for work in coarse sand or gravel, also as an aid to prevent large flows
of water into trenches.
In erecting a bridge over the Danube at Ehingen, Bavaria, in 1898,
the method of pumping grout into water bearing gravel was used very
successfully. One and one-half inch pipes spaced about 18 inches to 20
inches apart were driven to bed rock and grout forced in under pressure,
the pipes then drawn up and the operation repeated. Where the gravel
did not contain large quantities of sand the grout was found to have pene-
•Information repeived from Mr. W. L. Capps, Chief Constructor, U. S. N.
Digitized by
Google
STATE GEOLOGIST. 61
trated several meters, but when the sand was compact there was no result.
In the mid-stream piers, sheet piling was first driven for the coffer-dams
and then grout was injected into the gravel surrounding the sheeting,
resulting in a perfectly water tight coffer-dam. The interior of one of
the coffer-dams was also treated in this manner and it was found upon
excavation that wherever the sand was not in compact beds, hard, well
bonded beds of concrete existed so that only part of the interior had to
be excavated.
The same method was successfully employed upon two other bridges
in Bavaria in 1898 and 1900.
«>
THE EFFECTS OF FREEZING UPON MORTAR.
Experimental work * carried on in 1895 by students of the Ohio
State University, indicated that in natural cement mortars, frost affected
them in about the ratio that they contained magnesium oxide, but this did
not prove to be the case with Portland cements. In natural cement
mortars freezing disintegrated the exterior to a greater or less depth,
materially weakening the mortar, while in Portland cement mortars dis-
integration did not appear and the loss of strength was very much less.
Baker and Synionds, of Thayer School of Civil Engineering, Dart-
mouth College, came to the following conclusions after having made 7,150
tests, that freezing does not disintegrate Portland cement mortar but does
disintegrate Rosendale cement mortars ; that while it seriously damages the
natural cement mortars, Portland cement mortars lose from 2 to 40 per
cent, of their strength.
Tests in the Royal laboratory of Berlin in 1886, showed from 2 per
cent, to 33 per cent, loss in different cements under different conditions
when subjected to freezing.
W. W. McClay, M. Am. Soc. C. E., showed that the attempt to
prevent the injurious effect of frost by heating the material and then using
it in freezing temperatures was more hurtful than using the ingredients
cold. In two sets of briquettes made of cement paste, one made at 45
degrees F. and the other at 100 degrees F., and treated exactly alike until
broken, the strength of the heated mortar was found to be only 7 to 20
per cent, of that of the cold mixture. In case of a mortar of i cement and
2 of sand the strength of the heated mixture was only 30 per cent, of that
of the cold mixture. This set of experiments, however, was upon one
brand of cement only.
The Austrian Society of Engineers and Architects made some prac-
tical tests in the winter of 1892-93. They constructed 14 brick and stone
walls, 3 feet, 4 inches long, 6 feet, 8 inches high, and 10 inches
thick, using the following mortars: (i) common fat lime mortar. (2)
♦Thesis of Frank Haas and John A. McGraw, on "Effect of Magnesia on the Strength of
Cements when Subjected to Freezing."
Digitized by
Google
62 ANNUAL REPORT
Roman cement mortar. (3) Portland cement mortar. (4) One part
Portland cement and two parts lime. (5) Cement and slag mortar. (6)
A patent frost proof mortar.
All mortars were one part cementing material to two parts of sand.
The walls were torn apart during the following summer. Their con-
clusions were: (i) That lime for a cementing material is entirely unsuited
for cold weather construction. (2) That Roman cement can be used with
fairly good results in brick masonry, but is not safe for rubble masonry
construction in freezing weather. (3) That Portland cement mortar is
not seriously affected in freezing weather and is especially good when
used with salt. (4) That mortar mixed with warm water {;J^ degrees
F.) showed about the same loss of strength as when cold water was used.
(5) The frost proof cement and the Portland cement with salt showed
very little loss of strength when frozen. (6) That dry brick and stone are
necessary to safe construction under freezing conditions.
THE EFFECT OF HEAT UPON MORTAR.
M. Devol, of the Paris Testing Laboratory, made tests with briquettes
of I cement to 3 of sand. They were allowed to harden in air from
24 hours to 30 days, and then placed in water at 177 degrees F. and kept
from 2 to 7 days. Six brands of Portland cement were used.
They resisted hot water at that age and gained about the strength in 7
days in hot water that they gained in cold water in 28 days. But when
placed in hot water before being completely set, disintegration set in.
