Search Documents

By J. H. Nead, J. W. Halley

The new low-alloy high-strength steels are obviously here to stay. With 75 per cent higher yield strength and 50 per cent higher tensile strength than plain carbon structural steel, they permit 20 to 40 per cent weight savings and 10 per cent or more increase in pay load in the construction of railroad cars, buses, trucks, and a great variety of material-handling equipment. Their cost is low enough so that the extra cost of the new lighter construction over that with carbon steel offers an attractive self-liquidating investment; in some instances new construction with these low-alloy steels may even be as cheap as with plain carbon steel. A considerable and rapidly growing demand for the low-alloy steels has already sprung up. The many steel compositions that have appeared on the market lately18, 27, 28, 29, 30 to meet this demand would seem to indicate that no single composition is uniquely fitted for the purpose. However, no doubt some compositions are more suitable than others. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to compare the effects of the various alloying elements that might be used in the low-alloy steels in order to choose the metallurgically most logical composition, paying due regard, of course, to the economic aspects involved. Properties Desired in Low-alloy Steel A distinction between the new low-alloy steels and the common alloy steels is that the latter are generally used in the heat-treated (that is, quenched and tempered) conditions, whereas the new low-alloy steels are not only not heat-treated but are not susceptible to heat-treatment in the ordinary sense of the term. In this lies one of their chief advantages. Their properties can be obtained in the as-rolled, air-cooled, or annealed condition, just as with mild plain carbon structural steel. There is no need for heat-treating. Such steels can be readily formed hot or cold, and their properties are not appreciably changed by hot

Jan 1, 1936

By Walter Crafts

Structural steels containing chromium have become widely used in the last 20 years. In the earlier part of this period the major applications were in chromium-molybdenum aircraft tubing and similar special high-strength steels. During the past 10 years there has been a notable expansion in the use of chromium-bearing steel for structural purposes when welding was utilized for fabrication. The chromium-bearing steels introduced by Saklatwallal (chromium-copper), Kinzel2 (chromium-manganese-silicon), and Schultz3 (chromium-copper) are being extensively used at the present time. General Effects of Chromium Chromium is so widely known for its carbide-forming tendency that its capacity to stabilize oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus is often overlooked. In low-carbon steels of the structural type these so-called secondary characteristics become more prominent. For this reason also, chromium in structural steel is definitely a toughening agent. As the carbon content is increased, the more widely known hardening effect becomes more evident. In low-carbon steels chromium increases the notched-bar impact strength substantially. This property persists at subzero temperatures and is utilized for low-temperature service in chromium-copper steel.4 Chromium also reduces any tendency to strain-aging embrittlement. In addition to improving the toughness of steels with the usual impurities, chromium has the specific property of counteracting the brittleness induced by high phosphorus.5,6 In steels low in carbon and alloys, chromium has an almost negligible effect on tensile strength, and a hardening influence is noticeable only in the stronger steels. The ductility of welds adjacent to the base plate is also improved by chromium, both in the range of foolproof welding steels having strengths of less than 80,000 lb. per sq. in. as well as in the higher strength steels.

Jan 1, 1939

By Walter Crafts

Structural steels containing chromium have become widely used in the last 20 years. In the earlier part of this period the major applications were in chromium-molybdenum aircraft tubing and similar special high-strength steels. During the past 10 years there has been a notable expansion in the use of chromium-bearing steel for structural purposes when welding was utilized for fabrication. The chromium-bearing steels introduced by Saklatwallal (chromium-copper), Kinzel2 (chromium-manganese-silicon), and Schultz3 (chromium-copper) are being extensively used at the present time. General Effects of Chromium Chromium is so widely known for its carbide-forming tendency that its capacity to stabilize oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus is often overlooked. In low-carbon steels of the structural type these so-called secondary characteristics become more prominent. For this reason also, chromium in structural steel is definitely a toughening agent. As the carbon content is increased, the more widely known hardening effect becomes more evident. In low-carbon steels chromium increases the notched-bar impact strength substantially. This property persists at subzero temperatures and is utilized for low-temperature service in chromium-copper steel.4 Chromium also reduces any tendency to strain-aging embrittlement. In addition to improving the toughness of steels with the usual impurities, chromium has the specific property of counteracting the brittleness induced by high phosphorus.5,6 In steels low in carbon and alloys, chromium has an almost negligible effect on tensile strength, and a hardening influence is noticeable only in the stronger steels. The ductility of welds adjacent to the base plate is also improved by chromium, both in the range of foolproof welding steels having strengths of less than 80,000 lb. per sq. in. as well as in the higher strength steels.

