[Reprinted from the Journal of the Association of Engineering Societies by permission of the Board of Managers.] Shop and Mill Inspectors and Their Work. By W. O. Henderer, Member of Civil Engineers’ Club of Cleveland. [Read before the Club, September n, 1900.] Many years ago certain truths were expressed by a noted public speaker from which there originated the famous motto, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” By changing one word, and making it read “Eternal vigilance is the price of safety,” the motto is rendered no less true and trite, for in this world of ours every man must be vigilant and alive to his own interests to suc¬ ceed. How many men when buying any article or commodity would feel that they were secure in their purchase if they did not, either themselves or through an agent, assure themselves that they were to get what they paid for? Watch the careful man when he buys a pair of shoes, for instance. He first decides just what he wants, then he goes to his dealer and states his wishes. The shoes are brought forth; he looks them over, and if they are good shoes and of the quality he desires he accepts and pays for them. In his dealings with the shoe man, then, his procedure covers two things,—specification and inspection. So it is when a man or a corporation buys a bridge, a building or any structure containing iron or steel. The careful man or corporation is vigilant to his own interests and safety in assuring himself or itself that every detail is constructed just as it should be, and that the materials are of the quality he desires and pays 2 for. To this end plans showing just what is wanted and specifica¬ tions setting forth in detail the method of construction and the quality of the materials and workmanships are prepared. This is the specification part of the dealings. Then, when the structure is being built, the purchaser watches it, or causes it to be watched, to see that all the details and conditions of his plans and specifications are met and complied with. This is the inspection part of the work. But in the case of iron or steel structures no cursory examina¬ tion can truly determine whether the material and workmanship is all as it should be. No scrutiny of a finished piece of iron or steel can discover whether or not it is free from imperfections in its composition, and from abuse in the treatment it has received dur¬ ing the various processes in the manufacture of the finished parts of the structure that may seriously and even fatally affect its strength. To be sure that he is getting what he is paying for the buyer must have means of knowing that the raw materials are of good quality; that the metal when rolled contains no harmful ingre¬ dients in dangerous quantity; that the material is properly handled, straightened and finished; that the various processes incident to its manufacture into bridge or other structural parts are all properly and conscientiously done; that the parts when finished are all of proper size; that they are painted and treated as they should be; in short, he must, either himself or by a representative working in his interest, follow the progress of the material from the ore to the finished structure. Then, and then only, can he be reasonably posi¬ tive that his structure is what he desires and pays for. Such careful attention to details requires that some one be at mills at all times when material is being rolled for the work in hand to conduct the tests of all the material produced, and to measure and carefully examine the bars as they are finished. It requires that some one be at the shops during the manufacture of the parts of the proposed structure from the material received from the mills to see that all the details of the treatment it receives are in accordance with the specifications, and that the finished parts all comply with the requirements as to size and quality of workman¬ ship. Few purchasers can look after such things personally. They have other things to attend to. Engineers and architects in charge of structures have all they can do to superintend the other parts of the work in hand. The matter of the inspection of the materials entering into them is a detail that they must intrust to an assistant, and so men expert in this particular sort of superintendence have become useful and have found their places among the arts. The 3 inspector makes it his business to fully understand all the various processes and their results, and to look after his client’s interests in all respects. There was a time when one man could comfortably attend to such duties himself, and personally follow the progress of the material in all its various processes. The shops and mills at which iron was manufactured and where the finished parts of structures were produced were often one and the same, or, if not, the pro¬ cesses followed each other in such rotation that one man could get from mill to shop and keep proper consecutive track of the work. But the industry has of late years grown to such enormous propor¬ tions and has extended over such a large area that it is impossible for one man to properly inspect the work in all its stages. Bridge companies now have a number of mills from which to order the material necessary for their work. They are likely to have plates from one mill, beams and channels from another and other shapes from still a third; and the mills are often great distances apart. Frequently, too, the shop is at work on some