Search Documents

By D. J. McAdam

In a recent survey of the literature, the author has found evidence incompatible with prevalent views regarding the technical cohesive strength and yield strength of metals. Some of the evidence regarding the technical cohesive strength was presented in a previous paper,21 and views were presented that are believed to be in better accord with the evidence. In that paper, it was shown that the technical cohesion limit (contrary to prevalent views) varies with the combination of principal stresses,t and that the influence of plastic deformation on the technical cohesive strength is not in accordance with prevalent views. In this paper, consideration will be given to both the technical cohesion limit and the yield stress as affected by the combination of principal stresses. Evidence will be presented that the variations of the yield stress and the technical cohesion limit with the combination of principal stresses are not in accordance with prevalent views. Consideration will also be given to ductility and work-hardening capacity, which depend on the initial difference between the technical cohesion limit and the yield stress. By the "technical cohesion limit" is meant the mean stress at actual or poten- tial* fracture. An example of a rechnlcal cohesion limit is the "true" breaking stress of a tension-test specimen, the breaking load divided by the sectional area at fracture. The cohesion limit thus obtained for a ductile metal, however, has been greatly altered by the plastic deformation. It is important to consider the cohesion limit of the metal prior to this deformation, and the variation of the cohesive strength with plastic deformation. The relation between the cohesion limit and the corresponding flow stresst determines the ductility of a metal and the energy that it will absorb before fracture. In this paper, as in the previous paper,21 tensile stresses will be viewed as positive and compressive stresses as negative. The algebraically greatest principal stress will be designated S1, the least principal stress will be designated S3, and the intermediate principal stress will be designated Sz In the previous paper, attention was confined to stress combinations with two of the principal stresses equal (with the intermediate principal stress S2 equal eithel to S3 or 31). In this paper, consideration will also be given to the effect of stress combinations with all three principal stresses unequal. In the earlier sections of the paper (pp. 3I I to 324), attention will be confined to stress combinations with

Jan 1, 1942

By D. J. McAdam

In a recent survey of the literature, the author has found evidence incompatible with prevalent views regarding the technical cohesive strength and yield strength of metals. Some of the evidence regarding the technical cohesive strength was presented in a previous paper,21 and views were presented that are believed to be in better accord with the evidence. In that paper, it was shown that the technical cohesion limit (contrary to prevalent views) varies with the combination of principal stresses,t and that the influence of plastic deformation on the technical cohesive strength is not in accordance with prevalent views. In this paper, consideration will be given to both the technical cohesion limit and the yield stress as affected by the combination of principal stresses. Evidence will be presented that the variations of the yield stress and the technical cohesion limit with the combination of principal stresses are not in accordance with prevalent views. Consideration will also be given to ductility and work-hardening capacity, which depend on the initial difference between the technical cohesion limit and the yield stress. By the "technical cohesion limit" is meant the mean stress at actual or poten- tial* fracture. An example of a rechnlcal cohesion limit is the "true" breaking stress of a tension-test specimen, the breaking load divided by the sectional area at fracture. The cohesion limit thus obtained for a ductile metal, however, has been greatly altered by the plastic deformation. It is important to consider the cohesion limit of the metal prior to this deformation, and the variation of the cohesive strength with plastic deformation. The relation between the cohesion limit and the corresponding flow stresst determines the ductility of a metal and the energy that it will absorb before fracture. In this paper, as in the previous paper,21 tensile stresses will be viewed as positive and compressive stresses as negative. The algebraically greatest principal stress will be designated S1, the least principal stress will be designated S3, and the intermediate principal stress will be designated Sz In the previous paper, attention was confined to stress combinations with two of the principal stresses equal (with the intermediate principal stress S2 equal eithel to S3 or 31). In this paper, consideration will also be given to the effect of stress combinations with all three principal stresses unequal. In the earlier sections of the paper (pp. 3I I to 324), attention will be confined to stress combinations with

