CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

METHODS AND COST

BY

HALBERT P. GILLETTE

M. Am. Soc. C. E.; M. Am. Inst. M. E.

Managing Editor, Engineering-Contracting

AND

CHARLES S. HILL, C. E.

Associate Editor, Engineering-Contracting

NEW YORK AND CHICAGO

THE MYRON C. CLARK PUBLISHING CO.

1908

Copyright. 1908
BY
The Myron C. Clark Publishing Co.

PREFACE.

How best to perform construction work and what it will cost for materials, labor, plant and general expenses are matters of vital interest to engineers and contractors. This book is a treatise on the methods and cost of concrete construction. No attempt has been made to present the subject of cement testing which is already covered by Mr. W. Purves Taylor's excellent book, nor to discuss the physical properties of cements and concrete, as they are discussed by Falk and by Sabin, nor to consider reinforced concrete design as do Turneaure and Maurer or Buel and Hill, nor to present a general treatise on cements, mortars and concrete construction like that of Reid or of Taylor and Thompson. On the contrary, the authors have handled the subject of concrete construction solely from the viewpoint of the builder of concrete structures. By doing this they have been able to crowd a great amount of detailed information on methods and costs of concrete construction into a volume of moderate size.

Though the special information contained in the book is of most particular assistance to the contractor or engineer engaged in the actual work of making and placing concrete, it is believed that it will also prove highly useful to the designing engineer and to the architect. It seems plain that no designer of concrete structures can be a really good designer without having a profound knowledge of methods of construction and of detailed costs. This book, it is believed, gives these methods and cost data in greater number and more thoroughly analyzed than they can be found elsewhere in engineering literature.

The costs and other facts contained in the book have been collected from a multitude of sources, from the engineering journals, from the transactions of the engineering societies, from Government Reports and from the personal records of the authors and of other engineers and contractors. It is but fair to say that the great bulk of the matter contained in the book, though portions of it have appeared previously in other forms in the authors' contributions to the technical press, was collected and worked up originally by the authors. Where this has not been the case the original data have been added to and re-analyzed by the authors. Under these circumstances it has been impracticable to give specific credit in the pages of the book to every source from which the authors have drawn aid. They wish here to acknowledge, therefore, the help secured from many engineers and contractors, from the volumes of Engineering News, Engineering Record and Engineering-Contracting, and from the Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the proceedings and papers of various other civil engineering societies and organizations of concrete workers. The work done by these journals and societies in gathering and publishing information on concrete construction is of great and enduring value and deserves full acknowledgment.

In answer to any possible inquiry as to the relative parts of the work done by the two authors in preparing this book, they will answer that it has been truly the labor of both in every part.

H. P. G.
C. S. H.

Chicago, Ill., April 15, 1908.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
CHAPTER I.—METHODS AND COST OF SELECTING AND PREPARING MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE. [1]
Cement: Portland Cement—Natural Cement—Slag Cement—Size and Weight of Barrels of Cement—Specifications and Testing. Sand: Properties of Good Sand—Cost of Sand—Washing Sand; Washing with Hose; Washing with Sand Ejectors; Washing with Tank Washers. Aggregates: Broken Stone—Gravel—Slag and Cinders—Balanced Aggregate—Size of Aggregate—Cost of Aggregate—Screened and Crusher Run Stone for Concrete—Quarrying and Crushing Stone—Screening and Washing Gravel.
CHAPTER II.—THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PROPORTIONING CONCRETE. [25]
Voids: Voids in Sand; Effect of Mixture—Effect of Size of Grains—Voids in Broken Stone and Gravel; Effect of Method of Loading; Test Determinations; Specific Gravity; Effect of Hauling—Theory of the Quantity of Cement in Mortar; Tables of Quantities in Mortar—Tables of Quantities in Concrete—Percentage of Water in Concrete—Methods of Measuring and Weighing; Automatic Measuring Devices.
CHAPTER III.—METHODS AND COSTS OF MAKING AND PLACING CONCRETE BY HAND. [45]
Loading into Stock Piles—Loading from Stock Piles—Transporting Materials to Mixing Boards—Mixing—Loading and Hauling Mixed Concrete—Dumping, Spreading and Ramming—Cost of Superintendence—Summary of Costs.
CHAPTER IV.—METHODS AND COST OF MAKING AND PLACING CONCRETE BY MACHINE. [61]
Introduction—Conveying and Hoisting Devices—Unloading with Grab Buckets—Inclines—Trestle and Car Plants—Cableways—Belt Conveyors—Chutes—Methods of Charging Mixers—Charging by Gravity from Overhead Bins; Charging with Wheelbarrows; Charging with Cars; Charging by Shoveling; Charging with Derricks—Types of Mixers; Batch Mixers; Chicago Improved Cube Tilting Mixer, Ransome Non-Tilting Mixer, Smith Tilting Mixer; Continuous Mixers; Eureka Automatic Feed Mixer; Gravity Mixers; Gilbreth Trough Mixer, Hains Gravity Mixer—Output of Mixers—Mixer Efficiency.
CHAPTER V.—METHODS AND COST OF DEPOSITING CONCRETE UNDER WATER AND OF SUBAQUEOUS GROUTING. [86]
Introduction—Depositing in Closed Buckets; O'Rourke Bucket; Cyclopean Bucket; Steubner Bucket—Depositing in Bags—Depositing Through a Tremie; Charlestown Bridge; Arch Bridge Piers, France; Nussdorf Lock, Vienna—Grouting Submerged Stone; Tests of H. F. White; Hermitage Breakwater.
CHAPTER VI.—METHODS AND COST OF MAKING AND USING RUBBLE AND ASPHALTIC CONCRETE. [98]
Introduction—Rubble Concrete: Chattahoochee River Dam; Barossa Dam, South Australia; other Rubble Concrete Dams, Boonton Dam, Spier Falls Dam, Hemet Dam, Small Reservoir Dam, Boyd's Corner Dam; Abutment for Railway Bridge; English Data, Tharsis & Calamas Ry., Bridge Piers, Nova Scotia—Asphalt Concrete; Slope Paving for Earth Dam; Base for Mill Floor.
CHAPTER VII.—METHODS AND COST OF LAYING CONCRETE IN FREEZING WEATHER. [112]
Introduction—Lowering the Freezing Point of the Mixing Water; Common Salt (Sodium Chloride):—Freezing Temperature Chart—Heating Concrete Materials; Portable Heaters; Heating in Stationary Bins; Other Examples of Heating Methods, Power Plant, Billings, Mont., Wachusett Dam, Huronian Power Co. Dam, Arch Bridge, Piano, Ill., Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Work, Heating in Water Tank—Covering and Housing the Work; Method of Housing in Dam, Chaudiere Falls, Quebec; Method of Housing in Building Work.
CHAPTER VIII.—METHODS AND COST OF FINISHING CONCRETE SURFACES [124]
Imperfectly Made Forms—Imperfect Mixing and Placing—Efflorescence—Spaded and Troweled Finishes—Plaster and Stucco Finish—Mortar and Cement Facing—Special Facing Mixtures for Minimizing Form Marks—Washes—Finishing by Scrubbing and Washing—Finishing by Etching with Acid—Tooling Concrete Surfaces—Gravel or Pebble Surface Finish—Colored Facing.
CHAPTER IX.—METHODS AND COST OF FORM CONSTRUCTION [136]
Introduction—Effect of Design on Form Work—Kind of Lumber—Finish and Dimensions of Lumber—Computation of Forms—Design and Construction—Unit Construction of Forms—Lubrication of Forms—Falsework and Bracing—Time for and Method of Removing Forms—Estimating and Cost of Form Work.
CHAPTER X.—METHODS AND COST OF CONCRETE PILE AND PIER CONSTRUCTION [151]
Introduction—Molding Piles in Place; Method of Constructing Raymond Piles; Method of Constructing Simplex Piles; Method of Constructing Piles with Enlarged Footings; Method of Constructing Piles by the Compressol System; Method of Constructing Piers in Caissons—Molding Piles for Driving—Driving Molded Piles: Method and Cost of Molding and Jetting Piles for an Ocean Pier; Method of Molding and Jetting Square Piles for a Building Foundation; Method of Molding and Jetting Corrugated Piles for a Building Foundation; Method of Molding and Driving Round Piles; Molding and Driving Square Piles for a Building Foundation; Method of Molding and Driving Octagonal Piles—Method and Cost of Making Reinforced Piles by Rolling.
CHAPTER XI.—METHODS AND COST OF HEAVY CONCRETE WORK IN FORTIFICATIONS, LOCKS, DAMS, BREAKWATERS AND PIERS [184]
Introduction—Fortification Work: Gun Emplacement, Staten Island, N. Y., Mortar Battery Platform, Tampa Bay, Fla., Emplacement for Battery, Tampa Bay, Fla.; U. S. Fortification Work—Lock Walls, Cascades Canal—Locks, Coosa River, Alabama—Lock Walls, Illinois & Mississippi Canal—Hand Mixing and Placing Canal Lock Foundations—Breakwater at Marquette, Mich.—Breakwater, Buffalo, N. Y.—Breakwater, Port Colborne, Ontario—Concrete Block Pier, Superior Entry, Wisconsin—Dam, Richmond, Ind.—Dam at McCall Ferry, Pa.—Dam at Chaudiere Falls, Quebec.
CHAPTER XII.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING BRIDGE PIERS AND ABUTMENTS [230]
Introduction—Rectangular Pier for a Railway Bridge—Backing for Bridge Piers and Abutments—Pneumatic Caissons, Williamsburg Bridge—Filling Pier Cylinders—Piers, Calf Killer River Bridge—Constructing 21 Bridge Piers—Permanent Way Structures, Kansas City Outer Belt & Electric Ry.—Plate Girder Bridge Abutments—Abutments and Piers,> Lonesome Valley Viaduct—Hand Mixing and Wheelbarrow Work for Bridge Piers.
CHAPTER XIII.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING RETAINING WALLS [259]
Introduction—Comparative Economy of Plain and Reinforced Concrete Walls—Form Construction—Mixing and Placing Concrete—Walls in Trench—Chicago Drainage Canal—Grand Central Terminal, New York, N. Y.—Wall for Railway Yard—Footing for Rubble Stone Retaining Walls—Track Elevation, Allegheny, Pa.
CHAPTER XIV.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS FOR PAVEMENT [288]
Introduction—Mixtures Employed—Distribution of Stock Piles—Hints on Hand Mixing—Methods of Machine Mixing—Foundation for Stone Block Pavement, New York, N. Y.—Foundation for Pavement, New Orleans, La.—Foundation for Pavement, Toronto, Canada—Miscellaneous Examples of Pavement Foundation Work—Foundation for Brick Pavement, Champaign, Ill.—Foundation Construction using Continuous Mixers.—Foundation Construction for Street Railway Track Using Continuous Mixers—Foundation Construction Using Batch Mixers and Wagon Haulage—Foundation Construction Using a Traction Mixer—Foundation Construction Using a Continuous Mixer—Foundation Construction Using a Portable Batch Mixer.
CHAPTER XV.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS, PAVEMENTS, AND CURB AND GUTTER [307]
Introduction—Cement Sidewalks: General Method of Construction—Bonding of Wearing Surface and Base—Protection of Work from Sun and Frost—Cause and Prevention of Cracks—Cost of Cement Walks; Toronto, Ont.; Quincy, Mass.; San Francisco, Cal.; Cost in Iowa. Concrete Pavement: Windsor, Ontario—Richmond, Ind. Concrete Curb and Gutter: Form Construction—Concrete Mixtures and Concreting—Cost of Curb and Gutter: Ottawa, Canada; Champaign, Ill.
CHAPTER XVI.—METHODS AND COST OF LINING TUNNELS AND SUBWAYS [328]
Introduction—Capitol Hill Tunnel, Pennsylvania R. R., Washington, D. C.—Constructing Side Walls in Relining Mullan Tunnel—Lining a Short Tunnel, Peekskill, N. Y.—Cascade Tunnel Great Northern Ry.—Relining Hodges Pass Tunnel, Oregon Short Line Ry.—Lining a 4,000-ft. Tunnel—Method of Mixing and Placing Concrete for a Tunnel Lining—Gunnison Tunnel—New York Rapid Transit Subway—Traveling Forms for Lining New York Rapid Transit Railway Tunnels—Subway Lining, Long Island R. R., Brooklyn, N. Y.
CHAPTER XVII.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING ARCH AND GIRDER BRIDGES [363]
Introduction—Centers—Mixing and Transporting Concrete; Cableway Plants; Car Plant for 4-Span Arch Bridge; Hoist and Car Plant for 21-Span Arch Viaduct; Traveling Derrick Plant for 4-Span Arch Bridge—Concrete Highway Bridges Green County, Iowa—Highway Girder Bridges—Molding Slabs for Girder Bridges—Connecticut Ave. Bridge, Washington, D. C—Arch Bridges, Elkhart, Ind.—Arch Bridge, Plainwell, Mich.—Five Span Arch Bridge—Arch Bridge, Grand Rapids, Mich.
CHAPTER XVIII.—METHODS AND COST OF CULVERT CONSTRUCTION [414]
Introduction—Box Culvert Construction, C., B. & Q. R. R.—Arch Culvert Costs, N. C. & St. L. Ry.; 18-ft. Arch Culvert; Six Arch Culverts 6 to 16-ft. Span; 14¾-ft. Arch Culvert—Culverts for New Construction, Wabash Ry.—Small Arch Culvert Costs, Pennsylvania R. R.—26-ft. Span Arch Culvert—12-ft. Culvert, Kalamazoo, Mich.—Method and Cost of Molding Culvert Pipe.
CHAPTER XIX.—METHODS AND COST OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION [433]
Introduction—Construction, Erection and Removal of Forms: Column Forms; Rectangular Columns; Polygonal Columns; Circular Columns; Ornamental Columns—Slab and Girder Forms; Slab and I-Beam Floors; Concrete Slab and Girder Floors—Wall Forms—Erecting Forms—Removing Forms, Fabrication and Placing Reinforcement; Fabrication; Placing—Mixing, Transporting and Placing Concrete: Mixing; Transporting; Bucket Hoists; Platform Hoists; Derricks—Placing and Ramming—Constructing Wall Columns for a Brick Building—Floor and Column Construction for a Six-Story Building—Wall and Roof Construction for One-Story Car Barn—Constructing Wall Columns for a One-Story Machine Shop—Constructing One-Story Walls with Movable Forms and Gallows Frames—Floor and Roof Construction for Four-Story Garage.
CHAPTER XX.—METHOD AND COST OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OF SEPARATELY MOLDED MEMBERS [515]
Introduction—Column, Girder and Slab Construction: Warehouses, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Factory, Reading, Pa.; Kilnhouse, New Village, N. J.—Hollow Block Wall Construction: Factory Buildings, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Residence, Quogue, N. Y., Two-Story Building, Albuquerque, N. Mex.; General Cost Data.
CHAPTER XXI.—METHODS AND COST OF AQUEDUCT AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION [532]
Introduction—Forms and Centers—Concreting—Reinforced Conduit, Salt River Irrigation Works, Arizona—Conduit, Torresdale Filters, Philadelphia, Pa.—Conduit, Jersey City Water Supply, Twin Tube Water Conduit at Newark, N. J.—66-in. Circular Sewer, South Bend, Ind.—Sewer Invert Haverhill, Mass.—29-ft. Sewer, St. Louis, Mo.—Sewer, Middlesborough, Ky.—Intercepting Sewer, Cleveland, Ohio—Reinforced Concrete Sewer, Wilmington, Del.—Sewer with Monolithic Invert and Block Arch—Cost of Block Manholes—Cement Pipe Constructed in Place—Pipe Sewer, St. Joseph, Mo.—Cost of Molding Small Cement Pipe—Molded Pipe Water Main, Swansea, England.
CHAPTER XXII.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING RESERVOIRS AND TANKS [588]
Introduction—Small Covered Reservoir—500,000 Gallon Covered Reservoir, Ft. Meade, So. Dak.—Circular Reservoir, Bloomington, Ill.—Standpipe at Attleborough, Mass.—Gas Holder Tank, Des Moines, Iowa—Gas Holder Tank, New York City—Lining a Reservoir, Quincy, Mass.—Relining a Reservoir, Chelsea, Mass.—Lining Jerome Park Reservoir—Reservoir Floor, Canton, Ill.—Reservoir Floor, Pittsburg, Pa.—Constructing a Silo—Grained Arch Reservoir Roof—Grain Elevator Bins.
CHAPTER XXIII.—METHODS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING ORNAMENTAL WORK [636]
Introduction—Separately Molded Ornaments: Wooden Molds; Iron Molds; Sand Molding; Plaster Molds—Ornaments Molded in Place: Big Muddy Bridge; Forest Park Bridge; Miscellaneous Structures.
CHAPTER XXIV.—MISCELLANEOUS METHODS AND COSTS [653]
Introduction—Drilling and Blasting Concrete—Bench Monuments, Chicago, III.—Pole Base—Mile Post—Bonding New Concrete to Old—Dimensions and Capacities of Mixers—Data for Estimating Weight of Steel in Reinforced Concrete; Computing Weight from Percentage of Volume; Weights and Dimensions of Plain and Special Reinforcing Metals—Recipes for Coloring Mortars.
CHAPTER XXV.—METHODS AND COST OF WATERPROOFING CONCRETE STRUCTURES [667]
Impervious Concrete Mixtures—Star Stetten Cement—Medusa Waterproofing Compound—Novoid Waterproofing Compound—Impermeable Coatings and Washes: Bituminous Coatings; Szerelmey Stone Liquid Wash; Sylvester Wash; Sylvester Mortars; Hydrolithic Coating; Cement Mortar Coatings; Oil and Paraffine Washes—Impermeable Diaphragms; Long Island R. R. Subway; New York Rapid Transit Subway.

