Horse-shoe tiles, Fig. 13, are condemned by all modern engineers. Mr. Gisborne disposes of them by an argument of some length, the quotation of which in these pages is probably advisable, because they form so much better conduits than stones, and to that extent have been so successfully employed, that they are still largely used in this country by "amateurs."
"We shall shock some and surprise many of our readers, when we state confidently that, in average soils, and, still more, in those which are inclined to be tender, horse shoe tiles form the weakest and most failing conduit which has ever been used for a deep drain. It is so, however; and a little thought, even if we had no experience, will tell us that it must be so. A doggrel song, quite destitute of humor, informs us that tiles of this sort were used in 1760 at Grandesburg Hall, in Suffolk,[pg 079] by Mr. Charles Lawrence, the owner of the estate. The earliest of which we had experience were of large area and of weak form. Constant failures resulted from their use, and the cause was investigated; many of the tiles were found to be choked up with clay, and many to be broken longitudinally through the crown. For the first evil, two remedies were adopted; a sole of slate, of wood, or of its own material, was sometimes placed under the tile, but the more usual practice was to form them with club-feet. To meet the case of longitudinal fracture, the tiles were reduced in size, and very much thickened in proportion to their area. The first of these remedies was founded on an entirely mistaken, and the second on no conception at all of the cause of the evil to which they were respectively applied. The idea was, that this tile, standing on narrow feet, and pressed by the weight of the refilled soil, sank into the floor of the drain; whereas, in fact, the floor of the drain rose into the tile. Any one at all conversant with collieries is aware that when a strait work (which is a small subterranean tunnel six feet high and four feet wide or thereabouts) is driven in coal, the rising of the floor is a more usual and far more inconvenient occurrence than the falling of the roof: the weight of the two sides squeezes up the floor. We have seen it formed into a very decided arch without fracture. Exactly a similar operation takes place in the drain. No one had till recently dreamed of forming a tile drain, the bottom of which a man was not to approach personally within twenty inches or two feet. To no one had it then occurred that width at the bottom of the drain was a great evil. For the convenience of the operator the drain was formed with nearly perpendicular sides, of a width in which he could stand and work conveniently, shovel the bottom level with his ordinary spade, and lay the tiles by his hand; the result was a drain with nearly perpendicular sides, and a wide bottom. No sort of clay, particularly when softened by water standing on it or running over it, could fail to rise under such circumstances; and the deeper the drain the greater the pressure and the more certain the rising. A horse-shoe tile, which may be a tolerable secure conduit in a drain of two feet, in one of four feet becomes an almost certain failure. As to the longitudinal fracture—not only is the tile subject to be broken by one of those slips which are so troublesome in deep draining, and to which the lightly-filled material, even when the drain is completed, offers an imperfect resistance, but the constant pressure together of the sides, even when it does not produce a fracture of the soil, catches hold of the feet of the tile, and breaks it through the crown. Consider the case of a drain formed in clay when dry, the conduit a horse-shoe tile. When the clay expands with moisture, it necessarily presses on the tile and breaks it through the crown, its weakest part.[9] When the Regent's[pg 080] Park was first drained, large conduits were in fashion, and they were made circular by placing one horse-shoe tile upon another. It would be difficult to invent a weaker conduit. On re-drainage, innumerable instances were found in which the upper tile was broken through the crown, and had dropped into the lower. Next came the D form, tile and sole in one, and much reduced in size—a great advance; and when some skillful operator had laid this tile bottom upwards we were evidently on the eve of pipes. For the D tile a round pipe moulded with a flat-bottomed solid sole is now generally substituted, and is an improvement; but is not equal to pipes and collars, nor generally cheaper than they are."
Fig. 14 - SOLE TILE.
One chief objection to the Sole-tiles is, that, in the drying which they undergo, preparatory to the burning, the upper side is contracted, by the more rapid drying, and they often require to be trimmed off with a hatchet before they will form even tolerable joints; another is, that they cannot be laid with collars, which form a joint so perfect and so secure, that their use, in the smaller drains, should be considered indispensable.
Fig. 15 - DOUBLE-SOLE TILE.
The double-sole tiles, which can be laid either side up give a much better joint, but they are so heavy as to make the cost of transporation considerably greater. They are also open to the grave objection that they cannot be fitted with collars.
Experience, in both public and private works in this country, and the cumulative testimony of English and French engineers, have demonstrated that the only tile which it is economical to use, is the best that can be found, and that the best,—much the best—thus far invented, is the "pipe, or round tile, and collar,"—and these are unhesitatingly recommended for use in all cases. Round tiles of small sizes should not be laid without collars, as the ability to use these constitutes their chief advantage; holding them perfectly in place, preventing the rattling[pg 081] in of loose dirt in laying, and giving twice the space for the entrance of water at the joints. A chief advantage of the larger sizes is, that they may be laid on any side and thus made to fit closely. The usual sizes of these tiles are 1-1/4 inches, 2-1/4 inches, and 3-1/2 inches in interior diameter. Sections of the 2-1/4 inch make collars for the 1-1/4 inch, and sections of the 3-1/2 inch make collars for the 2-1/4 inch. The 3-1/2 inch size does not need collars, as it is easily secured in place, and is only used where the flow of water would be sufficient to wash out the slight quantity of foreign matters that might enter at the joints.
