Search Documents

By Klaus W. John

The geologic factor of greatest significance in rock mechanics and rock engineering is considered to be the geologic structure represented by joints, faults, and other planes of weakness. This geologic structure differentiates between the rock element and the rock system composed of these elements. Only during the last decade has the difference of the technological properties of element and system been recognized but this appears to be more in theory than in engineering practice. If rock mechanics is to achieve real significance in engineering practice, it has to provide methods of analysis which are realistic compromises between the best representation of the actual conditions and pragmatic engineering. The rock mechanics practitioner has to face the fact that many geological engineering and rock mechanics problems may be too complex to allow rigorous analysis but at the same time are deemed satisfactory for the construction of major structures. Ultimately, the geotechnical engineer or the engineering geologist has to express the effect of geologic factors in quantitative, even if approximate, terms and provide numerical data on strength and deformability of rock systems to be utilized in construction. Qualitative evaluations, quantitative descriptions of geologic features as such, and comparisons of specific test results are always of interest but may not suffice as basis for engineering decisions and designs. The present efforts of the rock mechanics group at the Karlsruhe University, Federal Republic of Germany, are based on a systematic combination of geomechanical models and numerical analyses based on the finite element approach. This group considers that at the present stage

Jan 1, 1970

By AIME AIME

FOUK fields of activity are now recognized by the A.I.M.E. in its award of medals for conspicuous achievement: the Saunders medal for mining, the Douglas medal for non- ferrous metallurgy the Lucai medal for petroleum, and the Rand medal for distinguished achievement in the broad field of mining administration including the organization and development of enterprises in all branches of the mineral industry. This last is known officially as the Charles F. Rand Memorial Medal, and it award is made possible through funds supplied by the Charles F. Rand Foundation. Until this year money thus available was used for other special projects, so that the forthcoming presentation of the Rand medal to Robert C. Stanley is notable as being the first time that achievement in mining administration has been thus recognized.

Jan 1, 1940

By K. S. Benson

DEPLETION is a subject of vital importance to the mining industry. Yet, in spite of its importance, its significance is not generally understood. The purpose of this discussion is to clarify the main aspects of the subject from the viewpoint of a metal mine taxpayer. To define the term depletion, it is necessary to distinguish among its various uses. In the economic or geological sense, depletion means the exhaustion of a natural resource. A mineral deposit is a wasting asset and once exhausted is nonrenewable. Millions of years were needed to produce an ore deposit, which may be consumed in a few years and which cannot be replaced except by the discovery of new sources of supply. The wasting asset feature of the mining industry has a vital bearing on the impact of the Federal Income Tax Law on this industry. This is recognized in the law by the various provisions dealing with the depletion allowance, and in this sense the term depletion has an income tax meaning. Depletion from the tax viewpoint means the statutory deduction from gross income designed to permit the return to the taxpayer of the capital consumed in the production and sale of a natural resource. The mining enterprise realizes income on the extraction and sale of minerals and a portion of the income realized represents capital consumed. As the resource is exhausted, the mining enterprise approaches the end of its existence unless new sources of supply can be acquired. Depletion from the tax viewpoint is a creature of statute with limited