocates to be a
safe structural material, but this
can only be conceded so long as
normalconditions continue, which
many users of these new struc-
tural methods appear to consider
will always be the case, and
therefore make no provision
against possible if not probable
changes resulting from fire amongst
the goods stored in buildings of
this construction.”
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
Member Executive Board British Fire Pre-
wention Committee.
Before Milan International Fire Congress.
JOHNSEN BUILDING
In several cases the castiron columns show
the effects of heat by warping, but it is evi-
dent from the photographs that the steel
girders maintained their integrity, and the
collapse of the building was caused by the
failure of the reinforced concrete beams.
Note the long pieces of concrete which hang
down from the upper girders, being held in
place by the steel reinforcing members which
Were securely attached to the steel girder.
It is impossible to study these photographs
carefully, without realizing the danger of de-
pending upon concrete beams or girders re-
inforced with steel members imbedded
therein, when there is any danger of such
.." being attacked by a moderately hot
re.

“It is false economy of the
worst description to omit efficient
protection against the action of
fire for all structural metal work.”
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
*Cember Executive Board, British Fire
Prevention Committee before Milan
International Fire Congress 1906
HOTEL ALEXANDER
Typical condition of columns covered with
wire cloth and plaster.

“It is to be feared that some
of the large buildings already
erected with reinforced-concrete
will fail when subjected to a
serious fire among their inflam-
mable contents.
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
ºſſember Executive Board British Fire
ºrevention Committee.
of reinforced concrete building,
Wreck
#
£
Caeſ)
|-
�
±
|-
C，
~o
|-
•
Ț
∞
CL.

“Under temperatures of from
800 to 1000 degrees F. possibly
under temperatures as low as
600 degrees F. Portland cement
which has set begins to lose its
water of crystallization. As long
as the necessary temperature is
maintained the loss progresses,
until finally allor most of the water
will be driven off and the cement
or concrete will have lost most
of its strength, in fact will be
ruined.”
Captain John Stephen Sewell,
Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.
WELLS-FARGO BUILDING
Roof

“Experience has repeatedly
proved that large buildings con-
structed with incombustible
materials only, but without due
protection against the inevitable
action of heat, fire and water on
the metal and other materials
used, although called “fireproof,”
are during the burning of their
contents of a most treacherous
and dangerous character, defying
all reliable calculations as to the
time and manner of their
collapse."
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
Jºſember Executive Board British Fire
‘Prevention Committee
WELLS-FARGO BUILDING
Roof.

“It was a very common prac-
tice in San Francisco where re-
inforced concrete slabs were
used to have also a furred ceiling
attached to the covered flanges
of the floor beams. Where this
ceiling was well put in it resisted
the fire for quite a time. Under
such circumstances the floor slabs
were comparatively little
damaged. At other points
where they received the direct
impact of the flames for an ap-
preciable time it was evident that
the damage was quite serious.
The cement had lost its water of
crystallization and the concrete
was dead and friable from a con-
siderable depth from its surface.
Although there was no doubt
whatever that their strength was
seriously impaired they stood up
and presented a very fair appear-
ance; no doubt the average lay-
man would think they had come
through quite successfully.”
Captain John Stephen Semell
Constructional lessons from San Francisco
From Concrete and Constructional
Engineering
MONADNOCK BUILDING
Basement. An examination of all floors
above the first in this building showed very
little damage from fire. The window frames
on the Market Street front were scorched
on several stories but all the court window
frames and East wall frames were intact,
apparently having been protected by the
opposing solid brick wall of the Examiner
Building. Wood flooring, doors and trim
on upper floors not even scorched and
plastering uninjured.