Cements containing free lime when placed in hot water swelled, warped
and cracked.
Digitized by
Google
STATE GEOLOGIST.
68
CHAPTER m.
THE USES OF CEMENT IN CONCRETE
Cement was first extensively used to make concrete for foundations
of large masonry structures. It may be well at this point to define con-
crete. Concrete is formed by a mixture of cement or lime mortar with
any aggregate such as gravel, broken stone, cinders, or broken brick, the
whole forming a solid conglomerate mass of stone. That formed with
a cement mortar is sometimes called "beton." In this article, in speaking
of concrete, that formed ffom natural or Portland cement will be under-
stood unless otherwise stated in the immediate paragraph.
FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS.
Concrete becomes of particular importance in footings and foundation
work. In all properly designed structures the weight of the structure
should be so distributed upon the foundation soil, that no unusual pres-
sures can be developed. Undue pressure causes' unequal settlement
and therefore produces excessive and unknown strains within the various
portions of the structure. With the usual rough stone masonry put in
place for footing courses, it is almost impossible to obtain foundations
having equal strength at all points and which transfer the weight of the
structure uniformly to the soil beneath. On the other hand concrete can
be placed in position by unskilled labor, with reasonable supervision, and
become a homogeneous monolithic mass, capable of transferring the weight
of the building very evenly to the subsoil foundation.
One important advantage which concrete has over stone masonry for
foundations is in the rapidity and cheapness with which it can be placed in
position. Masons must have room in which to work, and space for surplus
material, mortar boards, etc. But few masons can be economically em-
ployed upon the foundations of even large structures. With concrete foun-
dations, the excavation can be limited to the size of the foundation. The
material may be stored at any convenient place, mixed there and conveyed
to the foundation trench in wheelbarrows, by derrick and box, belt con-
veyor, inclined chutes, or by any of the many approved economical
methods. After being dumped into place, as many men as the work
requires may be used to properly dispose and ram the material into place.
Digitized by
Google
64 ANNUAL REPORT
These men may be unskilled laborers, but with a skilled foreman to direct,
the work can be of the best quality.
It requires from one-eighth to one-third of the time to place a con-
crete foundation that it requires to construct one of stone. Within thirty-
six hours after the completion of the concrete foundation, work upon the
superstructure may proceed.
Those that know little about concrete may question its durability.
For their benefit attention is called to the durability of concrete as illus-
trated in the historical portion of this paper. Portions of the Cartha-
genian aqueduct are intact after 2,000 years of weathering. The dome
of the Pantheon still survives the ravages of 2,000 years. In 1892, while
excavations were being made in London, workmen came upon a heavy
mass of natural cement concrete laid over 800 years ago. Blasting was
out of the question, owing to the proximity to other buildings. So
workmen were employed to cut out the concrete with chisel and hammer.
The concrete was so hard that it turned the best steel tools.
In 1872, J. V. Farwell erected a large store at the comer of Market
and Franklin streets in Chicago, with foundations and interior walls of
natural cement concrete. The building is still used for mercantile pur-
poses with the concrete portion apparently as perfect as ever. Another
of Farwell's buildings, erected in 1869, ^^s in the path of the great
Chicago fire of 1871. While the interior partitions of wood were burned
out, the walls of concrete stood, so that within a very shprt time the
building was repaired and was used by the Government for court,
treasury and customs offices.
The United States Government in erecting the postoffice building
in Chicago, in 1872, built it upon a cement foundation slab se^^eral feet
thick extending under the entire building. In 1897 that building was
torn down to make room for the new Federal building recently completed.
The contractor was compelled to use steam drills and dynamite to remove
the concrete, and because of its refractory nature was so delayed in
finishing his work, that it entailed the payment by him of a penalty of $100
per day for several weeks. With such a record for natural and "Roman"
cements, greater results may be expected from the more perfect Portland
cements.
HEAVY CONSTRUCTION.
From footing courses and foundation walls to abutments, retaining
walls and heavy superstructure was but a step.
These are constructed both of massive concrete blocks and in mono-
lithic form.
WALLS.
In the construction of the Consolidated Lake Superior Power Co.'s
plant at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., immense concrete blocks with mortised
Digitized by
Google
Fig. 12. — Concrete Blocks for the Power House of the Lake Superior Power Company.
Fig. 13.— View of the Pocket Walls of the Lake Superior Power Company, Showing
Use of Concrete Blocks.
5— S. G.