meaning and application and, in essence, is a method for amortizing the value of the primary asset of a mining enterprise. An example can best illustrate the significance of depletion from the tax viewpoint. Compare a manufacturing concern with a mining company. In computing taxable income of a manufacturing concern, consideraion is given to the cost of producing such income, the principal costs being capital investment for plant and equipment, labor, and raw materials going into the products produced. A mining enterprise, on the other hand, is faced with a different problem because its principal asset is the natural resource which it is producing. In computing its taxable income, consideration is given also to its capital investment for plant and equipment and the cost of labor; but in addition, recognition must be given to the fact that a portion of the proceeds realized on the sale of mineral represents capital. Without such recognition, the mining company would be taxed not on income but on capital and income, and Congress has never intended that capital be taxed as income. Thus, when depletion allowable is referred to in the mining industry, it means the statutory deduction allowable in computing taxable income of a mining enterprise. For guidance the appropriate provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Income Tax Regulations, and the judicial decisions interpreting and construing them must be examined. It is important to identify and distinguish three methods of determining the allowance for depletion: 1—Cost depletion, 2—Discovery depletion, and 3—Percentage depletion. The basic method is cost depletion and in addition some taxpayers may be entitled to use discovery depletion and other taxpayers may be entitled to use percentage depletion. Discovery depletion and percentage depletion, however, are mutually exclusive and if a taxpayer is entitled to percentage depletion, he is not entitled to discovery depletion. By statute, a metal mine taxpayer is entitled to use cost depletion or percentage depletion, whichever produces the highest deduction. Thus, discovery depletion is merely of academic interest to such taxpayers and to most others. Briefly and broadly speaking, these methods of determining depletion may be described as follows: 1—Cost Depletion: Under this method, the allowable deduction for depletion is based upon the cost of the particular deposit to the taxpayer, unless the deposit was owned prior to Mar. 1, 1913, in which case the taxpayer may use the fair market value of the deposit on that date or actual cost, whichever is higher. This method is sometimes described as basis depletion or adjusted basis depletion, but in this discussion it will be referred to as cost depletion. 2—Discovery Depletion: Under this method, the allowable deduction for depletion is based on the fair market value of the deposit at the date of discovery or within 30 days thereafter and was originally designed to take into account deposits discovered subsequent to Feb. 28, 1913. 3—Percentage Depletion: Under this method, the allowable deduction for depletion is based on a specified percentage of the income realized during the taxable year from a particular property. As stated, the concept of depletion is based upon the exhaustion of a natural resource as distinguished, for example, from the concept of depreciation based on the exhaustion of property used in trade or business. From the tax viewpoint, depletion first became important in the administration of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, which provided for an excise tax on net income. As soon as this act went into effect, mining taxpayers attempted to claim a deduction for depletion in computing net income although there was no specific mention of a deduction for depletion in the statute. The courts in these cases uniformly held that the statute did not permit an allowance for depletion in computing net income and also held that the provision permitting a reasonable allowance for depreciation did not include depletion. These early cases are quite significant because they establish the principle that the

