Bayonet Blood Grooves

It's standard practice to get first year mech-eng students to do this (at least at my uni!), just because it seems strange the first time around.

As mjolnirman has said, it's hard to type out the formulae, so I'm going to have to hope that everything comes out right and I don't misplace anything.

An actual bayonet gets rather complicated since you have dimensional variations in all axes (cross-section varies as you go up and down the blade), but the same principle applies, so let's use I beams.

For a rectangle, the second area moment is Ix = (b*h^3)/12. Note that this means I will change depending on which way the force is acting. Iy = (h*b^3)/12. Let's take a solid beam that is 10 mm by 10 mm. It's a square, so I in either direction will be 833.3 mm^4.

For composite objects (like an I beam), we need to find out the 2nd area moment, like before, and also the neutral axis of this composite. Fortunately for us, due to symmetry the neutral axis is identical to that of the simple beam. Let's take the same 10 x 10 beam, but now machine two grooves in the sides (read: remove material). Symmetrical in both x and y directions, but obviously not to scale:

I-Beam.jpg


Sounds good?

Since we're discussing bayonets, if you draw the cross-section as I've described it above, we're interested in forces going from left to right, or vice versa.

To find the 2nd moment for this composite beam, we need to break it down and use the parallel axis theorem, I(around an axis) = I(element) + A*d^2 where A is the cross-sectional area of the element, and d is the distance between the axis of the overall object and the axis of the individual element.

I of the second element (6x4) is easy to compute, using Iy = (h*b^3)/12 = (4*6^3)/12 = 72 mm^4.

Thanks to symmetry we can double I for either of the two other elements. For one element:

Area of one element = 3*10 = 30 mm^2.
Distance from neutral axis to centroid of object's moment = 3.5 mm (a quick drawing will show this quite easily).

I(around neutral axis) = (3*10^3)/12 + (3*10)*3.5^2 = 617.5 mm^4.

That's for one of the side elements.

Now we just sum it all together to get Iy = 72 + 2(617.5) =1307 mm^4.

Compare this with the solid beam's value for I of 833.3 mm^4.

That's the basic stuff out of the way.

So what happens when we put this under stress? If we exert a force at one end, we introduce a moment into the beam, this moment acts on each tiny little element of the beam to stretch or compress it. The formula is sigma = My/I where y is the distance from the neutral axis to the element in question. The maximum stress will thus be found at the point the furthest from the neutral axis. If the stress exceeds a certain limit, the element will permanently deform. Those of you who are interested can look up yield strengths, but I'll leave those for another day, all that matters here is that we want to keep sigma as low as possible.

In both cases, the max distance will be 5 mm. Let's take a moment of 10,000 N.mm, because I'm uncreative. For the solid beam:

sigma = 10,000*5/833.3 = 60 N/mm^2.

For the I beam:

sigma = 10,000*5/1307 = 38.26 N/mm^2.

If the yield strength of the material in question is less than 38.26 N/mm^2, nothing happens to either beam. If it's greater than 60 N/mm^2, both will bend. Permanently. If it's between these two numbers, then the solid beam will bend, while the I-beam won't. Observe that due to this, a similar case can be made for elastic (non-permanent) movement, for a given moment, the I-beam will deflect less.

I trust that this helps everyone understand how material removal can help strengthen a beam (or conversely, material addition can weaken a beam ;)).

Brought to you by a second-year mech-eng student, the letter sigma, and the number 10,000.

On a side note and for my own personal amusement, observe how in the above, if we remove the middle component of the I-beam, and are thus left with two supporting beams, I will still be greater than that of the standard beam (1235 compared with 833.3 mm^4). I leave this as a problem to the reader.:D
 
Last edited:
When using beam theory for comparisons, it should be noted that I-beams and such are only stiffer when comparing equal areas (which directly relates to volume and mass).

The "equal areas" seems to get lost in the previous discussions.
 
Quoting someone else's comments is not scientific prove. Where are the facts and figures? I would really like to see hard evidence in the form of mechanical engineering test data to support your point 1. I have seen the stiffness argument ongoing for years but no scientific evidence to back it up. I still contend that because a fuller lightens the blade, it allows a thicker blade of the same weight. It is the extra thickness that gives it the stiffness and not the fuller itself. I have never seen any scientific evidence that proves 2 blades that are identical except for one having a fuller display a difference in their stiffness. An I-beam works because of the extra width of the horizontal ends and not because of the thinness of the perpendicular. A rolled spine in an oildrum works because it effectively makes the steel wider at that point.

