REESE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 Deceived ,190 
 
 Accession No. 93477 ... Class No. 
 
 
 m m 
 

 
CAST IRON: 
 
 A RECORD OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM J. KEEP, 
 
 Member American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and of its Committee on 
 Standard 1 ests and Methods of Testing Materials ; Member American 
 Institute of Mining Engineers ; Member Iron and Steel Insti- 
 tute ; Member international Association for Testing 
 Materials ; Fellow American Association 
 for the Advancement of Science; 
 t Honorary Member Rensselaer 
 Society of Engineers^ 
 etc.. etc. 
 
 FIRST EDITION. 
 FIRST THOUSAND. 
 
 NEW YORK; 
 
 JOHN WILEY & SONS. 
 
 LONDON : CHAPMAN & HALL, LIMITED. 
 
 1902. 
 
Copyright, 1902, 
 
 BY 
 WILLIAM J. KEEP. 
 
 ROBERT DRUMMOND, PRINTER, NEW YORK. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THIS volume has been prepared in response to many requests 
 that the author's researches might be presented in a convenient 
 form . 
 
 In May, 1885, the author discovered that there was a relation 
 between shrinkage and the composition of a foundry mixture, but 
 not until the publication of Professor Turner's discovery that the 
 condition of carbon depended upon the proportion of silicon was 
 it discovered that shrinkage varied inversely as silicon. Since 
 that date the author, by his method of tests, has endeavored to 
 discover the influence of the chemical elements in cast iron, and 
 the results were recorded in the Transactions of the American 
 Institute of Mining Engineers prior to 1894. 
 
 In 1894 it became evident that the physical qualities of cast 
 iron were not understood. Professor Turner on page 232 of his 
 " Metallurgy of Iron and Steel " (1895) says regarding shrinkage: 
 < The subject has since been carefully investigated by W. J. Keep 
 of Detroit, whose -experiments embody the whole of the trust- 
 worthy data available. ' ' 
 
 The author, as member of the Testing Committee of the 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, made extensive 
 experiments to determine the physical properties of cast iron, the 
 results of which are recorded in the Transactions of that society. 
 These were such a surprise that the committee was requested to 
 prove the author's conclusions by tensile tests. Fortunately five 
 series of Dr. Richard Moldenke's extensive tensile and compres- 
 
 93477 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 sive tests were completed before this volume was prepared, and 
 have been used to meet this request. 
 
 This volume contains the results of this whole line of research. 
 
 Decided opinions are advanced regarding the best methods 
 for a founder to obtain the best results ; and that he may be able 
 to use the shrinkage test at once the whole subject is summarized 
 on page v. 
 
 WILLIAM J. KEEP. 
 
 DETROIT, MICH. 
 
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TO REGULATE A 
 FOUNDRY MIXTURE. 
 
 FOR shop routine read pages 182 and 183. 
 
 Measure the shrinkage of a -in. D test-bar from your iron 
 mixture, when you consider it satisfactory, and use it for your 
 standard, 
 
 For stove-plate and small castings it will be .115 to .140; 
 for ordinary machinery castings .150 to .160. 
 
 If the shrinkage is greater than your standard, use more soft 
 iron (increase silicon). 
 
 If it is less, use more scrap or cheap iron. 
 
 The strength of a -in. Q test-bar should be above 400 Ibs. 
 
 With high shrinkage and high strength of a \ -in. Q test-bar, 
 heavy castings will be strong, but castings in. thick may be 
 brittle. 
 
 With low shrinkage and high strength of a J-in. n test-bar, 
 large castings will be weak and thin castings will be strong. 
 
 With uniform shrinkage, an increase in the strength of a J-in. 
 n test-bar will increase the strength of all castings proportion- 
 ately. 
 
 For ordinary foundry work, and for all irons that will run 
 gray in a J-in. test-bar, that size gives better results than any 
 other. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 
 
 PROFESSOR THOMAS TURNER, formerly Lecturer on Metal- 
 lurgy at Mason College, Birmingham, and now Director of Tech- 
 nical Instruction for Staffordshire County, England, described 
 the action of silicon in cast iron in 1885.* The author adopted 
 the method of Professor Turner in his work (Method 4), p. 14. 
 
 In 1894, as a member of the Committee on Testing, of the 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the author made nine- 
 teen series of tests, using three tons of ' ' Iroquois ' ' and three tons 
 of " Hinkle " pig iron. The first twelve series were molded and 
 cast by the Detroit Stove Works, and series 1 3 to 1 5 by the 
 Michigan Stove Company. The other four were made by C. G. 
 Bretting & Co., Ashland, Wis., light machinery iron ; Bement, 
 Miles & Co., Philadelphia, heavy machinery; A. Whitney & 
 Sons, Philadelphia, carwheel iron ; and Michigan Malleable Iron 
 Co., white iron (air-furnace). 
 
 The strength tests of these nineteen separate series were made 
 by Professor R. C. Carpenter, Sibley College, Cornell University, 
 and by Professor C. H. Benjamin of Case School of Applied 
 Sciences, Cleveland, Ohio. These records are given in Chapter 
 XIII. The shrinkages are given in Chapter VII. 
 
 The complete analysis of each size of these test-bars was 
 made by Messrs. Dickman and Mackenzie, "The Rookery," 
 Chicago. The carbons are given in Chapter XIII, and the other 
 records are given in the chapters on Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulphur, 
 and Manganese. 
 
 *Journ. Chem. Soc., 1885, pp. 577, 902. 
 
 vii 
 
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 
 
 Mr. H. S. Fleming and Mr. Edward Orton, Jr., did nearly 
 all of the analytical work prior to 1894. 
 
 Dr. C. F. Mabery, Professor of Chemistry at Case School, 
 made the determinations of Chapter XXIII. 
 
 Messrs. Cary and Moore and Mr. George H. Ellis of Chicago 
 and several others made many determinations. 
 
 Dr. R. Moldenke, as chairman of the Committee on Testing 
 of the American Foundrymen's Association, procured thirteen 
 series of test-bars from as many founders, and made nearly all 
 tests himself. A portion are given of the results of the first 
 five series in Chapter XIII. Mr. Gus. C. Henning, as secretary 
 of the Testing Committee of A. S M. E., aided largely in pre- 
 paring results of the work done. 
 
 The dates at which the author published the results of his 
 investigations are as follows : 
 
 Description of Apparatus and Methods; Journal U. S. Asso- 
 ciation of Charcoal Iron Workers, 1887 (the editor suggested the 
 name "Keep's Test"); also in the Journal of South Stafford- 
 shire (Eng.) Institute of Iron and Steel Managers, 1888. Ferro- 
 silicon and the Economy of Its Use ; Silicon in Cast Iron ; Trans. 
 American Institute of Mining Engineers, vol. XVII., 1888; Phos- 
 phorus ; Aluminum in Cast Iron ; Aluminum in Wrought Iron ; 
 Aluminum in Steel; Aluminum and Other Metals Compared; 
 ibid., vol. XVIII., 1889. Aluminized Iron and Steel; Journal of 
 the Iron and Steel Institute (London), vol. I., 1890. Manganese; 
 Trans. A. I. M. E., vol. XX., 1891. Sulphur; ibid., vol. XXIII., 
 1893. Shrinkage (" Relative Tests, etc."); Report of Committee 
 on Tests; Transverse Strength; Keep's Cooling Curves; Trans. 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, vol. XVI., 1895. 
 Strength; ibid., vol. xvil., 1896. Impact; ibid., vol. XIX., 
 1898, and vol. xxi., 1900. Plardness; ibid., vol. xxn., 1901. 
 
 The author proposed the name " Mechanical Analysis " in a 
 discussion before the Foundrymen's Association, Philadelphia, in 
 1894. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 Chemical Test, Physical Test, Direct Physical Test, Relative Tests, i. 
 Transverse Test, Tensile Test, Compression or Crushing Test, 
 Iron, 2. Wrought Iron, Ingot Iron, Steel, Cast Iron, 3. Lime, 
 Fuel, 4. Mechanics, Stress, Strain, Fracture, Deflection, 5. The 
 Spring-line, Set, Elasticity, The Measure of Elasticity or Elastic 
 Deflection, Rigidity or Stiffness, Perfect Rigidity, No Rigidity, The 
 Diagram of Rigidity, The Measure of Rigidity, 6. Strength, Ultimate 
 or Maximum Breaking Strength, Dead Load, Measure of Useful- 
 ness, Chill, Grain, 7. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 GRAPHIC RECORDS. 
 
 Average Prices of No. i Foundry Pig Iron at Philadelphia for Forty 
 Years, 8. Specific Gravities, 10. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Description of Materials used, n. Test-bars, Preparing for a Test, 12. 
 Cupola Iron (Methods i to 3), 13. Crucible Tests (Methods 4 
 to 14), 14. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CRYSTALLIZATION OF CAST IRON. 
 
 Form of Crystals, 19. Can Cast Iron Expand at the Instant cf Solidifica- 
 tion? Does each Crystal Expand as it Forms? 20. Shrink-holes or 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Spongy Spots, 21. General Arrangement of Crystals and Lines of 
 Weakness, 22. Cooling Strains, 24. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CARBON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Description of Carbon, 25. Carbon in Cast Iron, 25. Origin of Carbon 
 in Cast Iron, 26. Quantity of Carbon in Cast Iron, 27. Saturation 
 of Carbon, 27. Condition of Carbon in Cast Iron, 27. Diffusion 
 of Carbon in Cast Iron, 28. Bulk of Carbon in Cast Iron, 28. Car- 
 bon and Chill, 29. Carbon and Hardness, 29. Carbon and Fusibil- 
 ity, 29. Fluidity, 29. Influence of Different Percentages of Carbon, 
 30. Arbitrary Values of Inch-pounds for Impact Tests, 32. An- 
 nealing Ordinary Gray Iron Castings, 33. Influence of Remelting 
 on Carbon, 33. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Silicon, 34. Silicon in Cast Iron, 34. Silicon added to White Iron 
 changes it to Gray Iron, 36. Silicon added to Gray Iron Low in 
 Silicon will make it more Gray, 36. It is the Influence of Silicon, 
 not the Percentage, that Produces the Results, 37. The Influence 
 of Silicon is Indirect, acting through Carbon, 38. By changing 
 Silicon in an Iron Mixture we can Control the State of Carbon and 
 the Chill, 41. Diffusion of Silicon in Cast Iron, 41. Analysis of 
 Silicons of A. S. M. E. Tests, 42. Loss of Silicon in Remelting, 42. 
 Silicon and Hardness, 44. Silicon and Chill, 44. Silicon and 
 Fluidity, 44. Silicon and the Surface of a Casting, 45. The Relation 
 of Carbon to Silicon in Pig Iron, 45. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SHRINKAGE OF CAST IRON. 
 
 One Size of Test-bar must be Used when the Influence of Variations in 
 Chemical Composition is being Observed, 46. In the Examination 
 of the Variation in Shrinkage caused by a Variation in Size of. Test- 
 bar, Iron of Unvarying Composition should be put into all the Sizes 
 of Test-bars, 46. Carbon and Shrinkage, 46. Silicon Reduces 
 Shrinkage by Changing Combined Carbon into Graphite, 47. Shrink- 
 ages of Test-bars of A. S. M. E. and of A. F. A. Tests, 48. Shrink- 
 age Decreases as Silicon Increases, 48. Variation in Shrinkage 
 indicates the Variation in Silicon, 49. Shrinkage Decreases as the 
 Size of a Casting Increases, 49. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 KEEP'S COOLING CURVES. A STUDY OF MOLECULAR CHANGES IN METALS 
 DUE TO VARYING TEMPERATURES. 
 
 Autographic Record of Shrinkage, 50. Shrinkage Curves, 51. Yokes 
 for Chilling and Fixing the Length of Test-bars, 51. Curves from 
 Cast Iron, 53. First, Second, and Third Expansion, 54. Solidifying 
 of Cast Iron, 54. Hard and Soft Cast Iron, 55. Silicon is a Softener 
 and Lessener of Shrinkage, 56. Phosphorus, Sulphur, and Man- 
 ganese in Cast Iron, 58. Size of Casting and Expansion, 58. Effect 
 of Hot or Dull Iron on Shrinkage, 59. Temperatures at which the 
 Three Expansions Take Place, 61. When does Carbon Combine 
 when Heated towards Fusion? 62. Floating of Solid Iron on the 
 Surface of Fluid Iron while it is Melting, 63. Curves from Heated 
 Rolled Steel, 63. Relation of these Expansions to the Critical 
 Points of Iron and Steel, 65. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Phosphorus, Red and White, Sp. Gr., Phosphide of Iron, 66. Fusibility 
 of Phosphorus Iron, Cold-shortness, 66. Tests to find Influence of 
 Phosphorus, 67. Phosphorus and Blow-holes, 72. Additional Tests, 
 72. Analysis of Phosphorus, A. S. M. E. Tests, 76. Influence of 
 Remelting on Phosphorus, 77. Influence of Phosphorus upon the 
 Grain of Cast Iron, 77. Phosphorus and Carbon, 78. Phosphorus 
 and Shrinkage, 79. Influence of Phosphorus on the Strength of 
 Cast Iron, 80. Influence of Phosphorus upon the Chill of Cast Iron, 
 80. Phosphorus and Hardness, 80. Phosphorus and Fluidity, 81. 
 General Remarks, 81. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Sulphur, 82. Sulphur in Cast Iron is considered Injurious, 82. Vari- 
 ous Experiments, 83. Brimstone added to Gray Cast Iron, 86. In- 
 fluence of Iron Cooling in Ladle, 88. Iron Sulphide added to Gray 
 Iron, oo. Iron Sulphide added to White Iron, 91. Smith and 
 Weston's Experiments, 93. Influence of Remelting on Sulphur, 96. 
 Analysis of Sulphur, A. S. M. E. Tests, 97. Iron Pyrites in Lime- 
 stone-flux makes Iron Hard, 98. 
 
xii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 MANGANESE IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Ferromanganese, 99. Influence of Silicon when added to Spiegeleisen, 
 100. Tests with Manganese, 101. Manganese and Carbon, 102. 
 Swedish Manganese Irons, 103. Manganese and Shrinkage, 104. 
 Manganese and Strength, 104'. Manganese and Chill, 104. Analy- 
 sis of Manganese, in A. S. M. E. Tests, 105. Manganese and Hard- 
 ness, 105. Influence of Remelting on Manganese, 106. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 SEGREGATION. 
 
 Segregation of Swedish Pig Iron, 108. Remarkable Examples, 109. 
 Segregations in Test-bars, 112. Ordinary Commercial Impurities 
 a Benefit, 113. Chill as Explained by Segregation, 114. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 Records of Tests for Committee, A. S. M. E., 115. Records of Tests 
 of Committee, A. F. A., 115. Average Maximum Dead Load 
 (Transverse) for Nominal Size of Test-bars, A. S. M. E. Tests, 116. 
 Transverse Strength of Test-bars, A. F. A., 117. Analysis of Test- 
 bars, A. F. A. Tests, 119. Strength generally Increases with each 
 Increase of Silicon (up to 3%), 119. The Lower the Silicon the 
 Weaker the Small Castings and the Stronger the Large Castings, 
 and the Higher the Silicon (up to 3%) the Stronger the Small Cast- 
 ings and the Weaker the Large Castings, 120. The Strength of a 
 l /2-in. n Section of each Test-bar Decreases as the Size of the Cast- 
 ing Increases, 120. The Strength of a ^2-in. rj Section of each 
 Test-bar Decreases more rapidly with each Increase in Size in Small 
 Sizes of Test-bars than in Large Sizes, 121. Decrease in Strength 
 due to each Increase in Size of a Casting is greater and more rapid 
 with each Increase of Silicon, 121. The Centre of a Casting has a 
 Coarser Grain and is Weaker than the Surface of a Casting, 122. 
 Removing the Surface of a Test-bar or Casting Diminishes its 
 Strength per Unit of Cross-section, 122. Casting Test-bars in 
 Horizontal Molds gives Stronger Castings and more Uniform in 
 Size than in Vertical Molds, 123. The Variation to be provided for 
 in Ordinary Castings is at least 50%, 124. The Variation in Strength 
 is due to the Naturally Uneven Structure of Cast Iron, and not in 
 any great degree to Varying Temperature of Iron entering a Mold, 
 
CONTENTS. xiii 
 
 or to Varying Chemical Constitution, or to the Character of the 
 Mold, 125. The Strength of any Size of Casting cannot be Calculated, 
 by any Mathematical Formula, from Data obtained from Testing a 
 Test-bar of another Size, 125. Tensile Strength of A. F. A. Test- 
 bars, 126. Compression Tests, 128. Stronger Castings are made 
 in Green-sand than in Dry-sand molds, 128. Square Test-bars are 
 Stronger than Round Test-bars with Equal Areas of Cross-section, 
 128. Test-bars 2" X i" X 36" Cast Flat and Tested Flat, and also 
 on Edge, 130. Methods for Producing the Strongest Castings, 131. 
 Total Carbon, 132. Combined Carbon, 133. Combined Carbon 
 Weakens Cast Iron, 134. Combined Carbon may Decrease as C-S.- 
 ings are Larger, but the Strength always Decreases. This Decrease 
 of Combined Carbon and of Strength is Caused by the Slow 
 Cooling, and the Decrease of Combined Carbon has Nothing to do 
 with the Decrease in Strength, 134. Mr. A. L. Colby's Tests of 
 Machine and Sand Cast Pig, 136. Graphitic Carbon, 138. Annealed 
 Castings, 139. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 IMPACT. 
 
 The Test-bars, 140. The Recording Apparatus, 140. Dead-load Records, 
 140. Dead-load Diagrams, 141. Impact Testing Machine with a 
 Swinging Hammer, 142. Diagrams from Test-bars which are not 
 Perfectly Elastic, 145. Impact Diagrams made with a Hammer 
 having a Direct Drop, 149. Impact Tests, 152. Influence of Sh^ck 
 on Cast Iron, 152. Influence of Shock on Strength, 153. Cause of 
 Increased Strength of Tumbled Test-bars, 154. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 GRAPHIC METHOD FOR CLOSELY APPROXIMATING THE PERCENTAGE OF 
 SILICON, THE SHRINKAGE, AND STRENGTH OF ANY OTHER SIZE O7 
 CASTING THAN THE ONE TESTED. 
 
 Shrinkage, 155. Keep's Shrinkage Chart, 156. Classes of Castings, 159. 
 Keep's Strength Chart, 160. To Find the Strength of a Section l / 2 " 
 square by 12 ins. long of a Large Test-bar from Fig. 82, 162. To 
 Find the Actual Strength, of the Test-bar of the Required Cross- 
 section, 162. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 HARDNESS OR WORKABILITY OF METALS. 
 
 Professor Turner's Definition of Hardness, 164. Diagrams of Hardness, 
 165. Drillings for Chemical Analysis, 165. Hardness and Chemical 
 
xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 Composition, 166. Hardness Tests, A. S. M. E. and A. F. A. Tests, 
 166. Hardness, Strength, and Chemical Analysis of Various Irons, 
 167. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR REGULATING 
 FOUNDRY IRON. 
 
 Mechanical Analysis, 168. Chemical and Mechanical Analysis, 168. Ad- 
 vantages of Mechanical Analysis, 169. Chemical Analysis, 170. 
 Drawbacks to Chemical Analysis, 171. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS WILL NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL PHYSICAL 
 PROPERTIES OF CAST IRON. 
 
 Influence of Iron standing in a Ladle, 173. Influence of Temperature 
 of Cupola, 175. Influence of Dry and Green Ladles, 175. The In- 
 fluence of Wet and Dry Molds, 175. Silicon is more Effectual as 
 found in some Irons than in others, 176. Tests and Analyses of 
 Various Irons, 177. Cupola Irons Chemically Alike, Physical Un- 
 like, 178. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 TEST-BARS. 
 
 Test-bars y 2 " and i" n, 2" X i", 2", 3", and 4" n, 179- Advantages and 
 Disadvantages of i" G Bars as a Test of Strength, 180. Variation 
 in Size of Test-bars due to Poor Molding, 180. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 For Mechanical Analysis. 182. Test-bar Patterns y 2 " D X 12", 182. 
 Flask for Molding Test-bars, 182. Measuring Shrinkage and Chill, 
 183. Taper Scale, 183. Keep's Dead-load Testing Machine No. 10, 
 183. Test-bar Patterns i" n X 24". 184. Keep's Dead-load Testing 
 Machine No. 40, 184. Advantages, 184. Keep's Hardness Testing 
 Machine, 186. Keep's Wet Grinder for Y%" Drills, 187. Keep's 
 Impact Testing Machine No. 2, 189. Recorder, 189. Professor 
 Thomas Turner's Hardness-test Machine, 190. Keep's Cooling- 
 curve Machine, 190. Test-bar Patterns with Yokes, 190. Record 
 Paper, 191. 
 
CONTENTS. xv 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 
 
 Ferrosilicon, Flaky Silvery, Nos. i, 2, and 3 Silvery, 192. Tennessee 
 Coal, Iron & R. R. Co., Various Irons, Tests, and Analyses, 195. 
 Southern Silvery, Nos. i and 2 Soft, 196. Nos. i, 2, 3, and 4 
 Foundry, 198. Gray Forge, Mottled and White, 201. Weakness of 
 Silicon Irons, 201. History of the Use of Silicon Iron, 201. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 TESTING SMALL SAMPLES OF PIG IRON. 
 
 Crucible Furnace, 203. A Small Cupo 1 a, 203. 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 ALUMINUM IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Analysis and Tests of Aluminum Mixtures, F L M and White Test-bars. 
 205. Influence of Aluminum on the Grain of Cast Iron, 207. 
 Aluminum in Steel Castings, 210. Aluminum in Wrought-iron 
 Castings, 210. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS METALS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Nickel, Copper, Zinc, Tin, Lead, 212. Chromium in Cast Iron, 213. 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 A Test consists in subjecting a material to conditions that 
 disclose its true character. As applied to cast iron the chemical 
 composition and the physical quantities are to be disclosed. 
 
 Chemical Test. This determines the percentage of pure iron 
 and of all other elements which are present. 
 
 Physical Test. The subjection of cast iron to conditions 
 which shall disclose its physical characteristics, which are; 
 appearance of grain, shrinkage, depth of chill, hardness, strength, 
 change of shape while under stress, set. 
 
 Changes in chemical composition and peculiarities of treat- 
 ment influence the physical character of cast iron, and the only 
 way to determine this influence is by physical tests. 
 
 Direct Physical Test. This is breaking a casting which is 
 an exact duplicate of the one whose strength is desired. 
 
 The only time when a direct test would be preferable would 
 be when all castings made in any given foundry were exactly 
 alike and did not vary in section in any of their parts. 
 
 Relative Tests are such as are applicable to every case. For 
 such a test any size of test-piece might be selected; but the same 
 must be used afterwards; and having made one test-record, every 
 other record by the same method is so much greater or less than 
 
2 CAST IRON. 
 
 the original, which is regarded as standard. There is a direct 
 relation between such test-results and the composition of the iron, 
 the size of casting, and the shape. 
 
 It would be well to fix upon a given size of test-piece, which 
 should be used by all, and a definite routine in producing it 
 should be prescribed so as to prevent variations in conditions as 
 much as possible. The only variable would then be composition. 
 Such test-results would in regular foundry practice indicate 
 changes due to variations in composition. 
 
 The records from bars of the same dimensions and the same 
 composition are the only ones that can be averaged or compared 
 directly with each other. Test-records of bars 2'' X i", whether 
 tested flat or on edge, can be compared with each other, but 
 cannot be compared with bars 2 ins. square, even if made from 
 the same iron, because the latter cooled more slowly and have a 
 looser grain, and are therefore proportionately weaker. 
 
 Transverse Test. As cast iron is commonly used to resist 
 cross-breaking and because of the ease with which it can be 
 made, this test is the most frequently used. 
 
 Tensile Test. We do not wish to use cast iron for a tensile 
 member in any case, unless in a steam-engine cylinder, therefore 
 the tensile strength of cast iron is not of very much importance. 
 If it were important it would be a difficult thing to determine it 
 accurately, because it is difficult to hold the specimens in a tensile 
 machine so that they can be broken fairly and truly. 
 
 Impact Test. This strikes a blow and records the behavior 
 of the test-piece. The stress exerted by impact cannot be 
 expressed in pounds avoirdupois, but in inch-pounds, which is the 
 weight of the hammer in pounds avoirdupois multiplied by the 
 height of fall in inches. 
 
 Compression or Crushing Test. When applied to cubes or 
 short cylinders the stress required to crush cast iron is so great 
 that this test is not often used. 
 
 Iron. Pure iron is never found in nature. The purest iron 
 that has been made had a specific gravity above 7.84, some say 
 
DEFINITIONS. 3 
 
 8.OO. It is of silvery lustre, is more tough but softer than 
 ordinary commercial wrought iron. 
 
 The purest iron of commerce is often nearly as malleable 
 as copper, has considerable hardness and lustre, and its fracture 
 is of a bluish-white or bluish-gray color. Its specific gravity is 
 about 7.75. The temperature required for fusion is greater in 
 proportion as the iron is pure. 
 
 The most valuable property of commercially pure iron is its 
 power of becoming soft and pasty before fusion, which allows of 
 its being welded or squeezed into various shapes. 
 
 Wrought Iron is the name given to iron which is manu- 
 factured without complete fusion. It is made up of fibres inter- 
 spersed with more or less slag, which has been partially squeezed, 
 forged, or rolled out. It is therefore not only chemically impure, 
 but it has impurities mechanically intermixed. 
 
 Ingot Iron, being manufactured by fusion, is practically free 
 from slag. Ingot iron is also called mild or machinery steel, but 
 cannot take temper. After wrought iron has been melted, the 
 slag should have separated from the metal and the product should 
 not materially differ from ingot iron, if the slag was the only 
 difference to begin with. 
 
 Steel. Excepting the name machinery or low-carbon steel 
 sometimes given to ingot iron, iron with a small percentage of 
 carbon, in such a state as to take a temper, is called tool-steel. 
 The carbon is imparted to it in various ways and the special 
 method of manufacture gives to the steel a special name, as 
 cement, blister, crucible, cast steel, etc. 
 
 Cast Iron, as ordinarily understood, is iron which contains all 
 the carbon that it could absorb during its reduction in the blast- 
 furnace, and it cannot be welded or forged, nor can it take 
 temper. It also contains other impurities which were originally 
 in the ores or taken from the fuel used in its production. Cast 
 iron fuses at about 2075 F. for white and 2230 F. for gray. 
 
 Cast iron is not a simple metal, nor is it an alloy, but it is an 
 aggregation of compounds combined chemically and mechanically. 
 
4 CAST IRON. 
 
 Any change in the proportion of the compounds and of the 
 elements of which it is composed, in the conditions attending its 
 production in the blast-furnace, in remelting, or in its solidifica- 
 tion, changes its character so much that it becomes a material of 
 different qualities. 
 
 Cast iron is a comprehensive term covering any iron with 
 carbon too high to be classed with steel, and in the different fur- 
 nace-yards it is separated into more than twenty different grades, 
 on account of the differences in the appearance of its exterior 
 surface or of its fracture, and when sold by its chemical com- 
 position each run of iron may be different from any other on 
 account of unequal diffusion of the elements. 
 
 Lime. Carbonate of lime is obtained by burning limestone. 
 By using limestone in the cupola the iron is freed from slag, and 
 the cupola is cleared from cinder when large quantities of iron are 
 melted at one time. 
 
 The surface of American pig iron is covered with sand, and 
 the gates and old castings that are returned to the cupola often 
 contain much sand. Lime and silica (sand) are both infusible, but 
 together, with a little alumina, form a fusible fluid slag. About 
 one part of caustic lime to two of silica, and about one tenth as 
 much alumina as lime is the best proportion ; or from 20 to 40 
 Ibs. of limestone to each ton of iron charged in the cupola. 
 
 Lime added to the cupola seems to improve the quality of the 
 iron, perhaps by taking care of a part of the sulphur in the fuel, 
 and it unites with the ash of the fuel and carries it out of the 
 cupola. 
 
 Fuel. Iron is melted in the cupola with anthracite coal or 
 with coke. It is considered that i tons of coke equal I J tons 
 of coal, but it is only the large pieces of coal that reach the 
 melting-point that add to the heat. Small fragments are an 
 injury. Coal breaks up by heat and the small particles are lost. 
 Considerable coke can be recovered from the dump, while no coal 
 is saved. It is not, therefore, the heat-units that decide the econ- 
 omv but it is largely dependent on these physical characteristics. 
 
DEFINITIONS. 5 
 
 The value of a fuel from a chemical standpoint depends upon 
 the percentage of carbon. The more carbon and the less ash 
 the more heat, but about 10$ of ash is necessary to give the coke 
 strength. The very best anthracite may have 89$ carbon and 
 6% ash, but the best in actual use will be nearer 88$ carbon 
 and io# ash and the average not over 83$ carbon. Coke will 
 rarely give better averages than 84$ to 87$ carbon and \\% to 
 13$ ash. 
 
 The sulphur in coke is nearly all in combination with iron 
 that was originally in the coal. If any sulphur is in a form that 
 can be volatilized it will be likely to escape before it reaches the 
 point where the iron melts. The most of the remainder would 
 be likely to join the cinder. It would be difficult for any large 
 quantity to be taken up by gray cast iron, especially after the 
 cupola has been thoroughly heated. 
 
 Although anthracite coal does not contain as much sulphur 
 as coke, yet it is in a form (pyrites) to be more readily taken up 
 by iron. 
 
 Mechanics is that science which treats of the action of forces 
 on bodies. 
 
 Stress is the name applied to a force which acts on a body. 
 Its intensity is usually expressed in pounds avoirdupois. 
 
 Strain is the effect of stress OP a body, that is, its alteration 
 of volume and figure. 
 
 Fracture occurs when the strain is so great as to separate a 
 solid body into parts. 
 
 Fig. I is an autographic diagram from a test -bar to which 
 the stress is applied transversely at 
 
 _a 
 
 ' h 
 
 the centre of the test-bar supported 
 
 at the ends. A pencil attached to 
 
 the centre of the test-bar bears 
 
 against a paper which is moved to FIG. i. 
 
 the right in proportion as stress is applied. 
 
 Deflection of a test-bar broken transversely is the distance in 
 inches that the centre of the test-bar moves when the stress is 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 applied, and represents the strain measured on ac, due to the 
 stress as measured on ab. 
 
 The Spring-line is the record of stresses and strains of a per- 
 fectly elastic test-bar. For materials like cast iron, which are 
 not perfectly elastic in their original condition, the spring-line is 
 slightly curved. A spring-line can be formed by removing the 
 load and then gradually applying it a second time as hg. By 
 drawing a line from a, parallel to hg, a spring-line of is formed. 
 
 Set. When a stress is removed the centre of the test-bar will 
 to some extent recover its original position. The amount ah that 
 it comes short of complete recovery is the set. The distance 
 between the lines a/and ag shows set. 
 
 Elasticity is the property by virtue of which a body tends to 
 regain its original volume or shape after it has been distorted. 
 Elasticity is perfect or imperfect according as volume or shape is 
 wholly or partially regained. 
 
 The Measure of Elasticity or Elastic Deflection is the dis- 
 tance in one hundredths of an inch that the centre of a test-bar 
 moves towards regaining its original position on the base-line 
 when the stress is removed. The distance between ab and af, 
 Fig. I , is the measure of elasticity. 
 
 Rigidity or Stiffness is the ability of a material to withstand 
 stress and to retain its original form. 
 
 Perfect Rigidity would require no change of form with any 
 stress that could be applied. 
 
 No Rigidity would cause the form of a material to change 
 without limit on the application of stress. 
 
 The Diagram of Rigidity will be a line starting from the 
 zero-point, and will lie between the lines ab and ac, and is the 
 same as the spring-line af. 
 
 The Measure of Rigidity which I have proposed is the angle 
 that the line or diagram of rigidity makes with ac. To apply this 
 measure all dimensions of the diagram must be the same as those 
 used here, i.e. 100 Ibs. on ab, and -f^ of an inch on ac\ both 
 measure I inch. 
 
DEFINITIONS. 7 
 
 Strength is the ability of a material to resist rupture. 
 
 Ultimate or Maximum Breaking Strength is the greatest 
 stress which a piece of material will resist. It is the number of 
 pounds avoirdupois of stress that a material resists when rupture 
 takes place. 
 
 Dead Load is stress applied so gradually as not to produce 
 shock, and is measured in pounds avoirdupois. Each increment 
 is added to that already applied so slowly that each molecule of 
 the material tested shall have time to adjust itself to the stress. 
 When the stress is so great that some of the individual molecules 
 are separated from others, the test-bar would ultimately break if 
 time were given even if no greater stress were applied. 
 
 After tJie question of ultimate strength is decided, ability to 
 withstand stress without taking set is tJie measure of usefulness 
 for materials as ordinarily used. To be fit for most structural 
 purposes, a material should be able to bear, without change of 
 form, the stress to which it is subjected. To do this, it must be 
 either perfectly rigid or perfectly elastic. In any construction, if 
 any part remains out of shape after stress is removed, such dis- 
 tortion will either throw too much stress on some other part and 
 thus imperil the structure, or (in such a case as that of an instru- 
 mental application, for example, of an engineer's transit) will 
 throw all parts out of adjustment. 
 
 In making a compression test the stress should be observed 
 the instant that the material begins to take set, and in a tensile 
 test at the instant that the material begins to elongate. 
 
 Chill is the depth, in inches, of the peculiar white grain, 
 caused by the iron running against an iron chilling surface. 
 
 Grain is the granular appearance of a fracture. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 GRAPHIC RECORDS. 
 
 THE graphic method conveys to the eye at a glance by means 
 of a pictorial representation the general and local relationship of 
 the different parts of a record with very little mental effort, and 
 leaves the mind free to make comparisons or draw conclusions 
 which it would be very difficult to do while endeavoring to 
 remember the relative values of exact figures. 
 
 As an illustration : The average prices of No. I foundry pig 
 iron for forty years is given by both methods in Table I and 
 Fig. 2. 
 
 TABLE I. 
 
 AVERAGE PRICES NO. I FOUNDRY PIG IRON AT PHILADELPHIA 
 FOR FORTY YEARS. 
 
 The average price from 1860 to 1899, was $25.95 per ton. 
 
 Highest price touched Aug., 1864, $73.62 per ton. 
 
 Lowest " " July, 1898, 11.25 
 Average price for ten years, 1860 to 1869, was $37.84 per ton. 
 
 Highest, Aug., 1864, $73.62. Average 1864, $59.25 per ton. 
 
 Lowest, Oct., 1861, 18.62. Average 1861, 20.25 " 
 Average price for ten years, 1870 to 1879, was $29.60 per ton. 
 
 Highest, Sept., 1872, $53.87. Average 1872, $48.88 per ton. 
 
 Lowest, Nov., 1878, 16.50. Average 1878, 17.63. " 
 Average price for ten years, 1880 to 1889, was $21.58 per ton. 
 
 Highest, Feb., 1880, $41.00. Average 1880, $28.50 per ton. 
 
 Lowest, May, 1889, 17.00. Average 1889, 17.75 " 
 Average price for nine years, 1890 to 1898, was $14.30 per ton. 
 
 Highest, Jan., 1890, $19.90. Average 1890, $18.40 per ton. 
 
 Lowest, July, 1898, 11.25. Average 1898, n.66 " 
 Average price for the year 1899 was $19.36 per ton. 
 
 Highest, Dec., 1899, $25.00 per ton. 
 
 Lowest, Jan., 1899, 12.12 " 
 
 Oct., 1900, price $16.00 per ton. 
 
 8 
 
GRAPHIC RECORDS. 9 
 
 In Fig. 2 the general tendency of price is down. The 
 /erage decrease each decade is uniform. 
 
 1 
 
 sro.oo 
 
 60.00 
 50.00 
 40.00 
 30.00 
 
 20.00 
 10.00 
 
 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 \% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 _S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -458SS*. 
 
 AC Ay ft r 
 
 * / 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 J AVE 
 
 RAGE FOR 40 
 
 YEARS 
 
 *v~.^^_ 
 
 ^.___.. 
 
 >_^_ 
 
 - 5 "~ 5 - 
 
 i 
 
 _________ . 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 7 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 _ 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 FIG. 2. 
 
 Any number of records can be placed on this same chart, as 
 the cost of fuel and the cost of labor, a different kind of line being 
 used for each so as to more easily distinguish each record. 
 
 Relative values are often represented graphically by the 
 length of lines, or by differences in areas; for example: the 
 volumes of the substances of Table II are inversely as their 
 specific gravity. 
 
 TABLE II. 
 
 Sp. gr. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Lead. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Copper. 
 
 Brass. 
 
 Wr'ght 
 Iron. 
 
 Tin. 
 
 Cast 
 Iron. 
 
 Zinc. 
 
 Alumi- 
 num. 
 
 19 26 
 
 11.45 
 
 10.50 
 
 8.87 
 
 8.33 
 
 7.84 
 
 7.29 
 
 7.18 
 
 7-00 
 
 2.72 
 
 Fig. 3 shows the relative volume of a given weight of each 
 metal by the area of a surface, each heavier metal is laid upon 
 the lighter ones. Fig. 4 shows the same thing by the length of 
 a line. In this case each volume is supposed to extend from 
 the base-line upward. 
 
 Table III gives the analysis of a No. 3 foundry pig iron, also 
 the specific gravity and the bulk of each element. In Fig. 5 is 
 shown graphically, by the parallelogram on the left, 100$ of pure 
 
IO 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 iron, on the right, 93.68$ of pure iron, and above this is added 
 the bulk of each element that the pig iron contains. Though the 
 
 100.00$ 
 IRON 
 
 FIG. 3. FIG. 4. FIG. 5. 
 
 right and left parallelogram each contains the same weight, yet 
 on account of the bulk of the elements, that on the right repre- 
 senting cast iron is much larger. 
 
 TABLE III. 
 
 
 Gr.C. 
 
 Cd.C. 
 
 Si. 
 
 P. 
 
 S. 
 
 Mn. 
 
 Iron. 
 
 
 2 2$ 
 
 i OO 
 
 2.40 
 
 2 14 
 
 2.O5 
 
 8.00 
 
 7.84 
 
 
 2. 1^ 
 
 .61 
 
 2.61 
 
 . 7O 
 
 .06 
 
 .21 
 
 93.68 
 
 Bulk 
 
 7.4.C 
 
 I.4Q 
 
 8.12 
 
 2. "iQ 
 
 .24 
 
 .21 
 
 93.68 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION. 
 
 THIS chapter will describe details of experiment, to avoid 
 repetition of the description each time that a test is mentioned. 
 The value of an experiment depends largely upon a detailed 
 description of each step. 
 
 Description of Materials Used. The composition of each 
 \vas determined by analysis. 
 
 F L M. Gray Pig Iron. I procured in 1885 one ton of this 
 iron, made with charcoal at Laxa Iron Works (Lt.), Carlsdal, 
 near Kortfors, Sweden; chemical composition: TC. 3.55, GC. 
 3.22, CC. 0.33, Si. 1.249, P- 0.084, S. 0.040, Mn. 0.187. 
 The iron was in small pieces of about 4 Ibs. (see Fig. 49, Chap. 
 XII), and was a perfectly even gray and remarkably uniform. 
 It never runs white in a -inch square bar, and is exceedingly 
 sensitive under any treatment. 
 
 " Gay lord" White Pig Iron, I procured half a ton of white 
 charcoal pig as near like F L M. as a white iron was likely to be. 
 It contained TC. 2.53, GC. 0.49, CC. 2.12, Si. o. 18, P. 0.26, 
 S. 0.03, Mn. 0.09. 
 
 Iroqnois Furnace Company of Chicago sent me three tons of 
 No. 3 " Iroquois " Mall. Bessemer coke pig iron, of clear uniform 
 gray fracture, very strong and tough in the pig. The furnace 
 analysis was: TC. 4.07, GC. 3.15, CC. 0.92, P. 0.23, Si. 0.88, 
 S. 0.035, Mn. 0.50. Dickman & Mackenzie's analysis: TC. 
 
 n 
 
12 CAST IRON. 
 
 4.05, GC. 3.20, CdC. 0.87, Si. 0.98, P. 0.225, S. 0.035, Mn. 
 0.49. 
 
 The Ashland Iron and Steel Company of Ashland, Wis., also 
 sent me three tons of " Hinkle " charcoal pig iron Furnace 
 analysis: TC. 3.507, GC. 2.69, CC. 0.817, P. 0.13, Si. 1.09, 
 S. 0.015, Mn. 0.72. D. & M. analysis: TC. 3.50, GC. 2.73,* 
 CC. 0.87, Si. 1.03, P. 0.129, S. 0.012, Mn. 0.70. 
 
 As I took drillings from twenty-five pigs of both " Iroquois " 
 and ''Hinkle" after receiving fchem, and did not let Messrs. 
 Dickman & Mackenzie know the furnace analysis, the close- 
 ness of results is remarkable. To find loss in remelting con- 
 sult analysis of test-bars, Series I and 7, Tables XII, XIII, 
 XXVI, XXXIX, XLVI, LXI, LXII, and LXIV; also see 
 LXIIL 
 
 " Pcncost " High-silicon Iron. I procured one ton with TC. 
 2.79, GC. 2.04, CdC. 0.75, Si. 11.00, P. 0.487, S. 0.015, Mn. 
 0.670; also 200 Ibs. each with Si. 4.37, 6.54, 8.08, 9.42, 
 10.34,* 11.34, and 12.08$.* 
 
 I had also 100 Ibs. each of irons with Si. 1.97, 3-57, 3-64, 
 4.05, 4.66, 5.15, 5.66, 6.82,6.86, and 6.99. Also 100 Ibs. each 
 of imported ferro-silicons : Si. 9.87, 10.45, II -99> an d 16.27. 
 For phosphorus, sulphur, and manganese irons used in experi- 
 ments see chapter on these materials. 
 
 Test-bars. In all early experiments I cast together one 
 bar " n X 12." long and one bar T y X i" X 12". In 
 some cases I made six pairs and in others four to get an 
 average. 
 
 Preparing for a Test. I calculated the exact composition of 
 each casting and the amount of each item which was to enter 
 into it. The items for one cast were weighed, and tied in sep- 
 arate bundles, and all these put in a single bundle, to which was 
 tied a tag, containing the list of items, which tag was afterwards 
 to be tied to the test-bars. 
 
 * For analysis see Table XIV. 
 
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION. 13 
 
 CUPOLA IRON. 
 
 (Method No. I.) Separate heats in a small cupola are very 
 satisfactory. When this cannot be done the following are quite 
 satisfactory. 
 
 (Method No. 2.) As many ladles as there are to be mix- 
 tures, of a size to hold about 15 Ibs. when two thirds full, are 
 lined as usual. These ladles are marked on the outside with 
 chalk, I, 2, 3, etc., the same as the bundles to be put into them. 
 One flask containing a square and a flat bar, and two or three 
 flasks containing only square bars, are numbered No. I, No. 1-2, 
 No. 1-3, etc., all to be filled from ladle No. I. 
 
 Another set of flasks for the iron from the second ladle is 
 numbered No. 2, No. 2-2, No. 2-3, etc., and so on for as many 
 separate compositions as are to be made. These several groups 
 of flasks are located near the cupola. The ladles are dried and 
 heated by having melted iron poured in them and then poured 
 out, and immediately afterwards the contents of each bundle is 
 placed in the ladle which has the corresponding number marked 
 on it. This addition should be heated if possible before it is put 
 in the ladle. Enough iron has just been caught by other men in 
 a large ladle from the cupola to fill the small ladles with as near 
 15 Ibs. as can be estimated. Each small ladle is held by a 
 molder who knows the set of flasks he is to fill, and each one 
 pours his set of flasks, beginning with flask No. I. One ladle and 
 set of flasks has no addition and is for comparison to show the 
 influence of the additions placed in the other ladles. As much 
 scrap iron is added to the first and other ladles as is necessary to 
 make the total amount to be melted by the fluid iron in each ladle 
 the same. This is to make the cooling influence the same in 
 each, and to give the same temperature to the metal in each 
 mold. The additions are sometimes cemented to the bottom of 
 the ladle, and sometimes are powdered and made a part of the 
 lining. In such case the ladle cannot be dried with hot iron as 
 
U CAS7 IRON. 
 
 advised above, and the one used for comparison must have an 
 ordinary lining treated the same as the others. 
 
 It is necessary to weigh the whole bars, gates, etc., of each 
 cast to calculate the percentage of each element in the casting, 
 because the iron caught in the ladles will not weigh exactly 1 5 
 Ibs. as figured in making up the mixture. 
 
 (Method No. 3.) When additions of pure metal of a fusible 
 nature are to be made, make four sets of three flasks each, and 
 pl^ce them conveniently for pouring. Twenty-eight pounds of 
 iron, as near as possible, is caught from the cupola and the set 
 of test-bars marked I and having no addition is poured. Then 
 with a pair of tongs stir in the first addition and pour the second 
 set of flasks. Stir in the next addition and pour the third set. 
 Stir in the last addition and pour the fourth set. Th? remaining 
 iron can be weighed to see what correction of percentages is 
 needed on account of the iron in the ladle not weighing exactly 
 28 Ibs., or each cast not weighing 7 Ibs. 
 
 CRUCIBLE TESTS. 
 
 (Method No. 4.) After preparing the bundles of addition, 
 which in this case contain the pig iron which is to form the bulk 
 of the mixture, we place the first bundle in a crucible and when 
 melted pour the set of flasks. A separate heat is required for 
 each bundle. 
 
 In this case the product is exactly as calculated unless some 
 element volatilized or escaped in other ways. If there is danger 
 of this, the pig iron may be melted first and the addition fed to 
 the pot while in the fire, or the pot can ,be withdrawn and the 
 addition made and then returned until all is fluid. 
 
 A separate cast of the pig iron alone must be made for com- 
 parison. 
 
 (Method No. 5.) It is not possible to prevent some variation 
 of carbon and silicon. A series for comparison may be made like 
 
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION, o 
 
 Method No. 4, without any element addition, and add enough 
 fine iron wire to make the carbon in each cast the same as in each 
 cast of the original series. The influence of the carbon dilution 
 is thus determined to compare with the former series. Subtract- 
 ing the test-records of the latter from the former gives the influ- 
 ence due to the variation of the element under consideration. 
 
 ^Method No. 6.) To show the exact influence of the dilution 
 of carbon alone in each heat proceed as in Method No. 5 and 
 along with the wire add enough ferro-silicon to keep the silicon 
 uniform. 
 
 (Method No. 7.) When the additions are very volatile or 
 very readily oxidized the following method may be pursued: 
 Melt the required amount of iron in a crucible. Cut from an 
 inch-and-a-half pine plank a round cover for the crucible; in the 
 centre of this bore a two-inch hole. Take a stick two inches in 
 diameter, fit, and split one end and wedge it in the hole of the 
 cover. In the lower end of this stick bore an inch-and-a-quarter 
 hole to hold the addition, and fit to it a square plug three quarters 
 of an inch long. When the cover is on the crucible the lower 
 end of the stick should reach to within one half inch of the 
 bottom. Drive a heavy nail in the top of the cover near one 
 edge. When the pig iron is melted place in the hole of the 
 wooden stick the material to be added and drive in the square 
 plug. Seize the nail in the cover with a long-handled tongs and 
 while the crucible containing the fluid iron is still in the furnace 
 place the cover on the crucible, which forces the end of the stick 
 containing the addition to the bottom of the melted iron. The 
 iron can enter the hole and the addition can melt and run out at 
 the four sides of the square plug and boil up through the melted 
 iron. A piece of fire-brick as a weight should be put on the cover, 
 which in charring will form a seal to the top of the crucible. 
 
 The objection to this is the presence of oxygen in the hole of 
 the stick and in the wood. To find what influence this exerts, 
 make a comparison heat with the hole empty. 
 
 (Method No. 8.) We may entirely fill the crucible with the 
 
T < CAST IRON. 
 
 metal to which the additions are to be made, melt it, and pour 
 one set of test-bars for comparison. Break off and clean the gates 
 and return them to the crucible, then return this to the furnace. 
 Before beginning, however, calculate the weight of each set of 
 test-bars, and how many sets can be made from the metal and 
 the additions; calculate how much of the addition will be neces- 
 sary to give the correct percentage to the second cast. Then 
 when the gates are put back, calculate the addition for the next 
 cast, and so on, until only 5 Ibs. will be left. Tie each of these 
 additions in a bundle with a tag containing a record of percentages 
 in the casting so that all there is to do after beginning the work 
 is to clean gates and return them to the crucible along with the 
 required bundle. In this way casts can be made as fast as moulds 
 can be prepared. The percentages of the castings are sure to be 
 very nearly as estimated. By weighing what is left, if it is more 
 or less than calculated, a correction may be made for the per- 
 centage in each cast. 
 
 (Method No. 9.) When we have not enough material to 
 trust the last method, especially when we have a pig iron contain- 
 ing the highest percentage of the element under consideration, 
 the following is satisfactory: 
 
 Find a pig iron having substantially the same composition 
 except the smallest possible percentage of the element under 
 examination. Knowing the percentage which we wish each 
 intermediate member of the series to contain, and knowing how 
 much we have of the material containing the highest percentage 
 of the element, weigh out in bundles the amount of the pig iron 
 necessary to dilute the element to the desired percentage for each 
 heat. Having done this, melt all the material which contains 
 the high percentage of the element, and cast a set of test-bars. 
 Return the gates and add the portion of the pig iron by which 
 the percentages of the element is to be diluted for the next heat, 
 and make all fluid and pour another set of bars. Proceed in this 
 way until we have the series complete. A last cast will be made 
 from the iron having the low percentage. 
 
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION. 17 
 
 (Method No. 10.) If we have a very small amount of ma- 
 terial containing the highest percentage of the element, melt this 
 and cast a set of bars. Test this first set of bars and return all 
 of the bars and gates to the crucible except one half of a single 
 bar. Dilute by additions as in Method No. 9, and make another 
 cast, test it, and so on. 
 
 (Method No. 11.) Begin with the crucible full of pig iron 
 and cast a set of test-bars for comparison. Arrange to return the 
 gates each time with the addition which contains the element 
 under consideration, and a new portion of the original pig iron. 
 This addition of pig iron each time allows each heat to be as large 
 as is desirable, and the series of heats can be continued during 
 the day. They can be resumed another day, but more variation 
 will probably be found between the two heats that unite the day's 
 work than between any of the others for the reason that we end 
 with a very poor fire but a very hot furnace, and begin next day 
 with opposite conditions. 
 
 The weight of what is left will tell how near the weight of 
 each heat has come to that calculated, and correction is made to 
 get the correct percentages. 
 
 (Method No. 12.) To find what the variation of carbon and 
 silicon will be in Method No. 1 1 , run through a complete series,, 
 returning gates and adding pig iron each time a set of test-bars 
 is cast, but with no addition of any element. The influence due 
 to the variation for each number of a series can be found by this 
 last method. I call this last remelt series, as it is almost identical 
 with ordinary foundry cupola practice. 
 
 (Method No. 13.) It often occurs that the element is com- 
 bined with pure iron only, as for example, sulphide or phosphide 
 of iron. In such case the addition of pure iron along with the 
 element dilutes the carbon and silicon, in addition to that due to 
 the continued heat. 
 
 To find the influence of this dilution, run through a series as 
 in Method No. 1 2 and to each cast add of fine iron wire the same 
 weight as the pure iron added with the element. A comparison 
 
18 CAST IRON. 
 
 of this series with the remell series shows the changes due to the 
 dilution of carbon and silicon and the additions of pure iron. By 
 subtracting the results of the tests of this series from those of the 
 series when the varying element was added will give the influ- 
 ence of the element. 
 
 To prevent oxidation of the wire when put in the crucible the 
 bundle of wire should be dipped into a strong solution of silicate 
 of soda and dried. The wire, or any element, had better be 
 added when the contents of the crucible is fluid, and while in the 
 furnace. 
 
 (Method No. 14.) This is exactly like Method No. 3, only 
 28 Ibs. of F L M. is melted in a crucible. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 CRYSTALLIZATION OF CAST IRON. 
 
 IRON which has been poured into a mold, in solidifying 
 becomes a mass of crystals more or less irregular, both in shape 
 and size, but the form towards which they tend is that of a reg- 
 ular octahedron, an eight-sided figure, each side of which is an 
 equilateral triangle. It is formed by two pyramids with their 
 square bases together. 
 
 FIG. 6. Aggregations of Octahedral Crystals of Cast Iron. 
 
 The crystals are too small to examine closely, but we may 
 get an idea of the form and arrangement of single crystals by an 
 examination of aggregations of crystals, as in Fig. 6, which is 
 actual size. 
 
 Crystals begin to form against a cooling surface and interlock 
 with each other, holding between themselves minute flakes of 
 graphite. That the free carbon is in irregular flakes is proved 
 from the nature of graphite, and because flakes of graphite may 
 be picked out of a casting. 
 
 19 
 
20 CAST IRON. 
 
 In a perfect crystal of iron all the axes, that is, the lines join- 
 ing the opposite angles, are of equal length and at right angles 
 to each other, but very few crystals are perfect, for they are more 
 or less tangled with, or pressed out of shape by, those next to 
 them. 
 
 Can cast iron expand at the instant of solidification ? There 
 is no such instant. Each crystal becomes solid while other 
 parts are fluid, and it is not until such crystals are numerous 
 enough to form a rigid shell that the casting can shrink or 
 expand. 
 
 Does each crystal expand as it forms ? When cast iron enters 
 a mold a thin skin of solid iron is instantly formed by the cooling 
 action of the sides of the mold. This is proven by breaking a 
 casting which is still fluid; the central portion will run out. 
 (Fig. 6 was procured in this way.) A shell having once formed, 
 the heat of the metal can never melt it again, though, at first, it 
 has no rigidity. New crystals form on the interior of this skin 
 very rapidly, and, as the mold would prevent any expansion out- 
 ward, if there was any expansion of individual crystals, it would 
 be inward, which would lessen the holding capacity of the 
 interior. The fluid interior is contained in a rigid shell of the 
 same metal at very nearly the same temperature as the melted 
 portion. 
 
 If a hole is broken through the upper surface of a partially 
 solid casting, the currents of the molten metal can be seen, but 
 no metal ever exudes. On the contrary, if the casting is of 
 any considerable size, the fluid will sink. This proves that the 
 fluid metal does not expand as it loses heat, and it also proves 
 that each crystal does not expand, at least not so fast as to 
 overcome the general shrinkage from loss of heat. 
 
 One thing which led to the opinion that cast iron expanded 
 as it solidified was that a piece of dry, cold cast iron thrown into 
 a ladle of molten iron would float, and the inference .was that the 
 specific gravity was greater for molten than solid cast iron. 
 Mr. Robert Mallet found, however, by two independent methods, 
 
CRYSTALLIZATION OF CAST IRON. 21 
 
 that the specific gravity of melted iron was 6.650, while that of 
 the same cold iron was 7.170. He thought that the probable 
 reason for the cold iron floating was the fact that its surface could 
 not be easily wetted by the liquid iron, also that a thin layer of 
 steam and expanded air may have been held between the surfaces 
 of the solid and fluid metals. On page 63 of Chapter VIII 
 the true explanation of the phenomenon is given for the first 
 time. Another phenomenon which led to the mistaken idea that 
 liquid iron was more dense than crystallized iron, was that when 
 molten iron is caught in a foundry ladle a circulatory movement 
 immediately commences, the iron against the sides of the ladle 
 rising to the top, flowing to the center, and then dropping to the 
 bottom, flowing across the bottom to the sides, and so on. This 
 led to the belief that it was the cooling of the iron at the sides 
 which caused it to rise. The true reason for the motion is that 
 the hot iron against the side lining drives out the moisture that 
 remains, and also causes gas to be evolved from the material of 
 the lining. It is this steam and the streams of gas which give 
 the upward motion to the iron. That this is the true cause is 
 proved by the fact that when the ladle is refilled, the metal will 
 not move at all, or if so, it will be in the opposite direction. 
 
 Fig. 10 is a casting of a mill-roll cast on end, the fluid metal 
 being fed from the bottom. The sides cool first and the upper 
 portion of the casting solidifies next. 
 
 As the upper central portion becomes solid the crystals pull 
 away from each other towards the sides, forming along the cen- 
 tral axis a loose spongy casting. As these cavities form, the 
 metal will flow in from the top as long as it is fluid, causing the 
 upper part to sink ; but as soon as all above is solid, cavities may 
 form, although too small to be visible. 
 
 The iron having entered from the bottom, the last part to 
 become solid is the lower part of the roll, and at this point there 
 will not be enough metal to fill the space when cold, and the 
 crystals pull away toward the surfaces until a large shrink-hole a 
 is the result, 
 
22 CAST IRON. 
 
 This partly explains why a large casting does not shrink 
 as much as a small one. In both large and small castings a 
 rigid shell forms at once. In the small casting there are no 
 cavities and all crystals are small and lie close together. The 
 larger the casting the more cavities, and the larger the crystals 
 and the more "loosely they join each other. This also explains 
 why a large casting is not proportionally as strong as a small one. 
 It is customary to carry the upper part or head of the casting high 
 enough to cause a considerable ferrostatic pressure in the mold, 
 and then with a wrought-iron rod churn the center of the casting 
 so as to prevent the upper part from becoming solid, and to allow 
 the fluid iron to enter all cavities throughout the interior of the 
 casting. If a channel can be kept open to the lower part of the 
 casting, and fresh molten metal is fed to the top, the casting will 
 be practically solid. The extra head is afterwards removed. 
 
 Robert Mallet, in his work on Ordnance, gives an admirable 
 description of the method of crystallization of cast iron. Some 
 thirty years ago the author added to Mr. Mallet's description his 
 own experience, substantially as follows: 
 
 The crystals assemble or group themselves in lines parallel 
 to the direction in which the heat leaves the metal. This direc- 
 tion is always perpendicular to the cooling surface. 
 
 As heat leaves all surfaces of a casting, each surface will have 
 its lines of assemblage of crystals perpendicular to it. Fig. 7 has 
 four sides and four systems of crystallization at right angles to 
 each other, which meet in lines connecting the corners of the 
 casting. In meeting, each line of crystals tends to pull away 
 from the other. Some run past the line into the opposite system 
 and do not form a homogeneous casting. 
 
 These lines are lines of weakness, and the casting will bear 
 less stress without fracture at these points with more metal than 
 at any others with less. Fig. 8 shows a flat casting in which is 
 another line of weakness connecting the diagonals. 
 
 Fig. 9 shows another arrangement of perpendicular systems 
 01 crystallization. The angle at a being a re-entrant angle, the 
 
CRYSTALLIZATION OF CAST IRON. 
 
 2 3 
 
 perpendicular lines continue past the angle and form a line of 
 weakness from the .angle to the center- of the casting where it 
 meets the lines of weakness from the opposite corner and from 
 the parallel sides. 
 
 If stress is exerted in the direction of the arrows, the casting 
 
 FIG. 13. FIG. 14. 
 
 FIG. 15. 
 
 FIG. 16. FIG. 17. 
 
 will crack from the inner corner through the outer corner, follow- 
 ing the weak line, although there is more metal in this part of the 
 casting. 
 
 Mr. Mallet refers to a case where the lower end of the cylin- 
 der of a hydraulic press, Fig. II, was driven out by the pressure 
 
2 4 CAST IRON. 
 
 of water, and that instead of breaking when there was least metal, 
 it gave way nearly on the lines of weakness. He also gives 
 a drawing, Fig. 12, of the breech of a cast-iron cannon, and 
 another of a section of a trunnion showing weak lines. The 
 gun will burst at one of these weak lines. 
 
 Let us now look for a means of remedy for Figs. 7 and 8. 
 Fig. 13 is a section of a round casting of cast iron, and Fig. 14 a 
 flat casting with the edges rounded. 
 
 The lines of crystallization are still perpendicular to the cool- 
 ing surface, but there are less lines of weakness, the change being 
 gradual. Fig. 1 5 is the same figure as Fig. 9, but all angles are 
 rounded, and all lines of weakness are prevented. 
 
 If the hydraulic cylinder of Fig. 1 1 had been round as in Fig. 
 1 6, the cylinder would not have given way and less metal would 
 have been used. In the construction of all castings all angles 
 should be avoided, and all curves should be made as large as 
 possible. 
 
 Molten cast iron should be poured as cold as it can be and 
 fill the mold, especially in large castings, to allow of as little 
 decrease of volume as possible. 
 
 In the case of the same iron poured in a casting that has both 
 heavy and light portions, Fig. 17, the light portion cools first and 
 shrinks most, v/hile the heavy part cools last and shrinks least. 
 This causes a tension all along the line ab, each particle in the 
 thick part trying to break away from the thin part. This may 
 not cause fracture, for the thin part will probably buckle. If the 
 corner at ab had been made a large round, the change in cooling 
 would have been more gradual. 
 
 This explains the cracking of the arms of pulleys where they 
 join the rim, either in the mold or after being taken out. 
 
 Flanges or thickening on any part of a casting act in the same 
 way. A runner often keeps one part of a casting hot while that 
 around it has become solid. The cooling of the runner will 
 afterwards often pull away and crack the casting. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 CARBON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 CARBON is found in nature in various forms. The purest form 
 of carbon is the diamond with a specific gravity of 3.33 to 3.55. 
 Soot from flame, as lamp-black, ivory-black, etc., is amorphous 
 carbon. Graphite is nearly pure carbon, sp. gr. 2.15 to 2.35. 
 The greater part of anthracite and bituminous coal and of char- 
 coal is carbon. Iron has great affinity for carbon, and if com- 
 mercially pure iron is placed in contact with carbon while at a 
 high heat, it will absorb it and become steel. 
 