Jan 1, 1952

By Frank A. Herald

Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (I) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use 2. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations may be involved, our figures should represent as nearly as possible the total quantity of gas removed from the reservoir. Wile we have not provided a column for showing the thickness of the productive zone, generally the difference between average depth to bottoms of productive wells

Jan 1, 1935

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division, and revised in 1939. Generally in Table 1 the unit for prescntation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each spacc in the tabulation, it is citller (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are detcrminable but not detcrminable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries arc not subject to precise determination. In such rases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1939

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (I) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1938

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly dzerent stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use 2. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report l,8x,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1937

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division, and revised in 1939. Generally in Table 1 the unit for prescntation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each spacc in the tabulation, it is citller (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are detcrminable but not detcrminable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries arc not subject to precise determination. In such rases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1939

By Russell G. Haworth

Three companies, United States Potash Company, Potash Company of America, and International Minerals and Chemical Corporation, are now operating potash mines and reGneries in the Carlsbad, New Mexico, area. The three mines are located approximately twenty miles east of Car1sbad. The deposits have been found ideal for mechanized mining methods. This summary has been compiled from information made available by the three operating companies. Prospecting Since outcrops of potash are nonexistent, prospecting is accomplished by drilling and coring of the salt section to establish the grade, thickness, and outline of the potash beds contained in the salt deposits. Information regarding the nature of the formations in the cover of 400 to 600 ft thick over the salt and potash beds is also obtained from drill cuttings in the same operation. By proper interpretation of assembled data the best location for shafts may be determined. The overburden varies in character but consists in general of interbedded shales, sand, gravels, limestones, and anhydrite beds. Water, in unpleasant quantities, especially in the sands and limestones, often completes the geologic section. Some of the shaftas in the area have been sunk without undue difficulties, others have been delayed by flows of water. Most of the shafts are concreted from the surface to the salt section. Each of the three mines in the Carlsbad area has one shaft for hoisting ore and one for hoisting men and supplies. Mining Methods Information acquired from initial drilling and prospecting affected the choice of mining methods. Since the tabular, slightly rolling deposits were similar to coal seams, the room-and-pillar system used in coal mining was adopted by all the companies. Pillars have not been removed in any of the mines on a large scale. One company has conducted experimental robbing of pillars in one restricted area. Where it is known that overlying strata contain water in large amounts, it is not considered practical to risk flooding of the mines by removing pillars without fill. Some thought is now being directed toward development of economical methods of filling for pillar recovery. The problem is not identical at the three mines and local conditions will govern the methods employed for eventual pillar recovery. The important point is that, with large reserves, it has not been necessary to resort to mining of pillars for adequate production. The ore deposits are laterally extensive but are irregular in shape and lie at a depth of 700 to 1100 ft below the surface. The major operations of all mines are on the same bed strati-graphically, except for the langbeinite level at International Minerals and Chemical Corporation. The deposits are apparently not connected and in many parts of the deposits being mined, "salt horses" or barren zones occur. From 400 to 700 ft of salt with minor beds of polyhalite and anhydrite lie immediately above the ore horizon. The ore differs from the salt only in the potassium chloride content and color due to small amounts of iron associated with the sylvite, giving the ore a somewhat mottled red and white cast. Thickness of the ore varies from 5 to 14 ft. Rooms and break-throughs in the mines vary from 24 to 40 ft in width, the overlying salt forming an excellent roof and providing safe mining conditions. Almost no timber is used in any of the mines for roof support. Drilling is normally the first step in mining the face of a room. Electric motor driven auger drills are used in the area. Jack hammers were used to some extent when the mines were first opened but the ore is easily drilled if bits are sharp and the coal type

Jan 1, 1950

By J. B. Clemmer, F. D. DeVaney, H. A. Doerner

PRODUCTION of magnesium metal in the United States during the past decade has increased from less than 6oo,ooo lb. in 1928 to more than 4,800,000 lb. in 1938.1 The growing industry has stimulated interest in methods of production and in sources of raw material. All of the present domestic production is from brines. However, the availability of large tonnages of magnesite in the state of Washington, together with the possibility of cheap power, have created interest in the utilization of magnesite for the production of magnesium metal as well as for other purposes. Magnesite, the carbonate of magnesium (MgCO3), usually is associated with limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (MgCO3CaCO3). It occurs in crystalline and microcrystalline (sometimes termed amorphous) forms.2 The more common crystalline mineral is found in various shades of white, gray, yellow and brown, the colors being due to impurities, chiefly iron. Magnesite has a hardness of 3.5 to 4.5 and a specific gravity of 3.0 to 3.1. It forms rhombohedral crystals in the hexagonal system, having a vitreous, pearly luster. The quarries and mines of the Northwest Magnesite Co. near Chewelah, Wash., are large producers of magnesite for refractories. The deposits are extensive, some veins being hundreds of feet wide. The boundaries of the veins are indefinite, and the magnesite is interfingered with dolomite. Calcite, talc, serpentine, quartz and shale are disseminated through the deposits. The quality of the ore cannot be determined by appearance or by simple tests; chemical analysis is required. These features make it difficult to determine the boundaries or total quantity of workable ore.3 Only the higher-grade ores are mined, and a considerable proportion of the magnesite content is discarded by hand-sorting and log-washing methods. After calcining, the sorted product meets the specifications for usual refractory material, as it contains approximately 81 per cent MgO, 7 per cent Si02, 6 per cent CaO and 6 per cent Fe203 + A1203. A sample of the reject material had the following analysis after calcining: 65.4 per cent MgO, 6.3 CaO, 21.1 Si02 and 6.5 R203. The percentage reported as R203 includes compounds whose chlorides are acid-soluble but give precipitates in ammoniacal solution that are ignited and weighed. The more common constituents are Fe203, A1203 and Ti02. The sorted magnesite product is not the best grade, even for refractory purposes, and leaves much to be desired for a reduction process. The rejected material contains a large proportion of magnesite. It is apparent that an effective concentration method would yield a higher recovery and a better product. In general, the refractory grade is not suitably pure for other uses. Recent developments in the production of