I do not accept the "double spine" argument - the blade is thinner at the fuller, not thicker on the body - there is no "double spine". The only possible way I can see a fuller making a blade stiffer is if it is forged in such a way that the grain direction of the steel is altered in directions that will stiffen the steel.

I have never seen a rifle manufacturer claim that fluting a barrel makes it stiffer. They will claim that it makes a thicker and therefore stiffer barrel lighter.

Antonio,
I just erased 3 paragraphs that would have harmed my image as a person of enormous patience. If you will not take the word of those speaking the language of science and you will not take the word of those speaking the language of experience, what exactly are you asking for?
 
It's standard practice to get first year mech-eng students to do this (at least at my uni!), just because it seems strange the first time around.

As mjolnirman has said, it's hard to type out the formulae, so I'm going to have to hope that everything comes out right and I don't misplace anything.

An actual bayonet gets rather complicated since you have dimensional variations in all axes (cross-section varies as you go up and down the blade), but the same principle applies, so let's use I beams.

For a rectangle, the second area moment is Ix = (b*h^3)/12. Note that this means I will change depending on which way the force is acting. Iy = (h*b^3)/12. Let's take a solid beam that is 10 mm by 10 mm. It's a square, so I in either direction will be 833.3 mm^4.

For composite objects (like an I beam), we need to find out the 2nd area moment, like before, and also the neutral axis of this composite. Fortunately for us, due to symmetry the neutral axis is identical to that of the simple beam. Let's take the same 10 x 10 beam, but now machine two grooves in the sides (read: remove material). Symmetrical in both x and y directions, but obviously not to scale:

I-Beam.jpg


Sounds good?

Since we're discussing bayonets, if you draw the cross-section as I've described it above, we're interested in forces going from left to right, or vice versa.

To find the 2nd moment for this composite beam, we need to break it down and use the parallel axis theorem, I(around an axis) = I(element) + A*d^2 where A is the cross-sectional area of the element, and d is the distance between the axis of the overall object and the axis of the individual element.

I of the second element (6x4) is easy to compute, using Iy = (h*b^3)/12 = (4*6^3)/12 = 72 mm^4.

Thanks to symmetry we can double I for either of the two other elements. For one element:

Area of one element = 3*10 = 30 mm^2.
Distance from neutral axis to centroid of object's moment = 3.5 mm (a quick drawing will show this quite easily).

I(around neutral axis) = (3*10^3)/12 + (3*10)*3.5^2 = 617.5 mm^4.

That's for one of the side elements.

Now we just sum it all together to get Iy = 72 + 2(617.5) =1307 mm^4.

Compare this with the solid beam's value for I of 833.3 mm^4.

That's the basic stuff out of the way.

So what happens when we put this under stress? If we exert a force at one end, we introduce a moment into the beam, this moment acts on each tiny little element of the beam to stretch or compress it. The formula is sigma = My/I where y is the distance from the neutral axis to the element in question. The maximum stress will thus be found at the point the furthest from the neutral axis. If the stress exceeds a certain limit, the element will permanently deform. Those of you who are interested can look up yield strengths, but I'll leave those for another day, all that matters here is that we want to keep sigma as low as possible.

In both cases, the max distance will be 5 mm. Let's take a moment of 10,000 N.mm, because I'm uncreative. For the solid beam:

sigma = 10,000*5/833.3 = 60 N/mm^2.

For the I beam:

sigma = 10,000*5/1307 = 38.26 N/mm^2.

If the yield strength of the material in question is less than 38.26 N/mm^2, nothing happens to either beam. If it's greater than 60 N/mm^2, both will bend. Permanently. If it's between these two numbers, then the solid beam will bend, while the I-beam won't. Observe that due to this, a similar case can be made for elastic (non-permanent) movement, for a given moment, the I-beam will deflect less.

I trust that this helps everyone understand how material removal can help strengthen a beam (or conversely, material addition can weaken a beam ;)).

Brought to you by a second-year mech-eng student, the letter sigma, and the number 10,000.

