Between centres boring bar bit grinding

Here are some minutiae, which to a very reasonable approximation support Duncan’s assertion:

**LINK**

https://amesweb.info/Materials/Youngs-Modulus-of-Steel.aspx

.

MichaelG.

So, why is it harder to bend a high tensile bolt than a cheap hardware store grade 2 bolt if the Young's modulus for alloy steels is the same, virtually, as mild steel such as 1020?

.

Because ‘reasonable approximation’ and ‘the same, virtually’ are just ‘working assumptions’

Reality is much more complicated.

MichaelG.

.

Note the punch-line on that page that I linked:

”For all practical purposes, modulus of elasticity of all tool steels in all conditions is about …”

… some carefully chosen words there ^^^

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 23/05/2022 06:32:15

PostScript :

This calculator page goes some way towards answering Hopper’s question:

**LINK**

https://eurocodeapplied.com/design/en1993/bolt-design-properties

Note the introduction of two new terms

Yield strength

Ultimate tensile strength

… both of which differ between various classes of bolt.

MichaelG.

.

… and in case it’s not obvious: What the ‘high tensile’ materials do is shift the Elastic|Plastic transition … thus increasing the width of the Elastic region on this graphic.

.

Credit: https://amesweb.info/Materials/Youngs-Modulus-of-Steel.aspx

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 23/05/2022 07:16:50

Useful information in that Eurocode site, though its other tabs suggest it is aimed mainly at structural engineers so some of the calculations may not be strictly relevant or useful for machine design.

It almost certainly won't work for fine-scale model-building where edge distances and pitch or centres, (which it clumsily calls "center [sic]-to-center distance" )  are dictated by the prototype's practice, and sometimes by accessibility. On the original, that was matched to the available fasteners and spanners; so may fail in some scale applications.

It explains those numbers, such as 8.8, embossed on bolt-heads; encoding the bolt's strength, but the effects of scale on strength have long been a topic discussed in model-engineering, with the point emerging that if anything the scale components are proportionately stronger than their full-size originals in similar metals.

The caveat being that our strength is not a scale version of the Victorian or Edwardian fitter's; when spanner proportions were established that related them to both fastener strength and male arm strength. They had no torque-spanners but were 'ard, in them days!

I am not sure taking things to the Euronorm depth need worry us as model-engineers too much, though it could help anyone designing to metric dimensions, critical parts like cylinder cover studs and more so, boilers held together with bolted flanges (e.g., Hindley, Merryweather, Sentinel). Their originals would have used BSW bolts and nuts.

You do though need know the actual material you are using, and for some applications including studs, that is not necessarily a grade listed in those tables made for engineers designing big, heavily-stressed steelwork to surprisingly low factors of safety. And of course the document does not cover non-ferrous metals, such as bronze, at all.

The upshot really is that we need consider what is fit for purpose, and provided it is reasonably stiff for its working range, there is nothing especially critical about a mild-steel boring-bar with a small HSS bit gripped and adjusted by ordinary commercial screws. After all, if use a single-point boring-tool from the tool-post, we know that even a high-quality item from an industrial-rated manufacturer may flex slightly, so we often need take a careful spring cut at intervals.

.

Odd that despite the American spellings and apparently being a commercial site (it asks for donations) it shows the EU flag as if some sort of EU-published document.

Edited By Nigel Graham 2 on 23/05/2022 10:50:35

Which, getting back to the original issue, ie silver steel making a stouter boring bar than mild steel per GH Thomas, would seem to indicate that the issue of boring bar flex may not be down to Young's modulus alone. I am pretty sure from experience that it's easier to bend a piece of 1/8" mild steel fencing wire than a piece of 1/8" silver steel rod. Purely anecdotal of course.

That's why yield strength has been mentioned. To bend rather than elestically deflect you have to exceed the yield strength and in Silver steel that is higher than in mild. Youngs modulus is practically the same so the deflection will be similar.

regards Martin

This thread reminds me that GHT began his discussion of boring tools with the confession that, having re-appraised the subject, he had abandoned some pre-conceptions.

His Workshop Manual should be required reading.

I will go further and say that anything written by GHT should be required reading.

Sounds interesting, who is GHT? (Although I suspect I know the answer...)

.

An interesting ‘critical review’ of the Eurocode website, Nigel … especially considering that I only linked one page, for the specific purpose of helping answer Hopper’s question.

MichaelG.

.

Geo. H. Thomas

This one: http://modelenginenews.org/meng/upt/index.html

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 23/05/2022 13:42:48

.

Thank you, Martin

MichaelG.

Thank you

You could say I bent over backwards to help, and as my stress level was not great, I must have a low yield strength.

regards Martin

As long as you don't exceed the elastic limit, deflection is determined by load, geometry and young modulus, yield strength is irrelevant. It is easier to put a permanent bend in mild steel fencing wire because the yield strength is lower, not relevant to boring bars. Just make them as big and short as you can. If possible grip one end in a chuck, if you are going to have to take it out before completing the job, mark which jaw it is aligned with so you won't change the cutter radius.

All steels are about the same, and mild-steel is a reasonable choice for a bar because boring is unlikely to get anywhere near the metal's elastic limit. (250Mpa, roughly 35000psi)

It is possible to do better though. High end boring bars are often made of Tungsten Carbide because Its Young's Modulus is two to four times higher than steel. And posh bars are likely to be pre-tensioned, balanced, and otherwise carefully designed to reduce resonances. To keep vibration down, the best bars can actively adjust mechanically to cutting conditions, and might even report to a computer that moves weights inside the bar, alters tensions, and electromagnetically tunes out chatter. Price on Application, which usually means they're unaffordable.

Dave

I didn't mean to stir a hornet's nest here. I found the diagram for cutting geometry helpful and figured I would say thanks! lol.

I think we have all been reading Fowlers Fury's post wrongly. Fowlers says he made his boring bar from silver steel but a quick check reveals GH Thomas didn't recommend silver steel for the job (P92 MEWM). GHT says specifically that he made his between-centres boring bar of FCMS (Free Cutting Mild Steel). The claim of less flex by GHT is due to the angled hole for the toolbit, not the material the bar is made of. I think Fowler's use of silver steel was incidental.Probably just what he had on hand. But five year old post so we will probably never know.

GHT did, a few pages earlier (P84 MEWM) say he preferred silver steel for the more usual toolpost-clamped boring bars, because "it is no stiffer than mild steel but is harder and stronger and so better able to stand up to the hurly-burly at the bottom of the hole -- especially a blind one".

So it turns out GHT did know what he was talking about after all. Fancy that.

Edited By Hopper on 23/05/2022 23:38:38

.

I don’t think I had read Fowlers Fury’s post at all … until you quoted it.

But yes, I agree with your reading of GHT

MichaelG.