 With heat carbon unites with oxygen and forms carbonic acid 
 gas. In this state the carbon is invisible, but, as it cannot be 
 made to take a gaseous form, the carbon in carbonic acid is prob- 
 ably still a solid hid by the oxygen. This is indicated by the 
 fact that the carbon can be made to separate in the form of soot. 
 The coloring power of carbon is very great. In the blackest 
 smoke there is not more than one grain weight of solid carbon in 
 a single cubic foot, and this one grain would color black one 
 gallon of water. The carbon in iron is derived from the fuel with 
 which the iron was smelted, and the carbon from wood-charcoal, 
 from coke, from soft coal or anthracite coal, each gives a different 
 color and quality to the iron. 
 
 Carbon in Cast Iron. Carbon is the most important element 
 in cast iron. Without it iron could not be melted readily and 
 made into castings. The percentage of total carbon determines 
 the melting-point of the iron. Without carbon the degree of 
 hardness and strength needed for various uses could not be given 
 
 25 
 
26 CAST IRON. 
 
 to pure iron. Carbon is present in ordinary cast iron in larger 
 proportion than any other constituent. The only practical 
 method of obtaining iron from iron ore is in the blast-furnace, 
 and by this process carbon is necessarily absorbed by the iron. 
 
 Origin of Carbon. Iron ore is an oxide of iron. In the 
 blast-furnace oxygen is removed and the remaining iron is 
 melted. The process consists of charging into the furnace fuel 
 and ore which descend together. At the lower end of the furnace 
 hot air is blown in, which burns the fuel near the point where it 
 enters, producing carbonic acid, which, ascending through the 
 hot fuel higher up, becomes carbonic oxide by taking the extra 
 carbon from the fuel. 
 
 This carbonic oxide takes the oxygen from the ore, thus 
 again becoming carbonic acid. After the ore is relieved of its 
 oxygen it is iron in the form of a sponge exposing a very large 
 surface to the action of gases. As it passes downward toward 
 the hottest part of the furnace, through the portion where the 
 gas is carbonic oxide and carbonic acid, the iron sponge absorbs 
 carbon from the gas. The amount that will be absorbed is 
 inversely as the speed at which the ore descends. The greater 
 the heat, the more carbon will be absorbed. For an iron to be 
 high in carbon the furnace must be hot and the iron sponge must 
 remain in contact with the gases a sufficient length of time. The 
 sponge does not absorb carbon by being in contact with fuel, but 
 by contact with the gas produced by the combustion of fuel. 
 The more surface, the greater the contact; therefore iron made 
 from dense, hard ore in large lumps will not contain as much 
 carbon as when the same ore is broken very fine or when a more 
 open ore is used. After the sponge reaches a point where the 
 heat is sufficient to melt it there will be no increase of carbon. 
 
 The iron that runs out of the furnace has absorbed as much 
 carbon as was possible under the existing conditions in the 
 furnace. 
 
 Iron is at such a high temperature in the furnace that it is 
 often able to hold more carbon in combination than it can when 
 
CARBON IN CAST IRON. 27 
 
 the temperature is lowered. As soon, therefore, as it leaves the 
 furnace the surface of the flowing metal is covered with floating 
 graphite ( <4 kish "). More or less will rise on the surface of the 
 pigs. After the pig becomes solid the carbon which separates is 
 caught as graphite between the grains and gives the fracture its 
 gray color. From the time the sponge iron was melted in the 
 furnace until the pig is cold there is a constant loss of carbon. 
 A cupola can never heat iron much above its melting-point, and 
 it can therefore never absorb more carbon than it already has ; 
 and as a general thing it cannot reabsorb quite all of the graphite 
 that has lodged among its own crystals. In the cupola the iron 
 is not in a finely divided state when compared with the sponge 
 iron of the furnace. 
 
 In the cupola the melted drops are not in contact with the 
 fuel or carbonic acid gas to any great extent and never in contact 
 with carbonic oxide gas, and the passage into the hearth is very 
 rapid. 
 
 Quantity of Carbon Present. This is due to the character 
 of the ore and to other conditions, and is from about 2$ to 4.25$. 
 If by any means the iron has absorbed in the furnace more carbon 
 than it can hold after it becomes solid, the excess will separate 
 the same as soot separates from a clear flame. 
 
 Saturation of Carbon. By saturation is generally understood 
 the largest percentage that it is possible for any iron to hold 
 when solid. For charcoal-iron it may be 4$, while for coke and 
 anthracite-irons carbon does not generally exceed 3.50^ or 3.75$. 
 Iron made in a cold furnace or with all the ore that the fuel can 
 possibly take care of will contain much less carbon than if made 
 under contrary conditions. 
 
 Condition of Carbon in Cast Iron. When cast iron is melted 
 all of its carbon is supposed to be combined with or dissolved in 
 the iron. It is supposed that if it were in any other form it would 
 rise on account of its lightness and float on the surface. When 
 the iron is solidified its carbon will remain in the combined state 
 unless some influence is present to change it. If any such influ- 
 
28 CAST IRON. 
 
 ence should change the carbon and the influence is removed, the 
 carbon will resume the combined state. The combined is the 
 natural form for carbon to assume which has been absorbed by 
 pig iron ; therefore, owing to the conditions present in the furnace, 
 if the iron has not absorbed more carbon than it can hold when 
 cold, it will be white pig iron. 
 
 If the casting contains more carbon than it can hold, the 
 darkest casting will be that which contains most carbon to begin 
 with; and secondly, that casting will be darkest which is cooled 
 most slowly. The larger the mass, under ordinary conditions, the 
 slower the cooling; therefore large castings are darker than small 
 castings from the same iron. 
 
 Diffusion of Carbon in Cast Iron. Probably a variation of 
 .05$ is as near as can be expected in the different parts of a single 
 casting, and the extremes of variation will be o$ to .12%. 
 
 By a very interesting series of experiments described in 
 Chapter VIII on Keep's "Cooling Curves," it is shown that 
 graphite was not formed until after the casting had become solid, 
 and the graphitic scales exude into the spaces between the 
 crystals. After this takes place the casting must consist of a 
 network or sponge more or less crystalline, with the spaces filled 
 with closely packed graphite. The network must be a lower 
 carbide of iron than the fluid iron. 
 
 Bulk of the Carbon in Cast Iron. It is evident that the 
 more carbon the less will be the weight of a casting of a given 
 size. Castings containing a large percentage of graphite are 
 coarse-grained, and the coarse crystals have large spaces between 
 them, which causes the casting to be larger. 
 
 A cubic foot of pure iron weighs 489 Ibs. , with sp. gr. about 
 7.84. 
 
 A cubic foot of white cast iron weighs 474 Ibs., with sp. gr. 
 about 7.60. 
 
 A cubic foot of mottled iron weighs 458 Ibs., with sp. gr. 
 about 7.35. 
 
CARBON IN CAST IRON. 29 
 
 A cubic foot of light gray iron weighs 450 Ibs., with sp. gr. 
 about 7.20. 
 
 A cubic foot of dark gray iron weighs 425 Ibs., with sp. gr. 
 about 6.80. 
 
 Thus in iron with 3$ of carbon the carbon forms about 12% 
 of the entire bulk, and in pig iron containing 4$ the carbon forms 
 about 15$ of the bulk (see Fig. 5). 
 
 Carbon and Chill. Iron with its carbon combined is white. 
 Slow cooling of any carbonized iron causes some carbon to take 
 the graphite form. If the metal is cooled so suddenly that the 
 carbon cannot have time to become graphite, the casting will be 
 white. This sudden cooling is accomplished by making a portion 
 of the mold out -of iron, which, as the fluid iron runs against it, 
 will suddenly draw the heat from the metal. The white portion 
 of the casting is chilled. 
 
 Carbon and Hardness. The purest iron of commerce has a 
 hardness of about 40 (Turner's test). I melted a sample which 
 had in the casting 0.29 of carbon and had a hardness of 44. 
 Ingot-iron test-bars with carbon 0.39 had a hardness of 45. 
 
 Carbon and Fusibility. Truran says ' * fusibility is directly 
 dependent on the proportion of the volumes of the respective 
 ingredients forming the pig iron.'' Pure iron cannot be melted 
 by ordinary furnace heat. Steel containing from 0.25$ to 1.50^ 
 of carbon can be melted with difficulty. The cast iron which 
 contains the most carbon melts the most readily. At a bright 
 red heat the graphite changes into combined carbon and the iron 
 at once melts, beginning at the outside of the pig. Thus pure 
 iron and graphite, neither of which can be melted alone, at a high 
 heat form a fusible alloy. Any dilution of carbon makes the iron 
 harder to melt. At each remelting of cast iron the metal became 
 more infusible. In the series Table IV when carbon reached 
 2.25 it was very difficult to fill the molds. 
 
 Fluidity. Carbon is the principal agent for imparting 
 fluidity. The presence of carbon, by lowering the temperature of 
 fusion, increases the fluidity of cast iron. 
 
30 CAST IRON. 
 
 Gray iron is more fluid than white iron, but requires a much 
 higher temperature for fusion. White iron, slightly cooled, is 
 thickly liquid and passes through a pasty stage between the solid 
 and fluid states which does not allow gases to escape freely, which 
 partly accounts for the blow-holes in white-iron castings. As 
 soon as the graphite in gray cast iron becomes combined the iron 
 melts and becomes very fluid in proportion as the percentage oi 
 graphite was great or small. 
 
 The author has made a number of experiments to show the 
 influence of different percentages of carbon, but in nearly all of 
 them the physical quality was also influenced by variations of 
 some other elements or by other conditions. 
 
 Carbon maybe lowered by repeated remeltings. In ordinary 
 foundry practice some of the metal melted each day is returned 
 to the cupola the next, and is remelted with the pig iron. 
 
 In Chapter IX, Fig. 29 and Table XVII are derived from 
 remelts of Gaylord white pig iron, and Fig. 32 and Table XX 
 from remelts of F L M (Method 12). The fluidity grew less as 
 carbon decreased. The decrease in strength shown in the tests 
 of white iron was largely due to the blow-holes. 
 
 A very small quantity of graphite will prevent blow-holes, and 
 it need not be sufficient to make the casting gray. 
 
 Another method by which the carbon may be lowered in test- 
 bars is to introduce into the melted cast iron wrought or steel 
 scrap. This adds strength so long as the carbon is not so much 
 reduced as to make unsound castings. The following tests illus- 
 trate this. The first (Fig. 33 and Table XXI) is that of F L M 
 remelted (Method 13) with additions of iron wire to cause suc- 
 cessive dilutions of the carbon. 
 
 Fig. 30 and Table XVIII are " Gaylord " white pig iron with 
 iron wire. 
 
 In the series thus far considered not only has carbon varied, 
 but silicon also. In fact, the cause of blow-holes was not wholly 
 due^ to a lack of carbon, but to too low silicon. In the series 
 Fig. 1 8 and Table IV (Method 6) silicon is kept uniform and the 
 
CARBON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 carbon is therefore the only variable. The lessening of carbon 
 turns the iron white, and bars 564 and 568 would not run full. 
 
 568 
 C. 0.31 
 
 FIG. 18. Dilution of Carbon. 
 TABLE IV. 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 ij 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 Test 
 
 
 
 .2S 
 
 
 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 
 
 o<e 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 a v 
 
 ^ 
 
 Square 
 Ear. 
 
 Flat 
 Bar. 
 
 
 429 
 
 F L M 3.50 per cent carbon .. . 
 
 335 
 
 330 
 
 .23 
 
 .166 
 
 .200 
 
 .60 
 
 600 
 
 " 3.25 
 
 460 
 
 356 
 
 .20 
 
 .174 
 
 .226 
 
 .60 
 
 60 1 
 
 " 2.75 
 
 532 
 
 
 .19 
 
 .197 
 
 
 
 2.OO 
 
 602 
 
 2.25 
 
 673 
 
 525 
 
 .19 
 
 .256 
 
 .261 
 
 all. 
 
 In England in 1846 Sterling took out a patent for toughened 
 cast iron. Many reports were made of the strength of this mix- 
 ture of cast iron and wrought iron. He says that the wrought 
 iron must be less than the cast iron, and that the exact percentage 
 depends upon the quality of cast iron to begin with. With 100 
 parts of cast iron, 10 parts of wrought increased the strength 2<f>\ 
 20 parts of wrought increased the strength 32$; 30 parts, 60^; 
 but 40 parts only 33$. The maximum result was therefore pro- 
 duced with about 30$ of wrought scrap.* 
 
 * Thomas Turner, Journal Soc. of Chemical Industry, May 29, 1886. 
 
3 2 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 Table V is introduced in this place to show how the results 
 under the column ' ' Impact ' ' of Table IV and of other tables to 
 be introduced were obtained. 
 
 TABLE V. 
 
 Inches Fall 
 of 2 5 -lb. 
 Hammer. 
 
 Inch-pounds 
 Developed. 
 
 ArbitraryValue 
 for each 
 Blow in Ibs. 
 Avoirdupois. 
 
 Inches Fall 
 of 25-lb. 
 Hammer. 
 
 Inch-pounds 
 Developed. 
 
 ArbitraryValue 
 for each 
 Blow in Ibs. 
 Avoirdupois. 
 
 .12 
 
 3-12 
 
 16.94 
 
 3-12 
 
 78.12 
 
 423-53 
 
 25 
 
 6.25 
 
 33-88 
 
 3.25 
 
 81.25 
 
 440.47 
 
 37 
 
 9-37 
 
 50.82 
 
 3-37 
 
 84-37 
 
 457-41 
 
 50 
 
 12.55 
 
 67.76 
 
 3.50 
 
 87-55 
 
 474-35 
 
 .62 
 
 15.63 
 
 84.70 
 
 3.62 
 
 90.63 
 
 491.29 
 
 -75 
 
 18.70 
 
 101.65 
 
 3-75 
 
 93-70 
 
 508.24 
 
 .87 
 
 21.87 
 
 118.59 
 
 3.87 
 
 96.87 
 
 525.18 
 
 .00 
 
 25.00 
 
 135.53 
 
 4.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 542.12 
 
 .12 
 
 28.15 
 
 151.46 
 
 4.12 
 
 103.12 
 
 559-06 
 
 25 
 
 31-25 
 
 169.41 
 
 4-25 
 
 106.25 
 
 576.00 
 
 37 
 
 34.38 
 
 186.35 
 
 4-37 
 
 109.37 
 
 592.94 
 
 -50 
 
 37-41 
 
 203.29 
 
 4-50 
 
 112.55 
 
 609.88 
 
 .62 
 
 40.61 
 
 220. 23 
 
 4.62 
 
 115.63 
 
 626.82 
 
 75 
 
 43-72 
 
 237-18 
 
 4-75 
 
 118.70 
 
 647.77 
 
 .87 
 
 46.87 
 
 254.12 
 
 4.87 
 
 121.87 
 
 660 . 7 i 
 
 2.OO 
 
 50.00 
 
 271.06 
 
 5.00 
 
 125.00 
 
 677.65 
 
 2.12 
 
 53.13 
 
 288.00 
 
 5.12 
 
 128.12 
 
 694.59 
 
 2.25 
 
 56.25 
 
 304 . 94 
 
 5.25 
 
 131.25 
 
 7H-53 
 
 2-37 
 
 59-37 
 
 321.88 
 
 5-37 
 
 134-37 
 
 728.47 
 
 2.50 
 
 62.55 
 
 338.82 
 
 4-50 
 
 137.55 
 
 745.41 
 
 2.62 
 
 65-63 
 
 355.76 
 
 5.62 
 
 140.63 
 
 762.35 
 
 2-75 
 
 68.70 
 
 372.71 
 
 5-75 
 
 143.70 
 
 779.30 
 
 2.8 7 
 
 71.87 
 
 389.65 
 
 5-87 
 
 146.87 
 
 796.24 
 
 3.00 
 
 75.00 
 
 406.59 . 
 
 6.00 
 
 150.00 
 
 813.18 
 
 Table V shows the number of inch-pounds developed by each blow. Also gives an arbi- 
 trary value to each blow in pounds avoirdupois, to allow comparison and tabulating with records 
 from Keep's dead-load machine. 
 
 The value for an inch-pound was obtained by testing a good sample of Swedish gray pig iron 
 which broke in the dead-load machine with 288 pounds and by impact with a z^-inch fall. The 
 table was constructed from this data. 
 
 Table VI shows the influence of annealing ordinary gray cast 
 iron. 
 
 The test-bars were all measured for shrinkage, then one of 
 each pair was tested, while the companion bars were packed in 
 wood shavings and heated to a white heat in 12 hours and then 
 cooled in another 12 hours. The only chemical change is in 
 graphite and combined carbon. 
 
 The iron is more than 30$ softer, has lost one-half of its chill, 
 
CARBON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 33 
 
 33$ of its shrinkage, and its deflection is increased nearly 50$. 
 The hardness in this table is obtained by the Keep machine, Fig. 
 
 9 6. 
 
 This does not prove, however, that the same proportions of 
 graphite and combined carbon in the original mixture would 
 produce castings with these physical properties. 
 
 Probably the carbons in the annealed castings have peculiari- 
 ties which the chemist did not determine. 
 
 TABLE VI 
 
 - 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 St'gth 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 435 
 4*5 
 
 Def. 
 
 Hardness. 
 
 Analysis by Dickman and 
 Mackenzie. 
 
 *"Q 
 
 i 
 
 X 
 
 |"D 
 
 14 
 .14 
 
 One' 
 
 End 
 *"D 
 
 Other 
 End 
 
 *"D 
 
 2 8. 5 
 29.0 
 
 U 
 H 
 
 3-77 
 3-77 
 
 cJ 
 
 
 
 3-32 
 3-68 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 45 
 5 
 
 t/5 
 1.78 
 
 1.78 
 
 eu 
 505 
 
 .51 
 
 t/j 
 
 .041 
 
 043 
 
 G 
 
 .568 
 
 .568 
 
 No. i bar not an- 
 nealed. 
 No 3 bar not an- 
 
 '55 
 55 
 
 .169 
 
 173 
 
 .28 
 .27 
 
 30.8 
 31.0 
 
 Average 
 No. 2 bar not an- 
 
 155 
 
 1-57 
 ^55 
 
 .171 
 
 .167 
 ..69 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 .14 
 
 425 
 
 400 
 
 400 
 
 .27" 
 
 36 
 34 
 
 
 30 
 
 ig : 
 i 9 
 
 I9 l 
 19 
 
 No. 4 bar not an- 
 nealed 
 
 Average 
 
 No. 2 bar annealed 
 No.4 " 
 
 Average 
 
 .156 
 
 2J 
 
 .096 
 
 .168 
 
 .069 
 
 .070 
 
 14 
 
 .06 
 .08 
 
 .090 
 
 .069" 
 
 .07 
 
 400 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 Influence of Remelting on Carbon. For carbons in the 
 A. S. M. E. tests see Tables LXI, LXII, LXIV; also see analy- 
 sis of original irons in Chapter III. Also see Table LXIII. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 Silicon. This metalloid is reduced from its oxide, silica, of 
 which quartz is an example. Silica is contained in all the iron 
 ores, and in the ash of all fuel ; therefore more or less silicon is 
 always found in cast iron. Metallic silicon is said to be of a dark 
 iron-gray color, and has such an affinity for oxygen that it must 
 be kept away from air. The specific gravity of silicon is 2.49. 
 It alloys with iron in all proportions up to 10$, and by special 
 treatment to 20$ or 30$. 
 
 Silicon can be present to a certain per cent in iron that is 
 otherwise comparatively pure and still leave it malleable, such 
 inetal being called silicon steel. The presence of silicon is neces- 
 sary if cast iron is to be used for ordinary casting purposes. 
 According to Truran, silicon, being as bulky as carbon, should 
 increase the fusibility of cast iron. 
 
 Silicon in Cast Iron. During the year 1885 Professor 
 Turner published the results of his researches showing that addi- 
 tions of silicon to a specially made 'white iron would change it to 
 gray, and that by varying the silicon the softness and grayness 
 could be controlled at will. This discovery was of such practical 
 importance to founders that the question was raised whether the 
 influence of silicon would be the same in ordinary pig iron made 
 In a blast-furnace. To determine this question, during the years 
 1886 to 1888 the author made a large number of series of tests 
 using Professor Turner's methods. Only a few series are given. 
 
 The following irons (Table VII) were used to determine the 
 
 34 
 
SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 35 
 
 influence of silicon in cast iron in the first six series of tests. 
 Professor Turner's white and silicon irons are inserted for com- 
 parison. 
 
 TABLE VII. 
 
 IRONS USED IN TESTS. 
 
 Test 
 
 No. 
 
 Kind of Iron. 
 
 T.C 
 
 G.C. 
 
 C.C. 
 
 Si. 
 
 P. 
 
 s. 
 
 Mn. 
 
 How made. 
 
 376 
 441 
 
 396 
 397 
 401 
 
 White (Gaylord), 
 " (Turner) 
 Gray (F^M) 
 
 2.98 
 1.98 
 3-55 
 i.Bi 
 
 0.95 
 0.38 
 3.22 
 
 1. 12 
 
 2.03 
 i. 60 
 o-33 
 
 0.6y 
 
 0.186 
 0.190 
 1.249 
 9.80 
 
 0.26 
 
 0.32 
 0.084 
 
 0.210 
 
 0.03 
 0.05 
 0.04 
 0.04 
 
 o.cg 
 0.14 
 0.187 
 1-95 
 
 Blast furnace 
 Cementation 
 Blast furnace 
 
 Blast furnace 
 
 Silicon iron (Turner).. 
 " " (imported) 
 " " (Pencost) . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.99 
 
 1.92 
 
 0.07 
 
 K>-34 
 
 0.45 
 
 
 0.52 
 
 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Fluidity. 
 
 Hard 
 ness. 
 
 Str'n. 
 
 Def. 
 
 Str'n. 
 
 Def. 
 
 I" D 
 
 rV'X." 
 
 376 
 441 
 
 396 
 397 
 401 
 
 White (Gaylord) 
 " (Turner) 
 
 379 
 
 .14 
 
 237 
 
 16 
 
 .248 
 
 .246 
 
 all 
 
 5.60 
 
 100 
 
 72 
 74 
 57 
 
 64 
 132 
 
 Gray (Fi-M). 
 
 362 
 157 
 144 
 478 
 231 
 
 .27 
 
 339 
 
 .29 
 
 .168 
 
 .186 
 
 .40 
 
 4-5 
 
 Silicon iron (Turner) . . 
 " " (Imported) 
 " " (Pencost).. 
 
 .08 
 25 
 
 .12 
 
 68 
 425 
 125 
 
 .06 
 .27 
 .11 
 
 39 
 139 
 .199 
 
 29? 
 .146 
 
 .201 
 
 . 12 
 .10 
 
 6.62 
 
 
 
 376 441 
 
 Si. 0.25 Si. 1.20 
 
 397 401 
 
 Si. 4.36 Si. 10.34 
 
 FIG. 19. 
 
 The fractures of four of these irons are shown in Fig. 19 
 (Method 4). Table VIII shows the percentages of silicon, the 
 hardness, and the calculated transverse strength of a i''Q test- 
 bar of the original series by Professor Turner. 
 
36 CAST IRON. 
 
 TABLE VIII. 
 
 TURNER'S TESTS. 
 
 Silicon in test bars 0.19 0.45 0.96 1.37 1.96 2.51 2.96 3.92 4.74 7.33 9.80 
 
 Calculated dead- load transverse 
 
 strength of test bars \^" C] X 
 
 12" long 337 410 421 437 431 442 356 318 293 188 157 
 
 Hardness (Turner's test) 72 52 42 ... 22 22 22 27 32 42 57 
 
 Silicon added to white iron changes it to gray iron. 
 
 The upper series, Table IX (Method n), using Gaylord 
 white pig iron 376 and the 16$ ferrosilicon 396 shows this. The 
 fractures are shown in Fig. 20. 
 
 TABLE IX. 
 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 Calcu- 
 lated 
 Si. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Impact 
 Strength 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill 
 
 Turner's 
 Hardness 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Strength i Def. 
 
 
 .j" n 
 
 iV"xi" 
 
 
 
 
 37 6 
 
 0.25 
 
 379 
 
 14 
 
 237 
 
 .248 
 
 .246 
 
 White 
 
 108 
 
 
 IQ7 
 
 o . 40 
 
 406 
 
 . 1-7 
 
 216 
 
 2S9 
 
 257 
 
 
 08 
 
 + 
 
 - 1 VJ 
 
 IQ4. 
 
 \j f\s 
 
 o. 71 
 
 i r vyvy 
 
 4^2 
 
 J 
 
 13 
 
 271 
 
 * ^ 7 
 .256 
 
 -258 
 
 
 y 
 06 
 
 C C 
 
 o o 
 
 i y-f 
 195 
 
 ** / j 
 
 1.25 
 
 *T J ^* 
 468 
 
 J 
 .16 
 
 314 
 
 .232 
 
 .251 
 
 .90 
 
 v u 
 93 
 
 .~ y 
 
 I 9 6 
 
 1.71 
 
 412 
 
 .20 
 
 322 
 
 .18 7 
 
 
 .65 
 
 9i 
 
 'In 
 
 197 
 
 2.22 
 
 445 
 
 .21 
 
 374 
 
 .200 
 
 .232 
 
 .90 
 
 76 
 
 Jc, 
 
 198 
 
 2.90 
 
 420 
 
 .19 
 
 348 
 
 .l6o 
 
 .230 
 
 .80 
 
 65 
 
 > 
 
 200 
 
 3-24 
 
 422 
 
 .22 
 
 374 
 
 .149 
 
 .201 
 
 35 
 
 61 
 
 f^ 
 
 201 
 
 3-59 
 
 436 
 
 23 
 
 373 
 
 .147 
 
 .204 
 
 25 
 
 54 
 
 
 2O2 
 
 3.84 
 
 430 
 
 .20 
 
 433 
 
 ISO 
 
 213 
 
 45 
 
 52 
 
 _1_ 
 
 T 0/l 
 
 I 2^ 
 
 A 9n 
 
 ^2 
 
 4=^8 
 
 172 
 
 
 . 20 
 
 
 T^ 
 
 C 
 
 104 
 
 185 
 
 i . ^5 
 1-50 
 
 ?*v 
 
 348 
 
 .> 
 
 25 
 
 TO U 
 
 381 
 
 1 / 
 
 .167 
 
 .182 
 
 -35 
 
 
 o 
 
 186 
 
 2.00 
 
 332 
 
 23 
 
 305 
 
 .160 
 
 .I6 7 
 
 .27 
 
 
 "* C 
 
 >-. o 
 
 187 
 
 2.50 
 
 356 
 
 .29 
 
 339 
 
 .156 
 
 . 164 
 
 .10 
 
 
 - 
 
 188 
 
 3-00 
 
 362 
 
 30 
 
 382 
 
 .142 
 
 .162 
 
 .07 
 
 
 bf/^ 
 
 189 
 
 3-50 
 
 343 
 
 25 
 
 322 
 
 .140 
 
 .158 
 
 15 
 
 
 s 
 
 190 
 
 4.00 
 
 378 
 
 .29 
 
 330 
 
 137 
 
 -158 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 191 
 
 4-50 
 
 424 
 
 .28 
 
 389 
 
 .146 
 
 .165 
 
 15 
 
 
 Silicon added to gray iron lo^v in silicon will make it more 
 gray. 
 
 The lower series, Table IX (Method n), with F L M gray 
 iron and the i6# FeSi, proves this. The fractures of this series 
 are shown by 184 to 191 of Fig. 20. 
 
 It is evident that while additions of silicon change combined 
 
SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 37 
 
 carbon into graphite, yet a given percentage of silicon does not 
 always produce a given physical quality. 
 
 White Pig and 16.32 FeSi. 
 
 194 195 196 197 19 s 20 201 202 
 
 Si. 0.73 Si. 1.25 Si. 1.71 Si. 2.82 Si. 2.90 Si. 3.24 Si. 3.59 Si. 3.84 
 
 F L M Gray Pig and 10.62 FeSi. 
 
 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 
 
 Si. 1.25 Si. 1.50 Si.' 2.00 Si. 2.50 Si, 3.00 Si. 3.50 Si. 4.00 Si. 4.50 
 
 ji iiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiL iiiiiiiiiiriiiniiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiii niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinn fiiiiiiniiniiiifiiii 
 
 FIG. 20. 
 
 // is the influence of silicon, not the percentage, that produces 
 the physical quality, as is shown more clearly by Table X and 
 Fig. 2 1 (Method 4). 
 
 Fig. 19 shows the appearance of grain of the irons used to 
 make the mixtures, and Table VII the chemical composition. 
 
 Examine in Fig. 21 the fractures of the bars of each series 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 containing 1.50$ silicon, or the bars of each containing 2%, or 
 those with 2.50$ or 3.00$: though the silicon is the same in each, 
 the influence of silicon in each bar containing the same per- 
 centage depends upon the total carbon and its condition in the 
 original irons, and upon other unknown conditions. To more 
 fully illustrate this see Fig. 22 and Table XI (Method 4). The 
 
 TABLE X. 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 344 
 
 345 
 346 
 347 
 
 340 
 34i 
 342 
 343 
 
 Calculated Percentage Silicon. 
 
 White + Silicon. 
 
 \\ per cent silicon 
 2 " " 
 
 White + Silicon, 
 g per cent silicon. . 
 
 F L M -j- Silicon. 
 
 if, per cent silicon. . 
 349' 2 " .. 
 
 350 2^ " .. 
 
 351 3 " " 
 
 F L M -f Silicon. 
 
 352 if per cent silicon 
 
 353, 2 
 
 354 2! 
 
 355 3 
 
 Sir'n 
 
 466 
 486 
 416 
 421 
 
 501 
 464 
 498 
 452 
 
 362 
 
 363 
 380 
 370 
 
 365 
 348 
 318 
 348 
 
 Def. S 
 
 23 
 23 
 .28 
 .26 
 
 1 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Str'n 
 
 299 
 356 
 362 
 451 
 
 Det. 
 
 Sq. 
 Bar. 
 
 Thin 
 Bar. 
 
 243 
 
 339 
 
 .220 
 .167 
 
 15 
 .21 
 .21 
 .27 
 
 .227 
 
 1.163 
 
 -163 
 
 155 
 
 486 
 
 .27 
 
 .179 
 
 .243 
 
 390 
 466 
 390 
 
 .20 
 .29 
 .22 
 
 !i56 
 
 .147 
 
 .217 
 .161 
 .160 
 
 345 
 334 
 350 
 385 
 
 25 
 .22 
 .28 
 27 
 
 .162 
 .156 
 143 
 134 
 
 175 
 .158 
 .149 
 
 153 
 
 373 
 228 
 
 .29 
 23 
 
 .163 
 .161 
 
 .181 
 .162 
 
 277 
 401 
 
 .24 
 32 
 
 .141 
 
 .148 
 
 .149 
 . I4 B 
 
 Hard 
 ness. 
 
 58 
 
 45 
 
 42 
 
 28 
 
 54 
 
 50 
 39 
 42 
 
 Chill 
 
 All 
 
 1.25 
 
 .60 
 
 .22 
 
 1-25 
 .60 
 
 .18 
 
 .40 
 
 .03 
 
 , 4 
 
 .07 
 03 
 
 Act- 
 ual 
 per 
 cent 
 Sili- 
 con. 
 
 1.48 
 1.92 
 2.42 
 
 1.49 
 1.97 
 
 .202.55 
 
 2-95 
 
 1.50 
 
 22 2.01 
 
 10 2.42 
 2.86 
 
 i-53 
 
 20 2 . 1 1 
 
 2.4T 
 
 2.86 
 
 same F L M (441) was used for the bulk of each mixture. The 
 silicon of each mixture was 2.50$. The 1.25 silicon added in 
 each case was obtained by using a different silicon iron, the 
 silicons of which are given in the table. 
 
 The influence of silicon is indirect, acting through the carbon 
 which the iron contains. 
 
 Silicon lowers the saturation point of carbon, that is, an addi- 
 
SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 39 
 
 tion of silicon to iron containing combined carbon expels carbon 
 in graphitic form, which is caught between the grains of the iron, 
 giving it a grayer color. 
 
 The influence of silicon is modified by the various conditions 
 
 344 345 346 347 
 
 Si. 1.48 Si. 1.92 Si. 2.42 Si. 2.87 
 
 340 34i 342 343 
 
 Si. 1.49 Si. 1.97 Si. 2.55 Si. 2.95 
 
 348 349 
 
 Si. 1.50 Si. 2. or 
 
 350 
 Si. 2.42 
 
 35i 
 
 Si. 2.86 
 
 352 353 354 355 
 
 Si. 1.53 Si. 2.H Si. 2.41 Si. 2.86 
 
 FIG. 21. 
 
 attending remelting and cooling of the iron. The more total 
 carbon or the less combined carbon in the iron the less silicon 
 will be required to produce a given effect. 
 
 Less silicon acting a long time, as in slow cooling of large 
 castings, or more silicon acting in a short time, as in rapid cooling 
 of small castings, will produce similar effects. 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 TABLE XI. 
 
 2.5 PER CENT SILICON IN EACH TEST-BAR. 
 
 Silicon Irons used in Mixture 
 with FLM. 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Fluidity. 
 
 Hardness. 
 
 No. 
 'Test. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 of Si. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 i" n 
 
 iV'x i" 
 
 36 
 397 
 403 
 140 
 
 & 
 
 213 
 
 S2I 
 
 35 
 
 $ 
 _^- 
 
 Wellston 
 Pencost 
 
 Dayton 
 Govan 
 
 5.66 
 4-36 
 12.08 
 4-35 
 9.85 
 6.76 
 11.99 
 10.62 
 6 99 
 
 S-5 
 16.32 
 10.34 
 
 447 
 35 
 448 
 449 
 45 
 451 
 45 2 
 453 
 454 
 455 
 456 
 354 
 
 384 
 380 
 375 
 375 
 367 
 357 
 349 
 342 
 34i 
 337 
 327 
 
 2*1 
 
 .26 
 .28 
 .20 
 .26 
 .28 
 23 
 
 .22 
 .21 
 
 :3 
 
 .20 
 .24 
 
 362 
 
 35o 
 322 
 
 333 
 384 
 
 345 
 277 
 
 3" 
 93 
 339 
 282 
 277 
 
 .26 
 .26 
 .24 
 .26 
 30 
 .27 
 
 .22 
 .24 
 .29 
 .27 
 23 
 23 
 
 .146 
 143 
 .144 
 
 i45 
 .147 
 .141 
 .138 
 .140 
 .148 
 .150 
 .140 
 .141 
 
 155 
 .149 
 .208 
 .158 
 
 '59 
 J 55 
 .182 
 .171 
 157 
 *57 
 .164 
 .149 
 
 .08 
 
 .10 
 
 35 
 .04 
 .04 
 .08 
 35 
 23 
 -13 
 05 
 23 
 .08 
 
 4.12 
 
 IO.OO 
 
 837 
 
 12. OO 
 
 7-03 
 .07 
 
 8.62 
 
 11.00 
 
 10.62 
 11 .50 
 
 7.84 
 
 9 25 
 
 58 
 
 5 2 
 .60 
 .64 
 .48 
 .48 
 .40 
 .40 
 58 
 .80 
 .48 
 .48 
 
 Pencost 
 foreign 
 
 Wellston 
 
 foreign , 
 Oncost . . . 
 
 449 
 
 450 
 
 FIG. 22. Silicon 2.5$ in each. 
 
SILICON IN CAST IRON. 41 
 
 It is the influence of silicon upon the physical quality in a 
 casting that is of value to a founder. 
 
 By changing silicon in an iron mixture we can control the 
 state of carbon and also the chill. Silicon, acting through carbon, 
 is therefore the controlling element in cast iron. 
 
 White iron contains less than \% of silicon. 
 
 No. 3 Foundry should contain about 1.50$ of silicon. 
 
 ' ' 2 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 2 
 
 1 ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 2 
 
 < 2 Soft " " " 3-00$ " " 
 
 < < j < < < < < < 3 2 ^^ ' ' ' ' 
 
 Silvery iron " " " 4 to 6% " " 
 
 High-priced silicon iron contains from 6$ to 10$. 
 
 By mixing these irons we can get any desired percentage of 
 silicon in the casting. 
 
 Diffusion of Silicon in Cast Iron. Table XII gives the sili- 
 cons of nineteen series of tests made by the author for the Ameri- 
 can Society of Mechanical Engineers. It has been supposed that 
 if the product of a blast-furnace could be caught in a mixing-ladle 
 before it was run into the pig bed, an iron could be produced 
 which would make castings of homogeneous chemical composi- 
 tion. If in Table XII (Method i) we subtract the smallest record 
 in a series from each other record, the remainders will show the 
 excess of silicon in each test-bar poured from one ladle from iron 
 which was supposed to contain the same percentage of silicon. 
 Series 19 was from iron taken from a i2OO-lb. mixing-ladle, and 
 the mixture was made up of pig irons of very nearly uniform 
 composition, and the average silicon in all test-bars was .77$. 
 The variation was . 19 with an average of .09$. 
 
 Series 18 was made of pig irons of nearly uniform composition 
 and good scrap mixed in a i2OO-lb. ladle. The average silicon 
 in the test-bars was 2.96, with variation .42 and an average of 
 
 Series 15 is an example of the practice of imparting silicon 
 by a low silicon silvery iron. The iron was melted at the rate of 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 eleven tons an hour, and was caught as fast as it was melted, 
 and no effort was made to obtain even diffusion. The variations 
 of .26 and average of .22 show that as perfect diffusion may be 
 obtained without as with the mixing-ladle. Series 2 to 6 are 
 made from the same pig as series I, with increasing additions of 
 an I \% ferrosilicon. The diffusion of silicon is very irregular, but 
 the average variations increase as the silicon increases, showing, 
 in connection with the other series, that the diffusion is less com- 
 plete as silicon increases in quantity. 
 
 TABLE XII. 
 
 A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 | 
 
 I 
 
 c** 
 u c c 
 
 til 
 
 
 
 Per Cent of Silicon. 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 c/5 
 
 |" 
 
 l" D 
 
 i" X 2" 
 
 2"D 
 
 3 "D 
 
 4 "o 
 
 
 I 
 
 I.OO 
 
 8^ 
 
 ,7Q 
 
 78 
 
 .82 
 
 72 
 
 .88 
 
 .81 
 
 
 2 
 
 1.50 
 
 **j 
 
 1.09 
 
 / V 
 
 1.14 
 
 . / u 
 
 1.70 
 
 1-33 
 
 / ^ 
 I.IO 
 
 .88 
 
 1. 2O 
 
 
 3 
 
 2.00 
 
 1-73 
 
 1-73 
 
 1.70 
 
 1.50 
 
 2.17 
 
 2.50 
 
 1.88 
 
 
 4 
 
 2.50 
 
 2.13 
 
 1.69 
 
 1.60 
 
 i. 80 
 
 2.17 
 
 2.07 
 
 2.01 
 
 
 5 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.42 
 
 265 
 
 2.40 
 
 3.36 
 
 3.67 
 
 4.67 
 
 3-19 
 
 
 6 
 
 3.50 
 
 2.74 
 
 2.69 
 
 2.70 
 
 2.62 
 
 4-30 
 
 3-22 
 
 3-04 
 
 Hinkle 
 
 7 
 
 I.OO 
 
 .01 
 
 .qa 
 
 .86 
 
 .QO 
 
 .85 
 
 1. 12 
 
 Q-l 
 
 
 / 
 8 
 
 1.50 
 
 * V* 
 
 1.16 
 
 V J 
 
 1.29 
 
 I.IO 
 
 . y\j 
 1.22 
 
 * W J 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.03 
 
 y.> 
 
 1.17 
 
 
 9 
 
 2.00 
 
 93 
 
 1.40 
 
 1.05 
 
 I.OO 
 
 2.15 
 
 3-50 
 
 1.67 
 
 
 10 
 
 2.50 
 
 2.84 
 
 2 55 
 
 2.70 
 
 2.OO 
 
 1-75 
 
 1-57 
 
 2.23 
 
 
 ii 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.56 
 
 2-75 
 
 2.97 
 
 2.49 
 
 2.64 
 
 284 
 
 2.71 
 
 
 12 
 
 3-50 
 
 2.77 
 
 3-7D 
 
 34i 
 
 2.91 
 
 2.89 
 
 2-95 
 
 3-05 
 
 
 
 
 2. 7O 
 
 2.80 
 
 2. Si 
 
 2.7Q 
 
 2.04 
 
 2.81 
 
 2.81 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 ~* / ** 
 3-13 
 
 3-22 
 
 3-17 
 
 ** 1 y 
 3-19 
 
 *" VI 
 3-20 
 
 3.15 
 
 3^18 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 3-29 
 
 3-50 
 
 3-52 
 
 3.48 
 
 3-75 
 
 3-42 
 
 3-51 
 
 
 C.G. Bretting &Co. 
 
 16 
 
 
 I QO 
 
 1.86 
 
 1.68 
 
 1.61 
 
 i 8^ 
 
 I 7O 
 
 ' 76 
 
 Mich Mall.IronCo. 
 
 1 7 
 
 
 j..y<~ 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 .67 
 
 i . OJ 
 
 .86 
 
 j.. f\j 
 I 2J. 
 
 *.. /u 
 O2 
 
 Bement, Miles&Co. 
 
 * i 
 
 18 
 
 
 2 2Q 
 
 2 OQ 
 
 2 24. 
 
 v> j 
 
 1.82 
 
 2.06 
 
 i . ~ -4 
 
 1.88 
 
 V? 
 
 2 O^ 
 
 A. Whitney & Sons 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 ^V 
 .87 
 
 ^>. wv^ 
 
 .72 
 
 * ^"T 
 .78 
 
 .81 
 
 .68 
 
 73 
 
 ^O 
 .76 
 
 Loss of Silicon in Remelting. An analysis of drillings 
 from three pigs of Iroquois iron by Mr. C. D. Chamberlain gave 
 .88$, and an analysis of drillings from twenty-five pigs of the 
 same lot of iron by Messrs. Dickman and Mackenzie gave 98$ 
 silicon. The analysis of each of the six sizes of test-bars of 
 
SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 43 
 
 series I showed a variation of silicon between .72 and .83, c r the 
 same variation as the two analyses of the pig iron. The average 
 silicon in the six castings was .80$, showing the loss during the 
 remelting of .08$ to .18$ of silicon, and indicates that there is a 
 loss of as much as 10$ of the silicon in the iron during remelting 
 in a cupola. See also Table LXIII. 
 
 There could not have been a more careful mixture of iron to 
 produce given percentages of silicon than in the series I to 6, and 
 a slight excess of silicon was added (Method i), for it was 
 expected that there would be a loss in remelting. The calculated 
 and average silicons, by analysis, are shown in the upper part of 
 Table XIII. 
 
 TABLE XIII. 
 
 LOSS OF SILICON IN MELTING IROQUOIS PIG IRON. 
 
 No. Series. 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 I] 
 
 3 
 
 i 
 
 % 
 
 u 
 
 
 1. 00 
 
 .80 
 
 I.OO 
 
 1.23 
 
 1-50 
 I. 21 
 
 1.50 
 1.64 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.88 
 
 2.OO 
 2.04 
 
 2.50 
 2.OI 
 
 2.50 
 2.25 
 
 3-00 
 3-19 
 3.OO 
 3.10 
 
 3-50 
 3-04 
 
 3-50 
 3-49 
 
 Si by Analysis . . 
 
 . 
 Calculated Si 
 
 
 
 To show how impossible it is to produce an exact percentage 
 of silicon in castings, even by an analysis of pig iron, the lower 
 part of Table XIII gives the calculated and exact silicons in six 
 crucible heats of the same mixtures of iron. The Iroquois pig iron 
 from the analysis was supposed to contain .88$ of silicon. The 
 additional silicon to make even percentages was obtained by 
 additions of n# ferrosilicon (no excess was added to make up 
 for loss). The variations in silicon, as shown by the analysis of 
 Mr. E. E . Mains in Table XIII (crucible), indicates that there must 
 have been an unequal diffusion of silicon in the material used. 
 
 These examples seem to prove that it is only possible to 
 
44 CAST IRON. 
 
 obtain an approximation of the silicon in a pile of pig iron, and 
 that it is much less possible to obtain the percentage of silicon in 
 a pile of scrap, and that, having obtained an approximation by 
 analysis, the loss of silicon during remelting, and the uneven 
 diffusion of silicon in the casting, make it possible to obtain, by 
 an analysis of the original materials, only an approximation of 
 the percentage of silicon in the casting. 
 
 An analysis of the casting itself gives the only reliable infor- 
 mation, and this is only an approximation from the uneven diffu- 
 sion of silicon. 
 
 Silicon and Hardness. All records of hardness (except those 
 in the chapter on Hardness) are given in terms of grams placed 
 on a diamond to cause it to make a scratch on a polished surface 
 with Professor Turner's machine. Silicon is a softener when 
 added to hard cast iron. 
 
 From 2$ to 3.50$ of silicon will change into graphite all of 
 the combined carbon that can be changed. This change, we 
 know from experience, generally reduces hardness. The iron 
 that remains is softer, because iron of itself is soft and was hard- 
 ened by the carbon that was combined with it. The more the 
 combined carbon is changed into graphite the softer the remain- 
 ing iron. 
 
 Probably silicon itself, however small the quantity present, 
 hardens cast iron ; but the decrease of hardness from the change 
 of the combined carbon to graphite is so much more rapid that 
 the total effect is to decrease hardness, until the silicon reaches 
 from 2% to 3$, which is as much as is required in practical foundry 
 work. 
 
 Silicon and Chill. Silicon removes the chilling tendency of 
 an iron. This influence of silicon is greatly modified by the state 
 and quantity of carbon in the iron used. 
 
 Silicon and Fluidity. While the records are only an indica- 
 tion of the fluidity of each cast due to the heat of that cast, yet 
 when silicon is mixed with irons previously low in silicon the 
 fluidity is increased. 
 
SILICON IN CAST IRON. 
 
 45 
 
 Silicon and the Surface of a Casting. One of the most use- 
 ful influences of silicon is the color and freedom from sand that 
 it imparts to the surface of a casting. The liberation of graphite 
 at the surface interposes between the hot iron and the sand mold 
 a layer of graphite, which in thin castings prevents the sand from 
 burning on. In heavy castings the graphite is deposited under 
 the scale and causes it to peel off and leave a smooth surface. 
 
 The Relation of Carbon to Silicon in Pig Iron. In Table 
 XIV, with silicon at from 2% to 2j$ or even 3$, the maximum 
 percentage of carbon may be present. Above this point silicon 
 replaces carbon. At one end of the series, a very low silicon 
 and low carbon, with about 2\fi silicon we have the highest 
 carbon, and at the otfier extreme of the series we find the highest 
 silicon and no carbon. 
 
 TABLE XIV. 
 
 RELATION SILICON TO CARBON. 
 
 
 o.S* 
 
 0^ 
 
 1 
 
 be 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 c/> 
 
 >, 
 frl 
 
 ! 
 
 cfc 
 fc 
 d 
 
 
 Calumet 
 No. i Foundry. 
 
 B 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 c.H 
 
 S 
 
 J 
 
 M 
 
 14 
 
 m 
 * i 
 
 >, 
 *> 
 c75 
 
 4-39 
 3-44 
 
 3.40 
 .04 
 1.42 
 
 ..':. 
 
 C >, 
 
 5| 
 
 i/5 
 
 ^ 
 
 02 
 
 u 
 
 U. 
 
 i! 
 E 
 
 
 
 Pence 
 Ferro Si 
 
 oil 
 
 I 1 ! 
 
 Si 
 
 0.18 
 
 2-53 
 
 .49 
 
 2.12 
 .26 
 
 03 
 .09 
 
 1-25 
 3-55 
 
 3-22 
 
 33 
 .08 
 .04 
 .18 
 
 2.03 
 
 3-75 
 
 3-12 
 63 
 1.65 
 .01 
 
 .87 
 
 3.15 
 
 3-50 
 
 2.46 
 
 I. 10 
 
 1. 06 
 
 .02 
 
 1-35 
 
 5.89 
 3-15 
 
 2.85 
 30 
 I. 10 
 .02 
 1. 00 
 
 9. 10 
 
 2.58 
 .90 
 
 1.68 
 .09 
 03 
 
 2.20 
 
 10.34 
 1.99 
 
 1.92 
 .07 
 
 45 
 tr 
 
 57 
 
 12.08 
 
 I. 5 8 
 
 1.52 
 .06 
 .48 
 tr 
 .76 
 
 16.27 
 
 75 
 
 .01 
 .01 
 .60 
 
 20.00 
 .00 
 
 T C 
 
 G C 
 
 C C 
 
 p 
 
 s 
 
 Mn 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 SHRINKAGE OF CAST IRON. 
 
 THE general understanding is that the shrinkage of a casting 
 is the difference in length (or any other linear dimension) between 
 the casting and the pattern from which it was made, or rather 
 between it and the mold in which it was cast. 
 
 It has generally been understood that the shrinkage of cast 
 iron is one-eighth of an inch per foot. The pattern-maker, in 
 taking measurements for the different dimensions of the pattern, 
 uses a " shrink-rule, " which is one-eighth inch longer than the 
 standard foot-rule which is used to measure the casting. 
 
 In the investigation of shrinkage it must be understood that 
 one size of test-bar must be used when the influence of variations 
 in chemical composition is being observed. 
 
 Any one size of test-bar could be used as a measure of shrink- 
 age, but the author has adopted a test-bar \" G X 12" long 
 because it is convenient to make and handle, is more sensitive 
 to any change in composition of the iron mixture, and shows 
 a wider range of shrinkage than any other size. 
 
 In the examination of the variation in shrinkage caused by a 
 variation in size of test-bar , iron of unvarying composition should 
 be put into all the sizes of test-bars. 
 
 Carbon and Shrinkage. When iron becomes crystalline it 
 will occupy more space than before it became so. Carbon causes 
 iron to become crystalline, therefore it reduces shrinkage. Pure 
 iron shrinks about .300 of an inch per foot. Iron in melting 
 expands for each degree of heat that has entered it. It is poured 
 into the mold at this high temperature, therefore in cooling it 
 must shrink as much as it has been expanded. 
 
 46 
 
SHRINKAGE OF CAST IRON. 
 
 47 
 
 Iron containing carbon melts at a lower temperature than 
 pure iron, and consequently shows less shrinkage. 
 
 " Dayton " white iron had a shrinkage of .221". 
 
 " mottled " n tt .179". 
 
 close gray " " " " " .167". 
 
 11 dark " " " -145". 
 
 Silicon reduces shrinkage by changing combined carbon into 
 graphite. Its direct influence is overcome, and its influence as 
 a reducer of shrinkage is seen, through its action on carbon. 
 See Tables IX to XIV. 
 
 Anything that decreases silicon increases shrinkage. For- 
 tunately any increase of shrinkage produced by any chemical 
 element in cast iron can be largely overcome by increasing 
 silicon. 
 
 In June, 1894, from the data then at hand, the author pre- 
 pared the following proposition: 
 
 4 ' To produce a given uniform grain and a sound casting, and 
 with one-eighth of an inch shrinkage to the foot, the silicon must 
 vary with each variation in the size of the casting. And such a 
 variation in silicon will cause a variation in the shrinkage of a 
 half-inch test-bar." 
 
 Table XV shows the shrinkage of a -in. test-bar that will 
 indicate the correct amount of silicon for each size of casting to 
 produce a shrinkage of -J in. per foot according to this proposition. 
 
 TABLE XV. 
 
 AN APPROXIMATE KEY FOR REGULATING FOUNDRY MIXTURES. 
 
 Size of the Casting. 
 
 Silicon required in the 
 Casting. 
 
 Shrinkage of the 
 Casting. 
 
 Shrinkage of a \" Q 
 Test Bar from the 
 same Ladle. 
 
 |-inch square 
 
 3.25 per cent 
 
 .125 ins. per foot 
 
 .125 ins. per foot 
 
 I. " 
 
 2.75 " " 
 
 .125 " " " 
 
 .135 " " " 
 
 2- " 
 
 2.25 " " 
 
 .125 " " " 
 
 .145 " " " 
 
 3. M ,. 
 
 1-75 " " 
 
 .125 " " " 
 
 .155 ' 
 
 4- " 
 
 1.25 " " 
 
 .125 " " " 
 
 .165 " " " 
 
4 8 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 The author had just been made a member of the A. S. M. E. 
 committee on Standard Tests and Methods of Testing Mate- 
 rials, and he agreed to make a series of tests with these sizes of 
 test-bars sufficient to prove the proposition. 
 
 Table XVI gives the shrinkage records. 
 TABLE XVI. 
 
 SHRINKAGE OF THE 
 
 SERIES OF A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 Kind of Iron 
 
 Average 
 Per cent 
 Silicon. 
 
 No. of 
 Series. 
 
 Test 
 
 Bars 
 
 *"O 
 
 i"D 
 
 2"X l" 
 
 2"D 
 
 3"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 f 
 
 o So 
 
 I 
 
 .183 
 
 .160 
 
 .148 
 
 .131 
 
 .116 
 
 . IO2 
 
 " Iroquois " with 
 
 I. 21 
 
 2 
 
 .172 
 
 .150 
 
 .138 
 
 .125 
 
 .110 
 
 .10^ 
 
 silicon added by J 
 
 1.88 
 
 3 
 
 .166 
 
 145 
 
 .130 
 
 .109 
 
 .069 
 
 3 ( . 
 
 Pencost ferro ', 
 
 2.01 
 
 4 
 
 .162 
 
 143 
 
 .123 
 
 .099 
 
 .066 
 
 .128 
 
 silicon. 
 
 3-19 
 
 5 
 
 157 
 
 .105 
 
 .094 
 
 .075 
 
 .067 
 
 057 
 
 I 
 
 3-04 
 
 6 
 
 .169 
 
 .130 
 
 .086 
 
 .077 
 
 .085 
 
 033 
 
 r 
 
 0-93 
 
 7 
 
 .176 
 
 .149 
 
 .144 
 
 139 
 
 115 
 
 .072 
 
 
 I. 17 
 
 8 
 
 .160 
 
 145 
 
 .126 
 
 .122 
 
 093 
 
 .092 
 
 "Hinkle" and 1 
 
 1.6 7 
 
 9 
 
 .156 
 
 .141 
 
 134 
 
 .128 
 
 .083 
 
 .036 
 
 Pencost. ] 
 
 2.23 
 
 10 
 
 .154 
 
 .124 
 
 .092 
 
 .094 
 
 075 
 
 .067 
 
 1 
 
 2-71 
 
 ii 
 
 157 
 
 . IO2 
 
 .O9O 
 
 .062 
 
 053 
 
 .023 
 
 I 
 
 3-50 
 
 12 
 
 .144 
 
 .098 
 
 .092 
 
 .068 
 
 043 
 
 .023 
 
 Mich Stove Co . .. 
 
 2.82 
 
 Id. 
 
 Id8 
 
 .098 
 
 O8^ 
 
 O72 
 
 06^ 
 
 07 C 
 
 Do 
 
 3-i8 
 
 *-*T 
 13 
 
 A*f ^ 
 
 .130 
 
 095 
 
 <-"> O 
 
 .091 
 
 f\tj4 
 
 .079 
 
 . <JU J 
 
 .072 
 
 U JD 
 .052 
 
 Do 
 
 2 . CQ 
 
 T e 
 
 . 12^ 
 
 OQ4 
 
 006 
 
 . 091 
 
 .073 
 
 .- 'i o 
 
 Car-wheel iron 
 
 j 3* 
 
 0.77 
 
 * 
 
 19 
 
 * ~ j 
 .238 
 
 **V*r 
 
 153 
 
 . \J\J^J 
 
 .142 
 
 .144 
 
 .126 
 
 J- 
 
 115 
 
 Light machinery. . . . 
 
 1.76 
 
 16 
 
 .171 
 
 151 
 
 .143 
 
 .129 
 
 .100 
 
 .069 
 
 Heavy machinery. . . 
 
 2.06 
 
 18 
 
 .161 
 
 139 
 
 . I2O 
 
 .091 
 
 .067 
 
 .042 
 
 Air furnace for mal- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 leable .... 
 
 o. So 
 
 17 
 
 .248 
 
 247 
 
 . 221 
 
 . 2OI 
 
 jc 7 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 - 1 / 
 
 . *4 
 
 ^T- / 
 
 
 
 * o / 
 
 . A -J.-^ 
 
 SHRINKAGE OF SERIES D AND E OF A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 Series. 
 
 Shrinkage 
 Dry Sand 
 Bars. 
 
 Per cent 
 Silicon. 
 
 Test 
 Bars 
 
 i"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 i*" D 
 
 2"D 
 
 2i"D 
 
 3"n 
 
 8*"0 
 
 4"C 
 
 D 
 
 Dry sand 
 
 .085 
 
 .280 
 
 .270 
 
 .220 
 
 .160 
 
 . 140 
 
 . 140 
 
 130 
 
 . no 
 
 E 
 
 Dry sand 
 
 0.72 
 
 .230 
 
 .180 
 
 .170 
 
 . 160 
 
 .150 
 
 .140 
 
 .130 
 
 . no 
 
 Shrinkage decreases as silicon increases. Looking at any 
 vertical column, in Table XVI, the greatest shrinkage accom- 
 
SHRINKAGE OF CAST IRON. 49 
 
 panics the least silicon, and vice versa. In the year 1885 the 
 author discovered that the variation of shrinkage indicated the 
 variation in the influence of silicon, in the presence of all other 
 elements in the iron, and under all local conditions attending 
 melting; and in 1887 the editor of the Journal of the United 
 States Association of Charcoal-iron Workers suggested the name 
 of " Keep's Tests " for this mechanical analysis of cast iron. 
 
 The founder must be made to realize that it is not the per- 
 centage of what is in his iron that is of use to him, but that it is 
 the influence exerted by that which is in the cast iron that affects 
 the physical quality. 
 
 Table XVI shows that shrinkage decreases as the size of a 
 casting increases when each is poured from the same iron. 
 Look at any horizontal row of figures. The smallest test-bar has 
 the greatest shrinkage and the largest test-bar has the least 
 shrinkage, because the slower cooling of large bars produces a 
 coarser grain. 
 
 For the influence of other elements on shrinkage see the 
 chapters on those elements. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 KEEP'S COOLING CURVES A STUDY OF MOLECULAR 
 
 CHANGES IN METALS DUE TO VARYING 
 
 TEMPERATURE. 
 
 Autographic Record of Shrinkage. Fig. 101 is a cut of the 
 machine by which the records in this investigation were made. A 
 mold was made of a test-bar I in. Q by 26 ins. long. In the 
 front of the flask, near the ends of this mold, recesses were cut 
 to allow the ends of the mold to be reached. The top of each 
 end of the mold was covered with a piece of tin having a J-in. 
 round hole through it, the two holes being 24^ ins. apart. The 
 autographic machine was attached to the mold in each recess by 
 a J-in. round pin which projected upwards to form a bearing for 
 the arms which were to transmit the motion of the test-bar. The 
 inner end of each arm was 2 ins. long, and the outer end was 
 2O ins. long. Through the inner end of the arms was a J-in. 
 hole corresponding with the hole in the tin cover of the mold. 
 Through each of these was passed a J-in. steel pin. The inner 
 end of this pin projected downwards through the mold. This pin 
 was located at the front edge of the mold, so that the first skin 
 formed embraced it. The outer ends of the arms multiplied 
 any motion of the ends of test-bar ten times. The right-hand 
 arm moved a slide which carried a recording-pencil, and the left- 
 hand arm moved a slide upon which was located a cylinder which 
 contained the ruled record paper, and also carried a clock which 
 allowed the cylinder to turn once each hour. The paper was ruled 
 in i -in. squares, each divided into twentieths. The cylinder had 
 a circumference of 12 ins., which made each inch measured cir- 
 
 50 
 
KEEP'S COOLING CURVES. 51 
 
 cumferentially on drum equal to five minutes of time. As one 
 arm moved the pencil and the other moved the slide which carried 
 the cylinder and clock in an opposite direction, the record was the 
 sum of the motions of the two ends of the test-bar, and as this was 
 2 ft. long, to find the motion of the test-bar per foot of length 
 the record must be divided by 20. If the record shows a motion 
 of the pencil to be half an inch, or ten of the small divisions, the 
 motion of each end of the bar would be of one division, or T | . 
 
 The frame of the machine was of wood, to prevent expansion, 
 and the apparatus with the test-bar was entirely self-contained. 
 
 Shrinkage Curves. Since metals expand as they receive 
 heat, and shrink in proportion as th'ey lose heat, the record of 
 such simple shrinkage should be a curve showing these propor- 
 tions. Fig. 23 shows such curves from the most common metals. 
 A shrinkage takes place while the metal is still fluid which causes 
 the metal in the gate to sink, yet the pins in the end of the test- 
 bar will not move until the casting is solid, and such shrinkage 
 in the fluid metal cannot alter the size of the casting. The 
 curves show the length of time it took each metal to become 
 solid. Block tin remained fluid II minutes, while lead was fluid 
 only 2j minutes. As soon as the i-in. Q bar becomes solid the 
 shrinkage of the test-bar begins. 
 
 Yokes for Chilling and Fixing the Length of Test-bars. 
 Holes to receive the pins of the machine were drilled in each end 
 of a yoke, and a test-bar I in. Q was cast, its ends funning 
 against the ends of the yoke. Curve ab on Fig. 23 shows the 
 motion of the ends of the yoke. The bar connecting the ends 
 of the yoke is I in. D, or. the same size as the test-bar, and there 
 is i in. of sand between them, but the diagram shows that the 
 yoke expanded at once when the iron filled the mold. Curve 
 No. 2 is from a i-in. Q test-bar, cast with its ends against the 
 yoke, the pins in this case being in the test-bar. The ends of 
 the test -bar did not move for one minute, so that the chilling 
 against the yoke ends was instantaneous, for the yoke expanded 
 away from the bar at once, and never came in contact with it 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
KEEP '5 C DOLING CUR 1/ES. 
 