Digitized by
Google
66 ANNUAL REPORT
joints were used in building the walls of the wheel pits. Figures 12 and
13 show the blocks and the wall respectively.
It is only during the last decade that railroad companies have been
developing concrete construction along these lines to any extent. The
Illinois Central, the New York Central and Hudson River railroad, and
other large roads are now doing a great, deal of concrete work.
ABUTMENTS.
In many cases when the old abutments and masonry walls are still
in fair condition, but are not heavy enough for the increased weight of
bridges and rolling stock, or because of added fills, the old masonry has
been re-enforced by an additional casing of concrete, thus preserving the
old masonry and adding a large percentage of strength to the structure.
In other places the old masonry is removed entirely and concrete substi-
tuted.
Fig. 14.— Concrete Abutment on the D., S. & \J, R. R., Near Dayton, Ohio.
Some railroad companies have shown timidity in using concrete to
entirely replace stone for piers and abutments of long span bridges;
especially for the bridge seats, because of an uncertainty as to the dur-
ability of concrete under vibrating and impact strains. The New York
Central and Hudson River railroad limits the use of concrete piers or
abutments to bridges having spans less than 200 feet long.
The Dayton, Springfield and Urbana Electric Road has lately con-
structed two large abutments to carry their road over the tracks of the
Digitized by
Google
o
o
z
4
•
E
♦»
3
<
Digitized by
Google
68
ANNUAL REPORT
C. S. & H. R. R. about three miles east of Dayton. These were con-
structed of a rich concrete of i cement, 2>^ sand and 5 broken stone. The
largest of these abutments makes an angle of about 45 degrees with the
center line of track and will support about 21 feet of earth behind the
wall. It is about 120 feet long and contains 590 cubic yards of concrete.
The concrete cost about $5.75 per cubic yard, day labor being $1.50 per
day of ten hours, and cement $2.10 per barrel. Figure 14 illustrates the
abutment near Dayton, Ohio. Figure 15 shows an abutment upon the
Toledo and Monroe Railway.
The Erie Railway is using concrete in nearly every place where
stone was formerly used, in culverts, ashpits, foundations, etc. Furnace
slag is used in place of gravel or storte. It only costs the railroad com-
pany for the hauling, as the furnace owners load it onto the cars for the
sake of getting rid of it.
Concrete costs the railroad company about $3.50 per cubic yard. The
sand costs them about $4.00 per car of 20 cubic yards, cement $1.40 per
barrel, and the slag only the cost of hauling.
CULVERTS.
The New York Central, the Illinois Central and many other large
roads are using concrete almost exclusively for arch culverts. With the
old stone culvert construction the roads were at a continual expense for
repairs, pointing up, repairing wing walls, etc. ; but with a well built con-
crete arch and wing walls, the culvert is in place for all time. A smooth
impervious surface is presented to the elements €0 that weathering has
practically no effect upon the structure. Besides being cheaper for main-
tenance, the concrete arch saves the expensive first cost of stone cutting in
skew arches. Figures 16 and 17 neatly illustrate the decay of an old
stone culvert and the smooth, water resisting surface of the concrete
culvert replacing it. These pictures were taken of a culvert upon the
Panhandle Railroad in the western part of Columbus, Ohio. Figure 19
shows a double culvert.
RETAINING WALLS*
Concrete retaining walls are being extensively used in the track ele-
vation and depression carried on in such gigantic scale by the railroads
entering Chicago.
. The Lake Shore, and the Chicago and Rock Island railroads enter
the fine large Van Buren Street station in Chicago over elevated tracks
upon a fill 16 feet in depth held by concrete walls on either side. The
wall along the east right of way from a point 140 feet south of Polk
street has a section as shown in figure 18. The trench for the foundation
is excavated about four or five feet deep, the aim being to get below frost
line. The foundation is then laid with natural cement concrete of 1-2-4
proportions, to within about a foot of the surface; then continued to a
Digitized by
Google
Fig. 16. — A Stone Culvert Near Columbus, Ohio, Showing
Deterioration by Weather.
Fig. 17. — ^A Concrete Culvert Replacing That Shown In Fig. 16.
Digitized by
Google
70
ANNUAL REPORT
finish with Portland cement concrete of the proportions 1-3-6. The
excavation cost 50 cents per cubic yard, natural cement concrete $4.00 per
cubic yard and Portland cement concrete $6.25 per cubic yard, making
the cost of the maximum section as shown in the accompanying figure to
be $23.65 per lineal foot of wall.