portions of a contract while the mills are still furnishing materials. It is manifestly out of the question for any one man to thoroughly inspect work at all these places at one time. He must have assistance in some way. Men who have become expert and experienced in this sort of work have made inspection their particular business, performing this service at a compensation based on the tonnage in the work, instead of entering the service of the engineer or architect in charge at a salary. Such men, as they found it impossible to economically perform their duties personally on account of the excessive expenses of traveling about, adopted the method of reciprocating among themselves, an inspector in Pittsburg undertaking to do the mill inspection on one piece of work for another located in Philadelphia, while the latter attended to shop inspection at shops in his vicinity for the former. Naturally, from such alliances among inspectors, there has resulted the formation of inspection bureaus or companies. Such companies employ men permanently at the various mills and shops, and maintain extensive general offices, at which the clerical work of copying and forwarding reports of tests, progress of work, etc., is performed. By securing large quantities of inspection .work they are able to keep good men at all the localities necessary, main¬ taining a perfect system of effective inspection and giving their clients regular reports of the quality of material and workmanship and the progress of the work, and information as to tests, ship¬ ments, etc., which, when completed, comprises an accurate record of the structure in question and surety that it is built as it should be. 4 Such a company, to be effective and to economically perform good service, requires the most careful organization among its corps of inspectors and clerks. Detailed systems for the handling of such work have been adopted by some companies as the result of much study and experience, and the inspection of various classes of work for clients in all parts of this country and abroad, done at mills and shops in all the centers of manufacture, is performed with the machine-like regularity and uniformity which alone is the safe¬ guard against mistakes, lost records and careless work. The following brief description of the methods adopted by the inspection department of the Osborn Engineering Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, one of the principal inspection bureaus of this country, will illustrate the care taken to give all work the closest attention, to keep track of its employes and to insure the best results to its clients. When the contract for a bridge or for any other steel or iron structure is let the inspecting company and the contracting bridge company are mutually notified. The former is supplied with a copy of the strain sheet and general plans and specifications. These are first examined at the inspecting company’s general office, and any necessary notes made of special features, and then sent, with instruction slip A attached, to their inspector located at the con¬ tractors’ shops. When the bridge company places its orders for material with the various mills copies of these orders are sent to the inspecting bureau, where they are copied in duplicate on the blanks C, one copy of which is sent, with instruction slip B attached, to the inspectors located at the various mills where the material is to be rolled. The weights of the various items of material ordered are estimated and entered in the other copy, which is retained at head¬ quarters for future reference. Each mill inspector first carefully compares his copy of form C with the mill order book, to see that no changes or mistakes have been made in ordering. As fast as the steel is manufactured test specimens are taken by the mill inspectors and the necessary tests are made, the report of tests on each separate blow or melt of steel being sent to headquarters, together with data from the mill chemist’s certified report of chemical analysis on the inspector’s test slip D. Drillings are also taken, when required or deemed advisable, from the test pieces and sent to headquarters, where check analyses are made in order to test the accuracy of the mill chemist. The test slips D are collected at the general office and copied on the test report blanks E, which, after press-copying, are sent to the engineer or architect. While the material is being 5 rolled into the shapes ordered the inspector is constantly on hand, and from time to time he calipers and measures the pieces to see that they are of the requisite size and thickness. He sees that the bars are properly straightened and cared for while cooling, and that they show no flaws or ragged edges. As fast as each bar is inspected and found satisfactory he strikes into it a distinguishing mark of the inspecting bureau furnished him from the general office, which signifies that the piece has satisfactorily passed his examination and is composed of material the tests of which have been satisfactory. The stamp he uses, besides the distinguishing mark of the inspecting company, bears a number, and this number is recorded in the general office against his name. He keeps this stamp closely by him at all times, so that there can never be any question as to who performed the inspection on any piece of mate¬ rial. He keeps his general office informed regarding the pieces he has inspected from day to day on any one piece of work by means