 53 
 
 again. Curve No. 3 is from the same iron mixture, from a bar 
 cast in sand without a yoke. The curves show the variation in 
 No. 2 on account of the cooling action of the yoke. All of the 
 test-bars, made for the A. S. M. E. Committee on Methods of Test- 
 ing, were made in yokes, and all bars were shaken out of the 
 molds at once. In all the bars larger than I in. [j the expansion 
 of a yoke would be much greater than for a bar I in. Q, for the 
 reason that the bar connecting the heads of the yoke was always 
 i in. n and i in. from the test-bar, and the larger test-bars 
 would, therefore, heat it more quickly and to a greater extent. 
 The -in. test-bars were cast in a yoke with a ^-in. Q bar con- 
 necting the yoke-heads, but in each case the -in. test-bar shrinks 
 away at once (see Curve No. 18, Fig. 26), and could never touch 
 the yoke after the instant that mold was filled. 
 
 Curves from Cast Iron. These vary in shape with change 
 in chemical and physical composition. Iron with silicon quite 
 high makes the most attractive curve, and Curve No. 1 1 , Fig. 
 24, is therefore taken as an example. The silicon was 3.85$, 
 
 FIG. 24. 
 
 P i.oo, So.io, Mn 0.50. The carbon is about 3.10, which is 
 low. This is a mixture which gives excellent results for thin 
 castings which are very strong and soft. The lower the carbon 
 the higher must be the silicon to produce soft castings. The 
 
54 CAST IRON. 
 
 curve shows that the casting remained fluid for I minute, during 
 which time the ends of the bar remained stationary When the 
 whole of the test-bar had become solid it expanded for 16 
 minutes. The expansion began I J minutes after the mold \var> 
 filled, increased until 3^ minutes, then decreased until 7 minutes. 
 This is named the 1st Expansion. The expansion then increased 
 until 8 minutes, and decreased again until 10 minutes. This I 
 called the 2d Expansion. A very great expansion then takes 
 place, reaching its maximum between 12^ and 14 minutes, ami 
 decreasing until 16 minutes, or a little later. This is the $d 
 Expansion. When these expansions are completed the regular 
 shrinkage curve from the loss of heat is formed, the same as in 
 the simple metals. 
 
 This shrinkage had been acting from the beginning, for the 
 metal had been parting with its heat all the time, but the expan- 
 sions were great enough to overcome all this shrinkage during 
 the first 16 minutes. Another proof of this is that the shrinkage 
 curve of all i-in. D cast-iron bars takes substantially the same 
 direction after the 3d Expansion is completed. This is beautifully 
 shown in Curve No. 35 of Fig. 28, where the dotted line shows 
 the location of the shrinkage curve if no expansion had occurred. 
 
 Solidifying of Cast Iron. To get an explanation of Curve 
 No. u, eighteen test-bars I in. Q and I ft. long were poured at 
 the same time as the 2 -ft. test-bar from which the diagram was 
 taken. As the bars were made in a snap flask, there was nothing 
 around the bar but sand. The first bar was numbered 19. At 
 the end of I minute the iron in the gate was still fluid. At i| 
 minutes the sand was cut away and the bar taken out, but it 
 broke by its own weight, though it was not fluid. One-half of 
 this bar was dropped into a barrel of ice-water and the other half 
 was allowed to cool in the air. At the end of each minute there- 
 after the sand was cut away from a bar, which was broken, and 
 half of it dropped into the ice-water. From the fact that the 
 cooling of a i-in. D bar in water cannot be instantaneous, and 
 that anything short of that would allow a change in crystalliza- 
 
KEEP'S COOLfNG CURVES. 55 
 
 tion, the quenched bars give only a faint idea of the condition of 
 the iron at the time it was taken from the mold. 
 
 Each bar was a little stronger than the preceding one, and as 
 soon as it could not be broken with a pair of pincers alone, one- 
 half of the bar was placed in a hole in a heavy block of iron, 
 when a wrench of the pincers would break it. Then a light blow 
 of a hammer, and toward the end quite a sharp blow from a 
 5-lb. hammer was needed. 
 
 Curve No. 1 1 , Fig. 24, was then divided according to the 
 times of breaking the 18 bars, to see which belonged to the 
 different parts of the curve. Previous to making the bars 
 described, and while Curve No. 13 (Fig. 25) was being made, 
 a similar number of bars numbered from I to 18 had been cast, 
 cooled, and broken. 
 
 Hard or Soft Cast Iron. An examination of the fracture of 
 these two series of quenched bars shows a great change in the 
 crystalline structure before and after the 3d Expansion, but these 
 fractures do not at all show what the iron really was, because 
 quenching cannot entirely prevent the crystals assuming their 
 natural form. The whole change from melted iron to a soft gray 
 crystalline casting, shown by Curve No. n, can take place in a 
 thin casting in less than a minute (see Curve No. 17, Fig. 26). 
 If a non-chilling iron, like that from which the Curve No. n is 
 made, is poured against a chill, only a very thin portion will be 
 chilled, and behind this, toward the molten mass, will be formed 
 a dense black soft grain, probably at the same instant with the 
 chilled portion. This instantaneous passage of cast iron through 
 all of the stages of crystallization, from fluidity through the 
 3d Expansion, makes it impossible to fix the iron at any instant. 
 To get an approximate idea of the state of the iron, the bars 
 numbered 19, 25, and 30 were selected for analysis; No. 19 
 before the iron was solid, No. 25 during the 2d Expansion, and 
 No. 30 just as the 3d Expansion had reached its maximum. 
 The combined carbon in bar No. 19 was 0.60, in bar No. 25, 
 0.45, and in bar No. 30 it was 0.06. From the location'of the 
 
56 CAST IRON. 
 
 curves, bars 26, 27, and 28 were probably as hard and contained 
 as much combined carbon as No. 25. As bar No. 28 probably 
 contained 0.40 combined carbon, and as bar No. 30 contained 
 only 0.06 combined carbon, which is the same percentage as was 
 contained by the portion of the bars which were allowed to cool 
 in the air, it appears that the change of combined carbon into 
 graphite takes place in less than I minute in a casting I in. D 
 cooled in its own mold, and that this is the time when hard iron 
 changes to soft iron. After the 3d Expansion no further change 
 in the crystalline structure took place, and the shrinkage curve 
 was that ordinarily made by the loss of heat. The bars Nos. 19 
 and 25 were so hard that they could not be touched with a drill, 
 and it was very difficult to break off enough for analysis. It 
 would seem that the bars were much harder than could be 
 accounted for by the 0.60$ of combined carbon, while bar No. 30 
 was very soft. The final arrangement of crystals took place 
 during the 3d Expansion, and at that time the iron became soft. 
 Calling an iron by the number of its curve, No. 1 1 was intensely 
 hard for the first 10 minutes and became soft during the 3d 
 Expansion. In Nos. 12 and 13 the 3d Expansion was almost 
 lacking and the iron was left in its hard state. The facts were 
 that the castings made from the mixture of No. n were all soft, 
 while those made from Nos. 12 and 13 were difficult to drill. 
 Much depends upon the character of the original irons. No. 10 
 would almost scratch glass, but Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, made from 
 pig iron only, and melted in a crucible, though the 3d Expansion 
 is not great, were soft. An investigation may show that the 
 1st Expansion, being so large, had a softening influence, or that 
 the entire absence of the 2d Expansion may account for it. 
 
 Silicon is a Softener and a Lessener of Shrinkage. Curve 
 No. 4, Fig. 25, shows an immense 3d Expansion, and the iron 
 is so soft and open as to be very weak, and the silicon is 3.49^. 
 Curve No. 5 is one of iron containing 3.10$ of silicon. The 
 3d Expansion is not as great, and the iron is not quite as soft, as 
 in No. 4. Each lessening of silicon lessens the 3d Expansion, 
 
KEEP'S COOLING CURVES. 
 
 57 
 
 FIG. 25. 
 
58 CAST IRON. 
 
 and the iron is harder each time. The silicon of No. 1 1 is higher 
 than that of No. 4, being 3.85$, but No. u is from a regular 
 cupola mixture of close-grained low-carbon irons, and 40$ of the 
 mixture is the sprues made the previous day, and the latter have 
 been melted over each day. In irons producing curves Nos. 4 
 to 9, and 14, 15, and 16, the total carbon was nearly 4.00, and 
 all are open-grain pig iron, and melted without scrap in a cruci- 
 ble. In Nos. n, 12, and 13 the carbon was about 3.10$, phos- 
 phorus was i. 00$, and sulphur 0.10$, while in the crucible irons 
 Nos. 4 to 9 P was only 0.20 and S 0.04. 
 
 In the practical application of cooling curves to foundry work 
 the mold can be made in 20 minutes, and as soon as the iron is 
 running the bar can be poured. It takes 15 minutes to find the 
 3d Expansion. It is at once apparent whether the mixture needs 
 more or less silicon, and the charges of iron can be changed at 
 once if necessary. 
 
 Phosphorus, Sulphur, and Manganese in Cast Iron. In 
 Curve No. 14 (Fig. 25) phosphorus is 1.14$ and the silicon is 
 2.44$. The 1st Expansion continued longer than in Curve 
 No. 6, the 3d Expansion was greater, and the casting, therefore, 
 is softer. The final shrinkage begins higher up or from a greater 
 initial expansion, and the total shrinkage is therefore less than in 
 No. 6. In Curve No. 15 manganese was increased to 0.83$, 
 while the silicon is substantially the same as in No. 6, which was 
 about 2.50. The iron was hotter, and for this reason it remained 
 fluid for 2 minutes. The 1st Expansion was of shorter duration. 
 A 2d Expansion is almost apparent, and the 3d Expansion 
 occurred later, and was greater than in No. 6, therefore the iron 
 was no harder. In Curve No. 16 the sulphur was 0.169$. This 
 has greatly lessened the duration of the 1st Expansion, and has 
 both shortened and reduced the 3d Expansion, and has therefore 
 caused the iron to be harder than that of No. 6. 
 
 Size of Casting, and Expansion. Figs. 24 and 26 show 
 Curves Nos. 17, 18, II, 19, 20, 21, and 22, from test-bars -J" 
 X I", i" D, i" D, i" X 2", 2" D, 3" D, and 4'' D, which are 
 
KEEP'S COOLING CURVES. 59 
 
 the sizes that were made for the Committee's strength tests. In 
 No. 17 the casting became solid in 20 seconds, with a very slight 
 1st Expansion, and the 3d Expansion probably occurred in i 
 minutes. In No. 18 the 1st Expansion began as soon as the bar 
 was poured, and the curve shows the 2d and 3d Expansions. In 
 No. 19 the thickness of the bar was the same as in No. 1 1, but 
 the width was twice as great, and the ratio of cooling was slower, 
 and therefore all three expansions are retarded. In Nos. 20 and 
 2 i the size of the bar was so great that it was not congealed in 
 the center for some time after pouring, and the early beginning 
 of the ist Expansion must have been on account of the pins of 
 the test-bar being located on the edge of the mold. As soon as 
 the shell became rigid enough it expanded, the same as any solid 
 casting, and the slowness of cooling prolonged the period of each 
 expansion. The rate of cooling causes the location of the expan- 
 sion curves to be formed either earlier or later. 
 
 Effect of Hot or Dull Iron on Shrinkage. Fig. 27 gives 
 four examples of hot- and cold-poured test-bars. The apparatus 
 was arranged to make two curves at one time, and the test- 
 bars were half as long as those already examined. The 
 enlargement of the diagrams showing shrinkage in this chart is 
 therefore only ten times, but the time measure is the same as 
 before. 
 
 In each of the four examples presented, iron was caught in a 
 -ladle and emptied out several times in succession so as to heat it 
 very hot, and then 35 Ibs. of iron was caught and a bar i ft. long 
 and i in. D was poured immediately. The ladle was then 
 allowed to stand until a shell had formed on the top of the 
 remaining iron. A hole was broken through this shell, and the 
 iron under it poured into another test-bar of the same size. This 
 iron was as dull as would fill the mold, and to insure a full test- 
 bar the gates had been cut nearly as large as the mould for the 
 bar. The iron put into the first mold was white-hot and flowed 
 like water. The last was red and sluggish. The hot bar, 
 No. 26, became solid in a little more than a minute, when the 
 
6o 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 FTG 26. 
 
KEEP'S COOLING CURVES. 
 
 61 
 
 expansion began. The 2cl Expansion had begun when the dull 
 bar was poured, yet the dull bar went through the expansions so 
 much more rapidly that the temperature that produced the 
 3d Expansion was reached in both the hot- and dull-poured bars 
 at nearly the same time. The final shrinkage of the t\vo did not 
 vary much, though the hot bars shrank a little the most. The 
 dull-poured bar went through the changes more rapidly, because 
 it entered a cold mold, and was nearer the temperature at which 
 the 3d Expansion would occur, to begin with. 
 
 Temperatures at which the Three Expansions Take Place. 
 The diagrams show that each expansion occurs at a definite 
 temperature. In Fig. 27 the hot-poured bars had a greater 
 amount of heat to impart to the mold than the cold-poured bars, 
 
 FIG. 27. 
 
 and the temperatures necessary for the formation of the curves 
 were reached after a longer interval of time. The No. 10 bar in 
 Fig. 25 was poured very hot, and the 3d Expansion occurs after 
 a greater interval of time. Nos. 7 and 9 were dull, and the 
 3d Expansion occurs earlier than in the others. 
 
 If the rate of cooling is slower it will take a longer time to 
 reach the temperature at which each expansion takes place. For 
 example, in No. 1 1, Fig. 26, the 3d Expansion took place in 
 12 minutes; in No. 19 it was 20 minutes; in No. 20 it was 40 
 minutes; in No. 21 it was 85 minutes; and in No. 22 it was 140 
 
62 C^ST IRON. 
 
 minutes, which corresponds with the rates of cooling. It is 
 important to prove that each expansion occurs at a definite tem- 
 perature, and it would be a great satisfaction to know the exact 
 degree of heat. The cast-iron test-bar, as shown by the 1 8 bars 
 that were broken, was at quite a red heat at the 3d Expansion. 
 It may be found that a change in chemical composition may 
 hasten or retard the formation of the curves, irrespective of tem- 
 perature. For example, in the curves of iron and steel, Fig. 28, 
 the bars had just a reddish tinge in the sunlight, while the expan- 
 sion was taking place, and were a dull red, if shaded; and this 
 curve must correspond with the 3d Expansion in cast iron, which 
 takes place at a bright-red heat. 
 
 When does Carbon Combine when Heated towards Fusion ? 
 The cast-iron test-bar from which Curve No. 1 1 was taken 
 was heated as much as it was thought it would stand without 
 breaking, and was placed at a bright-red heat on the pins of the 
 machine. The result was a curve, I \a, Fig. 25. As this bar 
 was cooled in the open air the change was very rapid, and the 
 proportions of the diagram are different from the original. The 
 diagram begins just before the 3d Expansion. This shows that 
 the crystalline structure which produced the 3d Expansion had 
 been changed, during the latter part of the heating, to the struc- 
 ture which preceded the 3d Expansion. At that time most of 
 the carbon was combined, and the iron was extremely hard. 
 This experiment shows that in melting graphitic cast iron the 
 graphite changes to combined carbon when the temperature of 
 the 3d Expansion is reached, instead of at the temperature of 
 fusion. Unlike white cast iron, the iron is in an expanded state 
 from the 3d Expansion to the point of fusion; i.e., the atoms are 
 not as close together. In white iron, with the carbon combined 
 in the cold casting, there is no change in the crystalline struc- 
 ture during the heating, and the iron does not reach the 
 expansion which causes it to fuse until just before fusion. Gray 
 cast iron reaches its greatest expansion much sooner than white 
 iron, with the result that it melts from the outside of the casting, 
 
KEEP'S COOLING CURVES. 63 
 
 and does not become plastic to the extent that white cast iron 
 does. 
 
 The bar which produced Curve No. n was again heated, to 
 determine if a lower point on the curve could be reached, but it 
 fell apart in handling. Practically, the 3d Expansion is all that 
 can be reached by reheating. It was found that the bar was too 
 long to go in the machine after the second reheating, showing 
 that two heatings above the 3d Expansion had increased the size 
 of the crystals the same as ordinary annealing. The temperature 
 for annealing should, therefore, be that of the 3d Expansion. 
 
 To illustrate the expanded condition of cast iron of the quality 
 of No. 11, two of the gates from the 18 bars that were broken 
 were cleaned, and one of them was polished. Two ladles of 
 melted iron from the same heat were placed on the floor; one of 
 the 14-ounce gates was placed in each. They were plunged into 
 the fluid metal at first to cause the melted iron to come in contact 
 with the surface. Both gates (about I in. round X 4 ins. long) 
 lay on top of the melted metal until they were melted, about one- 
 fourth being above the surface. This took 2 minutes. The fact 
 that gray cast iron just before fusion is more expanded than when 
 cold or when fluid explains the phenomenon of the floating of 
 gray iron on the surface of fluid iron while it is melting. Drop a 
 piece of cold iron into molten iron. At first it sinks, then rises 
 and floats with about one-half its bulk above the surface until it 
 is all melted. 
 
 This seems to the author the first correct explanation for this 
 phenomenon. 
 
 Curves from Heated Rolled Steel (Fig. 28). The first bar 
 treated was a bar of merchant iron I in. Q by 26 ins. long, with 
 the holes for the pins 23f ins. apart. The expansion was so 
 great that when white-hot it was 24^ ins. long. As these bars 
 were cooled in the open air the shrinkage was very rapid. The 
 curve of No. 31 changed slightly after I minute, but it would need 
 other tests to show whether the metal became at all crystalline. 
 The next tested was a bar I in. Q of Jessops tool-steel, Curve 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 No. 32. This was then heated again, to see if it would become 
 more coarsely crystalline, Curve No. 33. The expansion (which 
 is the 3d) at the first heating was blended into the curve of 
 shrinkage, and was of shorter duration than that of the second 
 heating, showing that it became more coarsely crystalline by 
 reheating past the 3d Expansion. This was on account of its 
 
 
 
 JESSOP'S TOOL STEEL 
 
 mil 
 
 FIG. 28. 
 
 high carbon. (The pins of the machine, which were of Stubbs 
 steel, became enlarged by repeated heatings.) The next tested 
 was a bar of ij-in. Q mild steel, with carbon 0.45$, which was 
 expected to behave more like No. 31. The expansion curve, 34, 
 was so great, however, that while the 2 -ft. bar was shrinking at 
 the rate of ^/inr in. in 4 minutes, the 3d Expansion overcame this 
 shrinkage and carried the pencil backwards --- oi an inch. 
 
KEEP'S COOLING CURl'ES. 65 
 
 The second heating gave Curve No. 35. These curves show 
 that the shrinkage is going on at the same time with the expan- 
 sion, for the direction of the shrinkage curve after the expansion 
 is the same as it would have been if no expansion had taken 
 place, as shown in each case by the dotted line. The total 
 shrinkage of any iron or steel is therefore decreased by the 
 amount of the expansion. 
 
 At the second heating of the 0.45 C. steel, when the expan- 
 sion began, the color in sunlight was dark, with a faint red tinge; 
 by shading it from the light the side of the bar away from the 
 light was red. When the expansion was over, the bar on the 
 side away from the light was a dull red. The foreman said that 
 if the steel was red-short it would break if forged at such a color as 
 existed during the expansion. This remark, and the difference 
 between the expansions of Jf.ssops high-carbon steel and the 
 0.45% carbon mild steel, suggest the possibility of determining 
 this property in such metal by the use of these expansion curves. 
 
 In the practical application of these cooling curves any bar of 
 iron can have two J-in. holes drilled, 23! ins. apart, in 10 
 minutes; it can be heated in 10 minutes, and the record is made 
 in 5 minutes. 
 
 Relation of these Expansions to the Critical Points of Iron 
 and Steel. This cannot be ascertained until the temperature at 
 which each expansion takes place is determined. If these expan- 
 sions should occur at the temperatures 850, 750, and 650 C., 
 which correspond to the critical .points Ar. 3, Ar. 2, and Ar. I, 
 these expansions are caused by a change in the length of the 
 test-bar; in other words, it is purely a physical change and not 
 at all caused by any increase in temperature. If the expansion 
 was caused by a rise in temperature, then, in diagram No. 11, 
 during the 3d Expansion the temperature must have been higher 
 than when the iron was melted, which idea is absurd. 
 
 The expansion curves are caused by a rearrangement of 
 crystals, and is purely a physical process. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 PHOSPHORUS is reduced from phosphoric acid, which is found 
 in all fuel and in iron ores. Phosphorus is produced in two 
 forms, the ordinary white variety, with specific gravity 1.82, and 
 red phosphorus, with a specific gravity of 2.14. The latter is. 
 produced by heating the first variety, and will unite with pure iron 
 to form iron phosphide. The author could not make ordinary 
 white stick phosphorus exert any influence when introduced into 
 cast iron (Method 7). By melting wrought-iron drillings with 
 red phosphorus Mr. H. S. Fleming produced in his laboratory 
 10 Ibs. of phosphide of iron which contained 10.22$ of phos- 
 phorus. 
 
 Metallic phosphorus is said to have a specific gravity of 2.34. 
 If Truran's opinion is correct, the bulk of phosphorus being 
 greater than carbon should make iron more fusible. Ten per cent 
 iron phosphide melts as easily as cast iron. Very small per- 
 centages of phosphorus alloyed with commercially pure iron are 
 said to make it brittle when cold, but not when hot, and for this 
 reason such brittleness is called cold-shortness. This term can- 
 not be correctly applied to cast iron. As iron has an affinity for 
 phosphorus, it is found in all cast iron. 
 
 In the Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. i, for 1886, 
 Professor Turner says: "What is badly wanted at the presenl 
 moment is a series of experiments in which various proportions 
 of phosphorus should be added to a specimen of cast iron in which 
 all other constituents should be kept as nearly as possible con- 
 stant." 
 
 < 66 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 67 
 
 With the 10.22$ phosphide were made two series of test-bars. 
 The first with Gaylord white iron, Table XIX and Fig. 31, and 
 the second with F L M gray iron, Table XXII and Fig. 34 
 
 (Method 11). 
 
 376 377 378 379 38o 381 
 
 G. C. 1.62 G. C. 2.14 G. C. 1.53 G. C. 1.83 G. C. 1.57 G. C. 1.44 
 
 C. C. 1.51 C. C. .83 C. C. 1.59 C. C. 1.59 C. C. - C. C. 1.08 
 
 Si. .25 Si. .23 Si. .20 Si. .20 Si. .15 Si. .12 
 
 P. .26 P. .26 P. .26 P. .26 P. .26 P. .26 
 
 FIG. 29. White Iron (Remelts). Runners remelted with new iron. Carbons 
 in all, and Si. in 376 and 381, and P. of 376 from actual analysis. Other 
 percentages are estimated. 
 
 436 437 438 439 440 
 
 ale 
 
 ;.W 
 
 FIG. 30. Steel Wire added to White Iron, remelted as in Fig. 29, and all ele- 
 ments diluted as in Fig. 31. Analysis of 436 same as 376. To 440 was 
 added one per cent of aluminum, which made 440^, a solid casting. 
 
68 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 TABLE XVII. 
 
 WHITE IRON REMELTED. 
 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 
 
 
 Test 
 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos 
 Added. 
 
 
 Load 
 Def. 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 
 i sq. in 
 
 5xA 
 
 in. 
 
 
 370 
 
 White iron alone. 
 
 none 
 
 379 
 
 237 
 
 .14 
 
 2 4 8 
 
 246 
 
 
 377 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 J-7 1 
 
 178 
 
 . 13 
 
 2C-I 
 
 
 <u 
 
 378 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 2OI 
 
 101 
 
 .09 
 
 250 
 
 242 
 
 '.c 
 
 379 
 
 
 " 
 
 199 
 
 101 
 
 .09 
 
 243 
 
 238 
 
 
 
 380 
 
 c 
 
 " 
 
 179 
 
 85 
 
 .08 
 
 241 
 
 235 
 
 
 38i 
 
 ( 
 
 < 
 
 175 
 
 63 
 
 .08 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 TABLE XVIII. 
 
 WHITE IRON -f STEEL WIRE. 
 
 Test 
 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos. 
 Added. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead 
 Load 
 Def. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact 
 
 sq. in. 
 
 i X r ' 
 in. 
 
 436 
 
 437 
 438 
 
 439 
 440 
 
 538 
 
 White iron and wire, 
 i 
 
 
 
 << 
 < < 
 
 none 
 < < 
 
 1C 
 
 382 
 262 
 198 
 201 
 * 
 
 t 
 
 280 
 119 
 101 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 13 
 . IO 
 .10 
 
 .09 
 
 t 
 
 .250 
 .250 
 .246 
 .239 
 232 
 t 
 
 237 
 -2 3 6 
 
 V 
 
 "js 
 * 
 
 15 
 
 
 t 
 
 * Very sluggish. 
 
 t Would not run at all. 
 
 TABLE XIX. 
 
 WHITE IRON + PHOSPHORUS. 
 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos. 
 Added. 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load 
 Def 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 
 1 sq. in. 
 
 X & 
 in. 
 
 
 412 
 
 White iron& phos.of ir. 
 
 0.03 
 
 344 
 
 1 06 
 
 j j 
 
 
 
 
 413 
 
 
 0.05 
 
 2OO 
 
 94 
 
 .08 
 
 .236 
 
 225 
 
 ii 
 
 414 
 
 " 
 
 O. IO 
 
 214 
 
 122 
 
 .09 
 
 .221 
 
 .207 
 
 15 
 
 415 
 
 " 
 
 1-50 
 
 237 
 
 85 
 
 .09 
 
 .206 
 
 .2OO 
 
 t 
 
 416 
 
 " 
 
 2.OO 
 
 I 3 6 
 
 68 
 
 .06 
 
 .T97 
 
 
 53 
 
 416* 
 
 
 2. 50 
 
 1 2O 
 
 51 
 
 .06 
 
 193 
 
 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 
 TABLE XX. 
 
 FLM REMELTED. 
 
 6 9 
 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 
 
 Phos. 
 
 
 Dead 
 
 
 
 it 
 3. 
 
 Mixture- 
 
 Added. 
 
 
 
 Load 
 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Def. 
 
 Jsq. in. 
 
 iXA 
 
 in. 
 
 
 *2 
 
 F L M alone. 
 
 none 
 
 404 
 
 2 2O 
 
 .20 
 
 .176 
 
 243 
 
 I .OO 
 
 *3 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 400 
 
 230 
 
 .20 
 
 .180 
 
 .238 
 
 I.OO 
 
 M 
 
 " 
 
 ' 
 
 405 
 
 239 
 
 25 
 
 .179 
 
 .229 
 
 0.90 
 
 >5 
 
 11 
 
 " 
 
 399 
 
 365 
 
 .22 
 
 .183 
 
 .244 
 
 X -25 
 
 J6 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 420 
 
 331 
 
 .22 
 
 .186 
 
 .2 4 8 
 
 1-75 
 
 57 
 
 
 
 479 
 
 340 
 
 23 
 
 .208 
 
 .250 
 
 white 
 
 TABLE XXI. 
 
 F'-M -{- STEEL WIRE. 
 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos. 
 Added. 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Def. 
 
 isq. in. 
 
 i X A 
 in. 
 
 
 441 
 
 F L M and wire. 
 
 none 
 
 362 
 
 339 
 
 .27 
 
 .168 
 
 .186 
 
 .40 
 
 442 
 
 it 
 
 " 
 
 409 
 
 404 
 
 23 
 
 175 
 
 .216 
 
 .70 
 
 443 
 
 *' 
 
 4 ' 
 
 444 
 
 272 
 
 .19 
 
 .203 
 
 .225 
 
 2.00 
 
 444 
 
 " 
 
 Cl 
 
 493 
 
 330 
 
 .15 
 
 239 
 
 .258 
 
 white 
 
 445 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 533 
 
 437 
 
 .16 
 
 .258 
 
 .264 
 
 " 
 
 446 
 
 
 
 
 549 
 
 526 
 
 .17 
 
 .258 
 
 .263 
 
 
 TABLE XXII. 
 
 GRAY F L M -\- PHOSPHORUS. 
 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos. 
 Added. 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Def. 
 
 \ sq. in 
 
 in. 
 
 
 417 
 
 FLM 4- phos. of iron. 
 
 o 08 
 
 409 
 
 491 
 
 .29 
 
 .174 
 
 .I8 7 
 
 25 
 
 418 
 
 
 0.50 
 
 461 
 
 458 
 
 .25 
 
 .166 
 
 .184 
 
 55 
 
 419 
 
 ii 
 
 I.OO 
 
 382 
 
 280 
 
 .15 
 
 .168 
 
 .I8 7 
 
 .5 
 
 42O 
 
 < < 
 
 1.50 
 
 384 
 
 220 
 
 14 
 
 .I 7 8 
 
 .191 
 
 .90 
 
 421 
 
 < 
 
 2.00 
 
 2 7 6 
 
 137 
 
 .09 
 
 .192 
 
 .190 
 
 white 
 
 422 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 223 
 
 IOI 
 
 .08 
 
 .192 
 
 .186 
 
 
 
412 
 P. 0.26 
 
 4^3 4H 
 
 P. 0.50 P. i. oo 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 P. 1.50 
 
 416 4 i 6 2 
 
 P. 2 00 P. 2.50 
 
 FIG. 31. 10.22$ Iron Phosphide was added to White Iron, which diluted all 
 elements same as Fig. 30, except P. The analysis of 412 was T. C. 3.00, 
 Si. 0.25, P. 0.26. All other percentages are estimated. 
 
 382 383 384 385 386 387 
 
 T. C. 3.97 
 G*C. 2.81 
 C. C. 1,16 
 Si. 1.16 
 P. .08 
 
 T. C. 2.61 
 G.C.2.37 
 C. C. .24 
 
 Si. 1. 12 
 P. .08 
 
 T-C.3.37 
 G. C. 2.32 
 C. C. 1.05 
 Si. 1.04 
 P. .08 
 
 .3.57 
 
 cc. 2 ' 77 
 
 Si. i. 06 
 P. .08 
 
 FIG. 32. FLM Gray Iron (Remelts). Runners returned with new F L M. The 
 carbons of all with Si. and P. of 382 are by actual analysis. All other 
 percentages are estimated. 
 
 NOTE. The shadme of the cross-fmctures of all figures in this chapter should be carried to the 
 boundary of each square 
 
 The following questions presented themselves: First, what 
 effect would this manipulation of returning sprues to be remelted 
 and the long-continued heat exert on the test-bars ? Second, as 
 
441 
 
 PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 
 442 443 444 445 
 
 446 
 
 "it 
 
 FIG. 33. Wire added to F^M to dilute all elements as in Fig. 34. The per- 
 centages of 4*1 by analysis were T. C. 3.55, Si. 1.20, P. 0.08. All other 
 elements were diluted as in Fig. 34. 
 
 417 
 P. 0.08 
 
 FIG. 34. 10.22$ Iron Phoshide was added to F L M, which diluted all elements, 
 same as last, except P. By analysis 417 was T. C. 3.55, Si. 1.30. All 
 others estimated. 
 
 the phosphide consists of 90$ pure iron, what would be the effect 
 due to the introduction of this iron without the phosphorus ? 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 To find the influence of the manipulation a series of test-bars 
 was made of the pig iron alone (Method 12), Table XVII, Fig. 
 29, and Table XX, Fig. 32. 
 
 To find the influence of the iron of the phosphide there were 
 made series Table XVIII, Fig. 30, and Table XXI, Fig. 33. 
 Figs. 29 and 32 show that by the remelting of the sprues that 
 were returned silicon was decreased at each cast, and that the 
 increased size of blow-holes was due to this cause. 
 
 Figs. 30 and 33 show that the iron additions (from the phos- 
 phide) further decreased the silicon, which still farther increased 
 the number and size of blow-holes. While in Figs. 29 and 32 
 the carbons remained substantially uniform, Figs. 30 and 33, in 
 which wire was added, decreased in both carbon and silicon. In 
 440 the iron became so sluggish that the author could not carry 
 the series farther. 
 
 In the phosphide series, Figs. 3 1 and 34, which are exactly 
 like the series Figs. 30 and 33 except that the phosphorus con- 
 tents steadily increase, the blow-holes do not increase and are 
 less in number even than in Figs. 29 and 32. This proves that 
 phosphorus lessens the tendency to form blow-holes, because the 
 iron remains fluid longer. 
 
 For a further proof of this some samples of ' ' Durham ' ' white 
 pig iron were received which had been made for the basic steel 
 process. One had P. 3.57 (white), Si. 0.06; another (white) 
 
 TABLE XXIII. 
 
 WHITE -f- DURHAM PIG IRON. 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Calcu- 
 lated % 
 Phos. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead- 
 load 
 Def. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 \" 
 
 ."XaV 
 
 37 6 
 484 
 483 
 482 
 481 
 481* 
 
 
 0.25 
 0.50 
 1.50 
 2.50 
 3-50 
 3-57 
 
 379 
 314 
 296 
 
 257 
 205 
 
 175 
 
 237 
 153 
 I6 9 
 101 
 101 
 
 .14 
 . IO 
 .09 
 
 .08 
 .06 
 05 
 
 .2 4 8 
 
 237 
 .211 
 
 195 
 .188 
 .182 
 
 .246 
 .224 
 .205 
 
 193 
 .184 
 .182 
 
 li 
 
 \* 
 
 \< 
 
 White -f- Durham 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 73 
 
 P. 3.52, Si. 0.32. A test-bar was made from the sample with 
 only 0.06 silicon and 3.57 phosphorus and got a perfectly solid 
 casting. Each number of the Durham series, Table XXIII 
 (Method 10), was perfectly solid, but white, and would have 
 made a picture like the one next to 440. If it had not been for 
 the phosphorus, the low silicon of the Durham series would have 
 caused the castings to be very porous. 
 
 During the summer of 1888 a man at Moxahala Furnace dug 
 up in an old stock-yard two samples with 4.71$ of phosphorus 
 and 3.45$ of silicon. About the same time the author procured 
 a 2-lb. sample of gray Hafnden charcoal-iron made in 1854. 
 Professor Locke's analysis of this sample from Vol. V. of the 
 Ohio Geol. Report gave: Gr. 1.80, Cd. C. 0.50, P. 4.22, Si. 
 
 I.93- 
 
 The author procured I ton of pig made from Hamden ore 
 
 (6.90$ phosphoric acid) with P. 4.59, Si. 3.16. 
 
 From Hamden iron, with F L M, was made the Hamden series, 
 Table XXIV, Fig. 35 (Method 4). 
 
 TABLE XXIV. 
 
 FLM -f HAMDEN 4.59 P. 
 
 Test 
 
 No. 
 
 479 
 457 
 458 
 459 
 460 
 461 
 462 
 
 463 
 464 
 
 465 
 480 
 
 467 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos. 
 Added. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead- 
 load 
 Def. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 i" D 
 
 i"xA" 
 
 FLM + Hamden 
 
 25 
 .50 
 1. 00 
 1.50 
 2.OO 
 2.50 
 3-00 
 3-50 
 4.00 
 4.50 
 4.59 
 4.71 
 
 361 
 372 
 362 
 349 
 347 
 313 
 264 
 280 
 260 
 
 212 
 194 
 174 
 
 441 
 33 6 
 300 
 271 
 231 
 219 
 I 9 8 
 169 
 130 
 H3 
 IOI 
 101 
 
 32 
 .22 
 
 .18 
 
 .17 
 .16 
 
 15 
 
 *3 
 13 
 .11 
 .10 
 
 .10 
 
 .09 
 
 .154 
 .142 
 
 .137 
 137 
 .144 
 
 .143 
 .144 
 .145 
 .147 
 .141 
 .142 
 .146 
 
 .155 
 .156 
 .154 
 .150 
 .152 
 153 
 .1:3 
 .155 
 .161 
 
 .155 
 .163 
 .156 
 
 .07 
 .07 
 
 .12 
 15 
 .15 
 
 15 
 15 
 
 ib 
 .15 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 Do 
 
 Do .... 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 
74 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 479 
 P. 0.25 
 
 i 
 
 IPtQ. 35. F^M and Hamden Series. F^M pig had Si. 1.25, P. 0.08. Hamden 
 pig had Si. 3.16, P. 4.59 per cent. Enough " Pencost " with Si. n.oo per 
 cent was added to make 3.16 Si. in each. 479 is F L M with Si. 3.16. 480 is 
 Hamden. 467 is Moxahala. 
 
 For a more delicate test of phosphorus the author obtained 
 50 Ibs. of "Norway " gray iron with 1.65$ of phosphorus (Si. 
 2.03, S. o.oi % Mn. 0.87, Gr.C. 3.12, Cd.C. 0.63). To dilute the 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 75 
 
 phosphorus of this iron he used " Stewart " pig iron (P. 0.092, 
 Si. 1.99, S. 0.015, Mn. 0.50) (Method 9). 
 
 123 
 
 P. O.OI 
 
 124 125 126 
 
 p. 0.25 p. 0.50 p. 0.75 
 
 127 128 
 
 P. i.oo P. 1.25 
 
 FIG. 36. Stewart and Norway Series. 123 is Stewart, 118 is Norway. 
 
 Of each iron the pig used was the one 
 which was analyzed, and each iron was 
 of nearly the same constitution, ex- 
 cept phosphorus, and" of this element 
 " Stewart " has less, and Norway more, 
 than would be found in ordinary cast- 
 ings. Therefore a mixture of these 
 irons gives us a series corresponding very 
 nearly with the metal used in ordinary 
 foundry practice. 
 
 This series, Figs. 36 and 36^, is free 
 from all objections. 
 
 As there are thus five series from 
 which to formulate conclusions regard- 
 
 FIG. 36^. 
 
 ing the influence of phosphorus in cast iron, and as 
 series is made on an independent plan, we may place 
 
 each 
 con- 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 fidence in conclusions based upon them. In any test, consid- 
 eration is to be given, not to individual variations, but to the 
 general tendency of a whole series. 
 
 TABLE XXV. 
 
 STEWART + NORWAY PIG IRON. 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Phos. 
 Added. 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead- 
 load 
 Def. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 *"D 
 
 i"x T y 
 
 123 
 124 
 125 
 126 
 127 
 128 
 I2 9 
 118 
 
 
 0.01 
 0.25 
 0.50 
 0-75 
 I.OO 
 
 1.25 
 1.50 
 1.65 
 
 385 
 392 
 407 
 362 
 
 388 
 408 
 
 345 
 406 
 
 466 
 432 
 401 
 262 
 339 
 433 
 246 
 356 
 
 35 
 3i 
 .26 
 .18 
 
 .22 
 .29 
 
 17 
 .21 
 
 .156 
 151 
 .149 
 .152 
 .149 
 .151 
 153 
 153 
 
 .161 
 
 .158 
 154 
 158 
 157 
 159 
 .159 
 .158 
 
 .04 
 17 
 
 .10 
 02 
 .02 
 .20 
 
 Stewart -f- Norway. . . . 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 
 TABLE XXVI. 
 
 PHOSPHORUS IN THE 19 SERIES OF A. S. M. E. 
 
 
 Series. 
 
 Per Cent of Phosphorus. 
 
 i"ti 
 
 i"D 
 
 i"Xa" 
 
 2"C1 
 
 3"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 .211 
 
 .213 
 
 .214 
 
 215 
 
 .216 
 
 .216 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 273 
 
 .269 
 
 .270 
 
 .271 
 
 .272 
 
 .270 
 
 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 .270 
 .284 
 
 .267 
 .283 
 
 .268 
 .281 
 
 .267 
 .280 
 
 .266 
 
 .283 
 
 .267 
 .281 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 333 
 
 331 
 
 330 
 
 327 
 
 .325 
 
 329 
 
 
 . 
 
 6 
 
 .300 
 
 299 
 
 .296 
 
 .298 
 
 .297 
 
 .299 
 
 
 r 
 
 7 
 
 .201 
 
 .199 
 
 .197 
 
 .199 
 
 . 198 
 
 .200 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 . 164 
 
 .161 
 
 -I6 3 
 
 .163 
 
 .160 
 
 .l6l 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 .258 
 
 .211 
 
 .260 
 .218 
 
 253 
 .218 
 
 .251 
 .220 
 
 .250 
 
 .222 
 
 .261 
 .219 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 .264 
 
 275 
 
 275 
 
 300 
 
 255 
 
 .283 
 
 
 i 
 
 12 
 
 301 
 
 .296 
 
 -.295 
 
 .300 
 
 .299 
 
 303 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 T-J 
 
 .809 
 .826 
 
 .801 
 
 .828 
 
 795 
 .830 
 
 .800 
 
 8l7 
 
 .80 4 
 
 goQ 
 
 797 
 
 2 e 
 
 
 
 * J 
 
 15 
 
 .980 
 
 975 
 
 .972 
 
 . 01 / 
 
 972 
 
 O j\J 
 
 .971 
 
 0^3 
 
 973 
 
 C. O. Bretting & Co 
 
 
 16 
 
 ^OQ 
 
 aan 
 
 3OT 
 
 . ive. 
 
 198 
 
 iin 
 
 Mich. Mall. I. Co 
 
 
 17 
 
 J'-'V jj-~ j~ i j-j j~ j j-" 
 
 Average .222 per cent 
 
 Bement, Miles & Co . 
 
 
 * / 
 
 18 
 
 " 342 " 
 
 A. Whitney & Sons 
 
 
 19 
 
 jf~ 
 352 
 
 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 77 
 
 Table XXVI gives the analysis of phosphorus in each size of 
 test-bar in each mixture that was made for the Testing Committee 
 of the A. S. M. E. (Method i), and when compared with the 
 tables of physical properties of these same test-bars, especially 
 as compared with the Southern series, it will be seen that if c of 
 phosphorus does no harm. 
 
 Influence of Remelting on Phosphorus. There is very little 
 change. See analysis of Original Irons in Chapter III, and com- 
 pare with Table XXVI; also see Table LXIII. 
 
 The Influence of Phosphorus upon the Grain of Cast Iron. 
 Phosphorus produces a most peculiar grain, and of such a char- 
 acter that when once observed it is always readily recognized. 
 
 The 10.22$ phosphide, which is, as nearly as possible, iron 
 and phosphorus, has a flat peculiar fracture, with each grain 
 standing alone, and appearing as though it could be separated 
 easily from those next to it. It is no doubt this peculiarity in 
 the crystallization of iron and phosphorus which causes the weak- 
 ness of high phosphorus irons. The color is very different from 
 that of the fracture of wrought iron or steel. It is almost white, 
 with a tendency to straw color. If broken when hot, the fracture 
 was beautifully iridescent, shading from brilliant blues to bright 
 gold. In many places there are cavities filled with fine needles 
 of rich colors, the sides of which are brilliantly smooth and straw- 
 colored. 
 
 White and straw seem to be the colors imparted by phos- 
 phorus. In all further examinations of grain this peculiarity of 
 phosphorus as to color must be remembered. In the Hamden 
 iron the groundwork of the face of the fracture is light-colored, 
 with a very slight yellow tint, and apparently partly imbedded 
 in the surface are what appear to be round grains, either intensely 
 black and shining like minute glass beads, or else reflecting light 
 so as to have such an appearance. The fracture of the gray 
 F L M iron exhibited a dark spongy grain. The grain of each 
 individual member is such that the grain of a series gradually 
 changed from one of these extremes to the other. 
 
?8 CAST IRON. 
 
 By rubbing the finger across the fracture of the last member 
 of the series, the grains do not cling to each other or to the 
 finger, as in a strong tenacious iron, but to some extent feel as 
 though they were rubbed off. 
 
 In an iron deficient in graphite, or containing practically all 
 of its carbon in a combined state, phosphorus has but little effect 
 on the grain. 
 
 Iron so deficient in silicon that the carbon is almost wholly 
 combined tends to a lamellar fracture. Judging from the Durham 
 samples of white iron, we are led to think that phosphorus rather 
 increases this tendency. 
 
 Incidentally it may be mentioned in this connection that in 
 irons even as low as from i<f c to 2f of phosphorus, portions of the 
 surface of castings rapidly cooled are sometimes covered with a 
 brassy yellow tinge. Often the face that runs against the chill 
 is yellowish, or the surface for three-quarters of an inch from the 
 chill will be slightly yellow. 
 
 Particularly will a thin casting at the part farthest from the 
 gate show this yellowish color; with irons containing about 2j# 
 of silicon and i$ of phosphorus their castings will shade on the 
 surface from a blue to a golden tinge, which in some cases can 
 be brushed off with the hand. 
 
 In color all phosphorus iron is light. Hamden (480) is light, 
 and Moxahala is still lighter, and both have the round, black, 
 bead-like grains. In each phosphorus series the color lightens 
 with each addition of the phosphorus. 
 
 Phosphorus and Carbon. These tests show that the phos- 
 phorus exerts no influence to change combined carbon to graphite 
 or vice versa. The graphite, if present, must be there through 
 the influence exerted by some other element. The following is 
 a conclusive proof of this: a physical test of No. I Star iron (see 
 Table LXXVI) showed almost no chill, it being only o.oi of an 
 inch, or a mere film. 
 
 Mr. J. Blodget Britton found by analysis: " Pure iron 
 80.480, G.C. 3.405, Si. 4.387, P. 1.470, S. a trace, Cd.C. and 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 79 
 
 undetermined loss 0.071." He says: ." I failed in the attempt 
 to determine the combined carbon. I found that, practically, 
 strictly combined carbon was not present, or at least not in 
 quantity to exert any influence." Phosphorus seems to be a 
 perfectly passive element so far as carbon is concerned. 
 
 Phosphorus and Shrinkage. The shrinkage of a test-bar 
 made from wrought iron was 0.292, while a test-bar containing 
 10.22^ of phosphorus had a shrinkage of 0.164 in., showing that 
 the phosphorus had taken out more than 40$ of the shrinkage. 
 This indicates that phosphorus acts by itself. 
 
 In testing the influence of phosphorus in cast iron to reduce 
 shrinkage an iron very low in silicon should be taken. Such 
 series are White and P., Table XIX, and White and Durham, 
 Table XXIII. The iron remained white, and for this reason the 
 great decrease cannot be ascribed to any change in carbon, but 
 is to be attributed directly to phosphorus. In the Hamden series 
 there is a rapid fall in shrinkage until \% of phosphorus is reached. 
 The same is true for the Stewart-Norway series, though the 
 change is not great. 
 
 From our knowledge of the effect of silicon through its action 
 on carbon, and of phosphorus acting directly on the iron, the 
 least possible shrinkage must be expected in iron with the largest 
 amount of graphite, silicon, and phosphorus. This is the case. 
 All high phosphorus pig irons have low shrinkage. Certain irons 
 which contain from 4% to 7$ silicon have been so much used on 
 account of their ability to soften other irons that they have come 
 to be known as " softeners," and as lesseners of shrinkage. 
 These irons are valuable as carriers of silicon; but those accus- 
 tomed to their use will perceive that the irons which are sold 
 most as softeners and shrinkage-lesseners are those containing 
 from \<f> to 2% of phosphorus. We must therefore ascribe the 
 reputation of some of them largely to the phosphorus and not 
 wholly to the silicon which they contain. 
 
 It is new to consider phosphorus in this light in foundry prac- 
 tice, but it must be remembered that from \% to \% will do all 
 
8o CAST IRON. 
 
 that can be done in a beneficial way, and that all above that 
 amount weakens the iron without corresponding benefit. 
 
 The Influence of Phosphorus upon the Strength of Cast- 
 iron. All of these tests show that while phosphorus of itself, in 
 whatever quantity present, weakens cast iron, yet in quantities 
 less than 1.5$ its influence in this direction is not sufficiently 
 great to overbalance other beneficial effects which are exerted 
 before the percentage reaches \%. Probably no element, of 
 itself, weakens cast iron as much as phosphorus, especially when 
 present in large quantities. 
 
 The Influence of Phosphorus upon the Chill of Cast Iron. 
 In the F L M series, Table XXII and Fig. 34, silicon decreases 
 with each addition, and as a consequence the depth of chill 
 increases. 
 
 In the F L M and Hamden series in cast 479, which is of F L M, 
 with its silicon brought to 3.16$, the chill is only a little over 
 o. 10 of an inch deep. The chill is only slightly more in the case 
 of 480, which is of Hamden alone, with 3.16$ of silicon. 
 
 The chill of each cast of the series does not materially vary 
 from that of the others ; 467 is a cast of Moxahala pig iron which 
 was made from a different ore, and where the furnace was running 
 regularly. It shows less chill than Hamden iron, while its phos- 
 phorus is higher. 
 
 In the Stewart-Norway series the chill remains the same, in 
 fact it decreases as phosphorus increases. 
 
 Phosphorus and Hardness. In the chapter on Hardness and 
 that on Silicon Irons I have shown that the ordinary cause of 
 hardness in cast iron is combined carbon, and that under ordinary 
 conditions silicon may exert a softening influence, but that exces- 
 sive silicon causes hardness. 
 
 The tests reported in this chapter show that phosphorus does 
 not ordinarily harden cast iron, probably because it does not 
 increase combined carbon. Further experiments might show 
 exceptions, for the 10.22$ phosphide is hard, while wrought iron 
 cast alone is soft. Hamden is hard, as also is Moxahala. 
 
PHOSPHORUS IN CAST IRON. 81 
 
 The mixture of the hard Hamden with soft 479 shows hard- 
 ness to increase as Hamden increases in quantity. 
 
 The hardness records as a whole indicate that phosphorus is 
 neither a hardening nor softening agent; but if it is either, the 
 tendency is on the side of hardening. 
 
 Phosphorus and Fluidity. The conclusion reached from 
 these tests is that the fluidity of the metal is slightly increased by 
 phosphorus, but not to any such extent as has been ascribed 
 to it. By watching the cooling of the metal in the mold after 
 being poured, it was found that the time required for freezing 
 varies directly with the percentage of phosphorus, the phosphide 
 cast holding its heat longer than any other. This property of 
 remaining long in the fluid state must not be confounded with 
 fluidity, for it is not the measure of its ability to make sharp cast- 
 ings or to run into the very thin parts of a mold. 
 
 Generally speaking, however, the statement is justified that, 
 to some extent, phosphorus prolongs the period of fluidity of the 
 iron while it is filling the mold. 
 
 General Remarks. The endeavor has been to exhibit the 
 action of phosphorus separated from all other influences. But we 
 must not expect that a given percentage of phosphorus will behave 
 at all times as it has done in these tests, for other elements may 
 be present in such a way as to modify results. 
 
 Are the favorite irons high in phosphorus ? The old Scotch 
 irons contained about i$. The foundry irons which make the 
 best thin castings in the Eastern States contain, as a general rule, 
 over \% of phosphorus. From an extensive examination of 
 English foundry irons Professor Turner concludes that the best 
 foundry iron should contain about \%. It has always been notice- 
 able that the irons which are rejected by the rolling-mill people 
 on account of phosphorus are most acceptable to the founder. 
 American pig iron will rarely impart to castings more than this 
 percentage. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 SULPHUR exists in nature as a brittle solid, of lemon-yellow 
 color, and has a specific gravity of 2.05. It is of volcanic origin 
 and alloys with pure iron in all proportions. Very small percen- 
 tages are said to cause wrought iron and steel to become brittle 
 at a red heat, though strong at a white heat and when cold, 
 which peculiarity has given to this kind of brittleness the name 
 of red-shortness. All mineral fuel and many ores of iron contain 
 sulphur, therefore most cast iron contains a small percentage of 
 sulphur, which in gray cast iron is very small indeed, as carbon 
 seems to prevent its absorption. The term red-short cannot be 
 correctly applied to cast iron. 
 
 In 1886 Professor Turner said: "We are still in need of 
 exact information as to the influence of sulphur in cast iron." 
 
 Almost without exception, writers on the subject say that 
 sulphur in cast iron will cause it to be white and is in every 
 way injurious. All founders believe that a small amount of 
 sulphur in the fuel will work great damage, and that if any 
 castings crack, or if anything out of the general run occurs, i 
 maybe charged to sulphur in the fuel. Fuel rarely contains mrr 
 than iti of sulphur, and if this can produce so marked au 
 effect, one would suppose it an easy matter to introduce sulphui 
 into cast iron, so as to produce castings containing different 
 desired percentages of sulphur. 
 
 As carbon is increased toward saturation, as in white cast 
 iron, about 0.05$ of sulphur can be retained; and as silicon 
 
 83 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 increases, changing carbon into graphite, less sulphur is found in 
 the iron. 
 
 Writers say that the influence of sulphur in all cast iron -is to 
 drive out carbon and to increase chill, to increase shrinkage, and 
 as a general thing to decrease strength. 
 
 By melting iron of uniform composition in a crucible, and 
 adding brimstone, the following results were obtained (Table 
 XXVII, Method 4): 
 
 TABLE 
 
 Test 
 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 K^ Shrinka ^ 
 
 41 
 
 With no sulphur. 
 
 411 
 
 .I2O 
 
 48 
 
 With sulphur 
 
 432 
 
 .160 
 
 . 47 
 
 " " 
 
 358 .176 
 
 46 
 
 .... 
 
 263 
 
 .207 
 
 By three tests, melting the same kind of iron as above in a. 
 crucible, and adding fluor-spar free from galena to one crucible, 
 and to other crucibles adding almost pure galena (containing 
 over 14$ sulphur), Table XXVIII (Method 4) was obtained. 
 
 TABLE XXVIII. 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture 
 
 Dead-load 
 Strength. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 51 
 
 c e 
 
 With good fluorspar 
 W^ith galena. 
 
 367 
 260 
 
 137 
 ifis 
 
 ^6 
 
 
 jfiT 
 
 . ID;, 
 I7O 
 
 
 
 
 
 To soft iron from a cupola were added, in one ladle, iron pyrites 
 (containing 39.88$ sulphur); in another "blue billy" (with S. 
 9.15$); in another were placed selected brown spots from coke 
 supposed to be rich in sulphur; in another, the purest coke that 
 could be selected ; and in still another, iron ore of practically the 
 
8 4 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 same composition as that in the pyrites and "blue billy," only 
 with no sulphur. Each of these materials was ground to a fine 
 powder, and small foundry ladles were lined with a pound of 
 each, and into each ladle 15 Ibs. of iron was poured from the 
 cupola. The result was Table XXIX (Method 2). 
 
 TABLE XXIX. 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead-load 
 Deflection. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Deafc Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 60S 
 603 
 604 
 60 5 
 606 
 60 7 
 
 
 342 
 332 
 346 
 380 
 274 
 255 
 
 271 
 322 
 271 
 
 345 
 119 
 169 
 
 .18 
 .18 
 .18 
 .19 
 .08 
 .07 
 
 151 
 154 
 153 
 159 
 .208 
 .194 
 
 15 
 .10 
 . 10 
 
 13 
 White 
 
 
 Sulphury coke 
 
 Iron ore 
 
 " Blue Billy " 
 
 
 
 This test shows that iron pyrites imparts its sulphur to gray 
 iron and turns it white. 
 
 In this series of tests the iron alone showed an unusually high 
 shrinkage and chill, because of the ladles being freshly lined and 
 not having had iron caught in them before the test. To find 
 whether this would influence the iron, three ladles were freshly 
 lined and dried. In one of these the iron was caught, and the ladle 
 was then allowed to become cold. Another was used contin- 
 uously, and the third was not used prior to the test. A set of 
 bars was then poured from each ladle with the following results, 
 Table XXX (Method 2): 
 
 TABLE XXX. 
 
 Test No. 
 
 
 Dead-load 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead-load 
 Deflection. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 624 
 
 Hot dried ladle.. . 
 
 335 
 
 .18 
 
 143 
 
 .07 
 
 623 
 
 Cold " " ... 
 
 386 
 
 .20 
 
 .151 
 
 .04 
 
 622 
 
 Green fresh ladle. 
 
 369 
 
 .19 
 
 .156 
 
 .06 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 This series shows that conditions often overlooked may influ- 
 ence castings more than chemical constitution. The iron in all 
 the ladles was of exactly the same composition, for it was caught 
 in a large ladle and at once poured into the small ladles. 
 
 In the endeavor to make a high-sulphur pig iron (Method 4), 
 25 Ibs. of F L M gray iron was melted in a crucible, and fed slowly 
 with 8 Ibs. of brimstone, keeping it as closely covered as possible. 
 The operation occupied about two hours, and when completed 
 there was at the bottom about 5 Ibs. of silver-white iron, covered 
 with a very rich sulphide of iron. 
 
 This white iron showed, by analysis, 0.58 sulphur, which was 
 conclusive proof that a carbonized iron rich in sulphur could not 
 be made artificially. 
 
 Messrs. Weston and Smith, in Dr. Percy's laboratory, found 
 that it was difficult in any case to cause cast iron to take up sul- 
 phur, and they did not say that it turned the iron white. With 
 our. knowledge of the action of silicon gained from the preceding 
 pages, their experiments prove rather the reverse. 
 
 The author made a series of tests with F L M gray pig iron, 
 Table XXXI, adding brimstone to the melted metal (Method 7). 
 This series was remelted and the results of the original are given 
 in heavy figures, and of the remelt series in light figures, side by 
 side. 
 
 TABLE XXXI. 
 
 Test No. 
 
 Mixture, Crucible. 
 
 Strength 
 
 Dead- 
 load De- 
 flection. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 -SO .60 
 
 50 .70 
 .65 .70 
 .70 .70 
 .55 -60 
 .50 .70 
 .70 .40 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Square 
 Sar. 
 
 Flat Bar. 
 
 253 
 265 
 266 
 267 
 268 
 269 
 270 
 
 F^M and o.ooS 
 Do. o.ioS 
 Do. 0.308 
 
 397 -413 
 .378 .396 
 395 -397 
 081 -3$c 
 
 .305 -333 
 .322 .367 
 .384 -368 
 333 .384 
 .209 .330 
 .362 .322 
 351 .271 
 
 .23 .21 
 
 .23 .23 
 .26 .25 
 
 ,-22 .25 
 .17 .23 
 .22 .21 
 .26 .18 
 
 .166 168 
 .169 178 
 .172 181 
 .179 186 
 193 193 
 .192 193 
 193 194 
 
 .221 .226 
 
 225 225 
 .231 .231 
 
 .219 212 
 .242 .223 
 .228 .222 
 .237 .220 
 
 Do. o.SoS 
 Do i ooS. ... 
 
 3" 369 
 345 -336 
 374 -34 
 
 Do. 2.ooS 
 
 The amount of brimstone necessary to produce so great a 
 percentage of sulphur required, towards the last, two or three 
 separate additions, and consequently the burning of two or three 
 
86 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 hollow plugs in the metal. The same metal (F L M) was melted, 
 and the insertion of two empty plugs gave the results shown by 
 the heavy figures of Table XXXII. The remelt is shown by the 
 light figures. The grain of the remelt of 254 is shown in the last 
 number of Fig. 40. 
 
 TABLE XXXII. 
 
 Test No. 
 
 Iron. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead- 
 load De- 
 flection. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Square 
 Bar. 
 
 Flat Bar. 
 
 254 
 
 F^M o.o S. with 2 plugs 
 
 .425 -408 
 
 339 -369 
 
 .33 .26 
 
 .180 .166 
 
 .179 .250 
 
 0.40 .60 
 
 Fig. 37 shows the fracture and chill of each of the remelted 
 bars in Table XXXI. 
 
 253 265 266 267 268 269 270 
 
 S. o.oo S. o.io 8.0.30 8.0.50 S. 0.80 S. i.oo S. 2.00 
 
 FIG. 37. F L M + Brimstone. 
 
 While the strength decreases slightly with each addition of 
 brimstone, the shrinkage shows a decided increase, and this 
 increase remains constant in the remelts, while in Table XXXII 
 the shrinkage of the remelt returns to its original figure. The 
 remarkable thing is that the chill is not affected, and the grain, to 
 say the least, is as even after the addition of sulphur as before. 
 
 The following series of tests are on a different plan. Sulphide 
 of iron was introduced into molten cast iron from a cupola. 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 As the sulphide would not give up its sulphur when remelted, it 
 formed a compound of carbonized iron and sulphide of iron. 
 The sulphide was only in the iron a very few moments before it 
 was put in the molds, and therefore most of the sulphur is prob- 
 ably in the test-bars. A number of series were made in this way. 
 In ordinary foundry practice this union would not occur, but 
 this is the only way to cause a large percentage of sulphur to 
 .stay in carbonized iron. The first sulphide that was used contained 
 25$ of sulphur and 75$ of pure iron. It had a shrinkage, when 
 cast alone, of square bar .107 and thin bar .125. Enough sul- 
 phide was placed in six foundry ladles to give the desired per- 
 centage of sulphur to the castings. Enough 11$ ferrosilicon 
 was added to keep the silicon the same as in the cupola iron, 
 which was about 2.50$. Enough scrap of the same composition 
 was also added to make the cooling effect the same in each ladle. 
 The iron was caught from the cupola in a large ladle and at once 
 divided among the small ladles. The materials added were 
 cemented to the bottom of the ladle with fire-clay. As the 
 added portions melted, they came to the top through the molten 
 iron and remained there. The bars poured last from a ladle 
 showed that more and more of the sulphide was absorbed as more 
 time was given. The test gave the results of Talkie XXXIII 
 (Method 2). 
 
 TABLE XXXIII. 
 
 Test 
 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Dead-load 
 Deflection. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Square Bar. 
 
 625 
 626 
 
 Cupola iron, o.ooS. . . 
 Do. .108... 
 
 397 
 422 
 
 
 .21 
 .21 
 
 r .i5i 
 
 .152 
 
 .04 
 -03 
 
 299 
 
 627 
 
 Do. .308... 
 
 410 
 
 352 
 
 .21 
 
 .152 
 
 .06 
 
 628 
 
 Do. .508... 
 
 400 
 
 339 
 
 .21 
 
 .150 
 
 03 
 
 629 
 
 Do. .8oS. .. 
 
 385 
 
 307 
 
 .19 
 
 157 
 
 05 
 
 630 
 
 Do. i.ooS... 
 