Jan 1, 1939

By G. P. Connell, R. E. Gilmore, J. H. H. Nicolls

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a procedure for indicating the dividing line between noncaking coals and those that have weakly caking properties. A laboratory agglomerating test as an aid in classifying weakly caking coals is outlined and its merits in comparison with the standard agglutinating method advanced by the U. S. Bureau of Mines are discussed. No attempt, however, is made to discuss in detail either the different methods for determining "caking" and "agglutinating" indices or the various systems of classification. Two methods, differing somewhat in procedure, have been employed and recognized as suitable for determining the caking or agglutinating values of coals; namely, those in which an inert material such as sand, electrode carbon, etc., has been mixed with the coal before being heated, and those in which the coal is carbonized alone. In all such methods, the coal with or without the inert material is in the finely divided state and the index or value sought is derived from the examination of the residue after heating in a closed crucible or other container. The procedure outlined by Selvig, Beattie and Clellandl is the most recent representative of the method using sand as inert material, while the agglomerating test described below is representative of the method in which the coal is carbonized alone. The standard volatile-matter determination affords a means for observing the coking properties of a coal, and this has been described by Rose2 as the simplest of all coking tests. According to him, "the resulting coke button will indicate whether the coal is noncoking, feebly coking or strongly coking," despite the fact that "almost every condition in this test is at variance with large-scale carbonizing practice." Lessing,3 the

Jan 1, 1934

By Roy P. Hudson

A micropyrometer known as the De Graaf apparatus has several advantages over the gas-furnace method for determining ash fusibility. When the De Graaf apparatus is operated by a modified method of procedure, the results closely check those of the gas-furnace method. This is indicated by tests on 27 samples of coal ash, with an extreme variation in fusibility values of 654" F. However, most of the ashes fused at temperatures between 2300º and 2500º. This, presumably, is the temperature interval within which the micropyrometer gives the best results. Additional comparisons are desirable. DISCUSSION (Thomas G. Fear presiding) A. C. FIELDNER,† Washington, D. C. (written discussion‡).-—The Pittsburgh Experiment Station of the Bureau of Mines has made two investigations1 of the micropyrometer for determining the fusibility of coal ash. These studies were undertaken with a view to adopting the micropyrometer method us a substitute or alternate to the present standard gas-furnace method, in view of the obvious advantages of greater speed, smaller ash sample, smaller laboratory space requirements, less equipment and greater comfort to the operator. However, the investigation showed that the micropyrometer type of furnace as then operated in five laboratories having this equipment could not be accepted as an alternate to the standard gas furnace, which is capable of close duplication in different laboratories, as shown in a recent colmparison between the Pittsburgh Experiment Station of the United States Bureau of Mines and the Fuel Research Station of Great Britain.2 The algebraic meau