“In reinforced concrete floor
construction the strength is almost
wholly dependent upon the light
steel tension rods or bars, which
economy requires to be imbedded
at or near the under surface. In
the case of a fire the light metal
in this exposed position soon be-
comes heated, and by expansion
and deflection disrupts the thin
concrete covering under it. After
the steel tensile members are ex-
posed, temperatures of 1200°F.
soon cause failures."
A. L. A. Himmelwright, C. E.
The San Francisco Earthquake & Fire
Published by the Roebling Construction Co.
MONADNOCK BUILDING
Basement. At the south end of the base-
ment, however, two steel columns which were
not covered with any fire proofing were sub-
jected to sufficientheat to cause same to buckle.
Also at this point in the basement there was
sufficient inflammable material to burn off the
suspended ceiling and cause the collapse of
four concrete beams reinforced with the
Johnson patent bar. It is apparent from
these photographs that the heat was sufficient
to expand the reinforced bars to an extent
sufficient to burst through the concrete
covering, destroy the homogeneity of the
beam and allow the same to collapse as
shown.


“It seems more than probable
that the better appearance of the
reinforced concrete floors will
cause a great many people to
ascribe a fictitious value to the
fire-resisting qualities of rein-
forced concrete."
Captain John Stephen Sewell
Constructional Lessons from San Francisco
Concrete and Constructional Engineering,
London
MONADNOCK BUILDING
Basement. Observe the reinforcing bars
turned up at the ends to overcome sheer
strains.

“Structural duty and re-
sistance to fire should be differ-
entiated. The same material
should not in an ideal design be
expected to perform both duties."
Captain John Stephen Sewell
Constructional Lessons from San Francisco
Concrete and Constructional Engineering,
London
YOUNG BUILDING
This is a view taken from the second
floor of this building looking upward. At
the point where the collapse took place, there
was a pile of sheet iron stored, which
weighed about 200 pounds to the square
foot. This accounts for the collapse as the
structure was unable to resist the heat below
and support the dead load on the floor above.
This building is five stories high and was
built with steel columns and steel frame
throughout. The girders were 16 feet
center to center and the Golding System of
fireproofing was built in between the girders.
The heat in this building was not extreme
as it will be observed that neither metal lath
or plastering on the columns was destroyed.
The first floor of this building was protected
with a metal lath ceiling and was not
seriously injured. The uncollapsed portion
of the three upper floors and roof, however,
have all sagged from 9 to 24 inches and
will have to be removed in order to make
the building tenable. This building was
occupied by the Seller Brothers Company,
wholesale hardware dealers. Almost the
entire contents were non-combustible, being
of metal.

“If such beams or slabs are
exposed to a fire and the concrete
is damaged so as to expose the
bar or so as to leave a very small
thickness of undamaged concrete
below it, the only way to make
adequate repairs is to tear out and
rebuild the damaged beams and
slabs as a whole. The loss is
total, in fact greater than the
original cost even if collapse does
not occur as a result of the fire.”
Captain John Stephen Sewell,
Corps of Engineers U. S. Army
ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
BUILDING
This structure suffered severely from the
effects of the fire. Observe one inch
twisted reinforcing bar expanded by heat
sufficient to badly rupture the concrete beam
and expose the other tension members to the
action of the fire. Note also the numberless
cracks in the concrete beams and the mono-
lith floor carried by the same. All this work
is ruined and will have to be removed.

“Experts on reinforced-con-
crete buildings agree that to ob-
tain the best results (considered
only from a structural point of
view and under normal conditions)
reinforcing rods must be placed
near the outer surface of the con-
crete, a thickness of one inch in
front of the rods being generally
adopted; but this thickness is al-
together insufficient for the pro-
tection of metal rods against a
serious fire, and the aggregates,
sand and cement, for the concrete
used to protect the metal rods, are
of the greatest importance.
“The American National
Board of Fire Underwriters, in
their carefully considered Build-
ing Code, recommend that the
thickness of protecting concrete
for all important metal members
in columns and beams of rein-
forced-concrete should be not
less than 4 inches.”
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
Jºſember Executive Board British Fire
Prevention Committee
ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
BUILDING
This photograph portrays the twisted steel
reinforcing members denuded of concrete
protection by the action of the heat. A
continuous fire for a period of one hour on
steel work exposed in this manner would
result in its absolute collapse. As it is, the
floors of the Academy of Science Building
where subjected to fire are badly wrecked
and their removal will be necessary to make
the building tenable.

