RELIABILITY AND ECONOMY . O F =-=. Louisville Hydraulic Cement. Facts and Figures 1905 . WESTERN CEMENT CO. INCOn.ORATCO. GENERAL SALES AGENT, NO. 247 WEST MAIN STREET, LOUISVILLE. KY. ruri TorJ fan] iarp I7^r0 fnln3 mril ITOtJ lan-i I HJtJ rfLn3 f ] HIM rmJfrinlfrmlfrOilfrLHIf A THE LIBRARIES COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Avery Library [si pjtJ ITTiT]frird[rmJlTTrg|TTra ET|pjiJ[jT£iJ|jij-iJj |OT]|lTr^ §3]g§ THE EARLIEST KNOWN USE OF NATURAL ROCK HYDRAULIC CEMENT Was by the Egyptians 4,000 years ago. The Romans used it extensively about 2,000 years later in constructing aqueducts and water reservoirs. Remnants of these ancient structures yet remain examples of the toughness and durability of natural ce¬ ment. The Pantheon of Rome, erected 27 B. C.. is the most remarkable instance in the world of the strength and permanence of cement. Its circular walls of concrete are about 20 feet thick and surmounted by a concrete dome spanning 142feet support¬ ed by brick arches. It has withstood the effects of time and the elements for nearly 2,000 years, and does not show a crack. John Smeaton, an English engineer, may be said to have re-discovered cement, and to him is due the honor of having first employed it in modern times. Smeaton, after many experiments, produced a cement which was used by him in building the Ed- dystone Light House in the English Chan¬ nel in 1756. His researches and the result of his experiments were not made public until published by him in 1791. In the same year Parker secured liis first patent and five years later his second pat¬ ent on “A Certain Cement or Terras to be used on Aquatic and other Buildings and Stucco Work.” Parker claimed under this patent to pro¬ duce from “Certain stones or argillaceous productions,” a powder that with water formed a mortar harder than could other¬ wise be made. This powder came to be known as Roman Cement, a generic name later applied to all Natural Cements in England. An experience of over 100 years has dem¬ onstrated the truth of Parker’s claim under his second patent, as nothing has been dis¬ covered that will make mortar that ulti¬ mately becomes as hard as mortar made of Natural Cement. In 181S, twenty-two years after Parker's English patent, Canvas White discovered and patented a Natural Cement made from stone found near Fayetteville, N. V. In 1824 a cement works was established at Williamsville, N. Y., and its product was extensively used in the construction of locks on the Erie Canal. In 1828 the manufacture of Cement be¬ gan at Rosendale, N. Y. In the following year cement stone was discovered at Louis- ville in excavating the canal around the Falls of the Ohio, from which is made the now well known Louisville Cement. Although located in a then sparcely set¬ tled district, remote from the more thickly settled centers, with the Ohio River for many years the only means of transporta¬ tion, the use of Louisville Cement has grown until the consumption of it has ex¬ ceeded 2,000,000 barrels in a single year, and 36,000,000 barrels since 1870. The use of this vast quantity over so long a period in the construction of our greatest examples of engineering skill at¬ tests its permanency and suitability for many kinds of construction. [HE!! RELIABILITY SI OF... fug LOUISVILLE CEMENT Two kinds of cement are in general use in this country, Natural Hydraulic Cement and Portland Cement. Natural Cement is made from stone in which the proper proportions of the neces¬ sary elements have been combined by na¬ ture. Portland Cement is artificial, made by a combination of the necessary ingre¬ dients. a Mr. Tlios. T. Johnston, M. W. S. E., in a paper published by the Western Society of Engineers, entitled “Notes on Reliability of Louisville Cement,” referring to it says: “There seems to be no good reason why suitable raw material can not be obtained as cheaply as unsuitable material, and it is difficult to see why the manufacturer should have anj' incentive to use any but the proper material. It is very different with the mate¬ rials from which Portland Cement is made. They are not to be had in such unlimited and concentrated quantity, generally speak¬ ing, and when they are to be had the con¬ stant attention of a chemist is needed to determine that they