 340 
 
 271 
 
 .19 
 
 .165 
 
 .08 
 
88 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 In the 0.80$ set of bars the first bar had a shrinkage of .153,, 
 and the last .165. In the \% bars the shrinkage of the bars 
 was .153, .169, .168, .175, and .174, showing that sulphide was 
 absorbed as time was given, or else that the iron highest in sul- 
 phide did not run out first. The influence of cooling in the ladle 
 with no sulphide present produces a contrary effect, as is shown, 
 for example, in the following five sets, Table XXXIV. The first 
 bar was poured when the iron was first caught; the second when 
 the iron was half cooled down ; and the third when the iron would 
 just fill the mold. 
 
 TABLE XXXIV. 
 
 No SULPHUR. 
 
 Test No. 
 
 Dead-load Strength. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Very hot. 
 
 Partly 
 cooled. 
 
 Would 
 just run. 
 
 Very hot. 
 
 Partly 
 cooled. 
 
 Would 
 just run. 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 25 
 26 
 
 366 
 427 
 392 
 441 
 413 
 
 424 
 456 
 427 
 450 
 
 418 
 478 
 450 
 473 
 427 
 
 .156 
 .120 
 .151 
 154 
 
 .157 
 
 157 
 .128 
 .148 
 .154 
 .162 
 
 .142 
 .121 
 135 
 .151 
 .170 
 
 
 Table XXXV is exactly like the last sulphide series (Table 
 XXXIII) except that the additions were pounded fine and were 
 thrown into the ladle loose, just before the iron was poured in 
 (Method 2). 
 
 In this series the sulphide was melted more quickly and 
 formed a more perfect alloy, though a considerable amount floated 
 on top. The grain and chill are shown in Fig. 38. 
 
 TABLE XXXV. 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead-load 
 
 
 
 Test No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 
 
 Deflection 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact 
 
 
 Square 
 Bar. 
 
 
 614 
 
 Cupola iron and o.oo S. 
 
 392 
 
 299 
 
 .21 
 
 .144 
 
 .01 
 
 609 
 
 .ioS. 
 
 395 
 
 282 
 
 .19 
 
 .144 
 
 .04 
 
 610 
 
 .308. 
 
 365 
 
 254 
 
 .20 
 
 .I6l 
 
 03 
 
 611 
 
 .. .508. 
 
 382 
 
 237 
 
 .19 
 
 173 
 
 05 
 
 612 
 
 .8oS. 
 
 348 
 
 212 
 
 17 
 
 .178 
 
 .10 
 
 613 
 
 i.ooS. 
 
 312 
 
 225 
 
 .16 
 
 177 
 
 .10 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 89 
 
 614 
 S. o.oo 
 
 FIG. 38. Cupola Iron + S. 
 
 A series of test-bars was made in a crucible using F L M gray pig 
 iron (1.25 silicon and 3.50 carbon), adding a sulphide of iron 
 containing 22% of sulphur. This, unlike Table XXXIII, had no 
 silicon added to keep the silicon uniform, and therefore by the 
 addition of the iron sulphide both silicon and carbon were diluted. 
 The tests gave the following record, Table XXXVI (Method 1 1): 
 
 TABLE XXXVI. 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture, Crucible. 
 
 
 Dead-load 
 Deflection 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Square 
 Bar. 
 
 Flat Bar 
 
 429 
 
 F L M. with o.oo S. 
 
 335 
 
 330 
 
 23 
 
 .166 
 
 .200 
 
 .60 
 
 430 
 
 .loS. 
 
 344 
 
 322 
 
 .20 
 
 193 
 
 234 
 
 65 
 
 431 
 
 30S. 
 
 364 
 
 263 
 
 .14 
 
 .208 
 
 .240 
 
 1-25 
 
 432 
 
 .8oS. 
 
 389 
 
 212 
 
 .12 
 
 245 
 
 .244 
 
 all 
 
 433 
 
 i. oo S. 
 
 422 
 
 305 
 
 .14 
 
 .241 
 
 .236 
 
 all 
 
 434 
 
 1.50 S. 
 
 410 
 
 2 4 8 
 
 .14 
 
 245 
 
 .244 
 
 all 
 
 435 
 
 2.00 S. 
 
 366 
 
 212 
 
 .18 
 
 .242 
 
 .241 
 
 all 
 
 Fig. 39 shows the grain of this series. 
 
 The decrease of silicon and carbon along with the increase of 
 sulphur introduces a complication ; and to find out which produced 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 the change in strength, shrinkage, chill, etc., examine the results 
 shown in Fig. 33 and Table XXI (Method 13) in Chapter IX. 
 
 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 
 
 T. 0.3.55 T. .3.46 T. 0.3.37 T. C. 3.28 T.C. 3.19 T. C. 3.11 T. C. 3.02 
 
 Si. 1.20 Si. 1.17 Si. 1.14 Si. i.n Si. 1.08 Si. 1.05 Si. 1.02 
 
 P. 0.08 P. 0.08 P. 0.07 P. 0.07 P. 0.07 P. 0.06 P. 0.05 
 
 S. 0.04 S. o.io S. 0.30 S. 0.80 S. i. oo T. 1.50 S. 2.00 
 
 \\\ 
 
 FIG. 39. F L M + S. 
 
 If we subtract each member of Table XXI from the corre- 
 sponding member of Table XXXVI, we shall find approximately 
 the change due to sulphur. 
 
 A series was made (Method 11) with white pig iron in a 
 crucible using the 22% sulphide. The white iron contained o. 186 
 silicon and 2.98 carbon, and the additions diluted the silicon and 
 carbon as sulphur increased. This is shown in Table XXXVII. 
 
 TABLE XXXVII. 
 
 Test 
 No. 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 11 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 a <u 
 
 rttc 
 
 3 
 
 Square 
 Bar. 
 
 Flat 
 Bar. 
 
 424 
 425 
 426 
 427 
 428 
 
 White iron, with o.oo S. 
 " .ioS. 
 
 " .30 s. 
 
 " .8oS. 
 " i.oo S. 
 
 3C5 
 349 
 269 
 
 179 
 133 
 
 169 
 161 
 149 
 
 IOI 
 
 51 
 
 .10 
 15 
 .11 
 .09 
 .07 
 
 .246 
 .248 
 .249 
 .238 
 .232 
 
 .236 
 
 all 
 all 
 all 
 all 
 all 
 
 .229 
 .223 
 233 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 The grain and chill are shown in Fig. 40. To find the influ- 
 ence due to the dilution of silicon and carbon see Table XVIII 
 and Fig. 30, Chapter IX. Subtracting from Table XXXVII 
 we find the influence of silicon, and that it was the decrease of 
 silicon and carbon that produced the blow-holes. 
 
 424 425 426 427 428 254 
 
 S. o.oo 
 
 429 
 c. 3-50 
 
 S. o.oo 
 
 FIG. 40. White Pig Iron -f- Iron Sulphide. 
 
 587 588 589 590 591 
 
 C. 3.49 C. 3.46 C. 3.43 C. 3.39 C. 3.37 
 
 S. o.io S. 0.30 S. 0.50 S. o.So S. i.oo 
 
 PIG. 41. F L M + Sulphide, with Si. kept at 1.25$, otherwise this series is the 
 
 same as Fig 39. 
 
 Another series was made in a crucible using F L M and the 25$ 
 iron sulphide (Method 4), and in this case there was added enough 
 silicon to keep this element at 1.25$ in all cases. The results are 
 shown in Table XXXVIII and Fig. 41. 
 
 No cast was made of F L M alone, and therefore test record 
 429 was used. 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 The grain of 593 was exactly the same as 592. 
 
 As the silicon did not vary, it leaves only one element of 
 uncertainty, viz., the carbon content, which was reduced to 3.22 
 in the last combination. To ascertain the effect of such a reduc- 
 tion of carbon with no reduction of silicon and without sulphur, 
 the crucible tests (Method 6), Table IV and Fig. 18, Chapter V, 
 were made with the same F L M, adding wire to reduce carbon, 
 but keeping silicon uniform by additions of I \<f> silicon iron. 
 
 TABLE XXXVIII. 
 
 
 
 
 Strength. 
 
 -a c 
 o 
 
 Shiinkage. 
 
 
 
 Test 
 
 No 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 
 i U 
 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Per 
 Cent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dead 
 Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 <a <U 
 
 QQ 
 
 Square 
 Bar. 
 
 Flat 
 Bar. 
 
 
 Carbon 
 
 429 
 
 F L M with o.oo S. 
 
 335 
 
 330 
 
 23 
 
 .166 
 
 .2OO 
 
 .60 
 
 3-50 
 
 587 
 
 .10 S. 
 
 375 
 
 3 IO 
 
 23 
 
 .189 
 
 .2OI 
 
 .60 
 
 3-49 
 
 588 
 
 . 3 oS. 
 
 343 
 
 279 
 
 .12 
 
 .197 
 
 239 
 
 .80 
 
 
 589 
 
 .50 S. 
 
 355 
 
 305 
 
 .10 
 
 .221 
 
 .240 
 
 1.00 
 
 3-43 
 
 590 
 
 .80 S. 
 
 390 
 
 279 
 
 .12 
 
 .241 
 
 .244 
 
 all 
 
 3-39 
 
 591 
 
 i. oo S. 
 
 493 
 
 347 
 
 15 
 
 .250 
 
 .248 
 
 all 
 
 3 37 
 
 592 
 
 1.508. 
 
 333 
 
 288 
 
 .12 
 
 .249 
 
 .240 
 
 all 
 
 3-30 
 
 593 
 
 2.00 S. 
 
 410 
 
 322 
 
 .14 
 
 .251 
 
 .244 
 
 all 
 
 3-22 
 
 It is seen by comparing the 3.22 C. member in Table 
 XXXVIII with the 3.25 C. member in Table IV that 2% of sul- 
 phur reduced strength 50 Ibs., turned the iron white, and 
 increased shrinkage 0.77. The reduction of carbon (Table IV) 
 does not turn the iron perfectly white until it reaches 2.25$. 
 
 The preceding experiments were each made with 10 or 15 
 Ibs. of material, and were conducted as in ordinary foundry work, 
 and the sulphur was in contact with the melted iron fully as long* 
 as would be possible in cupola melting, and in several of the 
 series very much longer. 
 
 The following experiments were made by placing a small 
 amount of iron and iron sulphide in a small crucible in a labora- 
 tory furnace, where it would necessarily be exposed to the heat 
 for a long time, and the iron and sulphide would have time to 
 form a perfect mixture. As I understand it, the quantity was 
 only sufficient to form a button at the bottom of the crucible. 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 93 
 
 Professor Turner * says that he remelted artificially prepared 
 iron containing \\% sulphur, and while the sulphur remained in 
 the iron in this case, yet the iron was soft and could be filed and 
 flattened at the corners with a hammer. 
 
 Mr. Weston, in Dr. Percy's laboratory, took an artificially 
 made white iron, with over 4^ carbon ; but as it contained no 
 silicon, it was white. He added sulphur to this by means of a 
 sulphide (29.9 S.). To the first cast was added by the sulphide 
 4.38$ of sulphur, but one-half was lost in melting. The next 
 time 2.38$ of S. was added, and only one-quarter was lost. 
 Next 1.24$ of S. was added, and nearly one-half was lost. 
 
 This last was remelted with no loss of sulphur, but was 
 mottled. In the first three cases the product was white, the same 
 as the original iron. The last, in two meltings, had absorbed 
 enough silicon to turn it to a mottle in spite of the decrease of 
 carbon and the presence of sulphur. 
 
 Mr. Smith, in the same laboratory, mixed with gray cast iron 
 enough of the sulphide to add 2.68$ sulphur, but found only 
 0.78$, nearly three-quarters being lost. The product was white, 
 as there was not enough silicon present to overcome this amount 
 of sulphur. This was remelted with a further loss of over half 
 the remaining sulphur, leaving a mottled iron; that is, the iron 
 contained enough silicon to overcome the influence of 0.40$ of 
 sulphur. 
 
 He mixed another lot of gray cast iron with enough of the 
 same sulphide to make 0.90$ sulphur, with a loss of nine-tenths 
 of the sulphur in melting. 
 
 At another time he took a No. 2 gray iron and mixed the 
 sulphide in sufficient quantity to make the sulphur 1.65$, and lost 
 about one-third. The product was white. 
 
 In all of the above experiments of Weston and Smith, except 
 the first, graphite separated from the iron and appeared on the 
 outside of the metal. 
 
 * Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 1888. No. i, p. 88. 
 
94 CAST IRON. 
 
 This would not indicate that the sulphur necessarily caused 
 the carbon to retain its combined form. 
 
 In the fourth experiment of Mr. Weston, he began with a 
 perfectly white iron and remelted it twice, the first time with 
 1.24$ sulphur, and finally with 0.72$. More than half that was 
 added remained, and yet the casting was mottled. It has been 
 proved by Tables XXXI and IV that if a gray iron has its silicon 
 lessened sufficiently, it will be mottled or white. If it contains 
 but a small percentage of silicon, it cannot be anything but white. 
 In every case Messrs. Weston and Smith used clay crucibles, and 
 the iron would take some silicon from this source, while the gray- 
 ness of the mottled product shows that the sulphur did not 
 counteract the influence of silicon. In Mr. Smith's experiments, 
 gray cast iron is taken in every case, but the sulphide which he 
 adds is made up of 70$ of pure iron and 30$ sulphur, and there- 
 fore the sulphide addition materially reduces the silicon and 
 carbon in the iron, and in this case it was enough to render the 
 iron white, the same as in Table XLV; but by remelting, enough 
 silicon was taken from the crucible to restore the iron to a mottle. 
 
 In the experiment of Mr. Smith, where he used a No. 2 iron, 
 the whiteness was no doubt largely due to the dilution of carbon 
 and silicon by the addition of the sulphide; for the iron was 
 No. 2 that is, close-grained from containing a small amount of 
 silicon. 
 
 The experiments of these gentlemen have been commented 
 on thus fully because they have been quoted to show that sulphur 
 compels carbon to take the combined form, and that sulphur will 
 drive out carbon the fact being wholly overlooked that the addi- 
 tion of sulphide diluted the carbon and silicon, and thus whitened 
 the iron. The fact of carbon being on the surface of the casting 
 would seem to prove that sulphur will expel carbon rather than 
 make it combine. 
 
 The author's experiments which have been described are in 
 every way similar to those -of Messrs. Weston and Smith, except 
 that he kept the sulphur percentages below \% and melted a large 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 95 
 
 quantity of material. F L M iron contained 3.50$ of carbon and 
 1.25$ of silicon, or just enough to make the iron gray. The 
 addition of sulphide diminished the carbon in every case and 
 diminished silicon in some cases. Both reductions tend to make 
 the iron white. 
 
 All these tests show that sulphur, if present to any extent in 
 cast iron, tends to increase shrinkage and to turn the iron white; 
 but, on the other hand, to prove this tendency we have been 
 obliged to resort to unusual methods, and we have added per- 
 centages of sulphur which can never be found in commercial pig 
 iron. 
 
 At a number of furnaces ores are used that contain over 3^ 
 of sulphur. The fuel also contains nearly \% of sulphur. 
 
 This condition of things would cause the largest possible per- 
 centage of sulphur to be taken up by the iron, but all agree that 
 in white iron made from these ores not more than 0.75$ of 
 sulphur will be found, and in mottled iron not more than 0.25$, 
 and in gray foundry iron not more than a few hundredths of \% 
 can be found. 
 
 The rapid melting of pig iron in a cupola cannot possibly 
 add much sulphur content to the pig iron. Professor Turner 
 mixed iron, containing I \% sulphur and 10$ silicon, with pig iron 
 in proportions to give him 5$ of sulphur; but it only contained 
 0.4$, nine-tenths of the sulphur having disappeared by a single 
 melting. 
 
 Gray pig iron will never contain more than o. IO$, and prob- 
 ably never one-half that amount of sulphur. Examining the 
 foregoing experiments with a view to ascertaining the influence 
 of 0.05$ of sulphur, we must at once conclude that even this large 
 amount will not exert any appreciable deleterious influence, and 
 that what little is done in this direction is at once corrected if the 
 silicon is slightly increased. 
 
 Remembering that the only noticeable effect of these small 
 percentages of sulphur would be to slightly raise the shrinkage, 
 the above conclusion seems to be also proven by the fact that in 
 
96 CAST IRON. 
 
 a cupola running on a substantially uniform mixture, and return- 
 ing from 25$ to 40$ of its iron to the cupola to be remelted over 
 and over again each day, the castings will almost invariably have 
 a less shrinkage than the average of the pig iron used, and yet, 
 as a general thing, the castings will contain more sulphur than 
 the average of the pig iron, and the silicon will always be less 
 than the average of the silicon in the pig iron. 
 
 The depth of chill does not seem to be influenced by these 
 small percentages of sulphur, and there is no testimony to show 
 that there is any relation whatever between the sulphur-content 
 and the strength in pig iron or in ordinary castings. 
 
 In fact it is generally accepted that one brand of Swedish pig 
 iron owes its strength and adaptability for gun construction to 
 pyrites added in the furnace. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF REMELTING ON SULPHUR. 
 
 Table XXXIX contains analyses of the sulphur in each of the 
 test-bars of the nineteen A. S. M. E. series, and the analyses of 
 the pig irons is found in Chapter III. These can be compared 
 with the physical qualities recorded elsewhere. See also Table 
 LXIII. 
 
 From the sulphurs in these tables we can find nothing to show 
 a ground for the origin of the opinion which prevails regarding 
 sulphur. Sulphur is not by any means uniform in the nineteen 
 series, but there is not the least indication of evil result from its 
 presence in the series containing the highest sulphur. The varia- 
 tion between the sulphur of series 5 and 6, or between 4 and 5, 
 * * Iroquois, ' ' is enough to influence grain and strength if the 
 general opinion is correct, but those with the highest sulphur 
 show the most open grain and are the softest. In " Hinkle, " 
 Series 7 and 8, the sulphur does not exert any evil influence. 
 In Series 14, 13, and 15 the sulphur is about as high as is ever 
 found in gray castings, and yet these series show both small and 
 large castings beyond reproach. No chill, no blow-holes, very 
 low shrinkage, and very high strength. The high strength can 
 
SULPHUR IN CAST IRON. 
 
 97 
 
 liardly be ascribed to the high sulphur, for strength in these series 
 does not increase with any uniformity as sulphur increases. 
 
 TABLE XXXIX. 
 
 
 5 
 
 Per Cent, of Sulphur. 
 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C/3 
 
 .056 
 
 
 
 
 3 "D 
 
 4" D 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 054 
 
 .050 
 
 .046 
 
 .049 
 
 .041 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 .046 
 
 .040 
 
 .040 
 
 039 
 
 039 
 
 039 
 
 I roo uois ^ 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 032 
 045 
 
 .030 
 .046 
 
 .030 
 
 .047 
 
 033 
 .040 
 
 .036 
 
 .044 
 
 .O3O 
 .044 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 .017 
 
 .021 
 
 .027 
 
 .031 
 
 .030 
 
 .030 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 -034 
 
 033 
 
 034 
 
 033 
 
 .028 
 
 .028 
 
 r 
 
 7 
 
 .029 
 
 .030 
 
 .031 
 
 033 
 
 .030 
 
 .030 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 .015 
 
 .Oil 
 
 .010 
 
 .on 
 
 .010 
 
 .009 
 
 Hinkle \ 
 
 9 
 
 .015 
 
 .on 
 
 .009 
 
 .010 
 
 .010 
 
 .007 
 
 
 10 
 
 .021 
 
 .019 
 
 .017 
 
 .019 
 
 .020 
 
 .022 
 
 
 ii 
 
 .030 
 
 .027 
 
 .025 
 
 .030 
 
 .022 
 
 .027 
 
 ( 
 
 12 
 
 .031 
 
 .030 
 
 033 
 
 .026 
 
 .029 
 
 -025 
 
 ( 
 
 14 
 
 .093 
 
 .096 
 
 .100 
 
 .092 
 
 .094 
 
 .090 
 
 Southern < 
 
 I ^ 
 
 OQI 
 
 QQC 
 
 .091 
 
 QQ'l 
 
 .OQI 
 
 .O9O 
 
 
 * J 
 15 
 
 . VJ^ L 
 
 .088 
 
 ^V J 
 
 .093 
 
 .088 
 
 ^yj 
 .089 
 
 . \j\j i 
 .087 
 
 .089 
 
 Bretting & Co 
 
 16 
 
 .025 
 
 .030 
 
 .030 
 
 .029 
 
 .030 
 
 .029 
 
 Mich. Mall. I. Co.. 
 
 17 
 
 Average 0.031 per cent. 
 
 Bement,Miles&Co. 
 
 18 
 
 0.052 " 
 
 A. Whitney & Sons. 
 
 19 
 
 O.IOI " 
 
 There is, however, not the slightest indication that sulphur is 
 in any way beneficial. A small percentage of sulphur will get 
 into a casting from the fuel, and chemists are accustomed to lay 
 any unexplainable peculiarity to sulphur. 
 
 In the laboratory tests that have been described, in the effort to 
 prove that sulphur had a tendency to increase shrinkage and chill 
 and to turn iron white, it was necessary to resort to unusual 
 methods, and percentages of sulphur were added which can never 
 be found in commercial pig iron or fuel. 
 
 The foregoing tests were made to prove the correctness of the 
 general opinion that sulphur was never anything but injurious, or 
 at least to show how such an opinion originated. Having failed 
 in this effort, if these records shall suggest that the opinion is 
 partly a superstition, and that the gray-iron founder must look 
 
9 8 CAST IRON. 
 
 to some other cause for defects in castings, the work will do a 
 great deal of good. 
 
 If iron pyrites is put into a cupola, it will harden cast iron at 
 once. At one time a car of limestone which we used as a flux 
 contained pyrites. The first day the shrinkage was .133, but 
 complaints came in that the iron was hard. The second day the 
 shrinkage ran up to 176, and much of the iron could not be 
 drilled. The pyrites were then discovered and the limestone 
 changed (leaving the iron mixture unchanged all the time), and 
 that day the shrinkage was back to 135, and the iron was soft. 
 Sulphur in coke is not in a condition to be so easily taken up by 
 gray iron. 
 
 NOTE. The sulphur percentages given in all tables and 
 figures of this chapter, except Table XXXIX, are amounts 
 added. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 MANGANESE IN CAST IRON. 
 
 THE ferromanganese used in these experiments contains 
 Mn. 81.62, Si. 0.256, and Cd.C. 6. 153$. This cracks in small 
 pieces when cooling. 
 
 Manganese combines with iron in almost any proportion ; but 
 if an iron containing manganese is remelted, more or less of the 
 manganese will escape by volatilization, and with oxidation with 
 other elements present in the iron, especially sulphur. 
 
 Owing to this escape of manganese the amount of manganese 
 given in the tables is no doubt greater than would be found by 
 analysis. 
 
 The following three casts were made, Table XL (Method 2), 
 with three hot ladles : in the first was placed five ounces of gray 
 scrap; in the second four ounces of white iron and one ounce 
 of 1 1 % ferrosilicon ; in the third four ounces of ferromanganese and 
 one ounce of the ferrosilicon. 
 
 TABLE XL. 
 
 5 
 
 li> 
 
 c . 
 bo 
 
 ll 
 
 11 
 
 "!* O 
 
 L 
 
 II 
 
 .. c 
 u 2 
 - 
 
 rt *j 
 
 o> 
 M 
 
 rt 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 
 fe 
 
 'o 
 
 N 
 
 li 
 
 a 
 
 
 ij$ 
 
 V 
 
 
 II 
 
 1* 
 
 c 
 
 J3 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 |u 
 
 o 
 
 
 c/>^ 
 
 Q 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 M Q 
 
 
 1/5 
 
 
 E 
 
 ^0 
 
 I ;O 
 
 2.50 
 
 380 
 
 .190 
 
 .029 
 
 365 
 
 .225 
 
 .022 
 
 .121 
 
 .075 
 
 70 
 
 124 
 
 2 O 
 
 2.51 
 
 398 
 
 195 
 
 .029 
 
 323 
 
 .225 
 
 .050 
 
 123 
 
 .060 
 
 70 
 
 I2| 
 
 3 1-08 
 
 2.51 
 
 380 
 
 .165 
 
 .017 
 
 271 
 
 
 .015 
 
 -155 
 
 .065 
 
 99 
 
 1 60 
 
 Into each of these ladles was poured the same amount of 
 cupola melted iron. As the cupola iron contained 2.50$ silicon, 
 
 99 
 
IOO 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 the ounce of ferrosilicon kept the percentage of silicon practically 
 uniform. 
 
 To prove still further the influence of silicon in manganese 
 irons, and that much of the influence exerted by manganese can 
 in most cases be overcome by silicon, Table XLI and Fig. 42 
 (Method 10) are presented. 
 
 TABLE XLI. 
 
 ujj 
 
 
 
 
 o c 
 
 1 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 j| 
 
 II 
 
 J.2 
 o 
 a u 
 
 o 
 
 o tn 
 
 rt D 
 
 I- 
 
 ^B 
 
 o . 
 
 F 
 
 M 
 
 rt 
 
 c 
 
 J3 
 CJ 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 1= 
 
 CJ3 
 
 au 
 
 is 
 
 
 Q 
 
 QQ 
 
 
 
 
 """ Q 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 rt 
 
 ffi 
 
 20.00 
 
 O 
 
 150 
 
 05 
 
 .01 
 
 68 
 
 .09 
 
 .01 
 
 .272 
 
 White 
 
 185 
 
 235 
 
 20.00 
 
 1.66 
 
 168 
 
 .07 
 
 .02 
 
 IOJ 
 
 .11 
 
 .02 
 
 .266 
 
 
 
 186 
 
 235 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 179 
 
 .16 
 
 05 
 
 IOI 
 
 .14 
 
 03 
 
 .240 
 
 
 
 146 
 
 215 
 
 20 oo 
 
 4.84 
 
 230 
 
 27 
 
 .11 
 
 118 
 
 .21 
 
 .06 
 
 .222 
 
 o 
 
 115 
 
 1 60 
 
 20.00 
 
 6.20 
 
 326 
 
 47 
 
 .24 
 
 350 
 
 44 
 
 .19 
 
 .218 
 
 .001 
 
 123 
 
 173 
 
 20.00 
 
 7.3 
 
 195 
 
 30 
 
 .12 
 
 169 
 
 .24 
 
 .07 
 
 .213 
 
 075 
 
 127 
 
 265 
 
 Si. o.oo Si. 1.66 Si. 3.00 Si. 4.84 Si. 6.20 Si. 7.30 
 
 FIG. 42. Spiegeleisen with Silicon added. 
 
 The first cast is from spiegel alone and contains hardly any 
 silicon. The fracture is white with the usual reflecting surfaces. 
 
 The second has changed the metal to a light gray, with no 
 tendency to chill, and has almost destroyed the specular fracture 
 presented by the spiegel. 
 
 Mr. R. A. Hadfield added to \2,% white spiegel 3.75^ silicon 
 and turned it to a No. 3 gray mill iron. 
 
MANGANESE IN CAST IRON. 
 
 101 
 
 With F L M and the ferromanganese were made the tests of 
 Table XLII (Method 4). 
 
 TABLE XLII. 
 
 Manganese 
 added. 
 
 Silicon 
 estimated. 
 
 Dead-load 
 Stress. 
 
 Dead-load 
 Deflection. 
 
 Impact 
 Stress. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 .12 
 
 1.247 
 
 343 
 
 23 
 
 282 
 
 159 
 
 .40 
 
 .66 
 
 1.239 
 
 297 
 
 .18 
 
 226 
 
 .161 
 
 .40 
 
 75 
 
 I- 2 37 
 
 342 
 
 .16 
 
 259 
 
 .164 
 
 .50 
 
 I.OO 
 
 1-233 
 
 334 
 
 15 
 
 237 
 
 .168 
 
 .70 
 
 The additions of ferromanganese diminished the silicon in 
 each cast which caused the increase of chill. 
 
 With "Stewart" coke iron, Si. 1.53, Mn. 0.50 (Method 4) 
 was made the series of Table XLIII. The ferromanganese was 
 added as near the time of pouring as possible, to prevent the 
 escape of the manganese. As in Table XLII, the silicon was 
 diluted by each addition. 
 
 TABLE XLIII. 
 
 . 
 
 ii 
 
 la 
 
 11 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 3. 
 
 ?-B 
 
 - . 
 
 3 
 
 
 i 
 
 V 
 
 N 
 
 =i 
 
 ~ y> 
 
 11 
 
 u 
 
 |s 
 
 || 
 
 |(j) 
 
 c 
 
 15 
 5j 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 
 a 
 
 QQ 
 
 Q 
 
 ^w 
 
 Q 
 
 
 <rt 
 
 
 B 
 
 50 
 
 i-53 
 
 353 
 
 .27 
 
 .08 
 
 373 
 
 .29 
 
 .07 
 
 .152 
 
 .02 
 
 62 
 
 1.66 
 
 I-5I 
 
 357 
 
 .28 
 
 .06 
 
 381 
 
 .26 
 
 05 
 
 .156 
 
 05 
 
 99 
 
 2.26 
 
 1.50 
 
 329 
 
 .21 
 
 .03 
 
 305 
 
 .22 
 
 03 
 
 157 
 
 .20 
 
 99 
 
 3-00 
 
 1.48 
 
 380 
 
 .28 
 
 .06 
 
 313 
 
 24 
 
 .04 
 
 .142 
 
 25 
 
 
 3.83 
 
 1.47 
 
 33i 
 
 .26 
 
 05 
 
 330 
 
 .25 
 
 .04 
 
 
 .20 
 
 
 10.88 
 
 1.36 
 
 215 
 
 .09 
 
 .01 
 
 118 
 
 .11 
 
 .01 
 
 .232 
 
 50 
 
 
 Table XLIV represents tests with cupola iron and ferro- 
 manganese (Method 2). 
 
 TABLE XLIV. 
 
 8 . 
 
 el 
 
 a 
 rt 
 
 a -' 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 c 
 f O 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 -T t 
 
 11 
 
 3| 
 
 il 
 
 _ ^ 
 
 p<n 
 
 || 
 
 8-8 
 
 6 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 ,M 
 
 a 
 
 
 8 
 
 c 
 
 T3 
 
 g2 
 5u 
 
 3" 
 
 UJ S 
 
 1* 
 
 
 Q 
 
 M 
 
 H-I D 
 
 Q 
 
 
 A 
 
 C/5 
 
 
 3 
 X 
 
 P 
 
 o. 
 
 2.50 
 
 364 
 
 .18 
 
 .01 
 
 271 
 
 .19 
 
 .02 
 
 .147 
 
 .IO 
 
 90 
 
 195 
 
 75 
 
 2.48 
 
 420 
 
 .19 
 
 .02 
 
 254 
 
 .18 
 
 .01 
 
 .148 
 
 .18 
 
 10-^ ' 187 
 
 1.87 
 
 2.44 
 
 394 
 
 .16 
 
 .OI 
 
 220 
 
 .17 
 
 .OI 
 
 159 
 
 15 
 
 in 
 
 235 
 
 3.50 
 
 2.39 
 
 323 
 
 .14 
 
 .OI 
 
 204 
 
 .15 
 
 .OI 
 
 .165 
 
 .12 
 
 124 
 
 215 
 
102 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 The additions in these casts also diluted the silicon as man- 
 ganese increased. 
 
 Table XLV, F L M and ferromanganese (Method 11), the 
 metal was in the furnace nine hours, and instead of 2% there was 
 only .583 Mn., and .187 of this was in the original pig, the rest 
 having volatilized. The change in physical quality was produced 
 by the manipulation and dilution of silicon, as will be seen by 
 reference to Table XX and Fig. 32, Chapter IX. 
 
 The last 2.00 Mn. record is exactly like the first O. member, 
 but with 2% manganese added just before the casting was poured 
 and none could have escaped. 
 
 TABLE XLV. 
 
 Manga- 
 nese 
 added. 
 
 Manga- 
 nese by 
 Analyses 
 
 Silicon 
 Esti- 
 mated. 
 
 Silicon 
 by 
 Analyses 
 
 Dead- 
 load 
 Stress. 
 
 Dead- 
 load De- 
 flection. 
 
 Impact 
 
 Stress. 
 
 Impact 
 Deflec- 
 tion. 
 
 Shrink- 
 age. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 
 In pig 
 
 T Q 7 
 
 T 25 
 
 
 377 
 
 18 
 
 ^14 
 
 
 172 
 
 CQ 
 
 25 
 
 
 I 25 
 
 
 ^60 
 
 . 24 
 
 <no 
 
 
 . l64 
 
 52 
 
 5O 
 
 
 I 24. 
 
 
 }68 
 
 .24 
 
 J7Q 
 
 
 .164 
 
 .65 
 
 7e 
 
 
 
 
 ^08 
 
 18 
 
 ^14 
 
 
 .167 
 
 8O 
 
 1. 00 
 I 25 
 
 
 1.24 
 
 I 2^ 
 
 
 398 
 4.4.1 
 
 17 
 
 22 
 
 382 
 
 4.57 
 
 
 .I 7 S 
 .187 
 
 I.OO 
 I 25 
 
 I 5O 
 
 
 I 22 
 
 
 -325 
 
 I-i 
 
 206 
 
 
 IQ5 
 
 I . 5O 
 
 I 75 
 
 
 I OO 
 
 
 471 
 
 . 17 
 
 'IQQ 
 
 
 . 2O5 
 
 White 
 
 
 cfi? 
 
 08 
 
 
 284 
 
 OQ 
 
 22O 
 
 
 27O 
 
 
 
 5o 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 
 1.22 
 
 
 
 404 
 
 .18 
 
 357 
 
 . M 
 
 .171 
 
 .80 
 
 Manganese and Carbon. Cast iron, when free from man- 
 ganese, cannot hold much more than 3.80$ of carbon, but as 
 manganese increases, carbon also increases, until we often find it 
 in spiegel as high as 5$, and in ferromanganese as high as 6#. 
 
 Because the spiegeleisen and ferromanganese of commerce 
 are white, it seems to have been taken for granted that the com- 
 bined state of carbon in irons high in manganese was caused 
 by the manganese. 
 
 Mr. Willard P. Ward * says that he made a i6# spiegel 
 perfectly gray and very tough and strong, and yet which 
 
 * Trans, of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, vol. x. p. 268. 
 
MANGANESE IN CAST IRON. 
 
 103 
 
 could not be cut. Mr. Pourcel* reports a gray 15$ spiegel. His 
 ftirnace, like Mr. Ward's, was very hot and enough silicon was 
 taken up to make the iron gray. (See Table XLI and Fig. 42 
 for the same result.) 
 
 A more convincing proof is seen in Figs. 43 to 45*2, Swedish 
 irons, 
 
 G.C. 0.98 
 
 C.C. 3-50 r^ 
 
 Si. 0.95 )CK 
 
 Mn. 5.00 W^-J 
 
 P. 0.018 J 
 
 FIG. 43. 
 
 Fig. 43 is an iron containing 5^ manganese and very low 
 silicon, but uniform gray, cast in an iron mold, yet takes a very 
 slight chill. 
 
 Fig. 44 is white on account of its low silicon and not from 
 manganese, because it has less than Fig. 43. 
 
 G.C. 0.83 
 
 c.c. 3-70 r^-j 
 
 Si. 0.42 VW 
 
 Mn. 4.50 (~f*J 
 
 P. 0.018 
 
 S. 0.006 
 FIG. 44. 
 
 Fig. 45 is an even gray; one and one half per cent of silicon 
 
 has set free eleven twelfths of all the carbon. 
 
 G.C. 3.61 
 C.C 0.38 
 Si. 1.47 
 Mn. 1.78 
 P. 0.017 
 S. 0.009 
 
 FIG. 45. 
 
 G.C.o 
 
 C.C. 3.70 
 Si. 0.30 
 Mn. 0.65 
 P. 0.017 
 S. o.on 
 
 FIG. 450. 
 
 Fig. 45 # is the same iron with | the silicon and the man- 
 ganese of Fig. 45. The manganese has nothing to do with the 
 grayness or the chill. 
 
 * Trans, of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, vol. xi. p. 197. 
 
 ^ f : iv^ii&$^^ '.. 
 
 ,'N'/,/ !x > .;S'' j 'V^'-j 
 
104 CAST IRON. 
 
 Manganese and Shrinkage. Nearly all of these tests show- 
 that manganese increases shrinkage. In the tests of Table XL, 
 an increase of \% has raised the shrinkage 26%. So long as any 
 carbon remains in the combined form an increase of silicon will 
 drive such carbon into graphite, and this in some degree decreases 
 shrinkage, but a high shrinkage caused by manganese seems to- 
 be independent of carbon and cannot be taken out without 
 removing the manganese. 
 
 Much depends, however, upon how the manganese got inco 
 the iron. If present in small quantities in the pig it may not 
 raise shrinkage so much as if introduced by a high-grade ferro- 
 manganese. 
 
 For a soft iron without shrinkage manganese should be 
 absent, yet it does not seem that where manganese in the pig is 
 below .75$ or even \% its presence will ever be noticed. 
 
 Strength. A general glance at the records conveys an im- 
 pression that manganese does not influence the ability to resist a 
 dead load, though adding ferromanganese to molten iron gen- 
 erally reduces strength. 
 
 The small percentages of manganese found in commercial 
 foundry-irons will have little if any influence on strength. 
 
 It will be seen from this discussion that it is almost impossible 
 to determine whether manganese is a benefit or an injury. It is 
 only with the closest calculation and care that we have been able 
 to determine its influence at all when present in cast iron. Much 
 that is present in a pig iron may escape during remelting and it 
 may aid in removing sulphur which has been brought in with the 
 fuel. 
 
 Chill. Judging from these records manganese does not 
 materially influence chill. 
 
 Manganese steel is not hardened by sudden cooling, and we 
 might therefore expect that manganese would not add to the 
 chilling quality of cast iron. A decrease of silicon often increases 
 chill, and this may account for the small increase in the tests. If 
 manganese has any chilling tendency, the 20% spiegel tests and 
 
MANGANESE IN CAST IRON. 
 
 105 
 
 the Swedish irons would show it, and yet each cast of. that test 
 shows absolutely no chill, except the very slight chill with 7.30 
 silicon. It even seems to act in a contrary manner, as in irons 
 without manganese we find it difficult to remove all chill by addi- 
 tions of silicon. The presence of manganese under certain con- 
 ditions may possibly aid in removing chill. 
 
 TABLE XLVI. 
 
 
 Series. 
 
 Per Cent of Manganese. 
 
 l a 
 
 i" D 
 
 l"X2" 
 
 2 " a 
 
 3 " a 
 
 4 " a 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 35 
 
 34 
 
 36 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 31 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 3i 
 
 30 
 
 32 
 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 50 
 
 35 
 
 51 
 30 
 
 49 
 
 32 
 
 .46 
 33 
 
 5i 
 34 
 
 .48 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 .36 
 
 39 
 
 38 
 
 37 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 43 
 
 45 
 
 4i 
 
 .40 
 
 44 
 
 43 
 
 
 7 
 
 47 
 
 44 
 
 .46 
 
 47 
 
 45 
 
 .48 
 
 
 8 
 
 37 
 
 34 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 35 
 
 37 
 
 Hinkle 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 .48 
 63 
 
 47 
 71 
 
 44 
 43 
 
 49 
 43 
 
 47 
 47 
 
 5i 
 44 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 58 
 
 74 
 
 7i 
 
 .58 
 
 .64 
 
 54 
 
 
 12 
 
 59 
 
 .56 
 
 53 
 
 56 
 
 54 
 
 .61 
 
 ( 
 
 14 
 
 59 
 
 .60 
 
 .62 
 
 .60 
 
 59 
 
 .64 
 
 Southern 4 
 
 13 
 
 43 
 
 .48 
 
 43 
 
 47 
 
 .40 
 
 .41 
 
 ( 
 
 15 
 
 50 
 
 49 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 49 
 
 51 
 
 
 16 
 
 . 7 
 
 .38 
 
 . 17 
 
 38 
 
 .36 
 
 38 
 
 Mich. Mall. Iron Co... 
 
 
 j / 
 Av 
 
 j^ 
 
 J i 
 
 i/ v 
 
 .if 
 
 >i ner re 
 
 nt 
 
 Bement, Miles & Co . . 
 
 *7 
 
 T Q 
 
 " 1C4 " 
 
 A. Whitney & Son 
 
 1 
 
 19 
 
 
 *' 1% 
 
 T 
 
 o 
 
 
 Hardness. (Turner's Test.) In the tests of Table XL an 
 increase of ifo of manganese has increased the hardness 40$. In 
 the first two casts the hardness of the chill is 44$ greater than 
 that of the unchilled fracture, but in the cast with manganese the 
 difference is only 38$, again showing that manganese does not 
 increase chill. If, however, a hard chill is required manganese 
 gives it by adding hardness to the whole casting. This hardness 
 is probably due to the hardness of the manganese itself and not 
 because more of the carbon has taken the combined form. It 
 
106 CAST IRON. 
 
 seems that in trying to make soft castings with low shrinkage, 
 manganese should be avoided. 
 
 The hardness of the spiegel series is remarkable. The cast- 
 ings with 7.30 silicon look like the softest of open gray iron, but 
 can hardly be touched with a file, and the piece that was left in 
 the crucible could not be cut with a cold-chisel. It was necessary 
 to bring it to a white heat before the chisel could be driven into it 
 with a sledge. 
 
 Influence of Remelting on Manganese. Table XLVI 
 (Method i) gives the percentage of manganese in each bar of 
 each series made for the Testing Committee of the A. S. M. E., 
 and in Chapter III is given the analysis of the original irons. 
 See also Table LXIII. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 SEGREGATION. 
 
 Segregation. Where any element collects in greater quantity 
 within a casting than the average throughout the mass, such 
 element is said to segregate. 
 
 The separation of graphite into the spaces between the crystals 
 and its even distribution throughout the mass is not generally 
 spoken of as segregation, though the aggregation of graphite into 
 patches, as in mottled iron, might be considered as such. 
 
 It is known that sulphur is never evenly distributed, but is 
 always greatest at the point which cooled last. 
 
 Excellent examples of segregation of compounds of silicon, 
 carbon, and iron were shown at the Columbian Exposition by 
 makers of Swedish pig iron. This iron is the purest iron that can 
 be found, on account of the purity of the ores from which it is 
 made. All Swedish pig iron is said to be run into an iron pig- 
 bed, and the surface of each pig is liable to show the influence of 
 this chilling. 
 
 The ordinary Swedish pig-iron slab is 8 or 9 ins. wide by 
 about 16 ins. long. The samples shown in the exhibit were 
 fractured across the slab at its center and the drawings, Figs. 46 
 and 47, of these fractures are on a scale off of an inch to I inch. 
 
 Fig. 48 is a very small drawing of a fracture of a pig of 
 American charcoal iron from Lake Superior ores which could not 
 be sold because buyers were afraid of the white spot at the center. 
 
 F L M (Fig. 49) is a greatly reduced drawing of a pig of Swedish 
 gray iron made by Laxa Iron Works (Ltd.), Carlsdal, near 
 
 107 
 
io8 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 S9E 
 
 For Lancashire 
 Process Steel. 
 
 Degafors 
 
 For Open- 
 hearth Steel. 
 
 Phos. below 
 
 0.024. For 
 
 Crucible Cast 
 
 Steel. 
 
 OeNI 
 
 Phos. below 0.02 
 For Siemens- 
 Martin Open- 
 hearth Stetl. 
 
 For Lancashire 
 Firing Process. 
 
 IAOBI 
 
 Dannemora. 
 
 IAOBI 
 
 Dannemora. 
 
 IAOBI 
 
 Dannemora. 
 
SEGREGATION. 
 
 109 
 
 Kortfors. The pigs are cast with deep notches so that they can 
 be broken into pieces about 5 ins. long, 3 ins. wide, and 2 ins. 
 thick. This iron was intended for crucible steel. 
 
 A most remarkable example of segregation is shown in 
 Fig. 50. The drawing is the natural thickness of the casting. 
 This iron is from a regular cupola mixture. At the left-hand 
 
 RWn 
 
 FIG. 47. 
 
 FIG. 49. 
 
 FIG. 52. 
 
 FIG. 53. 
 
 FIG. 51. 
 
 FIG. 50. 
 
 portion of the casting there are gray surfaces, then next under 
 each is a white section of about the same thickness, then two 
 gray sections, and at the center another white section, all 
 of equal thickness, making seven distinct strata in a casting 
 fa .of an inch thick. At the right the central white section is 
 again divided making nine strata, five gray and four white. 
 Considering the short time for such a casting to become solid the 
 change of conditions to produce each separate strata must have 
 been nearly instantaneous. 
 
no 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 Fig. 5 1 is a section from the edge of a stove-cover, circular 
 in shape and about 9 ins. in diameter. 
 
 The white parts are therefore white rings entirely surrounded 
 by a perfectly soft gray exterior. In the upper part of Table 
 XLVII is given the analysis. 
 
 TABLE XLVII. 
 
 
 T. C. 
 
 G. C. 
 
 C. C. 
 
 Si. 
 
 P. 
 
 s. 
 
 Mn. 
 
 Gray, exterior . 
 
 3.628 
 
 1.874 
 
 1-754 
 
 2.846 
 
 1. 00 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.501 
 
 White, interior 
 
 3.860 
 
 1-307 
 
 2-554 
 
 2.742 
 
 1. 00 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.501 
 
 Gray, part 
 
 3.010 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.480 
 
 0.95 
 
 0.35 
 
 0.90 
 
 Gray -f- white.. 
 
 2.640 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.470 
 
 1. 00 
 
 0.42 
 
 0.91 
 
 The analyses below the line are from a segregation (Fig. 52), 
 where white beads were driven down into the mold below the 
 casting. The chemist did not separate all the gray from the 
 white, but made his determination from the gray alone, and then 
 from the gray and white together. 
 
 Fig. 53 shows the flat side and edge of a casting which did 
 not run full. Small drops of white iron exuded from the rounded 
 surface of the edge of the casting. It merely suggests a way that 
 the white beads of Fig. 52 may have been formed. 
 
 Figs. 54 and 55 show a number of sections of castings, all of 
 true size, showing stratification or segregation in various forms. 
 Figures marked a show the fracture at the center and those 
 marked b show the end of a test-bar \ in. G and I ft. long. 
 Those marked c are cross-fractures at the center of a bar I ft. 
 long with the section shown, the stratification extending nearly 
 or entirely the length of the bar. 
 
 Those marked */ are cross-fractures of a bar \" X TTF" X 12", 
 run from two gates on one side. No. 208 d shows a fracture 
 through the gate, and it would be the same for 209 e, and between 
 the gates of 210 e and 211 e. The drawings 210 e, 211 e, and 
 212^ show the horizontal structure of these thin test-bars. 
 
196 . 
 
 208 e. 
 
 SEGREGATION. 
 197 a. 
 
 209 c. 
 
 209 e 
 
 ill 
 
 217 c. 
 
 2IO-II-I2 C. 
 
 } Gate. 
 
 210 <f. 
 
 211 e. 
 
 FIG. 54. 
 
112 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 In all cases the amount of graphite is shown by the darkness 
 of the fracture. 
 
 Test 196 b is a fracture of a test-bar containing 1.71$ Si., a 
 
 397^. 
 
 448 c. 
 
 448 a. 
 
 448 b. 
 
 406 c. 
 
 405 
 
 ~>&~~. f . M 
 
 405 
 
 450 A, 
 
 447'. 
 
 453'- 
 
 FIG. 55- 
 
 mixture of Gaylord white, and 16.32$ ferrosilicon ; gray pockets 
 extended into the white casting. 
 
 Test 197 a is the same mixture with 2.82$ Si. 
 
 4.37$ Pencost (Test 397 c) shows no tendency to segregate, 
 "'Hie the remelt of this same mixture (Test 405 c) shows very 
 
SEGREGATION. 113 
 
 marked segregation of a remarkable kind, and exactly the same 
 occurred in the remelt of 6.54$ Pencost (Test 406 c). 
 
 The tests 208 to 212 are a mixture of F L M with the 16.27$ 
 ferrosilicon (Method No. 8). 
 
 It is evident from an examination of these analyses and draw- 
 ings that the occurrence of white spots in castings is not always 
 due to a decrease of silicon, for the silicon is substantially the 
 same in both the gray and the white part of the casting; neither 
 is it due to any increase or decrease in carbon or to the presence 
 of any other element. 
 
 For many years such peculiar castings would occasionally 
 appear among our regular castings. All we could find out was 
 that they were made very early in the heat. One day we wanted 
 some test-bars from the first iron and got a white core, but the 
 molder did not know that he did anything out of the regular 
 order. He could not produce the same the next day. 
 
 The third day, however, we got the same core, and by 
 watching found that the iron that he used was the first that lay 
 on the sand bottom of the cupola and that it very likely boiled 
 before tapping. It was caught in a fresh ladle and boiled in that, 
 and was changed to another fresh ladle and boiled again. Pro- 
 ceeding in this way we could produce the core when the iron has 
 such a tendency. 
 
 Ordinary Commercial Impurities a Benefit. The irons from 
 which the foregoing examples were made were exceptionally 
 pure, which is an indication that the less the .impurities the 
 greater the tendency to segregate. 
 
 In ordinary foundry practice such pure iron would not be used 
 and the commercial foundry pig irons do not ordinarily form 
 segregations. 
 
 At the right of Fig. 36 a (Chapter IX) is a fracture from a 
 test-bar (118) from "Norway" pig which has P. 1.65, S. o.oi, 
 Si. 2.03, Mn. 0.87; which is about as large a percentage of these 
 elements as will often be found, and the grain is absolutely 
 uniform. 
 
H4 CAST IRON. 
 
 In the Swedish exhibit were examples of iron quite high in 
 manganese (Figs. 43 to 45 a) but otherwise as pure as those 
 already referred to, but these do not segregate. 
 
 Chill as Explained by Segregation. Nearly all who have 
 expressed an opinion on the subject of chill ascribe this phenome- 
 non to a union of silicon and carbon. It is quite certain that the 
 best chilling irons are not those with the lowest silicon. The 
 best chilling irons are charcoal-irons, that is, pure irons with low 
 phosphorus and sulphur. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 WHILE a member of the Committee on Testing of the A. S. 
 M. E., the author made nineteen series of tests with silicon 
 varying between \% and 3.5$- 
 
 Records of Tests for Committee A. S. M. E. with all details 
 appear in the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical 
 Engineers, vol. XVI., 1895, pp. 542 to 568 and 1066 to 1141. 
 also vol. XVII., 1896, pp. 675 to 729. The intended size of pairs 
 of test-bars of each series were " D, i" D> 2 " X i" and 12" 
 long, 2" X i', i'', 2", 3", and 4" square, and 24" long, and round 
 bars Y 9 /'' i" an d ii" diameter. The average strength of each 
 pair of test-bars is given in Tables XLVIII and XLIX. 
 
 These test-bars were made in green-sand molds lying flat, 
 and all melting and pouring were exactly as for ordinary work. 
 
 When these tests were presented to the society they were so 
 much of a surprise that the committee wished that a parallel set 
 of tests should be made by tension and by compression. This 
 has been done by a committee of the American Foundrymen's 
 Association, with Dr. R. G. Moldenke as chairman. 
 
 Record of Tests of Committee A. F. A. For a series of test- 
 bars the iron was caught in one ladle, then poured into a pool in 
 the foundry floor. At a signal a gate was raised and all molds 
 bedded in the foundry floor at a lower level were filled simul- 
 taneously with iron of supposed uniform composition and tem- 
 perature. This would insure test-bars of the most uniform 
 structure that it was possible to make. All bars were cast on 
 end. 
 
116 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 TABLE XLVIII. 
 
 AVERAGE MAXIMUM DEAD LOAD (TRANSVERSE) FOR NOMINAL SIZE OF TEST- 
 BARS, A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "N 
 
 Iron. 
 
 j 
 
 u 
 
 c/> 
 
 d 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 "CM 
 
 M 
 
 X 
 
 u 
 
 * 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 "TO 
 
 X 
 
 D 
 "V 
 
 "ej 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 00 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 r 
 
 i 
 
 282 
 
 9 .8 
 
 I,68 7 
 
 5,962 
 
 24,112 
 
 52,555 
 
 2292 
 
 4 68 
 
 439 
 
 3,975 
 
 
 2 
 
 326 
 
 914 
 
 1.883 
 
 6.661 
 
 21,556 
 
 49,201 
 
 i'.8 94 
 
 520 
 
 430 
 
 3,759 
 
 Iroquois (Coke). . . . -{ 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 365 
 422 
 
 1,046 
 
 2-173 
 1.823 
 
 6,853 
 
 6.427 
 
 *7,459 
 18,015 
 
 40.632 
 46,744 
 
 2,369 
 2,329 
 
 "s'8" 
 
 481 
 483 
 
 4,216 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 423 
 
 454 
 
 1,113 
 
 1.962 
 
 7,838 
 5,826 
 
 22,136 
 17,202 
 
 40,247 
 40,422 
 
 1,982 
 
 555 
 504 
 
 503 
 400 
 
 4> J 47 
 
 [ 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 321 
 
 386 
 
 972 
 
 1,046 
 
 1,614 
 1,925 
 
 6,299 
 6,419 
 
 20,791 
 20,929 
 
 40,964 
 51,628 
 
 2,018 
 2,146 
 
 43 * 
 469 
 
 414 
 436 
 
 3,793 
 3,956 
 
 Hinkle (Charcoal).^ 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 316 
 432 
 
 985 
 936 
 
 1,665 
 
 6.440 
 6,274 
 
 17,823 
 19,363 
 
 44,114 
 
 4?,468 
 
 2,158 
 1,981 
 
 474 
 
 461 
 428 
 
 3,563 
 
 
 ii 
 
 424 
 
 1,036 
 
 2,104 
 
 6,091 
 
 20,406 
 
 42,142 
 
 2,047 
 
 523 
 
 468 
 
 4,066 
 
 I 
 
 12 
 
 426 
 
 1,198 
 
 2,012 
 
 7,299 
 
 26,728 
 
 42,994 
 
 !,944 
 
 446 
 
 490 
 
 3 1 6 34 
 
 Southern < 
 
 13 
 
 359 
 379 
 
 1,181 
 i, 080 
 
 2,13- 
 
 7.936 
 
 7,910 
 
 24,409 
 22,048 
 
 50,649 
 50,904 
 
 2,424 
 
 611 
 
 506 
 
 3,858 
 
 ( 
 
 15 
 
 416 
 
 1,015 
 
 
 8,273 
 
 21,661 
 
 53,357 
 
 
 
 
 
 Foundries < 
 
 3 
 
 358 
 363 
 
 1,183 
 1,024 
 
 2,73 
 
 2,066 
 
 8,941 
 
 6,789 
 
 30,221 
 
 20,882 
 
 65.094 
 44,2i7 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 44 1 
 
 1,287 
 
 2,342 
 
 7,919 
 
 24,526 
 
 56,079 
 
 
 
 
 
 Malleable 
 
 t 
 
 
 1 2 
 
 2,651 
 
 12 36 
 
 41,968 
 
 QA 771 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 ,33 
 
 
 VT-I / 3* 
 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE XLIX. 
 
 AVERAGE MAXIMUM LOAD FOR NOMINAL SIZE BAR IN TERMS OF SECTIONS OF 
 TEST-BAR " D X 12" A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 Iron. 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 D 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 of 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 i" n x 24" 
 
 X 
 
 n 
 
 X 
 D 
 
 X 
 D 
 
 00 
 
 X 
 
 D 
 
 :" D X 54" 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 282 
 
 220 
 
 2IT 
 
 186 
 
 223 
 
 205 
 
 286 
 
 234 
 
 247 
 
 248 
 
 
 2 
 
 326 
 
 228 
 
 235 
 
 208 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 237 
 
 260 
 
 242 
 
 235 
 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 365 
 422 
 
 285 
 262 
 
 2 7 2 
 228 
 
 214 
 
 20 1 
 
 162 
 
 159 
 183 
 
 296 
 
 291 
 
 259 
 
 270 
 271 
 
 261 
 
 264 
 
 
 
 423 
 
 2 7 8 
 
 245 
 
 245 
 
 205 
 
 
 
 277 
 
 283 
 
 
 
 
 
 454 
 
 
 
 182 
 
 
 I ^8 
 
 248 
 
 252 
 
 225 
 
 259 
 
 r 
 
 7 
 
 321 
 
 243 
 
 202 
 
 197 
 
 192 
 
 160 
 
 252 
 
 216 
 
 233 
 
 235 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 
 
 262 
 
 241 
 
 201 
 
 194 
 
 20 1 
 
 268 
 
 235 
 
 246 
 
 247 
 
 Hinkle (Charcoal) .4 
 
 9 
 
 TO 
 II 
 19 
 
 316 
 432 
 424 
 
 2 4 6 
 234 
 259 
 299 
 
 208 
 
 "263" 
 251 
 
 201 
 
 196 
 
 190 
 
 228 
 
 165 
 179 
 189 
 247 
 
 172 
 93 
 165 
 168 
 
 270 
 248 
 256 
 243 
 
 237 
 
 ' 26l' 
 
 223 
 
 259 
 241 
 263 
 278 
 
 223 
 229 
 237 
 
 Southern < 
 
 14 
 13 
 
 359 
 379 
 
 270 
 
 235 
 267 
 
 248 
 
 247 
 
 226 
 204 
 
 198 
 109 
 
 33 
 
 305 
 
 284 
 
 241 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 258 
 
 201 
 
 208 
 
 
 
 
 
 Foundries... .,. 
 
 a 
 
 358 
 364 
 
 2 9 6 
 2 5 6 
 
 338 
 258 
 
 276 
 
 212 
 
 280 
 
 250 
 '73 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 441 
 
 3 22 
 
 293 
 
 247 
 
 227 
 
 219 
 
 
 
 
 
 Malleable .... 
 
 17 
 
 46s 
 
 
 33* 
 
 008 
 
 ?88 
 
 770 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *r 
 
 4 V J 
 
 
 
 jy 
 
 JWW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 117 
 
 Square bars were intended to be , I, i, 2, 2j, 3, 3J, and 
 4 ins. square. Round bars were to be of the same areas, and all 
 12 ins. between supports. Two lengths and the same shape and 
 sizes of cross-section both D and O were made for tensile tests, 
 using no bars larger than 2 ins. D or 2.15 ins. diameter. 
 
 Other bars of the same sizes were machined down to the 
 next smaller size by cutting \ in. from each surface, thus a 
 I -in. D bar was machined to a bar \ in. D- 
 
 In tabulating, the in. D machined section will be placed in 
 the column of the size that it was cast (i in. Q) and the same 
 for other sizes, for the reason that the grain is varied by the size 
 as cast, and therefore comparison can only be made between bars 
 originally cast the same size. 
 
 TABLE L. 
 
 SERIES E. TRANSVERSE STRENGTH PER SECTION \" D X 12" LONG. 
 A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 /\ \ n 
 
 4" 
 
 tf 
 
 xi" 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 \v / 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 238 
 
 
 
 Drv " ' " " 
 
 410 
 
 31-1 
 
 
 
 
 247 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f j J Diameter ^^ 
 
 56" 
 
 1.13" 
 
 1.69" 
 
 2.15" 
 
 2.82" 
 
 338" 
 
 3.95" 
 
 4-51" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green sand not machined 
 
 480 
 
 290 
 
 267 
 
 
 
 2 86 
 
 280 
 
 
 Drv " " " 
 
 
 287 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SERIES D. TRANSVERSE STRENGTH PER SECTION \" O X 12" LONG. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /\ \ 1 1 
 
 i /r 
 
 i /x 
 
 ij" 
 
 ff 
 
 2 i'/ 
 
 _// 
 
 ,!// 
 
 ff 
 
 ^/ / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green sand not machined 
 
 45 
 
 3.51 
 
 359 
 
 348 
 
 08 n 
 
 
 98? 
 
 
 Drv " " 
 
 
 2.91 
 
 
 
 
 ,68 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "j ^ Diameter Q 
 
 .56" 
 
 1.13" 
 
 1.69" 
 
 2.15" 
 
 2.82" 
 
 3.38" 
 
 J-95" 
 
 4.51" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 280 
 
 
 
 
 _0_ 
 
 0- 
 
 
 
 Hrv 4< ** fc * 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 308 
 
 jy* 
 
 
 
 
 322 
 
 4 2 5 
 
 352 
 
 295 
 
 340 
 
 363 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 SERIES A. TRANSVERSE STRENGTH PER SECTION V' 3 X 12" LONG. 
 
 < r \. \ 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > > LJ 
 
 i" 
 
 l" 
 
 if 
 
 
 ai 
 
 3" 
 
 3i 
 
 4" 
 
 
 08 
 
 
 
 218 
 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 216 
 
 
 187 
 
 1 68 
 
 
 
 262 
 
 
 
 186 
 
 176 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ J Diameter Q 
 
 .56" 
 
 I.I3'' 
 
 1.69" 
 
 2.15" 
 
 2.82" 
 
 3-3S'' 
 
 3.95" 
 
 4.51" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 238 
 
 218 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 218 
 
 
 176 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 60 
 
 
 
 
 1 68 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SERIES B. TRANSVERSE STRENGTH PER SECTION " D X 12" LONG. 
 
 /\ \ II 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \2 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 206 
 
 
 
 212 
 
 
 
 
 
 26O 
 
 280 
 
 
 2J.8 
 
 
 2O2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 221 
 
 
 1 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O ) Diameter Q 
 
 .56" 
 
 I.I3" 
 
 1.69" 
 
 2.15" 
 
 2.82" 
 
 3.38" 
 
 3-95" 
 
 4-5 1 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 288 
 
 262 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 264 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 192 
 
 
 288 
 
 
 
 
 
 196 
 
 " " machined... 
 
