Modern Machine-Shop Practice, Volumes I and II

by Joshua Rose

Figs. 3040 and 3041.

“[Fig. 3038] shows the piece begun from the stave in the usual way, with the slabs all welded, however, on the flat, till a basis is formed for the building up of the crank. A portion a is roughly rounded to form the one end of the shaft, and the butt of the crank will present the appearance of a slightly elongated square, as shown at b, [Fig. 3039]. The workman then “scarfs” or hollows it down at one edge all along the side, as indicated in the end view by the dotted line from c to d; it will then present the appearance shown by the end view, [Fig. 3040], being somewhat bulged outward at the points e and f. Three long thin slabs, [Fig. 3042], shaped for the purpose, are then placed on the hollowed part, the piece lying flat in the furnace. These slabs are tapered a little the broad way, not on the length, and little pieces of iron are interposed between them, to keep the surfaces apart, and allow the flame free access between them. The object of making them thin is that they may be all equally heated, which is not so readily achieved when the slabs are thick; and the object of the tapering is to allow the slag to flow out freely when the uppermost slab is struck by the steam hammer. The surfaces thus get solidly welded.

Fig. 3042.

“[Fig. 3041] represents the slabs thus placed in elevation, and the figure on the right, in section. The slabs are forged long enough to go right across the whole width of the crank, excepting about 6 inches; this margin is necessary to allow of the lengthening out of the slabs to the whole width under the process of forging. After these slabs are perfectly welded, the piece is turned upside down, and the process is repeated on the other side, as shown in [Fig. 3042]. When welded down the mass has increased in depth as well. Another scarfing takes place on the first side, and then another on the second side, as shown in the figure, and so on, till the full size is obtained; and it will be seen, as in the right-hand view in [Fig. 3042], that by this process of “scarfing” equally from, both sides, the iron from the very middle of the body of the shaft is drawn up quite to the crank pin. The location of the pin is indicated by a a, and it will be seen that by no possibility can there be a “scarf end” in the crank pin, as the slabs in all cases go right across the crank, and also that the cheeks of the cranks have no edge weldings crossing them, as in the previous cases; for the tail of a slab may be at r, [Fig. 3042], while the other end may be at s. The fibre is also developed by the continuous drawing up of the iron consequent upon the repeated flat scarfings across the whole width of the crank. When the crank has been thus massed sufficiently large, it is cut at the gable, with sufficient material left to piece out the other body of the shaft. This is now done, the coupling welded on, and a small stave drawn on the end to enable the forgeman to manipulate it, when it is turned end for end, to complete the other end.

“These proceedings occupy longer time than either of the other two methods, and consequently costs a little more; but the advantage is well worth all the difference, as greater confidence can be entertained that the forging is every way satisfactory. In brief, by making the crank first, is avoided the liability to weakness at the neck, characteristic of the forgeman’s making the shaft before him, as in the first method; by the repeated ‘side scarfing’ is avoided the liability to fracture across the cheeks, consequent upon the edge weldings of both first and second methods; while by having the slabs the whole length of the width of the crank, any ‘scarf end’ in the length way of the crank pin is impossible (such as may occur in the first method); and the welding of the mass of the crank being wholly on the flat must tend to form a more solid forging than if hammered otherwise. Thus, if the forging is well heated and properly hammered, the system promises to insure that no weak part will be found in the shaft after it is finished and put to work. The writer believes, from the success which has already followed in every case the adoption of this method, that it will eventually be found that almost more depends on the mode in which a crank shaft forging is constructed than on the material of which it is made.

“This leads him to some observations regarding the material for such shafts. It is of course well known that in the early days of engineering, before the time when steam navigation had received a great impetus by the invention of the screw propeller, the connecting rods, cranks, shafts, &c., of land engines were all formed of cast iron; except, indeed, where the connecting rods were made of wood, strapped with plates of wrought iron, as frequently was the case with pumping, winding and blowing engines. In fact, all the parts that could be made of cast iron were so made, and the piston rods, bolts, keys, straps, and other smaller parts were alone made of malleable iron, the smaller pieces being made from rolled bars direct, as at present, and the larger made of similar bars, but placed side by side and bound together or ‘fagoted,’ as they were called, from their resemblance to a bundle of fagots. These bars, thus fagoted, were either brought to a welding heat in a smith’s hearth and welded under the sledge-hammers of the men called ‘strikers,’ or hammermen; or else heated in a furnace, and welded under the tilt hammer worked by a steam engine. By-and-by it was found necessary to adopt the stronger material, wrought iron, for parts hitherto confined to cast iron, because the latter was found too deficient in cohesion to stand the strains due to the power of high-pressure steam, which was now almost universally superseding the use of low-pressure steam in the condensing engine. The system of fagoting, however, was still carried out, even far into the history of marine engineering; but when the rapid increase in the dimensions of engines, both stationary and marine, called forth the steam hammer, and so rendered the forging of heavy masses comparatively easy, the system of fagoting fell into disuse, for the following reason: In making up a fagot, say, of 18 inches or 20 inches square, it was found, that in the furnace the outside bars would reach a welding heat much sooner than those in the middle; consequently on welding this fagot under the steam hammer, though the blow might reach to the centre, yet the interior would not be welded, while the surface was; hence the shaft or other forging would not be welded throughout, and it was no uncommon thing for a shaft to break and expose the internal bars quite loose and separate from each other.

“When it was seen that malleable was so much superior to cast iron, and that the system of fagoting was so imperfect, the adoption of ‘scrap iron,’ which was then composed principally of parings of boiler plates, pieces of cuttings from smiths’ shops, old bolts, horseshoes, angle iron, &c., became general. These being piled together in suitable pieces, and in a pile of suitable size, for the convenience of working, were brought to a welding heat, and beaten out into a slab, or oblong-shaped piece, ready for the forgeman; who would build two or three together, adding more when required, and so bring out his piece to a sufficient size to enable him to shape his forging out of it. Then it was that engineers, seeing what an increase of strength they obtained by these means, invariably specified on their drawings (as many of them still do), ‘These forgings are to be made of carefully selected scrap iron, free from flaws and defects.’

“To meet the requirements of their customers, therefore, forge-masters had now nothing to do but to select and use the best available scrap iron; but the universal adoption of iron hulls in place of wooden ones, conjoined with the rapid and unprecedented increase in steam navigation, soon introduced a class of scrap iron which did not possess the qualifications of good scrap, and also called for a very much greater supply of forgings than could be obtained in superior scrap iron. The consequence was that shafts of scrap iron, when turned and finished, became liable to exhibit streaks and seams, not due alone to imperfect welding in the forging, but likewise to the laminations and imperfections of the original scrap iron, which the process of piling and shingling into the slab was not sufficient to obliterate. So constantly does this yet occur that it causes a strong temptation to make such forgings of new iron puddled direct from the pig and then shingled into slabs or blooms, under the idea that these streaks and seams will thus be avoided, and that the iron will be improved almost to the condition of scrap iron, while being forged under the steam hammer. This, however, is found not to be the case. The forging is certainly free from the streaks of the scrap iron, but this is obtained at the expense of strength; for the material is too raw; it wants cohesion, and has not had the proper kind or amount of working to bring it to the condition of superior wrought iron. This method is still further tempting, inasmuch as it is far cheaper than the other; the material costs less than scrap iron, and, as it welds at a lower temperature, a forging can be much more quickly and easily made. Still, for whatever class of machinery it may be fitted, it should certainly be renewed in every case for a crank shaft or propeller shaft.