Washington D.C. Paper - Iron and Steel considered as Structural Materials – A Discussion, Papers and Remarks by (b8768377-a37a-401a-9ec3-559f2603a250)

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