Search Documents

By L. R. Jackson

It is convenient to have a consistent system of notation that will allow the representation of the entire range of complex stresses from hydrostatic compression to hydrostatic tension on plastic flow in a single diagram. Such a system is provided by making use of the fact that any complex stress system can be resolved into a hydrostatic tension or compression and a pure shear. Consider a stress system having the principal stresses This system can be resolved into a new system consisting of the three components and three pure shears. If Sm is positive, the net stress effect is hydrostatic tension; if it is negative, the effect is hydrostatic compression. In order to produce a systematic notation, a quantity that will be referred to as the "triaxial ratio" will be defined by the equation _ Sm Tr = Sm - Sm is given by Eq. I and Sl is the absolute magnitude of the largest principal stress without regard to sign. Table I lists the triaxial ratios for various common systems. Table i.—Triaxid Ratios for Various CommonSyslems Triaxial Ratio Stress System Tr Hydrostatic compression — SI - —St - -S³............................... -1 Torsion or shear -SI - S². S² = O..... O Simple tension SI. SI = SI = 0......... +0.33 Biaxial tension SI = S² S³ - 0......... +0.66 Hydrostatic tension +SI - +S³ = +S³. +1.00 Representation of Strains Strains will be plotted as "true" strains according to the system proposed by Ludwik.1

Jan 1, 1945

By D. J. McAdam

As shown in three recent papers by the author, in two papers by McAdam and Mebs, and in a paper by McAdam, Mebs, and Geil," the technical cohesive strength of a metal, in any particular state as regards mechanical treatment and heat-treatment, cannot be represented by a single stress value, but must be represented by a diagram with the principal stressest as coordinates. Each point on the boundary of such a diagram represents a technical cohesion limit. The technical cohesive strength thus comprises an infinite number of technical cohesion limits, each representing fracture under a specific stress combination. Moreover, neither the yield strength1 nor the ultimate strength can be represented completely by a single stress value, but must be represented by a diagram with the principal stresses as coordinates. All combinations of the principal stresses may be classified in three groups as illustrated by Fig. I. Fig. Ia shows three typical stress combinations with no two principal stresses equal. The magnitude of each principal stress is indicated qualitatively by the length of the arrow. Arrows pointing away from the cube indicate tensile stresses; arrows pointing toward the cube indicate compressive stresses. Typical stress combinations with two principal stresses equal are illustrated in Figs. rb and Ic. Such stress combinations would be produced by subjecting a cylinder to combinations of uniform axial and radial stresses. The uniform radial stress may be resolved into two equal principal stresses. with the mutually perpendicular directions rotatable around the axis of the cylinder. Fig. ib shows stress combinations with Sz equal to The greatest principal stress is in the axial direction, and the stress combination tends to cause either absolute or relative increase in length.* Fig. u shows stress combinations with S2 equal to St. The greatest principal stress is in the radial direction, and the combination tends to cause either absolute or relative decrease in length. The complete representation of either technical cohesive strength, yield strength, or ultimate strength generally requires a three-dimensional diagram. When two of the principal stresses are kept equal, however, the strength of a metal may be represented by a two-dimensional diagram with the coordinates representing the axial and radial stresses.6-II In this paper, attention will be confined almost entirely to stress combinations with two of the prin-

