..Report on the building and ornamental stones of Canada, volI-V . o. H^ O* 231 Crushing strength, lbs. per squaie inch 25000- Crushing strength after freezing, lbs. per square inch . 19723 • Loss on freezing, grams per square inch 0-0049 Loss on treatment with carbonic acid, grams per square inch 0-189 Transverse strength, lbs. per square inch 2324- ChiselHng factor (somewhat doubtful as the stone broke and shattered like No. 151) 4-86 It is interesting to note that these two stones, which are so much alikein all other respects, differ so greatly in the coefficient of saturation. Thefine line
..Report on the building and ornamental stones of Canada, volI-V . o. H^ O* 231 Crushing strength, lbs. per squaie inch 25000- Crushing strength after freezing, lbs. per square inch . 19723 • Loss on freezing, grams per square inch 0-0049 Loss on treatment with carbonic acid, grams per square inch 0-189 Transverse strength, lbs. per square inch 2324- ChiselHng factor (somewhat doubtful as the stone broke and shattered like No. 151) 4-86 It is interesting to note that these two stones, which are so much alikein all other respects, differ so greatly in the coefficient of saturation. Thefine lines observed in No. 152 represent minute openings in the rock whichpermit of the rapid imbibition of water. It is to be expected that No. 152would be much less durable than No. 151 under the action of frost. No. 150.—Resembles both the above but is probably nearer to No. 149.—Resembles both the stones described but is nearer to No. gives the following analyses:—^ Bed probablycorrespond-ing to No. 152. Top rottenbed. Yellowbed. Lime Magnes
Size: 1375px × 1816px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, booksubjectbuildin, bookyear1912