Jan 1, 1934

By H. J. Rose, J. J. S. Sebastian

When coal is stored under ordinary conditions, progressive changes take place in its chemical and physical properties. These changes are largely caused by the reaction of atmospheric oxygen with the coal substance. Although this "oxidation" or "weathering" occurs slowly in the case of high-rank coals, it is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance, since even a small amount of oxidation may affect the value of coal for carbonization purposes. Coal storage is a necessity at all carbonizing plants. In normal times there are about 5,000,000 tons in storage at by-product coke ovens and gas retorts in the United States, as compared with an annual throughput of about 75,000,000 tons. In other words, the average coal reserve at such plants is slightly less than one month's supply. However, owing to the cost of storage and recovery, coal is usually left in stockpile for as long a time as the management thinks advisable. Storage for six to eight months is common practice and is, in fact, a necessity at certain plants which obtain their coal by water routes that are closed during winter months. Modern by-product coke ovens operate continuously, and they are not cooled down from the time that they arc put into operation until they are shut down for rebuilding—perhaps 20 years later. This continuous operation is imposed by silica-brick construction and high operating temperatures. It is therefore obvious that coke plants must at all times maintain an adequate supply of stored coal, in order to prevent a failure in supply from any cause whatever. Thus when strikes or other emergencies threaten, abnormally large coal stocks are accumulated and held at coke and gas plants. Many of these plants have been forced, at some time or other, to use coal that has been stored for several years. Such coal may fail to coke at all, or it may produce a dirty appearing, weak coke of reduced value. The yields of salable by-products may also be distinctly lowered. However, it must not be assumed that slight oxidation or heat effects are always injurious. Certain high-volatile coals produce a stronger, blockier

Jan 1, 1930

By W. H. Blauvelt

The only way in which the difficult problems of classification of coal for the manufacture of by-product coke can be solved is to analyze them by the use of scientific data. It is very easy to adopt classifications for coal for the manufacture of by-product coke along certain lines; we can easily say that for a certain class of metallurgical operation coke made from bituminous coal must not contain more than so much sulfur or more than so much ash and should yield certain returns in the by-products, tar, ammonia, benzol, gas, etc. Those points we are fairly clear on and I think it is hardly worth while to discuss them because I presume that they are familiar to most of us who have any occasion either to make coke or to use it. But there is a field in the manufacture of coke which we know very little about. For example, we are operating a plant on a certain mixture of coal. Suddenly our blast-furnace man or the user of the coke tells us the coke is not as good as it was before. The coke is analyzed and the coal is analyzed. Everything seems to be about the same as it was— the ash is the same, there is no more sulfur, and so on—but the coke, for the use to which it is put, particularly in the blast furnace, is wrong. What happens? The management decide to try a slightly different coal mixture. They do not necessarily raise the total hydrocarbons, the volatile matter in the mixture, nor change the sulfur or the ash, but they do make a change which improves the value of the coke for metallurgical use. The reason for this difficulty, as I see it, is the " combustibility " of the coke—I hesitate to use the word, but it is the best one I have available. Combustibility of Coke We know now that the combustibility of coke is a very vital point in many metallurgical processes and I think one of the most notable instances of the proof of this is the experience of the Carnegie Steel Co. in the production of coke at its Clairton plant. The history of that

Jan 1, 1930

By W. T. Thom

Many able men have contributed to the subject of coal classification, and recent publications on the subject have indicated a crystallization of opinion in that connection which promises the development in the near future of a scheme of coal classification which will be of real and increasing value to coal producers and users, as well as to those interested in coal on more exclusively scientific grounds. It is obvious that such a classification must be simple; must be based upon readily ascertainable factors; and if properly developed will apply to the whole range of coals between peat and anthracite and not merely to certain types of coal. Many of the numerous schemes of classification proposed in the past have given quite satisfactory results when applied to the higher rank coals, but have broken down when applied to the younger coals of higher moisture, and, as previously pointed out by the writer,' this breakdown has been due to the practice of ruling out "moisture" as an essential component of the volatile matter reported in the customary proximate analysis of coal, whereas a review of the mode of formation and natural history of coal satisfies us that moisture is a normal and natural ingredient among its volatile constituents; and a knowledge of analytical practice shows that the "moisture" and "volatile matter" reported are both mixtures of moisture and volatile matter, rather than sharply differentiated distillation fractions. After an extended consideration of the subject the writer regards the conventional proximate analyses of coals as affording the information essential for a both practically and scientifically satisfactory c1assification—assuming that the coal samples compared have been collected and analyzed according to standard methods. Two variables are required for a workable classification, and these appear to be afforded by the calorific value and proportion of volatile constituents (including moisture) credited to the coal on an ash-free basis. The writer originally proposed that the figures used for classification purposes be those given for the "air-dried" and "ash-free" form of the proximate analysis,

