Search Documents

By J. M. Silliman

Isometrical drawing and clinographic projection are generally preferred to perspective drawings for representation of small objects or complicated mechanisms, as they present to the eye a sufficiently accurate picture of the object, while they possess great advantages over perspective in the simplicity and rapidity of execution, and the facility they give for taking measurements directly from the drawings.

Jan 1, 1882

Gentlemen of the American Institute of Mining Engineers.—As you well know an application is about to be made to Congress, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, for the appointment of a cornmission composed of persons skilled in the production and use of iron, steel, and other structural materials, whose duty it shall be to test the strength, elasticity, and other quatities of such materials ; not simply the substances used as such, but the members of large structures composed of such materials, of the forms and sizes in which they are actually used. As I understand, the papers that will be read here to-night will have for their object to show the necessity for such tests, and therefore the necessity for the commission asked for. As the representative of the Society of Civil Engineers, I have to thank you, gentlemen of the Mining Engineers, for the great zeal with which yon have taken up this subject, and seconded the efforts of the Civil Engineers; or, perhaps I ought rather to say, initiated the efforts to get a suitable commission appointed to obtain most vitally important information which it is admitted on all hands we do not now possess. In drawing up the memorial to Congress, in connection with some of the ablest and best informed of our Society, and in all the discossions on the subject, I have been struck with the emphasis with which the confession is made, that so little is known of the strength of the larger-sized members constantly used in building structures of the magnitude which the present requirements of the country now demand. I presume the remarks made to-night will bring this out very prominently. This is no disgrace, for with the means here-

Jan 1, 1882

By A. P. Boller

In the victories of peace as well as of war, the science of engineering has played a prominent, if, indeed, not the leading part. While it might be interesting, and food for profitable thought, to trace the development of engineering from early times in its bearings upon the social betterment of mankind, it will be sufficient on the present occasion to suggest a few thoughts that it is hoped will aid the unprofessional listener to an appreciative consideration of the subject-matter laid down for to-day's discussion, and possibly lead the professional brother to a higher conception of the profession to which he belongs. Since the advent of the railway era, it is difficult to grasp the sequence of historic events that have led to the wondrous derelopment of mechanical science, making possible the civilization that is our daily boast, and opening up a vista of future intellectual and moral advancement among the nations of the earth, 'before which the imagination becomes hopelessly lost. Even now, looking back over a period of only half a century, we often fail to realize the vast change in the relations of individuals and nations to each other., brought about by the results of those mechanical discoveries which, having made the whole world kin, exercise a resistless levelling influence that bears fruit politically in the spread of republican ideas, and morally in the elevation of the individual through the facilities given to the dissemination of Christian ideas and general intelligence. In this view, it seems almost like a work of supererogation for a body of representative men of one department of that science to which the whole world owe. so much, to meet here at the centre of our national life to plead not only for a practical recognition of the national importance of the work to which their lives are devoted, but also for national aid, on a scale beyond that of private effort, to the end that mechanical science may be carried to a higher plane than ever yet attained, each step on the way being of material benefit to every man, woman, and child in the community. Possibly this is strong language, but none too strong when we consider that the work for which we plead is one affecting not only vast scientific and commercial interests, but also human life, to a degree little ap

Jan 1, 1882

By G. S. Morison

I have bad considerable experience with the testing-machine at the Watertown Arsenal, having had broken there sixteen large steel eye-bars, besides quite a number of iron bars and two compression members. So far as accurate mid satisfactory results are concerned, the machine is all we could ask for, and the officers who have it in charge, together with their civil assistants, are thoroughly conversant with it 1 details, and entirely competent to make the tests required. The principal defect is that the force is very inadequate. As the machine is arranged, tile weighing apparatus is at one end and stationary, the measure of strain being carried from this to the scale-beam by the fluid in a tube m small that it looks like a wire. At the other end is placed the hydraulic press by which the power is applied; this press is mounted on a small carriage and held by two eight-inch screws about four feet above the floor, which arc of course strained in compression during tensile tests, and in tension during' compression tests. When the stretch of the material has exhausted the throw of the plunger it is necessary to relieve the strain, draw back the plunger, and move the carriage along, which is done by nuts turned by steam working on the large screws. Every specimen placed in the machine must be lifted above the large screws and lowered into position. To do this, crabs, running on travellers, which span the entire room, are placed over the machine, and by these the specimen can be lifted and put in place. The actual time required to make a test depends largely on the amount which the material stretches, bat it may generally be said, that for specimens which will stretch from two to three feet the