On a side note and for my own personal amusement, observe how in the above, if we remove the middle component of the I-beam, and are thus left with two supporting beams, I will still be greater than that of the standard beam (1235 compared with 833.3 mm^4). I leave this as a problem to the reader.:D

Thank you. I just learned something new today. :foot::)

However, does this property change significantly depending on where the fuller is located? Are fullers in some placements better than those in others?

cinquedea.jpg
 
Personally I think a "blood groove" is more of a marketing/intimidation device that came from a marketing exec or a drill sgt. "Buy our knives, they have BloodGrooves"... or "This knife has a blood groove so that fools who cannot march in a straight line may deflate your enemy of his life." Or somethign like it. (hey, give me a break, I can see my ole' Sgt saying something like it, but more profane)

I asked a 70 year old martial artist that tought me through college what he thought about this. He said "If a blade can cut its way into an object, the blade will cut itself out. There is no suction."

If you are talking about bayonets that are pointy but dont have a cutting edge then I would go look at a Mosin Nagant triangle type bayonet. Very light, very stiff, plenty of well trained Germans to prove they work.

Fullers, they save weight and look nice.
The other more "technical" question is How much are you willing to pay?
Fullers, and the design therein cost money. Do you want your Mora with Fullers? Are you willing to pay the extra money? Even if it is money to "look nice". Say... as in uniform?
 
Thank you. I just learned something new today. :foot::)

However, does this property change significantly depending on where the fuller is located? Are fullers in some placements better than those in others?

cinquedea.jpg

Intended purpose, length, weight, COG, vibrational characteristics and aesthetics all play an important roll in the swords design. In addition to reducing weight the fuller aids in dampening low frequency vibrations in the blade. With out the fuller stiffing the blade to reduce the vibrations would require it to be drawn much harder making it less flexible but making it more brittle. The fuller allows the steel to be drawn softer increasing flexibility while still retaining the desired amount of stiffness.

The above sword is a bit of a show piece and as such the fullers are no doubt arranged to be functional while being aesthetically pleasing.
 
Quoting someone else's comments is not scientific prove. Where are the facts and figures?
I would really like to see hard evidence in the form of mechanical engineering test data to support your point 1.

Antonio,
I just erased 3 paragraphs that would have harmed my image as a person of enormous patience. If you will not take the word of those speaking the language of science and you will not take the word of those speaking the language of experience, what exactly are you asking for?

Well, young fellow. We are waiting. Since I quoted AG's website, you were in fact doubting the word of AG Russell. This is never a wise thing to do in the realm of knives and knife information. I believe you owe Mr. Russell a few words.

Thanks to Mr. Thorium for the most delightful proof.
 
the placement of the fuller wouldn't affect the deflection, I believe, and since knife edges should generally be thinner, it's more practical to place the fuller at the spine. and again, as a lot of people have pointed out, simply grinding away a fuller wouldn't make it stiffer. it just creates a shape that is more efficient at resisting deflection.
 
Intended purpose, length, weight, COG, vibrational characteristics and aesthetics all play an important roll in the swords design. In addition to reducing weight the fuller aids in dampening low frequency vibrations in the blade. With out the fuller stiffing the blade to reduce the vibrations would require it to be drawn much harder making it less flexible but making it more brittle. The fuller allows the steel to be drawn softer increasing flexibility while still retaining the desired amount of stiffness.

The above sword is a bit of a show piece and as such the fullers are no doubt arranged to be functional while being aesthetically pleasing.

Cinquedeas have the tendency to be elaborately decorated, but their typical multiple fullers made a good example. I know that in the JSA (Japanese Sword Arts) community that katana with bo-hi (a fuller located close to the spine) are often criticized for being more prone towards taking a set or otherwise being damaged much more frequently than those without bo-hi. Thoughts?
 
i think if the fuller is too close to the spine, it could compromise the strength of the spine, which is very important to the strength of a blade
 
The criticism falls even on those blades with properly executed bo-hi. That being said they tend to be employed on blades designed for faster cuts (hence lighter weight) and more for defense against single or multiple unarmored targets (e.g. daily defense).
 
Thank you. I just learned something new today. :foot::)

However, does this property change significantly depending on where the fuller is located? Are fullers in some placements better than those in others?

This would probably have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, the main areas you'd have to look at would be the neutral axis and the parallel axis theorem, especially the latter. I haven't worked it out, but I suspect that the cross-section of an I-beam is symmetrical in both axes for a good reason, but in the case of a knife it may be smarter to place the fuller at the spine purely for reasons of thickness. How much of a difference this makes, I'm not sure on.
 
i think idealy, in a T beam, or an I beam with uneven flanges, there should be more mass on the side that the beam that has the positive curvature. so, if the forces push downwards, then the mass on the bottom have more effect than the mass on top of the neutral axis. on a knife, the main load is up (from cutting), so it'd be ideal to place it at the edge, but that defeats the purpose of the knife. besides, any bending in the plane of the spine and edge probably aren't significant at all compared to bending in the perpendicular plane, or the "sideways bending."
 