Jan 1, 1945

By H. E. Montgomery

Engineering trends for some years have been toward higher temperatures, both in process work and in steam generation. Progress in design has been dependent upon the development and evaluation of suitable alloys. Elementary knowledge of the limitations of copper-base alloys indicate their unsuitability for the higher ranges of operating temperatures; say, for steam to 950°F. Emphasis upon the more severe conditions perhaps is a reason why more complete evaluations have not been made for copper-base alloys over their range of suitability. However, the few studies made show clearly the need for more accurate evaluations. Some copper-base alloys long looked upon favorably because of superior room-temperature properties are not as desirable as some others perhaps not so "strong" and "hard," as measured by usual acceptance tests. Load-carrying capacity and structural stability arc two important factors. Structural stability as influenced by temperature, by presence of corrosive media, or by the effects of stress itself, frequently is a limiting factor. An early reference to creep properties of the cast copper-base alloys is that of Brown1 (Admiralty gun metal, Cu 87.5, Sn 10.1, Zn 2.3 and Pb 0.08). His tests were similar to present-day stress-rupture tests without measurement of creep elongrttion. Loading was in steps with usually 24 hr. between steps, and continued until failure. He advocated a "useful strength value" of 61/2 tons (I4,560 Ib.) per sq. in. at 572°F. (300°C.). A specimen broken in 1/2 hr. at 572°F. had a strength of 21 tons (26,880 Ib.) per sq. in. The strength values as determined by 1/2-hr. tests and those by the longer stress-rupturc start to differentiate at 392°F. (200°C). This is the temperature at which time at load began to play an important part. Bolton, Price and Hebemann2 give creep curves on 88-10-2 (A.S.T.M. B-60, CU 88, Sn 10, Zn 2) and steam or valve bronze (A.S.T.M. B-6I, Cu 87.50, Sn 6.00, Zn 3.75, Pb 1.70) at 500°F. Direct comparison of the two alloys under 7500 lb. per sq. in. stress showed the steam bronze (A.S.T.M. B-61) superior in creep strength to the 88-10-2 (A.S.T.M. B-60). The steam bronze shows no creep after 700 hr. (1540-hr. test). The 88-10-2 shows a rate of about 7.0 per cent in 100,000 hr. over the last 700 hr. of the test. Creep curves on the steam bronze are also given at the same temperature (500°F.) with loads of 6500 lb. per sq. in. and 8000 lb. per sq. in. These indicate "creep strengths" (creep rate within I per cent in 100,000 hr.) in excess of 8000 lb. per sq, in. for this alloy. It was found that higher percentages of tin are detrimental to creep resistance. This is caused by the presence of or formation during test of considerable alpha-delta eutectoid in the higher tin alloys. Bolton also states that the high

Jan 1, 1945

By W. R. Clark, W. W. Cotter

Jan 1, 1946

By W. W. Cotter, W. R. Clark

Jan 1, 1946

By H. E. Hostetter

Grossmann's method1 for calculating the hardenability of steel from the composition and grain size has gained wide acceptance, and when properly used, has been well proved in practical application, both for estimating the hardenability of known compositions and for selecting compositions to meet known hardenability requirements. The Grossmann method uses as the criterion of hardenadility the "ideal critical diameter," DI, which is the' size round that will just harden to a structure of 50 per cent martensite at the center when given the theoretically fastest quench, or "ideal quench." The DI can be related to actual quenching practice if the severity of quench is known; or the DI can be correlated with hardenability as determined by the Jominy end-quench method.2 The effect on hardenability of each element present in a steel can be represented by a multiplying factor, the value of which depends on the amount of the element present and the degree of effectiveness of the particular element. (The value of the factor for a given carbon content varies with the grain size.) When the factors for all elements present in a steel have been determined from charts, they are multiplied, and the resultant product is the DI of the steel. The validity of Grossmann's scheme of multiplying factors has been confirmed in a number of other investigations.3-6 It can be appreciated that a certain desired level of hardenability can be obtained by adding chromium, molybdenum, nickel and vanadium to a base composition containing carbon, manganese, silicon and the usual impurities. Many of the ranges of hardenability used commercially can be obtained by any of the foregoing alloying elements used singly in the base composition. The same hardenability levels also can be obtained through use of any of a great number of multiple element combinations of these alloying elements. In this report a method will be presented for determining what one combination is the most efficient (based on hardenability and cost of added alloy) for a given level of hardenability. It should not be assumed from the emphasis given to hardenability, that hardenability is the only criterion for the selection of an alloy composition. Such properties as the hot-working characteristics, machinability, carburizing characteristics, amount of distortion during quenching and the retention of austenite may be considerations of importance in many applications. However, hardenability is one of the most important properties of an alloy steel and one that must be considered in almost all cases involving heat-treatment by quenching. Therefore, a method for determining the lowest-cost alloy combination should be of considerable value. Determination of Most Efficient Combinations For comparing the alloying elements on standards of cost and hardenability, it