The wall upon the west side of the right of way is designed with
a base width of four-tenths its height, consequently is considerably
cheaper ; the cost of such a wall being $20.53 against the cost of the first
or a saving of 15 per cent, on the basis of the lighter wall, the latter being
perfectly safe practice.
I
I ft"
o'.
an
^ ;'^- Cerncnt
- :^:/- ^ C Ortc rate
fi
â– ^^^y-Via\\AYa\ Cement Concrcto^
;st-^^^*•^/<9^'t;.^v..'t■•.<3^:v;;^o..^:/-.^.■;. - ?.;" !>•.
Surf^J
Fig. 18.— Section of Retaining Waii C. R. I. and P.
R. R. Showing l^aximum Section.
The contract specifies that the cement shall be of first class quality,
acceptable to the railway company. The sand shall be what is known as
torpedo sand. The stone shall be; good crushed limestone. The wall was
Digitized by
Google
c
c
3
O
o
o
b.
Digitized by
Google
72 ANNUAL REPORT
put up in 48 foot sections, thus leaving a vertical joint every 48 feet for
expansion. In the wall on the eastern right of way, thq forms were held
together by iron rods running through gas pipes ; these rods were after-
wards removed and the holes cemented up. On the western right of way
the forms were held together by wires which were cut off after the forms
were removed. This method of placing forms is illustrate;d in Figure 20.
LEVEE WALLS.
Similar to the retaining walls are the walls built to withstand the
pressure of high water along river banks. While levee walls are usually
e>tcel Wi
Fig. 20. — Section of Concrete Wall- Form, Showing l^ethod
of Holding and Bracing Forms, C. R. I. and P. R. R.
built of earth, the city of Columbus has 245 feet or more constructed of
concrete. Property and space in the heart of cities often becomes too
valuable to use ordinary methods of construction in making the necessary
improvements, and recourse is had to what at other times would be more
expensive methods. In this case space was too valuable for earth em-
bankment and a concrete wall was constructed by the city with day
labor. Figure 21 shows a section of this work.
The wall was 18 inches thick at the top and 50 inches at the
bottom with a maximum height of 113^ feet. The heart of the wall was
constructed of concrete with the following proportions, i part Portland
cement, 2j4 parts sand and 5 parts crushed gravel. The face of the wall
Digitized by
Google
STATE GEOLOGIST.
73
for a thickness of two inches was of mortar, i cement to 2 sand. A
careful force and expense account was kept of the work which was done in
Land! 6k^
Rivor* ^iclor
^^fc
;3ci
^ eiWv.^^^
^Section of Gcncretc Levee Ootumbus.OKio.
Fig. 21.-
two pieces, one of 185 feet and the other 60 feet in length. The cost of
each is as follows :
TABLE NO. 18.
Cost of Levee wall at Columbus, O. ^
Items used in each cubic yard
of Conctete.
Cost per cubic yard upon
60 ft. length.
185 ft. length.
0.94 barrel Portland cement at $2.15
12.021
825
0.687
1.160
0.264
0.265
0.379
042
15.643
12.021
1.10 cubic yards of crushed gravel at $0.75
0.55 cubic yard of sand at $1.25
Labor mixing— placing and ramming at |0.15
Extra cost per yard, facing with 1 to 3 mortar..
Cost of labor, erecting forms
0.825
0.687
1.324
0.221
0.232
Cost of materials in forms
Deterioration of tools and equipment
0.391
0.055
Total cost per cubic yard
$5,756
FORTIFICATIONS*
Concrete is extensively used by the U. S. Government in the construc-
tion of gun foundations and emplacements in magazine vaults, bomb
Digitized by
Google
74 ANNUAL REPORT
proofs, and in all masonry construction about the sea coast defences.
The great disappearing guns are set in immense concrete masonry
chambers with concrete foundations for the machinery.
MONOLITHIC CONCRETE HOUSES/
The oldest concrete house built in the United States is of monolithic
concrete. It was built on Staten Island, N. Y., in 1837, of natural cement
concrete. Although badly weather worn and dilapidated, this house still
stands and was inhabited by one or two families when the writer visited
it in 1902. It must be remembered that this house was built of the imper-
fect natural cement made in those early years and the aggregate used was
not carefully selected, but portions were composed of brickbats, irregular
and rather large sized broken stone, etc., therefore the dilapilation shown.
In front of the house at the gateway, lie two cast concrete lions, one badly
cracked and crumbling, the other yet in fair condition after many decades
of weathering. Figure 22 shows a front view of the house with the figure
of one of the lions.