Jan 1, 1940

By Cyril Wells, Paul E. Busby, Donald P. Hart

EARLY workers in the field have established that the diffusion of nitrogen follows normal diffusion laws. Concentration-penetration data from layer analyses of reasonably pure iron specimens nitrided in an atmosphere of CO-NH, are given in the literature,' and were utilized to calculate diffusion constants for nitrogen. The diffusion of nitrogen in y-iron may be represented approximately by the equation D - 1.07x10-' e-:".'m'"'r The diflusion coefficients, D, given by this relation represent mean values, since carburization occurred simultaneously with nitriding. The rate of diffusion in a-iron has been determined from calculations based on data obtained by measuring the internal friction of samples at each of several frequencies and temperatures.' The expression for the diffusion of nitrogen in a-iron derived from these experiments is D= 1.4x10-1 e-it tudent Increasing carbon content decreases the diffusion of nitrogen in a-iron.3 Oxygen, either dissolved or combined, has been shown' to exert a marked influence on the diffusion of nitrogen from a nitriding atmosphere. D values increase rapidly with increasing amount of dissolved oxide in the metal, but diffusion is completely inhibited if preliminary oxidation has produced the slightest trace of iron oxide on the surface. Diffusion coefficients have also been calculated from permeability and solubility data,' but these values are of questionable accuracy since the boundary conditions assumed may not actually exist. Experimental Method The method selected for determining the diffusion coefficient of nitrogen in a-iron in the present investigation was the so-called fractional saturation method. This method consists of heating the specimen in an atmosphere of H2-NH8 mixtures of known composition for a predetermined time. Following this treatment, the specimen is analyzed for nitrogen; and the diffusion coefficient is calculated from a known relationship of the fractional saturation, time of diffusion, and dimensions of the specimen. This relation is based on a solution of Fick's second law and assumes that the surface of the specimen immediately reaches a given concentration which remains constant during the diffusion anneal. Tabular solutions are available4-5 and provide the relationship between fractional saturation and the quantity \/Dt /a, where D is the diffusion coefficient in cm2 per sec, t is the time of the diffusion anneal in seconds, and a, in the present experiments, is the half-thickness of the slab specimen in cm. The method is adequately discussed elsewhere.9-10 Material The material for this study consisted of 3/32 in. thick (0.24 cm) carbonyl iron plate. The major impurities in this iron are oxygen and carbon, which are readily removed by long time high temperature treatment in an atmosphere of purified hydrogen. In order to reduce the diffusion anneal time for saturation runs, some of this material was rolled to a thickness of 0.015 in. (0.038 cm) prior to the hydrogen treatment. Hydrogen treatments were carried out in a hydrogen-purified Armco iron tube heated in a global

Jan 1, 1957

By Dorsey Lyon

I. INTRODUCTION THE utilization of hydro-electric power in electro-metallurgical indus¬tries, aside from purely mechanical operations, may he of two kinds. The electric energy may be used to supply the heat necessary for the per¬formance of the chemical reactions of a metallurgical process, or the elec¬trolytic action of a direct current may be employed for extraction of metals, either in a reduction process or a refining process. In discussing this subject, it is well to distinguish between established industries, which are producing metals and alloys at a profit by use of the electric current, and the many processes which are either still in the experimental stage or have not even passed the paper stage of development of a patent. That is, we consider electro-metallurgical industries as commercial operations which are now consuming large blocks of electric energy, while processes which are not in commercial operation are only prospective consumers. Also, owing to the difficulty and risk of any attempt to foresee the effect of the European war upon electro-metallurgical industries, we have felt obliged to disregard the war entirely, and state our opinions regardless of its existence.

Jan 8, 1915

By Alden B. Greninger, Alexander R. Troiano

Metallurgists have long believed that martensite in steel forms as plates along the octahedral {111} planes of austenite. Much has been written about mechanisms whereby units of the austenite lattice are pictured as transforming to martensite by shearing movements initiated along the octahedral planes of austenite, supposedly resulting in plates of martensite lying parallel to these planes of shear. A critical inspection of two or three photomicrographs of quenched hypereutectoid steel led us to the conclusion that the orientation habit of martensite, at least in hypereutectoid austenite, could not possibly be octahedral. Inasmuch as recent studies,30,31 of the martensite-type reaction in nonferrous alloy systems have established the irrational orientation habit as characteristic of this type of lattice transformation, the need for a thorough restudy of the crystallography of martensite formation in steel was evident. The present paper reports the results of such a study, extended to include both cementite and some of the products of constant-temperature decomposition of austenite. Also reported are a few of the results obtained from a microscopic and X-ray study of the austempering process in very high-carbon steel. I. The Martensite Transformation Previous Work Microstructure and Crystal Structure of Martensite.—Among the best series of published photomicrographs of quenched steels are those of Whitely,1 Robertson,2 Hanemann and Schrader,3 and Lucas.4 The crystal structure of martensite is body-centered tetragonal, with axial ratio varying from 1 near 0.0 per cent carbon to 1.08 for 1.75 per cent