Jan 1, 1930

By F. G. Tryon

This paper treats only of the practicability of introducing a standard classification into the records of production and distribution of coal which we try to keep in the Bureau of Mines. From the point of view of gathering and analyzing statistics, the requirements of a satisfactory classification are that it shall be so definite as to eliminate the factor of arbitrary judgment, that it shall be reasonably simple and, finally, and most important, that it shall be understandable to the trade. In other words, to be woven in the statistical record it must be adapted to the raw material which flows in from the 7000-odd mines that produce the coal. The success of any scheme of classification, from the point of view of use, will depend largely on the degree to which it utilizes the accumulated experience of the trade and employs as far as may be possible the accepted trade designations. The experience of the Tidewater Coal Exchange during the war would be an excellent point of departure for a use classification of the coals of the Eastern Appalachians. Although the exchange long since passed out of existence, coal is still quoted and sold by the old pool numbers, and they have shown rather extraordinary vitality. Some years ago, in the Geological Survey, the experiment was tried of getting operators to classify their own coal by offering them a list of standard designations on the annual statistical questionnaire. The results were more amusing than informative. What with the confusion in terminology and the natural temptation to put one's best foot foremost, there was a general tendency to grade up the quality. Floods of semi-bituminous coal flowed in from many sources, millions of tons from districts where not a pound of that quality has ever been produced. The producers of semianthracite in Arkansas almost without exception would report their product as anthracite and their neighbors in the little Paris field, producing a fine blocky house coal averaging about 17 per cent, volatile, would say, "Our coal isn't anthracite; it's a semianthracite." Finally we discontinued the publication of those data as being more misleading than helpful.

Jan 1, 1930

By S. B. Flagg

Advancement in the art of burning fuels for steam generation has been so marked and so rapid in the last 10 or 15 years that one may well hesitate to classify as unsuitable for stationary steam boiler firing any material having a fuel value. This statement should not be interpreted to mean that any existing boiler plant can successfully utilize any fuel with which it might be supplied. It does mean, however, that almost without exception it is possible to design and construct stationary boiler plants so that they can be operated with whatever coal is the economic supply therefor. In considering the subject of the use classification of coals, it must be recognized, first, that the suitability or unsuitability of a coal for certain uses or conditions may be largely a matter of opinion and, second, that as advancement in the art of burning fuels continues, fuels that may have been considered unsuitable may later be regarded as entirely suitable. This is well illustrated in the creation of a market for slack bituminous coal and for the finer sizes of anthracite that resulted from the development of mechanical stokers adapted thereto. Coke breeze is another fuel of which large tonnages were formerly wasted, that has now been found suitable for use in properly designed furnaces. Again, results that would have been thought quite impossible a generation ago are being obtained in steam boiler plants today with lignites of high moisture content and with coals of excessive ash content. It must, however, be admitted that oftentimes an existing boiler plant can be successfully operated with only a limited number of the coals that are available as possible supplies. We may briefly consider some of the more important factors that may affect the suitability of coals for such a plant. Insufficient or barely sufficient draft to meet peak steam demands is often a limiting factor, and the permissible frequency of fire-cleaning periods is another. In some cases, the action of the molten coal ash on refractory furnace linings prohibits or makes inadvisable the use of certain coals. Again, clinker conditions in the fuel bed or slag conditions on the boiler-heating surface may be much worse with some coals than with