Fullers lighten but laterally weaken a blade compared to the same blade without one. They NEVER EVER EVER make a blade MORE rigid. That's like saying that a 6"x6"-ended "I" beam is more ridgid than a solid-ended 6"x6" bar. ;)

There are no 'fullers' on prybars. Lateral forces on a knife are among the last thing a blade is designed for. Forces parallel to the knife blade are greatest at the edges, compression (+) on one edge and tension (-) on the other hence the sum of the forces along the centerline are zero and within a short distance of the centerline are negligible. Removal of mass along that line has no effect on the forces applied to the edge.
 
Coming late to this thread, but I believe that Th232's analysis is flawed.

I believe that Th232's error occurs when he skips doing the full itegration from the axis and substitutes using the centroid of the element extended by the distance from the neutral axis. This is an invalid method for calculating the moment of inertia around a shifted axis. When the axis is changed, you need to recalculate the integral based on the shifted distance, the reason is that in the integral expression of the second moment of area around an axis:
b3aa2901e068f7bbcddb823aaa7c08e9.png
(source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_moment_of_area)

This can also be proven by repeating Th232's analysis, substituting a section of 10mmx6mm as the center element, instead of the 6mmx6mm section; this ends up combining to being a solid beam of 10mmx10mm.

That is, if we take Th232's analysis of the beam (each character is an area 1mm x 1mm)
Code:
AAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAA  = 617.5 mm^4
AAAAAAAAAA
  BBBBBB    = 72 mm ^4
  BBBBBB
--------------------- (axis)
  CCCCCC    = 72 mm ^4
  CCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDD  = 617.5 mm^4
DDDDDDDDDD
And if we substitute the two center sections with a thickened section, making it equivalent to the original beam

Code:
AAAAAAAAAA 
AAAAAAAAAA  = 617.5 mm^4
AAAAAAAAAA 
EEEEEEEEEE  = 72 + x mm^4
EEEEEEEEEE
--------------------- (axis)
FFFFFFFFFF  = 72 + x mm^4
FFFFFFFFFF
DDDDDDDDDD 
DDDDDDDDDD  = 617.5 mm^4
DDDDDDDDDD
I don't see how this ends up being less than the original beam. I'll do the calculations from scratch:

10mm x 10mm = Moment of inertia through center horizontal axis = Integral [-5, +5] r^2 * 10mm dr = 1/3 * 10mm * r^3 over (-5, 5) = 125 * 10 * 1 / 3 * 2
= 833.3mm^4 (this matches Th232's first calculation).

Now, machine a groove 4mm x 2mm in each side and calculate stiffness through horizontal axis

Code:
AAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAA
  BBBBBB  
  BBBBBB  
--------------------- (axis)
  CCCCCC  
  CCCCCC  
DDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDD
New Moment of inertia through horizontal axis:

(Integral [-5, -2] r^2 * 10mm) + (Integral [-2, 0] r^2 * 6mm) + (Integral [0, +2] r^2 * 6mm) + (Integral [+2, +5] r^2 * 10mm)
= A + B + C + D
A = (1/3 * 10mm * r^3 over [-5, -2])
= (10mm * -8mm^3 / 3) - (10mm * -125mm^3 / 3)
= - 26.666mm^3 - ( -416.666mm^4)
= 390mm^4

B = (1/3 * 6mm * r^3 over [-2, 0])
= (0) - (6mm * -8mm^3 / 3)
= 0 - (-16mm^4)
= 16mm^4

By symmetry C = B and D = A

A+B+C+D = (390 + 16 + 16 + 390) mm^4 = 812mm^4

Note, this is less than the original beam 833.33mm^4

In conclusion, machining grooves in a blade / beam can only reduce the second moment of area which can only reduce the stiffness of a beam/blade.
 
yeah, as we've all been saying, merely taking steel out will make it slightly weaker, but the fuller on the knife is a stronger design. so if you forge the fuller in, it'll strengthen the blade
 
Indeed you're right Enkidu! I stand corrected. If I may ask though, we've been taught the parallel axis theorem through first and second years (the I(around axis) = I(around centroid) + A*dist^2), where is that meant to be used then?
 
Back
Top