Jan 1, 1940

By Alden B. Greninger, Alexander R. Troiano

Metallurgists have long believed that martensite in steel forms as plates along the octahedral {111} planes of austenite. Much has been written about mechanisms whereby units of the austenite lattice are pictured as transforming to martensite by shearing movements initiated along the octahedral planes of austenite, supposedly resulting in plates of martensite lying parallel to these planes of shear. A critical inspection of two or three photomicrographs of quenched hypereutectoid steel led us to the conclusion that the orientation habit of martensite, at least in hypereutectoid austenite, could not possibly be octahedral. Inasmuch as recent studies,30,31 of the martensite-type reaction in nonferrous alloy systems have established the irrational orientation habit as characteristic of this type of lattice transformation, the need for a thorough restudy of the crystallography of martensite formation in steel was evident. The present paper reports the results of such a study, extended to include both cementite and some of the products of constant-temperature decomposition of austenite. Also reported are a few of the results obtained from a microscopic and X-ray study of the austempering process in very high-carbon steel. I. The Martensite Transformation Previous Work Microstructure and Crystal Structure of Martensite.—Among the best series of published photomicrographs of quenched steels are those of Whitely,1 Robertson,2 Hanemann and Schrader,3 and Lucas.4 The crystal structure of martensite is body-centered tetragonal, with axial ratio varying from 1 near 0.0 per cent carbon to 1.08 for 1.75 per cent

Jan 1, 1940

By W. H. Bassett, J. C. Bradley

In their paper on the directional properties in cold-rolled and annealed commercial bronze,' Phillips and Samans suggest that cupronickel, under distinctly different treatments, shows both "45" ears" and "90" ears. Fig. I shows the ears on some cupronickel cups made some 17 years ago for bullet jackets for small arms ammunition. In this case the material heated to 425° C. had "45" ears, while that annealed at 950°C. showed long "90" ears" when drawn with the same tools. The method of cupping, the shape of cupping tools, etc., were found to have very little influence on the earing tendency, but the deeper the cup was drawn, the higher the ears would be. Method of Manufacture Cupronickel cast bars were 1 in. thick. Ordinarily, they were rolled with numerous passes to a thickness of 0.4 to 0.2 in., according to conditions. They were then given a single intermediate anneal, and rolled to finish thickness, frequently 0.032 in. After a last anneal the material was cupped with a "cut and draw" operation. Progress of this is indicated in Fig. 2, illustrating five different stages at which the drawing

Jan 1, 1933

By A. B. Boghani, R. H. Trent

A computer program has been developed to simulate evacuation of a mine in various configurations. The simulation input variables include characteristics of the mine, expressed in the form of a network of passages, properties of hoists and hoisting strategies, initial miner positions, ventilation and compressed air velocities, stench warning system and self rescuer capabilities. The simulation can be carried out for cases in which there is no fire, i.e., fire drill simulation, or for cases in which there is a fire at any arbitrary location. The fire is assumed to generate gases which impede movement of miners in the gaseous region. However, the thermal effects of the fire are not considered. The simulation output include the evacuation time for each miner, movement of the hoists, propagation of smoke through the mine passages and smoke exposure of the miners. Several illustrative simulations have been carried out to verify validity of the program and to demonstrate its capabilities. The computer program has been able to predict evacuation time, within 5 percent, for an actual fire drill. It is believed that this program can be used to evaluate evacuation performance of a mine, identify problem areas and demonstrate improvements due to the recommended corrective actions.