Jan 1, 1882

By O. Chanute

In discussion of Mr. Macdonald's paper, I can say little more thau to add t~ the general acknowledgments of iguorae, and like several of the gentlemen who have preceded me, make one of those confessions which are thought to be good for the soul. Having had some experience in the erection of bridges during past years, I am aware that We yet need much information in order to proportion them to the best advantage. I would more especially like to emphasize three of the points mentioned by Mr. Macdonald, as among those upon which we lack knowledge; these are: first, the behavior of steel; second, the proportions of compression members; and, third, the influence of the size of a bar upon its strength per square inch. First, as to steel. While we all acknowledge this as the material of the future, our position map be said to be still one of expectaucy. Feu? engineers are bold enough to employ it largely in bridges, and those who do, find such serious difficulties in obtaining uniform grades of it, are so puzzled by apparent anomalies and unexpected phenomena, that it requires considerable faith and courage to apply it in large structural masses. A series of systematic experiments,

Jan 1, 1882

By T. C. Clarke

The history of iron construction in this country well illustrates the three phases of thought described by Auguste Comte, the French philosopher. The first is the era of faith, when belief in the safety of structures rests on the authority of the designer. The second is the era of criticism, when plans of structures are analyzed with much mathematical skill, but the data upon which the chain of reasoning depends is assumed upon insufficient experiment. The third, upon which we are now entering, is a scientific era, which demands experimental proof. It also demands that this proof shall be derived from experiments made on full-sized specimens, such as are in actual use, and not upon toy models. Until the construction of the United States testing-machine, now at Watertown Arsenal, it was impossible to make such experiments with accuracy. We now have a machine in which we can test full-sized specimens of every part of a bridge or other structure that we want to use, and under the same conditions in which it is actually used. The next thing is to get money to make these experiments available. No private individuals can afford to do it, and even if they could, they might wish to keep the results to themselves. So that the next point is that we want money, and that, I believe, everybodly thinks we should ask Congress for. We want also, as has been said, some one who shall make a business of testing, and who has plenty of time. Persons who are employed in private business are too much in a hurry; they want to do a thing and get done with it, and then do something else; but government officers are entirely free from this feeling; time to them is of no account, and in experimenting that is the very element that is of value; it does not do to be hurried; the great thing is to get it right and to test your results, and go over it, again and again. And the experimenter who operates the machine must be some person educated up to the use of it. We then want a general advisory board who will indicate a plan of experiments, collect the results; and publish them. Some experiments were made the other day at the Watertown Arsenal upon full-sized

Jan 1, 1882

By C. P. Sandberg

Having been occupied in inspecting and testing iron and steel these twenty years in England, and previous to that having served on the Board of Iron Masters in Sweden, I have naturally been very much interested in the subject of the use of steel for structures. I regret that I can offer but comparatively small experience on that had, having had principally to do with steel for railway plant and rails, but granting these to be a kind of "structure," and also that steel for rails has similar duties to perform in many respects, and is generally manufactured in the same way and at the same works as steel for stuctures, properly speaking, I may be entitled to offer an opinion on the use of steel in construction. In a paper recently presented to the Institution of Civil Engineers in London, Mr. Ewing Matheson has recommended that the Board of Trade rules should be amended so as to allow of a maximum straining of 8 tolls per square inch instead of 6 1/2 tons. But it is equally necessary to fix the amount of ductility or elongation of the metal for such a strain as 8 tons. Strength and ductility should always be spoken of together. Mr. Matheson says that steel can be manipulated in the factory in the same way and with the same tools as are used for iron. This can only be granted for mild steel; for hard steel would be spoilt by the rough mechanical treatment which iron can stand, such as punch ing, for instance; and the remedy for regaining the strength lost by punching hard steel, viz., annealing, cannot always be applied. Noth ing proves this fact better than the punching of steel rails of consid erable hardness, which caused fractures at an early period of steelunaking, and which resulted in the stipulation for drilling instead of punching the bolt-holes, which had been formerly applied to iron rails without any damage. In fact commissions to establish standard tests are now working on the Continent, principally in Germany, where