Jan 1, 1947

By H. E. Hostetter

Grossmann's method1 for calculating the hardenability of steel from the composition and grain size has gained wide acceptance, and when properly used, has been well proved in practical application, both for estimating the hardenability of known compositions and for selecting compositions to meet known hardenability requirements. The Grossmann method uses as the criterion of hardenadility the "ideal critical diameter," DI, which is the' size round that will just harden to a structure of 50 per cent martensite at the center when given the theoretically fastest quench, or "ideal quench." The DI can be related to actual quenching practice if the severity of quench is known; or the DI can be correlated with hardenability as determined by the Jominy end-quench method.2 The effect on hardenability of each element present in a steel can be represented by a multiplying factor, the value of which depends on the amount of the element present and the degree of effectiveness of the particular element. (The value of the factor for a given carbon content varies with the grain size.) When the factors for all elements present in a steel have been determined from charts, they are multiplied, and the resultant product is the DI of the steel. The validity of Grossmann's scheme of multiplying factors has been confirmed in a number of other investigations.3-6 It can be appreciated that a certain desired level of hardenability can be obtained by adding chromium, molybdenum, nickel and vanadium to a base composition containing carbon, manganese, silicon and the usual impurities. Many of the ranges of hardenability used commercially can be obtained by any of the foregoing alloying elements used singly in the base composition. The same hardenability levels also can be obtained through use of any of a great number of multiple element combinations of these alloying elements. In this report a method will be presented for determining what one combination is the most efficient (based on hardenability and cost of added alloy) for a given level of hardenability. It should not be assumed from the emphasis given to hardenability, that hardenability is the only criterion for the selection of an alloy composition. Such properties as the hot-working characteristics, machinability, carburizing characteristics, amount of distortion during quenching and the retention of austenite may be considerations of importance in many applications. However, hardenability is one of the most important properties of an alloy steel and one that must be considered in almost all cases involving heat-treatment by quenching. Therefore, a method for determining the lowest-cost alloy combination should be of considerable value. Determination of Most Efficient Combinations For comparing the alloying elements on standards of cost and hardenability, it

Jan 1, 1947

By Sidney Sigel, J. Gardner Brooks, Irvin R. Kramer

In 1942 Grossmannl proposed that the hardenability of a steel may be calculated from its chemical composition by considering the base hardenability associated with its carbon content and grain size and multiplying this base by factors for each element present. Since Grossmann's original publication, several investigaton2-6 have reexamined the multiplying factors for the individual elements and in general have found that the multiplying principle is valid. However, some of the individual factor curves developed have been in poor agreement. Inasmuch as the carbon-factor curve obtained by Grossmann was dependent Lipon the factors for all the other alloying elements present in the steel, it logically followed that his results were in need of correction in the light of the new data available for manganese, silicon, and the other alloying elements. Furthermore, in order to avoid the possibility that errors in the manganese, silicon, or other curves might influence the carbon-factor curve, investigation of iron-carbon alloys containing little or no manganese and silicon was necessary. That the effect of carbon on hardenability was greater than indicated by Grossmann is shown by a comparison of the diameters of completely hardened rounds of iron-carbon alloys with the ideal critical diameter calculated from Grossmann's factors. These alloys have a greater hardenability in a finite quench than predicted by Grossmann's factors for an infinite quench (Table I). Among the other important variables that were in need of further investigation were the effect of deoxidation practice on the grain-size correction curves and the effect of stable carbide-forming elements on the depth of hardening. Most Of the work by Kramer, Hafner, and Toleman4 was done on silicon-killed steels. It was not known whether Gross-mann's grain-size correction curves, determined on aluminum-killed steels, was valid when applied to steels with different deoxidation practice. More data on the