Jan 1, 1942

By H. J. Morel-Seytoux

The influence of patten, geometry on assisted oil recovery for a particular dispIacement mechanism is the object of investigation in this paper. The displacement is assumed to be of unit mobility ratio and piston-like. Fluids are assumed incompressible and gravity and capillary effects are neglected. With these assumptions it is possible to calculate by analytical methods the quantities of interest to the reservoir engineer for a great variety of patterns. Specifically, this paper presents (1) very brieily, the methods and mathematical derivations required to obtain the results of engineering concern, and (2) typical results in the dorm of graphs or formulae that can be used readily without prior study of the methods. Results of this work provide checks for solutions obtained from programmed numerical techniques. They also reveal the effect of pattern geometry and, even though the assumptions of piston- like displacement and of unit mobility ratio are restrictive, they can nevertheless be used for rather crude but quick, cheap estimates. ,These estimates can be refined to account for non-unit mobility ratio and two-phase flow by correlating analytical results in the case M = 1 and the numerical results for non-piston, non-unit mobility ratio displacements. In an earlier paper1 it was also shown that from the knowledge of closed form solutions for unit mobility ratio, quantities called "scale factors" could be readily calculated, increasing considerably the flexibility of the numerical techniques. Many new closed farm solutions are given in this paper. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Pattern geometry is a major factor in making water-fIood recovery predictions. For this reason many numerical schemes have been devised to predict oil recovery in either regular patterns or arbitrary configurations. The numerical solutions, based on the method of finite difference approximation, are subject to errors often difficult to evaluate. An estimate of the error is possible by comparison with exact solutions. To provide a variety of checks on numerical solutions, a thorough study of the unit mobility ratio displacement process was undertaken. To calculate quantities of interest to the reservoir engineer (oil recovery, sweep efficiency, etc.), it is necessary to first know the pressure distribution in the pattern. Then analytical procedures are used to calculate, in order of increasing difficulty: injectivity, breakthrough areal sweep efficiency, normalized oil recovery and water-oil ratio as a function of normalized PV injected.

Jan 1, 1967

By Frank W. Clinard, Oleg D. Sherby

The effect of multiple an transformations on diffusion in a dilute iron alloy was studied. Inter-penetration between iron and an Fe-Co alloy was evaluated, under thermal-cycling conditions chosen so as to transform only the iron-rich side of the diffusion couple. It is shown that a small but consistent diffusion enhancement by a factor of two results when data from the transforming side of thermally cycled specimens are compared with predicted inter diffusion coefficients based on isothermal data. No enhancement is found when data from the mntransforming side of such couples are compared with predicted diffusivities. It is suggested that short-circuiting by moving pain boundaries is the most likely mechanism contributing to the observed diffusion enhancement from multiple phase transJormations in iron. Transformation-induced Point defects, dislocation-pifie short-circuiting, and point defects generated by dislocation motion are less effective in contributing to enhanced diffusion under the experimental conditions utilized. SO far as is known, no studies have been made of the effect of allotropic transformation on diffusion. previous to this investigation. Studies have been made, however, of the influence of transformation on the diffusion-controlled processes of spheroidization and sintering. Cullen1 has described a method of accelerating spheroidization in an AISI 1030 steel. Partial transformation between a and ? phases was uti-

Jan 1, 1965

By Arthur Crowfoot

INTRODUCTION The principal object of this paper is to present data on the development of the revolving convex round table as a concentrator for the through 0.07-mm. slimes from the ores of the Butte district, although same brief notes on the earliest recorded use of this type of concentrating table in the ore-dressing plants of the Lake Superior region and of the Butte district are also presented. The revolving convex round table belongs to the class of concentrating tables known as film-sizing tables, these tables using the relative transporting power of a film, or thin sheet of water, as it flows over a quiet inclined surface, to separate the minerals of a sorted product.

Jan 8, 1914

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1951

By J. A. Dos Santos

High angle conveyor (HA C) systems in open-¬pit mining offer many advantages over the traditional, truck only, haulage systems. These include superior energy efficiency, less dependency on petroleum products, less sensitivity to inflation, less excavation for the amount of ore recovered, and less ramp construction and maintenance costs. Various high angle conveying systems and the corresponding characteristics of the high angle conveyor are illustrated. Discussion includes the range of HAC systems from the low capacity (up to 1.8 kt/h or 2000 stph), low lift (10.7 to 36.6 m or 35 to 120 ft), continuously mobile to the moderate capacity (1.8 to 3.6 kt/h or 2000 to 4000 stph), moderate lift (36.6 to 76.2 m or 120 to 250 ft), intermittently mobile to the high capacity (greater than 3.6 kt/h or 4000 stph), high lift (greater than 76.2 m or 250 ft), semimobile. Combinations of the above as required for the various open-pit mining operations are also discussed.

Jan 1, 1985

By J. E. JR. Johnson

AT the Cleveland meeting of the Institute in October, 1912, I had the honor to present a paper outlining the conditions surrounding the charcoal iron industry, and giving some of the results of an investigation started about three years ago for the purpose of determining the reason for the poor reputation of the Lake Superior charcoal irons as compared with the Southern and Eastern irons. In that paper I explained the effect of high carbon on quality, and tried to make clear that that paper was a preliminary one, as we felt convinced that we should eventually discover other factors affecting quality. The progress of the investigation has brought out facts that seem to us of the utmost importance practically and theoretically, and the purpose of the present paper is to present these facts with the proofs which seem to us to establish them. The closing year of the nineteenth century saw the publication of the first definite and connected statement of the relationship between the cast irons and the steels.' The metallurgical world was ready to accept the fundamental unity of these two series, acceptance being greatly hastened by Professor Howe's classic paper, The Constitution of Cast Iron, presented at the Richmond meeting of the Institute, February, 1901.