Fig. 22.— The Oldest Concrete House in the United States. Built
on Staten Island in 1837.
CONCRETE BLOCK HOUSES.
Of the later forms of concrete house construction, none is neater,
simpler, nor more economical than that constructed of the various forms
Digitized by
Google
STATE GEOLOGIST. 75
of blocks now manufactured of which the Palmer hollow block is a good
illustration. The simplicity with which these blocks are molded and the
latitude of design obtained upon the one simple machine leaves little more
to be desired. The machine covers but small space, is fairly light, is
readily moved from place to place and is easily prepared for molding
different shaped or sized blocks. Four men, two mixers and two tampers,
will make from loo to 125 blocks a day. The usual size for the blocks are
32 inches by 9 inches by 10 inches. The sides and ends of the machine
swing out and down upon hinges. The hollow places in each stone are
formed by metal wedges or cones raised into place, through the base plate
by means of a cog and ratchet attachment. The side plates can be readily
changed so as to substitute smooth, quarry faced, or ornamental facing for
the stone as desired.
r
L
Fig. 23. — Palmer Concrete Hollow Block Machine.
The concrete is tamped into the machine, upon thin iron base plates,
so that as soon as the block, which is made of rather dry concrete, is
finished, the sides are let down, the hollow centers lowered and the block
is lifted out on this base plate and allowed to remain upon it until firmly
Digitized by
Google
76 ANNUAL REPORT
set. Narrow iron tampers are used to tamp the concrete into the mold.
The top of the block is troweled smooth before removing it from th^ form.
After three or four hours, or as soon as the concrete has sufficiently set,
the blocks are wet down, water being applied twice a day for three or
four days. The blocks are allowed to set ten days or more before being
laid in the wall.
Four men can lay about 60 blocks a day, equal to about 2,200 to
2,500 bricks, or ii2j^ square feet of wall surface.
The concrete is made of i part Portland cement and 5 parts coarse
sand. Tests made upon such blocks at four months of age have shown
80,000 pounds compressive strength. Figure 23 shows the Palmer ma-
chine which is about two feet wide, three feet long and three arid one-half
feet high. Figure 24 shows the various shaped blocks and the purpose
for which each is made. Figure 25 shows a residence under construction
near Indianapolis, Ind. Figure 26 is from a picture of a residence in
Springfield, Illinois.
Fig. 24. — Palmer Concrete Hollow Blocks.
Mr. Palmer claims that each standard block takes the place of forty
bricks; that each block can be made for twenty-two cents and hence
economically replaces brick at $5.50 per one thousand. And further, that
these blocks can be laid much more rapidly than brick, saving something
also in labor.
An Estimate of the Cost of Making the Palmer Block. — Assume
cement to cost $2.00 per barrel, sand, $1.60 per cubic yard, common labor,
$1.50 per day, with the foreman's wages $2.25 per day, the estimate to be
based upon the work of one machine using four men. The regular block
contains i}i cubic feet of material and weighs about 165 to 170 pounds.
Assuming the weight of cement at 80 pounds and that of sand at 100
pounds and assuming that four men can make 100 blocks per day of eight
Digitized by
Google
c
o
O
c
o
o
o
a
(8
C
S
9
Digitized by
Google
78 ANNUAL REPORT
hours, the following will be an approximate estimate of the cost of one
hundred blocks :
Four men, 3 at |1.50 and 1 at |2.25 $6.75
Cement, 5.8 bbl. at |2.00 11.60
Sand, 5.8 cu.yds at 11.60 8.00
Cost of one machine plan, |750, int. at 6% 0.15
Depredation, 20% 0.05
$27.00
or 27 cents per block equal to brick at $6.75 per 1,000. Using the tabic
in Prof. I. O. Baker's book on Masonry Construction, page 86, the cost
would be.23j4 cents per block equal to brick at $5.70 per 1,000.
Mr. F. E. Kidder,* author of "Architects' and Builders' Pocket-Book,"
made a test of the cost of concrete blocks with a machine of the
American Hydraulic Stcme Company's make during March, 1903.
The test was made on facing block for a 10 inch wall; two of these
blocks would lay 9 inches by 24 inches in the wall. The main
portion of the block was composed of i part cement to 6 parts sand
and gravel, with a face of i cement to 2 sand.
Cost Per Square Yard of Wall.
Labor 1 man, 1 hour 15 min., at |2.00 per day of 10 hrs.. . | .25