“The materials employed in
reinforced-concrete acquire no
new fire-resisting qualities. * * *
It is necessary (to secure such
qualities) duly to consider and
provide against the effect of heat,
fire and water on the materials
employed, using only materials
and methods proved from actual
experience under various known
conditions to be effective.”
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
Member Executive Board British Fire
Prevention Committee
SLOAN BUILDING
Interior First Floor.

“Divisional walls relied upon
as fire stops in warehouses and
similar buildings should not be
less than nine inches thick.
“In a fire test made in a rein-
forced-concrete box on thick
walls enclosing about 175 cubic
feet, moisture was freely driven
through the sides of the box, two
of which were six inches thick
and two four inches thick. The
evaporation of this moisture kept
the outer side of the concrete
cool, but on the passage of
moisture ceasing, which it did at
the end of the test of forty-five
minutes duration, the outer sur-
face of the concrete became very
hot.
“Combustible goods against a
reinforced-concrete wall less than
nine inches thick would beliable
to ignition by heat from a fire
burning on the opposite side of
the wall.”
James Sheppard, A. I. E. E.
Jºſember Executive Board British Fire
Prevention Committee
SLOAN BUILDING
Rear of First Floor

“We regret that it has not yet
been recognized by those who
design works in reinforced-con-
crete, that the material is not
ipso facto to be classed as a fire
resistant. * * * Seeing the
materials used are incombustible
all too great a confidence is
placed in them.”
Editorial, The Builders Journal and Archi-
tectural Engineer,
London, August 1st, 1906
KAMM BUILDING
Rear View
-
-
§
º
X
f
|
º
º
º
N
:
º
º
K
§
º
º
-º
Sº
S.
*
º
|
i
º
w
.
ºº |
º
|
º
.
-
º
º
º
º
-
--
s
º
C













KAMM BUILDING
Fifth Floor
“Reinforcing steel members
covered to a depth of one inch
reached a temperature of 770 F.
in an average time of 59 minutes
for the eleven samples. Those
with two inch covering attained
the same temperature in an av-
erage of two hours and 20 min-
utes and those protected by three
inches of material in two and
one half hours average.”
Report of test of reinforced concrete beams
at Underwriters Laboratories, Chicago
Engineering Record, July 22, 1905

“In all buildings where the
steel work, including columns and
girders, were properly protected
with fireproofing material, the
steel portion of the structure now
stands absolutely uninjured.”
Report of E. V. Johnson
Vice-President National Fire Proofing Co.
SPRINC VALLEY WATER
WORKS BUILDING
Second Floor.

“So called fire proof vaults in
line with the partitions whether
of metal lath or fire proof tile,
with single doors of thin sheet
iron, were found to be of no
value whatever as a protection to
the contents, vault doors in each
case expanding and buckling out-
ward, permitting the flames
ingress to the contents of the vault.
Vaults with double doors built in
place with a proper thickness of
fire proof protection around the
same, protected the contents
of the vaults fully as well as the
fire proof safes."
‘Report of E. V. Johnson,
Vice-President National Fire Proofing Co.
SPRING VALLEY WATER
WORKS BUILDING
Vault.

“Up to that time (the Chicago
Fire, 1871) the incombustible
system of building which had
been the result of the introduc-
tion of rolled I-beams in France
and Belgium in 1854, and in
England and the United States
in 1855, were thought by most
architects to be sufficiently fire-
proof for practical purposes.
Cast and rolled iron were used
with brick for interior con-
structions with indifference to
the effects of heat upon iron.
There had been few destructive
fires in such buildings until at-
tention was attracted to the de-
struction of a cotton mill at
Oldham in England. But the
Chicago conflagration gave evi-
dence everywhere of the unre-
liability of iron in a severe fire;
for quite a number of incombus-
tible buildings were destroyed
and none were saved which had
been directly exposed. Experi-
ments in protecting iron construc-
tion with clay products slowly
followed this revelation, and it
was several years before they
received recognition.”
Peter B. Wight, F. A. I. A.
Paper read at the 7th International Congress
Architects, London, July, 1906
SPRING VALLEY WATER
WORKS BUILDING
Fourth Floor.