Jan 1, 1930

By M. R. Campbell

You have just heard several papers on the classification of coal as this subject appears to the chemist; I shall approach it from the point of view of the geologist who, perforce, has to deal with coal as it occurs in the ground and with the miner of coal who knows certain phases of the physical characteristics of coal better than the scientist can possibly know them. The chemist is familiar with coal as it reaches him in the laboratory, but he seldom has an opportunity to see it in its native condition and to study its physical characteristics and its behavior under varying conditions of weather, transportation and use. He naturally regards the chemical composition of coal as the all-important feature upon which to base a system of classification and he is sometimes inclined to ignore as unscientific any scheme of classification that is based on characteristics other than chemical. The geologist, on the other hand, although he is glad to use the data furnished by the chemist, must depend largely upon the differences that he can see and feel. Classification Understandable to the Layman In the very comprehensive program of examination of the coal fields of the West which the U. S. Geological Survey undertook in 1906, it fell to my lot, as the responsible head of the work, to classify the coals in advance of much knowledge of their chemical composition and in regions where mining had not begun. In this work I was forced to devise some sort of classification that would work practically and that would be understandable to the layman in the field. Much of the classification was based on the work of those who had gone before me, but in the low rank coals of the West the field was unoccupied and I was forced to devise a scheme embracing both chemical and physical characteristics. This scheme has stood the test of actual practical application for several years but it needs revision and the sharpening of the limits between the different ranks. I feel that my experience warrants my saying that physical characteristics must be considered and I have faith to believe that some scheme embodying both can be devised.

Jan 1, 1930

By R. Thiessen

The question whether the kind, rank and grade of coal is in any way determined by the kind or type of plant from which it originated has been a problem since coal was first studied. Some investigators claim that the kind of plants has contributed none of the attributes that characterize the differences found in the various coals; others claim that all differences are caused by the contributing plant; and others hold that only a few characteristics are inherited from the kind of plant from which the coal originated. Most coalologists, however, give this matter no thought. It can easily be shown that the kind of plant which contributed to a coal had a marked influence on its kind and type. A number of factors enter into this problem, and all unrelated ones must be carefully eliminated, including metamorphism caused by the pressure of the cover, earth movements, mountain building and higher temperature. Only the fundamental substance—the plants out of which coal was formed—• and the causative conditions that gave rise to a peat swamp and the conditions imposed upon the plant and the plant substances during the formation of the peat swamp can be considered. Everything else being equal, the question then is, how far do different classes and types of coal owe their differences to different kinds or types of plants? Geologic Age of Coal Coal has been laid down in almost every geological period since the Devonian era. Even as early as the middle Devonian some coal was formed; although of no value it has great scientific significance. The most valuable coal was deposited during the Carboniferous. The coals of England were formed during the Mississippian, and most of the valuable coals of America, Europe and China during the Mississippian and chiefly the Pennsylvanian. From the Permian come the coals of France, Saxony, Thuringia and Schwarzwald in Germany and of Bohemia and of the Ural districts of Russia. From the Mesozoic come the coals

Jan 1, 1930

By W. Francis

Before attempting to describe the application of recently acquired knowledge to the classification of coal it will be as well to consider the objects at which a scientific classification should aim. Here one can not do better than to follow the example of Clarence Seyler,l by quoting from Huxley's "Classification of Animals:" "By the classification of any series of objects is meant the actual or ideal arrangement together of those which are like and the separation of those which are unlike, the purpose of the arrangement being to facilitate the operation of the mind in clearly conceiving and retaining in the memory the characters of the object in question. Thus there are as many classifications of any series of natural or other bodies as they have properties or relations to one another or to other things. But the statement of the characters of the class ... is something more than an arbitrary definition ... it expresses firstly, a generalization based on and constantly verified by very with experience; and, secondly, a belief arising out of that generalization—in other worda. the definition of the class is a statement of a law of correlation or coexistence . . . from which the most important conclusions are deducible." In that same sense writes John Stuart Mill, in the chapter on classification in his "Logic:" "The ends of scientific classification are best answered when the objects are formed into groups concerning which a greater number of general propositions can be made, and these properties more important, than could be made respectiug any other groups into which the same things could be distributed. The properties, therefore, according to which objects arc classified should, if possible, be those which are causes of many other properties, or, at any rate, which are sure marks of them." Now in the case of coal, the properties which have been used from time to time for classification purposes are the ultimate analysis, volatile matter, caking power, calorific power, burning properties, etc. Seyler has shown that there is a general law of correlation or coexistence between the ultimate composition and the other properties. The ultimate composition, therefore, of the natural series of bodies known as coal is the

