One: I'm not so sure the tree you have is a Pecan Hickory. Looks more to be something else but then I don't know where you live. Two: The handle grain orientation of your broken tool seems to have been pretty darn good but those axes were meant more to be decorators than users and I suspect the less than optimal wood (it wasn't Hickory, Ironwood or one of the others) was brittle from having been kiln dried and from becoming thoroughly bone dry over the years. Another thing; when the tree was felled it may have developed localized stress fractures when it hit the ground and these were never noticed while the wood was being processed.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Finally got to use a couple of my Reeves axes! Results are good and not so good......
- Thread starter rcwells
- Start date
Wood is a bundle of vertical fibers, arranged in rings as the trunk grows outward. The fibers may be dense or more porous depending on environmental factors and season, and they are added by the tree to the outer surface under the bark as is grows.
The way I always have used the term, "perpendicular to the grain" means a cut or break across the trunk of a tree, exposing the end grain of the wood - like you would do with a chainsaw, chop saw, or at each end of that axe handle. The trouble is, the term is also used to describe orientation relative to the tree's rings - tangential grain is what you have with that handle (also called flat sawn with lumber). If the rings went 90 degrees to what you see in the end it would be quartered grain which I always understood to be the strongest.
Runout is where a continuous line of the grain (what used to be up and down in the tree) exits the handle obliquely to the ends of it. Runout can be oriented in any plane parallel to the grain of the handle, so it can be more or less impossible to have a runout free handle unless it's original billet is riven from a log. The grain can "run out" of the handle along the tangential grain, or quartered grain, or anywhere in between. It's just where the fibers exit the handle somewhere other than the end - and if that forms a line from one side of the handle to the other you can get a break.
I'd have said you've got an awful lot of axe there for that small branch, but I don't think that could contribute to the break.
One: It is a Pecan tree, I have picked up the Pecans and eaten them. My property here is full of them.
Two: I believe Lee made his axes to be used although they are very beautifully made pieces of art, they certainly are functional. The pack axe worked amazingly and is fine. As for the haft on this one, it seemed very dry to me on this inside so perhaps you're on to something there, maybe it was too dry? It's definitely an older axe from him, and I have no idea how it was cared for prior to my ownership.
Perhaps it was the grain orientation or runout or too many tangents, quarters, or rings or whatever. Idk. It happened.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 2,661
I think this is the first concept to understanding "grain". :thumbup:
To avoid confusion, I would suggest substituting the term "perpendicular to the grain" with something like "across the grain". "Perpendicular" to the grain/fibers means specifically 90 degrees. "Across" would indicate >0 - 90 degrees (i.e. the fibers are cut rather than separated).
To add, these two pictures of the end grain do not tell if the handle has runout or not:
I've got an idea for the PERFECT NO RUNOUT handle. Carefully rive a handle out of a log and then make an axe head with an eye to fit that handle.
Bob
Sorry I doubted you on the 'pecans'. Proof is in the pudding since I would expect you'd know whether you were gnawing on butternuts or walnuts or not. Absolutely nothing wrong (that I could see) with grain orientation on your handle (neither end grain or length wise; Mr Reeves knew what he was doing). But, the fact of the matter is the handle broke and not even via a typical overstrike or trying to pry a stuck head loose.
No worries, and yeah, it's definitely pecan.
And I agree with you on the runout, I can't seem to identify any problem area based on what I've been reading here. It seemed really dry to me though, almost papery on the inside. Odd feeling to me. Is it possible it just dried out over the years secondary to poor storage/care habits/environment? How would you prevent that from happening? I know with my Taylor guitars, I have to keep them stored in their cases and occasionally even have to use a dampit or similar device to keep the moisture levels right in the wood.
Thoughts on that?
My user axes live in an unheated shed. I expect to find the handles to become loose in mid winter and similarly expect them to be bar-tight in the spring and in late fall when humidity etc is really high. It's routine for me to stand the implements upright in late summer and soak the eye ends in non-drying types of oil. This does not create ideal circumstances for showing off implements that are pretty or might have nicely figured handles. And a light misting with WD-40 every once in awhile does minimize rust on the heads.
Being dried out -- maybe even in the early stages of dry rot -- makes the most sense to me. Rcwells says the wood is very dry, almost papery. The haft looks partly shattered, not just broken. I don't see any grain runout. If you look at the break, it cuts through grain patterns, rather than follows them.
I've got an idea for the PERFECT NO RUNOUT handle. Carefully rive a handle out of a log and then make an axe head with an eye to fit that handle.