FHE structural parts of a building are columns, girders and beams. These may be called the
sº bones of a building. The strength and life of every building depend upon the efficiency of
sº these parts to endure strains quite as much as the endurance of the human body depends upon
ºf a healthy condition of the bone structure.
*- Destroy these “bones” of a building, there is nothing left but the foundation and possibly
==Sã the insecure bare walls, unbraced and ready to fall.
For more than fifty years, builders have sought a material for structural parts, which would fill the
demand for structural strength and efficiency and which would at the same time be self-protective against
the attack of fire. A material which would possess inherently, without the protection of any other substance,
the ability to go through an attack of fire and preserve intact its shape and its full original strength and
capacity. In other words a satisfactory structural material which would be fireproof.
Half a century ago it was firmly believed that this material had been found in cast iron. Thousands of
unprotected iron structures with the old time “fireproof-iron fronts” were built.
A short time proved their inefficiency against utter destruction by fire. Then followed the era of unprotected
“fireproof steel,” a fallacy so deeprooted that, even today, thousands of men believe bare steel to be a
fireproof structural material.
In the present day and for the past few years, unprotected concrete is exploited as a structural material which
is self protective against fire.
We believe the evidence of the camera shows that there is no structural material which will protect itself
against fire. That it demonstrates clearly, the fact that the structural members of a building, of any material
now known, are not safe against the attack of fire, unless protected by some other substance which is
thoroughly fireproof.
We submit further, that the evidence shows that the only material which fully demonstrated its complete
ability to protect the structural members of buildings in the San Francisco conflagration was Porous Terra Cotta
Hollow Tile Clay Fireproofing.
The efficiency of “Hollow Tile” as evidenced in these pages is directly in line with the uniformly excellent
results it has shown under every similar test in the past thirty years.

“The most approved type of
fireproof building, on account
particularly of the bracing, is the
steel skeleton with floors of terra
cotta arches.”
W. L. B. Jenney
MILLS BUILDING
12" end construction hollow tile arches
were used for the floors of this building, built
in place between 15" I beams. 4" hollow
blocks laid flat were used to fill spaces from
top of arch to top of 15" I beams. This
structure was subjected to extreme heat
evidenced by melted cast iron mullions, stair
railings, platforms, etc. It is estimated
that 5% of the tile arches remaining in the
building would have to be removed on
account of damage from falling weights, and
that 20% of the entire area of the floors
from which the soffits of the tile had dropped
would have to be repaired. The cost of
making good all the floor arches in this build-
ing should not exceed 5% of the original
cost of the work.

“On Nov. 9th, 1905 the Old
Chronicle building passed
through a severe fire which started
in the wooden clock tower. That
fire was confined entirely to the
combustible tower and the build-
ing proper was in no way
injured, its fireproof construction
saving it intact."
Fireproof Magazine, December, 1905
OLD CHRONICLE BUILDING
Seventh Floor. The floor arches used
were what is known as “side pressure" arches
without any interior webs. This style of arch
is obsolete in general practice today, the end
construction arch being used in place of the old
style method. The entire interior of the one-
half of the old Chronicle Building is wrecked.
All the cast iron columns, steel girders, and
beams together with the contents having
dropped through from the top floor to the
basement. The Superintendent in charge
of this building informed the writer that there
were nineteen linotype machines and a large
amount of type metal stored on the upper
floor of this building. If the heat on the
floor below was sufficient to deflect the steel
girders and beams and allow the tile arches
to rupture, nothing could prevent the entire
concentrated weight falling into the base-
ment.