 
 22^ 
 
 227 
 
 220 
 
 172 
 
 IQ2 
 
 181 
 
 181 
 
 SERIES C. TRANSVERSE STRENGTH PER SECTION \" D X 12" LONG. 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /\ "s r~i 
 
 \y 7 
 
 i" 
 
 272 
 705 
 
 290 
 660 
 
 i" 
 
 2 
 
 2i" 
 
 3" 
 
 34" 
 
 4 
 
 
 Green sand not machined 
 
 3 6o 
 380 
 
 252 
 
 279 
 
 290 
 
 270 
 
 263 
 257 
 
 2,2 
 246 
 
 223 
 234 
 
 228 
 272 
 
 216 
 
 231 
 214 
 
 227 
 
 211 
 
 224 
 208 
 
 211 
 
 2O2 
 193 
 
 1 99 
 
 177 
 
 
 
 " " machined . 
 
 \^J J Diameter Q 
 
 .56" 
 
 I-!3" 
 
 1.69" 
 
 2.15'' 
 
 2.82" 
 
 3.38"' 
 
 3-95" 
 
 4-15" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green sand not machined. 
 
 365 
 
 
 257 
 
 
 248 
 
 232 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 308 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T08 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 119 
 
 Instead of comparing the measured strengths of each test-bar 
 and to assist in making comparisons, Tables XLIX and L give 
 the average measured strength of a section of each test-bar 
 
 Wb h H 
 4" D X 12" long. (Formula W l = , , 1 2 . 1 -, where the plain 
 
 letters are for the measured test-bar, the letters sub. one are for 
 the other size.) 
 
 TABLE LI. 
 
 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF TEST-BARS l" D CAST IN DRY SAND. A. F. A. 
 
 Series. 
 
 Total 
 Carbon. 
 
 Graphitic 
 Carbon. 
 
 Combined 
 Carbon. 
 
 Silicon. 
 
 Phosphorus 
 
 Sulphur. 
 
 Manganese. 
 
 E 
 
 3-04 
 
 
 
 3-04 
 
 0.72 
 
 0-45 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.17 
 
 D 
 
 2.36 
 
 0.06 
 
 2.30 
 
 0.85 
 
 0.48 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.15 
 
 A 
 
 3-87 
 
 3-44 
 
 0-43 
 
 1.6 7 
 
 0-95 
 
 0.03 
 
 0.29 
 
 B 
 
 3-82 
 
 3-23 
 
 0-59 
 
 1-95 
 
 0.41 
 
 0.04 
 
 o-39 
 
 C 
 
 3-84 
 
 3-52 
 
 0.32 
 
 2.04 
 
 0.58 
 
 O.O4 
 
 0-39 
 
 It is unfortunate that only one test-bar in each series of 
 A. F. A. tests was analyzed, and that no analysis of the pig irons 
 entering into the composition was made. Fig. 56 is the average 
 measured strength of a section \" D X 12" long of each size of 
 test-bar from 4" D X 4" D A. S. M. E. Series I to 6, as given 
 in Table XLIX. 
 
 Fig. 57 is the record of Fig. 56 with the curves made regular, 
 i.e. the influences which caused the variations in the different sizes 
 of bars have been eliminated, but the general conditions which 
 influenced each series as a whole are left unchanged. 
 
 Referring to the records given in this chapter and especially 
 Fig. 82, Chapter XV: Strength generally increases with each 
 increase of silicon (up to j $), in the bars which were cast 4 in. Q. 
 
 An increase of silicon diminishes the combined carbon and 
 removes brittleness and thus increases strength. 
 
 Strength does not follow a variation in silicon, but it is 
 foundry experience that the lower, the silicon the weaker the small 
 fastings, and the stronger the large castings and the higher the 
 
I2O 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 silicon (up to j#), the stronger the small castings and the weaker 
 the larger castings. For large castings therefore it is the practice 
 to use the least silicon that will produce the requisite softness. 
 
 Referring to Fig. 57 (and more especially Fig. 82), by follow- 
 ing the curve which represents the strength of the different sizes 
 
 01 1 LU01 I I 1201 II UOI I I 1401 I I (.501 i ' 1601 | I L70L I I 1801 I I 1901 U'.OO 
 
 iRATIO^CUBIC INCHES CONTENTS 4- SQ IN. COOLING SURFACE 
 
 460 
 
 410 
 
 420 ' 
 
 400 3! 
 
 ml 
 
 340 
 
 t 
 
 320*5 
 
 -in- 
 
 s 
 
 300 
 
 o 
 280 * 
 
 200 
 
 
 160 I UOI 1 ! ].20| I I U 
 
 2'xl" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 2' 
 
 DQUQIS" 
 
 SERIES 1\ 
 
 
 0| I I UOI I I '.SOI I ! I.60I I ! L 
 
 \ 
 
 lYrTTT"K 
 
 420 
 
 400 
 
 _380 
 
 340 
 
 320 
 
 300 
 
 280 
 
 260 
 
 240 
 
 220 
 
 -- 200 
 
 -Xi 
 
 prnsj 6 
 
 FIG. 56. A. S. M. E. Tests as Measured. 
 
 of test-bars made from one mixture of iron, we see that with 
 castings poured from the same iron : 
 
 Strength of a $ in. Q section of each test-bar decreases as the 
 size of the casting increases. 
 
 This is because under ordinary conditions large castings cool 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 121 
 
 more slowly than small castings. Slow cooling gives time for 
 the grains to become larger than when the casting cools rapidly. 
 
 Referring again to any one of the curves in Fig. 82 we see 
 that, 
 
 Strength of a % in. Q section of each test- bar decreases more 
 
 01 II 11 
 460 
 
 01 [ 1 -12 
 
 ,RAT0 
 K" 
 
 Oj I I U 
 
 -rCC'BIC 
 
 jo- 
 
 01 I ! \.i 
 
 INCHES 
 2Vl" 
 
 o| 1 1 U 
 
 CONTEN 
 2 
 
 oi I | ifl 
 rs-^-so. 
 
 a" 
 
 01 1 1 L' 
 IN. CO 
 
 01 1 1 IS 
 
 3LINGSI 
 .30- 
 
 01 I 1 U 
 
 RFACE 
 
 0) [1.00 
 4" 
 
 
 
 6 1 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 460 
 440 
 
 
 o 
 
 420'C4 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 "IR 
 
 DQU( 
 
 )IS" 
 
 
 
 420 
 
 X 
 
 400* 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 400 
 
 1 
 
 So 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 380 
 
 1- 
 
 360 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 *?" 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 340 
 
 ! 
 
 320 
 
 \1 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 320 
 
 i 
 
 3005 
 
 \ 1 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 3 
 fc 
 280 
 
 1 \ 
 
 \v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 280 
 
 S 
 
 *,! 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 260 
 
 u. 
 u 
 
 240 
 
 
 v: 
 ^ 
 
 \VN 
 Si 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 240 
 
 I 
 
 220 
 
 
 
 \ ^ 
 
 f^ 
 
 1 ^ 
 \ 
 
 
 
 ^RJES 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 200 < 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 s. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -4's 
 
 '? 
 
 220 
 200 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^<>^ 
 
 > ^ 
 
 180 
 
 180 1 U 
 
 ' 
 
 on f u 
 
 1' 
 
 01 1 ! 1.3 
 
 2*xl" 
 
 01 I 1 U 
 
 1 
 
 PJJJJJ 
 
 0" 
 
 01 1 1 t< 
 
 ** v -y^r 
 
 oi 1 1 i7oi r i LI 
 
 0! I I U 
 
 01 inooT 
 
 FIG. 57. Curves of Fig. 56 made uniform. 
 
 rapidly with each increase in size near the \ in. Q end of the 
 series than near the 4. in. Q end. 
 
 Also, Decrease in strength due to each increase in size of a 
 casting is greater and more rapid with each increase of silicon. 
 
 In Fig. 57 the curve from iron containing \% of silicon begins 
 
122 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 lowest and ends highest. With increase of silicon the curve 
 begins higher and ends lower than curves from iron with lower 
 silicon. 
 
 The slower cooling of each larger casting causes each curve 
 to drop quickly at first and less rapidly as the castings increase 
 in size. An increase in silicon causes a more rapid drop through- 
 out. It is in accordance with shop experience and general 
 opinion that an increase in silicon weakens large castings. The 
 fact that small castings grow stronger with each increase in silicon 
 (at least up towards 3$) does not seem to have been noticed, 
 probably because, until the introduction of a J-in. Q test-bar, a 
 I -in. D test-bar was the smallest in general use. 
 
 TABLE LII. 
 
 TENSILE TEST. 
 
 Position of Test-bar in a 
 Casting 9" D X 18" Long. 
 
 Load 
 per a" 
 
 
 Corner of casti 
 Side 
 Middle " 
 
 ng 
 
 16,450 
 15,406 
 13,750 
 
 
 
 Corner o 
 (i 
 
 Side 
 < < 
 Middle 
 
 f cast 
 
 
 24,600 
 25,000 
 25,400 
 25,400 
 19,700 
 19,850 
 2O.2OO 
 15,730 
 
 
 Total carbon 2.84 per cent 
 Graphite " .60 
 Combined" 2.24 
 Silicon i.io 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Phosphorus. .34 
 Sulphur 09 
 Manganese.. .49 
 
 
 
 
 The center of a casting has a coarser grain and is weaker 
 than the surface of a casting. This is shown by Table LII, 
 giving the strength of two sets of eight bars which were cut from 
 different portions of two castings, also by the compression tests 
 of Table LVII of J-in. cubes cut from the surface and from the 
 center of square test-bars, therefore, 
 
 Removing the surface of a test-bar or casting diminishes its 
 strength per unit of cross- section. 
 
 Table LIII proves the following proposition : 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 123 
 
 Casting test-bars in liorizontal molds gives more even strength 
 and more uniform size than in vertical molds. (See also Table 
 LXIV.) 
 
 The A. F. A. bars were all cast on end, while the A. S. M. E. 
 bars were cast flat. These two series of records can only be 
 compared by finding the ratio of variation in size and strength. 
 The bars were supposed to be the size of the pattern. The ratio 
 of variation would therefore be the difference between the size as 
 cast and the intended size, divided by the intended size. 
 
 TABLE LIII. 
 
 PERCENTAGE OF VARIATION IN SIZE OF D BARS IN GREEN SAND. 
 
 
 Size of Test-bars Averaged. 
 
 1"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 2"D 
 
 3"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 Average. 
 
 A. S. M.E. 
 
 Number of bars averaged 
 
 I 2O 
 2.62 
 
 
 38 
 
 38 
 
 3 ? 
 
 271 
 4.16 
 
 A F A 
 
 Percentage of variation ... 
 
 
 7 .8e 
 
 
 
 
 7.^6 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 g 
 
 g 
 
 f. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PERCENTAGE IN VARIATION IN STRENGTH OF D BARS IN GREEN SAND. 
 
 
 Size of Test-bars Averaged. 
 
 i"D 
 
 i"Q 
 
 2" D 
 
 3"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 Average. 
 
 A. S. M. E. 
 
 Number of bars averaged 
 
 120 
 
 3 Ss 
 
 38 
 
 1o6 
 
 38 
 
 268 
 
 A. F. A.- 
 
 Percentage of variation 
 Number of bars averaged 
 
 15-99 
 12 
 
 ,3.96 
 
 4.06 
 6 
 
 ^ 
 
 J' 55 
 
 8-57 
 32 
 
 The ratio of variation in strength is found by finding the differ- 
 ence between the breaking load of the companion bars of each 
 size and dividing by their average strength. 
 
 One reason for such a large percentage of variation in strength 
 of the A. F. A. tests of J-in. and i-in. test-bars was that they 
 used a ioo,ooo-lb. tensile testing-machine, while the committee 
 of A. S. M. E. used very sensitive transverse machines. 
 
 Tables LIV and LV give the average percentage of variation 
 in strength of each size of test-bars of each size of A. F. A. bars. 
 
 These include unmachined and machined bars tested trans- 
 versely and by tension. 
 
 The recorded strength of all unmachined bars tested trans- 
 versely is the strength as actually measured, and the size of 
 test-bar was in nearly every case slightly larger than intended. 
 
124 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 All machined bars were the exact intended size. The 
 strengths of unmachined tension-bars were reduced to strength 
 per square inch. The average per cent variation of these bars is 
 therefore not due to variation in size, but to the inherent quality 
 of the material. 
 
 The variation in strength is as great in test-bars machined to 
 exact size, or in tensile bars per square inch, as that of unmachined 
 bars of the measured sizes. 
 
 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE 
 
 TABLE LIV. 
 
 OF VARIATION IN TRANSVERSE STRENGTH, 
 A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 
 J"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 J"D 
 
 2"Q 
 
 2|"D 
 
 3"D 
 
 4-32 
 
 2.87 
 
 3 .a6 
 
 5-5 
 
 I3-58 
 
 3*"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 Gen. 
 Av. 
 
 SERIES A, B, C. 
 
 Green sand bars, not machined 
 ** " " machined 
 
 15.99 
 
 13.96 
 7-15 
 
 8.90 
 
 5-44 
 3-42 
 
 4-65 
 
 "43 
 
 3-65 
 i-95 
 
 8.05 
 
 4.06 
 
 2-73 
 
 1.07 
 
 3.98 
 
 20.39 
 
 .5.68 
 
 4-77 
 
 5-5 
 
 3.62 
 
 3.48 
 
 3-72 
 5.98 
 
 2.IO 
 4.27 
 
 3-53 
 
 4-55 
 4-95 
 
 85 
 1.81 
 
 4.02 
 
 7.12 
 5-84 
 
 4-93 
 
 3-79 
 
 7.06 
 
 SERIES A, B, C. 
 
 Dry sand bars, not machined 
 
 14 ii 
 
 " " " machined 
 
 SERIES D, E. 
 
 Dry sand bars, not machined 
 
 4.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 c5 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 & 
 
 p 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 fe 
 
 O 
 
 <> 
 
 r"> 
 
 
 
 4- 
 
 
 SERIES A, B, C. 
 
 Green sand bars, not machined 
 machined 
 
 SERIES A, B, C. 
 
 Dry sand bars, not machined 
 
 11.31 
 9-47 
 
 14.24 
 3.12 
 
 9.90 
 
 5-65 
 
 10.99 
 
 7.22 
 4-47 
 
 5-8. 
 4.68 
 
 l 3- 6 3 
 
 4.36 
 
 3-34 
 
 2.49 
 6.17 
 
 19.23 
 
 4.00 
 
 1.02 
 
 2.6 4 
 1.89 
 
 5-99 
 
 2.70 
 3-24 
 
 1.88 
 2.09 
 
 4-47 
 
 7-59 
 1.63 
 
 4.69 
 1.26 
 
 3 48 
 
 3.29 
 4-05 
 
 2.04 
 2.05 
 
 8.18 
 
 6.84 
 2.98 
 
 4.86 
 3-40 
 
 8.25 
 
 SERIES D, E. 
 
 Dry sand bars, not machined ... 
 
 
 Average of all Q test-bars 
 
 o " " 
 
 it. 37 
 9.63 
 
 7-77 
 8.78 
 
 6.15 
 7.16 
 
 6-45 
 7.12 
 
 4.61 
 3-" 
 
 5.91 
 2.88 
 
 3 92 
 3-73 
 
 3-24 
 3-92 
 
 5-75 
 5-27 
 
 The variation in strength to be provided for in ordinary cast- 
 ings is at least 50$. The average of all the bars of the A. S. 
 M. E. series is 5.48$, and the widest variation is 20^; the 
 average of the five A. F. A. series was 8.64$, and the widest is 
 
 26*. 
 
 In all of these castings the greatest care was taken to have 
 the castings uniform, and each test-bar was tested, while the 
 
STRENGTH OF C4ST IRON. 
 
 castings of commerce often contain concealed flaws that only a 
 test would reveal. 
 
 TABLE LV. 
 
 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF VARIATION IN TENSILE STRENGTH, A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 
 
 i : 
 
 
 V 
 
 1? 
 
 
 
 V'O 
 
 i"D 
 
 ro 
 
 3 "D 
 
 Av. 
 
 
 
 ,"D 
 
 ."D 
 
 2"D 
 
 Av. 
 
 SERIES A, B, 
 
 C. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green sand, not machined 
 machined 
 
 7.27 
 
 5.08 
 
 o.S5 
 
 6.30 
 
 5-48 
 
 6.6! 
 16.42 
 
 6.31 
 10.82 
 
 5.99 
 
 5-42 
 9-22 
 
 5-^6 
 
 4.19 
 
 ,5:3 
 
 5-75 
 11.24 
 
 SI 
 
 :RIES A. B, 
 
 C. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dry sand, not ma 
 machir 
 
 chined, 
 ed. 
 
 6. 7 8 
 
 2.18 
 8.14 
 
 8.69 
 4.29 
 
 4.17 
 6.56 
 
 5-45 
 6-33 
 
 4-97 
 
 4.II 
 
 5-46 
 
 12.47 
 10.78 
 
 2.6 3 
 
 9.6. 
 
 6.04 
 
 8.28 
 
 5-74 
 7-3 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 4 
 
 I? 
 
 ^ 
 
 v 
 
 IP 
 
 m 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 g 
 
 ? 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 N 
 
 M 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 M 
 
 < 
 
 "^ 
 
 SERIES A, B, 
 
 c. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green sand, not machined 
 " " machined 
 
 6.56 
 
 3-37 
 4-73 
 
 5'45 
 6.03 
 
 5.40 
 5-32 
 
 5-19 
 5-3 
 
 9-33 
 
 "34 
 
 6.66 
 7.12 
 
 7 .l6 
 I3.8 9 
 
 6. 5 6 
 
 II. 12 
 
 8.07 
 
 SERIES A, B, 
 
 c. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dry sand, not machined.. 
 ' " machined 
 
 Average of all D bars. . 
 ' Qbars.. 
 
 7-31 
 
 7.02 
 6.88 
 
 4 !o6 
 
 4-25 
 
 10. 08 
 
 3 26 
 5-75 
 
 5-28 
 6.63 
 
 7.61 
 
 4.10 
 
 13.00 
 
 16.03 
 
 12. IO 
 
 3.80 
 12.26 
 
 7.88 
 12.46 
 
 6.08 
 9-54 
 
 7 ~6 
 7-39 
 
 6.49 
 4.64 
 
 6.19 
 6-45 
 
 8.44 
 4-93 
 
 7-23 
 5-53 
 
 8-47 
 
 6.05 
 S-'3 
 
 10 14 
 
 .0.48 
 
 7 .50 
 9.28 
 
 7-79 
 9-5 
 
 It is quite surprising that the A. S. M. E. test-bars, molded 
 and cast flat and poured from various ladles with iron caught from 
 the cupola in the usual way, should not vary as much in size and 
 strength as with the A. F. A. test-bars molded and poured with 
 every precaution to insure uniformity. 
 
 The variation in strength is due to the natural uneven structure 
 of cast iron, and not in any great degree to varying temperature 
 of iron entering a mold, or to varying chemical constitution, or to 
 the character of the mold. 
 
 The strength of any size of casting cannot be calculated by any 
 mathematical formula from data obtained from testing a test-bar 
 of another size. (The ordinary formula is given just before 
 Table LI, page 119.) 
 
 A record obtained by a mathematical formula from the test of 
 
126 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 a bar 01 any single size would give the same strength for a given 
 unit of section for a large as for a small bar, and the graphic 
 record would be a straight horizontal line. The formula wouhl 
 give for small castings too small a strength, and for large castings 
 too great a strength. 
 
 TABLE LVI. 
 
 TENSILE STRENGTH PER D INCH OF AREA A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SERIES A. 
 Side of square 
 
 i"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 i*"n 
 
 2"D 
 
 rn 
 
 i"D 
 
 i*" D 
 
 *" D 
 
 Green sand, not machined.. 
 
 15,857 
 
 13,93 
 
 12,140 
 12,940 
 
 10,650 
 
 15,575 
 
 13,245 
 
 ",525 
 
 10,225 
 
 Dry " not machined.. 
 
 14,840 
 
 ",950 
 13,840 
 
 12,285 
 13,420 
 
 9,795 
 12,124 
 
 15,872 
 
 13,075 
 
 12,000 
 
 10,55 
 
 Diam. 
 
 0.56" O 
 
 1.13" 
 
 1.69" O 
 
 2.15" C 
 
 0.56" O 
 
 1.13" O 
 
 1.69" O 
 
 2.15" C 
 
 Green sand, not machined.. 
 " " machined 
 Dry " not machined. 
 
 16,015 
 14,277 
 
 13,770 
 13,760 
 13,725 
 
 12,520 
 13,49 
 11,685 
 13,225 
 
 1 1 ,065 
 12,230 
 10,530 
 
 14,962 
 15,622 
 
 12,785 
 13,980 
 13,220 
 
 II, 860 
 
 !2,45 
 11,485 
 
 10.675 
 10.715 
 10,140 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SERIES B. 
 Side. 
 
 *"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 i*"n 
 
 2"D 
 
 rn 
 
 i" a 
 
 i*"D 
 
 2"C 
 
 Green sand, not machined.. 
 4> " machined 
 Dry " not machined.. 
 " " machined.. ... 
 
 17,100 
 16,310 
 
 i5. T 55 
 17,620 
 15.090 
 18,420 
 
 12,870 
 15.005 
 13,290 
 14,935 
 
 11,460 
 12,780 
 
 ",135 
 12,105 
 
 16,295 
 15,7^5 
 
 14,970 
 17,780 
 15,123 
 16,380 
 
 13,315 
 14,97 
 11,740 
 
 I 4, I 35 
 
 10,515 
 12,150 
 
 n37 
 
 Diam. 
 
 0.56" o 
 
 1.13" C 
 
 1.69" 
 
 2-15" O 
 
 0.56" O 
 
 '.13" 
 
 1.69" O 
 
 2.15" O 
 
 Green sand, not machined.. 
 4< machined.. 
 Dry " not machined.. 
 
 16,537 
 16,730 
 
 15,865 
 
 17,000 
 
 16, 160 
 16 860 
 
 13.115 
 
 15,375 
 13,160 
 
 11,405 
 
 12,535 
 
 II,OIO 
 
 16,210 
 16,830 
 
 14,81-5 
 18,040 
 16,260 
 
 13.705 
 13,870 
 14,170 
 
 ",335 
 13,75 
 11,090 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SERIES C. 
 Side. 
 
 J"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 ii"D 
 
 2"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 i*" a 
 
 2" a 
 
 Green sand, not machined . 
 " " machined...... 
 Dry " not machined.. 
 
 17,702 
 16,352 
 
 16,020 
 18,460 
 16,020 
 17,080 
 
 12,520 
 
 15,13 
 12,170 
 14,125 
 
 11,055 
 11,670 
 
 ",315 
 9,77 
 
 16,430 
 16,772 
 
 15,970 
 17,640 
 15,785 
 17,100 
 
 11,665 
 14,030 
 12,760 
 13,390 
 
 10,765 
 
 io,595 
 10,890 
 
 12 885 
 
 Diam. 
 Green sand, not machined.. 
 
 0.56" O 
 17,830 
 
 1.13" 
 15,865 
 
 1.69" 
 14,170 
 
 2.15" O 
 
 J2,O3O 
 
 0.56" D 
 17,275 
 
 1-13" 
 16.535 
 
 1.69" O 
 
 14,410 
 
 2.15" 
 
 11,810 
 
 Dry " not machined.. 
 " " machined 
 
 16,402 
 
 15,93 
 17,720 
 
 14,045 
 15,850 
 
 11,590 
 10,430 
 
 17,850 
 
 lO^OQO 
 18,460 
 
 12,705 
 14.925 
 
 10,970 
 10,230 
 
 A glance at the graphic records, Fig. 57, shows how far from 
 the actual strength such a record would be. 
 
 When these results were made known in 1895, they were so at 
 variance with general opinion that the question arose whether the 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 127 
 
 same results would be obtained by tensile tests. It was ques- 
 tioned Avhether the peculiar-shaped curves of Fig. 82 were not 
 due to applying the ordinary formula to transverse tests to obtain 
 the strength of a i-in. D section of each size of test-bar. 
 
 Lira 
 
 SQ. IN. 
 
 18000 
 
 JIT 
 
 ijjj 
 
 Mi l^ IH 2 i '- llJ !'56i J 
 TENSILE STRENGTH, GRE 
 
 i.i3 ; -|i | i. l 6U J 2.y 
 
 EN SAND BARS. 
 
 17000 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 (A.F.A.|)\C 
 TESTS \ 
 
 
 
 
 16000 
 
 "\\ 
 
 A \\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 15000 
 
 \\ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 \; 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 14000 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 fe '- 
 
 \\ 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 13000 
 
 
 v % 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ \ 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 12000 
 
 
 
 AV 
 
 *\N 
 
 \ 
 
 s. 
 
 
 
 
 \ N 
 
 \\ 
 
 11000 
 
 
 
 
 %1 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 loooo 
 36000 
 
 B\ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 32000 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 28000 
 
 2 
 
 \ . . . 
 
 COMPRESSION LBS. ON &"cUBES 
 
 24000 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 FROM MIDDLE OF SQUARE DRY SAND BARS. 
 (A.F.A. TESTS) 
 
 20000 
 
 
 v< 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16000 
 
 
 "Vy 
 
 \ 
 
 X 
 
 X N 
 
 ^-\ 
 
 
 
 
 12000 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 ^ N 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 8000| 
 
 Til, 
 
 !' 
 
 (Ml 
 
 .iff 
 
 infl 
 
 'MM 
 
 s^____ 
 
 ? ( M' 
 
 TfiT' 
 
 """STV 
 
 
 l?^ 1 
 
 " |JP 
 
 FIG. 58. A. F. A. Tensile and Compression Tests make the same Character 
 of Curves as A. S. M. E. Tests. 
 
 The committee of 'A. F. A. have in Table LVI supplied 
 exactly what was wanted in their complete set of tensile tests of 
 G and O bars varying in size from J sq. in. area to 4 sq. ins. area 
 of cross-section, and they have used two forms of tensile test- 
 bars. Plotting the results we have the upper part of Fig. 58, 
 
128 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 exactly the same kind of diagrams as produced from transverse 
 tests. Calculating the strength of one size of tensile bar from the 
 strength of another size is by a simple proportion, but observing 
 the decrease in the tensile strength per square inch of bars of 
 greater area on account of slow cooling, it is seen that the 
 proposition is proven that the strength of a casting cast one size 
 cannot be calculated from another casting cast another size by 
 any formula. 
 
 Compression Tests, Table LVII, by the committee of 
 A. F. A. prove the same thing. Cubes with -J in. Q sides were 
 cut from the square bars cast in dry sand of Series A, B, and C. 
 
 One cube was taken from the surface of each bar equidistant 
 from the corners, another cube was taken \ in. nearer the center 
 of each of the bars, and so on. The results are given in Table 
 LVII. One cube was always taken from the exact center. At 
 the bottom of Fig. 58 these plotted results show the same-shaped 
 diagrams as in Fig. 57. 
 
 TABLE LVII. 
 
 COMPRESSION TESTS A. F. A. OF 
 
 CUBES FROM EACH OF DRY SAND D BARS. 
 
 
 Distance from 
 Surface. 
 
 j"n 
 
 i"D 
 
 i*"D 
 
 2 "D 
 
 IPQ 
 
 3"D 
 
 3J"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 c 
 
 First . 
 
 
 
 
 
 12,040 
 
 II,2OO 
 
 10,770 
 
 10,340 
 
 St 
 
 4> J 
 
 Second 
 Third 
 
 
 
 17,180 
 
 13,880 
 
 11,430 
 
 10,950 
 
 10.270 
 10,430 
 
 9,830 
 9,540 
 
 9,950 
 9,570 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9,360 
 
 4 
 
 f 
 
 Center 
 First . . 
 
 29.57 
 ^3 360 
 
 2O,OIO 
 
 17,180 
 24,820 
 
 13,810 
 21,640 
 
 10.950 
 18,270 
 
 9,830 
 
 17,000 
 
 9,35 
 15,970 
 
 9,100 
 16,140 
 
 
 Second .... 
 
 
 
 
 38,740 
 
 
 14,410 
 
 15,200 
 
 13,950 
 
 sJ 
 
 Third 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13.760 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13,160 
 
 12,830 
 
 $ 
 
 Center. 
 
 38,360 
 
 33,COO 
 
 20,980 
 
 18,130 
 
 15,060 
 
 13,790 
 
 13,160 
 
 12,430 
 
 . - f 
 
 First 
 
 ng r O O 
 
 
 
 
 19 800 
 
 18.170 
 
 
 16,410 
 
 u 
 
 Second 
 
 
 
 20,750 
 
 19,340 
 
 18,050 
 
 16,850 
 
 16,510 
 
 15,250 
 
 gj 
 
 Third 
 
 
 
 
 
 17,840 
 
 
 16,080 
 
 14,880 
 
 fl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 880 
 
 14,200 
 
 II 
 
 Center 
 
 38,50 
 
 24,890 
 
 20,750 
 
 18,010 
 
 i 7 ,8 4 o 
 
 15,950 
 
 15,880 
 
 14,220 
 
 Stronger castings are made in green- sand than in dry- sand 
 molds, because castings cool slower in a dry mold. See Table 
 LIV. 
 
 Square test-bars are stronger than round test-bars with equal 
 areas of cross-section, shown by Tables LVIII and LIX. 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 129 
 
 TABLE LVIII. 
 
 AVERAGE TRANSVERSE STRENGTH OF D AND O TEST-BARS, A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 t" D X 12" 
 
 .56"OXw" 
 
 i" D X 24" 
 reduced to 
 
 i" D x 12" 
 
 ... 3 ;px 
 
 2107 
 
 A verage of 38 bars ; 2 each of the 19 series 
 
 401 
 
 362 
 
 2361 
 
 TABLE LIX. 
 
 AVERAGE TRANSVERSE STRENGTH OF d" SECTIONS OF ALL D AND O BARS, A. F. A. 
 
 
 i"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 *"D 
 
 2"Q 
 
 2j"D 
 
 3"D 
 
 3i"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 Averages of all Q bars 
 
 363 
 
 336 
 
 280 
 
 258 
 
 2 7 2 
 
 242 
 
 242 
 
 239 
 
 
 56" O 
 
 "3" O 
 
 ,.6 9 " 
 
 2-15" O 
 
 2.82" O 
 
 3-38" O 
 
 3.95" O 
 
 4-5i"O 
 
 Averages of all Q bars ... 
 
 3i3 
 
 2 6 7 
 
 281 
 
 283 
 
 261 
 
 247 
 
 222 
 
 220 
 
 T'7~ 
 
 Diff. -f in favor of [J bars ... 
 
 + 50 
 
 + 69 
 
 i 
 
 + 25 
 
 + 11 
 
 - 5 
 
 + 20 
 
 AVERAGES OF TENSILE STRENGTHS OF D AND O BARS, A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 r rn =c 
 
 ' . 
 
 
 
 ^C^=^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 rq 
 
 i"Ll 
 
 *'D 
 
 2"D 
 
 i"D 
 
 ,D 
 
 ii"D 
 
 a"D 
 
 Averages of all n bars . 
 
 16,360 
 
 15,834 
 
 13,403 
 
 ",234 
 
 16,109 
 
 15.531 
 
 13,003 
 
 11,219 
 
 
 
 56" 
 
 .3" 
 
 15,803 
 
 i.6 9 "O 
 13,894 
 - 491 
 
 2. 15" 
 
 O 
 
 56" O 
 
 1.13" O 
 
 1.69" O 
 
 2.15" O 
 
 Averages of all Q bars 
 
 16,173 
 
 + i8 7 
 
 11,510 
 
 -2 7 6 
 
 16,410 
 
 291 
 
 15,697 
 
 - 166 
 
 13,573 
 - 570 
 
 11.427 
 - 208 
 
 Diff. + in favor of D bars 
 
 The difference is not great, but the average shows in favor of 
 the square bar. This shows that practically the grain of one is 
 as uniform as the other, and it is fortunate that it is so, because 
 the rectangular shape is more common than the round for 
 ordinary castings, but it is well known that all corners of a 
 pattern should be rounded and all reentrant angles should be as 
 round as possible. For further remarks on Tensile-bars see 
 Chapter XIX. 
 
 A committee appointed to report to the Western Foundry 
 Association, Nov. 21, 1894,* as to whether a round test-bar cast 
 
 * The Iron Trade Review, Nov. 29, 1894. 
 
1 3 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 on end was better than a square bar cast flat, reported that in one 
 group of tests, all square bars cast flat were perfect, while 43 # of 
 the round bars cast on end were defective. In another group of 
 tests, 1 8$ of the square bars cast flat were defective, and 54$ of 
 the round bars cast on end were defective. The committee 
 reported that they could not endorse the round bar cast on end as 
 against the square bar cast flat. 
 
 During 1894 Mr. West made a large number of tests with round 
 bars cast on end and square bars cast flat.* The results exhibited 
 the same differences in favor of the square bar as above stated. 
 
 Test-bars 2" X i" X 36" cast flat and tested flat, and also 
 on edge. The test-bar 2" X i", tested with the wide side down > 
 
 TABLE LX. 
 
 A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 
 Size of Test-bar, 2 // Xi // X36 // . 
 
 
 
 
 
 No 
 
 
 Shear- 
 
 
 
 Kind of 
 Iron. 
 
 Test- 
 bar. 
 
 
 
 Max. 
 
 Deflec- 
 
 Stress per 
 
 ing 
 Stress 
 
 Modulus of 
 Elasticity. 
 
 Resili- 
 ence. 
 
 
 
 Breadth 
 
 Height. 
 
 Load 
 in Lbs. 
 
 tion in 
 Inches. 
 
 D" in 
 Outer 
 Fibre. 
 
 per D" 
 
 
 
 oj 
 
 
 TESTED NARROW SIDE I 
 
 )OWN. 
 
 
 
 at 
 
 359 
 
 .02 
 
 2.OO 
 
 2,800 
 
 .295 
 
 37,057 
 
 686 
 
 I5,OOO,OOO 
 
 413 
 
 
 366 
 
 .OI 
 
 1.98 
 
 3,000 
 
 355 
 
 40,915 
 
 750 
 
 14,900,000 
 
 533 
 
 JO, 
 
 367 
 
 .OI 
 
 1.98 
 
 3,020 
 
 350 
 
 4M73 
 
 ' 754 
 
 I4,9OO,OOO 
 
 431 
 
 T3 
 
 358 
 
 .00 
 
 1.99 
 
 3,028 
 
 386 
 
 41,300 
 
 767 
 
 16,500,000 
 
 637 
 
 
 364 
 
 99 
 
 1.96 
 
 3,054 
 
 .416 
 
 43,000 
 
 786 
 
 l6,OOO,OOO 
 
 635 
 
 43 
 
 361 
 
 .00 
 
 2.00 
 
 3,056 
 
 433 
 
 4L254 
 
 764 
 
 14 900,000 
 
 66> 
 
 CU 
 
 ^60 
 
 .00 
 
 I QQ 
 
 3,100 
 
 
 A QOO 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 J^\7 
 
 372 
 
 .04 
 
 2 00 
 
 3,950 
 
 .380 
 
 51,400 
 
 968 
 
 17,304,000 
 
 750 
 
 
 Av'ge 
 
 
 
 7 2O 
 
 077 
 
 42 2QQ 
 
 782 
 
 TC fi.17 /IOR 
 
 c8r> 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 Oi J * 
 
 31 1 
 
 il* t +\f\f 
 
 IV" * J ) Vfc tv7 ,*f ~ J~ v 
 
 JO 
 
 
 TESTED WIDE SIDE DOWN. 
 
 i 
 
 363 
 
 1-97 
 
 99 
 
 ,342 
 
 623 
 
 37,600 
 
 345 
 
 16,000 ooo 
 
 4 I8 
 
 
 357 
 
 1.98 
 
 .01 
 
 ,404 
 
 .604 
 
 38,400 
 
 352 
 
 15,200,000 
 
 422 
 
 c 
 
 368 
 
 2.00 
 
 .00 
 
 ,438 
 
 555 
 
 38,842 
 
 359 
 
 14,100,000 
 
 399 
 
 4) 
 
 365 
 
 1.98 
 
 .02 
 
 ,480 
 
 750 
 
 38,800 
 
 282 
 
 T4,5OO,OOO 
 
 560 
 
 <O 
 
 PQ 
 
 370 
 
 1-99 
 
 .01 
 
 ,541 
 
 655 
 
 41,100 
 
 380 
 
 I4,OOO,COO 
 
 500 
 
 
 371 
 
 2.00 
 
 .00 
 
 ,570 
 
 .470 
 
 42,300 
 
 392 
 
 I7,9OO,OOO 
 
 37 
 
 ( 
 
 362 
 
 1.97 
 
 03 
 
 .578 
 
 750 
 
 40,800 
 
 287 
 
 II.7OO,OOO 
 
 592 
 
 CO 
 
 360 
 
 2.00 
 
 .01 
 
 ,620 
 
 .720 
 
 42,800 
 
 401 
 
 I4,9OO,OOO 
 
 583 
 
 ,2 
 
 Av'ge 
 
 
 
 1,497 
 
 .556 
 
 40 042 
 
 349 
 
 14,780,000 
 
 480 
 
 
 
 * The Iron Trade Review, Nov. I, 1894. 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 131 
 
 has been adopted by the Water-works Association as a test for 
 cast-iron water-pipes. In England this test-bar is in common 
 use and is 36 ins. long. It is there tested with the narrow side 
 down. 
 
 The bars (Table LX) were all poured from the same ladle of 
 iron. The averages of actual loads, of bars tested with narrow 
 side down, show nearly three times as great strength as when 
 tested flat. The showing is much better for the founder. The 
 majority of people would not be aware that simply turning the 
 bar edgeways would give nearly three- times as high a strength 
 per square inch, but would give credit to the iron. This probably 
 accounts for this size being so generally used in England. 
 
 Methods for Producing the Strongest Castings. This 
 resolves itself into methods for producing a close, strongly inter^ 
 locked grain free from brittleness. 
 
 Using an Iron with Low Silicon for Large Castings. The 
 slow cooling removes brittleness and makes the casting as soft as 
 required and leaves the grain close. 
 
 Using Irons with Higher Silicon which Naturally have a 
 Close Grain. By this method softer castings are produced and 
 both small and large castings can often be made from the same 
 iron. 
 
 By the use of test-bars it will be found that a change of mix- 
 ture can be made that will very greatly increase strength by using 
 a different proportion of the same irons. 
 
 Wrought-iron Borings or Chips put into the cupola along with 
 the pig iron will add strength. 
 
 Cast-iron Chips or Turnings Charged in Boxes along with 
 the Pig Iron is very effective to close the grain and will to a great 
 extent prevent spongy cavities at enlarged parts of the casting. 
 
 To use cast-iron borings, make boxes from i-in. cull lumber 
 about 6 ins. deep that will hold 100 Ibs. Fill these boxes with 
 clean borings as they are removed from the shop, nail the covers 
 on, and pile each box in a dry place near the cupola. Begin by 
 using 100 Ibs. of borings to 1000 Ibs. of all other iron charged 
 
132 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 and increase as found desirable. Keep wrought-iron borings in 
 separate boxes. 
 
 TABLE LXI. 
 
 A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 Series. 
 
 Per Cent of Total Carbon. 
 
 Av'age 
 per 
 cent. 
 
 rn 
 
 "D 
 
 i"Xa" 
 
 a"Q 
 
 3"n 
 
 4"D 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 3-82 
 
 3-85 
 
 3-88 
 
 3.88 
 
 3-81 
 
 3-83 
 
 3-845 
 
 
 2 
 
 3-90 
 
 3-86 
 
 3-83 
 
 3-89 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.91 
 
 3-875 
 
 
 3 
 
 3-69 
 
 3-55 
 
 3-73 
 3-72 
 
 3-74 
 3-70 
 
 3-77 
 3-77 
 
 3-70 
 
 3-71 
 
 3.68 
 
 3-75 
 
 3-718 
 3.700 
 
 
 
 
 3-54 
 
 3.56 
 
 3-54 
 
 3-58 
 
 3-48 
 
 ?-52 
 
 3-553 
 
 i 
 
 
 3.38 
 
 3-46 
 
 3-3^ 
 
 3-39 
 
 3-30 
 
 3-31 
 
 3-370 
 
 r 
 
 7 
 
 4.02 
 
 4.01 
 
 4.01 
 
 3-95 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.01 
 
 4.000 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 3-S4 
 
 3-88 
 
 3-83 
 
 3-78 
 
 3-83 
 
 3.84 
 
 3-833 
 
 Hinkle \ 
 
 9 
 
 3-8i 
 
 3-89 
 
 3-86 
 
 3-92 
 
 3.82 
 
 3.83 
 
 3-855 
 
 
 10 
 
 3-20 
 
 3-23 
 
 3-29 
 
 3-21 
 
 3-24 
 
 3.27 
 
 3 24'^ 
 
 
 ii 
 
 3-32 
 
 3-34 
 
 3-3i 
 
 3-34 
 
 3-36 
 
 3-31 
 
 3-330 
 
 
 12 
 
 3-34 
 
 3-37 
 
 3-33 
 
 3-35 
 
 3-37 
 
 3-30 
 
 3-343 
 
 ( 
 
 14 
 
 3-15 
 
 3-23 
 
 3-27 
 
 3-27 
 
 3-23 
 
 3.28 
 
 3-335 
 
 Southern < 
 
 13 
 
 3-14 
 
 3.16 
 
 3.16 
 
 3-15 
 
 3-n 3-15 
 
 3-M5 
 
 ( 
 
 15 
 
 3-13 
 
 3.10 
 
 3.16 
 
 3-15 
 
 3-15 
 
 3-19 
 
 3.146 
 
 C. G. Bretting& Co 
 
 16 
 
 3-79 
 
 3.88 
 
 3-81 
 
 3- Si 
 
 3.80 
 
 3-75 
 
 3.806 
 
 Mich. Mall. Iron Co 
 
 17 
 
 31 1 
 . j. i 
 
 
 
 * 06 
 
 3IO 
 . i <-> 
 
 3 . 06 
 
 7 08^ 
 
 Bement, Miles & Co 
 
 *- 1 
 18 
 
 3-35 
 
 3-35 
 
 3-42 
 
 j VJ *-' 
 
 3-30 
 
 3-23 
 
 3-3i 
 
 j) *-"- 3 
 3.326 
 
 A. Whitney & Sons 
 
 19 
 
 3-74 
 
 3-85 
 
 3-79 
 
 3.8l 
 
 3-89 
 
 3-86 | 3.823 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 Total Carbon. The series made for the A. S. M. E., Table 
 LXI, do not present enough data to form any conclusions. The 
 only way to make comparisons is to compare series containing 
 exactly the same silicon, and otherwise substantially having, the 
 same chemical composition. Then it would take a large number 
 of tests to prove anything, for any influence that would cause the 
 grain to be close would increase strength independently of 
 chemical composition, and vice versa. It is very difficult to 
 make experiments on carbon in cast iron and preserve uniformity 
 in the rest of the composition. It will not answer to add wrought 
 scrap, for this will not only decrease carbon, but at the same time 
 would decrease the percentage of every other element; and also 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 because such scrap will close the grain and increase strength, 
 independently of the lessening of carbon. 
 
 TABLE LXII. 
 
 A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 Series. 
 
 Per Cent of Combined Carbon. 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 "D 
 
 i"D 
 
 i" X 2" 
 
 2 " D 
 
 3"Q 
 
 4"D 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 1 .46 
 
 1-25 
 
 1.05 
 
 .80 
 
 .76 
 
 .70 
 
 
 2 
 
 .70 
 
 54 
 
 59 
 
 56 
 
 54 
 
 .60 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 .48 
 45 
 
 45 
 .48 
 
 .42 
 43 
 
 37 
 .36 
 
 34 
 . ii 
 
 .13 
 
 50 
 
 
 i 
 
 5 
 
 35 
 
 .16 
 
 .20 
 
 . ii 
 
 . IO 
 
 
 i 
 
 6 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 .30 
 
 .15 
 
 .11 
 
 .08 
 
 r 
 
 7 
 
 1.24 
 
 .88 
 
 .72 
 
 53 
 
 52 
 
 .46 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 
 .67 
 
 44 
 
 .50 
 
 49 
 
 .46 
 
 .42 
 
 Hinkle { 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 53 
 .29 
 
 .42 
 .36 
 
 50 
 
 43 
 
 .46 
 37 
 
 .15 
 44 
 
 .11 
 
 45 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 32 
 
 .12 
 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 .08 
 
 .08 
 
 ( 
 
 12 
 
 27 
 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 ( 
 
 M 
 
 .26 
 
 15 
 
 .14 
 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 .08 
 
 Southern < 
 
 I ** 
 
 . 1 1 
 
 . IO 
 
 .OQ 
 
 .08 
 
 O7 
 
 O7 
 
 
 X J 
 
 15 
 
 .10 
 
 .09 
 
 \j\j 
 .09 
 
 .09 
 
 **/ 
 .11 
 
 . \j / 
 .08 
 
 C. G. Bretting & Co 
 
 16 
 
 49 
 
 78 
 
 73 
 
 .49 
 
 58 
 
 44 
 
 Mich. Mall. Iron Co.. . . 
 
 17 
 
 2 8s 
 
 
 
 2 78 
 
 1 . 2O 
 
 i . 20 
 
 Bement, Miles & Co .. . . 
 
 A / 
 18 
 
 ^ " <-> J 
 
 45 
 
 52 
 
 50 
 
 * /o 
 
 24 
 
 .12 
 
 .11 
 
 A. Whitney & Sons 
 
 19 
 
 2-95 
 
 99 
 
 .81 
 
 .81 
 
 87 
 
 .89 
 
 Combined Carbon. This must have been uniformly diffused 
 in the molten metal, to have produced such a uniform variation 
 in the test-bars. 
 
 It is the universal opinion that strength is mainly due to the 
 combined carbon which the castings contain, and that weakness 
 is caused by changing it into graphite, which is supposed to 
 mechanically separate the grains. 
 
 This opinion originated with the makers of heavy castings, 
 who in making strong castings invariably used irons with high 
 combined carbon, which is always an accompaniment of low 
 silicon, and produces a close grain, and for this last reason gives 
 great strength in a large casting. For example, an 8-ton anvil- 
 
134 CAST IRON. 
 
 block was made from white pig iron which contained about one 
 half of i% of silicon, with the carbon nearly all combined. This 
 made a very strong, fine-grained gray casting. Series 17 made 
 white castings in the J in. O, I in. Q, and \" X 2" test-bars, 
 but the 2-in. Q, 3-in. D, and 4-in. Q bars were very close- 
 grained gray castings, and of extraordinary strength. <4 Iro- 
 quois," with combined carbon 1.46$ in the ^-in. Q bar, produced 
 a stronger 4-in. Q bar than any other of the six ."Iroquois " 
 mixtures, with less combined carbon. Viewing the subject of 
 strength and of combined carbon in the light of chemical analyses 
 alone, no other conclusion could be drawn. But if the whole 
 nineteen series of test-bars are examined, we shall see that com- 
 bined carbon weakens castings, and never strengthens them. 
 
 We shall proceed to prove, from these same series from which 
 we have shown how the accepted opinion was obtained, that the 
 decrease in strength of large castings is wholly due to loosely 
 united crystals, and not to any change in the proportion of com- 
 bined or graphitic carbon. 
 
 Combined Carbon weakens Cast Iron. In each of the charts 
 we see in the ^--in. D test-bars, that with each increase of 
 silicon the combined carbon is decreased, and that the strength 
 is increased in the same proportion. In the ^-in. Q test-bars of 
 each series containing about \<f> of silicon, the combined carbon 
 was about 1.50$, and the iron was weak because it was brittle. 
 As combined carbon decreased in the J-in. [U bars with each 
 addition of silicon, the brittleness decreased. This is shown 
 strikingly in Series 14, 13, and 15. 
 
 Combined carbon may decrease as castings are larger, but the 
 strength always decreases. This decrease of combined carbon and 
 of strength are botJi caused by the slow cooling, and the decrease 
 of combined carbon has not king to do with the decrease of strength. 
 
 "Iroquois," Series I, had 1.46$ of Cd. C. in the -in. D bar, 
 which was about one half white, and Cd. C. decreased in the 
 other sizes to 1.25, 1.05, 0.80, 0.76, and 0.70. In this case 
 strength decreased exactly as Cd. carbon decreased (silicon and 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON, 135 
 
 other chemical elements were practically uniform in each size), 
 and as a chemist would look at it, it would appear that there 
 could be no other reason for decrease in strength than the 
 decrease in combined carbon, for this is the only chemical 
 variable. 
 
 The fact is, however, the lessening of the combined carbon 
 made the I -in. G test-bar gray, and each successive decrease of 
 Cd.C. darkened the color and made the casting more ductile; in 
 other words, slow cooling has done for the larger sizes of test-bars 
 of the series just what the increases in silicon did for the -in. G 
 bars of the six series, and this should therefore have increased 
 the strength, and it did. But the increase in the looseness of the 
 grains on account of the slow cooling decreased the strength 
 more rapidly than this increase of strength. Whatever the 
 decrease in strength on account of loose crystallization was, it 
 was lessened in Series I by the increase in strength due to the 
 decrease in combined carbon, with the result that the larger bars 
 were stronger than any others of the six series. 
 
 A further proof is found in the various series in which com- 
 bined carbon is the same in each size of test-bar; for example, 
 Series 19, which was from a car-wheel mixture in which the iron 
 was mixed in a large ladle and therefore of uniform composition ; 
 Cd.C. remained the same in all sizes of test-bars, but the 
 decrease in strength follows the general law. 
 
 Another example proving the same thing is Series 2, "Iro- 
 quois." The silicon has been increased about two tenths of i$, 
 and in all but the J-in. G bars the combined carbon is uniform 
 at about .54$, but slow cooling decreases strength in the large 
 test-bars, exactly the same as in Series I. The increase in sili- 
 con has, in the J-in. G bar, taken out brittleness, by diminishing 
 combined carbon, and has thereby increased the strength 45 Ibs. 
 This increase in silicon causes the grain to become coarse, in the 
 larger bars, more rapidly than in Series I. The large bars grow 
 weak faster in Series 2 than in Series I, in spite of the combined 
 carbon not decreasing in the larger bars. In Series 1 5 the 
 
136 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 J-in. n bar begins with o. 10 of \% combined carbon, and there 
 is not enough decrease in this element, in the larger bars, to 
 make any difference in any respect, but slow cooling causes the 
 same proportional weakening of the larger bars. 
 
 A most interesting test was made by Mr. A. L. Colby, 
 chemist of the Bethlehem Steel Co. Half of a furnace cast was 
 run in sand and half in the iron molds of their casting machine. 
 The former made an open-grained pig and the latter a pig of very 
 close grain as shown in Fig. 59- A portion of each kind was 
 melted separately in a cupola under as uniform conditions as 
 possible, and test-bars 3^ ins. square were cast in horizontal and 
 in vertical molds. The castings from each were exactly alike in 
 grain. The fractures are shown in Fig. 59 and the composition 
 and strength of each. is given in Table LXIII. 
 
 Mr. Colby ascribed the great strength of the machine-cast pig 
 to the combined carbon, which he considered the only variable. 
 Whereas the sudden cooling in the iron molds caused the grain 
 to be very uniform and close, while the slow cooling of the sand- 
 cast pig produced a very coarse and irregular grain. 
 
 If the same close grain could have been produced without any 
 increase of combined carbon the strength would not have been 
 any less. 
 
 TABLE LXIII. 
 
 SAND OR IRON MOLDS FOR PIG IRON. 
 
 
 Sand-cast 
 Pig. 
 
 Machine- 
 cast Pig. 
 
 Test-bars 3*" D X 18" Long. 
 
 From Sand-cast 
 Pigs. 
 
 From Machine cas- 
 Pigs 
 
 Cast Hor- 
 izontally. 
 
 Cast Ver- 
 tically. 
 
 Cast Hor- 
 izontally. 
 
 Cast V - 
 deal y 
 
 Total Carbon 
 
 3.460 
 3.210 
 .250 
 
 3.000 
 .770 
 .041 
 
 950 
 
 15.000 
 
 3.380 
 2.460 
 .920 
 
 2.990 
 773 
 .041 
 
 950 
 41 .000 
 
 3.400 
 2.930 
 47 
 
 2 930 
 .766 
 .071 
 .840 
 
 18.000 
 
 3-300 
 3.022 
 -368 
 
 2.QIO 
 .769 
 .064 
 .850 
 
 16.300 
 
 3-364 
 3.028 
 .336 
 
 2.960 
 .772 
 .077 
 .840 
 
 17.000 
 
 3-35- 
 3. 100 
 
 257 
 
 2 . Q ^ .-> 
 
 ^4 
 .071 
 
 .840 
 
 i 7 . ooo 
 
 Graphitic Carbon 
 
 
 
 Phrsphorus 
 
 
 Manganese 
 
 Tensile strength Ibs. per sq. in. ... 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 
 
 137 
 
 FIG. 59. Showing Effect of Grain on Strength. 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 To make it possible to judge of the quality of castings from 
 the fracture of machine-cast pig iron it would be necessary that 
 the conditions in all cases, at all furnaces, should be uniform, and 
 there seems no chance of this. At present there seems to be 
 more variation in conditions than in sand-cast pig. 
 
 TABLE LXIV. 
 
 A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 
 
 Per Cent of Graphitic Carbon. 
 
 
 Series. 
 
 r n 
 
 i'"D 
 
 i" X 2" 
 
 a"Q 
 
 3"D 
 
 4"D 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 2.36 
 
 2.60 
 
 2.8 3 
 
 3.08 
 
 3-05 
 
 3-13 
 
 
 2 
 
 3.20 
 
 3-32 
 
 3-24 
 
 3-33 
 
 3-32 
 
 3-31 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 3.21 
 
 3-28 
 3-24 
 
 3-32 
 3-27 
 
 3-40 
 3-41 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.60 
 
 3-55 
 3-25 
 
 
 i 
 
 5 
 
 3-19 
 
 3 40 
 
 3-24 
 
 3-47 
 
 3-38 
 
 3-42 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 3-oi 
 
 3.08 
 
 3.08 
 
 3-24 
 
 3-19 
 
 3-23 
 
 c 
 
 7 
 
 2.78 
 
 3-13 
 
 3- 2 
 
 3-42 
 
 3-48 
 
 3-55 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 
 3.17 
 
 3-44 
 
 3- 3 
 
 3-29 
 
 3-37 
 
 3-42 
 
 Hinkle \ 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 3-28 
 2.91 
 
 3-47 
 
 2.87 
 
 3-36 
 2.86 
 
 2.84 
 
 3-67 
 2.80 
 
 3-72 
 2.82 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 3-oo 
 
 3-22 
 
 3.22 
 
 3-25 
 
 3.28 
 
 3-23 
 
 I 
 
 12 
 
 3-07 
 
 3-28 
 
 3-24 
 
 3.26 
 
 3.28 
 
 3.22 
 
 ( 
 
 14 
 
 2.89 
 
 3.08 
 
 3-13 
 
 3.18 
 
 3-14 
 
 3.20 
 
 
 / *-xrt 
 
 3.06 
 
 "3 O*" 
 
 "7 O*7 
 
 3 04 
 
 i oft 
 
 ( 15 
 
 3.03 
 
 J VVP 
 
 3-oi 
 
 3-07 
 
 3.06 
 
 3-03 
 
 3-H 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C. G. Bretting & Co 
 
 16 
 
 3.30 
 
 3-10 
 
 3.08 
 
 3-32 
 
 3-22 
 
 3-3i 
 
 Mich. Mall. Iron Co.. . . 
 
 17 
 
 .26 
 
 
 
 . 24 
 
 I . 90 
 
 1.86 
 
 Bement, Miles & Co 
 
 / 
 18 
 
 2.90 
 
 2. ,8 3 
 
 2.92 
 
 3.06 
 
 3-n 
 
 3-20 
 
 A. Whitney & Sons 
 
 19 .79 
 
 2.86 
 
 2.98 
 
 3. co 
 
 3.02 
 
 2.97 
 
 Graphitic Carbon. The general opinion is that it causes 
 weakness. If C. C. decreases, the G. C. must increase ; there- 
 fore, if it was thought that combined carbon produced strength, 
 the same facts that seemed to warrant this conclusion implied that 
 graphitic carbon produced weakness. Again, in graphitic iron, 
 the grain was coarse, and the flakes of graphite lay between the 
 grains, and it seemed self-evident that these graphitic flakes must 
 of necessity separate the grains of iron and cut the casting up. 
 
 The same proof that has been produced in the case of com- 
 bined carbon will apply regarding graphitic carbon. 
 
STRENGTH OF CAST IRON. 139 
 
 From an examination of these series, strength or weakness 
 seem to be absolutely independent of this element. The loose- 
 ness of the grain, produced by slow cooling, so separates the 
 grains that there seems to be more than enough room for the 
 flakes of graphite to lie in the open spaces. It may be even 
 doubted if the graphite ever gets between the grains to make 
 their union less perfect. The graphitic scales seem to have 
 formed in the spaces after the openings have been formed, and 
 either act as a cushion, or the scales lie loosely in the cavities. 
 This latter supposition seems plausible, from the fact that when 
 pig iron, or a casting as large as a pig of iron, is broken, scales 
 of graphite fall out in great abundance. 
 
 For the influence of sulphur and manganese on strength con- 
 sult the chapters on these elements. 
 
 Annealing Castings. To produce very soft castings with 
 very low shrinkage some founders melt only the softest No. I 
 pig iron, and do not even use the scrap made from such iron ; 
 while others use cheaper irons for the castings, and afterwards 
 place the castings in an annealing oven until most of the combined 
 carbon which they contain is changed into graphite. Instead of 
 increasing silicon in their mixtures to cause a decrease in com- 
 bined carbon, they prefer to anneal the castings. It would be 
 impossible to get as low a shrinkage or as soft iron in the cupola 
 as by this process. 
 
 Table VI, Chapter V, is an example of this. All bars were 
 poured from one ladle. The chill in the annealed castings is very 
 dull and only half as deep as before annealing. The grain is 
 much darker and is filled with glistening points. The unannealed 
 thin bars broke without taking set, while the annealed thin bars 
 took a set of over four tenths of an inch at the center before 
 breaking. The unannealed square bars took a set of . 10 of an 
 inch at 300 Ibs., and after annealing took a set of .20 of an inch. 
 The annealing changed three fourths of the combined carbon into 
 graphite and the annealing temperature was high enough to 
 enlarge the grain, thereby weakening the test-bars. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 IMPACT. 
 
 THE object of this chapter is to show the influence of impact 
 upon test-bars of various sizes. 
 
 The Test-bars are I in. X i in., i in. X i in-, I in. X 
 I in., and j- in. X i in. in section. One set is 24 ins. long and 
 another set is 12 ins. The bars are of tool-steel having a 
 uniform spring-temper produced in a gas-muffle. Each bar was 
 then ground to the exact standard size on a surface-grinder. 
 
 The Recording Apparatus (Fig. 99) holds the ends of the bars 
 in clamps which rest on bearings exactly 24 ins. or 12 ins. apart. 
 The impulse is received by a cage clamped to the center of the 
 bar, and the motion is multiplied five times by an arm which 
 carries a pencil at its end, which makes an autographic diagram 
 of the movement of the center of the test-bar. 
 
 Dead Load. A single-lever machine, shown in Figs. 92 
 and 93. 
 
 TABLE LXV. 
 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 25 Ibs. 
 
 50 Ibs. 
 
 75 Ibs. 
 
 TOO Ibs. 
 
 200 Ibs. 
 
 300 Ibs. 
 
 400 Ibs. 
 
 500 
 Ibs. 
 
 
 i in. Xi in. X 24 in. 
 
 .0028 
 
 .0056 
 
 .0084 
 
 .0112 
 
 .O224 
 
 .0336 
 
 .0448 
 
 .0560 
 
 
 i X 1 X 24 
 
 .0056 
 
 .0112 
 
 .0168 
 
 .0224 
 
 .0448 
 
 .0672 
 
 .0896 
 
 .1120 
 
 D 
 C 
 
 XI X 24 
 
 .0224 
 
 .0448 
 
 .0672 
 
 .0896 
 
 .1792 
 
 .2688 
 
 .3584 
 
 .4480 
 
 C 
 
 i x i x 24 
 
 .0448 
 
 .0896 
 
 1344 
 
 .1792 
 
 .3584 
 
 .5376 
 
 .7168 
 
 .8960 
 
 G 
 
 2 
 
 I XI X 12 
 
 .0003 
 
 .COO7 
 
 .0011 
 
 .0014 
 
 .0028 
 
 .0042 
 
 .0056 
 
 .0070 
 
 
 I Xi XI2 
 
 .0007 
 
 .OOI4 
 
 .0021 
 
 .0028 
 
 .0056 
 
 .0084 
 
 .OII2 
 
 .0140 
 
 
 1 Xi Xi2 
 
 .0028 
 
 .0056 
 
 .0084 
 
 .OII2 
 
 .0224 
 
 .0336 
 
 .0448 
 
 .0560 
 
 Q 
 
 i X| Xia 
 
 .0056 
 
 .0112 
 
 .0168 
 
 .O224 
 
 .0448 
 
 .0672 
 
 .0896 
 
 .1120 
 
 140 
 
IMPACT. 
 
 141 
 
 DEAD LOAD 
 BARS 24" LONG 
 
 DEAD LOAD 
 BARS 12" LONG 
 
 Keep 
 
 FIG. 60. 
 
142 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 Ball bearing 
 
 Dead-load Diagrams (Fig. 60). It must be remembered 
 that all of these test-bars are perfectly elastic for the loads applied 
 to them, and for this reason dead-load deflections are propor- 
 tioned to loads. The diagrams show that: 
 Deflection is inversely as the breadth of the test-bar. 
 
 ' " " " " cube of the height of the test-bar. 
 
 " "directly " " " " " length of the test-bar. 
 Impact Testing Machine (Figs. 61 and 
 98) with its Hammer Swinging on a 
 wooden vertical arm 6 ft. long. The 
 weight of the hammer can be varied be- 
 tween 25 and 100 Ibs. 
 