Jan 1, 1947

By J. Gardner Brooks, Sidney Sigel, Irvin R. Kramer

In 1942 Grossmannl proposed that the hardenability of a steel may be calculated from its chemical composition by considering the base hardenability associated with its carbon content and grain size and multiplying this base by factors for each element present. Since Grossmann's original publication, several investigaton2-6 have reexamined the multiplying factors for the individual elements and in general have found that the multiplying principle is valid. However, some of the individual factor curves developed have been in poor agreement. Inasmuch as the carbon-factor curve obtained by Grossmann was dependent Lipon the factors for all the other alloying elements present in the steel, it logically followed that his results were in need of correction in the light of the new data available for manganese, silicon, and the other alloying elements. Furthermore, in order to avoid the possibility that errors in the manganese, silicon, or other curves might influence the carbon-factor curve, investigation of iron-carbon alloys containing little or no manganese and silicon was necessary. That the effect of carbon on hardenability was greater than indicated by Grossmann is shown by a comparison of the diameters of completely hardened rounds of iron-carbon alloys with the ideal critical diameter calculated from Grossmann's factors. These alloys have a greater hardenability in a finite quench than predicted by Grossmann's factors for an infinite quench (Table I). Among the other important variables that were in need of further investigation were the effect of deoxidation practice on the grain-size correction curves and the effect of stable carbide-forming elements on the depth of hardening. Most Of the work by Kramer, Hafner, and Toleman4 was done on silicon-killed steels. It was not known whether Gross-mann's grain-size correction curves, determined on aluminum-killed steels, was valid when applied to steels with different deoxidation practice. More data on the

Jan 1, 1947

By J. H. Hollomon, L. D. Jaffe

The hardenability concept has become widely used during the last few years for the choice and substitution of steels. Before the work of Grossmann,1 the systems for predicting hardenability from chemical composition could be used only over a narrow range of composition. Grossmann introduced a comprehensive system, which has been effective in calculating the hardenability of most types of moderate or low-alloy steels. However, occasions often arise that require the calculation of the hardenability of high-alloy steels from their chemical compositions. Experimental determinations of the hardenabilities of such steels indicate that the Grossmann system predicts much greater hardenabilities than are realized. The fact that cases do arise in which the Grossmann method does not apply indicates that the fundamental hypothesis of the system may not be generally applicable. It seems advisable to re-examine not only Grossmann's system but also the concept of hardenability itself. Hardenability If steel parts are to possess a martensitic structure after quenching, they must first be austenitized and then cooled through the pearlite and bainite transformation ranges sufficiently rapidly to avoid the formation of pearlite, bainite, and pro-eutectoid products.* If, on cooling, these transformations are avoided, the resulting structure can consist only of martensite (and retained austenite). The hardenability of a steel is measured in terms of the severity of the cooling conditions necessary to avoid the pearlite and bainite transformations. The less rapid is the cooling necessary to prevent the formation of bainite and pearlite, the higher is the hardenability. The pearlite and bainite reactions appear to be differently affected by the alloying elements. Not only is this indicated by the published isothermal transformation data, but recent work by Zener2 affords a rational interpretation of the differing effects of the alloying elements. Manganese,3 for example, appears to decrease the rates of the pearlite and bainite transformations by equal percentages, while molybdenum45 is approximately 10,000 times more effective in retarding the pearlite than in retarding the bainite transformation, on the basis of isothermal measurements. In some steels, the formation of bainite restricts the formation of martensite while