Concrete Construction Methods and Cost

CHAPTER I.

METHODS AND COST OF SELECTING AND PREPARING MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE.

Concrete is an artificial stone produced by mixing cement mortar with broken stone, gravel, broken slag, cinders or other similar fragmentary materials. The component parts are therefore hydraulic cement, sand and the broken stone or other coarse material commonly designated as the aggregate.

CEMENT.

At least a score of varieties of hydraulic cement are listed in the classifications of cement technologists. The constructing engineer and contractor recognize only three varieties: Portland cement, natural cement and slag or puzzolan cement. All concrete used in engineering work is made of either Portland, natural or slag cement, and the great bulk of all concrete is made of Portland cement. Only these three varieties of cement are, therefore, considered here and they only in their aspects having relation to the economics of construction work. For a full discussion of the chemical and physical properties of hydraulic cements and for the methods of determining these properties by tests, the reader is referred to "Practical Cement Testing," by W. Purves Taylor.

PORTLAND CEMENT.—Portland cement is the best of the hydraulic cements. Being made from a rigidly controlled artificial mixture of lime, silica and alumina the product of the best mills is a remarkably strong, uniform and stable material. It is suitable for all classes of concrete work and is the only variety of hydraulic cement allowable for reinforced concrete or for plain concrete having to endure hard wear or to be used where strength, density and durability of high degree are demanded.

NATURAL CEMENT.—Natural cement differs from Portland cement in degree only. It is made by calcining and grinding a limestone rock containing naturally enough clayey matter (silica and alumina) to make a cement that will harden under water. Owing to the imperfection and irregularity of the natural rock mixture, natural cement is weaker and less uniform than Portland cement. Natural cement concrete is suitable for work in which great unit strength or uniformity of quality is not essential. It is never used for reinforced work.

SLAG CEMENT.—Slag cement has a strength approaching very closely that of Portland cement, but as it will not stand exposure to the air slag cement concrete is suitable for use only under water. Slag cement is made by grinding together slaked lime and granulated blast furnace slag.

SIZE AND WEIGHT OF BARRELS OF CEMENT.—The commercial unit of measurement of cement is the barrel; the unit of shipment is the bag. A barrel of Portland cement contains 380 lbs. of cement, and the barrel itself weighs 20 lbs.; there are four bags (cloth or paper sacks) of cement to the barrel, and the regulation cloth sack weighs 1½ lbs. The size of cement barrels varies, due to the differences in weight of cement and to differences in compacting the cement into the barrel. A light burned Portland cement weighs 100 lbs. per struck bushel; a heavy burned Portland cement weighs 118 to 125 lbs. per struck bushel. The number of cubic feet of packed Portland cement in a barrel ranges from 3 to 3½. Natural cements are lighter than Portland cement. A barrel of Louisville, Akron, Utica or other Western natural cement contains 265 lbs. of cement and weighs 15 lbs. itself; a barrel of Rosendale or other Eastern cement contains 300 lbs. of cement and the barrel itself weighs 20 lbs. There are 3¾ cu. ft. in a barrel of Louisville cement. Usually there are three bags to a barrel of natural cement.

As stated above, the usual shipping unit for cement is the bag, but cement is often bought in barrels or, for large works, in bulk. When bought in cloth bags, a charge is made of 10 cts. each for the bags, but on return of the bags a credit of 8 to 10 cts. each is allowed. Cement bought in barrels costs 10 cts. more per barrel than in bulk, and cement ordered in paper bags costs 5 cts. more per barrel than in bulk. Cement is usually bought in cloth sacks which are returned, but to get the advantage of this method of purchase the user must have an accurate system for preserving, checking up and shipping the bags.

Where any considerable amount of cement is to be used the contractor will find that it will pay to erect a small bag house or to close off a room at the mixing plant. Provide the enclosure with a locked door and with a small window into which the bags are required to be thrown as fast as emptied. One trustworthy man is given the key and the task of counting up the empty bags each day to see that they check with the bags of cement used. The following rule for packing and shipping is given by Gilbreth.[A]

[A] "Field System," Frank B. Gilbreth. Myron C. Clark Publishing Co., New York and Chicago.

"Pack cement bags laid flat, one on top of the other, in piles of 50. They can then be counted easily. Freight must be prepaid when cement bags are returned and bills of lading must be obtained in duplicate or credit cannot be obtained on shipment."

The volumes given above are for cement compacted in the barrel. When the cement is emptied and shoveled into boxes it measures from 20 to 30 per cent more than when packed in the barrel. The following table compiled from tests made for the Boston Transit Commission, Mr. Howard Carson, Chief Engineer, in 1896, shows the variation in volume of cement measured loose and packed in barrels:

Mr. Clarence M. Foster is authority for the statement that Utica cement barrels measure 16¼ ins. across at the heads, 19½ ins. across the bilge, and 25¾ ins. in length under heads, and contain 3.77 cu. ft. When 265 lbs. of Utica natural hydraulic cement are packed in a barrel it fills it within 2½ ins. of the top and occupies 3.45 cu. ft., and this is therefore the volume of a barrel of Utica hydraulic cement packed tight.

In comparative tests made of the weights and volumes of various brands of cements at Chicago in 1903, the following figures were secured:

SPECIFICATIONS AND TESTING—The great bulk of cement used in construction work is bought on specification. The various government bureaus, state and city works departments, railway companies, and most public service corporations have their own specifications. Standard specifications are also put forward by several of the national engineering societies, and one of these or the personal specification of the engineer is used for individual works. Buying cement to specification necessitates testing to determine that the material purchased meets the specified requirements. For a complete discussion of the methods of conducting such tests the reader is referred to "Practical Cement Testing" by W. Purves Taylor.

According to this authority a field testing laboratory will cost for equipment $250 to $350. Such a laboratory can be operated by two or three men at a salary charge of from $100 to $200 per month. Two men will test on an average four samples per day and each additional man will test four more samples. The cost of testing will range from $3 to $5 per sample, which is roughly equivalent to 3 cts. per barrel of cement, or from 3 to 5 cts. per cubic yard of concrete. These figures are for field laboratory work reasonably well conducted under ordinarily favorable conditions. In large laboratories the cost per sample will run somewhat lower.

SAND.

Sand constitutes from ⅓ to ½ of the volume of concrete; when a large amount of concrete is to be made a contractor cannot, therefore, afford to guess at his source of sand supply. A long haul over poor roads can easily make the sand cost more than the stone per cubic yard of concrete.

PROPERTIES OF GOOD SAND.—Engineers commonly specify that sand for concrete shall be clean and sharp, and silicious in character. Neither sharpness nor excessive cleanliness is worth seeking after if it involves much expense. Tests show conclusively that sand with rounded grains makes quite as strong a mortar, other things being equal, as does sand with angular grains. The admixture with sand of a considerable percentage of loam or clay is also not the unmixed evil it has been supposed to be. Myron S. Falk records[B] a number of elaborate experiments on this point. These experiments demonstrate conclusively that loam and clay in sand to the amount of 10 to 15 per cent. result in no material reduction in the strength of mortars made with this sand as compared with mortars made with the same sand after washing. There can be no doubt but that for much concrete work the expense entailed in washing sand is an unnecessary one.

[B] "Cements, Mortars and Concretes" By Myron S. Falk. Myron C. Clark Publishing Co., Chicago, Ill.

The only substitute for natural sand for concrete, that need be considered practically, is pulverized stone, either the dust and fine screenings produced in crushing rock or an artificial sand made by reducing suitable rocks to powder. As a conclusion from the records of numerous tests, M. S. Falk says: "It may be concluded that rock screenings may be substituted for sand, either in mortar or concrete, without any loss of strength resulting. This is important commercially, for it precludes the necessity of screening the dust from crushed rock and avoids, at the same time, the cost of procuring a natural sand to take its place."

The principal danger in using stone dust is failure to secure the proper balance of different size grains. This is also an important matter in the choice of natural sands. Sand composed of a mixture of grains ranging from fine to coarse gives uniformly stronger mortars than does sand with grains of nearly one size, and as between a coarse and a fine sand of one size of grains the coarse sand gives the stronger mortar. Further data on the effect of size of grains on the utility of sand for concrete are given in Chapter II, in the section on Voids in Sand, and for those who wish to study in detail, the test data on this and the other matters referred to here, the authors recommend "Cements, Mortars and Concretes; Their Physical Properties," by Myron S. Falk.