Yep, that is the way to do it. These days I expect to have to rehandle everything periodically, since I have to make do with factory handles.
There could be something in this - I never had to do much rehandling until I moved to the arid southwest. Now I expect them to break after a few years of use, and I don't use them heavily. Could well be the dryness in addition to the near impossibility of avoiding any runout with a handle that is not from a riven billet.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 5,431
I think you're onto something. According to this article, "compression injuries" or "compression failures" can be hidden defects in hardwoods, causing sudden failure during impacts. The compression failures tend to run across the grain, instead of along the grain. They can be caused by storms that affect the tree, the tree falling on another log, rough handling of the logs, or even by excessive (compressive) impacts on the wood (an example given was the pounding on hickory spokes to seat them). To me, this is a reason to be wary of too much pounding of an axe handle into the head.
Compression Failures as Defects, by L.J. Markwardt, Hardwood Record, Vol. 39-40, 1914, p. 24
Thank you Steve. Over the years I've noticed these sorts of things while onsite splitting up firewood rounds from trees that I personally watched fall under less than ideal circumstances. There is great joy to be found in handling 'self-splitting' rounds.
Mi'kMaq natives in the Maritimes pound on fresh cut Black Ash log ends to weaken the adhesion between growth rings, enough that the annual layers can readily be peeled apart and cut into strips for weaving baskets. Once the baskets are shaped and dried the end result is remarkably light and wonderfully durable.
But heaven forbid you were to aspire to make axe handles from Black Ash!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 2,661
That article is 102 years old and I honestly don't know if the information still holds up today. However, assuming it is still accurate and compressed wood is significantly weakened, it seems to me that they are describing a compression failure as a break across the grain. That is, a break across the "bundle of vertical fibers" (as in serotinas post #22 and numerous other sources).
The article also describes compression as caused by a side impact. This would be across the grain - evident in the resulting break illustrated:
Compare to the OPs handle:
Which brings up a different topic of "pounding an axe handle into the head". What effect this has on the wood in the handle - I don't know. But "pounding" the handle involves hitting the wood on the end grain perpendicular to the fibers ("bundle of vertical fibers"). To me, that would not be defined as compression per the article.
Bob
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 2,661
Basically the same concept with the OP's handle. It separated along the growth rings (i.e. with the grain).
Bob
That article is 102 years old and I honestly don't know if the information still holds up today. However, assuming it is still accurate and compressed wood is significantly weakened, it seems to me that they are describing a compression failure as a break across the grain. That is, a break across the "bundle of vertical fibers" (as in serotinas post #22 and numerous other sources).
The article also describes compression as caused by a side impact. This would be across the grain - evident in the resulting break illustrated:
I've seen that in African mahogany lumber and never knew what it was. Learn something every day
I'll see if I can take a pic of it. Only lumber I've ever seen a flaw like that in though, I had assumed it was something unique to the wood rather than the logging methods.Compare to the OPs handle:
Which brings up a different topic of "pounding an axe handle into the head". What effect this has on the wood in the handle - I don't know. But "pounding" the handle involves hitting the wood on the end grain perpendicular to the fibers ("bundle of vertical fibers"). To me, that would not be defined as compression per the article.
Bob
This also ties into something I've been wondering about lately - it seems to me that factory hung tools last longer than my re-hangs. I suspect that they use a hydraulic press of some kind to press the head on the handle - but that is just how I would approach it in a factory, doesn't mean they do it that way, in other words, a guess. They somehow get a great tight fit and a handle that doesn't do exactly what the OP's handle did (and some of mine have done).
But I have seen in other fields (like pressing bearings) that bashing it in with a hammer is a sure way to get yourself a short tool life. I bet its the same with axe handles. I've been wanting a press for another project, sounds like I may have to get one and try some re-hanging too.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 5,431
You must have missed this part of the article (the first sentence):
"When too great a pressure is applied to struts or columns of wood in the direction of the grain, the fibers bend or buckle at the weakest point... an indication of a compression failure."
Yes, the article is from 1914, but I don't believe that tree species would have evolved so quickly to generally change these observed properties of hardwoods like hickory.
From a more recent reference (a book from 2012):
"Compression failures represent one type of defect which can form in the living tree, during felling or logging operations, or after the wood is placed in service... excessive compression forces parallel to the grain... it might break suddenly... may require high magnification microscopy to see them..."