 With a swinging hammer the bar 
 receives the impulse in a horizontal direc- 
 tion and the bar bends until the motion of 
 the hammer is stopped. The bar then 
 springs back and throws the hammer away, 
 ^ when it is caught by the hand and clasped 
 -L to the trip for the drop from the next 
 higher point. The dead load of the 
 hammer is carried by the vertical arm to 
 which it is attached. 
 Impact Diagrams made with a Swinging Hammer. To obtain 
 a complete record of each motion of the center of the test-bar, a 
 shaft J in. in diameter was made to revolve 1250 revolutions per 
 minute. The paper-holder was connected to this shaft by a cord. 
 Just as the blow was given the shaft was caused to revolve, and 
 the winding of the cord caused the paper to move its whole 
 24-ins. length in half a second. The length of the diagram of a 
 single impulse, and of the vibrations until the bar comes to rest, 
 is from I to 4 ins., and the pencil makes this record in from T ^ 
 to T V of a second. 
 
 The diagrams (Figs. 62 to 68) are reduced to one third actual 
 size. Figs. 62 and 64 are swinging blows from 25 and loo-lb. 
 hammers, both i-m. drop, on the same test-bar. The bar 
 
 Anvil 
 
 FIG. 61. 
 
IMPACT. 
 TABLE LXVI. 
 
 DEFLECTIONS WITH SWINGING HAMMAR. 
 
 143 
 
 Weight 
 of 
 Hammer. 
 
 Height of Drop in Inches. 
 
 o in. 
 
 i inch. 
 
 i inch. 
 
 i^ inches. 
 
 2 inches. 
 
 2$ inches. 
 
 3 in. 
 
 25 Ibs. 
 
 .0 
 
 .060 
 
 .087 
 
 .105 
 
 . 122 
 
 .130 
 
 .144 
 
 50 " 
 
 .O 
 
 075 
 
 .107 
 
 .130 
 
 .150 
 
 .162 
 
 .176 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .O 
 
 .088 
 
 .126 
 
 .152 
 
 175 
 
 193 
 
 .2IO 
 
 100 " 
 
 .O 
 
 .099 
 
 .141 
 
 .17-2 
 
 .200 
 
 . 22O 
 
 .240 
 
 25 " 
 
 .O 
 
 .077 
 
 .110 
 
 139 
 
 -158 
 
 175 
 
 .194 
 
 50 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .100 
 
 M5 
 
 .174 
 
 .201 
 
 .226 
 
 .250 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .0 
 
 .122 
 
 175 
 
 .2IO 
 
 .241 
 
 .271 
 
 300 
 
 100 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .141 
 
 .200 
 
 .241 
 
 .280 
 
 314 
 
 347 
 
 25 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .110 
 
 .165 
 
 .205 
 
 237 
 
 .270 
 
 .300 
 
 50 ' 
 
 .0 
 
 .168 
 
 .242 
 
 300 
 
 350 
 
 .400 
 
 435 
 
 75 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .210 
 
 314 
 
 .385 
 
 .448 
 
 .508 
 
 550 
 
 100 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .260 
 
 370 
 
 .460 
 
 532 
 
 .605 .665 
 
 25 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .150 
 
 .225 
 
 .280 
 
 .322 
 
 -3f>5 -410 
 
 50 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .230 
 
 332 
 
 .410 
 
 .470 
 
 .530 .580 
 
 75 " 
 
 .0 
 
 295 .425 
 
 .525 
 
 .600 
 
 .670 .732 
 
 100 ' 
 
 .0 
 
 342 
 
 493 
 
 .6lO 
 
 .705 
 
 .791 
 
 .870 
 
 25 " 
 
 .0 
 
 035 
 
 .048 
 
 -057 
 
 .069 
 
 .078 
 
 .084 
 
 50 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .044 
 
 .065 
 
 .080 
 
 093 
 
 .107 
 
 .119 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .0 
 
 -053 
 
 .080 
 
 .099 
 
 .118 
 
 .133 
 
 .149 
 
 100 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .062 
 
 093 
 
 .H5 
 
 .138 
 
 .155 
 
 174 
 
 25 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .046 
 
 .062 
 
 .026 
 
 .090 
 
 . IOO 
 
 .no 
 
 50 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .058 
 
 .084 
 
 .100 
 
 .118 
 
 .133 
 
 .147 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .0 
 
 .069 
 
 .100 
 
 .120 
 
 . 140 
 
 .160 
 
 .J77 
 
 100 4 
 
 .0 
 
 .080 
 
 US 
 
 .138 
 
 .162 
 
 .186 
 
 .203 
 
 25 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .060 
 
 .090 
 
 . no 
 
 125 
 
 .139 .150 
 
 50 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .080 
 
 US 
 
 .140 
 
 .161 
 
 .182 .200 
 
 75 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .100 
 
 .120 
 
 175 
 
 .2OO 
 
 .223 .246 
 
 100 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .119 
 
 .166 
 
 .200 
 
 234 
 
 .265 .293 
 
 25 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .070 
 
 .100 
 
 .126 
 
 .148 
 
 .155 -181 
 
 50 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .091 
 
 .131 
 
 .I6 4 
 
 . igi 
 
 .218 .239 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .0 
 
 .117 
 
 .165 
 
 .207 
 
 .238 
 
 .270 .295 
 
 100 " 
 
 .0 
 
 .140 
 
 .197 
 
 .241 
 
 .280 
 
 315 -345 
 
 vibrated once and a trifle more with 25 Ibs., and twice as many 
 times with 100 Ibs. The hammer is caught by the hand and 
 allowed to strike the test-bar but once. By letting the hammer 
 swing against the bar until it came to rest, the 25-lb. hammer 
 
144 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
IMPACT. 145 
 
 made the series of records shown in Fig. 63 and the loo-lb. 
 hammer the record of Fig. 65. 
 
 The regular diagram is made by moving the paper slightly 
 for a base-line when the test-bar is at rest (see Fig. 63). The 
 hammer is then raised to a catch hung in the hole of the graduated 
 arc for -J-in. drop and let drop upon the test-bar. The record is 
 a vertical line five times as long as the actual deflection of the 
 center of the test-bar. The paper is then moved T \ in. and the 
 hammer let drop J in. and so on, each drop being -J in. higher 
 than the next preceding. 
 
 Each record is continued above the base-line, because when 
 the hammer swings back the center of the test-bar goes past its 
 original position, and the bar vibrates several times before it 
 comes to rest. By drawing a line through the lower ends of the 
 record line we get a curve showing the total deflections for drops 
 from o to the highest drop. By connecting the upper ends of the 
 record-lines we have a curve showing the vibrations of the test- 
 bar. 
 
 Diagrams from Test-bars which are not Perfectly Elastic. 
 Fig. 69 shows a dead-load diagram from a bar of ingot iron \ in. 
 by in. by 12 ins. When the metal began to flow rapidly the 
 load was removed, and the pencil rested a distance below its 
 original position equal to the set taken by the test-bar. When 
 the load was again applied, a new diagram was made which joins 
 the former diagram at the point where the load was released. A 
 diagram from a J-in. square steel bar is added, which is shown 
 by the dotted line and coincides with the spring-line of the 
 ingot iron. 
 
 Fig. 70 shows an impact diagram from a test-bar cut from the 
 same bar of ingot iron. With dead load the bar took no set until 
 it gave way. With impact, set began almost at once. The 
 upper line shows the vibration of the bar. The dotted lines 
 show impact diagrams from the tempered-steel bar. As it took 
 no set the line of sets coincides with the base-line. 
 
 Figs. 71 and 72 are diagrams from bars of rolled puddled 
 
i 4 6 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 Mild Steel or Ingot Iron and 
 Steel Bar 
 
 FIG. 70. 
 
 IMPACT 
 Ingot Iron and Tempered 
 
 FIG. 71. 
 
 DEAD LOAD 
 Wrought Iron 
 
 MM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 \ ! J 
 
 X^ 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ui 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 i? 
 
 F,G. 72. 
 
 IMPACT 
 Wrought Iron 
 
 ^~ 
 
 N 
 
 - 
 
 > 
 
 - 
 
 > 
 
 f 
 
 ill 
 
 
 ---^ 
 
 -- 
 
 s 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 f 
 
 M 
 
 'f 
 
 M 
 
 
 FIG. 75. 
 
 Swinging 
 
 
 Base Line 
 
 Vibration 
 
 of Bar 
 
 All Test Bars on this page are M '~x. % * 12, 'all Impacts are with a 25 Ib. 
 Swinging Hammer, all diagrams Full Size. Deflections multiplied by 5. 
 
 Keep 
 
 Am.Bk.Nott CO.N.T. 
 
IMPACT. 
 
148 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
IMPACT. 
 
 149 
 
 iron. 
 
 Figs. 73 and 74 are diagrams from gray cast iron, which 
 takes set with the smallest load, but after having been subjected 
 to a given dead load, in this case 300 Ibs., it is perfectly elastic 
 for less loads. 
 
 In every case the deflection is greater with impact than with 
 dead load. 
 
 Figs. 76 and 78 show the deflections with drops from o to 
 3 ins. of a 75-lb. hammer on each of the test-bars, and Fig. 77 
 shows deflections from all the hammers on a i-in. G bar. 
 
 Impact Diagrams made with a Hammer having a Direct 
 Drop. Fig. 79 shows the same hammers as with swinging blows, 
 hung on a horizontal wooden arm 8 ft. long, which allows the 
 hammer to drop practically in a vertical line without guides. 
 
 8 feet 
 
 Elevation 
 
 IMPACT Direct Fall 
 Plan 
 
 FIG. 79. 
 
 The hammer is fastened by a cord to a timber overhead, and 
 is then raised or lowered by a thumb-screw until it is exactly the 
 required height above the test-bar. 
 
 The cord is cut to let the hammer drop. With a direct drop 
 the hammer acts on the test-bar as a dead load, and also by 
 impact. When the motion of the hammer has been stopped by 
 the elasticity of the test-bar, in springing back the bar must lift 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 the hammer as a dead load, and toss it upward when it reaches 
 its normal position. 
 
 The test-bar when the hammer leaves it vibrates until it 
 comes to rest. 
 
 The hammer drops again on the bar, is tossed a second time, 
 the bar vibrating until at rest, when it receives the hammer again, 
 which finally rests on the bar, bending it as a dead load. 
 
 If a loo-lb. hammer is suspended as in Fig. 79, so that it just 
 rests on the test-bar, say J in. by J in. by 24 ins., but does not 
 bend it, and is lowered slowly, the bar will bend .1792 in., and 
 come to rest supporting the loo-lb. weight; but if the cord was 
 cut and the hammer allowed to drop, it is the same as a . 1792 in. 
 drop on the bar, less the resistance of the bar during this drop, 
 and the bar bends nearly .1792 from the drop -|- .1792 for dead 
 load. 
 
 Fig. 66 on page 144 is a diagram from o drop of loo-lb. 
 hammer. 
 
 TABLE LXVII. 
 
 DEFLECTIONS WITH DIRECT DROP HAMMER. 
 
 tfl 
 
 If 
 
 Weight 
 of 
 
 Height of Drop in Inches. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 ^ 
 
 Hammer. 
 
 o in. 
 
 } inch. 
 
 i inch. 
 
 T| inches. 
 
 2 inches. 
 
 s$ inches. 
 
 3 'n- 
 
 
 25 Ibs. 
 
 005 
 
 .065 
 
 .092 
 
 .119 
 
 .130 
 
 145 
 
 .150 
 
 
 50 " 
 
 .OIO 
 
 .080 
 
 US 
 
 .140 
 
 .159 
 
 174 
 
 .187 
 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .015 
 
 .100 
 
 135 
 
 .162 
 
 .I8l 
 
 .201 
 
 .219 
 
 
 100 " 
 
 .020 
 
 .116 
 
 .160 
 
 .I8 7 
 
 .209 
 
 .230 
 
 .248 
 
 
 25 " 
 
 .Oil 
 
 .087 
 
 .130 
 
 155 
 
 .174 
 
 .191 
 
 .205 
 
 
 50 " 
 
 023 
 
 .112 
 
 .I6 5 
 
 .196 
 
 .221 
 
 .241 
 
 .265 
 
 
 75 ' 
 
 034 
 
 134 
 
 .191 
 
 .229 
 
 .262 
 
 .289 
 
 .316 
 
 
 100 ' 
 
 .047 
 
 .161 
 
 .221 
 
 .266 
 
 .305 
 
 339 
 
 370 
 
 
 25 " 
 
 .046 
 
 145 
 
 .205 
 
 .251 
 
 .285 
 
 .315 
 
 340 
 
 
 50 " 
 
 .084 
 
 .230 
 
 .317 
 
 376 
 
 .420 
 
 454 
 
 .483 
 
 
 75 " 
 
 .126 
 
 .300 
 
 .415 
 
 .485 
 
 531 
 
 571 
 
 .611 
 
 
 IOO ' 
 
 .171 
 
 359 
 
 .482 
 
 064 
 
 .620 
 
 .670 
 
 715 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 ' 
 
 .070 
 
 .206 
 
 300 
 
 .365 
 
 .418 
 
 .456 
 
 . 4 S2 
 
 
 50 " 
 
 .141 
 
 332 
 
 453 
 
 525 
 
 578 
 
 .618 
 
 6 5 2 
 
 
 75 ' 
 
 .230 
 
 453 
 
 .586 
 
 .663 
 
 .720 
 
 .766 
 
 .800 
 
 
 IOO " 
 
 333 
 
 .566 
 
 .702 
 
 .790 
 
 .8 5 I 
 
 .900 
 
 .941 
 
 *" 
 
 
 
 
 1 ! 
 
 
 
IMPACT. 
 
 1 
 
152 CAST IRON. 
 
 Fig. 67 is a diagram showing the influence of a single direct 
 i -in. drop of 25 Ibs. as compared with the influence of a single 
 j-in. drop of a 25-lb. swinging hammer (Fig. 62). 
 
 The diagram (Fig. 80) was constructed from actual records of 
 direct drop. 
 
 Impact Tests. To determine the resilience of a material, 
 support a test-bar at the ends and deliver blows at the center. 
 After a test-bar has been tested in this way to find its resistance 
 to impact without any distortion as a test of brittleness, a portion 
 of the same bar should be clamped on the anvil of the testing- 
 machine so that one end shall project (see Fig. 75, p. 146). 
 Blows should be delivered on the projecting end as far from the 
 clamp as i j- times the depth of the bar. An inch bar would 
 receive blows if inches from the clamp and a J-in. bar f in. 
 from the clamp. 
 
 Size of Test-bars for Impact. Some one ^Softest-bar must 
 be selected for comparisons. The size for cast iron which would 
 seem to give the best results is a bar I in. by I in. by 24 ins. 
 struck with a 5O-lb. hammer. This has the same relative pro- 
 portions as a bar j- in. by f in. by 12 ins., and if a 25-lb. hammer 
 is used for the latter, the record is the same as with a i-in. by 
 I -in. by 24-in. bar with a 5O-lb. hammer; but this does not take 
 into account the change in grain due to size of casting. 
 
 Impact with a Swinging Hammer. On account of this giving 
 simple impact unmixed with dead load and other modifications 
 which accompany the direct drop, the swinging hammer appears 
 to be the best mode of application of impact for ordinary test-bars. 
 
 Its convenience is greatly in its favor. It does not affect the 
 surface of the test-bar. The height of drop is exact to in. It 
 can be operated by hand rapidly. 
 
 Blows should be begun with the same drop at all times, which 
 should be less than the lowest possible breaking drop, and then 
 each drop should be increased by \ in. until fracture takes place. 
 
 Influence of Shock on Cast Iron. In Trans. A. S. M. E., 
 
IMPACT. 153 
 
 vol. XIX. pp. 351 to 386, a large number of tables prove the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 Striking test-bars on the side or in the direction of their length 
 decreases their length slightly, probably by the grains readjusting 
 themselves so as to lie closer together. 
 
 This explains the frequent cracking of castings while breaking 
 off the gates. 
 
 Tumbling, in contact with other castings, test-bars which are 
 covered by sheet-iron cases which Jit perfectly, slightly shortens 
 them. 
 
 Tumbling test-bars in contact with other castings lengthens 
 them. 
 
 The amount that they are lengthened is proportioned to their 
 malleability. A tempered-steel bar and a bar of white cast iron 
 were not lengthened. A bar of soft wrought iron was lengthened. 
 
 It was proved that at first, all soft cast-iron bars were slightly 
 shortened, and then the peening action of the blows on their sides 
 lengthened them. Shipping test-bars 1000 miles, loose in a box 
 and in contact with each other, with the box lying on the floor 
 of a box-car, did not produce any difference in length that could 
 be measured. 
 
 Influence of Shock on Strength. The test-bars shipped by 
 rail were apparently not influenced. Blows delivered on the side 
 or end of a test-bar (even 500,000 blows) did not alter the 
 strength, at least very slightly. 
 
 Test-bars tumbled in a tumbling -barrel are always stronger 
 than companion bars not tumbled. 
 
 This fact seems to have been discovered by Mr. A. E. 
 Outerbridge. He described this in a letter to the author in 
 the last part of 1894, and he published a description in Transac- 
 tions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, vol. XXVI., 
 1896, p. 176. He explains the gain in strength by the 
 4 mobility of molecules, " relieving an overcrowded condition of 
 the grains at the surface of a casting. The chapter on Crystal- 
 lization shows that in a test-bar there can be no crowding, but 
 
154 CAST IRON. 
 
 that each individual grain tends to pull away from those next to 
 it. A shock therefore allows the grains to settle more closely 
 together, making the test-bar slightly shorter. 
 
 The author endeavored to find the true reason for the increase 
 in strength and discovered the following: 
 
 Test- bars -J in. square increase in strength until they have been 
 tumbled two or three hours, but not materially by longer tumbling. 
 
 Of tumbled test-bars, the weakest bars are strengthened most ; , 
 and the strongest bars are strengthened very little. 
 
 The removal of the surface weakens a test-bar . 
 
 Smoothing the surface of a test- bar without removing the sur- 
 face strengthens it. 
 
 Smoothing the surface of a test- bar by pounding with a 
 hammer increases its strength. 
 
 Pounding the surface of a test-bar strengthens it by condensing 
 the grain. 
 
 Therefore the strength gained by tumbling is due to making 
 the surface of the test-bar smooth and to condensing the surface 
 by peening. 
 
 Test-bars of gray iron containing least silicon gain most by 
 the process of tumbling. 
 
 This therefore proves that tumbling test-bars does not 
 strengthen to any great extent, if any, on account of the grains 
 moving on each other and readjusting themselves ; but the great 
 increase in strength is on account of the condensing the grain by 
 pounding, and by smoothing, thus removing notches which would 
 induce fracture. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 GRAPHIC METHOD FOR CLOSELY APPROXIMATING THE 
 PERCENTAGE OF SILICON, THE SHRINKAGE, AND 
 STRENGTH OF ANY OTHER SIZE OF CASTING THAN 
 THE ONE TESTED. 
 
 WE may take ' ' Iroquois ' ' Series I as a fair representation 
 of irons suitable for a moderately heavy casting a little more than 
 i in. thick, having a considerable surface and with a shrinkage of 
 one eighth of an inch to the foot, and containing about \% of 
 silicon. We may take Series 15 as a fair representation of iron 
 suitable for the lightest castings, say from one quarter of an inch 
 down to one sixteenth of an inch thick, and of considerable 
 surface, and with a shrinkage of one eighth of an inch per foot. 
 
 Shrinkage. Table LXVIII is constructed with these series 
 as extremes, and it will be found that " Iroquois," Series I to 6, 
 with Series 15, nearly correspond to the shrinkages of this table. 
 
 TABLE LXVIII. 
 
 APPROXIMATE RELATION OF SHRINKAGE TO SIZE AND PERCENTAGE OF SILICON 
 
 
 *"G 
 
 ,-a 
 
 2" X i" 
 
 ,"D 
 
 3 " a 
 
 4" a 
 
 Percentage 
 Silicon. 
 
 o S 2 c . 
 
 PS rt o 
 
 .183 
 
 .158 
 
 .146 
 
 .130 
 
 113 
 
 .102 
 
 I. 00 
 
 4) (U 4> <J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .171 
 
 145 
 
 133 
 
 .117 
 
 .098 
 
 .087 
 
 1.50 
 
 5" J 
 
 159 
 
 133 
 
 .121 
 
 .104 
 
 .085 
 
 .074 
 
 2.OO 
 
 
 .147 
 
 .121 
 
 .108 
 
 .092 
 
 073 
 
 .c6o 
 
 2.50 
 
 in i 
 
 135 
 
 .108 
 
 095 
 
 .077 
 
 059 
 
 045 
 
 3.00 
 
 .5 -S .S 
 
 .123 
 
 095 
 
 .082 
 
 .065 
 
 .046 
 
 .032 
 
 3-50 
 
 Horizontal readings show decrease of shrinkage due to size. 
 
 155 
 
CAST IRON. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .'<*! 
 
 | 1.9JO |.4J) | .S 
 
 g 
 
 1.60 H 1 1 
 
 on 
 
 .Tt) 1 I.tf 
 
 
 
 
 
 S i 
 
 l.OO 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ratio = Cubic Inche 
 
 s Contents 
 
 quare Inches 
 
 c 
 
 ling Surface 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 JO 
 
 - 
 
 i. 
 
 ._. 
 
 ~-v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-c 
 
 ,180 
 
 
 
 
 _l 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 IS, 
 
 1 
 
 -, 
 
 
 
 1.3-2 
 
 ~\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .180 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---, 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .170 
 
 si 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 -- 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 't 
 
 w 
 
 ~~-^_^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 TO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 -I 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 ~> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .IK) 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .IK) 
 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 (X) 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ~^_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -~^ 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 \! 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^^ 
 
 
 .150 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** 2 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ] 
 
 ..'. 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ i 
 
 ~N 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 -- 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .140 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .140 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 V j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Si 
 
 3 
 
 i 
 
 -j 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _. 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .1!*) 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .130 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 5 
 
 M) 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 V, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .130 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 XI 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .1 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .110 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 k 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 ~ 
 
 s 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "N, 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _3fc 
 
 IX) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |_ 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 x, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X, 
 
 ^ 
 
 f, 
 
 2m 
 
 .090 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 .080 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 at 
 
 A/ 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .(TO 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .070 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 S, 
 
 x\, 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .go - 
 
 .06L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^jsy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 x 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x; 
 
 
 
 .05C 
 
 
 C/i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 "".050 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 kW^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^>^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (M) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 .040 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A. 
 
 ^L"~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 4*0 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ) 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 . t 
 
 
 
 
 fjo 
 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 
 
 
 .1 ) 
 
 
 
 
 .'J 
 
 
 _js5 
 
 FIG. 81. Keep's Shrinkage Chart. Approximate Relation of Shrinl age to 
 
GRAPHIC METHOD FOR SHRINKAGE AND STRENGTH. 157 
 
 In Fig. Si, the shrinkages of this table are shown graphically. 
 
 The figures on each side of this denote the shrinkage in inches 
 per foot. The numbers at the top and bottom show the ratio of 
 cooling. Each curved line shows the variation in shrinkage in 
 varying sizes of castings, containing a given percentage of silicon. 
 The percentage of silicon to produce these curves is marked at 
 each end of each curve. 
 
 To find the approximate percentage of silicon in any iron 
 mixture, locate on the ^-in. d vertical line (.12) the shrinkage 
 of a ^-in. square test-bar from that mixture, and this will show 
 the approximate percentage of silicon that should produce this 
 shrinkage. 
 
 From this chart a founder can at a glance see the difference 
 in shrinkage between different parts of a casting on account of 
 size. He can tell the shrinkage of any casting larger or smaller, 
 made from the same mixture, from the shrinkage of any size of 
 test-bar which he may use. If he knows the size of a casting and 
 the shrinkage that is desired, he can calculate the ratio of the cast- 
 ing and can locate the shrinkage on Fig. 81 and, by following the 
 curved line either way, can find approximately the percentage of 
 silicon which the iron mixture should contain to produce the 
 desired shrinkage. The following examples illustrate some of 
 the uses of Fig. 81. 
 
 Example I . Wanted, to make a cylinder with walls 3 ins. 
 thick and so long that we may neglect the end cooling-surface. 
 The shrinkage of a J-in. test-bar from the iron mixture is .153. 
 What percentage of silicon does it contain, and what will be the 
 shrinkage of the casting ? 
 
 Imagine a strip of the 3-in. casting of any size, say 10" X i"; 
 this contains 30 cu. ins. and 20 sq. ins. of cooling-surface; 30 
 divided by 20 equals a ratio of 1.50. In Fig. 81 find shrinkage 
 .153 on the left-hand margin. A horizontal line will cut the 
 silicon scale at 2.25, which is the approximate silicon. Follow 
 between the curves until the perpendicular for the ratio 1.50 is 
 
158 CAST IRON. 
 
 reached (in this case outside the chart), and it will be found that 
 the approximate shrinkage of the casting will be .062. 
 
 If it had been required to make a casting of these dimensions 
 with a shrinkage of .062 per foot, which had been found satisfac- 
 tory for hydraulic cylinders, or for water-pipe, and it was required 
 to find the silicon in a mixture to produce such a casting, follow 
 down the ratio 1.50 until .062 is reached, then run along the 
 curve to a silicon scale, and we will find the silicon to be 2.25. 
 
 If we had wished a shrinkage of one eighth of an inch per foot, 
 we would have lessened the percentage of silicon in the mixture to 
 about \<f c . 
 
 Example 2. Having .153 as the shrinkage of a -J-in. square 
 bar, it is necessary to reduce this record to that of a i-in. square 
 bar. Find .153 on the left-hand side of the chart, carry it across 
 to the perpendicular corresponding to ratio of a ^-in. bar (.125), 
 run down the curves until the lines corresponding to the ratio 
 (.25) of a I -in. square bar is reached, which shows a shrinkage 
 of .128. 
 
 The shrinkage of a bar i" X 2" can be found in the same 
 way to be .116. 
 
 If we had used a i-in. square bar, we could from the chart 
 reduce its record to that of any other size. 
 
 Fig. 8 1 will be found to be a near approximation of the 
 results in any foundry. By its use any founder can produce a 
 definite size of casting by varying the silicon in the iron from 
 which the casting is made. 
 
 In every-day foundry practice the silicon or the size of the 
 pattern cannot be varied to suit the shrinkage of every thickness 
 of casting to be made at one cast; therefore, the shrinkage of 
 each one of the castings made cannot be kept uniform at one 
 eighth of an inch per foot. 
 
 This is especially the case in the large and small parts of a 
 single casting of varying thickness. 
 
 A measure of shrinkage with any one size of test-bar measures 
 the relative influence exerted by silicon ; and for convenience, in 
 
GRAPHIC METHOD FOR SHRINKAGE AND STRENGTH. 159 
 
 the use of Figs. 81 and 82, a definite silicon percentage is ascribed 
 to each shrinkage. For the reasons previously given, this per- 
 centage is only an approximation of what might be found by 
 analysis, but represents the influence to be expected from the 
 definite percentage of silicon named. 
 
 Each founder must establish a standard shrinkage of one size 
 of test-bar which is found to accompany the best castings in his 
 own foundry, and then he can use the charts with his mixture of 
 iron ; and if the composition is uniform an increase of silicon will 
 decrease shrinkage, and vice versa. 
 
 In Fig. 8 1 draw a horizontal line across the chart through 
 the point which represents a shrinkage of . 125. The point where 
 it crosses the perpendicular representing the rate of cooling of 
 each size of test-bar will also (by a curve passing through that 
 point and parallel to those next to it) show the percentage of 
 silicon needed in each size of casting to produce a shrinkage of 
 .125. A bar 2" X i" needs 1.75$, 2-in. Q 1.25^, and for 
 3 ins. and 4 ins. square less than i$. 
 
 Although we may not be able to reduce records of pig irons 
 or of mixtures in different 'shops to a definite relation between the 
 percentage of silicon and the shrinkage, yet in any one foundry, 
 with a substantially uniform mixture or in any special mixture 
 repeated, the shrinkage will indicate whether the silicon in the 
 mixture should be increased or diminished. 
 
 It is a fact of the utmost importance that, owing to the irreg- 
 ular composition of cast iron, even that poured from one ladle, 
 every physical and chemical record, however obtained, is only 
 an approximation to what would be obtained by another test. 
 A considerable margin must be allowed in all calculations relating 
 to cast iron. 
 
 Strength. In Fig. 82 is shown the variation of strength for 
 various sizes of castings with various percentages of silicon. 
 
 Iron mixtures should be divided into at least three classes : 
 
 i. Those made from very soft pig iron, or with an addition 
 of very soft scrap, which will produce a -in. test-bar with an 
 
CAST IRON, 
 
 qu I | [ i .qu i i i i .3u i II I.BJ i i i i.cu i i i I.T.U i i i i.t 
 
 Ratio == Cubic Inches ConteatB 4- Square Inches Coo ing Surface 
 
 1 
 
 FIG 
 
 82. Keep's Strength Chart. Approximate Relation of Strength to Size 
 
 and Percentage of Silicon. 
 (Strength of a \" n X 12" section of each Size of Test-bar.) 
 
GRAPHIC METHOD FOR SHRINKAGE AND STRENGTH. 161 
 
 TEST BAR 182 
 
 MICHIGAN MALLEABLE IRON CO. 
 
 SERIES 17. 
 
 BEMENT, MILES & CO. .PHILADELPHIA 
 
 .22 
 
 Def. .265 S 61 - - 033 
 Set. .05 
 
 TEST BAR 53 
 
 IROQUOIS 
 
 E = 11,133,604 Total d. ,35 _ 
 Max. Fiber Stress = 64,800, 
 
 SERIES 6. 
 
 Def. .265 
 
 Def. .33 Set " 06 
 Set. .10 
 
 TEST BAR ge 
 
 E - 13,519,152 Elas. d. 
 E - 9,422,439 Total d. 
 Max. Fiber Stress - 64,800 
 
 .30- 
 
 HINKLE 
 
 SERIES 10. 
 
 u 
 
 Set. 
 
 .185 
 .035 
 
 Def. .40 
 _Set, .135 
 
 f . .80 
 Set. Stt 
 
 E - I1.733.G04 Elas. d. 
 E - 7,773,512 Total d. 
 Max FJbor Stress = 64,800 ^ 
 
 FIG. 83. 
 
1 62 CAST IRON. 
 
 open grain and of a dark color, with great deflection, as bars 53 
 and 96 of Fig. 83. In such mixtures a very small percentage of 
 silicon will open the grain so as to greatly decrease the strength 
 of large castings. These are used when softness is more desirable 
 than strength, and should never be used for heavy castings. All 
 of the series from I to 12, and Series 16, are from such mixtures. 
 
 2. A mixture made from close-grained pig iron and close- 
 grained scrap, or a mixture which has had its grain closed by 
 some process, and which will make a |-in. test-bar of compact, 
 close grain, and not very dark in color, and with a moderate 
 deflection, as bar 173 in Fig. 83. Such a mixture will make 
 strong, large castings, and will be soft enough for small machinery 
 work. Series 18 is from such a mixture. 
 
 3. Mixtures which produce a white, }-in. test-bar, with small 
 deflection, as in bar 182 of Fig. 83. Such a mixture should only 
 be used for heavy castings thicker than I in. Series 19 is an 
 exarnpl^ of such a mixture. 
 
 To find t/ic strength of a section % in. square by 12 ins. long 
 of a large test-bar from Fig. 82. 
 
 For ordinary calculations with soft iron find the percentage of 
 silicon from Fig. 81, which corresponds to the shrinkage of the 
 test-bar used. 
 
 On the Strength Chart, Fig. 82, find the curve corresponding 
 to this same silicon percentage, and this is the strength curve for 
 that iron. Now find the perpendicular which represents the size 
 of the test-bar which has been used, and place a dot on it where 
 the horizontal representing the strength of the test-bar crosses 
 this perpendicular; then draw a curve through that dot exactly 
 like the curve which has been found. 
 
 All points on the new curve give, close approximations to the 
 strength of a section \" H X 12" long of any other size of test- 
 bar poured from the same iron. 
 
 To find the actual strength of the test-bar of the required 
 cross-section. Find the perpendicular which passes through the 
 size of test-bar of which you wish the strength and note the point 
 
GRAPHIC METHOD FOR SHRINKAGE ANp STRENGTH. 163 
 
 where it crosses the strength curve, and note the strength repre- 
 sented by that point. Follow the same perpendicular to the 
 point where it crosses the curve of multipliers, and the number, 
 on this curve at the point of crossing, multiplied by the strength 
 of the -in. Q section, gives the strength of a bar of the required 
 cross-section and 24 ins. long. 
 
 The approximation will not vary more than would an actual 
 test of two bars of that size, taking into account the variation in 
 size of grain due to the difference in size, aslo the changes due to 
 variations in the percentage of silicon, and of all other influences. 
 
 In calculating the strength of different sizes of cast-iron cast- 
 ings, from data obtained from a test of a bar of another size, the 
 mathematical formula should never be used, but an approxima- 
 tion should be obtained from Fig. 82. 
 
 In calculating the strength of cast iron it is necessary to use 
 a large factor of safety, even after taking all precautions, for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 The strength of cast iron does not depend to any great extent 
 upon its chemical composition, but it depends upon its granular 
 structure, which is often such that slow cooling, or a variation of 
 silicon, does not change it as it would be expected to do. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 HARDNESS OR THE WORKABILITY OF METALS. 
 
 PROFESSOR TURNER says : ' ' Hardness I understand to be the 
 property whereby a body is enabled to blunt or wear away the 
 edge of a tool used upon it. In this it differs from tenacity, 
 which, though increasing the force necessary to be employed in 
 cutting, does not wear away the edge of the tool." 
 
 A test of the workability of a metal does not distinguish 
 between hardness and tenacity. 
 
 A punch pressed into the surface of a metal is hindered by 
 both these properties. 
 
 The machine used in making tests is shown in Fig. 96. The 
 full record of tests may be found in Trans. A. S. M. E., vol. 
 XXII., and proves that a variation of the speed of the test-drill did 
 not materially affect the test-record. 
 
 The record increased with increase of load. A straight-fluted 
 drill with the heel ground away so as to leave the cutting-edge 
 like a flat drill, gave the best result. The cutting-edge was injured 
 when ground on a dry wheel, and a wet stone was therefore used 
 (Fig. 97). The best angles were those recommended by makers 
 of drills, but the angles could vary and need not be alike for the 
 two lips, yet to prevent question the wet grinder made all pro- 
 portions of the two cutting-edges exactly alike, so that each lip 
 takes the same depth of cut. 
 
 It was found that however carefully a surface was cleaned 
 grit would blunt the tool, and that the surface should be ground, 
 bright, or the point of a -in. drill should be entered to give the 
 
 164 
 
HARDNESS OR THE WORKABILITY OF METALS. 
 
 165 
 
 test-drill a clean cut. Though in ordinary shop-testing it is not 
 necessary, yet the drill was ground before each test. 
 
 6Rer. 
 
 Drill sharpened, 
 would not cut. 
 Role X' 
 
 FIG. 84. Hardness Diagram. 
 
 The record of hardness is a diagram lying between o and 
 90, the latter being the limit of a steel drill. Fig. 84 shows 
 diagrams from i-in. Q test-bars. The first to the left is from a 
 bar having hard spots, and one was struck that the drill could not 
 penetrate. The diagram next to this shows that the drill entered 
 a spongy spot and afterwards solid iron. The upper end shows 
 where the drill passed through the upper surface of the bar. The 
 drill entered both these bars from a flat ground-surface. The 
 drill for the third diagram entered a countersink causing the drill 
 to take a full cut. The hole was very near the last, but the metal 
 was uniform. 
 
 Drillings for Chemical Analysis. A tray fits dust-tight 
 under the test-piece and catches all drillings. The table has a 
 ridge around the -in. hole, through which the drill passes, which 
 fits dust-tight against the specimen and prevents any dirt mixing 
 with the drillings. As the machine is practically frictionless with 
 a uniform pressure on the drill, the size of the chips will vary 
 with the hardness, giving a relative uniformity. The drillings 
 
i66 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 should be all used, and not selected with a magnet, so as to use 
 the finest particles of carbon. 
 
 Hardness and Chemical Composition. Table LXIX gives 
 the hardness records of each size of test-bar of the nineteen series 
 of A. S. M. E. tests, and shows the sizes of bars and the silicon 
 
 TABLE LXIX. 
 
 HARDNESS NINETEEN SERIES, A. S. M. E. TESTS. 
 
 Kind of Iron. 
 
 Calculated 
 Silicon. 
 
 No. of 
 Series. 
 
 4 in. sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 i in. sq. 
 x 24 in. 
 
 2 in. x 
 i in. x 
 24 in. 
 
 2 in. sq. 
 X24 in. 
 
 3 in. sq. 
 
 X24 in. 
 
 4 in. sq. 
 x 24 in. 
 
 r 
 
 I.OO 
 
 I 
 
 53 
 
 41 
 
 34 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 27 
 
 " Iroquois," with] 
 
 1-50 
 
 2 
 
 34 
 
 30 
 
 37 
 
 32 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 silicon added by-{ 
 
 2.OO 
 
 3 
 
 33 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 
 2. 5O 
 
 4 
 
 36 
 
 32 
 
 30 
 
 3O 
 
 2O 
 
 2C 
 
 
 3.OO 
 
 5 
 
 O 
 
 3i 
 
 j~ 
 29 
 
 3 7 
 26 
 
 j w 
 
 27 
 
 24 
 
 ^O 
 
 32 
 
 Ferrosilicon 
 
 3-50 
 
 6 
 
 '33 
 
 33 
 
 32 
 
 21 
 
 30 
 
 28 
 
 r 
 
 I.OO 
 
 7 
 
 62 
 
 28 
 
 30 
 
 25 
 
 3 
 
 26 
 
 1 
 
 1.50 
 
 8 
 
 29 
 
 32 
 
 30 
 
 33 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 "Hinkle" and I 
 
 2.00 
 
 9 
 
 30 
 
 23 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 28 
 
 30 
 
 " Pencost " | 
 
 2.5O 
 
 10 
 
 31 
 
 31 
 
 28 
 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 33 
 
 
 3-oo 
 
 ii 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 22 
 
 19 
 
 22 
 
 j o 
 22 
 
 I 
 
 3-50 
 
 12 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 23 
 
 21 
 
 
 Actual 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 2.82 
 
 14 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 25 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 38 
 
 Michigan StoveCo. < 
 
 3.18 
 
 13 
 
 34 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 19 
 
 27 
 
 37 
 
 ( 
 
 3-50 
 
 15 
 
 29 
 
 26 
 
 25 
 
 23 
 
 28 
 
 33 
 
 
 o. 77 
 
 IQ 
 
 GO 
 
 " 
 
 41 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 32 
 
 30 
 
 Light machinery. . . . 
 
 w / / 
 i. 7 6 
 
 V 
 
 16 
 
 38 
 
 37 
 
 34 
 
 38 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 Heavy machinery. 
 
 2.06 
 
 18 
 
 45 
 
 33 
 
 32 
 
 3i 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 Airfurnace formal- ) 
 leable iron f 
 
 0.89 
 
 17 
 
 90 
 
 90 
 
 90 
 
 90 
 
 44 
 
 39 
 
 HARDNESS SERIES D AND E, A. F. A. TESTS. 
 
 Series. 
 
 Kind of Mold. 
 
 i in. sq. 
 
 x 12 in. 
 
 i in. sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 ijin.sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 2 in. sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 2 }in.sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 3 in. sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 3* <n.sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 4 in. sq. 
 x 12 in. 
 
 D, ) 
 Grill [ 
 Roll. ) 
 
 Green sand. 
 Dry sand. . . 
 
 90 
 9 
 
 90 
 9 
 
 9 
 90 
 
 39 
 39 
 
 35 
 33 
 
 38 
 37 
 
 30 
 36 
 
 33 
 36 
 
 Sand [ 
 Roll. ) 
 
 Green sand 
 Dry sand. . . 
 
 90 
 90 
 
 90 
 90 
 
 90 
 9 
 
 61 
 
 55 
 
 38 
 36 
 
 33 
 40 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 33 
 3i 
 
 The Chemical Analysis of the A. S. M. E. Series can be found, T. C.. Table LXXIV; G C. t 
 LXXV; Cd.C., LXXVIof Chap. XIII; Si., Table XVIII, Chap. VII; P., Table XXXV, Chap. IX; 
 S., Tahic L, Chap. X; Mn., Table LX, Chap. XI. The Analysis of A.F. A. Series, Table XXV, 
 Chap. VIII. 
 
HARDNESS OR THE WORKABILITY OF METALS. 
 
 167 
 
 in each. The full analysis can be found in the chapters on each 
 element. The holes for hardness were near the holes from which 
 the drillings were taken for analysis. 
 
 At the bottom of the table is the hardness of two series made 
 by the committee of the A. F. A. Series 17 and Series D are 
 very similar, both being from an air-furnace. Series E is also 
 iron that runs white in bars smaller than i^ ins. square. 
 
 Test-bars from such low-silicon irons have hard and soft spots 
 distributed throughout their mass, and the test record is likely to 
 be variable. Series I, 7, and 19 are similar in this respect, 
 having low silicon. 
 
 Hardness seems to follow combined carbon. Manganese 
 hardens cast iron, but the quantities present do not seem to influ- 
 ence hardness. 
 
 Table VI shows the influence of annealing ordinary gray cast 
 iron. Table LXX shows test records of six irons. The hardness 
 of pigs and test-bars is given showing that melting and casting 
 has changed the character of the iron. The analyses are of the 
 Pig- 
 
 TABLE LXX. 
 
 
 Dead 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Load. 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 3 
 
 0) 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 JS 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 7 
 j 
 
 % 
 
 
 8 . 
 
 3 
 
 *J 
 
 Jj 
 
 
 Jg 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 , w 
 
 1 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 *u Sy 
 
 a_bc 
 
 PQ fC 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 s 
 
 tlfi 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 (/) 
 
 Q 
 
 
 U 
 
 X 
 
 E 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 C/3 
 
 Pu 
 
 
 Ensley gray forge 
 Summerlee, No. i, f'dy. 
 Tuscarawas, No. 2, f'dy 
 Napier, No. 3, foundry. 
 
 368 
 
 377 
 418 
 423 
 
 20 
 24 
 
 5 
 
 165 
 
 '65 
 
 25 
 65 
 30 
 .80 
 
 48 
 
 33 o 
 
 93 
 46 
 
 44 
 '5 
 
 ^38 
 3-62 
 3-05 
 
 2.21 
 a.92 
 
 3-50 
 
 93 
 .46 
 44 
 '5 
 
 2.62 
 2. OO 
 
 I:S 
 
 .88 
 1.27 
 .70 
 85 
 
 .16 
 
 1.67 
 
 .86 
 .48 
 
 Eureka, No. 3, 
 
 443 
 
 25 
 
 i59 
 
 45 
 
 37 
 
 5S" 
 
 3-45 
 
 2.90 
 
 55 
 
 1 '54 
 
 83 
 
 23 
 
 Ashland, No. 3, " 
 
 352 
 
 15 
 
 156 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 
 3'33 
 
 3.12 
 
 .21 
 
 4.70 
 
 1-54 
 
 .96 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS, OR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR 
 REGULATING FOUNDRY IRON. 
 
 Mechanical Analysis consists of measuring the physical 
 properties of castings by means of test-bars. 
 
 Mechanical analysis is founded upon the author's discovery in 
 1885 that the shrinkage of a test-bar varies inversely as the silicon 
 in the casting. In other words, the measure of shrinkage is prac- 
 tically equivalent to a chemical analysis of silicon. The measure 
 of shrinkage tells whether more or less silicon is needed to bring 
 the quality of the casting to an accepted standard of excellence. 
 It is also founded on the fact that the physical properties, aside 
 from shrinkage and softness, are not wholly dependent upon the 
 chemical composition of the casting. Mechanical analysis 
 measures the physical properties of the iron, which are shrinkage, 
 strength, deflection, set, and depth of chill. The measure of the 
 physical quality of a casting shows the combined influence (not 
 the percentage) of each element in the chemical composition, and 
 in addition to this it shows the influence of fuel and of every 
 varying condition attending melting. 
 
 An increase of silicon will counteract all such influences and 
 very largely the influence of sulphur. Each foundry fixes upon 
 its best record as its standard. If the shrinkage is higher than 
 the standard, more silicon is needed; if lower, less silicon is 
 required that is, the more scrap may be used. 
 
 CJiemical and mechanical analysis each determine whether 
 more or less silicon is needed, and both aim to produce castings 
 having the best physical composition. Each approaches the 
 subject from an opposite direction. The chemist calculates a 
 
 1 68 
 
MECHANICAL OR. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. 169 
 
 chemical composition which he predicts will produce the desired 
 physical composition. To find whether his calculation was cor- 
 rect, it is necessary for him to determine the physical quality. 
 The mechanical method measures the physical quality first, and 
 the variation in shrinkage tells what change of silicon is needed 
 to more nearly reach the standard. Mechanical analysis uses 
 test-bars which cost but a few cents, and the foreman can deter- 
 mine the physical quality in a few moments. 
 
 It can be used alone, as it gives all necessary information. 
 
 The size of test-bar which will show the greatest variation 
 in strength and shrinkage for the smallest variation in chemical 
 composition is the best size for mechanical analysis. 
 
 Whether chemical or mechanical analysis is used, any estimate 
 regarding the physical quality of a casting is only approximate, 
 because conditions attending melting which are not under the 
 control of the melter and cannot be provided for often exert a 
 greater influence on the casting than variations in the chemical 
 composition. 
 
 Advantages of Mechanical Analysis. It is cheap and quick, 
 and can be operated by any one of ordinary intelligence. It tells 
 the founder exactly what physical properties his castings have, 
 and tells him exactly what to do to bring each physical quality 
 to standard. It tells whether more or less silicon is needed to 
 overcome all influences, whether due to chemical change or 
 adverse conditions which cannot be foreseen. 
 
 By this method a founder can determine whether a low-priced 
 iron is suitable for his use. 
 
 If it is desired to purchase a lower-priced iron, order a carload 
 and substitute a small quantity of it in the mixture in place of an 
 equal quantity of the iron which it is to replace. 
 
 If the shrinkage decreases, it is a better scrap-carrier than the 
 other. If the shrinkage increases, silicon must be made up in 
 some other way, and the new iron may not be economical at a 
 reduced price. The same process tells which irons in a mixture 
 are most economical and which contain most silicon. 
 
170 CAST IRON. 
 
 It is the small founder that needs help most, for he cannot 
 increase his business unless he can make money while his plant 
 is small. 
 
 If we would benefit the founder we must devise simple 
 methods which can be used by all, whether they have had the 
 advantage of a chemical education or not. 
 
 The methods must be used by the men now in business with- 
 out adding to the expense of operating their works. 
 
 The objection made by chemists to mechanical analysis is that 
 it gives information after the castings are made. 
 
 Mechanical analysis assumes that the founder uses more than 
 one iron in his mixture (the more the better), which would 
 prevent the variation in different parts of a pile of iron from 
 exerting a decided influence on the castings, and that he makes 
 no radical change at any time. When a change is made, it is 
 to get closer to the standard or to reduce cost. 
 
 The user of mechanical analysis is using chemistry all the 
 time, but says and thinks very little about it. He has only time 
 for results. 
 
 Founders who are thorough chemists soon find that the most 
 practical way to control their mixture is by mechanical analysis. 
 
 Chemical Analysis. By this term it is understood that each 
 carload of coke and iron and other material which is received 
 shall have its chemical composition determined. Much good 
 would result from this, but only a small portion of these articles 
 depend upon their chemical composition for their usefulness. 
 For example, in selecting sand, facing, flux, and brick, analysis 
 would be of benefit, but a single analysis would determine which 
 of those that were within the reach of the founders were best 
 adapted for this special work. It is, however, a fact that each of 
 these materials may give the best satisfaction and yet not conform 
 in composition to an ideal analysis. If good castings are produced 
 with low-priced materials, the result is just as satisfactory as if 
 they are composed of the ingredients which a chemist would con- 
 sider most desirable. 
 
MECHANICAL OR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. 171 
 
 The chemist assumes that when he knows the chemical com- 
 position of the iron which is charged' into the cupola, he knows 
 the composition of the iron which enters the mold, and knows 
 from this the physical qualities of the casting. This is the 
 mistake which most chemists make. They will find that a 
 variation of silicon in any individual iron mixture will vary 
 the shrinkage, hardness, and brittleness of castings, but that it 
 is not true that a given percentage of silicon, or of all of the other 
 elements, will in different iron mixtures give like physical results. 
 
 Strength is more dependent upon size and shape of grain than 
 upon any chemical composition. Of two irons which, by analy- 
 sis, show exactly the same chemical composition, one may be 
 50$ stronger than the other. 
 
 Drawbacks to Chemical Analysis. A chemist must be em- 
 ployed and a laboratory provided. To be successful even in a 
 small foundry, the chemist must give his whole time, if each iron 
 and the coke are to be subjected to anything like a complete 
 analysis. 
 
 Analysis has been found to be slow, especially if other 
 elements than silicon are determined. 
 
 For this reason it is necessary to purchase iron far in advance 
 of needs, and there must be room to pile each carload by itself. 
 This adds to the expense of transportation from the yard to the 
 cupola. 
 
 If, as is usual with small founders, iron is purchased as needed, 
 there would not be time for analysis. 
 
 There is always a difficulty in sampling. Chemists are not 
 agreed as to the most desirable part of a pig from which to take 
 drillings, and a few grains of sand from the surface would render 
 analysis worthless. The chemist would be obliged to watch each 
 step, for the class of men employed in a foundry yard cannot be 
 entrusted with this work. 
 
 Pig iron is not homogeneous, therefore drillings taken from 
 one part may not represent the average of the whole pig, much 
 
i/2 CAST IRON. 
 
 less of the whole carload, even if the drillings are taken from ten 
 or twenty pigs. 
 
 The small fraction of an -ounce of drillings used for the 
 determination of the chemical composition of a carload of iron 
 makes the chance of error very great. 
 
 In most foundries a large proportion of scrap is used, and as 
 each piece of scrap comes from a different foundry mixture, no 
 correct analysis can be made. 
 
 Two irons showing exactly the same chemical composition 
 will sometimes produce castings having totally different physical 
 qualities. 
 
 The chemist does not like to admit this fact, because the 
 success of chemical analysis depends upon the supposition that 
 the same physical quality always accompanies a given chemical 
 composition, and it cannot take account of the unforeseen condi- 
 tions which often entirely alter the physical character of the 
 castings. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this we must know approximately the 
 silicon in each of the pig irons that enter our mixture. The best 
 way to ascertain this is to require the furnace to furnish the silicon 
 percentage with each car, and to guarantee that the other 
 elements are within required limits. 
 
 There is less need of an analysis of scrap than of pig iron, 
 because scrap castings have been made under the ordinary foundry 
 conditions and can be relied upon to make the same quality of 
 castings if they are of the same size and if a slight allowance is 
 made for the hardening influence of remelting. If a smaller cast- 
 ing is made, it would be likely to be hard. 
 
. CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS WILL NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL 
 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CAST IRON. 
 
 SEVERAL tests are presented to show the influence of a few of 
 the unavoidable conditions which attend foundry operations. Some 
 years ago several chemists claimed that they could formulate a 
 chemical prescription which would produce any physical quality. 
 The author produced two J-in. square test-bars with the physical 
 record, marked strongest 780 and 782, Table LXXI, and chal- 
 lenged any chemist to give a prescription of elements that such 
 test-bars must contain to give such a variation of strength. They 
 were not told both test-bars were made from the same ladle. 
 
 Instead of an endeavor to give such a formula of composition, 
 it was claimed that before it could be done an analysis of the 
 castings must be made. Another example was then produced, 
 strongest 784 and 787, and silicons and sulphurs of all four were 
 given. 
 
 Influence of Iron Standing in a Ladle. There is practically 
 no variation in chemical composition and yet there is a very great 
 change in strength. The first bar of each test was poured as 
 soon as the iron was taken from the cupola, while the bar 782 was 
 poured i minutes later, the iron being stirred with a steel bar, 
 but none of the steel was melted. The bar 787 was poured 2j 
 minutes after 784, the iron being allowed to stand quietly in the 
 ladle. These records are from individual bars which were 
 analyzed. The same test-numbers used in the table are for 
 averages of three test-bars cast at the same time. 
 
 The iron for the tests of Table LXXI was supposed to contain 
 
 173 
 
CAST IRON. 
 TABLE LXXI. 
 
 TREATMENT OF MOLTEN IRON.* 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 28 Ibs. of Iron for each series. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 i"D 
 
 iV'xi" 
 
 t78o 
 781 
 t78 2 
 783 
 
 t784 
 785 
 786 
 
 t787 
 
 28 Ibs. on reaching flo 
 " f minute later 
 
 ;: j :; : 
 
 " on reaching flo 
 
 
 418 
 488 
 508 
 
 .22 
 .27 
 27 
 
 123 
 .128 
 
 . 121 
 
 139 
 139 
 
 .05 
 04 
 .02 
 
 
 
 did not r 
 or 
 
 
 
 388 
 
 393 
 424 
 466 
 
 23 
 .21 
 .21 
 .24 
 
 .128 
 .128 
 .128 
 .128 
 
 143 
 139 
 135 
 i35 
 
 .02 
 .02 
 .02 
 .02 
 
 
 . j , . 
 1 - 
 
 
 
 Silicon. 
 
 Sulphur. 
 
 780 Strongest bar of three 
 
 782 
 
 784 
 787 
 
 3-520 
 3-520 
 
 3.460 
 3-450 
 
 .081 
 .080 
 
 .079 
 
 .083 
 
 440 
 530 
 
 400 
 
 500 
 
 23 
 .27 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 .123 
 .131 
 
 .128 
 .128 
 
 139 
 
 i43 
 .136 
 
 05 
 .02 
 
 .02 
 
 .02 
 
 * Tests 781 and 782 were stirred with a f " steel bar but no steel was melted. 
 ' Each record is average of three test-bars. 
 
 TABLE LXXII. 
 
 DIFFERENCE OF CUPOLA TEMPERATURE. 
 
 No. 
 
 Test. 
 
 799 
 800 
 801 
 
 802 
 
 788 
 789 
 790 
 791 
 
 788 
 791 
 
 Separate Ladle for Each Test. Each Record 
 Average of 3 Test-bars. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 .07 
 .03 
 05 
 .06 
 
 15 
 04 
 .05 
 .07 
 
 15 
 .07 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 3. 
 
 159 
 .136 
 .130 
 .125 
 
 .162 
 137 
 .130 
 
 .121 
 
 .I6 3 
 .121 
 
 iV'xi" 
 
 First iron 
 
 415 
 453 
 455 
 477 
 
 373 
 369 
 367 
 398 
 
 390 
 400 
 
 23 
 -23 
 .25 
 27 
 
 .21 
 .21 
 .21 
 
 .22 
 
 .22 
 .22 
 
 .165 
 .148 
 .141 
 . 140 
 
 .182 
 .147 
 .141 
 .140 
 
 .182 
 .140 
 
 
 " " " than last 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Last " " " .... 
 
 
 
 Analysis Strongest Bars. T.C. G.C. 
 
 Cd.C. 
 
 Si. 
 
 P. 
 
 s. 
 
 Mn. 
 
 788 
 791 
 
 
 0.630 
 0.480 
 
 3.220 
 3.140 
 
 1.025 
 1-055 
 
 0.123 
 
 O. IOO 
 
 0.490 
 0.470 
 
 
 
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. 
 
 175 
 
 3.45 silicon. It was drawn from the cupola as fast as melted. 
 The ladle held 28 Ibs. of metal, and on reaching the mok'ers' 
 floor the first set of three test-bars was poured. The ladle was 
 set on the floor and rested, when the next was poured, and so 
 on. It took one quarter of a minute to pour the three flasks of 
 each set. (See also Table LXXIX, tests 7/6-779.) 
 
 Influence of Temperature of Cupola. In Table LXXII the 
 first iron was weakest, because it boiled on the cupola bottom. 
 The last iron from a hot cupola is always strongest. The analyses 
 are o'f the strongest test-bars. 
 
 The Influence of Dry and Green Ladles is shown in Table 
 XXX. 
 
 The Influence of Wet and Dry Molds This question is often 
 raised. The author has purposely gone to extremes in Table 
 LXXIII. In 814 the mold was so wet that one bar was per- 
 fectly hollow from a blow-hole. In the other wet molds the 
 sand was as wet as possible to get sound castings. The dry molds 
 were thoroughly dried. The regular mold was tempered as for 
 ordinary work. 
 
 These extraordinary series prove that the difference in the 
 temper of ordinary green-sand molds cannot influence the physical 
 character of test-bars J" Q so as to materially alter the record. 
 
 TABLE LXXIII. 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 All Three Poured from One Ladle. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 *"D 
 
 iV'xi" 
 
 814 
 
 815 
 816 
 
 827 
 828 
 829 
 
 830 
 
 831 
 
 832 
 
 
 42O 
 
 430 
 414 
 
 417 
 417 
 421 
 
 375 
 387 
 390 
 
 .22 
 23 
 23 
 
 23 
 .24 
 .24 
 
 .21 
 
 .22 
 .22 
 
 . 146 
 .136 
 .130 
 
 .138 
 . 129 
 
 .122 
 
 .142 
 .140 
 .129 
 
 .149 
 .142 
 .142 
 
 .147 
 .144 
 .140 
 
 .150 
 .148 
 .141 
 
 .04 
 .04 
 .06 
 
 .04 
 05 
 .04 
 
 05 
 .04 
 .04 
 
 Regular " ...... ... 
 
 
 
 y j)Jtto 
 
 
i 7 6 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 Silicon is More Effectual as found in some Irons than in 
 Others. -In Table LXXIV, F L M is the Swedish charcoal pig 
 which is used in trying other irons. It is very sensitive to any 
 outside influence. The Ashland (525) is a very close-grained 
 silvery iron. The No. 3 Sloss silvery (794) contained nearly the 
 same silicon and had a similar close grain. For 793 and 792 
 enough of these silvery irons were added to F L M to make the 
 silicon of the mixture 2.50$. If only an analysis of silicon and 
 combined carbon had been made, it would have been conceded 
 that 794 was better than 525. 
 
 TABLE LXXIV. 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 441 
 525 
 794 
 793 
 792 
 
 Name of Iron 
 Melted in Crucible. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 .40 
 
 50 
 
 .01 
 
 .23 
 
 .15 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 1"D 
 
 .168 
 .156 
 .184 
 
 .143 
 .190 
 
 T y x x" 
 
 FLM 
 
 362 
 352 
 260 
 378 
 407 
 
 27 
 15 
 17 
 .22 
 
 .25 
 
 .186 
 .155 
 .183 
 .156 
 .185 
 
 No. 3 ashland silvery.. 
 No. 3 Sloss " .. 
 
 J.J.I ~\- <^2^ 
 
 J.J.I -|- 7Q4. 
 
 
 441 
 525 
 794 
 793 
 792 
 
 T.C. 
 
 G.C. 
 
 C.C. 
 
 Si. 
 
 P. 
 
 s. 
 
 Mn. 
 
 .19 
 .96 
 
 3-55 
 3-33 
 1. 21 
 
 3-22 
 3-12 
 
 1.16 
 
 .33 
 
 .21 
 
 <05 
 
 1.25 
 4.70 
 4.41 
 
 .08 
 1-54 
 
 .04 
 .04 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 As a reducer of shrinkage 525 is perfect, but 794 increases 
 shrinkage. As a reducer of chill 794 is better than 525. The 
 inability of 794 to reduce shrinkage seems to lie in its own lack 
 of total carbon. Total carbon in 792 is decreased so much that 
 the silicon had nothing to act on. 
 
 This proves positively that a silicon analysis, or silicon, 
 sulphur, and combined carbon analysis, is not as safe a guide in 
 the purchase of an iron as the shrinkage test, which is a mechan- 
 ical analysis of all elements. 
 
 Table LXXVI shows that irons having nearly the same chem- 
 ical composition may have totally different physical qualities. 
 
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. 
 
 c 
 
 IsHffHsSf 
 
 CO M 
 
 O O co O 
 
 cr- 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 co in r^* O N cj co O O^ *T s oo 
 
 m m 
 
 o -^- o 
 
 i 
 
 O 
 
 
 OwOOOOOOOOO 
 
 o 6 
 
 o" o N 
 
 C) 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CH' 
 
 
 00 O^ 
 coo" ^fr 
 
 O O co in 
 M m in O 
 
 fj 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 c-i 
 
 H 
 
 (75 
 
 sSi^J l?s:SSI 
 
 11^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 DO 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 
 N CN MMMMn-Tf 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 cj 
 
 . -ooooooooo 
 
 Ooo w NOOCO Ococo 
 ^O ^ *t co *^f *f M M 
 
 -1-O " 
 
 IssE 
 
 
 8 
 
 u 
 
 : : n 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 u 
 
 o -oooocoooo 
 
 in O m 
 
 ^r w o 
 
 O M Tt 
 
 <N -* t- O 
 
 <" ? eT 
 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 <N .MNWWNMfOCOCO 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 co co co N 
 
 
 N 
 
 J 
 
 ooooooooo 
 
 cflot? 
 