COST OF SAND.—A very common price for sand in cities is $1 per cu. yd., delivered at the work. It may be noted here that as sand is often sold by the load instead of the cubic yard, it is wise to have a written agreement defining the size of a load. Where the contractor gets his sand from the pit its cost will be the cost of excavating and loading at the pit, the cost of hauling in wagons, the cost of freight and rehandling it if necessary, and the cost of washing, added together.

An energetic man working under a good foreman will load 20 cu. yds. of sand into wagons per 10-hour day; with a poor foreman or when laborers are scarce, it is not safe to count on more than 15 cu. yds. per day. With wages at $1.50 per day this will make the cost of loading 10 cts. per cubic yard. The cost of hauling will include the cost of lost team time and dumping, which will average about 5 cts. per cubic yard. With 1 cu. yd. loads, wages of team 35 cts. per hour, and speed of travel 2½ miles per hour, the cost of hauling proper is ½ ct. per 100 ft., or 27 cts. per mile. Assuming a mile haul, the cost of sand delivered based on the above figures will be 10 cts. + 5 cts. + ½ ct. per 100 ft. = 15 + 27 cts. = 42 cts. per cu. yd. Freight rates can always be secured and it is usually safe to estimate the weight on a basis of 2,700 lbs. per cubic yard. For a full discussion of the cost of excavating sand and other earths the reader is referred to "Earth Excavation and Embankments; Methods and Cost," by Halbert P. Gillette and Daniel J. Hauer.

METHODS AND COST OF WASHING SAND.—When the available sand carries considerable percentages of loam or clay and the specifications require that clean sand shall be used, washing is necessary. The best and cheapest method of performing this task will depend upon the local conditions and the amount of sand to be washed.

Washing With Hose.—When the quantity of sand to be washed does not exceed 15 to 30 cu. yds. per day the simplest method, perhaps, is to use a hose. Build a wooden tank or box, 8 ft. wide and 15 ft. long, the bottom having a slope of 8 ins. in the 15 ft. The sides should be about 8 ins. high at the lower end and rise gradually to 3 ft. in height at the upper end. Close the lower end of the tank with a board gate about 6 ins. in height and sliding in grooves so that it can be removed. Dump about 3 cu. yds. of sand into the upper end of the tank and play a ¾-in. hose stream of water on it, the hose man standing at the lower end of the tank. The water and sand flow down the inclined bottom of the tank where the sand remains and the dirt flows over the gate and off with the water. It takes about an hour to wash a 3-cu. yd. batch, and by building a pair of tanks so that the hose man can shift from one to the other, washing can proceed continuously and one man will wash 30 cu. yds. per 10-hour day at a cost, with wages at $1.50, of 5 cts. per cubic yard. The sand, of course, has to be shoveled from the tank and this will cost about 10 cts. per cubic yard, making 15 cts. per cubic yard for washing and shoveling, and to this must be added any extra hauling and, if the water is pumped, the cost of pumping which may amount to 10 cts. per cubic yard for coal and wages. Altogether a cost of from 15 to 30 cts. per cubic yard may be figured for washing sand with a hose.

Fig. 1.—Plan and Elevation of Two-Hopper Ejector Sand Washing Plant.

Fig. 2.—Plan and Elevation of Four-Hopper Ejector Sand Washing-Plant.

Washing With Sand Ejectors.—When large quantities of sand are to be washed use may be made of the sand ejector system, commonly employed in washing filter sand at large water filtration plants; water under pressure is required. In this system the dirty sand is delivered into a conical or pyramidal hopper, from the bottom of which it is drawn by an ejector and delivered mixed with water into a second similar hopper; here the water and dirt overflow the top of the hopper, while the sand settles and is again ejected into a third hopper or to the stock pile or bins. The system may consist of anywhere from two to six hoppers. Figure 1 shows a two-hopper lay-out and Fig. 2 shows a four-hopper lay-out. In the first plant the washed sand is delivered into bins so arranged, as will be seen, that the bins are virtually a third washing hopper. The clean sand is chuted from these bins directly into cars or wagons. In the second plant the clean sand is ejected into a trough which leads it into buckets handled by a derrick. The details of one of the washing hoppers for the plant shown by Fig. 1 are illustrated by Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.—Details of Washing Hopper and Ejector for Plant Shown by Fig. 1.

At filter plants the dirty sand is delivered mixed with water to the first hopper by means of ejectors stationed in the filters and discharging through pipes to the washers. When, as would usually be the case in contract work, the sand is delivered comparatively dry to the first hopper, this hopper must be provided with a sprinkler pipe to wet the sand. In studying the ejector washing plants illustrated it should be borne in mind that for concrete work they would not need to be of such permanent construction as for filter plants, the washers would be mounted on timber frames, underground piping would be done away with, etc.; at best, however, such plants are expensive and will be warranted only when the amount of sand to be washed is large.

The usual assumption of water-works engineers is that the volume of water required for washing filter sand is 15 times the volume of the sand washed. At the Albany, N. Y., filters the sand passes through five ejectors at the rate of 3 to 5 cu. yds. per hour and takes 4,000 gallons of water per cubic yard. One man shovels sand into the washer and two take it away. Based on an output of 32 cu. yds. in 10 hours, Mr. Allen Hazen estimates the cost of washing as follows:

Washing With Tank Washers.—Figure 4 shows a sand washer used in constructing a concrete lock at Springdale, Pa., in the United States government improvement work on the Allegheny river. The device consisted of a circular tank 9 ft. in diameter and 7 ft. high, provided with a sloping false bottom perforated with 1-in. holes, through which water was forced as indicated. A 7½×5×6-in. pump with a 3-in. discharge pipe was used to force water into the tank, and the rotating paddles were operated by a 7 h.p. engine. This apparatus washed a batch of 14 cu. yds. in from 1 to 2 hours at a cost of 7 cts. per cubic yard. The sand contained much fine coal and silt. The above data are given by Mr. W. H. Roper.

Fig. 4.—Details of Tank Washer Used at Springdale, Pa.

Fig. 5.—Details of Tank Washer Used at Yonkers, N. Y.

Fig. 6.—Details of Rotating Tank Sand Washer Used at Hudson, N. Y.

Another form of tank washer, designed by Mr. Allen Hazen, for washing bank sand at Yonkers, N. Y., is shown by Fig. 5. This apparatus consisted of a 10×2½×2½ ft. wooden box, with a 6-in. pipe entering one end at the bottom and there branching into three 3-in. pipes, extending along the bottom and capped at the ends. The undersides of the 3-in. pipes were pierced with ½-in. holes 6 ins. apart, through which water under pressure was discharged into the box. Sand was shoveled into the box at one end and the upward currents of water raised the fine and dirty particles until they escaped through the waste troughs. When the box became filled with sand a sliding door at one end was opened and the batch discharged. The operation was continuous as long as sand was shoveled into the box; by manipulating the door the sand could be made to run out with a very small percentage of water. Sand containing 7 per cent of dirt was thus washed so that it contained only 0.6 per cent dirt. The washer handled 200 cu. yds. of sand in 10 hours. The above data are given by F. H. Stephenson.

A somewhat more elaborate form of tank washer than either of those described is shown by Fig. 6. This apparatus was used by Mr. Geo. A. Soper for washing filter sand at Hudson, N. Y. The dirty sand was shoveled into a sort of hopper, from which it was fed by a hose stream into an inclined cylinder, along which it traveled and was discharged into a wooden trough provided with a screw conveyor and closed at both ends. The water overflowing the sides of the trough carried away the dirt and the clean sand was delivered by the screw to the bucket elevator which hoisted it to a platform, from which it was taken by barrows to the stock pile. A 4-h.p. engine with a 5-h.p. boiler operated the cylinder, screw, elevator and pump. Four men operated the washer and handled 32 cu. yds. of sand per day; with wages at $1.50 the cost of washing was 20 cts. per cubic yard.

Fig. 7.—Arrangement of Sand Washing Plant at Lynchburg, Va.

In constructing a concrete block dam at Lynchburg, Va., sand containing from 15 to 30 per cent. of loam, clay and vegetable matter was washed to a cleanliness of 2 to 5 per cent of such matter by the device shown by Fig. 7. A small creek was diverted, as shown, into a wooden flume terminating in two sand tanks; by means of the swinging gate the flow was passed through either tank as desired. The sand was hauled by wagon and shoveled into the upper end of the flume; the current carried it down into one of the tanks washing the dirt loose and carrying it off with the overflow over the end of the tank while the sand settled in the tank. When one tank was full the flow was diverted into the other tank and the sand in the first tank was shoveled out, loaded into wagons, and hauled to the stock pile. As built this washer handled about 30 cu. yds. of sand per 10-hour day, but the tanks were built too small for the flume, which could readily handle 75 cu. yds. per day with no larger working force. This force consisted of three men at $1.50 per day, making the cost, for a 30 cu. yd. output, 15 cts. per cu. yd. for washing.

None of the figures given above includes the cost of handling the sand to and from the washer. When this involves much extra loading and hauling, it amounts to a considerable expense, and in any plan for washing sand the contractor should figure, with exceeding care, the extra handling due to the necessity of washing.

AGGREGATES.

The aggregates commonly used in making concrete are broken or crushed stone, gravel, slag and cinders. Slag and cinders make a concrete that weighs considerably less than stone or gravel mixtures, and being the products of combustion are commonly supposed to make a specially fire resisting concrete; their use is, therefore, confined very closely to fireproof building work and, in fact, to floor construction for such buildings. Slag and cinder concretes are for this reason given minor consideration in this volume.

BROKEN STONE.—Stone produced by crushing any of the harder and tougher varieties of rock is suitable for concrete. Perhaps the best stone is produced by crushing trap rock. Crushed trap besides being hard and tough is angular and has an excellent fracture surface for holding cement; it also withstands heat better than most stone. Next to trap the hard, tough, crystalline limestones make perhaps the best all around concrete material; cement adheres to limestone better than to any other rock. Limestone, however, calcines when subjected to fire and is, therefore, objected to by many engineers for building construction. The harder and denser sandstones, mica-schists, granites and syanites make good stone for concrete and occasionally shale and slate may be used.

GRAVEL.—Gravel makes one of the best possible aggregates for concrete. The conditions under which gravel is produced by nature make it reasonably certain that only the tougher and harder rocks enter into its composition; the rounded shapes of the component particles permit gravel to be more closely tamped than broken stone and give less danger of voids from bridging; the mixture is also generally a fairly well balanced composition of fine and coarse particles. The surfaces of the particles being generally smooth give perhaps a poorer bond with the cement than most broken stone. In the matter of strength the most recent tests show that there is very little choice between gravel and broken stone concrete.

SLAG AND CINDERS.—The slag used for concrete aggregate is iron blast furnace slag crushed to proper size. Cinders for aggregate are steam boiler cinders; they are best with the fine ashes screened out and should not contain more than 15 per cent. of unburned coal.

BALANCED AGGREGATE.—With the aggregate, as with the sand for concrete, the best results, other things being equal, will be secured by using a well-balanced mixture of coarse and fine particles. Usually the product of a rock crusher is fairly well balanced except for the very fine material. There is nearly always a deficiency of this, which, as explained in a succeeding section, has to be supplied by adding sand. Usually, also, the engineer accepts the crusher product coarser than screenings as being well enough balanced for concrete work, but this is not always the case. Engineers occasionally demand an artificial mixture of varying proportions of different size stones and may even go so far as to require gravel to be screened and reproportioned. This artificial grading of the aggregate adds to the cost of the concrete in some proportion which must be determined for each individual case.

SIZE OF AGGREGATE.—The size of aggregate to be used depends upon the massiveness of the structure, its purpose, and whether or not it is reinforced. It is seldom that aggregate larger than will pass a 3-in. ring is used and this only in very massive work. The more usual size is 2½ ins. For reinforced concrete 1¼ ins. is about the maximum size allowed and in building work 1-in. aggregate is most commonly used. Same constructors use no aggregate larger than ¾ in. in reinforced building work, and others require that for that portion of the concrete coming directly in contact with the reinforcement the aggregate shall not exceed ¼ to ½ in. The great bulk of concrete work is done with aggregate smaller than 2 ins., and as a general thing where the massiveness of the structure will allow of much larger sizes it will be more economic to use rubble concrete. (See Chapter VI.)

COST OF AGGREGATE.—The locality in which the work is done determines the cost of the aggregate. Concerns producing broken stone or screened and washed gravel for concrete are to be found within shipping distance in most sections of the country so that these materials may be purchased in any amount desired. The cost will then be the market price of the material f. o. b. cars at plant plus the freight rates and the cost of unloading and haulage to the stock piles. If the contractor uses a local stone or gravel the aggregate cost will be, for stone the costs of quarrying and crushing and transportation, and, for gravel, the cost of excavation, screening, washing and transportation.