Jan 1, 1914

By Henry D. Hibbard

A NOTED ordnance engineer once said to a friend, in speaking of the production of great steel guns, "How is it? We design our guns with a factor of safety of eight, and the guns burst." The vague way in which internal stresses and strains in iron and steel are often considered and spoken of makes it worth-while to examine them, as to their nature, their causes and results, how they may, for useful purposes, be advantageously dealt with, and how, when detrimental or dangerous, they may be reduced or kept within harmless proportions. Rankine defines ?strain " as a change of form or dimensions of a solid or liquid mass produced by a stress. This definition seems not intended to cover strains due to internal stresses, and it will help us in the present inquiry to consider strain as a tendency to change as well as an actual change of form. Internal strains in iron and steel are the result of stresses within the mass of the piece, some parts pulling and others pushing in resistance to them; or, in other words, some parts are in tension and some in compression, each part striving to relieve itself from strain and make the piece assume a form in which all parts are at rest. Subdivision, so that each part could relieve its strain by motion relative to the other parts, would, if carried out far enough, practically obliterate strain. The internal strains we are now to consider are not those due to the stresses of the service which the piece is rendering, either alone or as, a part of a structure, which may be termed service-strains, but those which originate or at least are contained in the piece itself. Internal stresses in a piece of metal are, like action and reaction, always equal and in opposite directions. The stresses

Sep 1, 1906

[Murray and Renard: chondres on ocean floor, XLI, [155]. Musconetcong Iron Works, Stanhope, N. J., blnst furnace, XL, 467. MUSSEN, H. W.: Discussion on The Bogoslovsk Mining Estate, XXXIX, 897. death, XLIII, [Ixxvi]. Muzo, CoIombia: emerald deposits, LV, 910. emerald mine, XXXIX, 317. minerals, LV, 925.]

Jan 1, 1918

By C.P. Proctor, J. T. Crawford, J.A. Younkins

Coal-cleaning plants using the launder process generally wash the fine coal (minus ? or minus 5/16-in.) separately in a plant consisting of washing launders or troughs placed one below another and sometimes supplemented by additional washing equipment such as tables and jigs. The coal and its associated impurities enter the feed end of the top launder, with a current of push water. As the material moves along the impurities, being heavier than coal, settle toward the bottom of the launder and are drawn off, with some coal, through "free discharge" boxes to the launder below. These boxes were given their name because their discharge falls freely; that is, it does not discharge into a water seal. Thus the impurities are progressively concentrated in the lower launders until box products are sufficiently free of coal to be discharged to refuse. The overflows of the upper launders go to clean coal while the overflow of the lowest launder, and perhaps that of the one immediately above, is usually recirculated to the plant feed. Thus the bulk of the clean coal is removed rapidly and the impurities are concentrated more slowly. The chief purpose of this paper is to present the cleaning data of such a plant under different operating conditions. OpeRating Equipment The washing units considered here are part of a complete plant cleaning minus 4-in. coal. The primary cleaned product is a high-quality gas and metallurgical coal and another portion of the output may be shipped as a steam coal. The units consist of two parallel Rheolaveur free-discharge units each containing five launders, together with three 7 by 14-ft. Plato tables. The launders are designated by the letters A-B-C-D-E (Fig. I), launder A being the top and longest; E being the bottom and shortest. Launder details are given in Table 1. The launders are equipped with a series of free-discharge Rheolaveur boxes, which are integral parts of the launder (Figs. 2 and 3). Each box with-