 *1- O co O 
 in ^* co co 
 
 
 S 
 
 in 
 
 H 
 
 * cococococococococo 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 co co co ex 
 
 
 CO 
 
 - 
 
 ^-^OOO^MOgO 
 
 0^ 
 
 O O O O 
 
 S 
 
 | 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; x 
 
 
 r>. O co 
 
 O n O N 
 
 r -. 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 be 5 
 .2 "5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 D 
 
 C/J - 
 
 vo O O r^oo Tf o d r^. ^ M 
 
 Tt" CM to \O O Tf" u*> O *"1" CM to 
 
 TWO 
 in invO 
 
 CO CO CO c*^ 1 
 
 S 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 "* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ti S 
 
 o. -jj 
 
 oo M ir>o co O O *^vC to O 
 
 sl 
 
 g2c7l 
 
 
 C1 
 
 
 M ino^comoco ^1-r^M 
 
 - . 
 
 o ooo : 
 
 0* 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 ' 
 
 "rt -Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t/5 
 
 vO w coo m r^ co d f^ o^oo 
 
 Tj-Tt-COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 
 
 w in 
 rf co co 
 
 w o 
 
 N CO CO CO 
 
 S 
 
 * 
 
 
 s >* > 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 Hf 1 wCK^^-o -^^ ^"^ C 
 
 : * 6 d ^-^1 '^ 5^ 
 
 "s M . 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 H 
 
 
 t3 H O 
 
 O 
 
 ^l 
 
 : - * 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 rt J3 
 
 ^11 
 
 ll 1 
 
 " 
 
 u 
 
 o S 
 
 G^r^como M MCO ^-OC'O 
 
 ss 
 
 oo v ^^ r ^co 
 
 S 
 
 <S* 
 
 S H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i 7 8 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 On account of what has been shown there is no given 
 shrinkage for any given percentage of silicon. There are two 
 many unknown conditions occurring in foundry practice to make 
 the metallurgy of cast iron an exact science. For these reasons 
 it is impossible to prescribe a given chemical composition that 
 will at all times give a required physical record. All estimates 
 must be approximated. 
 
 TABLE LXXVI. 
 
 Melted in Cupola. 
 
 Carbon. 
 
 Silicon. 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Shinkage. 
 
 One mixture 
 
 j 24. 
 
 2.87 
 
 48 S 
 
 .1^1 
 
 Another mixture 
 
 3.08 
 
 2 8S 
 
 41^ 
 
 .172 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table LXXV gives the physical tests and chemical analyses 
 of several pigs of iron for comparison. See also Tables LXX, 
 LXXVII, and the physical and chemical tests of the nineteen 
 A. S. M. E. series. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 TEST-BARS. 
 
 THERE is a difference in opinion regarding the best size of 
 test-bars to use. 
 
 Test-bars J" Q X 12" are as small as it is practicable to make. 
 For gray iron it cools so quickly that its grain is influenced very 
 little by the time occupied by cooling, so that the variation in 
 shrinkage more nearly agrees with variation in silicon than any 
 other size. The measure of shrinkage of such a test-bar is a 
 ' mechanical analysis " for silicon. 
 
 Test-bars i" Q have been more generally used than any 
 other size. 
 
 Test-bars 2" X i" tested with the flat side down are used 
 because some think they represent a casting I in. thick better 
 than i -in. square bars. 
 
 Such a bar is more inconvenient to handle and to make than 
 a i -in. square bar, and requires a larger testing-machine. 
 
 Test-bars 2"Q, 3" D, and 4" Q are seldom used on account 
 of the difficulty in breaking them. The slow cooling exerts more 
 influence than the chemical composition. 
 
 The |-in. square and the I -in. square bars, on account of 
 their convenience in making and in testing, seem the only sizes 
 suited to general foundry testing, and taken together fix two 
 points for the strength curve of Fig. 82. 
 
 The same size of test-bar should be used as far as possible to 
 allow of a comparison of records. The routine of molding and 
 testing should be the same. The smallest size that will run gray 
 
 179 
 
i8o CAST IRON. 
 
 should be used. Very little satisfaction will result from tests of 
 white test-bars. Whatever size is used the strength of any other 
 size of test-bar or of casting can be obtained by Fig. 82. 
 
 Advantages and Disadvantages of i" n Bars as a Test 
 of Strength. Some have conceived that the size of test-bar 
 which would give the most uniform results for all cast-iron 
 mixtures would be the best size for a standard. In examining 
 Fig. 82, it is seen that as each curve crosses each of the others 
 at a point near the i-in. square bar, therefore the i-in. bar sho\vs 
 very nearly the same strength for each percentage of silicon. 
 Professor Turner estimates from his tests with a i-in. square bar 
 that i \% silicon will make the strongest castings. But the maker 
 of heavy castings knows, and Fig. 82 shows, that the \% silicon 
 iron or less will make a stronger heavy casting than one with a 
 greater percentage. 
 
 The small variation in the records of i-in. square bars shows 
 that for castings about I in. thick a variation of \% of silicon in 
 the mixture does not make much difference in the strength of the 
 casting, and this accounts for the success of the average founder 
 who makes castings of about this thickness. 
 
 This showing will explain why the i-in. square test-bar has 
 been used almost universally, and why so little satisfaction has 
 been found with the records of such test-bars. This was because 
 the nature of cast iron has not been understood. The strongest 
 iron is that which contains the amount of silicon necessary to 
 remove brittleness and to produce the closest possible grain in 
 the individual size of casting to be made. 
 
 Variation in Size of Test-bars Due to Poor Molding. For 
 very small changes in size of -in. D bars there need be no cal- 
 culated change in the strength record. By an examination of 
 Fig. 82 it is seen that a very slight increase in size of a i-in. 
 D bar causes a decided decrease in strength per ^-in. Q section 
 because of the change in the ratio of cooling. 
 
 A measure of size of a cast-iron bar is at best only an approxi- 
 mate measure of section, for in any case the surface is uneven, 
 
TEST-BARS. i^i 
 
 being a series of elevations and depressions corresponding to the 
 shape of the grains of sand which composed the mold, and the 
 caliper measures across the highest points. 
 
 A depression or a cold-shut, so small that it is difficult to 
 detect it even after fracture, may act as a notch and often hastens 
 fracture; and bars with the corners round on account of the 
 corners not running full, even if the round corners are placed 
 down, will often show as great strength as other full bars from 
 the same ladle. Such round corners are perfectly smooth, never 
 having touched the sand mold, and there are therefore no depres- 
 sions to start a fracture. 
 
 A test-bar attached as a coupon to a larger casting is of no 
 value, as the slow cooling caused by its location will enlarge its 
 grain and diminish its strength. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 Keep's Test Apparatus for Mechanical Analysis. Fig. 85 
 is an iron follow-board containing brass patterns for two test-bars 
 %' D X 12" long, with skim-gate, the iron entering on the under 
 side of the test-bar. Iron chill-blocks are placed at the ends of 
 the patterns. 
 
 Fig. 86 is an iron flask to insure accurate size of bars. 
 
 FIG. 95. FIG. 85. Keep's Test-bars \" n X 12". 
 
 Moisten the chills with kerosene before and after using to prevent 
 rusting. Mold test-bars in stove-plate sand without rapping 
 
 FIG. 86. Flask for Test-bar i" n X 12". 
 
 pattern and without facing. Mark the bottom of the mold with 
 the same number of dots as appear on the chill-pieces. Remove 
 
 182 
 
KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 183 
 
 the sand that falls between the ends of the patterns and chills to 
 give a full clean casting. 
 
 FIG. 88. 
 
 FIG. 
 
 Place the castings on the follow-board exactly as the patterns 
 lie, and always use the same chills in which the bars were cast 
 when you measure shrinkage (Fig. 88). 
 
 Pass the taper-scale (Fig. 87) without pressure between the 
 end of the test-bar and the chill, and read the mark which appears 
 at the upper surface of the bar as the shrinkage per foot. If 
 greater than your standard, increase the silicon in the next cast; 
 if less, increase scrap or low silicon iron. 
 
 Keep's Dead-load Testing Machine, No. 10 (Fig. 90). 
 Capacity 1000 Ibs. Fasten the test-bar with gate-marks down in 
 the flexible bearings. Clamp the pencil-arm to the center of 
 the test-bar. Move the paper to draw a base line, then fasten 
 the paper-holder to the chain behind it, and roll the load to o; 
 
 FIG. go. Keep's Dead-load Testing Machine, No. 10. 
 
1 84 CAST IRON. 
 
 mark position of pencil, roll load until bar breaks, reading break- 
 ing load from the beam. The diagram is like the upper part of 
 Fig. 94. To measure the chill, split the end of the bar as 
 Fig. 89. 
 
 For Irons that are White in a ^-in. Q Test-bar, use a i-in. 
 n test-bar and use No. 40 testing machine, Fig. 92. Fig. 91 is 
 similar to Fig. 85, only the test-bar pattern is made of hard wood 
 
 FIG. 91. Keep's Test-bars i" n X 24". 
 
 and is I in. D and either 12 ins. or 24 ins. long. The 24-in. bar 
 makes a better diagram than a 12 -in. bar and leaves one or two 
 12-in. bars if a second test is desired. Take half the reading 
 for the shrinkage per foot of a 24-in. bar. 
 
 Keep's Dead-load Testing Machine, No. 40 (Figs. 92 and 
 93). Capacity 4000 Ibs. After making a base-line, roll the load 
 100 Ibs. back of o, and place on the end of the beam weights to 
 within 1000 Ibs. of the load the test-bar will stand, which is known 
 after a few trials. Roll the load to o, mark the position of the 
 pencil, roll the load forward until the bar breaks, and read the 
 load from the beam. The diagram will be like the lower part of 
 Fig. 94. To get a full record, after making a base-line, roll the 
 load to o, mark the position of the pencil, roll to 1000 Ibs., raise 
 the pencil from paper and roll back to o ; mark the position of the 
 pencil to show set. Roll the load 100 Ibs. back of o, place very 
 carefully 1000 Ibs. on the end of the beam. Roll the load to o, 
 mark position of pencil, roll the load until the bar breaks, which 
 gives the whole diagram of Fig. 94. A bar \" Q X 12" long 
 would require two additions of weights to the end of the beam. 
 
 Advantages. These machines are operated very rapidly. A 
 few turns of a crank give a permanent and absolutely accurate 
 
KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 185 
 
 Q 
 
 CO 
 
 "o, 
 
 4> 
 0> 
 
i86 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 autographic record of the behavior of the test-bar at each instant 
 of the test. 
 
 With a tester applying the load by a hand-wheel and screw, 
 
 DEAD LOAD 
 
 FIG. 93. Outline of No. 40 Testing Machine. 
 
 and moving a jockey- weight to measure the load, the test-bar 
 often breaks before the reading can be taken, and in any event 
 the time taken would be from half an hour to an hour. 
 
 1000 
 
 900 
 
 i 
 
 500 
 
 200 
 
 100 
 
 iioo 
 
 _-- 
 
 I1190 Ibs. 
 FIG. 94. Diagram from Dead-load Machine, No. 40. 
 
 Fig. 95 shows extension pieces to allow test-bars to be used 
 in ordinary testing machines. (Cut is with Fig. 85.) 
 
 Keep's Hardness Testing Machine (Fig. 96). (Chas. A. 
 Bauer's Drill-test.) A f straight-fluted drill of standard hard- 
 ness at 200 revolutions per minute makes an autographic record 
 of the workability of a pig or test-bar to any depth, and shows 
 tendency to sponginess or blow-holes. 
 
 A tray that slides under the table, on which the test-piece is 
 clamped, catches all of the drillings for chemical analysis. The 
 drill enters the test-piece on the under side, and each particle falls 
 into the tray. 
 
 To the table, by four rods, is suspended a load near the floor 
 so that, including the test-bar, the load on the drill-point is 
 150 Ibs. 
 
 The table is raised, or lowered, or held by a hand- wheel at 
 the top of the machine. The machine is started by a clutch, and 
 
KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 187 
 
 thrown out at any desired point by a trip. The downward motion 
 of the table is transferred through steel ribbons, through a ball- 
 bearing arm, to the pencil, which makes a record on a curved 
 
 FIG. 96. Keep's Hardness-testing Machine. 
 
 paper-holder which moves at right angles to the path of the 
 pencil by means of a screw. 
 
 For diagrams see Fig. 84, Chapter XVI. 
 
 Wet Grinder for f Drills, making both lips to cut exactly alike 
 with standard angles (see Fig. 97). Enter the drill in the holder 
 
i88 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 FIG. 97. Keep's Wet Drill-grinder. 
 
 FIG. 08. Keep's Impact-testing Machine, No. 2. 
 
KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 189 
 
 with the cutting edges horizontal, while the holder is clear up to- 
 the stone. 
 
 Tighten the set-screw to hold the drill and press the drill 
 against the stone until it will cut no more. Turn the holder over 
 and press the other lip against the stone as before. 
 
 Keep's Impact-testing Machine, No. 2 (Fig. 98). The 
 anvil weighs 1000 Ibs., and the hammer is varied from 25 to 
 100 Ibs. It tests up to \" D X 24" bars. 
 
 Recorder for No. 2 Impact, or No. 4.0 Dead-load Machine 
 (Fig. 99). It multiplies the movement of the center of the test- 
 bar five times, and a parallel motion gives the pencil a vertical 
 motion. 
 
 Recorder for No. 40 Dead-load and No. 2 Impact Machines. 
 
 
 
 
 Pencil 
 
 
 
 K | ^ 
 
 ' _--Wf 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 3 
 
 Paper holder 
 
 RECORDER 
 
 
 g J ^ 
 
 
 
 
 Keep 
 
 FIG. 99. Outline of Recorder. 
 
 Operation. The test-bar is clamped in position. The loca- 
 tion of the pencil is marked on the paper. The hammer is hung 
 on the graduated arc for a -in. drop. A trip releases the hammer, 
 which swings against the test-bar. On its rebound it is caught 
 by the operator's left hand and returned to the trip, which has 
 been moved to -in. drop with his right hand. The left hand 
 depresses a lever on the bed-plate, which moves the paper T \ in., 
 and so on. The highest drop is 6 ins. After the test a base-line 
 is drawn parallel to the edge of the paper. The autographic 
 
19 CAST IRON. 
 
 diagrams, Figs. 69 to 74, Chapter XIV, show deflection and set 
 for each blow. Use a 25~lb. hammer for a J-in. D bar, and a 
 loo-lb. hammer for a i-in. Q bar. 
 
 Professor Thomas Turner's Hardness-test Machine (Fig. 
 100). The number of grams on a diamond that are required to 
 
 FIG. 100. Professor Turner's Hardness-test Machine. 
 
 make a scratch on a polished surface is used as the degree of 
 hardness. This is especially adapted to white and chilled iron 
 and to tempered steel. 
 
 Keep's Cooling-curve Machine (Fig. 101). This makes an 
 
 FIG. 101. Keep's Cooling-curve Recording Machine. 
 
 autographic record of the behavior of a test-bar i" D X 24" long, 
 while becoming solid, while graphite is forming, and during cool- 
 ing. The recording drum is moved by a clock. It also makes 
 a diagram of the critical points of iron and steel. 
 
 One-half-inch Test-bar Patterns with Yokes. Fig. 102 
 shows an iron follow-board with two brass J-in. D test-bar 
 
KEEP'S TEST APPARATUS. 
 
 191 
 
 patterns, and Fig. 103 shows one J-in. [J test-bar with one 
 T V X i", all i ft. long. 
 
 Yokes with the taper-scale are used for measuring shrinkage. 
 
 FIG. 102. 
 
 FIG. 103. 
 
 Record-paper. One-hundred-pound manila paper makes 
 the best diagram. Strips 31 ins. wide and 14 ins. long fit 
 No. 10, and 6J ins. wide and 18 ins. long fit No. 40 recorder. 
 
CHAPTER XXI. 
 PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 
 
 Pig Iron. Cast iron from the blast-furnace is run into a pig- 
 bed, the runner which feeds the pigs being called a sow. In 
 America the pig-bed for all the irons to be used in the foundry is 
 generally made in sand, and sand is often thrown on the surface 
 of the pigs to cause the iron to cool more slowly, that the fracture 
 may show an open grain and dark color. 
 
 Pig iron is graded into different classes according to the color 
 or the size of the grain, or to the percentage of silicon indicated 
 by analysis. On account of silicon changing combined carbon 
 into graphite, hereby softening iron, silicon irons have come to 
 be called "softeners." 
 
 Ferrosilicon is the name applied to irons which carry 10$ and 
 over of silicon. The fracture of the pig is coarser than No. I 
 Silvery in Fig. 104. 
 
 Flaky Silvery, named from the appearance of its fracture, is 
 made in a very hot furnace, and generally contains from 7% to 
 10$ silicon. 
 
 No. i Silvery (Fig. 104). An open-grained, light-colored 
 iron, with more than 6% silicon. 
 
 No. 2 Silvery (Fig. 104) is of closer grain than No. I. 
 
 No. 3 or Close Silvery (Fig. 105). Quite often silvery iron 
 is offered for sale that has a very close uniform grain and which 
 has the ring of white iron. It is not generally very high in 
 silicon, averaging perhaps 4.50$ to 6%. 
 
 The Tennessee Coal, Iron and R. R. Co. selected sample 
 pigs from the eleven grades of iron made by them, and after 
 
 192 
 
PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 
 
 193 
 
 No. 1. 
 Silvery. 
 
 FIG. 104. 
 
I 9 4 
 
 CAST IRON 
 
 Southern 
 
 Silvery 
 
 Grey. 
 
 FIG. 105. 
 
PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 
 
 making a very careful chemical analysis sent the pigs for use 
 in this description. Table LXXVII gives for ready reference 
 both the composition and physical qualities of these samples. 
 
 TABLE LXXVII. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF PIG IRONS AND SI. IRONS. 
 
 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. 
 
 No. of Test. 
 
 Southern Pig Iron. 
 
 i! 
 
 Graphitic 
 Carbon. 
 
 Combined 
 Carbon. 
 
 Silicon. 
 
 II 
 
 | 
 
 Sulphur. 
 
 1 
 
 si 
 c 
 
 
 S 
 
 T\ I 
 
 No 2 silvery 
 
 i 51 
 
 0.58 
 
 o cn 
 
 4QI 
 
 o 58 
 
 o 08 
 
 O 2^ 
 
 7^O 
 
 " i " 
 
 o 17 
 
 1. 60 
 
 O. 57 
 
 47O 
 
 O 5Q 
 
 o 06 
 
 O 27 
 
 728 
 
 " j soft 
 
 2 QJ. 
 
 211 
 
 0.8-} 
 
 } 65 
 
 o 60 
 
 o 06 
 
 O 27 
 
 
 2 " 
 
 2 8l 
 
 2 OO 
 
 o 81 
 
 3 24. 
 
 o 76 
 
 
 
 Z V 
 721 
 
 
 2 88 
 
 2J2 
 
 o 46 
 
 2e T 
 
 o 60 
 
 
 
 72J. 
 
 
 2 2Q 
 
 2 28 
 
 o.oi 
 
 2 l6 
 
 o 62 
 
 O IO 
 
 U.4J 
 
 722 
 
 No 2 foundry 
 
 2 16 
 
 I QO 
 
 o 26 
 
 2 OO 
 
 O 7Q 
 
 o 08 
 
 O 21 
 
 72"? 
 
 < _ < i 
 
 2 14. 
 
 2 O4. 
 
 O IO 
 
 i 8^ 
 
 O 77 
 
 O IO 
 
 O-I T 
 
 725 
 
 Grey forge 
 
 I 7Q 
 
 1 . 51 
 
 o 28 
 
 I 7J. 
 
 o 70 
 
 O T7 
 
 o 38 
 
 726 
 
 Mottled 
 
 2 74. 
 
 I OO 
 
 I 74. 
 
 1.^6 
 
 o 76 
 
 o 36 
 
 O ^1 
 
 727 
 
 White 
 
 2 oi 
 
 c 67 
 
 I 34. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PHYSICAL ANALYSIS. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 731 
 730 
 728 
 729 
 -721 
 
 724 
 722 
 
 723 
 
 725 
 
 726 
 
 727 
 
 Southern Pig Iron. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 .01 
 .02 
 .04 
 .02 
 .01 
 
 .15 
 
 .01 
 
 .30 
 
 .0 
 
 white 
 white 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Def. 
 
 .24 
 .27 
 .27 
 25 
 25 
 .20 
 .27 
 .19 
 23 
 .11 
 
 13 
 
 Strength. 
 
 Def. 
 
 .27 
 32 
 32 
 -32 
 -30 
 .21 
 30 
 .20 
 .27 
 .14 
 15 
 
 Square 
 
 .140 
 
 .131 
 .149 
 .130 
 .156 
 .164 
 
 159 
 .161 
 .160 
 .226 
 .240 
 
 Flat. 
 
 .136 
 .138 
 157 
 
 .154 
 .145 
 
 .164 
 
 .161 
 
 .148 
 
 .163 
 .218 
 
 No 2 silvery ... 
 
 295 
 360 
 
 375 
 293 
 384 
 362 
 365 
 354 
 365 
 372 
 435 
 
 305 
 407 
 407 
 322 
 407 
 305 
 373 
 254 
 356 
 186 
 237 
 
 " i " .... 
 
 " i soft 
 
 ' ' 2 " . 
 
 ( I foundry .... 
 Foundry forge. . . . 
 No. 2 foundry. . . . 
 " 3 " 
 
 Mottled 
 White 
 
 
 
 Fig. 1 06 shows the appearance of the fracture of these 
 first samples of Southern irons and of various silicon irons in a 
 J-in. n test-bar. 
 
 The drawings of fractures of silicon pigs in this chapter 
 
196 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 are from a set of Ashland pigs with silicons determined by 
 analysis. 
 
 Ferro- Flaky No. I No. 2 No. 3 No. T No. 2 
 
 silicon Silvery Silvery Silvery Silvery Soft Soft 
 
 No. T No. 2 No. 3 Foundry Gray .. . , 
 
 Foundry Foundry Foundry Forge Forge Mo 
 
 FIG. 106. Fractures of Test-bars 
 
 The fractures of Southern pigs in this chapter are from a second 
 set sent by the Tennessee Coal, Iron and R. R. Co. without silicon 
 analysis. The fractures represent their ordinary grading. 
 
 Southern Silvery (Fig. 105) is made when the furnace is very 
 hot and is not a regular product. It is as good a softener as 
 regular silvery iron. The silicon ranges between 4$ and 5.^- 
 
 No. i Soft and No. 2 Soft (Fig. 107) are grades peculiar to a 
 
PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 
 
 I 97 
 
 No. 1 
 
 Soft. 
 
 FIG. 107. 
 
I9 8 CAST IRON. 
 
 Southern furnace. They contain too low silicon to be classed as 
 silvery iron and too much to be classed as foundry iron. If the 
 fracture is close it is No. 2 soft. Both are expected to contain 
 over 3.25$ silicon. These pigs have a smooth face. There is a 
 temptation to mix close-grained light-colored low silicon irons 
 with No. 2 soft before shipping. 
 
 No. i Foundry (Fig. 108) is a choice grade, having coarse 
 grain and dark color. It makes fine-appearing and accurate thin 
 and intricate castings. The surface of the molten metal is dark 
 and sluggish looking, and does not give off sparks. Under the 
 surface of the melted iron there are splashes of light. The pig 
 has a blue velvet face v/here the surface is smooth. 
 
 No. 2 Foundry (Fig. 108). The fracture is lighter in color 
 than No. I, and usually the surface of the pig is smoother. The 
 grain is closer and there is often a closeness around the edges of 
 the pig. It is generally a little harder and stronger than No. I 
 and it is not quite as fluid, as its carbon and silicon are generally 
 less. The surface of the melted iron is a clearer red, and throws 
 off some sparks, splashes only a little as it cools, and its surface 
 exhibits a series of lines or figures ever varying as though the 
 surface were in circulation, such appearance continuing until the 
 iron becomes pasty. The closeness of No. 2 may often arise 
 from the way it is handled in the pig-bed, and it often has as high 
 carbon and silicon as No. I. It is generally as good an iron as 
 is needed for the best foundry castings. 
 
 No. 3 Foundry (Fig. 109). The fracture is still lighter in 
 color, the crystals are much smaller, and the fracture is smoother 
 but contains some pits. It is stronger than the preceding grades. 
 It contains less silicon and carbon than Nos. I and 2, and has 
 not the same fluidity. The molten metal throws off sparks 
 abundantly as it runs from the cupola. The surface figuring is 
 less apparent than with No. 2. It is used in the foundry for 
 heavy work, but it will not take much scrap on account of its low 
 silicon. 
 
 No. 4. Foundry or Foundry Forge (Fig. 109) is a grade that 
 
PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 
 
 199 
 
 No. 1 
 
 Foundry 
 
 FIG. 108. 
 
200 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 No. 3 
 Foundry 
 
 FIG. 109. 
 
PIG IRONS AND SILICON IRONS. 201 
 
 is too close and with silicon too low for No. 3* Foundry and too 
 open for Gray Forge. The surface of the pig has larger and 
 more pits than No. 3. 
 
 Gray Forge is known by its larger pits. It has too close a 
 grain to be classed as Foundry Forge. It may be used to advan- 
 tage for heavy castings. In Chapter XVI, Table LXX are given 
 analyses and records of tests of several Gray Forge Irons. 
 
 Mottled is the highest pitted iron that is made. The name 
 does not indicate any grade, but a mottled appearance of grain 
 formation. The iron may be quite gray, or it may be white with 
 only a gray tinge. The latter would be high mottled. 
 
 White is made in a cold furnace and carries more sulphur than 
 any other grade. 
 
 One of the advantages of making the pigs of foundry iron in 
 iron molds or in one of the modern casting machines would be 
 that the fracture of the pig would indicate the kind of casting lhac 
 the iron would make. A non-chilling iron would show a gray 
 even fracture against the mold as in Fig. 59, while the slightest 
 tendency to chill would be shown in chilled surfaces of the pig. 
 The close-grained foundry iron which is cast in iron molds will 
 make as soft castings as the same iron pigged in sand. (See 
 Table LXIII.) 
 
 REMARKS ON SILICON IRONS. 
 
 Weakness of Silicon Irons. Softeners are invariably weak 
 in the pig and would make very brittle and weak castings if used 
 alone or to excess. Silicon irons often run from \% to 2% phos- 
 phorus. Mill cinder is quite extensively used in the ore mixture 
 for silicon iron, and imparts a silvery whiteness to the pig. 
 
 History of the Use of Silicon Iron. Until within the last 
 fifty years Scotch pig iron which contained about 3$ silicon was 
 imported and used as a softener. It was found that No. i 
 American pig was often as good a 'softener as Scotch pig. About 
 thirty years ago it was found that the iron ores found in Ohio 
 
202 CAST IRON. 
 
 would make a peculiar light-colored iron which imparted great 
 fluidity and softness to the irons made from the refractory Lake 
 Superior ores. At once these irons took the name of Ohio 
 Softeners. 
 
 In 1888 the author made a large number of tests to determine 
 the influence of remelting on silicon. The tables of records and 
 remarks can be found in Trans. A. I. M. E., vol. xvil. pp. 252- 
 261 . In remelting in a crucible not in contact with blast, the loss 
 of silicon in irons containing less than 10$ of silicon was 0.55$, 
 and of the irons containing over 10$ the loss was 2.80$ of the 
 silicon contained. In a second remelting the proportion of the 
 loss was reversed, but the loss was very small in either case. 
 
 It was proved that in the use of silicon iron to impart silicon 
 to low-silicon irons the mixture contained within o. 10$ of what 
 was calculated. The percentage loss was, however, not half as 
 much when silicon irons with less than 6% silicon were used. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 TESTING SMALL SAMPLES OF PIG IRON. 
 
 A CRUCIBLE furnace may be made by lining a sheet-iron drum 
 26 ins. diameter and 30 ins. deep with fire-brick set on end. It 
 should be set in a pit with its top even with the floor. Cross- 
 bars are fixed across the brick ashpit to allow i-in. square grate^ 
 bars to slide under the furnace. The upper part should be 
 connected to a chimney 12 ins. square inside and 30 ft. high to 
 give a natural draft. The furnace-top is closed with a round 
 cover. Seventy-two-hour coke is the best fuel. A No. 16 brass 
 crucible is the most convenient size and can be handled with 
 long-handled tongs taking hold of the edge. The crucible will 
 settle down as the fuel burns away. Fifteen pounds of iron will 
 melt in from 30 to 45 minutes. When the pot and iron cannot 
 be seen in the furnace the iron is fit to pour. 
 
 By keeping the furnace ready for use, after lunch a fire can 
 be put in, and when hot the iron can be melted before four o'clock, 
 when the molder would have put up his day's work and can put 
 up a flask of test-bars. 
 
 A Small Cupola. A sheet-iron cylinder 16 ins. diameter 
 and 4 ft. high, with a cast-iron bottom bolted on, is lined 2 ins, 
 thick with pounded fire-brick and fire-clay. This is set on a block 
 of stone about 2 ft. from the floor. Just above the bottom lining 
 is fixed a spout lined like the cupola, and a foot above is a 3-m 
 pipe fastened to the side for a tuyere. Bring wind from a small 
 
 203 
 
204 CAST IRON. 
 
 fan by a portable pipe. When a heat is to be made, put in 
 enough /2-hour coke the size of a hen's egg to heat the cupola 
 red hot, and to leave the incandescent coke 14 ins. above the 
 tuyere. Then charge the iron and cover with coke. Such a 
 test is almost exactly like using iron from an ordinary cupola. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 ALUMINUM IN CAST IRON. 
 
 A NUMBER of series of tests were made in 1887 with both 
 F L M and with " Gaylord " white pig iron, introducing aluminum 
 by ferroaluminum (containing 10$ Al. and 3$ Si.). 
 
 After the results of these tests were published it was claimed 
 that the 3$ of silicon produced the results. 
 
 TABLE LXXVIII. 
 
 Calculated. 
 
 Actual Percentage foundjin Test-bars.; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 O 
 
 
 I 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 00 
 
 g 
 
 
 U ^_J 
 
 a 
 
 
 s 
 
 . 
 
 ( j 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 . 
 
 rt 
 U 
 
 t! 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 . 
 
 c3 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 _u 3 
 
 s 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 a 
 
 rt 
 
 1 
 
 "o 
 
 o 
 
 | 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 a 
 
 * 
 
 < 
 
 c/l 
 
 "* 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 fc 
 
 * 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 c3 
 
 WHITE BASE IRON AND ALUMINUM. 
 
 WHITE REMELTS. 
 
 Pig. 
 
 363 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .186 
 .18 
 
 .18 
 .18 
 
 .00 
 .00 
 
 186 
 08 
 
 2.98 
 2.98 
 
 . -95 
 7* 
 
 2.63 
 1.71 
 
 P,g. 
 376. 
 
 . 186 
 25 
 
 2.98 
 3-13 
 
 
 
 2.03 
 
 
 25 
 
 .26 
 
 .27 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 377 
 
 
 2.97 
 
 X 4 
 
 83 
 
 36s 
 
 .50 
 
 35 
 
 
 54 
 
 .. ... 
 
 2.84 
 
 35 
 
 1.49 
 
 378 
 
 
 3.12 
 
 53 
 
 1.59 
 
 366 
 
 75 
 
 -43 
 
 47 
 
 .89 
 
 
 3.10 
 
 .81 
 
 1.29 
 
 379 
 
 
 2-75 
 
 83 
 
 .92 
 
 ,67 
 
 
 
 .62 
 
 i 28 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 
 380 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 2.52 
 
 44 
 
 1. 08 
 
 FLM GRAY IRON AND ALUMINUM. 
 
 FLM REMELTS. 
 
 Pig. 
 
 .00 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 .00 
 
 i 249 
 
 3-55 
 
 3-22 
 
 33 
 
 Pig. 
 
 1.249 
 
 3-55 
 
 3.22 
 
 33 
 
 368 
 
 .00 
 
 2 5 
 
 25 
 
 .00 
 
 1 245 
 
 
 .26 
 
 
 382 
 
 1.160 
 
 3-97 
 
 .81 
 
 1.16 
 
 3t>9 
 
 25 
 
 33 
 
 .28 
 
 .10 
 
 
 4.09 
 
 .72 
 
 1-37 
 
 383 
 
 
 2.61 
 
 37 
 
 .24 
 
 
 5 
 
 .41 
 
 .29 
 
 .14 
 
 . 
 
 3-55 
 
 .66 
 
 .89 
 
 384 
 
 
 3-86 
 
 .98 
 
 .88 
 
 37 1 
 
 75 
 
 50 
 
 37 
 
 32 
 
 
 3-53 
 
 78 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 3'57 
 
 .60 
 
 97 
 
 372 
 
 I. 00 
 
 .58 
 
 50 
 
 75 
 
 
 3-45 
 
 
 .89 
 
 386 
 
 . . 
 
 3.65 
 
 77 
 
 .88 
 
 373 
 
 2.OO 
 
 92 
 
 75 
 
 1.50 
 
 . 
 
 
 50 
 
 i. 08 
 
 
 . . 
 
 3-37 
 
 32 
 
 1.05 
 
 374 
 
 3.00 
 
 .26 
 
 99 
 
 2.23 
 
 
 3-34 
 
 .76 
 
 58 
 
 388 
 
 
 3-72 
 
 49 
 
 1.23 
 
 375 
 
 4.00 
 
 .70 
 
 54 
 
 3-84 
 
 2 280 
 
 3.10 
 
 44 
 
 .66 
 
 389 
 
 978 
 
 3-53 
 
 .82 
 
 1.71 
 
 205 
 
2O6 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 WHITE IRON AND ALUMINUM, COWLES' AND PURE METAL. 
 
 
 Al. .89 
 Gr. i. Si 
 CC. 1.29 
 
 Si. .48 
 
 Al. 1.28 
 Gr. 1.71 
 CC. 1.19 
 Si. .62 
 
 g3 
 
 m 
 
 tr~ / 
 
 06 ^ 
 
 iiii 
 
ALUMINUM IN CAST IRON. 
 
 207 
 
 The author then repeated the tests, using pure aluminum. 
 Fractures of the test-bars are shown in Figs. 1 10 and 1 1 r. The 
 chemical analyses are given in Table LXXVIII and in Figs. 112, 
 113, and 1 14. The test numbers of bars accompany each record 
 for reference. 
 
 Al. 1.50 
 
 Gr. 2.50 
 CC. i. 08 
 Si. 1.66 
 
 FIG. in. F L M Gray Iron and Aluminum. 
 
 Influence of Aluminum on the Grain of Cast Iron. In tests 
 with white iron, Fig. 1 10, in bar 364 one quarter of \% of aluminum 
 has prevented blow-holes. Test-bar 471 made with silicon alone 
 
208 
 
 CAST IRON. 
 
 CALCULATED & ACTUAL 
 ALUMINUM & SILICON 
 
 IN 
 "FLM"-AL.i WHITE-AL. SERIES 
 
 FIG. 112. 
 
 FIG. 113. 
 
 FIG. 114. 
 
ALUMINUM IN CAST IRON. 
 
 209 
 
 NO. OF TEST 
 
 GREY IRON OASE 
 
 .30 
 
 -vl 
 
 ill. 
 
 ight 
 
 FIG. 115. 
 
 FIG. 116. 
 
2io CAST IRON. 
 
 is free from blow-holes. In 365 one half of \% of aluminum 
 has made the test-bar a light gray. In 366 with 0.75$ of alumi- 
 num, the casting is decidedly gray, and in 367 with 1.28$ of 
 aluminum the chill is reduced to \ in. 
 
 Test-bar 473 was made to prove 367, and when compared 
 with 366 and 367 it is just what a \% bar should be. So far the 
 aluminum was introduced by 10$ ferroaluminum. There was 
 added to 471 exactly the same silicon and carbon as there was in 
 473. The difference in the appearance is due to the aluminum 
 in 473. One quarter of \<f> of aluminum in 364 produced the 
 same effect as 0.62 silicon in 471. Pure Al. added to 471 made 
 472 the exact duplicate of 473. 
 
 The grain is the same, and these tests prove that 0.50$ of Si. 
 and ifo of Al. will change a white porous iron into a solid gray 
 casting. 
 
 The author added \% pure aluminum to white iron to make 
 469, and 0.75$ Al. for 468. (See also 440 of Fig. 30, Chapter 
 IX.) This shows that Al. alone will make solid gray castings 
 out of porous white iron. 
 
 It had been claimed that aluminum would not stay in a cast- 
 ing. 468 and 469 were melted together and produced 470, which 
 was still gray, showing that the Al. was still there. Fig. 1 1 1 
 shows the influence of Al. from o to 3.82^. The formation of 
 an intensely black grain directly back of the chill was first shown 
 in Fig. ill in 1887, and it was soon found to be more or less 
 apparent back of any chill. Analysis of similar castings shows 
 more graphite just behind the chill in this dark portion than 
 farther back where the casting cooled more slowly. 
 
 The author's discovery of the influence of aluminum on cast 
 iron was made in 1887 and published August, 1888 (see Trans. 
 American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1888). 
 
 Aluminum in Steel Castings. Very full records are in 
 Trans. A. I. M. E., vol. xvm. pp. 835-850. 
 
 Aluminum in Wrought-iron Castings, ibid., pp. 851-858. 
 These were the first series of records made to show the influence 
 
ALUMINUM IN CAST IRON. 211 
 
 of Al. in steel and wrought iron. Castings were made of both 
 steel and wrought iron with 0.25$, i$, 2$, and 3$ aluminum. 
 The Mitis Co. had used Fe.Al. for some time in castings of 
 wrought iron, but never used more than 0.25$, and they claimed 
 that none of the aluminum remained in the casting, and that its 
 only effect was to make a sound casting. Dr. Mabery's analyses 
 proved that aluminum remained in the casting. 
 
 The author discovered that iron with 50$ of Al. would in a 
 short time fall to a powder. These experiments for the first time 
 determined the shrinkage of Al. and the influence of Al. on the 
 shrinkage and strength of steel and cast iron. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS METALS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 THE object of this chapter is to show the effect of a chance 
 introduction to F L M (Method 3) of the more common metals 
 into cast iron. Instead of using cupola iron the F L M was melted 
 
 in a crucible. 
 
 TABLE LXXIX. 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 Melted in a Crucible. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Impact. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 i"D 
 
 &"Xi" 
 
 755 
 756 
 
 757 
 758 
 
 75i 
 752 
 
 753 
 754 
 
 759 
 760 
 761 
 762 
 
 763 
 764 
 765 
 766 
 
 767 
 768 
 
 769 
 770 
 
 776 
 777 
 778 
 779 
 
 
 500 
 375 
 
 327 
 295 
 330 
 
 60 
 
 379 
 375 
 370 
 383 
 50 
 363 
 340 
 34i 
 330 
 
 20 
 370 
 
 357 
 357 
 333 
 
 TO 
 
 387 
 
 377 
 390 
 390 
 
 403 
 463 
 481 
 
 483 
 
 .18 
 .28 
 23 
 .19 
 .24 
 
 .11 
 
 .27 
 25 
 23 
 .23 
 
 05 
 .28 
 .22 
 .22 
 .18 
 
 .09 
 25 
 23 
 .21 
 .20 
 
 .04 
 .24 
 .22 
 .22 
 .21 
 
 .21 
 .26 
 .26 
 .26 
 
 400 
 356 
 356 
 246 
 356 
 
 390 
 348 
 337 
 
 432 
 
 .21 
 30 
 .29 
 .19 
 .26 
 
 30 
 .26 
 25 
 
 .28 
 
 .198 
 .169 
 .I 7 8 
 .184 
 .190 
 
 .2 4 8 
 .172 
 .172 
 173 
 .173 
 
 .148 
 .168 
 .169 
 .170 
 1 66 
 
 195 
 .190 
 
 .200 
 .205 
 .192 
 
 .I8 7 
 195 
 .198 
 .198 
 
 .182 
 .190 
 195 
 
 .90 
 .70 
 .70 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 .60 
 .60 
 50 
 
 .60 
 .60 
 
 50 
 .40 
 
 .70 
 .70 
 .60 
 
 50 
 
 03 
 .02 
 03 
 .OI 
 
 .02 
 .02 
 .02 
 .01 
 
 F L M 0% Nickel 
 
 1 t4 
 
 " 
 
 8 
 
 
 F L M o% Copper 
 
 
 f 
 
 I t 
 
 
 
 382 
 373 
 38i 
 
 31 
 
 .28 
 
 
 
 
 I < 
 
 
 
 
 
 .053 
 
 .168 
 .178 
 .183 
 .187 
 
 113 
 .125 
 .128 
 .129 
 .129 
 
 .127 
 .126 
 .127 
 .127 
 
 .I8 5 
 195 
 .200 
 .199 
 
 .141 
 137 
 .138 
 .138 
 
 .140 
 137 
 135 
 
 F L M o$ Tin 
 
 322 
 399 
 350 
 305 
 
 350 
 350 
 407 
 365 
 296 
 313 
 423 
 304 
 
 25 
 .28 
 
 " i " 
 
 i 
 
 I -:::::.. 
 
 23 
 .22 
 
 
 FLM 0% Lead 
 
 4 4 " . 
 
 . F .. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 . S 
 
 
 
 
 .22 
 
 , t o 8 = 
 2nd -s o o 
 
 ^"" ,, o.a 
 
 ard . . 5 v- b 
 
 .24 
 .20 
 
 JS " l 
 
 
 
 212 
 
INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS METALS IN CAST IRON. 
 
 213 
 
 In all cases the iron was hot enough to melt all of the added 
 metal, although the last metal barely filled the molds. The effect 
 of the stirring alone is shown by tests 776-9. 
 
 TABLE LXXX. 
 
 No. 
 Test. 
 
 Chromium. 
 
 Dead Load. 
 
 Shrinkage. 
 
 Chill. 
 
 Str. 
 
 Def. 
 
 J"D 
 
 &"xi" 
 
 429 
 
 594 
 595 
 596 
 597 
 598 
 
 599 
 620 
 
 6i5 
 616 
 617 
 618 
 619 
 
 
 335 
 332 
 345 
 475 
 345 
 355 
 365 
 
 374 
 362 
 366 
 373 
 363 
 352 
 
 23 
 
 .20 
 
 .24 
 .24 
 .17 
 
 .21 
 .12 
 .21 
 .21 
 .20 
 15 
 .19 
 
 .18 
 
 .167 
 .171 
 .167 
 .187 
 .186 
 .172 
 .227 
 
 .132 
 .136 
 .142 
 .154 
 .150 
 .156 
 
 .200 
 
 195 
 .194 
 .222 
 .220 
 .199 
 
 .60 
 65 
 75 
 .60 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 All 
 
 03 
 .01 
 03 
 .07 
 .05 
 .08 
 
 
 
 I OO . . . 
 
 
 
 Gaylord White 1.00$ Chromium 
 
 
 1 o IO . 
 
 
 4 0.50 
 
 i oo 
 
 
 
 ' (i *o) 
 
 
 4 (2 00) 
 
 
 
 
 429 
 
 0% 
 
 594 
 0.10$ 
 
 595 
 0.50$ 
 
 596 
 
 597 
 1.50* 
 
 598 
 
 FIG. 117. Chromium in Cast Iron. 
 
 Chromium in Cast Iron. Mr. R. A. Hadfield in his paper 
 before the Iron and Steel Institute, "Chromium in Steel," pro- 
 posed that the author should determine the influence of chromium 
 
214 CAST IRON. 
 
 in cast iron, and ne furnished the ferrochromium to make the 
 necessary tests. 
 
 The ferrochromium was added after the iron was melted 
 (Method 4), and the pot was returned until all was melted, which 
 gave time for the chromium to become thoroughly incorporated 
 and to exert its influence on the metal. 
 
 Chromium does not seem to be of any benefit in cast iron, and 
 it exerts little or no influence except to slightly increase shrinkage 
 when present in quantities less than i#. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Action of fluid iron in a foundry ladle, 21 ; of iron floating in, 20, 63. 
 Aluminum, and solid castings, 67, 207; changes combined carbon into 
 
 graphite, 205; in cast iron, 205; in wrought iron and in steel castings, 
 
 210; with 50% iron, crumbles to powder, 211. 
 American Foundrymen's Association, analysis of test-bars, 119; description 
 
 of tests, 115, 117; shrinkages, 48; strength tests, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 
 
 126, 128, 129. 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Testing Committee, 115; 
 
 strength tests, 116, 123, 129, 130. 
 Analysis, A. F. A. test-bars, 119; aluminum mixtures, etc., by Dr. C. F. 
 
 Mabery, 205; annealed test-bars, 33, 139; Ashland pig, 176; A. S. M. E. 
 
 test-bars, Si. 42, P. 76, S. 97, Mn. 105, T.C. 132, Cd.C. 133, G.C. 138, by 
 
 Dickman and Mackenzie; cube, 122; cupola iron, 177; Durham pig, 72; 
 
 eleven pigs (Pencost by Dr. Lord), 45; F L M pig and test-bars, li, 
 
 35, 70, 176, 205; ferromanganese, 99; Gaylord pig iron and test-bars, n, 
 
 35, 205; Hamden pig iron by Dr. Locke, 73; Hinkle pig iron by C. D. 
 
 Chamberlain, 12; Iroquois pig iron by D. & M., n, 12, 42, 43; machine 
 
 and sand cast pig and test-bars by A. L. Colby, 136; Norway pig, 74; 
 
 Pencost pig, 12, 45; segregation, no; silicon iron test-bars, 35, 38, 40; 
 
 six pigs, 167; Sloss pig, 176; Star pig, 78; Stewart pig, 74; strong and 
 
 weak test-bars, 174; Swedish Mn. irons, 103; Tenn. C., I. & R.R. Co. 
 
 pigs, by Dr. W. B. Phillips, 195; test-bars of cooling curves by E. E. 
 
 Mains, 53, 55; three pigs, 176; twenty pigs (Dayton by H. S. Fleming), 
 
 178. 
 Annealed castings, analysis, 33, 139; physical quality, 33, 139; temperature 
 
 for, 63. 
 
 Ashland Iron and Steel Co., 12. 
 Axes of crystals of cast iron, 20, 22. 
 
 Blast-furnace, reduction of ore in, 26. 
 
 Blowholes, 30, 72; and aluminum, 207; and phosphorus, 72; and silicon, 72, 
 
 210; and sulphur, 91, 96; prevented by graphite, 30. 
 Blue-billy added to gray iron, 84. 
 Borings of cast iron, close grain, 131. 
 
 215 
 
21 6 INDEX. 
 
 Breaking or ultimate strength, 7. 
 
 Brimstone added to gray iron, 83, 85. 
 
 Brittleness by combined carbon removed by silicon, 119; caused by Cd.C., 
 
 134, 135; of phosphorus irons, 66. 
 Britton, J. Blodget, analysis of Star iron, 78. 
 Bulk of carbon, 10; of other elements, 10, 28, 29. 
 
 Carbon, 25; and chill, and fusibility, 29; and fluidity, 29, 30; and hardness 
 29, 167; and phosphorus, 78; and silicon, 28, 38, 45, 176; and strengtn. 
 132, 133, 134, 136 138; and sulphur, 82 to 98; bulk of, 10, 28, 29; coloring 
 power of, 25; combined, 27, 133; combines at red heat, 62; combined, 
 the natural condition, 27, 28; combined, produces hardness, 166; diffusion 
 of, 28, 133; diluted by adding steel, 30, 71; diluted and Si. kept uniform, 
 31; dissolved in fluid iron, 27; driven out by sulphur, 83, 93, 94; if de- 
 creased, gray iron turns white, 30, 31, 94, 95; in cast iron, 25; influence of 
 remelting, 27, 30, 33; invisible in carbonic acid, 25; not increased in 
 cupola, 27; of the three expansions, 55; origin of carbon, 26; quantity of, 
 27; reduces shrinkage, 46; relation to silicon, 45; replaced by silicon, 38, 
 45; saturation of, 26, 27; segregation of, 107; silicon acts through, 38, 47, 
 176; specific gravity, 25; total, and strength, 132; total, determines in- 
 fluence of silicon, 38, 39. 
 
 Carbonic acid, 25, 26. 
 
 Carbonic oxide, 26. 
 
 Cast iron, 3; crystals of, 19; does it expand in freezing, 20; fusibility of, 29; 
 with low silicon tends to lamellar fracture, 78; various metals in, 212. 
 
 Casting machine, pig-iron, 136; conditions should be uniform, 138. 
 
 Castings, classes of, 159; cracking of, 24, 153; green sand stronger than dry, 
 28; with close-grained pig, 162; spongy, 21, 22, 162; with heavy and 
 light parts, 24. 
 
 Chemical analysis, i; drawbacks of, 171; drillings for, 165; will not account 
 for all physical properties, 38, 39, 40, 173; what it does, 170. 
 
 Chemical composition, and hardness, 166; a shrinkage test for, 46; does 
 not always determine strength, 163, 168, 177. 
 
 Chemists assume that chemical composition insures physical quality, 169, 
 171; must measure physical quality to prove prediction, 169; not agreed 
 on methods of sampling, 171. 
 
 Chill, 7; and carbon, 29; and manganese, 100, log, 104, 105, 106; and phos- 
 phorus, 80; and silicon, 44, 101, 102; and sulphur, 83, 86, 96; explained 
 by segregation, 114; measure of, 183; of annealed castings, 33, 139; pro- 
 cess instantaneous, 51. 
 
 Chromium, in cast iron, 213; in steel, R. A. Hadfield, 213. 
 
 Coal, 4. 
 
 Coke, 4. 
 
 Colby, A. L., machine and sand cast pig iron, 136. 
 
 Cold-shortness of phosphorus iron, 66. 
 
 Cold-shut in test-bars hastens fracture, 181. 
 
 Color of grain of phosphorus irons, 77. 
 
INDEX. 217 
 
 Coloring power of carbon, 25. 
 
 Combined carbon, 27, 133; accompanied by low silicon, 133; causes brittle- 
 ness, 134, 135; changed to graphite by aluminum, 205, by annealing, 
 139; by silicon, 36, 119; during 3d expansion, 56; influence of increase 
 in size on strength, 133, 135; produces hardness, 166; the natural con- 
 dition, 27, 28; weakens, never strengthens, 133, 135. 
 
 Composition of irons may be alike and yet make unlike castings, 171. 
 
 Compression test, 2, 127, 128. 
 
 Conditions influence castings, 85, 168, 176; unavoidable, 173. 
 
 Cooling curves, 50; begin when casting is solid, 51, 54; carbons of three ex- 
 pansions, 55; for hard and soft iron, 55; for rolled steel, 63; influence of 
 size of casting, 58, 59, 61; of ist, 2d, and 3d expansions, 54; of hot and 
 dull iron, 59; of phosphorus, manganese, and sulphur, 58; of test-bars 
 in yokes, 51; of various metals, 51; of yokes, 51; practical application, 58; 
 relation of size to expansion, 58; temperature of expansions, 61; test of 
 quality at each minute, 54. 
 
 Cooling in ladle, 88. 
 
 Cooling ratio, 157. 
 
 Copper in cast iron, 212; cooling curve of, 52. 
 
 Cracking of castings, 24, 153. 
 
 Critical points of cast iron, 65. 
 
 Crucible, furnace, 203; iron for tests, 14. 
 
 Crushing test, 2, 127, 128. 
 
 Crystallization, 19; carbon causes, 46; castings larger after, 46; no change 
 after 3d expansion, 56; of a mill roll, 21; very rapid, 55, 109. 
 
 Crystals, arrangement during 3d expansion, 56; axes of, 20, 22; do they 
 expand, 20; formation of, 19, 20, 21; octahedral, 19; of cast iron, 9. 
 
 Cubic foot of cast iron, weight of, 28. 
 
 Cupola, iron for tests, 13; small, for testing samples, 203; temperature, 175. 
 
 Dead load, 7; diagram, 186; diagrams of cast iron, 5, 146, 161; diagrams 
 
 of steel bars, 140, 141; Keep's testing machine, 183, 184; records of 
 
 deflection, 140, 141. 
 Deflection, 5; dead-load records, 140, 141; elastic, 6; greater for impact, 
 
 149; impact records, 143, 150; relation of, to dimensions of bar, 142; 
 
 set, 6. 
 
 Dickman and Mackenzie, analyses, u, 12, 42, 76, 97, 105, 132, 133, 138. 
 Diffusion, of carbon, 28, 133; of silicon, 41. 
 Direct test, i. 
 
 Drills, angles for, 164; for hardness test, 164. 
 Drillings for analysis, 165. 
 
 Dry-sand castings weaker than green-sand, 128. 
 Dull iron, cooling curves of, 59, 61, 62. 
 Durham pig iron, 72. 
 
 Elasticity, 6; measure of, 6. 
 
 Elements in cast iron, bulk of, 10, 28, 29. 
 
2i8 INDEX. 
 
 Expansion, and shrinkage, 54; carbons of, 55; combined carbon changes 
 to graphite during 3d, 56; crystals take final form during 3d, 56; ist, 
 2d, and 3d, 54; is the cause of less shrinkage, 64; silicon increases 
 the 3d, 57; takes place at definite temperatures, 61, 62, 65; 3d indicates 
 red-shortness, 65; 3d is when carbon combines before fusion, 62; time 
 it takes place, 54. 
 
 Factor of safety for cast iron, 124, 163. 
 
 Feeding castings, 21, 22. 
 
 Ferromanganese, 99; cracks when cooling, 99. 
 
 Ferrosilicon, 192. 
 
 Ferrostatic pressure in mold, 22. 
 
 Flask for test-bars, 182. 
 
 Fleming, H. S., analysis of Dayton pig iron, 178; phosphide of iron, 66. . 
 
 FLM pig iron, analysis of, n, 35. 
 
 Floating of solid on liquid iron, 20, 63. 
 
 Fluid iron, its action in foundry ladle, 21; less dense than solid iron, 21; 
 phosphorus irons remain so, 81 ; should be poured dull, 24. 
 
 Fluidity, and carbon, 29, 30; and phosphorus, 81; and silicon, 44. 
 
 Fluor-spar, melted with gray iron, 83. 
 
 Formula for strength, 119, 163; strength of cast iron cannot be calculated 
 by, 125. 
 
 Foundry irons, silicon in, 41. 
 
 Fracture, 5; from a notch or cold-shut, 181. 
 
 Fractures, illustrations of, of aluminum mixtures, 206, 207; of castings, 23; 
 of chromium in cast iron, 213; of dilutions of carbon, 31, 67, 71; of F L M 
 remelted, 70; of irons used in tests, 35; of machine and sand cast pig, 
 132; of phosphorus and FLM, 71; of phosphorus and white iron, 70; 
 of segregations of American pig, 109; of segregation of stove castings. 
 109; of segregation of Swedish irons, 108, 109; of segregations of test- 
 bars, in, 112; of silicon and F L M, 37; of silicon and white iron, 37; of 
 silicon i l /2% to 3%, 39; of silicon 2 l / 2 %, 40; of silicon pig iron, 193, 
 194; of spiegel and silicon, 100; of sulphide of iron and F L M, 90; of 
 sulphide and silicon and F L M, 91; of sulphur and cupola iron, 89; of 
 sulphur (brimstone) and F L M, 86; of sulphur and white iron, 91; of 
 Swedish manganese irons, 103; of Tenn. C., I. & R.R. Co. pig irons, 169, 
 J97) !Q9r 200; of white iron remelted, 67. 
 
 Fuel, 4; sulphur in, 5, 82. 
 
 Fusibility, and carbon, 29; and phosphorus, 66; Truran's rule for, 29. 
 
 Galena melted with gray iron, 83. 
 
 Gaylord pig-iron analysis, n, 35. 
 
 Grain, 7; and aluminum, 207; and phosphorus, 77, 78; darkened and made 
 
 coarser by annealing, 139; of phosphide of iron, 77. (See Fractures.) 
 Graphic method for approximating silicon and shrinkage, 155, 156; strength, 
 
 160; to find the silicon in any iron mixture, 157; to find the shrinkage 
 
 of any size of casting, 157. 
 
INDEX. . 219 
 
 Graphic records, 8; advantages, 8. 
 
 Graphite, 25; and strength, 133; changes to combined carbon before melting, 
 62; does it separate the grains, 138; flakes of, 19, 138, 139; in cast iron, 
 27; in spaces between the grains, 139; segregation of, 107; silicon 
 changes combined carbon to, 36, 119; strength and weakness independent 
 of, 139- 
 
 Gray forge pig iron, 167, 195, 201. 
 
 Gray iron, melting of, 30; more fluid than white, 30. 
 
 Green-sand castings stronger than dry-sand, 128. 
 
 Grinder for Y& drills, 164, 187. 
 
 Hadfield, R. A., chromium in steel, 213; Spiegel and silicon, 100. 
 
 Hamden pig iron, 73; chill, 80; grain, 77, 78; hardness, 80. 
 
 Hardness, and carbon, 29, 167; and chemical composition, 166; and man- 
 ganese, 104, 105, 106; and phosphorus, 58, 80; and silicon, 44; and sul- 
 phur, 93, 98; diagrams, 165; follows combined carbon, 44, 167; Keep's 
 testing machine, 164, 186; or workability, 166; record of, 165; records of 
 A. S. M. E. and A. F. A. tests, 166; test does not distinguish between 
 hardness and tenacity, 164; Turner's definition of, 164; Turner's test for, 
 29, 190; Turner's testing machine, 190. 
 
 Hard spots in castings, 107 to 114, 165, 167. 
 
 Heavy and light portions of the same casting, 24. 
 
 Hinkle pig iron, analysis, 12. 
 
 Horizontal stronger than vertically cast test-bars, 123. 
 
 Hot and dull iron, cooling curves of, 59, 61, 62. 
 
 Impact, 140; advantages of swinging hammer, 152; arbitrary values for, 32; 
 diagrams from test-bars not perfectly elastic, 145; diagrams of cast iron, 
 146; influence of shock on cast iron, 152; Keep's testing machine, 142, 
 189; recording apparatus, 140, 189; records of steel test-bars with direct 
 drop, 144, 149, 150, 151; records of test-bars with swinging hammer, 
 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148; tests, i, 152; striking bars shortens them, 
 153; to determine resilience, 152. 
 
 Impurities, a benefit, 113; prevent segregation, 113. 
 
 Iroquois pig iron analysis, 12. 
 
 Iron, cast, 3; ingot, 3; to find if low-priced is economical, 169. 
 
 " Keep's Test " name suggested, 49. 
 Kish, graphite floating on liquid iron, 27. 
 
 Ladle, action of fluid iron in, 21; hot, cold, and green, 84, 175; iron standing 
 
 or stirred in, 59, 88, 173, 212. 
 
 Lamellar fracture caused by low silicon, 78, 100. 
 Large castings proportionally weaker than small, 22, 120. 
 Lead, cooling curve of, 52; in cast iron, 212. 
 Lime, 4. 
 Lines of weakness in cast iron, 22, 23. 24. 
 
220 INDEX. 
 
 Machine cast pig, conditions should be uniform, 138; tests and analyses, 
 136, 137; advantages of, 201. 
 
 Machines, see Testing machines. 
 
 Manganese, analysis, A. S. M. E. tests, 105; and carbon, 101, 102, 103, 104; 
 and chill, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106; and hardness, 58, 104, 105, 106; and 
 remelting, 99, 102, 104, 106; and shrinkage, 100 to 104; and silicon, 100, 
 102, 103, 104; and strength, 104; does not make gray iron white, 102, 
 103; gray Spiegel, Ward's, 102; Pourcel's, 103; influence on cooling 
 curves, 58; nothing to do with grayness or chill, 103; removes chill, 
 105; removes sulphur, 99, 104; Swedish irons, 103; whiteness of spiegel 
 not from Mn., 102, 103. 
 
 Measure, of elasticity, 6; of rigidity, 6; of usefulness, 7. 
 
 Mechanical analysis, 168; advantages of, 169; can be used alone by any- 
 one, 169; it is chemistry for the uneducated founder, 170; Keep's ap- 
 paratus for, 182 to 190; measures physical properties, 168; simple method 
 benefits ordinary founder most, 170; shows combined influence of chemi- 
 cal elements and of all conditions, 168; tells whether more or less silicon 
 is needed, 168. 
 
 Mechanics, 5. 
 
 Metis Co.'s use of aluminum, 211. 
 
 Methods of investigation, 12; methods, I to 9, pp. 13 to 16; 10 to 14, pp. 17 
 and 18. 
 
 Mill cinder in silvery iron, 201. 
 
 Moldenke, Dr. Richard, A. F, A. tests, 115. 
 
 Molds, wet and dry, 175. 
 
 Mottled pig iron, 93, 94. 
 
 Moxahala pig iron, 73, 78; grain, and color of fracture, 78; chill and hard- 
 ness, 80. 
 
 Nickel in cast iron, 212. 
 Norway pig iron, 74, 113. 
 
 Outerbridge, A. E., tumbled test-bars, 153. 
 
 Paper for records, 191. 
 
 Patterns for test-bars, 182, 184, 191. 
 
 Pencost pig iron, 12, 35, 45. 
 
 Phosphide of iron, 66; grain of, 77; shrinkage of, 79; hardness, 80. 
 
 Phosphorus, 66; analysis of A. S. M. E. test-bars, 76; and blowholes, 72; 
 and brittleness, 66; and carbon, 78; and chill, 78, 80; and cold-shortness, 
 66; and cooling curves, 58; and fluidity, 81; and fusibility, 66; and grain, 
 77, 78; and hardness, 58, 80; and remelting, 77; and shrinkage, 79: and 
 strength, 80; color of casting sometimes straw-colored, 78; in favorite 
 foundry irons, 81; irons low in silicon have lamellar fracture, 78; spe- 
 cific gravity, 66; Turner on, 66, 81; irons, weakness of, 77; white and 
 red, 66. 
 
 Physical tests, I. 
 
INDEX. 221 
 
 Pig irons, 192; used in tests, n, 12; ferrosilicon and silvery iron, 192; foundry 
 Nos. i, 2, 3, 4, 198; gray, 28; gray forge, 201; mottled, 201; not 
 homogeneous, 171; physical tests of, 195; soft, Nos. i and 2, 196; 
 Southern, analysis of, 178, 195, 196; testing small samples of, 203; to find 
 if low-priced is desirable, 169; white, 28, 201. 
 
 Pyrites added to gray iron, 84, 96, 98. 
 
 Quenching cast iron in ice-water, 55. 
 
 Ratio of cooling, 157. 
 
 Red-short, 82; at time of 3d expansion, 65. 
 
