TMS
ONLINE | TMS
PUBLICATIONS | SITE
MAP An Article from the March 2003JOM: A Hypertext-Enhanced Article |
|
|
The
author of this article is a metallurgical consultant with Westmoreland
Mechanical Testing & Research.
|
Exploring traditional, innovative, and revolutionary issues in the minerals,
metals, and materials fields.
|
OUR LATEST ISSUE |
|
|
|
Figure 1. Fallingwater, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Photograph by Robert P. Ruschak courtesy of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. |
Fallingwater was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in the mid-1930s as a country
home for the wealthy Edgar Kaufmann family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The
house is located in the forests of Mill Run, south of Pittsburgh. Spanning the
Bear Run stream as a cantilever (Figure 1),
Fallingwater, owned and operated by the Western
Pennsylvania Conservancy, is recognized as one of the most significant works
of American architecture.
In the past 68 years, restoration of the house has been necessary to provide
structural stability and to accommodate tours of more than 145,000 people per
year. In 2002, the most significant structural restoration work took place,
predominantly to repair deflection of the largest terrace toward the stream
and corrosion of the steel supporting the hatch steps. The goal of the restoration
is to provide structural support without altering Wright’s use of materials.
Fallingwater is an engineering marvel and second-guessing Wright’s designs
and use of materials is not without risk.
The renovation has allowed samples of the original steel used for construction
in the 1930s to be captured and analyzed. Two steels were sampled and tested;
one represents the reinforcing bar used in the largest terrace and the other
is from the hatch steps. The reinforcing bar was exposed when the new hatch
steps were mounted in the concrete above it. Westmoreland
Mechanical Testing & Research performed all the testing and analyses.
A sample of the original 0.635 cm (0.25 in.) diameter rebar was taken for analysis.
Both 1.58 cm (0.625 in.) and 0.635 cm (0.25 in.) rebar was used to reinforce
the concrete. The reinforcing bar had not corroded or yielded. Restoration of
the concrete itself was performed in a limited area exposing a spot where a
sample of the smaller diameter rebar could be taken (Figure
2). The chemical composition was determined and would conform to the 1948
SAE No. 1018 or 1021 (Table I).
|
|||||||
C*
|
Mn
|
P
|
S*
|
||||
0.635 cm (0.25 in.) rebar | 0.19 |
0.64 |
0.03 |
0.030 |
|||
1018 | 0.1–0.20 |
0.60–0.90 |
0.040 |
0.030 |
|||
1021 | 0.18–0.23 |
0.60–0.90 |
0.040 |
0.030 |
|||
|
|||||||
* Leco techniques used, Mn by OES and ICP for
remaining elements for 0.635 cm (0.25 in.) rebar
|
These are nominal compositions of that alloy in 1948 per Reference
1 because, as in 1939, no SAE grades fit the actual composition. However,
Bessemer Steel reinforcing bar did (Table II).
|
||||
Bessemer Steel |
C
|
Mn
|
P
|
S
|
Reinforcing bars2 | 0.15-0.35 |
0.70 max. |
0.11 max. |
0.08 max. |
Reinforcing bars3 | 0.15-0.35 |
0.70 max. |
0.12 max. |
0.08 max. |
Reinforcing bars3 | 0.08-0.15 |
1.00 max. |
0.12 max. |
Normal or added |
|
The 0.635 cm (0.25 in.) rebar was likely made by the Bessemer steelmaking
process in a Pittsburgh area mill. An article published at around the time Fallingwater
was built, 1935–37, shows the typical products of Bessemer Steel and includes
reinforcing bars.2 The
composition shown in Table II matches that of the rebar
in Table I (Reference 2 is from 1939,
Reference 3 is from 1948 and shows two grades of Bessemer
reinforcing bar had been developed by then). Reference 3
also contains a footnote on reinforcing bar compositions that indicates by that
time, specifications governing reinforcing bars prescribed mechanical tests
rather than chemical compositions. In 1935, over 2.7 million tonnes of Bessemer
steel were produced in the United States.4
Open hearth was the predominant process, with over 30.8 million tonnes produced
in the United States.4
Bessemer and openhearth furnaces are no longer used in the United States.