are suitable. The raw materials being secured, their preparation for the Louisville Cement re¬ quires simply the always honest, the always unerring crunching of the rock crusher or the sturdy sledging of the equally reliable quarry hand. For Portland cement there must be drying and weighing and analyz¬ ing and grinding and other operations in¬ volving the faultful intelligence, the care¬ lessness, the capricious avarice of imperfect man. The raw materials for the Louisville Ce¬ ment being prepared, they must next be | burned, and herein again the Louisville Cement involves the greater simplicity, the kiln being so simple, the temperature so low, the drafts so readily regulated, and the charging of the kiln not needing such special care. With Portland Cement the type of kiln best suited for the purpose is a matter of controversy ; the method of charging the kiln requires care; high and uniform temperature for a prolonged period is required. With the Louisville product the process is one of simple calcining as in the manufacture of quicklime, while with the Portland product partial vitrifica¬ tion has to he done. The result of the op¬ eration with the Louisville product is that essentially the whole contents of the kiln is useful, while with the Portland prodtict a large proportion, sometimes all, is refuse.” Mr. Uriah Cummings says in his work on American Cements: “If the public could be brought to real¬ ize that one year is but the beginning of the test, that the real trial is but fairly started, and is on, so long as the work en¬ dures in which the cement is used ; if it were understood that after five years not one engineer in a hundred can tell either by simply looking at a wall laid in cement, or by the use of the hammer, whether the ce¬ ment used was Rock or Portland Cement, and if it were known that it is a fact, that when we have occasion to blast out old con¬ crete laid in Rock Cement twenty-five years before, we find it as hard as any rock; and if it w r ere possible for the public to become as familiar with three to five year tests as they are with the prevailing tests, then there would be a remarkable overturning of preconceived notions in regard to cement values, and thinking men would undertake a readjustment of their opinions.” Mortars made of artificial cements attain their ultimate strength in from four to six months, then sometimes decline in strength, as is shown in a diagram published in the Annual Report of the Mayor of Philadelphia for the year 1903, reproduced on pages 8-9. In Professional Papers No. 28, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., it is said : “The constructing engineer is confront¬ ed by no problem more difficult than to de¬ cide whether a certain cement, when placed in a work, will behave in a predetermined way. This is especially true of Portlands. Other cements are much more reliable un¬ der conditions of exposure for which they are suited The difficulties arise from the fact that tests for acceptance or rejection must be made on a product not in its final stage. A cement, when incorporated in masonry, un¬ dergoes for mouths chemical changes in the process of setting, so that the material subjected to strains in the work is not the material tested, but a derivative of it. The object of tests is to establish two probabili¬ ties: First, that the product of the given cement will develop the desired strength and hardness soon enough to enable it to bear the stresses designed for it; second, that it will never thereafter fall below that strength and hardness.” It is known that the strength of Louis¬ ville Cement mortar increases indefinitely. This may be demonstrated by examining any of many of the structures in which it was used. In the older structures it is found to be as hard as natural rock. John S. Sewell, Capt. Corps of Engi¬ neers, l’. S. A , selected by American Socie¬ ty of Civil Engineers to read a paper before the International Engineering Congress in St. Louis, 1904, in his paper says: “Much of the work, both old and new, executed in Natural Cement, has attained a degree of strength that it would not be safe to expect from the best Portland, and Natu¬ ral Cements seem not to give the trouble from disintegration after setting due to causes within