of the report F. As fast as the material is shipped from the mill he forwards to the general office, after he has checked them, the tissue copies of invoices furnished him by the mill. There the items and weights are checked against those on his report F and against the copy of form C retained at headquarters. The invoices are then copied on the blank G, which is sent to the engineer or architect after press-copying. Thus the engineer or architect in charge of the work is kept reliably informed just what material has been rolled and shipped, and he knows exactly what the results of all the tests performed on the material have been and what powers of resistance it can be expected to develop. He is protected from any fictitious claims of a delinquent bridge company of delay at the mills. The inspecting bureau has detailed records of the dates on which inspection was performed on any lot of material, and is protected against fictitious xclaims of delay in the inspection of material at the mill. As soon as the material begins to arrive at the contractor’s shop the shop inspector located there begins making regular weekly reports on the work in hand to his general office. He has, in the meantime, received from the bridge company a full set of the work¬ ing drawings of the structure. He has carefully checked them against the general plans received at the outset, and has called atten¬ tion to and had corrected any errors in them or differences between them and the general plans furnished him as his guide. He has also made a careful estimate of the weights of the various finished parts, and a list of all the parts that will be required according to the contract. 6 It is his duty to be constantly on hand about the shop during the progress of the work, watching the various processes and see¬ ing that everything is done according to the specifications that have been furnished him. He sees that only material bearing the mill inspector’s stamp is used, and that it has arrived from the mills in good condition. By watching the processes thus closely he is not only able to detect faulty work which would be covered up when the piece is finished, but he can often save both the bridge com¬ pany and his employers considerable time and expense by noting mistakes early, while they may still be corrected readily and at little cost. When a piece is finished he makes careful final exami¬ nation of it, comparing all dimensions with the plans, testing the riveting, etc. It is then painted under his superintendence, and he stamps in the piece, in a conspicuous position, a similar distinguish¬ ing mark to that used by the mill inspector to indicate that the shop work has all been properly done and that the piece is as it should be in every respect. The shop inspector’s weekly reports come to the general office in three forms, H, I, and J being respectively his report of material received from the various mills, of the work performed on the structure in the shop and of finished pieces shipped from the shop to their destination during the week. Form H is first checked against form G, and then the three forms are press-copied and sent to the engineer or architect. The method of reporting the condition of the various members of a structure from week to week on form I may require more detailed explanation. The first column, headed “required,” shows the number of pieces of a par¬ ticular mark required. The number in this column remains con¬ stant from beginning to end. The other columns show what stage in the process of manufacture each piece has reached each wetk. Thus in a bridge there may be four end posts required marked aB. The figure 4 would then appear in each report in the first column. One week there might be a 4 in the third column, a 4 in the fifth and a 2 in the next to last, showing that all wefe assembled, all riveted and two finished awaiting shipment. When the same figure appears in the last column as in the first all the pieces of that kind have been shipped, and when all the pieces required for the work are shown in the last column the material has all been finished and is on its way to its destination. For every shipment of material copies of the shipping bills, giving the itemized scale weights of the material on each car, are furnished the inspector by the bridge company. He first makes a note of these items and weights, checking them against his list of 7 parts required to complete the wprk and the estimated weights he has. He then sends the bills to the general office, where they are copied on form K, which, after press-copying, is sent to the engi¬ neer or architect. Reports of tests of full sized eye-bars for bridges are made out on the blank L, press-copied and sent to the engi¬ neer. Form M is similarly used for reporting results of tests of cast iron. When a job is finished a final report is sent to the engineer or architect, stating briefly the work that has been done and noting any unusual features that have developed during the inspection of the material or cases where material was rejected. This report usually includes a summarized statement of the weights of the finished parts, comparing the estimated with the actual scale weights to show whether the various parts have been accurately proportioned in accordance with the drawings, and also a state¬ ment of the shipments made, giving dates of shipment, car num¬ bers and initials and weights. The engineer or architect then has a complete record of the material