Jan 1, 1930

By A. C. Fieldner

In November, 1926, the American Engineering Standards Committee (now the American Standards Association) called a meeting of representatives of various professional societies and industrial, educational and governmental organizations to consider what action, if any, should be taken on the classification of North American coals. This meeting was called because a system for the use classification of coal, proposed by George H. Ashley, had been referred to the committee by the Coal Mining Institute of America. This meeting, at Pittsburgh, was well attended and was definitely in favor of taking up the whole question of scientific and use classification of coals, including all the various ranks from lignite to anthracite. The American Society for Testing Materials was recommended as the sponsor organization to take charge of the work and organize the sectional committee according to the rules of the American Standards Association. The American Society for Testing Materials proceeded with the organization of the sectional committee, holding a meeting in Philadelphia, June 10, 1927. Officers were elected, regulations adopted, and general plans for carrying out the work were outlined. The total membership of 28 comprising the sectional committee consists of 8 producers, 2 distributors, 9 consumers and 9 members representing general and scientific interest. From this committee three technical committees of 10 to 12 members each were organized: Scientific Classification, H. J. Rose, chairman; Use Classification, W. H. Fulweiler, chairman; Marketing Practice, F. R. Wadleigh, chairman. The Technical Committee on Scientific Classification was requested to formulate a system of coal classification based on chemical and physical properties of coal and with reference to origin and constitution. The Technical Committee on Use Classification was charged with developing a system of classification, if possible, based primarily on the uses of coal and commercial practice; this system to be correlated with the scientific system as far as possible and desirable. The Technical Commitlee on Marketing Practice was formed to collect and collate information on commercial practice for the benefit of the other two committees. The first meetings of the technical committees were held on Nov. 17, 1927, and the first informal progress reports were submitted to the

Jan 1, 1930

By H. J. Rose

In a paper1 presented before this Institute in 1926,I briefly discussed the evaluation of coking coals by means of ultimate analysis. The paper contained several graphic studies in which coal analyses calculated free of moisture, ash, sulfur and nitrogen were plotted on triaxial diagrams in which carbon + hydrogen + oxygen = 100 per cent. From a study of such data for 600 coking coals of the United States, and 150 coking coals of Wales, France and Germany, it was concluded that it was usually possible to predict coking properties and by-product yields with fair success from ultimate analysis. The coals which have proved exceptions to the general rules were found to have physical peculiarities. Run-of-mine Coal It must not be forgotten that run-of-mine coal is a composite material consisting of many constituents differing in physical properties and chemical analysis. A coal sample usually contains: 1. Glossy black coal known as anthraxylon or vitrain. This constituent usually has the strongest coking properties, and the lowest ash content. 2. Dull black coal consisting of attritus containing thin layers of anthraxylon. It is also known as clarain. This constituent, in a coking coal, usually has good to excellent coking properties. 3. Mineral charcoal or fusain. This is a porous black material which is soft and crumbly (unless impregnated with mineral matter) and which has absolutely no coking properties. It is different in every respect from the other constituents in coal. The volatile matter content of mineral charcoal is less than 20 per cent. even when it is associated with high-volatile coals. As would be expected the hydrogen content is low, and the carbon content is high. 4. A coal sample may contain tough gray canneloid material which has a high-volatile matter and a high hydrogen content, but is poor in coking qualities.

Jan 1, 1930

By M. MacFarland, E. McAuliffe

Our North American railway system, including the lines serving the United States, Canada and Mexico, with a total operating mileage of 303,040, employing 71,818 locomotives, represents not only the greatest industrial user of fuel coal, but in the variety of coals used, ranging from anthracite down through the several gradations of bitumirlous coals, as well as lignites, covers about all there is in American-mined coals. Necessarily the wide range of fuel coal embraces not only extremes of calorific value but also every possible gradation shown in size and preparation, from run of mine to washed nut and slack. Approximately 8 per cent. of the fuel used by the railroads is consumed in shop power plants, shop buildings, pumping stations, station buildings, etc. The principal class of coal (as designated) used by the railroads is bituminous, such, however, including a substantial tonnage of subbituminous and lignite coal; all United States railroads using in 1923 for locomotive, shop, station buildings and miscellaneous uses, a total of 4,578,000 tons of anthracite, 155,795,000 tons of bituminous, subbituminous and lignite coal and 58,005,000 bbl. (42 gal.) of fuel oil. The Class 1 railroads of the United States (those whose gross annual earnings equal or exceed $1,000,000) used in 1926: Bituminous, subbituminous and lignite coal, net tons..... 140,083,885 Anthracite, net tons................................ 3,667,505 Fuel oil, gal........................................ 3,058,915,511 Railroad fuel-purchasing agents rarely attempt to classify coal for locomotive use on the basis of chemical analysis; although this is very generally used as a guide in the initial selection of a fuel supply. The extraordinarily high rate of combustion developed in the modern locomotive, generating as high as 2500 b.hp., with limited facilities for cleaning fires en route, suggests the importance of a fuel supply containing a reasonably low percentage of ash-making material, and while the percentage of locomotive coal handled through automatic stokers is growing, the principal tonnage is yet fired by hand.