Jan 1, 1882

By E. D. Leavitt

I desire to state briefly my views respecting the great practical value of the Watertown testing-machine, and the necessity that exists, for an able permanent commission to supervise its operations, in order that the results of all tests made thereon may be properly worked out and rendered available for public use. It is doubtless known to the Institute that this machine has, for the past two years, been placed at the service of the public upon payment of a per diem charge. It was my privilege to be among the first to use the testing-machine, and the results of my first experiments were of such importance, owing to the great capacity and extreme accuracy of the machine, that it has since become my practice to have tests of all materials used in constructions that came under my charge, made at Watertown. As a conseqnence, nearly one hundred tests have been made on my account directly, and some two hundred and forty additional for work built from my designs. It may be confidently affirmed, that the factor of anxiety on all these structures is exceedingly small .m far as the quality of material is concerned, and it is undoubtedly a very great advantage for parties interested in construction to have

Jan 1, 1882

By Charles Macdonald

It may seem to be almost unnecessary to occupy the time of the Institute in further consideration of a question which has been so comprehensively treated in papers already on file in our own Transactions and in those of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Unfortunately, however, the results of these concerted efforts have not been materially to increase our stock of Knowledge in the direction sought for; and as the necessity for this information is becoming.more and more apparent as the demand for structural materials increases, it is believed that by continuing the agitation by means of discussions in this and kindred societies, whose members are vitally interested in obtaining reliable data as to the properties of the materials they are called upon to work with, public opinion may be educated up to the importance of exerting such an influence upon the law-makers of the country as will result in the formation of a competent board, with adequate means at its disposal, to carry out this great work in a manner alike acceptable to the makers and users of the materials in question. It may be proper in the first place to glance briefly at what has been attempted thus hr, then to indicate some of the more important lines of needed investigation, and finally to consider reasons why government aid may with propriety be sought for in carrying on the work. At a convention of the Society of Civil Engineers held at Chicago June 5th, 1872, it was, on motion of General William Sooy Smith, resolved, that, " Whereas, American engineers are now mainly dependent upon formula for the calculation of strength of the different form of iron and steel, not based on experiments upon American materials and manufacture; and " Whereas, There differ greatly in many of their ch~racteristics front thoae of foreign production, both in their nature and forma: therefore,

Jan 1, 1882

By Ashbel Welch

Gentlemen of the American Institude of Mining Engineers.—As you well know an application is about to be made to Congress, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, for the appointment of a cornmission composed of persons skilled in the production and use of iron, steel, and other structural materials, whose duty it shall be to test the strength, elasticity, and other quatities of such materials ; not simply the substances used as such, but the members of large structures composed of such materials, of the forms and sizes in which they are actually used. As I understand, the papers that will be read here to- night will have for their object to show the necessity for such tests, and therefore the necessity for the commission asked for. As the representative of the Society of Civil Engineers, I have to thank you, gentlemen of the Mining Engineers, for the great zeal with which yon have taken up this subject, and seconded the efforts of the Civil Engineers; or, perhaps I ought rather to say, initiated the efforts to get a suitable commission appointed to obtain most vitally important information which it is admitted on all hands we do not now posses. In drawing up the memorial to Congress, in connection with some of the ablest and best informed of our Society, and in all the discossions on the subject, I have been struck with the emphasis with which the confession is made, that so little is known of the strength of the larger-sized members constantly used in building structures of the magnitude which the present requirements of the country now demand. I presume the remarks made to-night will bring this out very prominently. This is no disgrace, for with the means here-

Jan 1, 1882

By Wm. Metcalf

One point of vital importance has not been touched upon this evening; it is the necessity of having a history of the mode of