themselves, or to exposure to sea-water that is experienced occasionally with Portlands.” Although 36,000,000 barrels of Louis¬ ville Cement have been used in varied forms of construction, the manufacturers of it have never had a suit brought against them for damages resulting from defective ce¬ ment. ECONOMY The best material for any purpose is the kind that accomplishes all the objects sought at the least expense. It is now being claimed that it is as economical to use Portland as Louisville Cement in the construction of concrete foun¬ dations. The fallacy of this claim will be apparent to any investigator. The manufacturers of Louisville Cement have kept pace with the times, and by means of improved fine grinding machinery now grind cement so fine that exceeding ninety per cent, will pass a screen of 1 0,000 meshes per square inch. Such fineness was impracti¬ cable while the buhr stones were in use, on 7 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https://archive.org/details/reliabilityeconoOOwest DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-BUREAU OF S U R V E YS-TESTI NG LABORATORY PHILADELPHIA, PA. Diagram Showing Average Results of Cement Tests Neat and with Sand--Made 1903 which all Natural Cement until recently was ground. By fine grinding the efficiency of the cement is increased. A mortar of one part cement, as now ground, to three parts sand is of about equal strength to a mortar of one part cement, as formerly ground, to two parts sand. This increased efficiency should not be overlooked in figuring cost. Prof. Baker says on page ninety-eight of his new edition of “Masonry Construction": “If a strength of about 370 pounds per square inch after six months is sufficient. Natural Cement is the cheaper. Nearly all carefully conducted tests of the strength of cement mortar, six months old or over, give a similar result, except that the above limit is usually between 300 and 350 pounds. A considerable change in prices does not ina- teriall)' alter the result, and hence the con¬ clusion may be drawn that if a strength of 300 to 350 pounds per square inch at six months is sufficient, Natural Cement is more economical than Portland.’’ Mr. Chas. Hermany, Past President Amer¬ ican Society Civil Engineers, in a letter dated July 4, 1901, referring to the construc¬ tion of the Clear Water Reservoir, says: “ * * * * The total volume of concrete aggregates about 27,000 cubic yards, two- thirds of which is Natural Cement concrete, and the remaining third Portland Cement concrete, the latter, in place, costing per cubic yard more than double the price of the former. The experience had in the building of these concrete walls justifies the statement that, were a similar work to be executed, it would justify the exclusive use of Natural Cement concrete for such similar work, with absolutely satisfactory results, and with precisely such Louisville Cement as was used in the constructed work, with a single important modification, which modi¬ fication would be to properly hydrate the Louisville Cement, after manufacture and before using it in the concrete, for the pur¬ pose of retarding its rate of setting, which rate is too rapid for satisfactory construc¬ tion with newly manufactured or non-hy- drated cement of this class. This statement is not made for the pur¬ pose of decrying the superior quality of Portland Cements, but to emphasize the not generally recognized fact that for many classes of public works the Louisville Nat¬ ural Cement is as good and reliable as Port¬ land Cement, and at a greatly reduced cost, in the construction of concrete masonry.” As an example of actual results obtained in practice, the experience of Mr. Jno. F. Wilcox, Gen’l Manager and Chief Engineer of the Retort Coke Oven Company of Cleve¬ land, O., may be considered as typical. Mr. Wilcox had a concrete foundation to put in at his coke oven plant, and decided to use Louisville Cement for this purpose. At the same time and under the same con¬ ditions he built a retaining wall with Port¬ land cement concrete, so that a comparison of cost is possible. The result was a saving on this one piece of work alone of $17,500.