Jan 1, 1930

By W. H. Ode, W. A. Selvig

By plotting fixed carbon against British thermal units of coals free from mineral matter, and ranging in rank from anthracite to lignite, it is found that the coals of higher rank, from anthracite to the higher rank of the high-volatile bituminous coals, inclusive, can be separated into groups according to their degree of metamorphism by reference to their fixed carbon. Such charts show also that the coals lower in rank can be best separated into groups with respect to B.t.u., especially when plotted on the moist basis, that is, coal containing its natural bed moisture. A tentative scheme for coal classification was presented at the October, 1932, meeting of the Technical Committee on Scientific Classification, of the American Standards Association Sectional Committee on Coal Classification. This scheme was sponsored by Subcommittee IV on Tentative Classification of Coals, under the chairmanship of W. T. Thom, Jr. It proposed the grouping of coals according to rank by reference to fixed carbon and B.t.u., on the basis of coal containing its natural bed moisture but free from mineral matter. This scheme proposed classifying coals into four broad classes: (1) anthracitic, (2) bituminous, (3) subbituminous, (4) lignitic. The anthracitic class was divided into three groups designated as meta-anthracite, normal anthracite, and semianthracite. The bituminous class also was divided into three groups, low volatile, medium volatile, and high volatile. The high-volatile group was further subdivided into four subgroups according to moisture content, as fo1lows: (1) less than 5 per cent, (2) 5 to 10 per cent, (3) 10 to 15 per cent, and (4) 15 per cent and more. The subbituminous class was divided into two groups, group 1 including subbituminous coals having calorific values of 10,500 B.t.u. or more, and group 2 including those with less than 10,500 B.t.u. The lignitic class of coal was divided into two groups both below 8,000 B.t.u., the one group consisting of consolidated and the other of unconsolidated

Jan 1, 1934

W. H. Blauvelt, New York, N. Y.—One thought lias been running through my mind during the wholc of this meeting and that is that the scientific and the practical men must recognize very clearly their interdependence. The value of scientific classification of coal is going to be of the very greatest importance to the users, the practical men. Is not the scientific investigation and the great amount of work that is being done in a measure at least lost to the world? Therefore the scientific investigations and the practical needs of the users should bo brought as close together, and the work should be done as closely together, as possible; that is, the scientific man should know what the practical man needs, and the practical man should not feel that the scientific man is merely a theorist. Scientific investigation is going to have a great effeet and be of great valuc to the practical man who is trying to solve his problems. In the subject which I discussed' for instance, we must look to the scientific man to tell us why coal cokes in one way and not In another and why certain coals will do certain things and others, which appear on the surfacc to be generally similar, do not act in the same way. Need or Physical Data on Coal H. J. Rose, Pittsburgh, Pa.—There is a subject which is a sort of hobby of mine; that is, the need for what might be called critical tables of constants for coal. The chemist has big volumes giving constants, such as the density, solubility, specific heat, thermal conductivity and all other physical and chemical data that have been determined for chemical compounds. Data arc also available on many common materials, for example, the density, hardness, modulus of rupture or maximum crushing strength of swamp white oak as compared with some other wood. In fact, physical data for practically cvery hype of wood commercially produced in the world can he found. In the same way the metallurgical man has handbooks giving the properties of alloys, etc., but we havc very little tabulated information about coal. Our principal reference works are the volumes published by the U. S. Bureau of Mines on the proximatc and ultimate analysis and calorific values of coals of the United States. That is 3 pioncer work of enormous value, but we have reached the point where we need more diversified information. Mr. Fulweiler raised the question of the relative strength of the different coals and cokes. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Ashley wanted to have some information on the resistance of coal to air slacking. It was brought out in the discussion that we want to know something about the coking properties of coal. There are any number of physical tests that we need, such as the thermal conductivity of certain coals, the coefficient of expansion, or the coefficient of friction; or other constants. A smattering of such information is scattered through the literature; for instance, a research worker in Wales will report a coefficient of expansion on Wclsh coals and one in South Africa will report something else for one or two kinds of African coals, hut it is difficult to find the information that is needed on our own coals. Would it not be worth while to consider collecting reliable critical