SCREENED OR CRUSHER-RUN STONE FOR CONCRETE.—Formerly engineers almost universally demanded that broken stone for concrete should have all the finer particles screened out. This practice has been modified to some considerable extent in recent years by using all the crusher product both coarse and fine, or, as it is commonly expressed, by using run-of-crusher stone. The comparative merits of screened and crusher-run stone for concrete work are questions of comparative economy and convenience. The fine stone dust and chips produced in crushing stone are not, as was once thought, deleterious; they simply take the place of so much of the sand which would, were the stone screened, be required to balance the sand and stone mixture. It is seldom that the proportion of chips and dust produced in crushing stone is large enough to replace the sand constituent entirely; some sand has nearly always to be added to run-of-crusher stone and it is in determining the amount of this addition that uncertainty lies. The proportions of dust and chips in crushed stone vary with the kind of stone and with the kind of crusher used. Furthermore, when run-of-crusher stone is chuted from the crusher into a bin or pile the screenings and the coarse stones segregate. Examination of a crusher-run stone pile will show a cone-shaped heart of fine material enclosed by a shell of coarser stone, consequently when this pile of stone is taken from to make concrete a uniform mixture of fine and coarse particles is not secured, the material taken from the outside of the pile will be mostly coarse and that from the inside mostly fine. This segregation combined with the natural variation in the crusher product makes the task of adding sand and producing a balanced sand and stone mixture one of extreme uncertainty and some difficulty unless considerable expenditure is made in testing and reproportioning. When the product of the crusher is screened the task of proportioning the sand to the stone is a straightforward operation, and the screened out chips and dust can be used as a portion of the sand if desired. The only saving, then, in using crusher-run stone direct is the very small one of not having to screen out the fine material. The conclusion must be that the economy of unscreened stone for concrete is a very doubtful quantity, and that the risk of irregularity in unscreened stone mixtures is a serious one. The engineer's specifications will generally determine for the contractor whether he is to use screened or crusher-run stone, but these same specifications will not guarantee the regularity of the resulting concrete mixture; this will be the contractor's burden and if the engineer's inspection is rigid and the crusher-run product runs uneven for the reasons given above it will be a burden of considerable expense. The contractor will do well to know his product or to know his man before bidding less or even as little on crusher-run as on screened stone concrete.

COST OF QUARRYING AND CRUSHING STONE.—The following examples of the cost of quarrying and crushing stone are fairly representative of the conditions which would prevail on ordinary contract work. In quarrying and crushing New Jersey trap rock with gyratory crushers the following was the cost of producing 200 cu. yds. per day:

The quarry face worked was 12 to 18 ft., and the stone was crushed to 2-in. size. Owing to the seamy character of the rock it was broken by blasting into comparatively small pieces requiring very little sledging. The stone was loaded into one-horse dump carts, the driver taking one cart to the crusher while the other was being loaded. The haul was 100 ft. The carts were dumped into an inclined chute leading to a No. 5 Gates crusher. The stone was elevated by a bucket elevator and screened. All stone larger than 2 ins. was returned through a chute to a No. 3 Gates crusher for recrushing. The cost given above does not include interest, depreciation, and repairs; these items would add about $8 to $10 more per day or 4 to 5 cts. per cubic yard.

In quarrying limestone, where the face of the quarry was only 5 to 6 ft. high, and where the amount of stripping was small, one steam drill was used. This drill received its steam from the same boiler that supplied the crusher engine. The drill averaged 60 ft. of hole drilled per 10-hr. day, but was poorly handled and frequently laid off for repairs. The cost of quarrying and crushing was as follows:

Quarry.

Crusher.

Summary:

The "4 men quarrying" barred out and sledged the stone to sizes that would enter a 9×16-in. jaw crusher. The "6 men wheeling" delivered the stone in wheelbarrows to the crusher platform, the run plank being never longer than 150 ft. Two men fed the stone into the crusher, and a bin-man helped load the wagons from the bin, and kept tally of the loads. The stone was measured loose in the wagons, and it was found that the average load was 1½ cu. yds., weighing 2,400 lbs. per cu. yd. There were 40 wagon loads, or 60 cu. yds. crushed per 10-hr. day, although on some days as high as 75 cu. yds. were crushed. The stone was screened through a rotary screen, 9 ft. long, having three sizes of openings, ½-in., 1¼-in. and 2¼-in. The output was 16% of the smallest size, 24% of the middle size, and 60% of the large size. All tailings over 2½ ins. in size were recrushed.

It will be noticed that the interest on the plant is quite an important item. This is due to the fact that, year in and year out, a quarrying and crushing plant seldom averages more than 100 days actually worked per year, and the total charge for interest must be distributed over these 100 days, and not over 300 days as is so commonly and erroneously done. The cost of stripping the earth off the rock is often considerably in excess of the above given cost, and each case must be estimated separately. Quarry rental or royalty is usually not in excess of 5 cts. per cu. yd., and frequently much less. The dynamite used was 40%, and the cost of electric exploders is included in the cost given. Where a higher quarry face is used the cost of drilling and the cost of explosives per cu. yd. is less. Exclusive of quarry rent and heavy stripping costs, a contractor should be able to quarry and crush limestone or sandstone for not more than 75 cts. per cu. yd., or 62 cts. per ton of 2,000 lbs., wages and conditions being as above given.

The labor cost of erecting bins and installing a 9×16 jaw crusher, elevator, etc., averages about $75, including hauling the plant two or three miles, and dismantling the plant when work is finished.

The following is a record of the cost of crushing stone and cobbles on four jobs at Newton, Mass., in 1891. On jobs A and B the stone was quarried and crushed; on jobs C and D cobblestones were crushed. A 9×15-in. Farrel-Marsondon crusher was used, stone being fed in by two laborers. A rotary screen having ½, 1 and 2½-in. openings delivered the stone into bins having four compartments, the last receiving the "tailings" which had failed to pass through the screen. The broken stone was measured in carts as they left the bin, but several cart loads were weighed, giving the following weights per cubic foot of broken stone:

A one-horse cart held 26 to 28 cu. ft. (average 1 cu. yd.) of broken stone; a two-horse cart, 40 to 42 cu. ft., at the crusher.

Note.—"A" was trap rock; "B" was conglomerate rock; "C" and "D" were trap and granite cobblestones. Common laborers on jobs "A" and "D" were paid $1.75 per 9-hr. day; on jobs "B" and "C," $1.50 per 9-hr. day; two-horse cart and driver, $5 per day; blacksmith, $2.50; engineer on crusher, $2 on job "A," $2.25 on "B," $2.00 on "C," $2.50 on "D"; steam driller received $3, and helper $1.75 a day; foreman, $3 a day. Coal was $5.25 per short ton. Forcite powder, 11⅓ cts. per lb.

For a full discussion of quarrying and crushing methods and costs and for descriptions of crushing machinery and plants the reader is referred to "Rock Excavation; Methods and Cost," by Halbert P. Gillette.

SCREENING AND WASHING GRAVEL.—Handwork is resorted to in screening gravel only when the amount to be screened is small and when it is simply required to separate the fine sand without sorting the coarser material into sizes. The gravel is shoveled against a portable inclined screen through which the sand drops while the pebbles slide down and accumulate at the bottom. The cost of screening by hand is the cost of shoveling the gravel against the screen divided by the number of cubic yards of saved material. In screening gravel for sand the richer the gravel is in fine material the cheaper will be the cost per cubic yard for screening; on the contrary in screening gravel for the pebbles the less sand there is in the gravel the cheaper will be the cost per cubic yard for screening. The cost of shoveling divided by the number of cubic yards shoveled is the cost of screening only when both the sand and the coarser material are saved. Tests made in the pit will enable the contractor to estimate how many cubic yards of gravel must be shoveled to get a cubic yard of sand or pebbles. An energetic man will shovel about 25 cu. yds. of gravel against a screen per 10-hour day and keep the screened material cleared away, providing no carrying is necessary.

A mechanical arrangement capable of handling a considerably larger yardage of material is shown by Fig. 8. Two men and a team are required. The team is attached to the scraper by means of the rope passing through the pulley at the top of the incline. The scraper is loaded in the usual manner, hauled up the incline until its wheels are stopped by blocks and then the team is backed up to slacken the rope and permit the scraper to tip and dump its load. The trip holding the scraper while dumping is operated from the ground. The scraper load falls onto an inclined screen which takes out the sand and delivers the pebbles into the wagon. By erecting bins to catch the sand and pebbles this same arrangement could be made continuous in operation.

Fig. 8.—Device for Excavating and Screening Gravel and Loading Wagons.

Fig. 9.—Gravel Washing Plant of 120 to 130 Cu. Yds., Per Hour Capacity.

In commercial gravel mining, the gravel is usually sorted into several sizes and generally it is washed as well as screened. Where the pebbles run into larger sizes a crushing plant is also usually installed to reduce the large stones. Works producing several hundred cubic yards of screened and washed gravel per day require a plant of larger size and greater cost than even a very large piece of concrete work will warrant, so that only general mention will be made here of such plants. The commercial sizes of gravel are usually 2-in., 1-in., ½-in. and ¼-in., down to sand. No very detailed costs of producing gravel by these commercial plants are available. At the plant of the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry., where gravel is screened and washed for ballast, the gravel is passed over a 2-in., a ¾-in., a ¼-in. and a ⅛-in. screen in turn and the fine sand is saved. About 2,000 tons are handled per day; the washed gravel, 2-in. to ⅛-in. sizes, represents from 40 to 65 per cent. of the raw gravel and costs from 23 to 30 cts. per cu. yd., for excavation, screening and washing. The drawings of Fig. 9 show a gravel washing plant having a capacity of 120 to 130 cu. yds. per hour, operated by the Stewart-Peck Sand Co., of Kansas City, Mo. Where washing alone is necessary a plant of one or two washer units like those here shown could be installed without excessive cost by a contractor at any point where water is available. Each washer unit consists of two hexagonal troughs 18 ins. in diameter and 18 ft. long. A shaft carrying blades set spirally is rotated in each trough to agitate the gravel and force it along; each trough also has a fall of 6 ins. toward its receiving end. The two troughs are inclosed in a tank or box and above and between them is a 5-in. pipe having ¾-in. holes 3 ins. apart so arranged that the streams are directed into the troughs. The water and dirt pass off at the lower end of the troughs while the gravel is fed by the screws into a chute discharging into a bucket elevator, which in turn feeds into a storage bin. The gravel to be washed runs from 2 ins. to ⅛-in. in size; it is excavated by steam shovel and loaded into 1½ cu. yd. dump cars, three of which are hauled by a mule to the washers, where the load is dumped into the troughs. The plant having a capacity of 120 to 130 cu. yds. per hour cost $25,000, including pump and an 8-in. pipe line a mile long. A 100-hp. engine operates the plant, and 20 men are needed for all purposes. This plant produces washed gravel at a profit for 40 cts. per cu. yd.

CHAPTER II.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PROPORTIONING CONCRETE.

American engineers proportion concrete mixtures by measure, thus a 1-3-5 concrete is one composed of 1 volume of cement, 3 volumes of sand and 5 volumes of aggregate. In Continental Europe concrete is commonly proportioned by weight and there have been prominent advocates of this practice among American engineers. It is not evident how such a change in prevailing American practice would be of practical advantage. Aside from the fact that it is seldom convenient to weigh the ingredients of each batch, sand, stone and gravel are by no means constant in specific gravity, so that the greater exactness of proportioning by weight is not apparent. In this volume only incidental attention is given to gravimetric methods of proportioning concrete.

VOIDS.—Both the sand and the aggregates employed for concrete contain voids. The amount of this void space depends upon a number of conditions. As the task of proportioning concrete consists in so proportioning the several materials that all void spaces are filled with finer material the conditions influencing the proportion of voids in sand and aggregates must be known.

Voids in Sand.—The two conditions exerting the greatest influence on the proportion of voids in sand are the presence of moisture and the size of the grains of which the sand is composed.

Table I.—Showing Effect of Additions of Different Percentages of Moisture on Volume of Sand.

The volume of sand is greatly affected by the presence of varying percentages of moisture in the sand. A dry loose sand that has 45 per cent. voids if mixed with 5 per cent. by weight of water will swell, unless tamped, to such an extent that its voids may be 57 per cent. The same sand if saturated with water until it becomes a thin paste may show only 37½ per cent. voids after the sand has settled. Table I shows the results of tests made by Feret, the French experimenter. Two kinds of sand were used, a very fine sand and a coarse sand. They were measured in a box that held 2 cu. ft. and was 8 ins. deep, the sand being shoveled into the box but not tamped or shaken. After measuring and weighing the dry sand 0.5 per cent. by weight of water was added and the sand was mixed and shoveled back into the box again and then weighed. These operations were repeated with varying percentages of water up to 10 per cent. It will be noted that the weight of mixed water and sand is given; to ascertain the exact weight of dry sand in any mixture, divide the weight given in the table by 100 per cent. plus the given tabular per cent.; thus the weight of dry, fine sand in a 5 per cent. mixture is 2,035 ÷ 1.5 = 1,98 lbs. per cu. yd. The voids in the dry sand were 45 per cent. and in the sand with 5 per cent. moisture they were 56.7 per cent. Pouring water onto loose, dry sand compacts it. By mixing fine sand and water to a thin paste and allowing it to settle, it was found that the sand occupied 11 per cent. less space than when measured dry. The voids in fine sand, having a specific gravity of 2.65, were determined by measurement in a quart measure and found to be as follows:

Another series of tests made by Mr. H. P. Boardman, using Chicago sand having 34 to 40 per cent. voids, showed the following results:

Mr. Wm. B. Fuller found by tests that a dry sand, having 34 per cent. voids, shrunk 9.6 per cent. in volume upon thorough tamping until it had 27 per cent. voids. The same sand moistened with 6 per cent. water and loose had 44 per cent. voids, which was reduced to 31 per cent. by ramming. The same sand saturated with water had 33 per cent. voids and by thorough ramming its volume was reduced 8½ per cent. until the sand had only 26¼ per cent. voids. Further experiments might be quoted and will be found recorded in several general treatises on concrete, but these are enough to demonstrate conclusively that any theory of the quantity of cement in mortar to be correct must take into account the effect of moisture on the voids in sand.