used on his work, the dates on which the shipments were made from mills to shop and complete records of its progress through the shop and of the shipments from the shop to the building site. With the exception of the slips and form D, all the reports and blanks used are uniformly of letter size and printed on thin paper. They are thus in the best possible shape for filing, and do not make an unnecessarily bulky package. The final report em¬ bodies all the points necessary for ordinary cases of future refer¬ ence. The inspecting company has not only duplicates of all these documents carefully preserved, but all the detailed information of all kinds relating to the work are carefully filed with the copies of reports, correspondence, etc., and stored safely away, thus form¬ ing an additional safeguard against loss of records. If at any time in the future information should be wanted concerning the work, if repairs are to be made, or if any question arises as to the strength of the structure, the inspecting bureau can furnish the information if necessary. One other of this company’s many forms may be interesting. Form N is a blank form of diary furnished to all its employes, wherever located. The employes are required to keep thereon a concise diary of their doings and movements, and note the time spent and expenses chargeable on each piece of work. At the end of each period these are sent to the general office, where they are checked over and the time and expenses of each man entered against each job. The company thus has a pretty good check on 8 each man as to whether or not he is attending to his duty and spending proper time on each piece of work allotted to him. The employment of competent inspecting bureaus becomes more and more general as the iron and steel industry increases in volume and competition between the manufacturers grows keener. Men are realizing more and more forcibly the necessity for such services in order to insure good results. The day when people thought that because a bridge was built of iron it would stand indefinitely and support any loads that might be imposed is past and gone. Men are finding that there are good and bad iron and steel, and that there is so great a difference between them—often the difference between success and failure, between a strong, stiff and durable structure and an accident costing human life—that it pays to spend the small added cost to insure the use of the good material and to detect and exclude the bad. Nearly all the best structures built to-day are manufactured under the watchful eyes of inspec¬ tors employed to see that the provisions of the specifications are strictly followed. But, unfortunately, this class comprises by no means all the structures built. There are great quantities of iron and steel structural material produced and made into bridges, buildings and other structures on which human life depends that are not so in¬ spected, and concerning which the purchasers have no assurance as to their strength or durability because they have no knowledge of the quality of the material or of the treatment it has received during its manufacture. Thousands of tons of steel are annually manufactured and sold to people who have no way of knowing anything about its quality. Hundreds of bridges and buildings are built every year out of such material, and no one can tell whether or not they will actually stand the strains they are intended to stand. Is the general public to blame when it assumes that such a struc¬ ture is capable of successfully withstanding the loads and shocks it is called on to resist ? Can a man do otherwise when he enters a building or crosses a bridge than place confidence in the care and thoroughness with which its architect or engineer has attended to all the details of its construction? Accidents happen, much more frequently than they should, that are traceable to bad material or workmanship; generally both. If the structure that collapsed had been inspected by competent men such accidents would not have occurred. There is yet to be recorded a single case where a struc¬ ture properly inspected by inspectors who know their business and do it honestly has failed under the loads it was designed to carry, while, on the other hand, there are many engineers and architects 9 who can testify to important saving of time and money through the employment of competent inspectors. It is remarkable that so many fail to see that specification and inspection must always go hand in hand; that neither can confer the benefits it should without the other. Most people realize that if no specifications are stated to indicate the nature and quality of the structure desired the manufacturer cannot be blamed if the structure does not meet the expectations of the purchaser. But often little thought is given to the second part of the purchaser’s duty, that of inspection. It is not recognized as a duty owed by every purchaser for his own protection and safety, and to secure benefits from a carefully compiled specification. When the millen¬ nium is reached, when it may be reasonably expected that every man’s work will be perfect and each one’s labor as valuable as that of his fellows, then there will be no difference between good and bad, no possibility of errors or mistakes or dishonesty. When that time arrives there will be no further use for either specifications or inspection, and many a busy man wifi lose his job. But until that time there will be