Steel and concrete anvil stand

[anvil]

Mostly I agree. 

I just look at it a little different. Different by matter of degree. Like I said above, a 2.5# hammer and a 124# anvil connections  cause  vibration, even with the best of setups, not to mention torque? when using the horn or bending forks. It just takes longer with an anvil than it does with a power hammer.

The best I can say is as a farrier, my125# anvil fit snug on my metal stand. The stand sat on whatever ground was a avalable. Dirt, sand, granite, tar or concrete,gf I always left my mark. 

In my blacksmithing shops, I've always mounted my anvil stump 2'-3' into the ground and have come up with a real good  connection  between anvil and stump that is secure, relatively quiet, and the full anvil clear of "boogers and traps" so I can work all surfaces and curves.

My post vice stump, which is rarely talked of, is at least 3' deep. And both the top mount and the boss at the bottom of the post are supported by the same stump. And im sold on deep tight connections.  

I'm a traditional Smith, so my shop is built around the primary tools and the triangle they make. Forge, anvil, and post vice. Im fanatical about tight connections no matter what I'm doing with my iron, nor its size, from "s" hooks to forged cap rail. 

So, those are my requirements, my reasons and my solutions.  Works for me.

[Judson Yaggy]

20 hours ago, anvil said:

I have never seen any "factory" recommended mounting system for power hammers

Perhaps not for direct contact between cast iron power hammer bases and concrete inertia blocks, but there is a fair amount of documented literature that uses concrete as the primary mass under power hammer bases.  Often combined with oak boards/timbers and in the modern era Fabrika pads, but a concrete foundaition block is fairly standard for backing up a power hammer.  Even little old Little Giants had factory literature showing size and bolt placement of the concrete block they recommended under the hammer.  http://www.newenglandblacksmiths.org/little-giant/   

[anvil]

True, with the block isolated from the rest of the floor. I have a pad made from a material similar to belting that came with one of my '25# lil giants as shown in the plan.

Note This plan shows details to isolate the block from the actual hammer.

I believe the purpose of the concrete mass here is to be a counter to the weight of the hammer, more than a recommendation to mount your hammer to a concrete pad/floor.

This is not your usual 4"-6" reinforced concrete pad. 

I built a timber pad out of rr ties and set these Into my dirt floor. I  believe the mount holes in the 25# lil giant are 3/4",, from memory. I used 6"-3/4" lags to secure the hammer to the ties. When I moved, the ties had swelled and I had to  chisel the heads off to remove my hammer. I suspect if it had been mounted with red heads in a concrete floor that I would have had problems keeping a tight connection over the years.

The use of all thread in this example is far better than your normal concrete fasteners.

So, in a sense, its supports my post above. no pun intended. 

[Shabumi]

I've been lurking this post for a while and I do enjoy the constructive conversation, but I've been having a stupid question floating through my head whenever I read this thread. They obviously wanted the power hammers mounted solidly to it's foundation, they cast the bolt holes into the bottom, but anvil manufacturers didn't. So my stupid question is if an anvil was meant to be mounted directly to it's stand, wouldn't they have designed them that way?

[Ted Ewert]

I've often wondered the same thing. I can see it for the giant ones, but the smaller ones??

Some of the small cheap ones do have mounting holes. Maybe someone with deep anvil knowledge can enlightened us. 

[JHCC]

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. 

[Frosty]

If you've ever run a mechanical power hammer that isn't attached to the ground you know why they are supposed to be. The crank has as much lateral motion as vertical and the link arms, spring and hardware are a considerable mass. The springs and link arms are intended to provide give and throw to the hammer weight but provide little if anything to drive weight. The mass in lateral motion however is absorbed by the whole hammer which will rock and walk if not anchored. 

Walking is only one negative aspect, the other is the lost energy represented by the motion. Isolating the foundation block from the rest of the building or Earth via timber sub foundation reduces annoying ripples in the neighbor's morning coffee and complaints from the wife.

Fisher anvils were frequently made to order and often they needed to be mountable without a specific dimension stand, Navy orders in particular. Hence bolt flanges everything on a ship must be secured if warranted. 

Frosty The Lucky.

[Marc1]

Agreed on both accounts. The reason machinery including power hammers need to be anchored is that vibrations will invariably shift the machine sideways otherwise, with dear consequences to cables, pipes and any other service attachments.