The effect of the size and the shape of the component grains on the amount of voids in sand is considerable. Feret's experiments are conclusive on these points, and they alone will be followed here. Taking for convenience three sizes of sand Feret mixed them in all the varying proportions possible with a total of 10 parts; there were 66 mixtures. The sizes used were: Large (L), sand composed of grains passing a sieve of 5 meshes per linear inch and retained on a sieve of 15 meshes per linear inch; medium (M), sand passing a sieve of 15 meshes and retained on a sieve of 50 meshes per linear inch, and fine (F), sand passing a 50-mesh sieve. With a dry sand whose grains have a specific gravity of 2.65, the weight of a cubic yard of either the fine, or the medium, or the large size, was 2,190 lbs., which is equivalent to 51 per cent. voids. The greatest weight of mixture, 2,840 lbs. per cu. yd., was an L₆M₀F₄ mixture, that is, one composed of six parts large, no parts medium and 4 parts fine; this mixture was the densest of the 66 mixtures made, having 36 per cent. voids. It will be noted that the common opinion that the densest mixture is obtained by a mixture of gradually increasing sizes of grains is incorrect; there must be enough difference in the size of the grains to provide voids so large that the smaller grains will enter them and not wedge the larger grains apart. Turning now to the shape of the grains, the tests showed that rounded grains give less voids than angular grains. Using sand having a composition of L₅M₃F₂ Feret got the following results:

The sand was shaken until no further settlement occurred. It is plain from these data on the effect of size and shape of grains on voids why it is that discrepancies exist in the published data on voids in dry sand. An idea of the wide variation in the granulometric composition of different sands is given by Table II. Table III shows the voids as determined for sands from different localities in the United States.

Table II.—Showing Granulometric Compositions of Different Sands.

Note.—A, is a "fine gravel" (containing 8% clay) used at Philadelphia. B, Delaware River sand. C, St. Mary's River sand. D, Green River, Ky., sand, "clean and sharp."

Table III.—Showing Measured Voids in Sand from Different Localities.

Voids in Broken Stone and Gravel.—The percentage of voids in broken stone varies with the nature of the stone: whether it is broken by hand or by crushers; with the kind of crusher used, and upon whether it is screened or crusher-run product. The voids in broken stone seldom exceed 52 per cent. even when the fragments are of uniform size and the stone is shoveled loose into the measuring box. The following records of actual determinations of voids in broken stone cover a sufficiently wide range of conditions to show about the limits of variation.

The following are results of tests made by Mr. A. N. Johnson, State Engineer of Illinois, to determine the variation in voids in crushed stone due to variation in size and to method of loading into the measuring box. The percentage of voids was determined by weighing the amount of water added to fill the box:

The table shows clearly the effect on voids of compacting the stone by dropping it; it also shows for the ¾-in. and the ⅜-in. stone loaded by shovels how uniformly the percentages of voids run for stone of one size only. Dropping the stone 20 ft. reduced the voids some 12 to 15 per cent. as compared with shoveling.

Table IV.—Showing Determined Percentages of Voids in Broken Stone from Various Common Rocks.

Table V.—Showing Percentages of Voids in Gravel and Broken Stone of Different Granulometric Compositions.

Table IV gives the voids in broken stone as determined by various engineers; it requires no explanation. Table V, taken from Feret's tests, shows the effect of changes in granulometric composition on the amount of voids in both broken stone and gravel. Considering the column giving voids in stone it is to be noted first how nearly equal the voids are for stone of uniform size whatever that size be. As was the case with sand a mixture of coarse and fine particles gives the fewest voids; for stone an L₁M₀F₁ mixture and for gravel an L₈M₀F₂ mixture. Tamping reduces the voids in broken stone. Mr. Geo. W. Rafter gives the voids in clean, hand-broken limestone passing a 2½-in. ring as 43 per cent. after being lightly shaken and 37½ per cent. after being rammed. Generally speaking heavy ramming will reduce the voids in loose stone about 20 per cent.

It is rare that gravel has less than 30 per cent. or more than 45 per cent. voids. If the pebbles vary considerably in size so that the small fit in between the large, the voids may be as low as 30 per cent. but if the pebbles are tolerably uniform in size the voids will approach 45 per cent. Table V shows the effect of granulometric composition on the voids in gravel as determined by Feret. Mr. H. Von Schon gives the following granulometric analysis of a gravel having 34.1 per cent. voids:

As mixtures of broken stone and gravel are often used the following determinations of voids in such mixtures are given. The following determinations were made by Mr. Wm. M. Hall for mixtures of blue limestone and Ohio River washed gravel:

The dust was screened from the stone all of which passed a 2½-in. ring; the gravel all passed a 1½-in. screen. Using the same sizes of gravel and Hudson River trap rock, the results were:

The weight of a cubic foot of loose gravel or stone is not an accurate index of the percentage of voids unless the specific gravity is known. Pure quartz weighs 165 lbs., per cu. ft., hence broken quartz having 40 per cent. voids weighs 165 × .60 = 99 lbs. per cu. ft. Few gravels are entirely quartz, and many contain stone having a greater specific gravity like some traps or a less specific gravity like some shales and sandstone. Tables VI and VII give the specific gravities of common stones and minerals and Table VIII gives the weights corresponding to different percentages of voids for different specific gravities.

Table VI.—Specific Gravity of Stone. (Condensed from Merrill's "Stones for Building.")

Table VII.—Specific Gravity of Common Minerals and Rocks.

Table VIII.—Showing Weight of Stone with Different Percentages of Voids for Different Specific Gravities.

In buying broken stone by the cubic yard it should be remembered that hauling in a wagon compacts the stone by shaking it down and reduces the volume. Table IX shows the results of tests made by the Illinois Highway Commission to determine the settlement of crushed stone in wagon loads for different lengths of haul. The road over which the tests were made was a macadam road, not particularly smooth, but might be considered as an average road surface. The wagon used was one with a dump bottom supported by chains, which were drawn as tight as possible, so as to reduce the sag to a minimum. It will be noticed that about 50 per cent. of the settlement occurs within the first 100 ft., and 75 per cent. of the settlement in the first 200 ft. Almost all of the settlement occurs during the first half mile, as the tests showed practically no additional settlement for distances beyond. Some of the wagons were loaded from the ground with shovels, others were loaded from bins, the stone having a 15-ft. drop, which compacted the stone a little more than where loaded with shovels, so that there was somewhat less settlement. But at the end of a half mile the density was practically the same, whatever the method of loading. The density at the beginning and at the end of the haul can be compared by the weight of a given volume of crushed stone. For convenience, the weight of a cubic yard of the material at the beginning of the haul and at the end was computed from the known contents of a wagon.

Table IX.—Showing Settlement of Broken Stone due to Different Lengths of Haul on Ordinarily Good Road in Wagons.

[C] —Same per cent of settlement for two-mile haul.

THEORY OF THE QUANTITY OF CEMENT IN MORTAR AND CONCRETE.—All sand contains a large percentage of voids; in 1 cu. ft. of loose sand there is 0.3 to 0.5 cu. ft. of voids, that is, 30 to 50 per cent. of the sand is voids. In making mortar the cement is mixed with the sand and the flour-like particles of the cement fit in between the grains of sand occupying a part or all of the voids. The amount of cement required in a mortar will naturally depend upon the amount of voids in the particular sand with which it is mixed and since a correct estimate of the number of barrels of cement per cubic yard of mortar is very important, and since it is not always possible to make actual mixtures before bidding, rules based on various theories have been formulated for determining these quantities. In this volume the rule based on the theory outlined by one of the authors in 1901 will be followed. The following is a discussion of the authors' theory:

When loose sand is mixed with water, its volume or bulk is increased; subsequent jarring will decrease its volume, but still leave a net gain of about 10 per cent.; that is, 1 cu. ft. of dry sand becomes about 1.1 cu. ft. of damp sand. Not only does this increase in the volume of the sand occur, but, instead of increasing the voids that can be filled with cement, there is an absolute loss in the volume of available voids. This is due to the space occupied by the water necessary to bring the sand to the consistency of mortar; furthermore, there is seldom a perfect mixture of the sand and cement in practice, thus reducing the available voids. It is safe to call this reduction in available voids about 10 per cent.

When loose, dry Portland cement is wetted, it shrinks about 15 per cent, in volume, behaving differently from the sand, but it never shrinks back to quite as small a volume as it occupies when packed tightly in a barrel. Since barrels of different brands vary widely in size, the careful engineer or contractor will test any brand he intends using in large quantities, in order to ascertain exactly how much cement paste can be made. He will find a range of from 3.2 cu. ft. to 3.8 cu. ft. per barrel of Portland cement. Obviously the larger barrel may be cheaper though its price is higher. Specifications often state the number of cubic feet that will be allowed per barrel in mixing the concrete ingredients, so that any rule or formula to be of practical value must contain a factor to allow for the specified size of the barrel, and another factor to allow for the actual number of cubic feet of paste that a barrel will yield—the two being usually quite different.

The deduction of a rational, practical formula for computing the quantity of cement required for a given mixture will now be given, based upon the facts above outlined.

Then, in a mortar of 1 part cement to s parts sand, we have:

Therefore:

1.1 n s + (p - 0.9 n s v) = cu. ft. of mortar per bbl.

Therefore:

N being the number of barrels of cement per cu. yd. of mortar.

When the mortar is made so lean that there is not enough cement paste to fill the voids in the sand, the formula becomes:

A similar line of reasoning will give us a rational formula for determining the quantity of cement in concrete; but there is one point of difference between sand and gravel (or broken stone), namely, that the gravel does not swell materially in volume when mixed with water. However, a certain amount of water is required to wet the surface of the pebbles, and this water reduces the available voids, that is, the voids that can be filled by the mortar. With this in mind, the following deduction is clear, using the nomenclature and symbols above given:

N being the number of barrels of cement required to make 1 cu. yd. of concrete.

This formula is rational and perfectly general. Other experimenters may find it desirable to use constants slightly different from the 1.1 and the 0.9, for fine sands swell more than coarse sands, and hold more water.

The reader must bear in mind that when the voids in the sand exceed the cement paste, and when the available voids in the gravel (or stone) exceed the mortar, the formula becomes:

These formulas give the amounts of cement in mortars and concretes compacted in place. Tables X to XIII are based upon the foregoing theory, and will be found to check satisfactorily with actual tests.

In using these tables remember that the proportion of cement to sand is by volume, and not by weight. If the specifications state that a barrel of cement shall be considered to hold 4 cu. ft., for example, and that the mortar shall be 1 part cement to 2 parts sand, then 2 barrel of cement is mixed with 8 cu. ft. of sand, regardless of what is the actual size of the barrel, and regardless of how much cement paste can be made with a barrel of cement. If the specifications fail to state what the size of a barrel will be, then the contractor is left to guess.

Table X.—Barrels of Portland Cement per Cubic Yard of Mortar.

(Voids in sand being 35%, and 1 bbl. cement yielding 3.65 cu. ft. of cement paste.)

Table XI.—Barrels of Portland Cement per Cubic Yard of Mortar.

(Voids in sand being 45%, and 1 bbl. cement yielding 3.4 cu. ft. of cement paste.)

If the specifications call for proportions by weight, assume a Portland barrel to contain 380 lbs. of cement, and test the actual weight of a cubic foot of the sand to be used. Sand varies extremely in weight, due both to the variation in the per cent. of voids, and to the variation in the kind of minerals of which the sand is composed. A quartz sand having 35 per cent. voids weighs 107 lbs. per cu. ft.; but a quartz sand having 45 per cent. voids weighs only 91 lbs. per cu. ft. If the weight of the sand must be guessed at, assume 100 lbs. per cu. ft. If the specifications require a mixture of 1 cement to 2 of sand by weight, we will have 380 lbs. (or 1 bbl.) of cement mixed with 2 × 380, or 760 lbs. of sand; and if the sand weighs 90 lbs. per cu. ft., we shall have 760 ÷ 90, or 8.44 cu. ft. of sand to every barrel of cement. In order to use the tables above given, we may specify our own size of barrel; let us say 4 cu. ft.; then 8.44 ÷ 4 gives 2.11 parts of sand by volume to 1 part of cement. Without material error we may call this a 1 to 2 mortar, and use the tables, remembering that our barrel is now "specified to be" 4 cu. ft. If we have a brand of cement that yields 3.4 cu. ft. of paste per bbl., and sand having 45 per cent. voids, we find that approximately 3 bbls. of cement per cu. yd. of mortar will be required.