Jan 1, 1882

By Dr. Egleston

While I thoroughly appreciate the United States testing-machine at the Watertown Arsenal, and regard it as the most accurate testing-machine that has yet been built, I wish that I could say that it is complete in all respects. I not only fully appreciate it, but I have given up advising thesending of material to be tested anywhere else. It is five or six times more expensive to use this machine than any of the others, but the results which are obtained from it are, I think, perfectly reliable, and of such a character that the tests are all comparable with each other. It has proved, beyond a doubt, that the system of testing specimens of' diminished area, and then calculating that the metal examined will be as many times stronger as its area is greater, is an absolutely vicious one. I am quite prepared to say, that, either from their limited size or faulty construction, most of

Jan 1, 1882

By Percival Roberts

I DESIRE to present this evening a few notes from the standpoint of a manufacturer upon the subject of tests of iron for structural purposes; not that I have any new facts to which to call your attention, but rather a statement of a few of the objectionable features of the present modes of operation, showing the absolute necessity of important and very radical changes. At the present time, as most of you are well aware, proposals for materials are accompanied by certain specifications as to quality and tests to which the manufactured article must conform. Evolved in many cases from the inner consciousness of some one more expert in theory than in practice, we find a few of the specifications to be good, many bad, and some indifferent. Appended are specimens of specifications of the most prominent engineers and railroad companies, which may be taken as representing the best and most intelligently framed specifications which we now have, arid yet in some pints scarcely satisfactory, owing to misunderstanding of tests as now made. To show the very varied opinions held as to proper quality of iron for bridge-work, I give the tests of two lots of fron made by inspectors with the results, which were referred to the maker with the following commensts : Lot No. 1. Teat of Iron for Eyebars. Reduced area. Elongation. Size. Per cent. Per cent. Breaking load. 4" x 1 3/8 26 25 68,500 Bent 120° around 1 1/2" bar with fracture. Reduced area. Elongation. Size. Percent. Percent. Breaking load. 6" x 1 7/15 24 24 48,820 Bent 110° around 2" bar. This iron should bend 180° without fracture, and is therefore rejected. Lot No. 2. Test of Iron for Brirlye. All measurements taken upon a parallel section of 10". Iron for tension members. Breaking load Elongation. size. per aquare inch. Percent. 1 5/8 49,600 20 14 61,600 27

Jan 1, 1882

By General Meigs

I do not know that I can do any more than to express my entire concurrence in the views which have. been already expressed by Mr. Macdonald. It appears to me that he has we over the wholz subject. I might add in regard to appealing to the Govern-

Jan 1, 1882

By Captain Lyle

I was very much interested in Mr. Macdonald's paper, and I can say that there is nothing in it to which I cannot heartily subscribe. In speaking of the want of knowledge that has existed, and still exists, among engineers in regard to structural materials, their strength, etc., my own experience has taught me to doubt the reliability of the ordinary testing machines.

Jan 1, 1882

By G. W. Maynard

In this paper I desire to embody the results of some personal observations of the working of the Siemens direct process as I witnessed it for a part of three days at the works of the Siemens-Anderson Company, in Pittsburgh. This preliminary investigation was to have been followed up by one extending over a considerable period of time, and would have embraced analytical and physical tests. Circumstances over which I had no control, resulting in the temporay suspension of work, have postponed the presentation of a complete paper. If the opportunity is afforded me, I purpose doing this at a future meeting of the Institute. To those interested in the development of the process, reference is made to the papers of Dr. Siemens in the Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute for the years 1873 and 1877, and to the paper of our late lamented brother, Holley, in the 8th volume of the Transactions of our owu Institute. Dr. Siemens, in the introduction to his paper "On the Manufacture of Iron and Steel by Direct Process," read before the Iron and Steel Institute in september, 1877, says: " In mixing comparatively rich iron ore in powder with about 25 per cent. of its weight of pounded coal, and in exposing this mixture for some hours to the heat of a common stove or of a smith's fire, metallic iron is formed, which, on being heated to the welding-point on the same smith's hearth, may be forged into a horseshoe of excellent quality. The admixture with the ore of some fluxiug materials, such as lime or clay, will, in most cases, be of advantage to rid the iron of adherent slog." This is the keynote of the Siemens direct process. Dr. Siemens says further: " If we regard the production of wrought iron from an abstract point of view, we perceive that we have to accomplish two things, viz., the deoxidation of the ore, arid the fusion of the earthy matter mixed with it; and if we calculate the amount of carbon necessary to accomplish this end, weshall rind that in using, say, hematite ore, consisting of peroxide of iron with from 10 to 15 per cent. of silica, we shall require barely 40 per cent. of carbonsceous matter per ton of iron contained in the ore to effect its reduction, and also the fusion of the slag."