 Relative tests, i. 
 
 Remelting, influence on carbon, 27, 30, 33; on manganese, 99, 102, 104, 106; 
 on phosphorus, 77; on silicon, 42, 202; loss in, 12; on sulphur, 85, 93, 96; 
 reduces carbon, 30. 
 
 Resilience, test for, 152. 
 
 Rigidity, 6; diagram of, 6; measure of, 6; no, 6; perfect, 6. 
 
 Round and square test-bars, of Mr. West, 130; of Western Founders' Asso- 
 ciation, 129; strength of, 128. 
 
 Samples of pig iron, to test, 203. 
 
 Sampling, chemists not agreed on method of, 171. 
 
 Saturation of carbon, 26, 27, 38. 
 
 Scale, of casting peels, 45; tapr for measuring shrinkage, 183. 
 
 Scotch pig iron, 81, 201. 
 
 Scrap, appearance a practical guide, 172; no correct analysis can be made 
 of, 173- 
 
 Scrap-carrier, the pig that has the lowest shrinkage, 161. 
 
 Segregation, 107; analysis of, no; explains chill, 114; in a stove cover, no; 
 of American pig, 107; of graphite, 107; of sulphur, 107; of Swedish iron, 
 107; prevented by impurities, 113; remarkable examples, 108; to produce 
 a white core, 113; white beads, no. 
 
 Set, 6; increased by annealing, 139. 
 
 Shock, influence on cast iron, 152. 
 
 Shrinkage, 46; A. F. A. tests, 48; a safer guide than silicon analysis, 176; 
 A. S. M. E. tests, 48; a test for chemical composition, 46, 168; and 
 carbon, 38, 47, 176; and expansion go on at the same time, 65; and 
 manganese, 100 to 104; and phosphorus, 79; and silicon, 47, 57; and 
 sulphur, 83, 86 to 95; autographic curves of, 50; carbon reduces, 46 
 caused by other elements, 47; chart showing percentage of silicon, 156; 
 decrease in cooling the same as increase in volume by melting, 46, 51; 
 decreases as silicon increases, 48; decreases as size increases, 49; graphic 
 method, 155; if lower, the pig iron is a better scrap-carrier, 169; is 
 lessened by expansion, 64; least with greatest graphite, silicon, and phos- 
 phorus, 79; less in casting than in pig, 96; measure of, is equivalent to 
 chemical analysis of silicon, 168; measure of, gives relative influence of 
 silicon. 158. 159; measure of, tells whether more or less silicon is needed, 
 
222 INDEX. 
 
 159, 168; measuring, 183; of annealed castings, 138; of different grades 
 of iron, 47; of fluid iron, 51; of heavy and light parts of the same casting, 
 24; of large and small castings, 22; of pure iron, 46; one size of test-bar 
 to study variations in chemical composition, 46; y%", for any size of 
 casting, 47, 158, 159; relation to percentage of silicon, 44, 155, 168; silicon 
 lessens, 47, 56; soft castings with low, 139; standard, 159, 168; taper 
 scale for measuring, 183; there is no definite, for a definite percentage, 
 of silicon, 176; to find, for different sizes of castings, 157; to study 
 relation of, to variation in size of test-bar, use iron of uniform compo- 
 sition, 46; varies with size of casting, 46, 155. (See Cooling curves.) 
 
 Shrink-holes, 25, 165. 
 
 Shrink-rule, 46. 
 
 Silicon, 34; acts through carbon, 38, 47, 176; a definite percentage will not 
 always produce a definite shrinkage, 37, 176; a greater quantity acting 
 a shorter time or vice versa, 40; a softener, 44, 56, 79; alloys with iron, 
 34; amount needed told by shrinkage, 49, 168; analyses, A. S. M. E. 
 tests, 42; analysis not as safe a guide as shrinkage, 176; an approximation 
 of, all that can be obtained by analysis, 44; and carbon, 28, 38, 45, 176; 
 and chill, 44; and fluidity, 44; and hardness, 44; and manganese. 100 to 
 104; and Spiegel, 100; and strength, 119, 121; an increase counteracts 
 most evil influences, 168; approximated by shrinkage chart, 156; as i 
 increases shrinkage decreases, 48, 100; carriers of, 79; changes white 
 iron to gray, 36, 37; controls mixture, 41; decreased, increases chill, 
 101, 102; decreasing, increases shrinkage, 47; decreasing, turns gray 
 iron white, 94, 95; diffusion of, 41, 43; exact percentage, even by analysis, 
 impossible, 43; expels carbon, 39; graphic method for determination of, 
 155; history of its use, 201; in foundry irons, 41; in some irons more 
 effective than in others, 176; increases 3d expansion, 57; influence de- 
 pends on total carbon, 38; influence indirect through carbon, 38; in- 
 fluence of remelting, 42, 202; influence modified by various conditions, 39; 
 its influence, not its percentage, 37, 38; low for large castings, 131* lowers 
 saturation of carbon, 38; makes gray iron more gray, 36; the more total 
 or less combined carbon the less silicon required, 39; overcomes sulphur, 
 93; percentage increased or decreased according to shrinkage, 159; pig 
 iron, 192, 201; reduces combined carbon, thereby removes brittleness and 
 increases strength, 119; specific gravity, 34; reduces shrinkage, 47, 57; 
 relation to carbon, 45; the percentage in pig iron must be known, 172; 
 the percentage is but an approximation, 44; to find percentage from a 
 test-bar, 157; to produce y&" shrinkage per foot, 47, 159; Turner on, 34, 
 36; varies shrinkage, 168; weakness of silicon irons, 201. 
 
 Size, influence on cooling curve, 58, 59, 61; of a casting varies shrinkage, 
 46, 49; of test-bars due to poor molding, 180; one size of test-bars should 
 be used for comparison, 180; of test-bars only approximate, 180; varia- 
 tion of, in test-bars, 123. 
 
 Slag, 4. 
 
 Slow cooling increases size of grain, 121. 
 
 Small castings proportionately stronger than large, 22, 120. 
 
INDEX. 22 3 
 
 Smith and Weston's tests with sulphur, 85, 93. 
 
 Smoothing surface of a test-bar strengthens it, 154. 
 
 Soft, Nos. i and 2 pig iron, 96; castings, to produce, 139, 
 
 Softeners, 79; Ohio, 202; Scotch, 201; silicon, 44, 56, 192; weak, 201. 
 
 Solidifying, of cast iron, 19 to 22, 54; test to find quality at each minute, 54. 
 
 Southern pig irons, analysis of, 167, 176, 178, 195. 
 
 Specific gravity, of elements of cast iron, 10; of fluid and solid cast iron, 21; 
 of graphite, 25; of phosphorus red and white, 66; of pig irons, 28, 29; 
 of pure iron, 2, 3; of silicon, 34; of sulphur, 82. 
 
 Spiegeleisen, and silicon, 100; carbon of, 102; whiteness of, caused by low 
 silicon, 102; hardness, 106; PourceFs gray, 103; Ward's gray, 102. 
 
 Spongy spots in castings, 21, 22, 165; to prevent, 131. 
 
 Spring-line, 6. 
 
 Square test-bars stronger than round bars, 128, 129, 130. 
 
 Standard shrinkage, 2, 159, 168. 
 
 Star pig-iron analysis, 78. 
 
 Steel, 3; additions of, dilute all elements, 30, 71; and aluminum, 210; man- 
 ganese, 104, scrap increases strength, 30, 31, 131, 132. 
 
 Stewart pig iron, 75. 
 
 Stiffness, 6. 
 
 Stirling's toughened cast iron, 31. 
 
 Strain, 5. 
 
 Strength, 7; and carbon, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138; and manganese, 104; and 
 phosphorus, 80; and silicon, 119, 121; and sulphur 86, 96; breaking, 7; 
 by pounding surface of test-bar, 154; by smoothing the surface of test- 
 bar, 154; by steel or wrought-iron scrap, 30, 31, 131, 132; cannot be cal- 
 culated by formula, 125, 128, 163; chemical composition and, 163, 168, 
 171; close approximation of, 163; comparisons of, must be made of bars 
 that were cast the same size, 117; curves, 127; decrease of, due to 
 coarse grain, 134; decreases as size increases, 22, 120; diagrams of A. S 
 M. E. tests, 120, 121 ; formula for, 119; graphic method for, 155, 159; 
 increased by tumbling test-bars, 153; increases with each increase of 
 silicon in small castings, 119; influence of shock on, 153; maximum 
 breaking, 7; more dependent on size of grain than on chemical com- 
 position, 171; of A. S. M. E. tests, 115, 116, 119, 130; of annealed cast- 
 ings, 33, 139; of castings made in green and in dry sand, 128; of center oi 
 a casting less than the outside, 122, 128; of horizontally and vertically 
 cast test-bars, 123; of machined and unmachined test-bars, 117, 118, 
 124; of square and round test-bars, 128, 129, 130; of test-bars 2" X i" 
 tested flat or on edge, 130; proportionate, decreases as size of casting 
 increases, 22, 120; proportional decrease in, due to size, is more rapid 
 and greater with each increase of silicon, 121 ; proportionate, decreases 
 more rapidly with increase in size of small than of large test-bars, 121; 
 removing surface of test-bar decreases, 122, 154; sulphide of iron 
 reduces it, 92; tests from various parts of a cube, 122; to find the actual 
 for any size of test-bar, 162; to find, for a y 2 " D section of a large cast- 
 ing, 162; the lower the silicon the greater, for large test-bars, and vice 
 
224 INDEX. 
 
 versa, 119; ultimate, 7; variations in, due to character of cast iron, 125; 
 variations of, in test-bars, 123; variations in ordinary castings, 124; with 
 combined carbon and low silicon, 132. 
 
 Stress, 5. 
 
 Striking test-bars shortens them, 153. 
 
 Strong castings, by using an iron low in silicon, 131 ; by using cast iron bor- 
 ings, 131; by using close-grained pig iron, 131; by using wrought iron 
 or steel scrap, 30, 31, 131, 132; to produce, 131. 
 
 Sulphide of iron, analysis of, 87, 89; compound of, with carbonized iron, 8;; 
 its own iron reduces silicon and carbon in test-bars, 94; reduces strength. 
 92; shrinkage, 87. 
 
 Sulphur, 82; and carbon, 82, 83; and chill, 83, 86, 96; and cooling curves, 50; 
 and F L M, 85; and hardness, 58, 93, 98; and shrinkage, 83, 86 to 97; and 
 strength, 86 to 97; added to gray iron by brimstone, 83, 85; by blue-billy, 
 84; fluor-spar, 83; galena, 83; pyrites, 84, 98; sulphide, 87 to 92; castings 
 contain more than the pig, 96; drives out carbon, 83, 93, 94; in A. S. M. E 
 tests, 96, 97; in cast iron injurious, 82, 95, 97; influence of, in com- 
 mercial pig iron, 95, 96; not beneficial, 97; loss in remelting, 85, 93, 96; 
 overcome by silicon, 93; percentage in pig iron, 82, 95; segregation of, 
 107; turns gray iron white, 92, 95; Turner's experiments with, 93, 95; 
 Weston and Smith's experiments, 85, 93, 94. 
 
 Surface, and silicon, 45; removing, weakens, 122, 154; smoothing, strength ns, 
 154- 
 
 Swedish irons, and pyrites, 96; segregation of, 107, 108; manganese, 103. 
 
 Taper scale for measuring shrinkage, 183. 
 
 Tennessee Coal, Iron and R.R. Co., various grades of iron, 178, 195 to 201. 
 
 Tensile test, 2, 122, 127, 129, 136. 
 
 Test-bars, 12, 179; a cold-shut will hasten fracture, 181; advantages and 
 disadvantages of i" n, 180; analysis of (see Analysis); as a coupon not 
 satisfactory, 181; best size, to use, 179; flask for, 182; in yokes, cooling 
 curves, 51; machined or unmachined, 117; patterns for, 182, 184, 191; 
 same size, should be used by all, 179; size of, 12, 179; size, best that 
 shows greatest variation for the least variation in chemical composition, 
 169; smallest that will run gray is best, 180; strength of square and 
 round, 128; that give most uniform results not best, 180; 2" X i" tested 
 flat or on edge, 130; used in impact tests, 140; variation in size and 
 strength of, 123; Waterworks Association, 131; with yokes, 190; why 
 i" D. gives uniform results, 180. 
 
 Test, chemical, i; compression or crushing, 2; definition of, i; direct, i: 
 impact, 2; physical, i; preparing for, 12; relative, i; tensile, transverse, 2. 
 
 Tests, consider general tendencies not individual variations, 76; of aluminum 
 in cast iron, 210; of silicon, Prof. Turner's, 36. 
 
 Testing machines, advantages, 184; cooling curve, 50, 190; dead-load, 183, 
 184; drill-grinder, 188; hardness. 186; impact, 189; patterns, 182, 184, 
 190; recorder, 189; Turner's hardness, 190. 
 
 Testing small samples of pig iron, 203. 
 
I ' ' 
 
 INDEX. 225 
 
 Tin, in cast iron, 212; cooling curve of, 52. 
 
 Transverse test, 2. 
 
 Truran's rule for fusibility, 29. 
 
 Tumbling strengthens test-bars, 153; discovery of A. E. Outerbridge, 153. 
 
 Turner, Professor Thomas, definition of hardness, 164; experiments with sul- 
 phur, 93, 95; hardness machine, 190; hardness test, 29, 190; on phos- 
 phorus, 66; on silicon, 34, 35, 36; on strength, 180. 
 
 Usefulness, measure of, 7. 
 
 Variation, of carbon, 28; in size of test-bars, 123; in strength due to character 
 of cast iron, 125; in strength of machined and unmachined test-bars, 124; 
 in strength of ordinary castings, 124; in test-bars due to poor moulding, 
 180. 
 
 Vertically cast test-bars, strength of, 123. 
 
 Waterworks Association, size of test-bars, 131. 
 
 Weakness, lines of, 22; of phosphorus irons, 77; of silicon irons, 20. 
 
 Western Founders' Association report, 129. 
 
 Weston and Smith's experiments with sulphur, 85 to 93. 
 
 Wet and dry molds, 175. 
 
 White pig iron, 28, 201; melts more easily than gray, but is not as fluid, 30; 
 
 silicon changes to gray, 36; thick and pasty as it cools, 30. 
 White spots in castings, 113, 107 to 114. 
 Workability or hardness, 164. 
 Wrought iron, 3; and aluminum, 210; added to cast iron, 77, 132; shrinkage, 
 
 79- 
 
 Yokes, cooling curves from, 51; of test-bars in, 51; for test-bars, 190. 
 Zinc in cast iron, 212; cooling curves of, 51. 
 
SHORT-TITLE CATALOGUE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PUBLICATIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 'JOHN WILEY & SONS, 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 LOMX>X: CHAPMAN & HALL, LIMITED. 
 
 ARRANGED UNDER SUBJECTS. 
 
 Descriptive circulars sent on application. 
 
 Books marked with an asterisk are sold at net prices only. 
 
 All books are bound in cloth unless otherwise stated. 
 
 AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Armsby's Manual of Cattle-feeding 12mo, $1 75- 
 
 Downing's Fruits and Fruit-trees of America 8vo, 5 OO 1 
 
 Orotenfelt's Principles of Modern Dairy Practice. ( Woll.) . . 12mo, 2 00* 
 
 Kemp's Landscape Gardening 12mo, 2 SO 7 
 
 Maynard's Landscape Gardening as Applied to Home Decora- 
 tion 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Stockbridge's Rocks and Soils 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Woll's Handbook for Farmers and Dairymen 16nio, 1 50 
 
 ARCHITECTURE, 
 
 Baldwin's Steam Heating for Buildings 12mo, 2 50* 
 
 Berg's Buildings and Structures of American Railroads. .. .4to, 5 00 
 
 Birkm ire's Planning and Construction of American Theatres.Svo, 3 00' 
 
 Architectural Iron and Steel 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Compound Riveted Girders as Applied in Build- 
 ings 8vo, 2 00 
 
 " Planning and Construction of High Office Build- 
 ings 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Skeleton Construction in Buildings 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Briggs's Modern American School Buildings 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Carpenter's Heating and Ventilating of Buildings 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Freitag's Architectural Engineering 8vo, 3 50 
 
 " Fireproofing of Steel Buildings 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Gerhard's Guide to Sanitary House-inspection 16mo, 1 00 
 
 " Theatre Fires and Panics 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Hatfield's American House Carpenter 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Holly's Carpenters' and Joiners' Handbook 18mo, 75 
 
 Kidder's Architect's and Builder's Pocket-book.. 16mo, morocco, 4 00 
 
 Merrill's Stones for Building and Decoration 8vo, 5 00 
 
 1 
 
Monckton's Stair-building _... 4to, 4 00 
 
 Pattern's Practical Treatise on Foundations 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Siebert and Biggin's Modern Stone-cutting and Masonry .. 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Wait's Engineering and Architectural Jurisprudence 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Sheep, 6 50 
 
 " Law of Operations Preliminary to Construction in En- 
 gineering and Architecture v*y 8vo > 5 M 
 
 Sheep, 5 50 
 
 " Law of Contracts 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Woodbury's Fire Protection of Mills 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Worcester and Atkinson's Small Hospitals, Establishment and 
 Maintenance, and Suggestions for Hospital Architecture, 
 
 with Plans for a Small Hospital 12mo, 1 25 
 
 The World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 Large 4to, 1 00 
 
 AEMY AND NAVY. 
 
 Bernadou's Smokeless Powder, Nitro-cellulose, and the Theory 
 
 of the Cellulose Molecule 12mo, 2 50 
 
 * Bruff's Text-book of Ordnance and Gunnery 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Chase's Screw Propellers and Marine Propulsion 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Craig's Azimuth. 4to, 3 50 
 
 Crehore and Squire's Polarizing Photo-chronograph 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Cronkhite's Gunnery for Non-commissioned Officers..24mo, mor., 2 00 
 
 * Da vis's Elements of Law 8vo, 2 50 
 
 * " Treatise on the Military Law of United States ... 8vo, 7 00 
 
 Sheep, 7 50 
 
 De Brack's Cavalry Outpost Duties. (Carr.) 24mo, morocco, 2 00 
 
 Dietz's Soldier's First Aid Handbook 16mo, morocco, 1 25 
 
 * Dredge's Modern French Artillery 4to, half morocco, 15 00 
 
 Durand's Resistance and Propulsion of Ships 8vo, 5 00 
 
 * Dyer's Handbook of Light Artillery 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Eissler's Modern High Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 * Fiebeger's Text-book on Field Fortification Small 8vo, 2 00 
 
 * Hoff's Elementary Naval Tactics 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Ingalls's Handbook of Problems in Direct Fire 8vo, 4 00 
 
 * " Ballistic Tables 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Lyons's Treatise on Electromagnetic Phenomena 8vo, 600 
 
 * Mahan's Permanent Fortifications. (Mercur's.).8vo, half mor. 7 50 
 Manual for Courts-martial 16mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 * Mercur's Attack of Fortified Places 12mo, 2 00 
 
 * " Elements of the Art of War 8vo, 400 
 
 Metcalfe's Cost of Manufactures And the Administration of 
 
 Workshops, Public and Private 8vo, 5 00 
 
 " Ordnance and Gunnery 12mo, 5 00 
 
 Murray's Infantry Drill Regulations 18mo, paper, 10 
 
 * Phelps's Practical Marine Surveying 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Powell's Army Officer's Examiner 12mo, 4 00 
 
Sharpe's Art of Subsisting Armies in War . 18mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Walke's Lectures on Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 * Wheeler's Siege Operations and Military Mining 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Winthrop's Abridgment of Military Law 12mo, 2 50 
 
 WoodhiiU's Notes on Military Hygiene 16mo, 1 50 
 
 Young's Simple Elements of Navigation 16mo, morocco, 1 00 
 
 Second Edition, Enlarged and Revised 16mo, mor., 2 00 
 
 ASSAYING. 
 
 Fletcher's Practical Instructions in Quantitative Assaying with 
 
 the Blowpipe 12mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Furman's Manual of Practical Assaying 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Miller's Manual of Assaying i*. nt .> .... 12mo, 1 00 
 
 O'DriscolPs Notes on the Treatment of Gold Ores 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Kicketts and Miller's Notes on Assaying :> j>'ie4-8vo, 3 00 
 
 Wilson's Cyanide Processes 12mo, 1 50 
 
 , Chlorination Process 12mo, 1 50 
 
 ASTRONOMY. 
 
 Craig's Azimuth 4to, 3 50 
 
 Doolittle's Treatise on Practical Astronomy 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Gore's Elements of Geodesy 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Hayford's Text-book of Geodetic Astronomy 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Merriman's Elements of Precise Surveying and Geodesy .... 8vo, 2 50 
 
 * Michie and Harlow's Practical Astronomy 8vo, 3 00 
 
 * White's Elements of Theoretical and Descriptive Astronomy. 
 
 12mo, 2 00 
 
 BOTANY. 
 
 Baldwin's Orchids of New England Small 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Davenport's Statistical Methods, with Special Reference to Bio- 
 logical Variation 16mo, morocco, 1 25 
 
 Thome and Bennett's Structural and Physiological Botany. 
 
 16mo, 2 25 
 
 Westermaier's Compendium of General Botany. ( Schneider. )8vo, 2 00 
 
 CHEMISTRY. 
 
 Adriance's Laboratory Calculations and Specific Gravity Tables, 
 
 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Allen's Tables for Iron Analysis 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Arnold's Compendium of Chemistry. (Mandel.) (In preparation.) 
 
 Austen's Notes for Chemical Students 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Bernadou's Smokeless Powder. Nitro-cellulose, and Theory of 
 
 the Cellulose Molecule 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Bolton's Quantitative Analysis 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Brush and Penfield's Manual of Determinative Mineralogy..8vo, 4 00 
 Classen's Quantitative Chemical Analysis by Electrolysis. (Her- 
 
 rick Boltwood.) 8vo, 300 
 
Cohn's Indicators and Test-papers 12mo, 2 00* 
 
 Craft's Short Course in Qualitative Chemical Analysis. (Schaef- 
 
 fer.) 12mo, 2 00 
 
 DrechsePs Chemical Reactions. (Merrill.) 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Eissler's Modern High Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 EfTront's Enzymes and their Applications. ( Prescott. ) ( In preparation. ) 
 Erdmann's Introduction to Chemical Preparations. (Dunlap.) 
 
 12mo, 1 25 
 Fletcher's Practical Instructions in Quantitative Assaying with 
 
 the Blowpipe 12mo, morocco, 1 50" 
 
 Fresenius's Manual of Qualitative Chemical Analysis. (Wells.) 
 
 8vo, 5 00 
 System of Instruction in Quantitative Chemical 
 
 Analysis. (Allen.) 8vo, 600 
 
 Fuertes's Water and Public Health 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Furman's Manual of Practical Assaying 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Gill's Gas and Fuel Analysis for Engineers 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Grotenfelt's Principles of Modern Dairy Practice. (Woll.) . . 12mo, 2 00 
 Hammarsten's Text-book of Physiological Chemistry. (Mandel.) 
 
 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Helm's Principles of Mathematical Chemistry. (Morgan.) . 12mo, 1 50 
 Holleman's Text-book of Inorganic Chemistry. (Cooper.) 
 
 (In preparation.) 
 
 Hopkins's Oil-chemists' Handbook 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Keep's Cast Iron. (In preparation.) 
 
 Ladd's Manual of Quantitative Chemical Analysis 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Landauer's Spectrum Analysis. (Tingle.) 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Lassar-Cohn's Practical Urinary Analysis. (Lorenz.) (In preparation.) 
 Lob's Electrolysis and Electrosynthesis of Organic Compounds. 
 
 (Lorenz.) . .' 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Mandel's Handbook for Bio-chemical Laboratory 12mo, 1 5Q 
 
 Mason's Water-supply. (Considered Principally from a Sani- 
 tary Standpoint.) 8vo, 5 00 
 
 " Examination of Water. (Chemical and Bacterio- 
 logical.) 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Meyer's Determination of Radicles in Carbon Compounds. 
 
 (Tingle.) 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Miller's Manual of Assaying 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Mixter's Elementary Text-book of Chemistry 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Morgan's Outline of Theory of Solution and its Results . . . 12ino, 1 Oft 
 
 " Elements of Physical Chemistry 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Nichols's Water-supply. (Considered mainly from a Chemical 
 
 and Sanitary Standpoint, 1883.) 8vo, 2 50 
 
 O'Brine's Laboratory Guide in Chemical Analysis 8vo, 2 00 
 
 O'Driscoll's Notes on the Treatment of Gold Ores 8vo, 2 00- 
 
 Ost and Kolbeck's Text-book of Chemical Technology. (Lor- 
 enz Bozart.) (In. preparation.) 
 4 
 
* Penfield's Notes on Determinative Mineralogy and Record of 
 
 Mineral Tests 8vo, paper, 50 
 
 Pinner's Introduction to Organic Chemistry. (Austen.) . . . 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Poole's Calorific Power of Fuels 8vo, 3 00 
 
 "* Reisig's Guide to Piece-dyeing 8vo, 25 00 
 
 Richards and Woodman's Air, Water, and Food from a Sanitary 
 
 Standpoint 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Richards's Cost of Living as Modified by Sanitary Science . 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Cost of Food, a Study in Dietaries 12ma, 1 00 
 
 Ricketts and Russell's Skeleton Notes upon Inorganic Chem- 
 istry. (Part I. Non-metallic Elements.) . .8vo, morocco, 75 
 
 Ricketts and Miller's Notes on Assaying 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Rideal's Sewage and, the Bacterial Purification of Sewage. .8vo, 3 50 
 
 Ruddiman's Incompatibilities in Prescriptions 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Schimpf a Text-book of Volumetric Analysis 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Spencer's Handbook for Chemists of Beet-sugar Houses. 
 
 16mo, morocco, 3 00 
 
 " Handbook for Sugar Manufacturers and their Chem- 
 ists 16mo, morocco, 2 00 
 
 Stockbridge's Rocks and Soils , 8vo, 2 50 
 
 * Tillman's Elementary Lessons in Heat 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Descriptive General Chemistry 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Turneaure and Russell's Public Water-supplies 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Van Deventer's Physical Chemistry for Beginners. (Boltwood.) 
 
 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Walke's Lectures on Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Wells's Laboratory Guide in Qualitative Chemical Analysis. 
 
 ..8vo, 1 50 
 
 " Short Course in Inorganic Qualitative Chemical Analy- 
 sis for Engineering Students 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Whipple's Microscopy of Drinking-water 8vo, 3 SO 
 
 Wiechmann's Sugar Analysis Small 8vo, 2 50 
 
 " Lecture-notes on Theoretical Chemistry .... 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Wilson's Cyanide Processes 12mo, 1 50 
 
 " Chlorination Process 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Wulling's Elementary Course in Inorganic Pharmaceutical and 
 
 Medical Chemistry 12mo, 2 00 
 
 CIVIL ENGINEERING. 
 
 BRIDGES AND ROOFS. HYDRAULICS. MATERIALS OF 
 ENGINEERING. RAILWAY ENGINEERING. 
 
 Baker's Engineers* Surveying Instruments. 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Bixby's Graphical Computing Table Paper, 19 x 24 inches. 25 
 
 Davis's Elevation and Stadia Tables 8vo, 1 00 
 
 Folwell's Sewerage. (Designing and Maintenance.) 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Freitag's Architectural Engineering 8vo, 3 50 
 
 5 
 
Goodhue's Municipal Improvements 12mo, 1 75 
 
 Goodrich's Economic Disposal of Towns' Refuse 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Gore's Elements of Geodesy 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Hayford's Text-book of Geodetic Astronomy 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Howe's Retaining-walls for Earth 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Johnson's Theory and Practice of Surveying Small 8vo, 4 00 
 
 " Stadia and Earth-work Tables 8vo, 1 25 
 
 Kiersted's Sewage Disposal 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Mahan's Treatise on Civil Engineering. (1873.) (Wood.) . .8vo, 5 00 
 
 * Mahan's Descriptive Geometry 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Merriman's Elements of Precise Surveying and Geodesy. . . .8vo, 2 50 
 
 Merriman and Brooks's Handbook for Surveyors. . . .16mo, mor., 2 00 
 
 Merriman's Elements of Sanitary Engineering. . . 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Nugent's Plane Surveying. (In preparation.) 
 
 Ogden's Sewer Design 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Patton's Treatise on Civil Engineering. ..... .8vo, half leather, 7 50 
 
 Reed's Topographical Drawing and Sketching 4to, 5 00 
 
 Rideal's Sewage and the Bacterial Purification of Sewage . . 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Siebert and Biggin's Modern Stone-cutting and Masonry. .8vo, 1 50 
 
 Smith's Manual of Topographical Drawing. (McMillan.) . .8vo, 2 50 
 
 * Trautwine's Civil Engineer's Pocket-book. .. .16mo, morocco, 5 00 
 Wait's Engineering and Architectural Jurisprudence 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Sheep, 6 50 
 
 " Law of Operations Preliminary to Construction in En- 
 gineering and Architecture 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Sheep, 5 50 
 
 " Law of Contracts 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Warren's Stereotomy Problems in Stone-cutting 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Webb's Problems in the Use and Adjustment of Engineering 
 
 Instruments 16mo, morocco, 1 25 
 
 * Wheeler's Elementary Course of Civil Engineering 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Wilson's Topographic Surveying 8vo, 3 50 
 
 BRIDGES AND ROOFS. 
 
 Boiler's Practical Treatise on the Construction of Iron Highway 
 
 Bridges 8vo, 2 00 
 
 * Boiler's Thames River Bridge 4to, paper, 5 00 
 
 Burr's Course on the Stresses in Bridges and Roof Trusses, 
 
 Arched Ribs, and Suspension Bridges 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Du Bois's Stresses in Framed Structures Small 4to, 10 00 
 
 Foster's Treatise on Wooden Trestle Bridges 4to, 5 00 
 
 Fowler's Coffer-dam Process for Piers 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Greene's Roof Trusses 8vo, 1 25 
 
 " Bridge Trusses 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Arches in Wood. Iron, and Stone 8vo, 2 50- 
 
 Howe's Treatise on Arches. . 8vo, 4 00 
 
Johnson, Bryan and Tumeaure's Tlieory and Practice in the 
 
 Designing of Modern Framed Structures Small 4to, 10 00 
 
 Merriman and Jaeoby's Text-book on Roofs and Bridges: 
 
 Part I. Stresses in Simple Trusses 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Part II. Graphic Statics 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Part IIL Bridge Design. Fourth Ed. (In preparation.) . .&vo, 250 
 
 Part IV. Higher Structures 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Morison's Memphis Bridge 4to, 10 00 
 
 Waddell's De Pontibus, a Pocket Book for Bridge Engineers. 
 
 16mo, mor., 3 00 
 
 Specifications for Steel Bridges 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Wood's Treatise on the Theory of the Construction of Bridges 
 
 and Roofs Svo, 2 00 
 
 Wright's Designing of Draw-spans: 
 
 Part I. Plate-girder Draws .8vo, 2 50 
 
 Part II. Riveted-truss and Pin-connected Long-span Draws. 
 
 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Two parts in one volume 8vo, 3 50 
 
 HYDRAULICS. 
 
 Bazin's Experiments upon the Contraction of the Liquid Vein 
 
 Issuing from an Orifice. (Trautwine.) Svo, 2 00 
 
 Bovey's Treatise on Hydraulics 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Church's Mechanics of Engineering Svo, 6 00 
 
 Coffin's Graphical Solution of Hydraulic Problems. . 16mo, mor., 2 50 
 
 Flather's Dynamometers, and the Measurement of Power. 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Fehvell's Water-supply Engineering Svo, 4 00 
 
 Frizell's Water-power Svo, 5 00 
 
 Fuertes's Water and Public Health 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Water-filtration Works 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Ganguillet and Kutter's General Formula for the Uniform 
 Flow of Water in Rivers and Other Channels. (Her- 
 
 ing and Trautwine.) Svo, 4 00 
 
 Hazen's Filtration of Public Water-supply Svo, 3 00 
 
 Hazleurst's Towers and Tanks for Water-works Svo, 2 50 
 
 HerschePs 115 Experiments on the Carrying Capacity of Large, 
 
 Riveted, Metal Conduits Svo, 2 00 
 
 Mason's Water-supply. (Considered Principally from a Sani- 
 tary Standpoint.) Svo, 5 00 
 
 Merriman's Treatise on Hydraulics Svo, 4 00 
 
 * Michie's Elements of Analytical Mechanics Svo, 4 00 
 
 Schuyler's Reservoirs for Irrigation, Water-power, and Domestic 
 
 Water-supply Large Svo, 5 00 
 
 Turneaure and Russell. Public Water-supplies Svo, 5 00 
 
 Wegmann's Design and. Construction of Dams 4to, 5 00 
 
 Water-supply of the City of New York from 1C58 to 
 
 1895 .-I'.-; 4to, 10 00 
 
 Weisbach's Hydraulics and Hydraulic Motors. (Du Bois.) . .8vo, 5 00 
 
 Wilson's Manual of Irrigation Engineering Small Svo, 4 00 
 
 Wolff's Windmill as a Prime Mover Svo, 3 00 
 
 Wood's Turbines Svo, 2 50 
 
 " Elements of Analytical Mechanics Svo, 3 00 
 
 MATERIALS OF ENGINEERING. 
 
 Baker's Treatise on Masonry Construction Svo, 500 
 
 Black's United States Public Works Oblong 4to, 5 00 
 
 Bovey's Strength of Materials and Theory of Structures .... Svo, 7 50 
 
 7 
 
Burr's Elasticity and Resistance of the Materials of Engineer- 
 ing , . . 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Byrne's Highway Construction 8vo, 5 00 
 
 " Inspection of the Materials and Workmanship Em- 
 ployed in Construction 16mo, 3 00 
 
 Church's Mechanics of Engineering 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Du Bois's Mechanics of Engineering. Vol. I Small 4to, 10 00 
 
 Johnson's Materials of Construction Large 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Keep's Cast Iron. (In preparation.) 
 
 Lanza's Applied Mechanics 8vo, 7 50 
 
 Martens's Handbook on Testing Materials. (Henning.) 
 
 2 vols., 8vo, 7 50 
 
 Merrill's Stones for Building and Decoration 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Merriman's Text-book on the Mechanics of Materials 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Merriman's Strength of Materials 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Metcalf s Steel. A Manual for Steel-users 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Patton's Practical Treatise on Foundations 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Rockwell's Roads and Pavements in France 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Smith's Wire: Its Use and Manufacture Small 4to, 3 00 
 
 Spalding's Hydraulic Cement 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Text-book on Roads and Pavements 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Thurston's Materials of Engineering 3 Parts, 8vo, 8 00 
 
 Part I. Non-metallic Materials of Engineering and Metal- 
 lurgy 8vo, 200 
 
 Part II. Iron and Steel 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Part III. A Treatise on Brasses, Bronzes and Other Alloys 
 
 and Their Constituents 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Thurston's Text-book of the Materials of Construction 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Tillson's Street Pavements and Paving Materials 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Waddell's De Pontibus. (A Pocket-book for Bridge Engineers.) 
 
 16mo, morocco, 3 00 
 
 Specifications for Steel Bridges 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Wood's Treatise on the Resistance of Materials, and an Ap- 
 pendix on the Preservation of Timber .8vo, 2 00 
 
 " Elements of Analytical Mechanics 8vo, 3 00 
 
 RAILWAY ENGINEERING. 
 
 Berg's Buildings and Structures of American Railroads . . 4to, 5 00 
 
 Brooks's Handbook of Street Railroad Location. . 16mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Butts's Civil Engineer's Field-book 16mo, morocco, 2 50 
 
 CrandalFs Transition Curve 16mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Railway and Other Earthwork Tables 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Dawson's Electric Railways and Tramways . Small 4to, half mor., 12 50 
 " " Engineering " and Electric Traction Pocket-book. 
 
 16mo, morocco, 4 00 
 
 Dredge's History of the Pennsylvania Railroad: (1879.) .Paper, 5 00 
 * Drinker's Tunneling, Explosive Compounds, and Rock Drills. 
 
 4to, half morocco, 25 00 
 
 Fisher's Table of Cubic Yards Cardboard, 25 
 
 Godwin's Railroad Engineers' Field-book and Explorers' .Guide. 
 
 16mo, morocco, 2 50 
 
 Howard's Transition Curve Field-book 16mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Hudson's Tables for Calculating the Cubic Contents of Exca- 
 vations and Embankments .._. 8vo, 1 00 
 
 Nagle's Field Manual for Railroad Engineers. . . . 16mo, morocco, 3 00 
 
 Philbrick's Field Manual for Engineers 16mo, morocco, 3 00 
 
 Pratt and Alden's Street-railway Road-bed 8vo, 2 00 
 
Searles's Field Engineering 16rno, morocco, 3 00 
 
 " Railroad Spiral 16mo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Taylor's Prismoidal Formulae and Earthwork 8vo, 1 50 
 
 * Trautwine's Method of Calculating the Cubic Contents of Ex- 
 
 cavations and Embankments by the Aid of Dia- 
 grams 8vo, 2 00 
 
 * The Field Practice of Laying Out Circular Curves 
 
 for Railroads 12mo, morocco, 2 50 
 
 * " Cross-section Sheet Paper, 25 
 
 Webb's Railroad Construction 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Wellington's Economic Theory of the Location of Railways. . 
 
 Small Svo, 5 00 
 
 DRAWING. 
 
 Barr's Kinematics of Machinery 8vo, 2 50 
 
 * Bartlett's Mechanical Drawing 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Durley's Elementary Text-book of the Kinematics of Machines. 
 
 (In preparation.) 
 
 Hill's Text-book on Shades and Shadows, and Perspective. . 8vo, 2 00 
 Jones's Machine Design : 
 
 Part I. Kinematics of Machinery 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Part II. Form, Strength and Proportions of Parts 8vo, 3 00 
 
 MacCord's Elements of Descriptive Geometry Svo, 3 00 
 
 Kinematics; or, Practical Mechanism Svo, 500 
 
 Mechanical Drawing 4to, 4 00 
 
 Velocity Diagrams Svo, I 50 
 
 * Mahan's Descriptive Geometry and Stone-cutting Svo, 1 50 
 
 Mahan's Industrial Drawing. (Thompson.) Svo, 3 50 
 
 Reed's Topographical Drawing and Sketching 4to, 5 00 
 
 Reid's Course in Mechanical Drawing Svo, 2 00 
 
 " Text-book of Mechanical Drawing and Elementary Ma- 
 chine Design Svo, 3 00 
 
 Robinson's Principles of Mechanism Svo, 3 00 
 
 Smith's Manual of Topographical Drawing. (McMillan.) .Svo, 2 50 
 Warren's Elements of Plane and Solid Free-hand Geometrical 
 
 Drawing 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Drafting Instruments and Operations 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Manual of Elementary Projection Drawing. ... 12mo, 1 50 
 " Manual of Elementary Problems in the Linear Per- 
 spective of Form and Shadow 12mo, 1 00 
 
 " Plane Problems in Elementary Geometry 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Primary Geometry 12mo, 75 
 
 Elements of Descriptive Geometry, Shadows, and Per- 
 spective Svo, 3 50 
 
 General Problems of Shades and Shadows Svo, 3 00 
 
 Elements of Machine Construction and Drawing. .Svo, 7 50 
 Problems, Theorems, and Examples in Descriptive 
 
 Geometry Svo, 2 50 
 
 Weisbach's Kinematics and the Power of Transmission. (Herr- 
 mann and Klein.) Svo, 5 00 
 
 Whelpley's Practical Instruction in the Art of Letter En- 
 graving 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Wilson's Topographic Surveying Svo, 3 50 
 
 Wilson's Free-hand Perspective Svo, 2 56 
 
 Woolf's Elementary Course in Descriptive Geometry. .Large Svo, 3 00 
 
ELECTRICITY AND PHYSICS. 
 
 Anthony and Brackett's Text-book of Physics. (Magie.) 
 
 Small 8vo, 3 00- 
 Anthony's Lecture-notes on the Theory of Electrical Measur- 
 
 ments 12mo. 1 00 
 
 Benjamin's History of Electricity. 8vo. 3 00 
 
 Benjamin's Voltaic Cell 8vo. 3 00 
 
 Classen's Qantitative Chemical Analysis by Electrolysis. Her- 
 
 rick and Boltvvood.) Svo. 3 00 
 
 Crehore and Squier's Polarizing Photo-chronograph Svo, 3 00 
 
 Dawson's Electric Railways and Tramways.. Small 4to, half mor.. 12 50 
 Dawson's " Engineering " and Electric Traction Pocket-book. 
 
 16mo, morocco, 4 00 
 
 Flather's Dynamometers, and the Measurement of Power. . 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Gilbert's De Magnete. (Mottelay.) Svo, 2 50 
 
 Holman's Precision of Measurements Svo, 2 00 
 
 Telescopic Mirror-scale Method, Adjustments, and 
 
 Tests Large Svo, 75 
 
 Landauer's Spectrum Analysis. (Tingle.) Svo. 3 00 
 
 Le Chatelier's High-temperature Measurements. (Boudouard 
 
 Burgess.) 12mo. 3 00 
 
 Lob's Electrolysis and Electrosynthesis of Organic Compounds. 
 
 (LorenzO 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Lyons's Treatise on Electromagnetic Phenomena Svo, 6 00 
 
 * Michie. Elements of Wave Motion Relating to Sound and 
 
 Light Svo. 4 00 
 
 Niaudet's Elementary Treatise on Electric Batteries (Fish- 
 back.) " 12mo. 2 50 
 
 * Parshall and Hobart's Electric Generators..Small 4to, half mor., 10 00 
 Thurston's Stationary Steam-engines Svo. 2 50 
 
 * Tillman. Elementary Lessons in Heat Svo. 1 50 
 
 Tory and Pitcher. Manual of Laboratory Physics. .Small Svo. 2 00 
 
 LAW. 
 
 * Davis. Elements of Law Svo. 2 50 
 
 * " Treatise on the Military Law of United States.. Svo, 7 00 
 
 Sheep, 7 50 
 
 Manual for Courts-martial IGmo, morocco, 1 50 
 
 Wait's Engineering and Architectural Jurisprudence Svo, 6 00 
 
 Sheep', 6 50 
 
 " Law of Operations Preliminary to Construction in En- 
 gineering and Architecture Svo, 5 00 
 
 Sheep, 5 50 
 
 " Law of Contracts Svo, 3 00 
 
 Winthrop's Abridgment of Military Law 12mo, 2 50 
 
 MANUFACTURES. 
 
 Beaumont's Woollen and Worsted Cloth Manufacture. . . . 12mo, 1 50 
 Bernadou's Smokeless Powder Nitro-cellulose and Theory of 
 
 the Cellulose Molecule *2mo, 2 50 
 
 Bolland's Iron Founder 12mo, cloth, 2 50 
 
 '" The Iron Founder " Supplement 12mo, 2 50 
 
 " Encyclopedia of Founding and Dictionary of Foundry 
 
 Terms Used in the Practice of Moulding. .. .12mo, 3 00 
 
 Eissler's Modern High Explosives Svo, 4 00 
 
 Effront's Enzymes and their Applications. (Prescott.) (In preparation.) 
 
 Fitzgerald's Boston Machinist ISmo, 1 00 
 
 10 
 
Ford's Boiler flaking for Boiler Makers 18mo, 1 00 
 
 Hopkins' is Oil-chemists' Handbook 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Keep's Cast Iron. (In preparation.) 
 
 Metcalf's Steel. A Manual for Steel-users 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Metcalfs Cost of Manufactures And the Administration of 
 
 Workshops, Public and Private 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Meyer's Modern Locomotive Construction 4to, 10 00 
 
 * Reisig's Guide to Piece-dyeing 8vo, 25 00 
 
 Smith's Press-working of Metals 8vo, 3 00 
 
 " Wire: Its Use and Manufacture Small 4to, 3 00 
 
 Spalding's Hydraulic Cement 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Spencer's Handbook for Chemists of Beet-sugar Houses. 
 
 16mo, morocco, 3 00 
 
 Handbook for Sugar Manufacturers and their Chem- 
 ists 16mo, morocco, 2. 00 
 
 Thurston's Manual of Steam-boilers, their Designs, Construc- 
 tion and Operation 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Walke's Lectures on Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 West's American Foundry Practice 12mo, 2 50 
 
 " Moulder's Text-book 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Wiechmann's Sugar Analysis Small 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Wolff's Windmill as a Prime Mover 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Woodbury's Fire Protection of Mills 8vo. 2 50 
 
 MATHEMATICS. 
 
 Baker's Elliptic Functions 8vo, 1 50 
 
 * Bass's Elements of Differential Calculus 12mo. 4 00 
 
 Briggs's Elements of Plane Analytic Geometry 12mo. 1 00 
 
 Chapman's Elementary Course in Theory of Equations. . .12mo, 1 50 
 
 Compton's Manual of Logarithmic Computations 12mo, 1 .~><i 
 
 Davis's Introduction to the Logic of Algebra 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Halstod's Elements of Geometry 8vo, 1 75 
 
 Elementary Synthetic Geometry 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Johnson's Three-place Logarithmic Tables : Vest-pocket size, pap., 15 
 
 100 copies for 5 00 
 
 Mounted on heavy cardboard, 8 X 10 inches. 25 
 
 10 copies for 2 00 
 Elementary Treatise on the Integral Calculus. 
 
 Small 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Curve Tracing in Cartesian Co-ordinates 12 mo, 1 00 
 
 Treatise on Ordinary . and Partial Differential 
 
 Equations Small 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Theory of Errors and the Method of Least 
 
 Squares 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Theoretical Mechanics , ... 12mo, 3 00 
 
 * Ludlow and Bass. Elements of Trigonometry and Logarith- 
 
 mic and Other Tables 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Trigonometry. Tables published separately. .Each, 2 00 
 
 Merriman and Woodward. Higher Mathematics ., . . .8vo, 5 00 
 
 Merriman's Method of Least Squares 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Rice and Johnson's Elementary Treatise on the Differential 
 
 Calculus Small 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Differential and Integral Calculus. 2 vols. 
 
 in one Small 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Wood's Elements of Co-ordinate Geometry 8vo, 2 00 
 
 " Trigometry: Analytical, Plane, and Spherical. ... 12mo, 1 00 
 
 '11 
 
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING. 
 
 MATERIALS OF ENGINEERING, STEAM ENGINES 
 AND BOILERS. 
 
 Baldwin's Steam Heating for Buildings 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Barr's Kinematics of Machinery 8vo, 2 50 
 
 * Bartlett's Mechanical Drawing 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Benjamin's Wrinkles and Recipes 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Carpenter's Experimental Engineering 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Heating and Ventilating Buildings 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Clerk's Gas and Oil Engine Small 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Cromwell's Treatise on Toothed Gearing 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Treatise on Belts and Pulleys 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Durley's Elementary Text-book of the Kinematics of Machines. 
 
 (In preparation.) 
 
 Flather's Dynamometers, and the Measurement of Power . . 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Rope Driving 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Gill's Gas an Fuel Analysis for Engineers 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Hall's Car Lubrication 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Jones's Machine Design: 
 
 Part I. Kinematics of Machinery 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Part II. Form, Strength and Proportions of Parts 8vo, 3 08 
 
 Kent's Mechanical Engineers' Pocket-book. .. .16mo, morocco, 5 00 
 Kerr's Power and Power Transmission. (In preparation.) 
 
 MacCord's Kinematics; or, Practical Mechanism 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Mechanical Drawing 4to, 4 00 
 
 Velocity Diagrams 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Mahan's Industrial Drawing. (Thompson.) 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Pople's Calorific Power of Fuels 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Reid's Course in Mechanical Drawing 8vo, 2 00 
 
 " Text-book of Mechanical Drawing and Elementary 
 
 Machine Design 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Richards's Compressed Air 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Robinson's Principles of Mechanism 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Smith's Press-working of Metals 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Thurston's Treatise on Friction and Lost Work in Machin- 
 ery and Mill Work 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Animal as a Machine and Prime Motor and the 
 
 Laws of Energetics 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Warren's Elements of Machine Construction and Drawing. .8vo, 7 50 
 Weisbach's Kinematics and the Power of Transmission. (Herr- 
 mannKlein.) 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Machinery of Transmission and Governors. (Herr- 
 mannKlein.) 8vo, 5 00 
 
 " Hydraulics and Hydraulic Motors. (Du Bois.) .8vo, 5 00 
 
 Wolff's Windmill as a Prime Mover 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Wood's Turbines 8vo, 2 50 
 
 MATERIALS OF ENGINEERING. 
 
 Bovey's Strength of Materials and Theory of Structures .. 8vo, 7 50 
 Burr's Elasticity and Resistance of the Materials of Engineer- 
 ing 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Church's Mechanics of Engineering 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Johnson's Materials of Construction Large 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Keep's Cast Iron. (In preparation.) 
 
 Lanza's Applied Mechanics 8vo, 7 50 
 
 Martens's Handbook on Testing Materials. (Henning.) 8vo, 7 50 
 
 Merriman'si Text-book on the Mechanics of Materials .... 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Strength of Materials 12mo, 1 00 
 
 12 
 
Metcalfs Steel. A Manual for Steel-users 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Smith's Wire: Its Use and Manufacture Small 4to, 3 00 
 
 Thurston's Materials of Engineering 3 vols., 8vo, 8 00 
 
 Part II. Iron and Steel 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Part III. A Treatise on Brasses, Bronzes and Other Alloys 
 
 and their Constituents 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Thurston's Text-book of the Materials of Construction 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Wood's Treatise on the Resistance of Materials and an Ap- 
 pendix on the Preservation of Timber 8 vo, 2 00 
 
 " Elements of Analytical Mechanics 8vo, 3 00 
 
 STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS. 
 
 Carnot's Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat. (Thurston.) 
 
 12mo, 1 50 
 Dawson's " Engineering " and Electric Traction Pocket-book. 
 
 16mo, morocco, 4 00 
 
 Ford's Boiler Making for Boiler Makers 18mo, 1 00 
 
 Hemenway's Indicator Practice and Steam-engine Economy- 
 
 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Hutton's Mechanical Engineering of Power Plants 8vo, 5 00 
 
 " Heat and Heat-engines. 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Kent's Steam-boiler Economy 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Kneass's Practice and Theory of the Injector 8vo, 1 50 
 
 MacCord's Slide-valves 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Meyer's Modern Locomotive Construction 4to, 10 00 
 
 Peabody's Manual of the Steam-engine Indicator 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Tables of the Properties of Saturated Steam and 
 
 Other Vauors 8vo, 1 00 
 
 " Thermodynamics of the Steam-engine and Other 
 
 Heat-engines 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Valve-gears for Steam-engines 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Peabody and Miller. Steam-boilers .8vo, 4 00 
 
 Pray's Twenty Years with the Indicator Large 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Pupin's Thermodynamics of Reversible Cycles in Gases and 
 
 Saturated Vapors. (Osterberg.) 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Reagan's Locomotive Mechanism and Engineering.' 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Rontgen's Principles of Thermodynamics. (Du Bois.) 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Sinclair's Locomotive Engine Running and Management. .12mo, 2 00 
 
 Smart's Handbook of Engineering Laboratory Practice . . 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Snow's Steam-boiler Practice 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Spangler's Valve-gears 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Notes on Thermodynamics 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Thurston's Handy Tables 8vo, 1 50 
 
 Manual of the Steam-engine 2 vols., 8vo, 10 00 
 
 Part I, History, Structure, and Theory .8vo, 6 00 
 
 Part II. Design, Construction, and Operation 8vo, 6 00 
 
 Thurston's Handbook of Engine and Boiler Trials, and the Use 
 
 of the Indicator and the Prony Brake 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Stationary Steam-engines 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Steam-boiler Explosions in Theory and in Prac- 
 tice 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Manual of Steam-boilers, Their Designs, Construc- 
 tion, and Operation 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Weisbach's Heat, Steam, and Steam-engines. (Du Bois.). .8vo, 5 00 
 
 Whitham's Steam-engine Design 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Wilson's Treatise on Steam-boilers. (Flather.) 16mo, 2 50 
 
 Wood's Thermodynamics, Heat Motors, and Refrigerating 
 
 Machines 8vo, 4 00 
 
 13 
 
MECHANICS AND MACHINERY. 
 
 Barr's Kinematics of Machinery 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Bovey's Strength of Materials and Theory of Structures. .8 vo, 7 50 
 
 Chordal. Extracts from Letters 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Church's Mechanics of Engineering Svo, 6 00 
 
 Notes and Examples in Mechanics 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Compt on's First Lessons in Metal-working 12nio, 1 50 
 
 Compton and De Groodt. The Speed Lathe 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Cromwell's Treatise on Toothed Gearing 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Treatise on Belts and Pulleys 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Dana's Text-book of Elementary Mechanics for the Use of 
 
 Colleges and Schools 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Dingey's Machinery Pattern Making 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Dredge's Record of the Transportation Exhibits Building of the 
 
 World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 4to, half mor., 5 00 
 
 Du Bois's Elementary Principles of Mechanics: 
 
 Vol. I. Kinematics 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Vol. II. Statics 8vo. 4 00 
 
 Vol. III. Kinetics Svo, 3 50 
 
 Du Bois's Mechanics of Engineering. Vol. I Small 4to, 10 00 
 
 Durley's Elementary Text-book of the Kinematics of Machines. 
 
 (In preparation.) 
 
 Fitzgerald's Boston Machinist 16mo, 1 00 
 
 Flather's Dynamometers, and the Measurement of Power. 12mo, 3 00 
 
 " Rope Driving 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Hall's Car Lubrication 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Holly's Art of Saw Filing 18mo, 75 
 
 * Johnson's Theoretical Mechanics 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Jones's Machine Design: 
 
 Part I Kinematics of Machinery Svo, 1 50 
 
 Part II. Form, Strength and Proportions of Parts Svo, 3 00 
 
 Kerr's Power and Power Transmission. (In preparation.) 
 
 Lanza's Applied Mechanics Svo, 7 50 
 
 MacCord's Kinematics; or, Practical Mechanism 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Velocity Diagrams Svo, 1 50 
 
 Merriman's Text-book on the Mechanics of Materials 8va, 4 00 
 
 * Michie's Elements of Analytical Mechanics Svo, 4 00 
 
 Reagan's Locomotive Mechanism and Engineering 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Reid's Course in Mechanical Drawing 8vo, 2 00 
 
 " Text-book of Mechanical Drawing and Elementary 
 
 Machine Design Svo, 3 00 
 
 Richards's Compressed Air 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Robinson's Principles of Mechanism Svo, 3 00 
 
 Sinclair's Locomotive-engine Running and Management. .12mo, 2 00 
 
 Smith's Press- working of Metals Svo, 3 00 
 
 Thurston's Treatise on Friction and Lost Work in Machin- 
 ery and Mill Work Svo, 3 00 
 
 Animal as a Machine and Prime Motor, and the 
 
 Laws of Energetics 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Warren's Elements of Machine Construction and Drawing. .Svo, 7 50 
 Weisbach's Kinematics and the Power of Transmission. 
 
 (Hernnan Klein.) Svo, 5 00 
 
 Machinery of Transmission and Governors. (Herr- 
 
 (man Klein.) Svo, 5 00 
 
 Wood's Elements of Analytical Mechanics Svo, 3 00 
 
 " Principles of Elementary Mechanics 12mo, 1 25 
 
 " Turbines Svo, 2 50 
 
 The World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 4to, 1 00 
 
 14 
 
METALLURGY. 
 
 Egleston's Metallurgy of Silver, Gold, and Mercury: 
 
 Vol. I Silver 8vo, 7 50 
 
 Vol. II. Gold and Mercury ,. . . 8vo, 7 50 
 
 Keep's Cast Iron. (In preparation.) 
 
 Kunhardt's Practice of Ore Dressing in Lurope 8vo, 1 50 
 
 L Cha teller's High-temperature Measurements. (Boudouard 
 
 Burgess.) 12mo, 3 00 
 
 Metcalf's Steel. A Manual for Steel-users 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Thurston's Materials of Engineering. In Three Parts. .... .8vo, 8 00 
 
 Part II. Iron and Steel { I'i-.';;. 1 .' 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Part III. A Treatise on Brasses, Bronzes and Other Alloys 
 
 and Their Constituents /.V'.tyj'J'i A". /VVJn .8vo, 2 50 
 
 MINERALOGY. 
 
 Barringers Description of Minerals of Commercial Value. 
 
 Oblong, morocco, 2 50 
 
 Boyd's Resources of Southwest Virginia 8vo, 300 
 
 Map of Southwest Virginia Pocket-book form, 2 00 
 
 Brush's Manual of Determinative Mineralogy. (Penfield.) .8vo, 4 00 
 
 Chester's Catalogue of Minerals 8vo, paper, 1 00 
 
 Cloth, 1 25 
 
 Dictionary of the Names of Minerals 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Dana's System of Mineralogy Large 8vo, half leather, 12 50 
 
 " P'irst Appendix to Dana's New " System of Mineralogy." 
 
 Large 8vo, 1 OU 
 
 '' Text-book of Mineralogy 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Minerals and How to Study Them 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Catalogue of American Localities of Minerals . Large 8vo, 1 00 
 
 " Manual of Mineralogy and Petrography 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Egleston's Catalogue of Minerals and Synonyms 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Hussak's The Determination of Rock-forming Minerals. 
 
 (Smith.) Small 8vo, 2 00 
 
 * Penfield's Notes on Determinative Mineralogy and Record of 
 
 Mineral Tests 8vo, paper, 50 
 
 Rosenbusch's Microscopical Physiography of the Rock-making 
 
 Minerals. (Idding's.) 8vo, 5 00 
 
 * Tillman's Text-book of Important Minerals and Rocks . . 8vo, 2 00 
 Williams's Manual of Lithology 8vo, 3 00 
 
 MINING. 
 
 Beard's Ventilation of Mines .* 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Boyd's Resources of Southwest Virginia 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Map of Southwest Virginia Pocket-book form, 2 00 
 
 'Drinker's Tunneling, Explosive Compounds, and Rock 
 
 Drills 4to, half morocco, 25 00 
 
 Eissler*s Modern High Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Goodyear's Coal-mines of the Western Coast of the United 
 
 States 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Ihlseng's Manual of Mining 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Kunhardt's Practice of Ore Dressing in Europe 8vo, 1 50 
 
 O'DriscolPs Notes on the Treatment of Gold Ores 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Sawyer's Accidents in Mines 8vo, 7 00 
 
 Walke's Lectures on Explosives 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Wilson's Cyanide Processes 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Wilson's Chlorination Process 12mo, 1 50 
 
 15 
 
Wilson's Hydraulic and Placer Mining 12ino, 2 00 
 
 Wilson's Treatise on Practical and Theoretical Mine Ventila- 
 tion 12mo, 1 25 
 
 SANITARY SCIENCE. 
 
 Folwell's Sewerage. (Designing, Construction and Maintenance.) 
 
 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Water-supply Engineering 8vo, 4 00 
 
 Fuertes's Water and Public Health 12mo, 1 50 
 
 " Water-filtration Works. 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Gerhard's Guide to Sanitary House-inspection 16mo, 1 00 
 
 Goodrich's Economical Disposal of Towns' Refuse . . . Demy 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Hazen's Filtration of Public Water-supplies 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Kiersted's Sewage Disposal 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Mason's Water-supply. (Considered Principally from a San- 
 itary Standpoint 8vo, 5 00 
 
 " Examination of Water. (Chemical and Bacterio- 
 logical.) 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Merriman's Elements of Sanitary Engineering 8vo. 2 00 
 
 Nichols's Water-supply. (Considered Mainly from a Chemical 
 
 and Sanitary Standpoint.) ( 1883.) 8vo, 2 50 
 
 Ogden's Sewer Design 12mo, 2 00 
 
 Richards's Cost of Food. A Study in Dietaries 12mo, 1 00 
 
 Richards and Woodman's Air, Water, and Food from a Sani- 
 tary Standpoint 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Richards's Cost of Living as Modified by Sanitary Science . 12mo, 1 00 
 
 RideaPs Sewage and Bacterial Purification of Sewage 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Turneaure and Russell's Public Water-supplies 8vo, 5 00 
 
 Whipple's Microscopy of Drinking-water 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Woodhull's Notes on Military Hygiene 16mo, 1 50 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Barker's Deep-sea Soundings 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Emmons's Geological Guide-book of the Rocky Mountain Ex- 
 cursion of the International Congress of Geologists. 
 
 Large 8vo, 1 50 
 
 FerrePs Popular Treatise on the Winds. 8vo, 4 GO 
 
 Haines's American Railway Management 12mo, 2 50 
 
 Mott's Composition, Digestibility, and Nutritive Value of Food. 
 
 Mounted chart, 1 25 
 
 " Fallacy of the Present Theory of Sound 16mo, 1 00 
 
 Ricketts's History of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1824- 
 
 1894 ' Small 8vo, 3 00 
 
 Rotherham's Emphasised New Testament Large 8vo, 2 00 
 
 Critical Emphasised New Testament 12mo, 1 50 
 
 Steel's Treatise on the Diseases of the Dog 8vo, 3 50 
 
 Totten's Important Question in Metrology 8vo, 2 50 
 
 The World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 4to, 1 00 
 
 Worcester and Atkinson. Small Hospitals, Establishment and 
 Maintenance, and Suggestions for Hospital Architecture, 
 
 with Plans for a Small Hospital 12mo, 1 25 
 
 HEBREW AND CHALDEE TEXT-BOOKS. 
 
 Green's Grammar of the Hebrew Language 8vo, 3 00 
 
 " Elementary Hebrew Grammar 12mo, 1 25 
 
 Hebrew Chrestomathy 8vo, 200 
 
 Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament 
 
 Scriptures. (Tregelles.) Small 4to, half morocco, 5 00 
 
 Letteris's Hebrew Bible Svo, 2 25 
 
 16 
 
UUI - 
 
 ' 
 
 OCT281929 
 
 REG. CHL NOV 19