Table XII.—Ingredients in 1 Cubic Yard of Concrete.

(Sand voids, 40%; stone voids, 45%; Portland cement barrel yielding 3.65 cu. ft. paste. Barrel specified to be 3.8 cu. ft.)

Note.—This table is to be used where cement is measured packed in the barrel, for the ordinary barrel holds 3.8 cu. ft.

It should be evident from the foregoing discussions that no table can be made, and no rule can be formulated that will yield accurate results unless the brand of cement is tested and the percentage of voids in the sand determined. This being so the sensible plan is to use the tables merely as a rough guide, and, where the quantity of cement to be used is very large, to make a few batches of mortar using the available brands of cement and sand in the proportions specified. Ten dollars spent in this way may save a thousand, even on a comparatively small job, by showing what cement and sand to select.

It will be seen that Tables XII and XIII can be condensed into the following rule:

Add together the number of parts and divide this sum into ten, the quotient will be approximately the number of barrels of cement per cubic yard.

Table XIII.—Ingredients in 1 Cubic Yard of Concrete.

(Sand voids, 40%; stone voids, 45%; Portland cement barrel yielding 3.65 cu. ft. of paste. Barrel specified to be 4.4 cu. ft.)

Note.—This table is to be used when the cement is measured loose, after dumping it into a box, for under such conditions a barrel of cement yields 4.4 cu. ft. of loose cement.

Thus for a 1:2:5 concrete, the sum of the parts is 1 + 2 + 5, which is 8; then 10 ÷ 8 is 1.25 bbls., which is approximately equal to the 1.30 bbls. given in the table. Neither is this rule nor are the tables applicable if a different size of cement barrel is specified, or if the voids in the sand or stone differ materially from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. respectively. There are such innumerable combinations of varying voids, and varying sizes of barrel, that the authors do not deem it worth while to give other tables. The following amounts of cement per cubic yard of mortar were determined by test:

The proportions were by barrels of cement to barrels of sand, and Sabin called a 380-lb. barrel 3.65 cu. ft., whereas Fuller called a 380-lb. barrel 3.80 cu. ft.; and Boardman called a 380-lb. barrel 3.5 cu. ft. Sabin used a sand having 38 per cent. voids; Fuller used a sand having 45 per cent. voids; and Boardman used a sand having 38 per cent. voids. It will be seen that the cement used by Sabin yielded 3.65 cu. ft. of cement paste per bbl. (i. e. 27 ÷ 7.4), whereas the (Atlas) cement used by Fuller yielded 3.4 cu. ft. of cement paste per bbl. Sabin found that a barrel of cement measured 4.37 cu. ft. when dumped and measured loose. Mr. Boardman states a barrel (380 lbs., net) of Lehigh Portland cement yields 3.65 cu. ft. of cement paste; and that a barrel (265 lbs., net) of Louisville natural cement yields 3.0 cu. ft. of cement paste.

Mr. J. J. R. Croes, M. Am. Soc. C. E., states that 1 bbl. of Rosendale cement and 2 bbl. of sand (8 cu. ft.) make 9.7 cu. ft. of mortar, the extreme variations from this average being 7 per cent.

Frequently concrete is made by mixing one volume of cement with a given number of volumes of pit gravel; no sand being used other than the sand that is found naturally mixed with the gravel. In such cases the cement rarely increases the bulk of the gravel, hence Table XIV will give the approximate amount of cement, assuming 1 cu. yd. of gravel per cubic yard of concrete.

Table XIV.—Showing Barrels of Cement per Cubic Yard of Various Mixtures of Cement and Pit Gravel.

PERCENTAGE OF WATER IN CONCRETE.—Tests show that dry mixtures when carefully deposited and well tamped produce the stronger concrete. This superiority of dry mixtures it must be observed presupposes careful deposition and thorough tamping, and these are tasks which are difficult to have accomplished properly in actual construction work and which, if accomplished properly, require time and labor. Wet mixtures readily flow into the corners and angles of the forms and between and around the reinforcing bars with only a small amount of puddling and slicing and are, therefore, nearly always used because of the time and labor saved in depositing and tamping. The following rule by which to determine the percentage of water by weight for any given mixture of mortar for wet concrete will be found satisfactory:

Multiply the parts of sand by 8, add 24 to the product, and divide the total by the sum of the parts of sand and cement.

For example if the percentage of water is required for a 1-3 mortar:

Hence the water should be 12 per cent. of the combined weight of cement and sand. For a 1-1 mortar the rule gives 16 per cent.; for a 1-2 mortar it gives 13½ per cent., and for a 1-6 mortar it gives 10.3 per cent.

To calculate the amount of water per cubic yard of 1-3-6 concrete for example the procedure would be as follows: By the above rule a 1-3 mortar requires

A 1-3-6 concrete, according to Table XII, contains 1.05 bbls. cement and 0.44 cu. yd. sand. Cement weighs 380 lbs. per barrel, hence 1.05 bbls. would weigh 380 × 1.05 = 399 lbs. Sand weighs 2,700 lbs. per cu. yd., hence 0.44 cu. yd. of sand would weigh 2,700 × 0.44 = 1,188 lbs. The combined weight of the cement and sand would thus be 399 + 1,188 = 1,587 lbs. and 12 per cent. of 1.587 lbs. is 190 lbs. of water. Water weighs 8.355 lbs. per gallon, hence 190 × 8.355 = 23 gallons of water per cubic yard of 1-3-6 concrete.

METHODS OF MEASURING AND WEIGHING.—The cement, sand and aggregate for concrete mixtures are usually measured by hand, the measuring being done either in the charging buckets or in the barrows or other receptacles used to handle the material to the charging buckets. The process is simple in either case when once the units of measurement are definitely stated. This is not always the case. Some engineers require the contractor to measure the sand and stone in the same sized barrel that the cement comes in, in which case 1 part of sand or aggregate usually means 3.5 cu. ft. Other engineers permit both heads of the barrel to be knocked out for convenience in measuring the sand and stone, in which case a barrel means 3.75 cu. ft. Still other engineers permit the cement to be measured loose in a box, then a barrel usually means from 4 to 4.5 cu. ft. Cement is shipped either in barrels or in bags and the engineer should specify definitely the volume at which he will allow the original package to be counted, and also, if cement barrels are to be used in measuring the sand and stone, he should specify what a "barrel" is to be. When the concrete is to be mixed by hand the better practice is to measure the sand and stone in bottomless boxes of the general type shown by Fig. 10 and of known volume, and then specify that a bag of cement shall be called 1 cu. ft., 0.6 cu. ft., or such other fraction of a cubic foot as the engineer may choose. The contractor then has a definite basis on which to estimate the quantity of cement required for any specified mixture. The same is true if the measuring of the sand and stone be done in barrows or in the charging bucket. The volume of the bag or barrel of cement being specified the contractor has a definite and simple problem to solve in measuring his materials.

Fig. 10.—Bottomless Box for Measuring Materials in Proportioning Concrete.

To avoid uncertainty and labor in measuring the cement, sand and stone or gravel various automatic measuring devices have been designed. A continuous mixer with automatic measuring and charging mechanism is described in Chapter XIV. Figure 11 shows the Trump automatic measuring device. It consists of a series of revolving cylinders, each opening onto a "table," which revolves with the cylinders, and of a set of fixed "knives," which, as the "tables" revolve, scrape off portions of the material discharged from each cylinder onto its "table." The illustration shows a set of two cylinders; for concrete work a third cylinder is added. The three tables are set one above the other, each with its storage cylinder, and being attached to the same spindle all revolve together. For each table there is a knife with its own adjusting mechanism. These knives may be adjusted at will to vary the percentage of material scraped off.

Fig. 11.—Sketch Showing Trump Automatic Measuring Device for Materials in Proportioning Concrete.

Automatic measuring devices are most used in connection with continuous mixers, but they may be easily adapted to batch mixers if desired. One point to be observed is that all of these automatic devices measure the cement loose and this must be allowed for in proportioning the mixture.

CHAPTER III.

METHODS AND COST OF MAKING AND PLACING CONCRETE BY HAND.

The making and placing of concrete by hand is divided into the following operations: (1) Loading the barrows, buckets, carts or cars used to transport the cement, sand and stone to the mixing board; (2) Transporting and dumping the material; (3) Mixing the material by turning with shovels and hoes; (4) Loading the concrete by shovels into barrows, buckets, carts or cars; (5) Transporting the concrete to place; (6) Dumping and spreading; (7) Ramming.

LOADING INTO STOCK PILES.—Stock piles should always be provided unless there is some very good reason to the contrary. They prevent stoppage of work through irregularities in the delivery of the material, and they save foreman's time in watching that the material is delivered as promptly as needed for the work immediately in hand. The location of the stock piles should be as close to the work as possible without being in the way of construction; forethought both in locating the piles and in proportioning their size to the work will save the contractor money.

The stone and sand will ordinarily be delivered in wagons or cars. If delivered in cars, effort should be made to secure delivery in flat cars when the unloading is to be done by shoveling; this is more particularly necessary for the broken stone. Stone can be shoveled from hopper bottom cars only with difficulty as compared with shoveling from flat bottom cars; the ratio is about 14 cu. yds. per day per man from hopper bottom cars as compared with 20 cu. yds. per day per man from flat bottom cars. When the cars can be unloaded through a trestle, hopper bottom cars should by all means be secured for delivering the stone. If the amount of work will justify the expense, a trestle may be built; often there is a railway embankment which can be dug away for a short distance and the track carried on stringers to make a dumping place, from which the stone can be shoveled.

Sand can be dumped directly on the ground, but broken stone unless it is very small, ¾-in. or less, should always be dumped on a well made plank floor. A good floor is made of 2-in. plank, nailed to 4×6-in. mud sills, spaced 3 ft. apart, and well bedded in the ground. Loose plank laid directly on the ground settle unevenly and thus the smooth shoveling surface which is sought is not obtained; the object of the floor is to provide an even surface, along which a square pointed shovel can be pushed; it is very difficult to force such a shovel into broken stone unless it is very fine. A spading fork is a better tool than a shovel, with which to load broken stone from piles. A man can load from 18 to 20 cu. yds. of broken stone into wheelbarrows or carts in 10 hours when shoveling from a good floor, but he can load only 12 to 14 cu. yds. per day when shoveling from a pile without such a floor. It is a common thing to see stone unloaded from cars directly onto the sloping side of a railway embankment. This makes very difficult shoveling and results in a waste of stone. Stone can usually be delivered by a steel lined chute directly to a flooring located at the foot of the embankment; coarse broken stone if given a start when cast from a shovel will slide on an iron chute having a slope as flat as 3 or 4 to 1; sand will not slide on a slope of 1½ to 1. When chuting is not practicable it will pay often to shovel the stone into buckets handled by a stiff-leg derrick rather than to unload it onto the bank. Stock piles of ample storage capacity are essential when delivery is by rail, because of the uncertainty of rail shipments. When the contractor is taking the sand and stone direct from pit and quarry by wagon it is not necessary to have large stock piles.

LOADING FROM STOCK PILES.—In loading sand into wheelbarrows or carts with shovels a man will load 20 cu. yds. per 10-hour day if he is energetic and is working under a good foreman. Under opposite conditions 15 cu. yds. per man per day is all that it is safe to count on. A man shoveling from a good floor will load 20 cu. yds. of stone per 10-hour day; this is reduced to 15 cu. yds. per day if the stone is shoveled off the ground and to 12 cu. yds. per day if in addition the management is poor. There are ordinarily in a cubic yard of concrete about 1 cu. yd. of stone and 0.4 cu. yd. of sand, so that the cost of loading the materials into barrows or carts, with wages at 15 cts. per hour and assuming 15 cu. yds. to be a day's work, would be:

To this is to be added the cost of loading the cement. This will cost not over 2 cts. per cu. yd. of concrete; the total cost of loading concrete materials into barrows or carts, therefore, does not often exceed 16 cts. per cu. yd. of concrete.

TRANSPORTING MATERIALS TO MIXING BOARDS—Carrying the sand and stone from stock piles to mixing board in shovels should never be practiced. It takes from 100 to 150 shovelfuls of stone to make 1 cu. yd.; it, therefore, costs 50 cts. per cu. yd. to carry it 100 ft. and return empty handed, for in walking short distances the men travel very slowly—about 150 ft. per minute. It costs more to walk a half dozen paces with stone carried in shovels than to wheel it in barrows.

The most common method of transporting materials from stock piles to mixing boards is in wheelbarrows. The usual wheelbarrow load on a level plank runway is 3 bags of cement (300 lbs) or 3 cu. ft. of sand or stone. If a steep rise must be overcome to reach the mixing platform the load will be reduced to 2 bags (200 lbs.) of cement or 2 cu. ft. of sand or stone. A man wheeling a barrow travels at a rate of 200 ft. per minute, going and coming, and loses ¾ minute each trip dumping the load, fixing run planks, etc. An active man will do 20 to 25 per cent. more work than this, while a very lazy man may do 20 per cent. less. With wages at 15 cts. per hour, the cost of wheeling materials for 1 cu. yd. of concrete may be obtained by the following rule:

To a fixed cost of 4 cts. (for lost time) add 1 ct. for every 20 ft. of distance away from the stock pile if there is a steep rise in the runway, but if the runway is level, add 1 ct. for every 30 ft. distance of haul.