Jan 1, 1977

By H. J. Engell, W. Frank, A. Seeger

SWISHER and ~urkdogan' have determined the solubility of oxygen in a iron. They found it to lie between 7 and 10.5 at.-ppm at 881°C. Using earlier work on the permeability of oxygen in bcc iron,' they arrived at the following expression for the diffusion coefficient of oxygen in bcc iron (k = Boltzmann's constant, T = absolute temperature): where The present authors3 have estimated the activation energy QD for the diffusion of oxygen in bcc iron in two different ways from various experimental data.2'4"6 In the first method QD + QS (QS = heat of solution for oxygen in bcc iron in thermodynamic equilibrium with solid FeO) was determined either from data on the reduction of FeO with hydrogen4 or from measurements of the internal oxidation of silicon in a iron.5 Using an estimate of QS from investigations of the oxygen solubility in 6 iron2 (in thermodynamic equilibrium with molten FeO) Q = 0.97 ev or Q~ = 1.06 ev were obtained. From the magnitude of these values it was concluded that oxygen migrates interstitially in bcc iron and that consequently the activation energy QD for diffusion of oxygen has to be identified with the migration energy E~ of the oxygen atoms. Therefore, for a second estimate of QD from the diffusion coefficient of oxygen in 6 iron at 1450" ~,~ we used the theoretical expression:3 (a = length of elementary cube edge, m = mass of interstitially diffusing atom, sM = migration entropy), applicable to diffusion via the octahedral interstices in bcc lattices. Taking sM = 3.8 k (migration entropy of carbon in a iron), one gets Q = 0.90 ev. Hence, in Ref. 3 Q = (0.98 *0.1) ev was proposed as a plausible value for the diffusion energy of oxygen in bcc iron. sM + 9 (9 = solution entropy for oxygen in bcc iron) can be determined from permeability measurements.4 Using the above-mentioned estimate for QS , the following expression for the solubility c (atomic concentration) of oxygen (in thermodynamic equilibrium with solid FeO) in bcc iron was derived: From [4] the solubility of oxygen at 881°C in a iron is calculated to lie between 0.6 and 12 at.-ppm. We see that the solubility determined by Swisher and

Jan 1, 1969

By David Cornell, D. L. Katz

Procedures for computing turbulent flow of gas in steady state near the well bore and a graphical method for predicting unsteady state laminar flow at distances from the well have been combined to compute pressure gradients in gas reservoirs. Methods are discussed for predicting single and multiple transients at constant flow rate in an infinite reservoir, predicting constant How rate. in a finite reservoir, reproducing and interpreting back pressure test data, and prediction of the behavior of a closed-in gas well. An example of the graphical method is given for a single transient and the results are compared to a published analytical solution. A typical calculation of the pressure gradient in a reservoir and the production of gas is made .starting with data from a hack pressure test. INTRODUCTION The calculation of pressure gradients throughouse a ga-reservoir at any point in its production history is a complex problem involving turbulent flow near the well bore and unsteady state flow of the gas from the reservoir. The problem is complicated further by the variety of boundary conditions that may be imposed upon the flow. Such boundary conditions include finite or infinite reservoirs. constant or variable rates of production, constant or varying bottom hole pressures, complex initial pressure distributions throughout the reservoir, and pressure maintenance through cycling. In addition to these problems there are the practical difficulties associated with natural gas reservoir analysis These might include: (1) variation. in the permeability and porosity throughout the formation. (2) variations in the thickness of the formation, (3) communication of the producing formation with other producing zones. (4) radial variations in permeability due to influx of drilling fluid. acidizing. or the buildup of liquid in the formation around the well, (5) partial penetration of the producing zone. (6) water flood, and many others. These problems will be considered eventually. In the mean- time, it is necessary to present methods of handling the case of radial flow through a homogeneous, regular, producing stratum to a single well uncomplicated by other factors. The idealized case of steady state, radial flow from a natural gas reservoir was studied by Elenbaas and Katz5 and by Mac-Koberts.' An analysis of the unsteady flow of gases through porous media has been made by Aronofsky and Jenkins' for the one dimensional laminar case with the boundary conditions of constant downstream pressure and uniform initial pressure. Solutions for the partial differential equation for unsteady state radial flow of liquids through porous media have been given by Van Everdingen and Hurst" for the constant bottom hole pressure and constant production rate cases for laminar flow in a reservoir initially at a constant pressure. The analogous heat transfer equation has been treated by Perry and Berggren9 for the case of quenching a cylindrical hole in an infinite medium to a constant temperature. The back pressure curve, which involves the variation of the bottom hole pressure as it is determined by the behavior of the reservoir as a whole. has been studied by Rawlins and Schellhardt,10 Binck-lev,' Baumel and Breitung,' and others. No complete. adequate treatment has been given for the unsteady state, radial flow of gases into a cylindrical hole from a porous medium with or without the presence of turbulent flow and for any set of boundary conditions. If one relies only on analytical solutions of the basic equations, a new solution must be obtained for each new boundary condition. Furthermore, the complexity of the mathematical expressions for boundary conditions other than the very simple cases limits the use of analytical solutions. Graphical methods exist, however. that are general in nature, accurate, and readily employed. The analysis of steady and unsteady, laminar and turbulent, radial flow for various boundary conditions with application to specific natural gas well problems by means of graphical procedures forms the content of this paper. STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW EQUATION FOR LAMINAR AND TURBULENT FLOW A steady state radial flow equation for laminar and turbulent flow through unconsolidated sands has been given by Muskat as discussion of the work by Elenbaas and Katz.5 This equation is based on the properties of unconsolidated