- 11 oo, and the work is equally as good as if the higher priced material had been used. A barrel is 3.5S cubic feet packed Louis¬ ville Cement, and will make as much paste as an equal bulk of any kind of cement, re¬ gardless of its weight. The ingredients of mortar and concrete are proportioned by volume and not by weight. The use of Louisville Cement by large Industrial Companies for foundations of all kinds in their plants, where the greatest service for least cost is determined by able engineers, is evidence of its adaptability and economy. Over 61,000 barrels have already been used in one steel plant at Lorain, Ohio, and the work is not yet completed. Louisville Cement is especially’ adapted for use in mortar for : All classes of masonry construction. Concrete foundations. Concrete (cinder) for fireproofing. Filling for safes and vaults. Cellar floors. Cement sewer pipe. Cement sand brick. Backing of hollow building blocks. Lining cisterns. STRUCTURES IN WHICH LOUISVILLE CEMENT WAS USED FEDERAL BUILDINGS. Cincinnati, O. Chattanooga, Tenn. Memphis, Tenn. Johnson City, Tenn Greeneville, Tenn. Leavenworth, Kas. Ft. St. Phillip, La. Louisville, Ky. St. Louis, Mo. Logansport, Ind Richmond, Ind. Chillicothe, O. Fort Riley, Kas. Ft. Jackson, La. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS- Hammond Packing Co., St. Joseph, Mo. American Sheet ft Tin Plate Co., Monesson, Pa LaFayette Box Board Co., LaFayette, Ind Elgin Watch Co., Elgin, Ills. Lorain Steel Co., Lorain, O. Whittaker Iron Co., Wheeling, W. Va. Retort Coke Oven Co., Cleveland, O. Mingo Steel Works & Furnace, Mingo Junc¬ tion, O. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., Elwood, Ind. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., Natrona, Pa. Proctor & Gamble Co., Ivorydale, O. Standard Oil Co., Sugar Creek, Mo. Armour & Co., East St. Louis, tils. Columbia Steel Co.. Elyria, O. Roan Iron Co., Rockwood, Tenn. Clairton Steel Work, Clairton, Pa. Hammond Packing Co.. Hammond, Ind. Ohio Steel Co., Youngstown, O. 13 Lookout Mountain Iron Co., Sulphur Springs, Ga. American Spinning Co., Greenville, S. C Xorth Carolina Electric Power Co . Marshall, N. C. Monaghan Mills, Greenville, S. C. Telephone Building, Augusta. Ga. Saxon Cotton Mills. Spartanburg. S. C. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Crystal City. Mo. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC. State House. Indianapolis, Ind. State House, Springfield, Ills. State House, Lansing, Mich. State House, Atlanta, Ga. State House, Austin, Texas. Court House, Marietta, Ohio. Railway Round House, Boyles, Ala. C. B. & Q. Shops, Hannibal, Mo. Railway Round House, Knoxville, Tenn. Frick Building, Pittsburg, Pa. Union Trust Building, Cincinnati, O. Bessemer Building, Pittsburg, Pa. Overton Building, Memphis, Tenn. LOCKS. DAMS. ETC. Cumberland River. Warrior River. Illinois River. Allegheny River. Green River. Muskingum River. Kanawha River. Monongahela River. Ohio River. Tennessee River. Kentucky River. Big Sandy River. Sault Ste. Marie. Fox River, Wis. ChattahODClie River Dam, Columbus, Ga Waterworks Dam, Hot Spiings, Ark. 14 Dam at Little Rock, Ark. Water Works Reservoir, Covington, Ky Waterworks Reservoir, Nashville, Tenn. Water Works Reservoir, Crescent Hill, Ky. Waterworks, Minneapolis, Minn. Water Works, St. Louis, Mo. Dam, Little Kalis, Minn. Dams in Tallapoosa River, Ala. St. Anthony Kails Improvements, Minneapo¬ lis, Minn. Water Works, Birmingham, Ala. Sanitary Drainage Canal, Chicago, Ills. RAII,ROAD BRIDGES. Many large Railroad Bridges, among them being Eads Bridge, St. Louis. Illinois Central Bridge, Cairo, Ills. C. B. & Q. Bridge. Alton, Ills. Kansas City & Memphis Bridge, Memphis, Tenn. L- & N. Bridge, Henderson, Ky. N. & W. Bridge, Kenova, W. Va. A TEST OF LOUISVILLE CEMENT Fineness Tensile strength per square inch 95 # through 100 sieve Neat 1 Cement 2 Sand 7 days 28 days 6 months 199 lbs 301 lbs. 430 lbs. 152 lbs. 279 lbs. 463 lbs. Load 60.000 POUNDS CINDER CONCRETE ARCH TEST. One part Louisville Cement One part Sand. Four parts Cinders. 5% ft. wide, 16 ft. span, 8 inches thick at crown. 2 in. curved T rails support, 30 in. from center to center. Concrete four weeks old when weight was put on. After 2 months no deflection on one side discernible and less than <4 i« on the other side. Test made by Frank B. Abbott, Architect, 22s La Salle Street, Chicago, Ills. C 1&S