Steel and concrete anvil stand

[Marc1]

How about we go on another tangent and talk about concrete anvils? if stone anvils are so good, concrete anvils, made of the appropriate mix and dutifully pressed and aged should be king

[ThomasPowers]

There you go trying to trump my plaster of Paris and sand anvils!----I saw it on youtube so it MUST be good info!

[Marc1]

Mm ... from, Paris! Must be good.

I like Croissants with Roquefort cheese and prosciutto from Parma ...

[JHCC]

Now we can argue about whether it’s better to build a stone castle or a rock fort. 

[ThomasPowers]

Hmm; my home office is right off Parmer road; but I have never liked being prosecuted...

 

[Marc1]

You mean prosciutted

[ThomasPowers]

Well; no I could go for that; really ham it up!

[Marc1]

Sounds like Bologna to me ...  Let's pastrami it for now. We can always panchettit back. 

[anvil]

Stoned castle vs rock fort?

You must realize that in Colorado, and now Canada, this has a whole different meaning!! And it's legal. 

[ThomasPowers]

Rock Fort is a better choice for a whitesmith; you may have heard of the Rock Fort Files before.

[stevomiller]

Rock Fort tastes better than Bleu Cheese, of which I consume much in my stoned castle here in NorCal, pondering with onset paranoia Ted Ewert’s demise to his dismay and the purists gleee. 

Ted, I’m so confused to why you always open yourself to such ridicule by by openly flaunting that you are a self thinker and do as seems fit to you.  Very un-American of you in these days of collective goose stepping to the masses. You are probably using all of this as some sort of micro aggression towards traditionalist blacksmiths every where on the inter webs, definitely bordering on, well, I shan’t speak it.

[Ted Ewert]

LOL Steve. I used to run a web site called Heretical Builders where we built all kinds of high efficiency energy devices. A pagan heretic I am, and will always be. Nonetheless, there is no aggression or ill will in my intent. I simply like to try different ways to do and make things. 

Just today I decided to test the durability of mortar contained in a steel box. It will be used as a sort of striking anvil to see how the mortar works as an internal medium.

Here's the top of the frame

And the inside

I used a piece of 1/8" sheet metal for the top, some channel iron for the frame then just some 1" flat stock for the rest. 

For the mortar I used magnetite sand ( Fe3O2, same stuff as scale) which I collect at a local beach. I washed it thoroughly with fresh water to remove the salt and debris before mixing it with portland cement. 

I used some lathe shavings as a sort of rebar to aid in keeping the mortar from cracking. I didn't want to go too far with the reinforcement because I still want to see how much abuse the stuff can take. I added more shavings as I filled it up.

Here it is all poured,  just waiting for some candles and someone to sing happy birthday. I purposely make a thin mixture with extra cement because I know how much this sand settles. It's heavier than normal sand and becomes very dense. I left it slightly crowned because of the settling, and I will sand it flat on the belt sander tomorrow before it gets too hard (I've done this before). 

You can see how much water the sand displaces. I tap on the form with a hammer throughout the whole pour to get the air bubbles out and set the sand.

I'll give it a couple of weeks to really setup before pounding on it. Of course, I'll post results.

 

Ted

[stevomiller]

Heck leave it crowned it will move metal better if it doesn’t explode. I wait with baited, or perhaps just bad, breath.

And of course I know you mean know I’ll will, I like the fact that you like to see for yourself. It’s not like your suggesting using magnesium as a forge insulation, so you should do as you see fit!

[Ted Ewert]

The crowned area is actually the bottom of the thing. I'm under no illusions that mortar is a suitable striking surface. What I want to know is whether it can be used as a backing material for one. It would be a whole lot cheaper to put a nice piece of alloy steel on a mass of reinforced mortar than solid steel. 

[ThomasPowers]

Well, I recently needed to hammer out something jammed in a bolt hole and I have a 50# chunk of 1" steel on a couple of concrete blocks by my back door I though I would use.   Broke the blocks and it wasn't even that much hammering compared to smithing.  Good Luck and please post the results!

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Thomas,

I assume the blocks were what is commonly referred to as "cinder blocks". If they were, I'm not surprised at the result. 

As blacksmiths, most of you are familiar with the different types of steel and their properties. You wouldn't use A36 for a knife blade because it is not suited to the task.

The same is true for mortar and concrete. A cinder block works very well in the function it was designed for, namely as an element of a load bearing wall with the proper reinforcement and in the proper configuration. 