Jan 1, 1947

By L. D. Jaffe, J. H. Hollomon

The hardenability concept has become widely used during the last few years for the choice and substitution of steels. Before the work of Grossmann,1 the systems for predicting hardenability from chemical composition could be used only over a narrow range of composition. Grossmann introduced a comprehensive system, which has been effective in calculating the hardenability of most types of moderate or low-alloy steels. However, occasions often arise that require the calculation of the hardenability of high-alloy steels from their chemical compositions. Experimental determinations of the hardenabilities of such steels indicate that the Grossmann system predicts much greater hardenabilities than are realized. The fact that cases do arise in which the Grossmann method does not apply indicates that the fundamental hypothesis of the system may not be generally applicable. It seems advisable to re-examine not only Grossmann's system but also the concept of hardenability itself. Hardenability If steel parts are to possess a martensitic structure after quenching, they must first be austenitized and then cooled through the pearlite and bainite transformation ranges sufficiently rapidly to avoid the formation of pearlite, bainite, and pro-eutectoid products.* If, on cooling, these transformations are avoided, the resulting structure can consist only of martensite (and retained austenite). The hardenability of a steel is measured in terms of the severity of the cooling conditions necessary to avoid the pearlite and bainite transformations. The less rapid is the cooling necessary to prevent the formation of bainite and pearlite, the higher is the hardenability. The pearlite and bainite reactions appear to be differently affected by the alloying elements. Not only is this indicated by the published isothermal transformation data, but recent work by Zener2 affords a rational interpretation of the differing effects of the alloying elements. Manganese,3 for example, appears to decrease the rates of the pearlite and bainite transformations by equal percentages, while molybdenum45 is approximately 10,000 times more effective in retarding the pearlite than in retarding the bainite transformation, on the basis of isothermal measurements. In some steels, the formation of bainite restricts the formation of martensite while

Jan 1, 1947

By G. F. Comstock

A serious disagreement as to the effect of titanium on the hardenability of steel exists in published references to this subject. Kramer, Hafner and Toleman reported1 that acid-soluble titanium decreased the hardenability, with multiplying factors less than unity according to Grossmann's system for calculating hardenability from the composition. Crafts and Lamont, on the other hand, showed2 how titanium increased the hardenability, with multiplying fdctors up to nearly I.; for about 0.1 per cent titanium, though reducing the hardenability with higher titanium. Their data, however, were obtained almost exclusively from steels containing more than 1.4 per cent manganese, and thus should be considered as applying mainly to manganese steels. Likewise, the results of Kramer, Hafner and Toleman regarding titanium are subject to the limitation that although they eliminated the effect of the insoluble titanium compounds from their calculations, they did not make a similar correc- tion for the carbon that was combined with titanium and therefore occurred in a similarly ineffective form. It is suggested by the literature referred to that titanium may have different effects on hardenability, depending on the mode of its occurrence in the steel. The different effects on strength, ductility, etc., have already been discussed by the author.3 In the present discussion some comparisons, on the basis of hardenability as revealed by the Jominy end-quench test, are given between three titanium and two non-titanium steels heat-treated in the same ways, and between other titanium steels heat-treated in several different ways. Comparison of Plain-carbon, Vanadium and Titanium Steels The five steels used for these experiments were cominercially melted and rolled products received in the form of 1.5-in. rounds from three different mills. Their analyses are given in Table I. Steels 2, 3, and 4 are from the same basic electric heat1 containing 0.009 per cent of phosphorus and the same amount of sulphur. They were made by adding aluminum and low-carbon ferrotitanium to different ingots. No. I is a plain carbon

Jan 1, 1947

By G. F. Comstock

A serious disagreement as to the effect of titanium on the hardenability of steel exists in published references to this subject. Kramer, Hafner and Toleman reported1 that acid-soluble titanium decreased the hardenability, with multiplying factors less than unity according to Grossmann's system for calculating hardenability from the composition. Crafts and Lamont, on the other hand, showed2 how titanium increased the hardenability, with multiplying fdctors up to nearly I.; for about 0.1 per cent titanium, though reducing the hardenability with higher titanium. Their data, however, were obtained almost exclusively from steels containing more than 1.4 per cent manganese, and thus should be considered as applying mainly to manganese steels. Likewise, the results of Kramer, Hafner and Toleman regarding titanium are subject to the limitation that although they eliminated the effect of the insoluble titanium compounds from their calculations, they did not make a similar correc- tion for the carbon that was combined with titanium and therefore occurred in a similarly ineffective form. It is suggested by the literature referred to that titanium may have different effects on hardenability, depending on the mode of its occurrence in the steel. The different effects on strength, ductility, etc., have already been discussed by the author.3 In the present discussion some comparisons, on the basis of hardenability as revealed by the Jominy end-quench test, are given between three titanium and two non-titanium steels heat-treated in the same ways, and between other titanium steels heat-treated in several different ways. Comparison of Plain-carbon, Vanadium and Titanium Steels The five steels used for these experiments were cominercially melted and rolled products received in the form of 1.5-in. rounds from three different mills. Their analyses are given in Table I. Steels 2, 3, and 4 are from the same basic electric heat1 containing 0.009 per cent of phosphorus and the same amount of sulphur. They were made by adding aluminum and low-carbon ferrotitanium to different ingots. No. I is a plain carbon