Anchoring a big machine seems easy, just use big anchoring fasteners. The problem is that no matter how big the bolts are, they are the weak link between a large mass in movement and an unmovable concrete base. The bolts or the surrounding concrete will lose this battle every time. 

The solution is to provide solid anchoring to a relatively small block of concrete that is fixed and unmovable in relation to the machine yet can provide controlled movement in relation to the surrounding ground whilst keeping the machine in the same place.   Just like the antiseismic houses in Japan that move solidarily footing and walls, the machine, is anchored to a footing that is itself mobile and not anchored down. The small movement created by the machine is dampened by the mass of the footing yet allowed to move elastically back and forth without damaging anything in the process. The difference is like a car with no springs and steel wheels, and another mounted on flexible suspension. I used to install diesel generators on concrete blocks floating on thick mats of cork. Hardwood, rubber or any other elastic medium will also work.

As for the anvils, I believe that such a low tech piece of equipment is produced as a blank, to be adapted by the smith to his own requirements. Holes in the legs of an anvil would not meet the owners requirements half of the time. We should ask our resident anvil manufacturer why does he not drill holes in his anvils.

 

[MC Hammer]

With the abundance of stone and the advanced skills of masonry being practiced in the last 300 years, why are there no accounts of anvils being fastened to solid stone bases or a mortared base made of stones?  I've studied just about every old photo of blacksmiths that can be found and I've seen some creative anvil stands, just none out of stone or mortar.   I think they knew something that will become evident over the years of use of a concrete anvil base.  Anvil's points were very well made.  I'm still in the skeptical crowd with this one.  I hope in 3 years you can show us all that none of your bolts have hogged loose from the concrete, that there are no cracks or degraded portions, and that it works just fine.  The KISS principle really is ringing loudly in my ears.  I'm sure the folks at MIT or RIT could engineer the perfect unconventional anvil stand that would be the perfect system after years of working at it.  Me, I can put my anvil on a wooden stump, secure it down and be forging the same day.  The stump needs no reinforcements, and if I keep it dry it will last a lifetime.  Very simple and has been effective for what 300 years or more for the London pattern?  I applaud you thinking outside the box, and you certainly thought through this project but a wood stump would have done the job just as well and would have been much easier to accomplish.  

[ThomasPowers]

Note that anvils predate cheap and easily available screws and bolts.  If you are just going to pound in some spikes and bend them over then having mounting holes doesn't buy you much compared to the cost of putting them in.  (I now wonder about the PW's ledges though---a nice place to fasten to...) Then of course tradition rears it's sometimes ugly head...

[Marc1]

True about tradition. Nothing wrong with it, (I have my Lederhosen) but when boats have been made with timber for millennia, I own 3 ... two made with GRP, the third one made of aluminium. And there are boats and pontoons made of concrete. 

I wouldn't hesitate in making an anvil base with reinforced concrete, poured in a pyramidal mold over a deep hole in the ground. weld 4 bolts to the reo in the concrete, lay a hard rubber mat under the anvil and pound away for 100 years on it. 

Forget moving it of course that is why I favour steel. Timber log? Not my thing. Termites for one ... 

[JHCC]

Mortared stones and cast concrete are two very different things. 

[Marc1]

Could you make an anvil stand with a piece of granite? 

You bet. Use a stone that is proportional to the anvil size. Level the top with a diamond cup wheel. Drill 4 holes and epoxy threaded rod in them. rubber mat and anvil on top.

No worries. 

[MC Hammer]

It would be interesting indeed if someone made a granite anvil stand and could report back.  I am betting it would work also.  We know it wouldn't split or crack.  Again though, why didn't the blacksmiths of old ever use such anvil stands?  It could be simply because wood was more plentiful and easier to shape.  After all, who'd want tug and tow a large granite builder and chisel it to shape / flatten the top?

JHCC - yup you are right, mortared stone and concrete are different.  

I actually hope Ted's experiment works well.  It would open up a 3rd choice for blacksmiths looking for that sort of thing.  I hope Ted keeps this thread alive with maybe a few honest reports a year so we can follow it.  I'm sure if problems crop up that others could figure out how to solve them going forward.