“The future should bring a
construction with the exposed
surface composed of a burnt clay
product, and an interior of concrete
surrounding a nucleus of steel.”
W. I. Parry, C. E.
HOTEL HAMILTON

Poor fireproofing is apt to be
J. K. Freitag, C. C.
Author Fireproofing of Steel Buildings
February, 1906
Either fireproof well or not at
--
--
all.”
somewhat damaged will permit
while good fireproofing even if
of speedy reconstruction.
a total loss under severe fire test
HOTEL HAMILTON
.
| .

“A building all the interior
surfaces of which are of fire clay
covered with plain lime mortar;
in which as little as possible of
anything else is used, and the
floors of which are finished with
Portland cement, may now be
considered the nearest approach
to an absolutely fireproof build-
ing."
The Brickbuilder
June 1905
FLOOD BUILDING
Circular Room -

“Partitions should be built of
at least 4 inch hollow porous tile,
not on top of a finished wood
floor nor on the concrete filling
and wood strips, but on the solid
bearing of steel and floor con-
struction.”
F. W. Fitzpatrick
Secretary International Society of Building
Commissioners
- - -
---
-
FLOOD BUILDING
Seventh Floor

“A building really well con-
structed and designed is its own
insurance.”
F. W. Fitzpatrick
Secretary International Society Building
Commissioners
FLOOD BUILDING
Top Floor

“A broken tile is quite evident
and can be easily replaced.
Weakened joints can be refilled
with good cement and the work
is equal to new.”
F. W. Fitzpatrick
Secretary International Society Building
Commissioners
FLOOD BUILDING
Seventh Floor

“I know of no other way to
judge of the future save by the
past." Patrick Henry
For thirty years hollow tile
fireproofing has successfully pro-
tected the structure of every
building in which it has been
properly used.
FLOOD BUILDING
Corridor Third Floor

A building is not fireproof -
unless it is made so in every
detail. If the structural parts -
only are fireproofed and the º
structure comes through unscathed
then the fireproofing has done its
work
FLOOD BUILDING
Before the Earthquake
- -
|º ºntº
-
***
- -
* - a
- ------
… --
----- -
-
. -
- - |
-
- |
º
FLOOD BUILDING
After the fire
See illustration in cover design.





“Both the strengthandelasticity
of concrete were rapidly dimin-
ished by the application of com-
paratively low heat for moderate
periods of time.” “If it were
thoroughly heated to 1500 F.
its strength and elasticity were
largely dissipated."
Prof. Ira H. Woolson,
Report of a test before the American Society
for Testing Materials.
SCOTTS BUILDING
Roof

Terra Cotta Hollow Tile fire-
proofing has been tested in the
crucible of practical fire condi-
tions for over thirty years and has
never been found wanting.
-
NEW YORK MUTUAL LIFE
BUILDING
Sixth Floor

“There were a sufficient num-
ber of instances of total and
partial failures and enough di-
versity in the size and manner of
employing the reinforcing mate-
rial, to fully warrant the conclusion
that reinforced concrete when
used for floor construction, pos-
sesses relatively much less fire
resistance than either the seg-
mental arch or the short span
flat slab types. Its use should
therefore be limited to locations
subject to moderate heat only."
A. L. A. Himmelwright, C. E.
The San Francisco Earthquake & Fire
‘Published by the Roebling Construction Co.
RIAL TO BUILDING
First Floor from entrance looking South

No building can be fireproof
without the use of proper ma-
terials. No materials can make
it fireproof without proper design-
- || - -
º - Ing and construction.
- - -
CASTLE BROTHERS BUILDING
Vault. Note that the openings in these
vaults are protected with an outer and inner
door separated by a vestibule about 12
inches deep. The contents of both these
vaults went through the fire without injury,
as did a great many hundred of similar vaults
throughout the burned district. In all cases
where extreme heat conditions prevailed the
single door vaults proved to be useless as a
fire protection to contents. The writer
recommends double thicknesses of hollow
tile for the walls of all vaults used in office
buildings and each vault to be protected
with double doors with at least 12 inches
vestibule space between the same.