Since loading the barrows, as given above, was 16 cts. per cu. yd., the total fixed cost is 16 + 4 = 20 cts. per cu. yd., to which is added 1 ct. for every 20 or 30 ft. haul depending on the grade of the runway.

The preceding figures assume the use of plank runways for the wheelbarrows. These should never be omitted, and the barrows wheeled over the ground. Even a hard packed earth path in dry weather is inferior to a plank runway and when the ground is soft or muddy the loss in efficiency of the men is serious. Where the runway must rise to the mixing board, give it a slope or grade seldom steeper than 1 in 8, and if possible flatter. Make a runway on a trestle at least 18 ins. wide, so that men will be in no danger of falling. See to it, also, that the planks are so well supported that they do not spring down when walked over, for a springy plank makes hard wheeling. If the planks are so long between the "horses" or "bents" used to support them, that they spring badly, it is usually a simple matter to nail a cleat across the underside of the planks and stand an upright strut underneath to support and stiffen the plank.

When two-wheeled carts of the type shown by Fig. 12 are used the runway requires two lines of planks.

Two-wheeled carts pushed by hand have been less used for handling concrete materials than for handling concrete, but for distances from 50 to 150 ft. from stock pile to mixing board such carts are probably cheaper for transporting materials than are wheelbarrows. These carts hold generally three wheelbarrow loads and they are handled by one man practically as rapidly and easily as is a wheelbarrow.

For all distances over 50 ft. from stock pile to mixing board, it is cheaper to haul materials in one-horse dump carts than it is in wheelbarrows. A cart should be loaded in 4 minutes and dumped in about 1 minute, making 5 minutes lost time each round trip. It should travel at a speed of not less than 200 ft. per minute, although it is not unusual to see variations of 15 or 20 per cent., one way or another, from this average, depending upon the management of the work. A one-horse cart will readily carry enough stone and sand to make ½ cu. yd. of concrete, if the roads are fairly hard and level; and a horse can pull this load up a 10 per cent. (rise of 1 ft. in 10 ft.) planked roadway provided with cleats to give a foothold. If a horse, cart and driver can be hired for 30 cts. per hour, the cost of hauling the materials for 1 cu. yd. of concrete is given by the following rule:

To a fixed cost of 5 cts. (for lost time at both ends of haul) add 1 ct. for every 100 ft. of distance from stock pile to mixing board.

Fig. 12.—Two-Wheeled Ransome Cart for Hauling Concrete.

Where carts are used it is possible to locate the stock piles several hundred feet from the mixing boards without adding materially to the cost of the concrete. It is well, however, to have the stock piles in sight of the foreman at the mixing board, so as to insure promptness of delivery.

METHODS AND COST OF MIXING.—In mixing concrete by hand the materials are spread in superimposed layers on a mixing board and mixed together first dry and then with water by turning them with shovels or hoes. The number of turns, the relative arrangement of the layers, and the sequence of operations vary in practice with the notions of the engineer controlling the work. No one mode of procedure in hand mixing can, therefore, be specified for general application; the following are representative examples of practice in hand mixing:

Measure the stone in a bottomless box and spread it until its thickness in inches equals its parts by volume. Measure the sand in a bottomless box set on the stone and spread the sand evenly over the stone layer. Place the cement on the sand and spread evenly. Turn the material twice with a square pointed shovel and then turn it a third time while water is gently sprinkled on. A fourth turn is made to mix thoroughly the water and the concrete is then shoveled into barrows, giving it a fifth turn. Mr. Ernest McCullough, who gives this method, states that it is the cheapest way to mix concrete by hand and still secure a good quality of output.

In work done by Mr. H. P. Boardman the sand is measured in a bottomless box and over it is spread the cement in an even layer. The cement and sand are mixed dry with hoes, the water is added in pailfuls and the whole mixed to a uniform porridge-like consistency. Into this thin mortar all the stone for a batch is dumped, the measuring box is lifted and the mixture turned by shovels. A pair of shovelers, one on each side, is started at one end turning the material back and working toward the opposite end. A second pair of shovelers takes the turned material and turns it again. The concrete is then shoveled into the barrows by the wheelers themselves as fast as it is turned the second time. By this method a good gang of 20 to 25 men, using two boxes, will, Mr. Boardman states, mix and place 45 to 60 cu. yds. of concrete in 10 hours, depending on the wheelbarrow travel necessary. Assuming a gang of 25 men, this is a rate of 1.8 to 2.4 cu. yds. per man per 10-hour day, concrete mixed and placed.

A method somewhat similar to the one just outlined is given by Mr. O. K. Morgan. A mixing board made of ⅞-in. matched boards nailed to 2×3-in. sills is used, with a mixing box about 8 ft. long, 4 ft. wide and 10 to 12 ins. deep. This box is set alongside the mixing board and in it the cement and sand are mixed first dry and then wet; a fairly wet mortar is made. Meanwhile the stone is spread in an even layer 6 ins. thick on the mixing board and thoroughly drenched with water. The mortar from the mixing box is cast by shovels in a fairly even layer over the stone and the whole is turned two or three times with shovels, generally two turns are enough. Six men are employed; two prepare the mortar, while four get the stone in readiness, then all hands finish the operation.

The following method is given by Mr. E. Sherman Gould: Spread the sand in a thin layer on the mixing board and over it spread the cement. Mix dry with shovels, using four men, one at each corner, turning outward and then working back again. Over the dry sand and cement mixture spread the broken stone which has been previously wetted and on top of the stone apply water evenly. The water will thus percolate through the stone without splashing and evenly wet the sand and cement. Finally turn the whole, using the same number of men and the same mode of procedure as were used in dry mixing the sand and cement. Mr. Gould states that by this method the contractor should average 2 cu. yds. of mixed concrete per man per 10-hour day.

A novel method of hand mixing and an unusual record of output is described by Maj. H. M. Chittenden, U. S. A., in connection with the construction of a concrete arch bridge. The mixing was done by hand on a single board 25 ft. long and sloping slightly from one end to the other. The materials were dumped together on the upper end of the board. Sixteen men were stationed along the board, eight on each side. The first two men turned the mixture dry. Next to them stood a man who applied the water after each shovelful. The next mixers kept turning the material along and another waterman assisted in wetting it further down the board. The men at the end of the board shoveled the concrete into the carts which took it to the work. Each batch contained 18 cu. ft., or 0.644 cu. yd., and the rate of mixing was 10 cu. yds. per hour, or 6.25 cu. yds. per man per 10-hour day. The work of getting the materials properly proportioned to the mixing board is not included in this figure, but the loading of the mixed concrete is included.

It is plain from the foregoing, that specifications for hand mixing should always state the method to be followed, and particularly the number of turns necessary. If these matters are not specified the contractor has to guess at the probable requirements of the engineer. The authors have known of inspectors demanding from 6 to 9 turns of the materials when specifications were ambiguous. It should also be made clear whether or not the final shoveling into the barrows or carts constitutes a turn, and whether any subsequent shoveling of the concrete into place constitutes a turn. Inspectors and foremen have frequent disputes over these questions.

Estimates of the cost of hand mixing may usually be figured upon the number of times that the materials are to be turned by shovels. A contractor is seldom required to turn the sand and cement more than three times dry and three times wet, and then turn the mortar and stone three times. A willing workman, under a good foreman, will turn over mortar at the rate of 30 cu. yds. in 10 hours, lifting each shovelful and casting it into a pile. With wages at $1.50 and six turns, this means a cost of 5 cts. per cubic yard of mortar for each turn; as there is seldom more than 0.4 cu. yd. of mortar in a cubic yard of concrete, we have a cost of 2 cts. per cubic yard of concrete for each turn that is given the mortar. So if the mortar is given six turns before the stone is added and then the stone and mortar are mixed by three turns we have: (2 cts. × 6) + (5 cts. × 3) = 12 + 15 = 27 cts. per cubic yard for mixing concrete. In pavement foundation work two turns of the mortar followed by two turns of the mortar and stone are considered sufficient. The cost of mixing per cubic yard of concrete is then (2 cts. × 2) + (5 cts. × 2) = 4 + 10 = 14 cts. per cubic yard of concrete. One specification known to the authors, requires six turns dry and three turns wet for the mortar; under such specifications the cost of mixing the mortar would be 50 per cent. higher than in the first example assumed. On the other hand, they have seen concrete mixed for street pavement foundation with only three turns before shoveling it into place. These costs of mixing apply to work done by diligent men; easy going men will make the cost 25 to 50 per cent greater.

LOADING AND HAULING MIXED CONCRETE.—Wheelbarrows and carts are employed to haul the mixed concrete to the work. The loading of these with mixed concrete by shoveling costs less than the loading of the materials separately before mixing. While the weight is greater because of the added water the volume of the concrete is much less than that of the ingredients before mixing. Again the shoveling is done off a smooth board with the added advantage of having the material lubricated and, finally, the foreman is usually at this point to crowd the work. A good worker will load 12½ cu. yds. of concrete per 10-hour day, and with wages at $1.50 per day this would give a cost of 12 cts. per cu. yd. for loading.

Practically the same principles govern the transporting of concrete in barrows as govern the handling of the raw materials in them. The cost of wheeling concrete is practically the same as for wheeling the dry ingredients, so that the total cost of loading and wheeling may be estimated by the following rule:

To a fixed cost of 16 cts. for loading and lost time add 1 ct. for every 30 ft. of level haul.

Within a few years wheelbarrows have been supplanted to a considerable extent by hand carts of the general type shown by Fig. 12, which illustrates one made by the Ransome Concrete Machinery Co. The bowl of this cart has a capacity of 6 cu. ft. water measure. It is hung on a 1¼-in. steel axle; the wheels are 42 ins. in diameter with staggered spokes and 2-in. half oval tires. The top of the bowl is 29½ ins. from the ground. Owing to the large diameter of the wheels and the fact that no weight comes on the wheeler, as with a wheelbarrow, this cart is handled by one man about as rapidly and easily as is a wheelbarrow. It will be noted that the two ends of the bowl differ in shape; the handle is removable and can be attached to either end of the bowl. With the handle attached as shown the bowl can be inverted for discharging onto a pavement or floor; with the handle transferred to the opposite end the bowl is fitted for dumping into narrow beam or wall forms. The maximum load of wet concrete for a wheelbarrow is 2 cu. ft., and this is a heavy load and one that is seldom averaged—1 to 1½ cu. ft. is more nearly the general average. A cart of the above type will, therefore, carry from 3 to 5 wheelbarrow loads, and on good runways, which are essential, may be pushed and dumped about as rapidly as a wheelbarrow. In succeeding pages are given records of actual work with hand carts which should be studied in this connection.

Portland cement concrete can be hauled a considerable distance in a dump cart or wagon before it begins to harden; natural cement sets too quickly to permit of its being hauled far. Portland cement does not begin to set in less than 30 minutes. On a good road, with no long, steep hills a team will haul a loaded wagon at a speed of about 200 ft. per minute; it, therefore, takes 6½ minutes to travel a quarter of a mile, 13 minutes to travel half a mile, and 26 minutes to travel a mile. Portland cement concrete can, therefore, be hauled a mile before it begins to set. The cost of hauling concrete in carts is about the same as the cost of hauling the raw materials as given in a preceding section.

When hand mixing is employed in building piers, abutments, walls, etc., the concrete often has to be hoisted as well as wheeled. A gallows frame or a mast with a pulley block at the top and a team of horses can often be used in such cases as described in Chapter XII for filling cylinder piers, or in the same chapter for constructing a bridge abutment. It is also possible often to locate the mixing board on high ground, perhaps at some little distance from the forms. If this can be done, the use of derricks may be avoided as above suggested or by building a light pole trestle from the mixing board to the forms. The concrete can then be wheeled in barrows and dumped into the forms. If the mixing board can be located on ground as high as the top of the concrete structure is to be, obviously a trestle will enable the men to wheel on a level runway. Such a trestle can be built very cheaply, especially where second-hand lumber, or lumber that can be used subsequently for forms is available. A pole trestle whose bents are made entirely of round sticks cut from the forest is a very cheap structure, if a foreman knows how to throw it together and up-end the bents after they are made. One of the authors has put up such trestles for 25 cts. per lineal foot of trestle, including all labor of cutting the round timber, erecting it, and placing a plank flooring 4 ft. wide on top. The stringers and flooring plank were used later for forms, and their cost is not included. A trestle 100 ft. long can thus be built at less cost than hauling, erecting and taking down a derrick; and once the trestle is up it saves the cost of operating a derrick.

In conclusion, it should be remarked that the comparative economy for concrete work of the different methods of haulage described, does not depend wholly on the comparative transportation costs; the effect of the method of haulage on the cost of dumping and spreading costs must be considered. For example, if carts deliver the material in such form that the cost of spreading is greatly increased over what it would be were the concrete delivered in wheelbarrows, the gain made by cart haulage may be easily wiped out or even turned into loss by the extra spreading charges. These matters are considered more at length in the succeeding section.