I'm still a KISS guy.  Throwing an anvil on a wood stump is cheap and easy to do.  I can see a lot of newbies trying this and not thinking it out as carefully as Ted has done.  You can't really mess up putting an anvil on a stump 

[JHCC]

17 minutes ago, MC Hammer said:

You can't really mess up putting an anvil on a stump 

(Raises hand.)

[anvil]

3 hours ago, MC Hammer said:

After all, who'd want tug and tow a large granite builder and chisel it to shape / flatten the top?

And there it is.  " get a bigger hammer" might be a blacksmith thing, but the start size and work to not only flat top it and sculpt the sides so you can get close enough is a daunting task! Tool makers we are, but stone masons we usually arent! Far easier to use a wooden stump.     

12 hours ago, Marc1 said:

True about tradition. Nothing wrong with it, (I have my Lederhosen)

Lol, Marc, you don't have a scrolling wrench big enough to twist my tail!!     

So hear is the difference between a traditional smith and one who is either a forged/fab guy, or those who do fab.

we make our money by maximizing hours per pound, all the rest maximize their money by tons per month!     

Lol, hope yall appreciate the humor and the truth of this.  

[ThomasPowers]

If your only tool is a welder, then all projects look like fab work!

[JHCC]

Actually, if your only tool is a welder, then all projects look like grinder projects.

 

(At least, mine do.)

[MC Hammer]

6 hours ago, JHCC said:

(Raises hand.)

Too low or too high JHCC? 

[Marc1]

On 10/29/2018 at 12:25 PM, anvil said:

So hear is the difference between a traditional smith and one who is either a forged/fab guy, or those who do fab.

we make our money by maximizing hours per pound, all the rest maximize their money by tons per month! 

Uh ... hum ... err ... no, dont get it.  A ratio of time versus weight and another ratio between weight and time ... definitely don't get it.

i would rather maximise pounds per hour then hours per pound, but that is me  

[JHCC]

I thought Australia stopped using pounds in 1966 -- it's dollars now, right?

1 hour ago, MC Hammer said:

Too low or too high JHCC? 

First too high, then too low, always too wobbly. 

Note the steel stand in my profile picture. Not going back.

[anvil]

On 10/29/2018 at 2:37 PM, ThomasPowers said:

If your only tool is a welder, then all projects look like fab work!

 

On 10/29/2018 at 2:57 PM, JHCC said:

Actually, if your only tool is a welder, then all projects look like grinder projects.

HAHAH,,, spilled my coffee!!

 

On 10/29/2018 at 3:59 PM, Marc1 said:

Uh ... hum ... err ... no, dont get it.  A ratio of time versus weight and another ratio between weight and time ... definitely don't get it.

Well with all that power equipment, you best be moving tons per week. 

Seriously, think about it.

Simply said, if i spend 6-8 months on say 800# of iron on a set of gates or railings, and i make the money i want, I know that the more time i put into this 800#,  The more possible money i will make.  thus i invest max time into minimal iron. Or here the formula is hours per pound. And yet, hypothetically speaking, if a fab shop could only move 800# in the same time, they would go broke.

The other two have that same choice, but more times than not, the less time you spend on your product and maximize your output, the better chance you have to make the money that satisfies you. Thus the formula is Pounds per hour

And thats the reason we cannot truly compare each other. Our business models are complete opposites.

Lol, i cant tell you how cool it is when someone steals your mig, and you only notice its loss 2 years later!! 

[Ted Ewert]

8 hours ago, MC Hammer said:

You can't really mess up putting an anvil on a stump 

I dunno...

 

[ThomasPowers]

That anvil and stump look like they are a matching set...

[Marc1]

 

On 10/29/2018 at 4:56 PM, anvil said:

Well with all that power equipment, you best be moving tons per week. 

I see ... intensive value adding vs extensive. I am usually slow in getting jokes, english being my 5th language, but I can see it now.

Banter aside, business models determine work practices, if you want to make money.

Work practices determine business models if you want to send a message to your customers or teach. The money may or may not follow. Most of the time it does not.

Reminds me of a chef I knew who was a remarkably good one and decided to open his own restaurant ... as you do ... yet had no idea of running a restaurant, only how to cook to perfection. When people started to drop out, he told me they were ignorants and that he wanted to "educate" his patrons with the dishes. Goes without saying he closed the doors soon after. Probably still thinks it is the fault of his customers ... I can't believe they did not like my cervelle de veau ... peasants!