Jan 1, 1882

By John W. Cabot

The following series of analyses, which may, be of interest to Bessemer-steel makers, is submitted as a contribution to the muchvexed discussion of manganese in Bessemer steel. They were made by the writer in the spring of 1881, at the works of the Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Company Limited, during a' period of about eight days, part of. which time the rail-steel showed great variation in rolling qualities. During the first part of tile time in question, it rolled well; later on it began to roll wome until, finally, it cracked very badly, reaching its worst stage. After this it rapidly improved until it again rolled smoothly. During this time of transition from good rolling to bad, and hack to good again, the course of the manganese was followed quite closely. It is the striking correspondence between these varying manganese contents and the differences in rolling which is here presented as worthy of notice. The other ordinary elements were determined occasionally, but showed no. unusual variation: The steel, in question, was ordinary rail-steel of about the following compusition : C=35. P - .08. Mn - .98. Si = .08. 8 = .06. The samples for manganese determinations were taken at first from an average of two days' work, and later on, when the steel

Jan 1, 1882

By W. P. Ward

I desire ho put on record a fact in relation to the effect of man ganese on pig iron which I have never seen in print, and which may, perhaps, not have been observed by anyone except myself. In 1875, while experimenting on the production of ferroman ganese in a blast furnace, I had burdened the furnace with a charge which I calculated would produce a 15-per cent. spiegel. The fur nace was very hot, having been running for a couple of days on a very light burden, and making a burnt iron, preparatory to the experiment I proposed to make to produce a high grade of spiegel. I calculated that the charge would begin to work in the fur nace in about twelve hoars after it was put on. After the -lapse of that time I commenced to watch the furnace carefully, but found little or no change in the appearance of the metal, although there was a very decided change in the cinder, showing that the man ganese ore had come in work. The iron was quite gray and very tough. The character of the cinder was good for a spiegel cinder, and 1 could not imagine where the manganese was going to, as it (lid not appear to be in either metal or cinder in anything like the quan tity indicated by the charge. The next morning things were still in the same condition. The furnace was very hot, the cinder good, and the iron very gray. I was then sorely puzzled. I had never heard of a gray iron with over 4 or 6 per cent. of manganese, and had no notion that an iron with more manganese could be gray and tough. With great difficulty a piece for chemical test was broken from a pig. Not less than a hundred blows from a heavy sledge were required to break it off, I took the specimen to the shop and directed that some borings from it should be brought to the laboratory, as soon as possible, whither I myself at once repaired to put things in readi ness for a rapid manganese determination. In about half an hour the machinist came in with the iron specimen in one hand and about a dozen blunted and broken steel drills in the other, saying that it mas impossible to drill the iron. There were several little depressions in the iron, which was malleable enough to be indented by the point of the drill, but not a chip had been cut from it. The metal was never subjected to further physical tests. A chip broken from

Jan 1, 1882

By Frank Firmstone

Since the blast Fired August 15th, 1878, which was described by Mr. Clark," and up to November, 1881, we have fired three smaller blasts, one in the southwest corner of the quarry and two in the buttress of rock left standing by the first blast near the mouth of the main gangway. We intended to keep an exact account of the stone thrown down by each blast, but the large quantity required by the furnaces since the beginning of 1879, and the time taken up by more important matters, have caused this to he neglected, so that it is not possible to separate exactly the cost and quantity of stone obtained during this time by the old method from that furnished by the large blasts; yet as the latter quantity has been much greater than the former, some notion of the value of the large-blast plan may be reached by comparing the figures from September, 1878, to November, 1881, with those for times when the old system was exclusively used. Since 1878 wages have been raised, lowered, and again raised, and to get a year of sufficiently large production for fair comparison it is necessary to go back to that ending April, 1872, when wage? and supplies were different from present prices and from those of 1878,.

Jan 1, 1882

By B. W. Frazier

Jan 1, 1882