Jan 1, 1947

By Harry K. Ihrig

The hot-working of iron and steel is an art dating back to antiquity, but until about 25 years ago, relatively few alloying elements were used, and these were present only in small percentages. With the exception of sulphur, the amounts of other elements in steels did not markedly affect their hot-workability. The references in the literature on the effect of other elements on the hot-workability of steel are usually reports of failure of these steels in forging or rolling.1-8 With the increased use of alloying elements, and their use in larger amounts, it was observed that many of the new steels were red short in certain critical ranges or at all hot-working temperatures. The stainless steels are particularly difficult to hot-work. The determining of the correct conditions for piercing, rolling and forging of these alloys by experimentation in the mill often results in large losses of these expensive metals. It also is found that the hot-workability limits of many types vary from heat to heat, and hence poor results are obtained on changing to a new heat after a previous one has rolled satisfactorily. To determine the effect on hot-workability of iron to which various elements have been added, it was necessary to devise a method that could be used on small quantities of metal. In such a method, the minimum number of variables should be present, and the procedure should be simple, quick and correlatable with large-scale hot-working operations. Sauveur,9 in the first Henry Marion Howe lecture in 1924, described the effect of carbon on the ductility of steels in torsion near their critical points. He found that carbon increases the plasticity of gamma iron. In the 1930 Campbell Memorial lecture,10 he gives the effect of carbon, chromium, and chromium and nickel on the ductility of steels under 2000°F. in torsion. Ellis11 has studied the malleability of steels at various elevated temperatures by means of a single-blow drop-hammer test. In this test the percentage decrease in height of standard cylinders is taken as a measure of their malleability. He has shown that in the low-alloy steels studied, carbon has a greater effect than nickel, chromium and vanadium. In 1938 the first tests were run on a new quantitative hot-workability test in the laboratories of the Globe Steel Tubes CO. Thum12 mentioned it in 1940. An illustration of the apparatus was published in January 1942.'' The effect of a few alloying elements on the hot-workability of metals was shown in a description of the test in 1944.14 Description of Test Method The method adopted after a trial of several others is a rapid twisting of bars to failure in a furnace. The standard-size bar was chosen as 9/16 in. It is prepared from larger pieces by forging and cold-