In Bessemer steel, pig iron was charged into the vessel and air was blown through
it, oxidizing the silicon, manganese, and carbon (in that order). Pig iron for
the Bessemer furnace contained 1.00–1.80%Si, 0.085–0.100%P, 3.80–4.00%C
with Mn under 0.60% and S between 0.03–0.08%. The manganese in the steel
would have been restored by adding FeMn to the ladle. Aluminum is only present
in the rebar at a residual level, indicating none was added to the heat. The
high nitrogen content of the rebar, at 120 ppm, vividly points to the Bessemer
as being the steelmaking process used, as air was used to blow the heat. Pig
iron for the Bessemer furnace was required to contain very low phosphorus contents,
which was possible from the use of low-phosphorus iron ores mined in the United
States. In 1875 there was a Bessemer furnace at the Carnegie Steel Company’s
Edgar Thompson Works in Braddock, Pennsylvania (now part of U.S. Steel) and
at Aetna Standard Iron and Steel in Mingo Junction, Ohio (now part of Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel). It is quite possible the rebar for Fallingwater was produced
at one of these nearby mills.
|
|
Figure 2. A section above the hatch steps of Fallingwater, showing exposed 0.635 cm (0.25 in.) diameter rebar and hatch steel corrosion. Photograph by Louise Dean courtesy of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. |
The restoration of Fallingwater included removing the original hatch steps
to replace the steel strap supports with more corrosion-resistant steel. The
steel strap supports and all the visible steel used at Fallingwater was painted
Cherokee red. Fallingwater’s preservation philosophy states that Wright
chose the red color as he felt it was suggestive of both iron ore and the fiery
method used to create steel. The hatch steps were connected to the house using
these steel straps, with the steps going down to the stream itself. Approximately
68 years of exposure to the environment above the Bear Run stream had corroded
this original carbon steel, particularly near the first floor terrace (Figure
2). The steps were made of rolled flat bars 5.87 cm × 0.79 cm (2.3125
in. × 0.3125 in.). The steel supports had been painted since Fallingwater
was built.
Samples of steel from the hatch steps were tested for hardness, microstructure
and micro-cleanliness, chemical composition, tensile strength, yield strength,
reduction in area, and elongation. The microstructure and tensile properties
were determined in both the longitudinal and transverse directions.
Table III shows the chemical analysis results for the
hatch steel. The composition is typical of a 1939 SAE No. 1020 steel, with low
levels of impurities for steel produced at that time (phosphorus and sulfur).
The steel was deoxidized with aluminum and silicon and was likely produced by
the basic open-hearth process and semi-killed ingot cast. Semi-killed products
were made when the carbon was ~0.2%, the silicon was <0.04%, and the aluminum
was <0.01%. Open-hearth steelmaking was the predominant method used in the
United States from the 1930s through the 1960s. Both Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corporation and the Carnegie Steel Company operated open-hearth furnaces in
the Pittsburgh area in the 1930s.
The mechanical properties are shown in Table IV. The hatch
steel exhibited a yield point, which is typical in hot-rolled steels (and not
in cold-rolled steels). It is of interest to note that a paper written in 1936
by the metallurgist at Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh,5
showed the same level of mechanical properties as found here for 1020 hot rolled
bar: 407.5 MPa (59.1 ksi) ultimate tensile strength, 263.4 MPa (38.2 ksi) yield
point, 37% elongation, and 62% reduction of area. This suggests that the steel
used in the hatch steps was typical of steel production. Wright must not have
specified a grade or condition that varied from common grades available at that
time.