To name as “fireproof" any
system of construction which will
permit fire to go through the
subdividing partitions is to make
a mockery of the term.
---
HALL OF JUSTICE
North side of Basement

“It would not be surprising,
however, if the future tendency
in the more important buildings
should be to treat reinforced
concrete as a structural material
pure and simple and to protect
it much as steel work is now
protected."
Captain John Stephen Senell
Constructional Lessons from San Francisco
From Concrete and Constructional
Engineering, London
HALL OF JUSTICE
East side of Basement

There are no greater fallacies
than those which exist as to fire-
proof building materials and
methods. Yet the evidence is
and always has been plain to
those who would study the
subject.
HALL OF JUSTICE
South side of Basement


º
HALL OF JUSTICE
Wall South side of Entrance
If concrete when partially
protected can not save itself from
disintegration by heat it would
certainly appear to be of little
value as a fireproof material.

No material can be said to be
fireproof which will disintegrate
under the action of fire no matter
how slowly. It must wholly
resist fire or it is not fireproof.
HALL OF JUSTICE
Northwest Corner Second Floor

Practically fireproof is a
qualifying term that leads only
to disappointment. To be
practically fireproof a material
must be wholly so, or it is not fire-
proof at all.
HALL OF JUSTICE
First Floor

Make Concrete Buildings Fireproof
By protecting them with
POROUS TERRA COTTA TILE
Gement floor ſſNISH
º
----- - ** * * * * * * * *-*** * *---. . "...
e º Gºncºrre 5iao-ºº: º, .
º, sº : "...º.º. º. º.º.º.º.º.
We will promptly submit plans and estimates
for fireproofing any concrete building.
Illustration shows one of our methods for
protecting concrete columns, girders and floors.
Pogous TERRA GTTA TIL-
The evidence of the camera (as well as the statements of eminent
authorities) shows clearly that when unprotected concrete is attacked
by heat it loses a large proportion of its strength even if it does not
totally fail during the fire. Particularly is this danger present with
columns, girders and beams built of reinforced concrete.
PLASTER LINE. S.
††
: If these structural members, the “bones” of a building, upon
which the building's life and strength depend, are attacked by fire,
il with consequent exposure of the steel reinforcing members, the
structure will be in great danger of destruction by collapse.
ſº
iº
…
- º
-
TIQt PDoor DQOTECTIONA
Fop
- º §§ If further evidence of the necessity for fireproofing concrete were
needed it is shown in our Blue Book of tests on protected and un-
23.
protected reinforced concrete columns, a copy of which we will be
CoNCRETt TLoop5 AND GIDOER5- º
Tigr DQoor DDoTecTION nee PPoor Dºor-cros- glad to send to any address upon request.
Top
- Top - - - - -
CyLIWDQICAL COMcQt Tr (OLUMN 5.QUADr CONCRETE GOLUMN ſh addition to protection afforded to columns
built under above method, the great expense of
pe...º.º.ºnce. nooden centering (necessary under present
A No Mr.Tal Aſsºci-top methods) 1S saved.
NATIONAL FIRE PROOFING COMPANY
Manufacturers of
‘PORO US TERRA COT TA HOLLOW TILE
CONTRACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIREPROOF BUILDINGS
CHICAGO, Hartford Building PHILADELPHIA, Land Title Building WASHINGTON, D. C., Colorado Building PITTSBURG, Fulton Building LOS ANGELES, CAL., 5 l l Union Trust Building
NEW YORK, Flatiron Building MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., Lumber Exchange BOSTON, 840 Old South Building ST. LOUIS, MO., Victoria Bldg. CLEVELAND, O., Cuyahoga Building
LONDON, ENG., 27 Chancery Lane



















THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DATE. DUE
> zºº. 2-4 z^ =<------~~~~<--> --~~~~~~
wº

|||ſul
#
UNIV. J - Iwi ... -: ,
LIBRARY




§§§:ſſä
§§§§§
¿^~--~~~~ -…--čº
ae-ſaeNaeſſae
≤·******、、、、）frº; №asſae