Jan 1, 1940

By C. P. Proctor, J. A. Younkins, J. T. Crawford

Coal-cleaning plants using the launder process generally wash the fine coal (minus ? or minus 5/16-in.) separately in a plant consisting of washing launders or troughs placed one below another and sometimes supplemented by additional washing equipment such as tables and jigs. The coal and its associated impurities enter the feed end of the top launder, with a current of push water. As the material moves along the impurities, being heavier than coal, settle toward the bottom of the launder and are drawn off, with some coal, through "free discharge" boxes to the launder below. These boxes were given their name because their discharge falls freely; that is, it does not discharge into a water seal. Thus the impurities are progressively concentrated in the lower launders until box products are sufficiently free of coal to be discharged to refuse. The overflows of the upper launders go to clean coal while the overflow of the lowest launder, and perhaps that of the one immediately above, is usually recirculated to the plant feed. Thus the bulk of the clean coal is removed rapidly and the impurities are concentrated more slowly. The chief purpose of this paper is to present the cleaning data of such a plant under different operating conditions. OpeRating Equipment The washing units considered here are part of a complete plant cleaning minus 4-in. coal. The primary cleaned product is a high-quality gas and metallurgical coal and another portion of the output may be shipped as a steam coal. The units consist of two parallel Rheolaveur free-discharge units each containing five launders, together with three 7 by 14-ft. Plato tables. The launders are designated by the letters A-B-C-D-E (Fig. I), launder A being the top and longest; E being the bottom and shortest. Launder details are given in Table 1. The launders are equipped with a series of free-discharge Rheolaveur boxes, which are integral parts of the launder (Figs. 2 and 3). Each box with-

Jan 1, 1940

By H. Kazemi

A pressure fall-off test on the injection well of a forward combustion project may permit us to calculate the distance to the burning front. In the mathematical description and analysis of test data, we have considered the effect of temperature on the thermodynamic properties of reservoir fluids. The temperature distribution predicted by Chu' for a combustion wave has been used in analyzing a field test. Numerical solutions were obtained by simultaneous solution of the flow equation, the continuity quation and the equation of state. Although this analysis conccntrated on isotropic systems, the results can be extended to systems having directional permeability. INTRODUCTION Conventional pressure fall-off tests have been used extensively to determine reservoir characteristics in gas- or water-injection projects.- such tests consist of injecting fluid into the formation at a constant rate until steady state is nearly achieved, then discontinuing injection and measuring the bottom-hole pressure as a function of time. A plot of pressure vs the logarithm of time (measured from the instant of shut-in) yields a smooth curve characterized by three distinct regions (Fig. 1): Region I reflects the permeability alterations in the vicinity of the wellbore; Region II reflects the reservoir characteristics further away from the wellbore; and Region 111, the characteristics in the displaced fluid bank. The curves in Regions II and III are straight lines! the slopes of which are proportional to the reciprocal of the flow capacity of the formation behind and ahead of the interface as shown by Eq. 1, respectively:

Jan 1, 1967

By William Phillips

THE possible sources of potash salts in the United States have been considered from many points of view during the last several years, but it is only within the last two or three months that the situation has become acute. We import from Germany, the only source of large supply, more than $10,000,000 worth of potash salts annually, and this business has been badly crippled by the European war. If there was ever a time in our industrial existence when the necessity of providing for our own needs was more acute than it is now, we are not aware of it. One has only to study the price, lists of chemicals sent out by the large supply houses to see the change wrought within a very short time. Whether or no these prices are to maintain for a considerable time, no one can say; but it appears to be probable that we shall not see prices materially lower for a period of uncomfortable length, to say the least. It is not my purpose at this time to discuss the various sources of supply of potash salts that have been suggested or recommended. Some of them might afford a pleasing relief but all of them combined would not affect the situation seriously. If we are to have our own sources of potash salts, they will have to compare, in some efficient manner, with the sources upon which we have drawn during the last 20 or 30 years; i.e., they must exist-in minable quantities. It seems to me to be quite idle to speculate upon our domestic sources of potash if those sources are not of a character similar to those upon which we have so long depended. A few thousand or, perhaps,, a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of chemically derived 'potash may be produced under the stress of present conditions, but when we consider that each year demands more than $10,000,000 worth, we must look to underground sources; we must look to mines similar to the famous Stassfurt and Halle deposits. If we cannot mine potash salts, we shall have to do without them for a while.

Jan 2, 1915

By L. F. Pett

ALTHOUGH Kennecott's orebody has long been outlined, it is still necessary to define further its limits. This mine, long an advocate of churn drill methods, recently supplemented its practice by using a diamond drill. So far, the diamond drill holes have been along the main canyon floor which traverses the mine area. This zone, highly fractured, is cut by numerous friable quartz veinlets encountered within the porphyry. These veinlets, formed by filling contracted porphyry fractures with hot, siliceous, mineral-bearing solutions, are often more highly mineralized than adjacent porphyry. They pulverize on contact, yielding only slight amounts of core.