Principles of Wood Science and Technology,
by Franz F.P. Kollmann, Wilfred A.Jr. Cote, 2012, p. 90
About pounding an axe handle into the head, "hitting the wood on the end grain perpendicular to the fibers" actually does meet the definition in both sources:
1) applied "in the direction of the grain"
2) "forces parallel to the grain"
I initially brought up the information from the article because it might shed more light on handle breaks that seem to defy the conventional ideas of where handles will break. Compression defects can be invisible to the eye and cause the wood to fail suddenly. Perhaps only part of the wood in an axe handle would fail from a compression defect, leading to a split that doesn't look like the typical compression failure. And I think it's good to know that excessive pounding on the end of a handle could conceivably cause compression defects.
I think this is the first concept to understanding "grain". :thumbup:
To avoid confusion, I would suggest substituting the term "perpendicular to the grain" with something like "across the grain". "Perpendicular" to the grain/fibers means specifically 90 degrees. "Across" would indicate >0 - 90 degrees (i.e. the fibers are cut rather than separated).
To add, these two pictures of the end grain do not tell if the handle has runout or not:
I've got an idea for the PERFECT NO RUNOUT handle. Carefully rive a handle out of a log and then make an axe head with an eye to fit that handle.
Bob
Those pictures do confirm a little twist to that wood.
Great news is that Lee has replied and is going to re-hang it for me!! Whoop Whoop! I will have to work on my hanging skills at another time. Relieved right now as I have a lot of other projects on the front burner and thankful and grateful that Lee is going to stand behind his work as well. He's a really cool guy!
RC
RC
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 2,661
Well, apply pressure and get a break at the weakest point - how profound. Of course, anything will break at the weakest point. The 1914 article is difficult to say the least. Maybe partly because of the manner of speaking a century ago. The terminology is not well defined. However, I read the article as defining a break attributed to compression as a specific type of break that happens when two distinct events occur sequentially. The first event is the creation of a significant weak spot from a side impact or naturally caused in the growing tree. The second event is when the wood is so weakened (from the first event) that it breaks under pressure (regardless of the direction of the pressure) at that weak spot.
Post #32:
I read this as "compression injuries" are exactly equal to "compression failures". If this is what your definition is, what term can be used to define the week spot in the wood resulting from some trauma (before an actual break from pressure)?
Just to be precise here is the entire first sentence:
"When too great a pressure is applied to struts or columns of wood in the direction of the grain, the fibers bend or buckle at the weakest point, resulting in a streak or wrinkle on the face of the material, which is an indication of a compression failure (see figure 1)."
I honestly am not sure what I'm looking at in fig 1 above. I guess item one is yellow pine flooring with compression failure. Not sure what the sequence of events were that caused that.
Of course not. It would be silly to believe that, but I do believe science has sure changed a hell of a lot.
Again, are "compression failures" exactly equal to "defects". If these terms are equal, what term can be used to define the week spot in the wood resulting from some trauma (before an actual break from pressure)? A piece of wood with a weak spot is not necessarily a broken piece of wood. The author refers to the weak spots as "failure zones". The whole sentence partially quoted above: "The failure zones are regions where the cells have been permanently deformed or fractured by excessive compression forces parallel to the grain.". Actual fracture is not attributed in that paragraph to pressure direction.
Here is the paragraph cited:
Meets the "definition" of what? The 2012 source does not mention anything about "in the direction of the grain". "in the direction of the grain" is implied in the 1914 source with the buggy spokes. I suppose if you drive a spoke in until it bottoms out, and keep on beating it enough, bad things will happen. The author says this happens "occasionally", but does he know for a fact that these spokes developed a weak spot attributable to only exact hits perpendicular to the end grain by the spoke pounder? I see no evidence in that article to indicate that the author knew exactly where the weak spots came from.
My take (YMMV) on axe handles and defects.
Supposedly these weak spots that can lead to "compression failure" in wood can be seen or not seen. If one can be seen in a piece of wood, then simply don't use it as is. If it can't be seen, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. Sure after some use a handle may break and it is a possibility that it had the type of hidden defect that would classify it as a "compression failure", but the bottom line is, you just go get another handle. As far as fitting a handle, if you have one without visible defects and is straight grained (read no runout), pound and fit as much as necessary and get a good hang.
If you believe that "excessive pounding" is worth worrying about why not conduct a controlled scientific experiment? I'm thinking along these lines:
- Clearly and unambiguously state the objective
- Obtain a few hundred or so handles
- Inspect the handles to insure no hidden defects are present
- Test them on an appropriate machine
- Publish and get the results peer reviewed by members of the scientific community
- Report back here
Bob