Jan 1, 1930

By George H. Ashley

At the beginning of the war, about 13 years ago, a conference was called in Washington to lay plans for pooling the coals of the United States. A careful review of the various systems of classification then extant showed none well adapted to the needs of coal pooling. The system of Tidewater pools then adopted, using numbers to distinguish one pool from another, was based on typical coals of different localities. At that time, the writer undertook the preparation of such a practical classification. Aside from drawing on his experience of over 20 years in the coal fields of the United States, reaching from the Pacific Coast and the Rio Grande to Rhode Island, he first examined and carded all of the large collection of coals in glass jars made by and for M. R. Campbell. Next, he carded all of the descriptions of coals he could find in the U. S. Geological Survey bulletins and elsewhere, as well as practical tests of coals by the Navy and other organizations and then took account of every published coal analysis of the U. S. Geological Survey and U. S. Bureau of Mines. A study of this information, involving thousands of recomputations, led to the presentation of a paper on "A Use Classification of Coal" before this Institute at the Chicago meeting, September, 1919. That classification was unique (1) in a classification based on "standard coal" which included moisture, but used standardized ash, sulfur and nitrogen, (2) in using physical properties to distinguish the major classes or orders, (3) in recognizing British thermal unit values in the minor subdivision, (4) in the large number of classes recognized (thirty-six), (5) in proposing mineral names for all classes, (6) in proposing a letter code for the several classes for practical use, (7) in proposing a code for expressing what has commonly been called "grade" of the coal, the grade code to be combined with the rank code to designate and describe a coal. The writer still thinks that the principles then offered, though not necessarily the exact proposals, are valid and desirable in any practical classification. The actual classification of coal by rank was based on the ratio of fixed carbon to volatile matter for the high-rank coals—the well-known

Jan 1, 1930

By F. R. Wadleigh

It is generally realized and very often admitted by both producers and consumers of coal that there is great need for a revision of existing commercial classifications, and this will involve, of course, determination of a standard classification and a constant revision of marketing practices as they are affected by coal classification. I recently sent out some 200 letters to producers and consumers with a request for their views on the subject of commercial classification. Nearly all of the replies from both sides were that there was needed some change in the present method. There were three or four dissenting voices but the great majority of opinion was in favor of the formulation of some standard commercial classification. The classifications in commercial use today can best be described as a hodgepodge. They are made upon different bases, have different names and have different ways. There are, for instance, about 11 single bases of classifications as used commercially and some 17 or 18 combination bases. Then there were the Tidewater Pool Exchanges. The classification which they put in force is still used in the tidewater markets and has several different bases of its own. It will be considerable of an undertaking to bring about a change in marketing methods as affected by coal classification but it is well worth doing and I think the committee which has been appointed under the auspices of the American Society for Testing Materials realizes the importance of the subject and is on the way to at least bring about some provision for adjusting matters. By way of starting, each member of the Committee on Commercial Classification has been assigned to a general market district and each member is now engaged in collecting the commercial market practice data for submission at the next meeting of the Committee. About a year ago I made up a list of the commercial classifications in the different markets and the total was 171. The 11 single bases I found used in commercial practice were:

Jan 1, 1930