DUMPING, SPREADING AND RAMMING.—The cost of dumping wheelbarrows and carts is included in the rules of cost already given, excepting that in some cases it is necessary to add the wages of a man at the dump who assists the cart drivers or the barrow men. Thus in dumping concrete from barrows into a deep trench or pit, it is usually advisable to dump into a galvanized iron hopper provided with an iron pipe chute. One man can readily dump all the barrows that can be filled from a concrete mixer in a day, say 150 cu. yds. At this rate of output the cost of dumping would be only 1 ct. per cu. yd., but if one man were required to dump the output of a small gang of men, say 25 cu. yds., the cost of dumping would be 6 cts. per cu. yd.

Concrete dumped through a chute requires very little work to spread it in 6-in. layers; and, in fact, concrete that can be dumped from wheelbarrows, which do not all dump in one place, can be spread very cheaply; for not more than half the pile dumped from the barrow needs to be moved, and then moved merely by pushing with a shovel. Since the spreader also rams the concrete, it is difficult to separate these two items. As nearly as the authors have been able to estimate this item of spreading "dry" concrete dumped from wheelbarrows in street paving work, the cost is 5 cts. per cu. yd. If, on the other hand, nearly all the concrete must be handled by the spreaders, as in spreading concrete dumped from carts, the cost is fully double, or 10 cts. per cu. yd. And if the spreader has to walk even 3 or 4 paces to place the concrete after shoveling it up, the cost of spreading will be 15 cts. per cu. yd. For this reason it is apparent that carts are not as economical as wheelbarrows for hauling concrete up to about 200 ft., due to the added cost of spreading material delivered by carts.

The preceding discussion of spreading is based upon the assumption that the concrete is not so wet that it will run. Obviously where concrete is made of small stones and contains an excess of water, it will run so readily as to require little or no spreading.

The cost of ramming concrete depends almost entirely upon its dryness and upon the number of cubic yards delivered to the rammers. Concrete that is mixed with very little water requires long and hard ramming to flush the water to the surface. The yardage delivered to the rammers is another factor, because if only a few men are engaged in mixing they will not be able to deliver enough concrete to keep the rammers properly busy, yet the rammers by slow though continuous pounding may be keeping up an appearance of working. Then, again, it has been noticed that the slower the concrete is delivered the more particular the average inspector becomes. Concrete made "sloppy" requires no ramming at all, and very little spading. The authors have had men do very thorough ramming of moderately dry concrete for 15 cts. per cu. yd., where the rammers had no spreading to do, the material being delivered in shovels. It is rare indeed that spreading and ramming can be made to cost more than 40 cts. per cu. yd., under the most foolish inspection, yet one instance is recorded which, because of its rarity, is worth noting: Mr. Herman Conrow is the authority for the data: 1 foreman, 9 men mixing, 1 ramming, averaged 15 cu. yds. a day, or only 1½ cu. yds. per man per day, when laying wet concrete. When laying dry concrete the same gang averaged only 8 cu. yds. a day, there being 4 men ramming. With foreman at $2 and laborers at $1.50 a day, the cost was $2.12 per cu. yd. for labor on the dry concrete as against $1.13 per cu. yd. for the wet concrete. Three turnings of the stone with a wet mortar effected a better mixture than four turnings with a dry mortar. The ramming of the wet concrete cost 10 cts. per cu. yd., whereas the ramming of the dry concrete cost 75 cts. per cu. yd. The authors think this is the highest cost on record for ramming. It is evident, however, that the men were under a poor foreman, for an output of only 15 cu. yds. per day with 10 men is very low for ordinary conditions. Moreover, the expensive amount of ramming indicates either poor management or the most foolish inspection requirements.

In conclusion it may be noted that if engineers specify a dry concrete and "thorough ramming," they would do well also to specify what the word "thorough" is to mean, using language that can be expressed in cents per cubic yard. It is a common thing, for example, to see a sewer trench specification in which one tamper is required for each two men shoveling the back-fill into the trench; and some such specific requirement should be made in a concrete specification if close estimates from reliable contractors are desired. Surely no engineer will claim that this is too unimportant a matter for consideration when it is known that ramming can easily be made to cost as high as 40 cts. per cu. yd., depending largely upon the whim of the inspector.

THE COST OF SUPERINTENDENCE.—This item is obviously dependent upon the yardage of concrete handled under one foreman and the daily wages of the foreman. If a foreman receives $3 a day and is bossing a job where only 12 cu. yds. are placed daily, we have a cost of 25 cts. per cu. yd. for superintendence. If the same foreman is handling a gang of 20 men whose output is 50 cu. yds., the superintendence item is only 6 cts. per cu. yd. If the same foreman is handling a concrete-mixing plant having a daily output of 150 cu. yds., the cost of superintendence is but 2 cts. per cu. yd. These elementary examples have been given simply because figures are more impressive than generalities, and because it is so common a sight to see money wasted by running too small a gang of men under one foreman.

Of all classes of contract work, none is more readily estimated day by day than concrete work, not only because it is usually built in regular shapes whose volumes are easily ascertained at the end of each day, but because a record of the bags, or barrels, or batches gives a ready method of computing the output of each gang. For this reason small gangs of concrete workers need no foreman at all, provided one of the workers is given command and required to keep tally of the batches. If the efficiency of a gang of 6 men were to fall off, say, 15 per cent., by virtue of having no regular non-working foreman in charge, the loss would be only $1.35 a day—a loss that would be more than counterbalanced by the saving of a foreman's wages. Indeed, the efficiency of a gang of 6 men would have to fall off 25 per cent., or more, before it would pay to put a foreman in charge. In many cases the efficiency will not fall off at all, provided the gang knows that its daily progress is being recorded, and that prompt discharge will follow laziness. Indeed, one of the authors has more than once had the efficiency increased by leaving a small gang to themselves in command of one of the workers who was required to punch a hole in a card for every batch.

To reduce the cost of superintendence there is no surer method than to work two gangs of 18 to 20 men, side by side, each gang under a separate foreman who is striving to make a better showing than his competitor. This is done with marked advantage in street paving, and could be done elsewhere oftener than it is.

In addition to the cost of a foreman in direct charge of the laborers, there is always a percentage of the cost of general superintendence and office expenses to be added. In some cases a general superintendent is put in charge of one or two foremen; and, if he is a high-salaried man, the cost of superintendence becomes a very appreciable item.

SUMMARY OF COSTS.—Having thus analyzed the costs of making and placing concrete, we can understand why it is that printed records of costs vary so greatly. Moreover, we are enabled to estimate the labor cost with far more accuracy than we can guess it; for by studying the requirements of the specifications, and the local conditions governing the placing of stock piles, mixing boards, etc., we can estimate each item with considerable accuracy. The purpose, however, has not been solely to show how to predict the labor cost, but also to indicate to contractors and their foremen some of the many possibilities of reducing the cost of work once the contract has been secured. An analysis of costs, such as above given, is the most effective way of discovering unnecessary "leaks," and of opening one's eyes to the possibilities of effecting economies in any given case.

To indicate the method of summarizing the costs of making concrete by hand, let us assume that the concrete is to be put into a deep foundation requiring wheeling a distance of 30 ft.; that the stock piles are on plank 60 ft. distant from the mixing board; that the specifications call for 6 turns of gravel concrete thoroughly rammed in 6-in. layers; and that a good sized gang of, say, 16 men (at $1.50 a day each), is to work under a foreman receiving $2.70 a day. We then have the following summary by applying the rules already given:

To estimate the daily output of this gang of 16 laborers proceed thus: Divide the daily wages of all the 16 men, expressed in cents, by the labor cost of the concrete in cents, the quotient will be the cubic yards output of the gang. Thus, 2,400 ÷ 90 is 27 cu. yds., in this case.

In street paving work where no man is needed to help dump the wheelbarrows, and where it is usually possible to shovel concrete direct from the mixing board into place, and where half as much ramming as above assumed is usually satisfactory, we see that the last four labor items instead of amounting to 12 + 5 + 5 + 15, or 37 cts., amount only to one-half of the last item, one-half of 15 cts., or 7½ cts. This makes the total labor cost only 60 cts. instead of 90 cts. If we divide 2,400 cts. (the total day's wages of 16 men) by 60 cts. (the labor cost per cu. yd.), we have 40, which is the cubic yards output of the 16 men. This greater output of the 16 men reduces the cost of superintendence to 7 cts. per cu. yd.

CHAPTER IV.

METHODS AND COST OF MAKING AND PLACING CONCRETE BY MACHINE.

The making and placing of concrete is virtually a manufacturing process. This process as performed by manual labor is discussed in the preceding chapter; it will be discussed here as it is performed by machinery. The objects sought in using machinery for making and placing concrete are: (1) The securing of a more perfectly mixed and uniform concrete, and (2) the securing of a cheaper cost of concrete in place. As in every other manufacturing process both objects cannot be obtained to the highest degree without co-ordinate and universal efficiency throughout in plant and methods. For example, the substitution of machine mixing for hand mixing will not alone ensure cheaper concrete. If all materials are delivered to the machine in wheelbarrows and if the concrete is conveyed away in wheelbarrows, the cost of making concrete even with machine mixers is high. On the other hand, where the materials are fed from bins by gravity into the mixer and when the mixed concrete is hauled away in cars, the cost of making the concrete may be very low. Making and placing concrete by machinery involves not one but several mechanical operations working in conjunction—in a word, a concrete making plant is required.

The mechanical equipment of a concrete making plant has four duties to perform. (1) It has to transport the raw materials from the cars or boats or pits and place them in the stock piles or storage bins; (2) it has to take the raw materials from stock and charge them to the mixer; (3) it has to mix the raw materials into concrete and discharge the mixture into transportable vehicles; and (4) it has to transport these vehicles from the mixer to the work and discharge them. As all these operations are interrelated component parts of one great process, it is plain why one operation cannot lag without causing all the other operations to slow up.

The mechanical devices which may be used for each of these operations are various, and they may be combined in various ways to make the complete train of machinery necessary to the complete process. In this chapter we shall describe the character and qualities of each type of devices separately. The practicable ways of combining them to form a complete concrete making plant are best illustrated by descriptions and records of work of actual plants, and such descriptions and records for each class of structure considered in this book are given in the following chapters and may be found by consulting the index. In describing the various machines and devices we have made one classification for those used in handling raw materials and mixed concrete, for the reason that nearly all of them are suitable for either purpose.

UNLOADING WITH GRAB BUCKETS.—The orange-peel or clam-shell bucket is an excellent device for unloading sand or stone from cars or barges. The cost of unloading, including cleaning up the portions not reached by the bucket, is not more than from 2 to 5 cts. per cu. yd. A grab bucket of either of these types can be applied to any derrick. In unloading broken stone from barges at Ossining, N. Y., a Hayward clam-shell on a stiff-leg derrick unloaded 100 cu. yds. of broken stone per day from barge into wagons, with one engineman and one helper. In addition to the bucket work there was 24 hours' labor cleaning on each 500-cu. yd. barge load. The labor cost of unloading a 500-cu. yd. barge was as follows:

INCLINES.—Inclines to reach the tops of mixer and storage bins and the level of concrete work can be operated on about the following grades: For teams hauling wagons or cars, 2 per cent. maximum grade. A single heavy team will haul a 5-cu. yd. car, with ordinary bearings, weighing 2½ tons empty and 12 tons loaded, with ease on a 1½ per cent. grade, and with some difficulty on a 2 per cent. grade. A locomotive will handle cars on a grade of from 4 to 5 per cent. For team haulage 20-lb. rails may be used, and for locomotives 30-lb. rails. Grades steeper than about 5 per cent. require cable haulage.

TRESTLE AND CAR PLANTS.—Trestle and car plants for handling both concrete materials and mixed concrete have a wide range of application and numerous examples of such plants are described in succeeding chapters, and are noted in the index at the end of the book. The following estimates of the cost of a trestle and car plant are given by Mr. Wm. G. Fargo. The work is assumed to cover an area of 100×200 ft. and to have three-fourths of its bulk below the economical elevation of the mixer, which stands within 50 ft. of the near side of the work. If the work is under 3,000 cu. yds. in bulk and there is a reasonable time limit for completion one mixer of 200 cu. yds. capacity per 10-hour day is assumed to be sufficient. The items of car plant cost will be about as follows:

The trestle assumed is double 24-in. gage track, 6 ft. on centers; stringers 6×8 ins.×22 to 24 ft.; ties 2×6 ins., 2½ ft. on centers; running boards 2×12 ins. for each track, and 12-lb. rails; trestle legs, average length 30 ft., of green poles at 5 cts. per foot. This outfit with repairs and renewals amounting to 10 per cent., is considered good for five season's work and the timber work for several jobs if not too far apart. The yearly rental on the basis of five seasons' work would be $124.30, or $1 per working day for a season of five months. Three cars delivering ½ cu. yd. batches can deliver 200 cu. yds. of concrete, an average of 100 ft. from the mixer in 10 hours. Five men, including a man tending switches and turntable and one man to help dump, can operate the plant. With wages at $1.75 per day the labor cost of handling 200 cu. yds. of concrete would be 4⅛cts. per cu. yd.