Jan 1, 1953

By R. E. Lund

Josephtown Smelter employs the St. Joe-developed electrothermic process for producing zinc metal and zinc oxide. The process uses resistance-type electric furnaces. Flow of current through the sintered ore and coke charge develops the energy required for smelting at the reaction sites. To produce zinc metal, the furnace off-Gases bubble through a large "U"-tube filled with molten zinc which condenses the zinc to liquid; the metal is then mechanically cast into slabs. To produce zinc oxide, the furnace vapors burn in air and the resultant powders are collected. The smelter comprises three distinct circuits. One circuit produces American Process zinc oxide and high grade metal; another circuit produces tailor-made alloys of controlled lead and cadmium content; the third circuit produces prime western zinc metal and feedstock which is refined into special High grade metal and French Process zinc oxide. The roasting circuit utilizes multiple-hearth furnaces for deleading the zinc concentrates; fluid bed and suspension roasters are employed for desulfurization. Sintering produces a hard, porous furnace feed. The flexible smelting process is adaptable to consuming various kinds of secondary material. Extensive residue treatment accomplishes high overall zinc recovery. Smelter by-products include sulfuric acid, cadmium, and mercury.

Jan 1, 1970

By E. J. Bruderlin

A metallurgical process to be economically successful must be carried on under proper conditions of control and equipment. The question of equipment is always of primary importance. In the distillation process for the recovery of zinc by retorting, the retort is the all-important piece of equipment. Each retort in a working blóck must function as a separate unit. Over-all block efficiency is the result of the ability of the individual retort to withstand the severe conditions of operation for a maximum period of time. Therefore retort manufacture has been an ever present problem with the operator of a zinc-retorting plant. During recent years the zinc-plant operator has been faced with rapid changes in the character of the ores and concentrates. Operating costs have increased as a result of the introduction of the flotation process and the amount of flotation concentrates to be handled. To counteract increasing costs, the operator has found it necessary continually to attempt heavier loading of retorts, until a 45 to 50-lb. charge per cubic foot of retort space has become common practice. Heavy loading has brought about severe firing conditions, which, in turn, have emphasized the necessity for further improving the quality of the retort. Increasing percentages of detrimental impurities in the retort charges have also added to the operator's difficulties. Amarillo Silicon Carbide Retorts At the Amarillo plant of the American Smelting and Refining Co. a retort made of a suitable plastic clay grogged with silicon carbide has been found to best meet the present-day requirements. Retorts of this kind have been in use at Amarillo for 8 years and have shown an average furnace life of approximately 175 calendar days. The Amarillo retort is cylindrical in shape and after burning is approximately 83/4 in, inside diameter by 60 in. over-all length. The wall thickness is 136 in., except for the butt of the retort, which is approximately 2½ in. thick. The retort mud has a shrinkage of 3 per cent, or approximately % in. per foot. The silicon carbide retort after being properly dried weighs about 211 lb. When the retort is fired and ready to go into use the weight decreases to approximately 203 lb.

Jan 1, 1937