If you cast a 6" cube of concrete, and after curing, put it on your anvil and hit it with a heavy hammer, it will most likely break apart to some extent. If you consider that same piece of 6" cube as part of a 6" slab of reinforced concrete, and hit it with that same hammer, you will have a different outcome.

Just like steel, concrete and mortar have widely differing properties according to how they are manufactured, what ingredients are used, the proportion of those ingredients, what reinforcement is used, what configuration they are used in and what load stresses are placed upon them. 

I'm no expert, but I have studied and experimented with different mortars in a variety of configurations. It was no accident that I happened to use magnetite sand as a base component of the mortar. This mortar is basically fine grains of iron oxide glued together with portland cement. It becomes very dense and hard when cured. 

I surrounded it with a steel encasement to support the lateral stresses incurred when struck, much as the surrounding slab does in the previous example. I will also put a steel plate on the bottom for additional support. 

An interesting side note is the redesign of the rebar configuration in large concrete support columns here in the Bay Area following the '89 quake. During the quake a number of elevated freeways collapsed, or were severely damaged by the quake. This was primarily caused by the rebar configuration within the columns. The rebar was designed mostly for vertical stresses and failed during the tremendous lateral stresses caused by the quake.

Concrete columns are still constructed today, but now they have horizontal rings around the outside of the vertical rebar to hold them in place. Many existing columns were retrofitted with steel encasements surrounding the entire column. 

You don't have to have a degree in engineering to study and understand materials. Experimentation is one of the best teachers you'll find.

 

Ted

[Marc1]

If you can lay your hands on a bit of fibrosteel, that is the stuff used to reinforce concrete to build dams, you may have a better result. I used to work for BHP a long time ago and we made the stuff. It looks a bit like this >-< , very small, some 15mm long. Russian invention I believe. Makes the concrete much stronger. 

[arftist]

On 10/23/2018 at 12:19 AM, Marc1 said:

Not to mention it is hard to work the hammer over the anvil laying under it

The reason I tend to get engrossed in the topic anvil+stand, is that most ... or at least some ... people think that a bigger stand will add mass to the anvil. It is intuitive to think so and you must excuse those who think so.

The scientific explanation can be rather long and dry, and from previous attempts and judging from the inquisition replies i received, I rather let that one go. 

i will however attempt a thought for the thoughtful.

If the addition of Mass one (anvil) + Mass two (stand),  in the case of a collision system like hammer and anvil+stand, is so easy to achieve, just by bolting the anvil down ... why is it that when someone talks about repairing an anvil we make such a fuss about the faceplate and how it should be attached to the anvil? 

if bolting down an anvil makes the mass of the stand be added to the mass of the anvil, why can't we just make a faceplate with 4 lumps, one at each corner with a 20mm hole in each corner, weld 4 nuts on the side of the anvil and strap the face down nice and tight with 3/4" bolts and Bob is your father's brother? 

No one would think that such is a good idea, however if it is not, then the anvil anchored to the stand, is only good for stability purposes and not for mass adding. 

A 200 lb anvil on a 100 lb stand or on a 2,000 lb stand will perform almost the same unfortunately. if you then add some caulking compound between them ... well, then it will be like having the anvil on your belly ... or rather your striker's belly. Not very different anyway.

Wrong.

You probably couldn't break your finger hammering on it with your anvil on belly.

 

Whip out that long boring explanation if you are going to make that claim.

It is all about inertia and a 2000 #

block has a lot more than a 200 #.

 

On topic, yes, concrete has tremendous strength in compression...but small diameter rebar doesn't. 

In no way is this stand designed so that the rebars have compressive strength. 

Sorry, it just isn't.

Another thing about concrete,

It is light, it doesn't make a good filler. 

Use lead to fill pipes for weight,

 

Better yet, use solid stock.

On 10/21/2018 at 9:58 AM, Ted Ewert said:

The stand wouldn't be too hard to move. I oiled the slab below it before pouring, so it can't be stuck too bad. The weight is somewhere north of 200 lbs. 

I love the old  popular mechanics stand idea! The lead is a bit much, but you could do the same thing with a big piece of pipe. A flange on the top and bottom, fill it with concrete and you're done. 

It is the lead that made it quiet, very important in a school.