varying grades in the quality of materials and workmanship, and the necessity for specifying the grade desired on any piece of work will remain. And just so long as there is any cause or reason for specifications, just so long will the inspector be needed to see that the specifications are carried out. There are various reasons advanced why such inspection service is not employed. Most of them may be classified under the four classes discussed below. First. Some believe that by placing their work with the best- known bridge companies they are so sure of satisfactory results that no check on the quality of the work turned out is necessary, and that by availing themselves of such a check they are casting unpleasant reflections on the honesty of the bridge company. This is far from a correct view of the case. It is not a question of the integrity of the bridge company or of its management; they may have the best of intentions. But what of the many men through whose hands or under whose eyes the tons of material must pass in its progress from the ore to the finished structure, each one of whom leaves upon it, for better or worse, the results of his work. Each man will look to his own personal interests first. It matters not to him if the material suffers, so long as he can save himself from the consequences of the discovery of his bad work. Besides, it is human nature for a man to underrate an error made by himself. His judgment is warped by his financial interest, and he is apt to think “it is good enough.” Thus when a man makes a mistake or IO botches a piece of work he is tempted to hide his error in order that his reputation with his foreman may not suffer. He knows that each error made and discovered lowers his value in his employer’s estimation. Frequently employes are paid by the piece or ton, the workman then becoming practically a sub-contractor with no interest in the work beyond doing it well enough to get his pay for it. His interest lies in doing a large amount of work; in the pro¬ duction of quantity even at the expense of quality. Foremen, and even superintendents, will frequently pass flaws and errors that their reputation for executive ability may be main¬ tained. A manufacturing firm looks to its superintendent for results. Time taken to correct mistakes or replace faulty material means decrease of output, and if the output decreases cost increases and the superintendent must explain. So the work is hurried through the shop with speed of completion the principal end in view, and if the foreman or his superintendent notices a defect he is tempted to let it pass for the sake of keeping up the rate of out¬ put and saving the expense and time of correcting it. It is often easy in walking through a bridge shop to tell at a glance which of the various pieces of work in progress are in an inspector’s caxe and which are not. The difference is often ap¬ parent to a casual observer. Some bridge companies make it a rule to mark plainly on all their working drawings whether the work is to be inspected or not, and by whom. In this way the workmen have the best of means of estimating the chances of bad work passing unnoticed. The excuse is sometimes made by a shop foreman when a blunder or careless workmanship is brought to his attention by an inspector, “I was not told that this piece of work was to pass inspection.” Some shops maintain on their pay rolls an inspector whose duty it is to examine the work as it comes from the shop and report errors. His duty is performed when the work is finished; he has no jurisdiction in the shop while it is going on. Errors committed and covered up are beyond his detection, and he assumes that they do not exist. But even as regards the errors that may be dis¬ covered after a piece is finished, it is human nature for such a man to consult his own interests first and to perform his work in such a manner as best to serve the interests of the people to whom he looks for his pay. When he discovers a mistake in the fitting together of pieces, rivet holes left out of joints, or such like errors, he will report them, because he knows it will cost his employers much more to correct them in the field when they erect the structure than at the shop before the material is shipped to its destination. But he will be indulgent in such matters as loose rivets, buckled web plates, unannealed forged members, careless painting and the details of construction that may be either good or bad without of a certainty causing his employers trouble later. He casts his lot in with the rest and risks the results, and that such risks are run let accidents on record bear testimony. Such an inspector is generally some man taken from the shop; some good mechanic who can read a drawing and make an accurate measurement. He is paid little if any more than the men who are doing the work he is called upon to examine, and he draws his pay from the same window and standing in the same line with his fellows. He probably belongs to the same labor union, and is closely associated at all times with the very men who are laying out the work, punching the holes and driving the rivets. It would not be good policy for him to be the cause of too frequent scoring of such men. It might be dangerous for him to be the cause of their discharge. As to reflections on the honesty of a bridge company cast by the employment of expert inspectors by the architect or engineer, no company honestly trying to do good work has such a