Jan 7, 1951

By Leonard C. Grimshaw

The idea of bonding two dissimilar ferrous metals, and making use of both, is an old one. Tips have been brazed onto tool shanks for many years. The bonding of larger pieces to form whole bars and sheets has also been accomplished, but has received little attention in the technical literature, although a number of patents have been issued covering various methods for its accomplishment. There are three main motives behind the manufacture of composite steels. One is that the physical properties of one steel may supplement those of another; a useful, but at the same time, hard, brittle steel may be backed by a soft ductile one, or a stainless steel may be backed by a steel possessing greater strength. Another motive is direct lowering of cost; an expensive steel may be backed by a less expensive one, bringing down the cost of the piece as a whole. The third motive is an indirect lowering of cost, as when a useful steel is backed by a steel that is easier to machine, so that machining cost on a finished product is lowered considerably. Often more than one of these motives lead to a decision to use a composite steel. Previous Methods There are two methods in use that result in tolerably good bonds between ferrous metals: (1) the casting method, and (2) what we shall call the "heat-pressure" method. This "heat-pressure" method covers processes in which the bond is made between two prepared surfaces by heating them and then applying pressure. Usually sufficient pressure must be used to produce appreciable spread and elongation, or else we arc merely brazing and not truly welding. Casting methods for welding together ferrous metals have been used more than 74 years, and are described in the technical literature as applied

Jan 1, 1936

By Leonard C. Grimshaw

The idea of bonding two dissimilar ferrous metals, and making use of both, is an old one. Tips have been brazed onto tool shanks for many years. The bonding of larger pieces to form whole bars and sheets has also been accomplished, but has received little attention in the technical literature, although a number of patents have been issued covering various methods for its accomplishment. There are three main motives behind the manufacture of composite steels. One is that the physical properties of one steel may supplement those of another; a useful, but at the same time, hard, brittle steel may be backed by a soft ductile one, or a stainless steel may be backed by a steel possessing greater strength. Another motive is direct lowering of cost; an expensive steel may be backed by a less expensive one, bringing down the cost of the piece as a whole. The third motive is an indirect lowering of cost, as when a useful steel is backed by a steel that is easier to machine, so that machining cost on a finished product is lowered considerably. Often more than one of these motives lead to a decision to use a composite steel. Previous Methods There are two methods in use that result in tolerably good bonds between ferrous metals: (1) the casting method, and (2) what we shall call the "heat-pressure" method. This "heat-pressure" method covers processes in which the bond is made between two prepared surfaces by heating them and then applying pressure. Usually sufficient pressure must be used to produce appreciable spread and elongation, or else we arc merely brazing and not truly welding. Casting methods for welding together ferrous metals have been used more than 74 years, and are described in the technical literature as applied

Jan 1, 1936

By E. H. Sellards

Phosphate rock like other mineral substances is found in nature in varying degrees of purity.

Jan 1, 1915

By D. J. McAdam, R. W. Mebs

The technical cohesive strength of a metal means, not the interatomic forces, but the technically estimated resistance to fracture. An example of such resistance to fracture is the so-called "true" breaking stress of a tension-test specimen, the breaking load divided by the sectional area at fracture. According to the prevalent view,8 the technical cohesive strength of a metal. in any particular state as regards prior mecharlical treatment and heat-treatment, is determined by a limiting value of the algebraically greatest principal stress. In two previous papers by one of the authors, evidence was presented to indicate that the technical cohesive strength of a metal cannot be represented by a single stress value, but that it comprises an infinite number of values corresponding to the infinite number of possible combinations of the principal stresses. The technical cohesive strength thus comprises an infinite number of technical cohesion Limits, each representing a specific stress combination at fracture. In the same papers, evidence was presented that plastic extension causes a continuous increase in the technical cohesive strength. Such a variation is not in accordance with the prevalent view that plastic extension first increases, then decreases, the technical cohesive strength.' In this paper, as in the previous papers,14.15 the algebraically greatest principal stress will be designated S1, the least principal stress will be designated 33, and the intermediate principal stress will be designated S². The technical cohesion limit under polarsymmetric tension (S1 = S2 = S3) will be termed the "disruptive stress," and the cohesion limit under unidirectional tension (S2 and S3 = o) will be termed the "severing stress."l4, .l5 The yield strength of a metal, according to the generally accepted theory, may be represented by a constant value of the shearing-strain energy, and hence by a constant value of the sum of the squares of the three principal stress differences. In the second of the previous papers,15 however, evidence was presented that the limiting yield stress decreases with increase in the volume stress, the algebraic average Of the three principal stresses.* This in fluence of the volume stress becomes prominent only in the field of triaxial tension. In the two previous papers,".'5 diagrams were presented to show the variation of the technical cohesion limit, yield stress, and ultimate stress with the combination of principal stresses and with plastic extension. Those diagrams and the resultant • Any stress system ma? be resolved into a polarsymmetric stress causing pure volume strain and a combination of pure shearing stresses. which cause no change of volum

Jan 1, 1945