[Buzzkill]

1 hour ago, arftist said:

It is all about inertia and a 2000 #

block has a lot more than a 200 #

While this is true, it's largely irrelevant in this context.  If you are not applying enough force to overcome the inertia of an anvil and its 200 pound stand, then you certainly aren't applying enough force to overcome the inertia of a 2000 pound stand.  In other words the effect is roughly the same for both below a certain threshold of force.  It only matters if the force applied to the anvil is great enough to move one anvil/stand combination but not the other.   To some extent extra mass can be simulated by good anchoring of the anvil to the stand and the stand to the floor.   It's actually all about how much force goes into the work piece compared to how much of it is absorbed by all the other factors.  We digressed deeply into that topic on another thread.  I'm not sure we all ever agreed on anything except that we want as much of the force of our hammer blows as possible to transfer to the hot steel rather than anything else.

[Marc1]

On 11/8/2018 at 12:31 PM, arftist said:

Wrong.

You probably couldn't break your finger hammering on it with your anvil on belly.

Sorry Arf, been there done that, no idea what your are talking about, and the rest of your inertia claim ... well ... we covered it already to no avail. How about using the whole earth as stand? ... again ... been thee done that, too late.

If you want to believe that the stand adds mass to the anvil, be my guest 

[arftist]

18 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

While this is true, it's largely irrelevant in this context.  If you are not applying enough force to overcome the inertia of an anvil and its 200 pound stand, then you certainly aren't applying enough force to overcome the inertia of a 2000 pound stand.  In other words the effect is roughly the same for both below a certain threshold of force.  It only matters if the force applied to the anvil is great enough to move one anvil/stand combination but not the other.   To some extent extra mass can be simulated by good anchoring of the anvil to the stand and the stand to the floor.   It's actually all about how much force goes into the work piece compared to how much of it is absorbed by all the other factors.  We digressed deeply into that topic on another thread.  I'm not sure we all ever agreed on anything except that we want as much of the force of our hammer blows as possible to transfer to the hot steel rather than anything else.

Link up.

On 10/28/2018 at 1:12 PM, JHCC said:

Some quality cast anvils (Fishers especially) have mounting holes cast into the bases; many don’t. An absence of mounting holes might indicate an expectation that the end user would figure out their own mounting system, while their presence might indicate that the manufacturer also had cast bases for sale. 

Fisher had cast bases for sale.

[Buzzkill]

2 hours ago, arftist said:

Link up.

https://www.iforgeiron.com/topic/57641-why-does-size-matter/

 

[Ted Ewert]

This whole argument really boils down to one issue: Immovability of the anvil. Size only matters in regard to mass and inertia (and working area). The surface of a 500 lb anvil is no stiffer than a 100 lb anvil made of the same material. However, the 500 lb anvil will resist movement much better than the 100 lb anvil if they are not bolted down. Resistance to movement of any kind is the measurement which determines "performance". 

When I built my current stand of steel and concrete, and bolted the anvil on to it, the performance increased significantly over the wood stand I was using previously. My anvil was also bolted to the wood stand which was then bolted to the floor. The reason is that concrete and steel are much stiffer than wood (even stiffer than steel alone!). The stand does not flex or vibrate like wood does. I hit the top of the anvil and it is rock hard and steady. It has a very high degree of resistance to movement, which is exactly what I wanted. 

Consequently, I don't need 500 lbs of anvil to stop, or impede, movement when I strike the work. 

[JHCC]

Additionally, the stand’s resistance to vertical deflection is a lot less important than its resistance to lateral displacement — that is, how well it stands up to blows that are anything other than perfectly vertical.  Unless the stand is bolted down or sunk into the floor, the only thing that keeps it from rocking or shifting sideways when you’re working over one of the edges or the horn is the inertia of its total mass.

[arftist]

On 11/9/2018 at 4:14 AM, Marc1 said:

Sorry Arf, been there done that, no idea what your are talking about, and the rest of your inertia claim ... well ... we covered it already to no avail. How about using the whole earth as stand? ... again ... been thee done that, too late.

If you want to believe that the stand adds mass to the anvil, be my guest 

Marc1,

Thanks to Buzzkill I read the ridiculous thread which you think settles this.

It doesn't, not even close.

First, the physics you reference describe an unmounted anvil, the author himself admits it is of very limited value and a mounted anvil requires a further article.

Second, many of your posts contain unproven assumptions described as facts.

I couldn't address them because the thread was closed but they are still false.

Third, the very limited discussion quickly devolved into an ego contest, in which you were greatly involved.

Fourth, when I post legitimate fodder for the topic at hand you unceremoniously brush off my comments and attempt to make me look foolish. 

Your answer is, " been there done that".

That offers no more proof than any of your comments, ie, none. 

Finally I would add that both of your PW anvil are considered large, invalidating your points.

If you wish to be taken seriously then reply in a serious non-pejorative manner.