feeling. If the inspector knows his business he will not interfere with the men at their work, nor will he cause the company unnecessary trouble in any way. He will be quick to detect errors and see to their correction; often his experience will be of material benefit to the foreman in suggesting the best method of making the cor¬ rection. The inspector relieves the men from many cares in the performance of their duties, and the bridge company that has nothing to fear from the inspector will welcome him to the shop because he helps them to see that their work is done in the best possible manner and to keep up their standard of perfection in the structures they manufacture. A few years ago a bridge was built, shipped to its destination by the bridge company and nearly erected before it was discovered that certain important parts necessary to complete it had been over¬ looked ; had never been made in fact. It was during the freshet season, and to save the bridge from being washed away temporary members were devised on the ground and the span fortunately swung before the falsework went out. When the missing parts arrived new falsework had to be built, the span jacked up and dis¬ connected and the new members inserted. Such blunders as this cost money. An inspector who knows his business and diligently attends to it can be the means of avoiding such blunders, and not only of saving his employers time and trouble, but of saving the bridge company from the expensive results of errors. 12 Second. Some think that the extra cost of inspection adds too much to the cost of the work. They prefer to pay the bridge com¬ pany its price and run the risk of getting a poor job in return, rather than pay a slight excess to an inspecting firm and have as¬ surance that they are getting good work. They willingly pay a liberal premium in the stock market for bonds of good repute, rather than buy others for less money. And yet is it not cheaper to pay $102 for an article known to be worth $100 than to pay $100 for an article that may not be worth $75 ? The cost of inspection, by competent experts who make it their duty to watch every detail of the manufacture and check all the plans to see that everything has been done as the architect or engineer intended it should be done, should not exceed 2 per cent, of the total cost of the steel work. Is such a percentage a high rate of premium to pay for the sake of security? Not only is good inspection worth what it costs to the owner of a structure on account of the security he is warranted in feeling as to its efficiency, but it is a duty owed by every corporation own¬ ing structures on which human life depends to take every possible precaution to secure the safety of such structures. It is a good thing for a railroad manager to have inspectors’ reports on file con¬ cerning his bridges. In case of accident to any bridge, and the often resulting damage suits, one of the first questions asked will be, “Did you have your work inspected, and by whom was the inspection performed?” Several recent suits resulting from acci¬ dents to bridges and buildings have developed the fact that no competent inspecting bureau had been employed during the con¬ struction, and the testimony has in every case reflected very un¬ pleasantly on the carelessness or gross neglect of the engineer or architect. Not long ago, in the construction of a railroad, a bridge was required across a certain stream. The railroad company had faith in the bridge company to whom the work was let, and saved the extra cost of inspection. That bridge collapsed within three months after its completion. Subsequent examination showed that not only was the work built at the very lowest limit of safety as regards design, but the material was dangerously high in phos¬ phorus. Careless shop work was admitted, resulting in the punch¬ ing of clover-leaf rivet holes; and, to crown all, a mistake in mark¬ ing the pieces had resulted in the interchange of members, a light one being placed where the strain sheet called for a much heavier one and vice versa. That accident cost the lives of three men, to say nothing of delays and expense in replacing the structure. Yet : 3 the railroad company justly felt itself lucky, for an excursion train had passed over the bridge but a short time before. It is remark¬ able, but not at all surprising when the truth is known, what a large proportion of the accidents occur to new structures. Third. A common claim by the bridge company to the archi¬ tect or engineer, to influence him against the employment of an inspector, is that there will result serious delay in the completion of the work, owing to the time required for the “perfunctory” duties of the inspector. Extraordinary claims along this line are sometimes made on the part of a bridge company after work is completed, and the inspector is called upon to explain why the delay was caused. Such explanation is seldom necessary from a competent bureau, because, in the first place, the regular reports of the bureau will show the rate of progress of each piece through the shops and just where and when and how any delay was caused by any one or by any cause. In general, however, the claim on the part of the bridge company is pertinent, for the bridge company making such claim generally has reasons of its own for making such statements, and it will generally be found that at such shops delays are actually caused by the inspector on account of the time required to