Jan 1, 1947

By Harry K. Ihrig

The hot-working of iron and steel is an art dating back to antiquity, but until about 25 years ago, relatively few alloying elements were used, and these were present only in small percentages. With the exception of sulphur, the amounts of other elements in steels did not markedly affect their hot-workability. The references in the literature on the effect of other elements on the hot-workability of steel are usually reports of failure of these steels in forging or rolling.1-8 With the increased use of alloying elements, and their use in larger amounts, it was observed that many of the new steels were red short in certain critical ranges or at all hot-working temperatures. The stainless steels are particularly difficult to hot-work. The determining of the correct conditions for piercing, rolling and forging of these alloys by experimentation in the mill often results in large losses of these expensive metals. It also is found that the hot-workability limits of many types vary from heat to heat, and hence poor results are obtained on changing to a new heat after a previous one has rolled satisfactorily. To determine the effect on hot-workability of iron to which various elements have been added, it was necessary to devise a method that could be used on small quantities of metal. In such a method, the minimum number of variables should be present, and the procedure should be simple, quick and correlatable with large-scale hot-working operations. Sauveur,9 in the first Henry Marion Howe lecture in 1924, described the effect of carbon on the ductility of steels in torsion near their critical points. He found that carbon increases the plasticity of gamma iron. In the 1930 Campbell Memorial lecture,10 he gives the effect of carbon, chromium, and chromium and nickel on the ductility of steels under 2000°F. in torsion. Ellis11 has studied the malleability of steels at various elevated temperatures by means of a single-blow drop-hammer test. In this test the percentage decrease in height of standard cylinders is taken as a measure of their malleability. He has shown that in the low-alloy steels studied, carbon has a greater effect than nickel, chromium and vanadium. In 1938 the first tests were run on a new quantitative hot-workability test in the laboratories of the Globe Steel Tubes CO. Thum12 mentioned it in 1940. An illustration of the apparatus was published in January 1942.'' The effect of a few alloying elements on the hot-workability of metals was shown in a description of the test in 1944.14 Description of Test Method The method adopted after a trial of several others is a rapid twisting of bars to failure in a furnace. The standard-size bar was chosen as 9/16 in. It is prepared from larger pieces by forging and cold-

Jan 1, 1947

By Harry K. Ihrig

Jan 1, 1947

By Harry K. Ihrig

Jan 1, 1947

By Laurence Delisle, Arron Finger

The alloys formed by the addition of nickel to iron by conventional metallurgical procedures show physical properties that differ widely from those of the individual metals. The effect of alloying on the mechanical properties is most pronounced in alloys containing between 15 and 25 per cent nickel. The tensile strength of an alloy containing, for example, 20 per cent nickel and 80 per cent iron (with 0.06 per cent carbon), in an annealed condition, is above 150,000 lb. per sq. in.$ owing to a martensitic type of transformation, as compared with about 50,000 lb. per sq. in. for pure iron in the same condition. The object of this work was to determine whether the same beneficial alloying effect coulcl be obtained in alloys of iron and nickel prepared by powder metallurgy technique. Procedure Bars and pellets for tension and compression tests, respectively, were made. Two groups of specimens were prepared: (I) by cold-pressing the powders and sintering; (2) by cold-pressing the powders, sintering, repressing and resintering. Raw Materials Nickel powder supplied by Metals Disintegrating Co., marked MD-151, was used. A typical analysis of this powder was as follows: sulphur, 0.040 per cent; copper, 0.18; iron, 0.23; manganese, 0.002; magnesium, o.oo15; lead, 0.035; tin> 0.025; silicon, 0.08; chromium, 0.008. Electrolytic iron powder supplied by Plastic Metals Inc. was used. A repre-sentative chemical analysis for impurities other than gases, supplied by the vendor, gave the following results: carbon, 0.005 per cent; manganese, 0.002; silicon, 0.003; phosphorus, 0.001; sulphur, 0.004; nickel, 0.008. The fractions from these powders passing a 325-mesh sieve were reduced in hydrogen at 600°C. for one hour, to clean the sur-faces of the particles. The reduced pow-ders, slightly caked, were ground in a mortar and screened again through a 325-mesh sieve. Mixing The proper proportions of the powders were mixed overnight on rolls, in glass jars fitted with iron-wire baffles to break aggregates of particles that might form. Pressing All specimens were compacted on hy-draulic presses. The pellets were com-pacted in a cylindrical die, 34-in. diameter. The ratio of thickness to the diameter of the pellets was maintained as nearly as possible at 0.9, as specified for standard short compression pieces. The tensile bars were made by compacting 30 grams of powder. Their shape is shown in Fig. I. The compacting pressures for the pellets and the tensile bars were:

Jan 1, 1946

By Arron Finger, Laurence Delisle

The alloys formed by the addition of nickel to iron by conventional metallurgical procedures show physical properties that differ widely from those of the individual metals. The effect of alloying on the mechanical properties is most pronounced in alloys containing between 15 and 25 per cent nickel. The tensile strength of an alloy containing, for example, 20 per cent nickel and 80 per cent iron (with 0.06 per cent carbon), in an annealed condition, is above 150,000 lb. per sq. in.$ owing to a martensitic type of transformation, as compared with about 50,000 lb. per sq. in. for pure iron in the same condition. The object of this work was to determine whether the same beneficial alloying effect coulcl be obtained in alloys of iron and nickel prepared by powder metallurgy technique. Procedure Bars and pellets for tension and compression tests, respectively, were made. Two groups of specimens were prepared: (I) by cold-pressing the powders and sintering; (2) by cold-pressing the powders, sintering, repressing and resintering. Raw Materials Nickel powder supplied by Metals Disintegrating Co., marked MD-151, was used. A typical analysis of this powder was as follows: sulphur, 0.040 per cent; copper, 0.18; iron, 0.23; manganese, 0.002; magnesium, o.oo15; lead, 0.035; tin> 0.025; silicon, 0.08; chromium, 0.008. Electrolytic iron powder supplied by Plastic Metals Inc. was used. A repre-sentative chemical analysis for impurities other than gases, supplied by the vendor, gave the following results: carbon, 0.005 per cent; manganese, 0.002; silicon, 0.003; phosphorus, 0.001; sulphur, 0.004; nickel, 0.008. The fractions from these powders passing a 325-mesh sieve were reduced in hydrogen at 600°C. for one hour, to clean the sur-faces of the particles. The reduced pow-ders, slightly caked, were ground in a mortar and screened again through a 325-mesh sieve. Mixing The proper proportions of the powders were mixed overnight on rolls, in glass jars fitted with iron-wire baffles to break aggregates of particles that might form. Pressing All specimens were compacted on hy-draulic presses. The pellets were com-pacted in a cylindrical die, 34-in. diameter. The ratio of thickness to the diameter of the pellets was maintained as nearly as possible at 0.9, as specified for standard short compression pieces. The tensile bars were made by compacting 30 grams of powder. Their shape is shown in Fig. I. The compacting pressures for the pellets and the tensile bars were:

Jan 1, 1946

By E. I. Larsen, E. F. Swazy, F. R. Hensel

High strength, high-conductivity copper-base alloys have found considerable use in the resistance welding and electrical industry in the form of castings, forgings, or wrought products. There are a number of parts utilized by these industries which would lend themselves to manufacture by powder metallurgical methods provided the required physical and electrical properties are obtainable with such methods. The present paper describes the results of a study of certain copper-base powder metallurgical products susceptible to precipitation hardening. Copper Powders The general types of commercially available copper powders are flake, spherical and electrolytic. Micrographs of these three types are shown in Figs. I, 2 and 3. The difference in particle shape is pronounced and obvious. The type of powder used is determined, or at least indicated, by the final properties desired in the finished article. The type of powder employed during the present investigation was electrolytic powder shown in Fig. 3, and was chosen because of its particular adaptability to the work described in this Paper. The screen and chemical analyses of this powder are shown in Table I. In the preparation of compacts of high electrical conductivity, the purity of the copper powder is of importance in addition to other factors, such as density and the state of internal stresses. These variables were studied briefly by pressing a number of compacts to various pressed densities, sintering them for one hour in hydrogen at 975OC and repressing. The size of the finished compacts was 1/4, by % by 8 in. The time interval from the application to the termination of pressure was approximately 20 sec. Some of the compacts were annealed before testing. The results are listed in Figs. 4 to 8, inclusive. In Fig. 4 the curves of pressed density vs. compacting pressure, and sintered density versus compacting pressure show the typical direct relationship of pressure and density. Compacting pressures exceeding about 30 tons per sq. in. result fiequently in expansion during sintering for the type of powder used. Fig. 5 indicates that variations in the initial pressed density within the range of about 5 to 6 grams per c, c., affect only slightly the pressure required to obtain a

Jan 1, 1946