|
||||||||||
C*
|
Mn
|
Si
|
Al
|
|||||||
Hatch steel | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
1020 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||||||||
* Leco techniques used, remaining elements
were determined by OES
|
|
||||||
Tensile Sample |
Ultimate Tensile Strength
(MPa) (ksi) |
Yield Point
(MPa) (ksi) |
0.2% Yield Strength
(MPa) (ksi) |
Elongation
(%) |
Reduction of Area
(%) |
Modulus
(MPa) (msi) |
Longitudinal | 424.7 (61.6) |
279.9 (40.6) |
230.3 (33.4) |
|
||
Transverse | 446.8 (64.8) |
237.9 (34.5) |
231.7 (33.6) |
|
||
Hardness | 65.59 Rockwell B |
|
||||
|
The microcleanliness of the hatch steel is shown in Figure
3 and Table V. The sample was mounted, polished, and
viewed under the microscope at 100X to determine the micro-cleanliness in both
the longitudinal and transverse directions. It was found that the steel was
clean for steel produced during that era, with few inclusions in the longitudinal
direction and a rating according to ASTM E-45 of 1.0 thin D oxide inclusions
and 1.5 thin A sulfide inclusions. In the transverse direction, the cleanliness
was found to be the same. ASTM E-45 is not used to rate cleanliness in the transverse
direction; however, the rating is provided here for general information. The
microstructure consisted predominantly of ferrite with a lesser amount of pearlite
(Figure 4).
|
||
Sample |
Type D
Oxide |
Type A
Sulfide |
Longitudinal | 1.0 Thin |
1.5 Thin |
Transverse | 1.0 Thin |
1.5 Thin |
|
The steel was found to conform to hot-rolled 1020 grade with a higher cleanliness
than typical of steel produced in the 1930s. As with the rebar, it would have
been produced prior to the use of the basic oxygen process or continuous casting.
It was likely made using an open-hearth furnace, cast in ingot molds, and rolled
to the bar shape using handmills. During this time little use was made of desulfurization,
leading oftentimes to larger inclusions. In this case, the steel cleanliness
was higher than expected. The largest areas of corrosion occurred near the terrace
and were observed to be on the order of 3.8 cm (1.5 in.) of steel corroded from
the original bar size. That translates to a corrosion rate of approximately
0.06 cm/y (3.8 cm/68 y) [0.02 in./y (1.5 in./68 y)]. These flat steel bars had
been painted since installation and severe corrosion had occurred only at the
concrete-bar interface.
When Frank Lloyd Wright designed Fallingwater, he must not have specified a steel grade or condition that varied from common production available. Yet, it is notable that the Bessemer steel reinforcing bar had not deteriorated during service in the concrete terrace. Also, the open-hearth hatch steel performed well, as severe corrosion occurred only at the concrete-bar interface while the remainder of the flat bar, also exposed above the Bear Run stream for 68 years, showed only pitting corrosion. Fallingwater has timeless interest as an architectural achievement, and some of the steel used to produce this landmark was made using techniques whose time has passed.
References
1. Metals
Handbook (Metals Park, OH: ASM,
1948), p. 307.
2. Metals
Handbook (Metals Park, OH: ASM,
1939), pp. 778–781.
3. Metals
Handbook (Metals Park, OH: ASM,
1948), pp. 320–322.
4. Making, Shaping
and Treating, 8th edition (Pittsburgh, PA: United
States Steel Corp., 1964), p. 439.
5. J.E. Beck, “Cold
Forming Processes-Drawing Rods and Bar,” The Working of Metals,
(Metals Park, OH: ASM,
1937).
For more information, contact Louise Dean, Westmoreland Mechanical Testing & Research, PO Box 388, Youngstown, PA. 15696-0388; (724) 537-3131; e-mail louise@stargate.net.
Direct questions about this or any other JOM page to jom@tms.org.
Search | TMS Document Center | Subscriptions | Other Hypertext Articles | JOM | TMS OnLine |
---|