replace faulty material or workmanship which he rejects, and which but for his offices would be incorporated into the work to its great detriment. Such delays are aggravating no doubt, especially when it is im¬ portant that the work be finished in the shortest possible time. But it is obviously unjust to blame the delays to the inspector. The delay may mean considerable loss to the purchaser, but he can far better afford such loss than risk the consequences of faulty material or workmanship. And in any case where time is of great importance and a limit of time is agreed to by the bridge company for the completion of the work, any delay of this kind is directly chargeable to the company that undertook to furnish the materials and perform the work according to the prescribed standard within the prescribed time. It is certainly not to the inspector’s interest to delay the completion of the work. He is paid for his services by the ton, and the sooner the work is finished the greater will be his profit. Fourth. It is claimed by many that inspection as it is gener¬ ally conducted is not effective; that the work is performed in so careless and slipshod a manner as to be void of'the benefits it is intended to confer, and that money spent for inspection is practi¬ cally thrown away. 14 Unfortunately, this has been but too true in the past. Inspec¬ tors worked carelessly and without system. Points which should have been detected were overlooked, and much of the work they were supposed to do was not done at all, or was so poorly done as to afford but little protection to the engineer or architect. Even now there are many who are performing their work in this careless way; undertaking to inspect a piece of work for about half what good inspection costs, and then giving the work what attention they can afford for the price and no more. Mr. J. A. L. Waddell, one of the foremost bridge and struc¬ tural engineers of this country, has had his own troubles with inspectors, as may be seen from the following extracts from Chap¬ ter XXI of his excellent little book, “De Pontibus.” That whole chapter is full of interest in this connection, and will well repay careful reading. Mr. Waddell says, “For many years most of the inspection of structural metal work was a sad farce, and in conse¬ quence the general public placed but little confidence in inspection, with the result that a large portion of the bridge work of the country was left entirely to the tender mercies of the manufac¬ turers. Latterly, however, owing to the efforts of a few first-class inspecting bureaus, the status of inspection has been somewhat improved, although it is far from being to-day what it ought to be. “The inspection business has been utterly demoralized in times past, for it was the general custom, and is yet to a certain extent with some inspectors, to take contracts for inspection at whatever figures the purchasers are willing to pay, then handle the work so as not to lose money on the contract, regardless, of course, of the interests of their employers. “Strange tales concerning inspection come to the ears of engi¬ neers, such, for instance, as passing carload after carload of metal work that was not seen by the inspector until after loading for shipment; but such tales need verification, which of course it is nobody’s business to give them. In one case in the author’s experi¬ ence the inspector left his work for ten days in charge of one of the bridge company’s shipping clerks, without notifying either the author or his direct employers, the inspection bureau, of his con¬ templated absence. Such actions as this make one entertain doubts sometimes as to whether inspection really pays.’’ Mr. Waddell evidently believes that inspection by competent bureaus does pay after all, since he is one of the most careful engi¬ neers to see that all his work is inspected and that the rigid require¬ ments of his specifications are strictly followed. But he is just as careful in the choice of his inspectors. i5 There are a few inspecting bureaus who are striving for the improvement of inspection services, through the establishment of carefully devised systems for the thorough handling of the work and the employment of only experienced and thoroughly reliable men. Such companies can and do give the quality of service that makes inspection thoroughly valuable. But they have thus far found themselves seriously handicapped by the many irresponsible inspectors who undertake work at ridiculously low prices without any idea of doing it as it should be done. Engineers and archi¬ tects are not a little to blame for this state of things, since too many of them fail to consider the inspection service as one having degrees of quality. They have become accustomed to consider that all in¬ spection is the same, and to require that each inspector who makes application for their work shall submit his prices in competition with any one else who may be an applicant, and then employ the man with the lowest price without taking the trouble to properly investigate the comparative facilities or reputations of the appli¬ cants. It cannot be expected that the best results of inspection will be gained by crowding the price for such services down to the lowest possible figure. There is a limit below which good inspection can¬ not be performed. The only way in which an engineer can get the full benefit that inspection can confer is to determine at the outset to pay a fair price for that service, and then, before appointing an inspecting firm, to look carefully into the reputations of the dif¬ ferent inspecting companies available by references to other engi¬ neers and to pieces of work that have been inspected by them. Thorough and complete inspection of iron and steel structural material should generally be worth one dollar per net ton of shop shipping weights. At times and under especially favorable condi¬ tions as regards the location of a bureau’s employes, it can be done for less. On some small jobs it may be more, but there is in general a chance for the inspector to make a fair living at that average price. Such inspection should include the careful com¬ parison and checking of working plans and complete supervision and tests by thoroughly experienced, expert and reliable men throughout the manufacture of the material from the time it is first produced until it is shipped from the shop. The most experienced engineers and architects already realize that only first-class inspection is valuable. These are taking pains to see that only first-class men are employed by them, and at a fair price. Inspection bureaus who enjoy the patronage of such men are doing all their work the best they know how, and are fondly i6 hoping for the dawn of the day when the general public will recog¬ nize the value of the efficient service so rendered. Good and thorough inspection can be had, but not at the low prices at which so many seem to think it should be done. If com¬ plete inspection, as above defined, is worth one dollar per ton, it* cannot be expected that the man who refuses to pay that price will get such inspection. Much of the success or failure of inspection depends on the individual ability and character of the inspector. Good inspectors are not easy to find, and when found they are worth more than the cheap bureaus can afford to pay them. A successful inspector must have a rare combination of good qualities. He must be a practical man, with long training in mills and shops. He must thoroughly understand all the details of the various processes employed, and what are the various faults that are liable to result from each process. He must so well understand these faults as to be able to detect them at once, and he must be so well informed as to know how best to correct them in the most practical manner, and when correction is not possible. But experience in mill and shop practice alone will not suffice. He must also understand enough of struc¬ tural engineering to recognize the relative advantages of different details and designs. He must be able to figure out the strength of the various connections and parts, and have accurate judgment to determine just what effect a loose rivet here or a bad fit there may have in the resulting structure. He must be quick to think and act, for he is the umpire and his decisions must be prompt and fair if they are to be respected. He must, withal, be a good deal of a diplomat. The inspector who cannot deal with each mill and shop foreman in the way to best command his respect and secure his co-operation will never make a success. And, above all, he must be a man of sterling character, straightforward, upright and honest. His is a position of no slight trust, and he must prove himself at all times truly worthy of that trust. The inspector’s life is not all sunshine. He has many a dis¬ agreeable duty, and unless he has the necessary judgment and diplomacy there will be much friction between him and the men in charge of the mills and shops where his work is located. But a good, sensible man, with the qualities of a good inspector, will gain his points without engendering bad feeling; will get over the rough places tactfully, and do his work quietly and unostentatiously, but effectively. Some day the public will appreciate how important his work is, and then the inspector and the inspection business will receive the respect they deserve. THE OSBORN ENGINEERING CO. H SHOP MEMORANDUM. 17 c n C ;>> i_ O 0 a; 0 d > c n 03 U <-G 0 a3 l-i tl < £ '0 H O O H \ 19 D Uate . . . ...Inspector. Mill .. Contract . Order No ..:. Blow or Cast . Furnace Heat . Ingot . Slab . Piece. . Test cut from . Dims. Elas. Lim^.. Ult. Str. Elong. in... Red. Dims . . Red. Area:.Per ct . Fracture^ .. Cold Bend ... Quench Bend. . Drift Test .. C.Ph.Mn.Sul.Si. Acc. or Rej., . Remarks . ...Area.. Per □ " Per □ ", Per ct.. port of Tests of.Manufactured by 20 d O o £ o a a> 04 o U CU js .2 a o 'cn 3 «i — C V ra c E S' C £ 4 -> e h w 3 a> ts y 3 tuO V. Vi o o 2 £ rt ,2 Q M : a o W) _ : r ; 3 c tl « ^ £ 3 w : © § rt "2 ^ .5 - ,4 c S< .2£.S2 a ^ X&Q<£i<:Z •«< * — 5 ©•g~'=S*’t buC^O o .S c s-fS IfehOOWUDSwa^^cuouaOu O C >- *5 rt 3 O* b£.c o 53 •CiS 3 PhSc/j Pi tn o « d a O 4 J 3 « CL L O 1) >7 r/i REPORT OF MATERIAL RECEIVED At the Shops of. . 22 Span, j Location in Structure. 23 O £ £ o o & £ * x CO X O ° cd PH Oh X o o ^ CL, a; W ■£ 04 s O Vh X o J3 'V cti (V ■, , o o a, X , rt 'V £ xn 3 q 0 03 *> a3 o p >_ O H CU h o u o X •d m > CQ (j CD cu T 3 <£> > O -Q a5 o a > QQ .a C/3 a: < a o 4f2f“Each employe is to fill out this form, day by day, giving complete description in detail of the kind of work done, at what place and time spent. He is a’so to state in detail what moneys he has expended on this Company’s account, and for what purpose. At the end of the period noted hereon this sheet must be turned into the Cleveland office, giving a complete diary and statement of time and expense for the period. . \