In theory which is stronger

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Odog

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
340
Reaction score
603
Location
Wendell ID
I'm in the planning process of building a new splitter. I have a couple ideas but I want to run one past you guys. We all know how hydraulic works and how powerful it is, but what about mechanical screw power? I have a lot of 1 3/4 inch fully threaded drill steel laying around. It's a course T45 thread which probably means nothing to you guys, but basically it's a extremely course threaded rod about 2 threads per inch. I was thinking of welding a drive sprocket on one end and making it chain driven. I have couplers that match the threads of the steel so I was thinking of welding a push plate to the coupler so when the rod turns the coupler and push plate advances forward, pushing the wood through the wedge. Being such a corse thread it should move quickly, but is it going to be powerful enough to do the job? I don't know how to figure the mechanical advantage of a screw type apparatus.

I have all the stuff to do hydraulic as well, but I just see all this laying around and thought it would be different to play with.
 
If using a wedge to split the wood, I would have thought you would get more splitting force out of a hydraulic system.

A mechanical system might lend itself to the use of a splitting cone that does the work in a very different way by expanding the log to be split through the sides rather than through the ends. There are a good few you tube videos of such systems that are powered directly from a tractor''s PTO that seem to be quite common in Eastern Europe. I'd say they're fairly lethal though!!
 
If using a wedge to split the wood, I would have thought you would get more splitting force out of a hydraulic system.

A mechanical system might lend itself to the use of a splitting cone that does the work in a very different way by expanding the log to be split through the sides rather than through the ends. There are a good few you tube videos of such systems that are powered directly from a tractor''s PTO that seem to be quite common in Eastern Europe. I'd say they're fairly lethal though!!
I'm sure hydraulics are more powerful, but the screw theory has me intrigued. And I've seen those spinning cones of death splitters on YouTube, they look..... interesting
 
I have a stickler cone splitter. Depends what your splitting with it, but it had no issues splitting anything under 125lbs. Just have to use common sense.

Also have hydraulics and a super splitter, so it doesn't get used much.
 
I'm sure hydraulics are more powerful, but the screw theory has me intrigued. And I've seen those spinning cones of death splitters on YouTube, they look..... interesting

I also have a wedge type hydraulic splitter that is great. However I feel the cone splitter system has its place when properly engineered, with an emphasis on operator safety.

I've seen examples where they are mounted on tractors with a post hole auger attachment and they are used in the field to split long lengths. This allows for splitting to allow drying and stacking for many months before cutting to stove- friendly lengths.
 
I have a hydraulic splitter now and it works great, but it's time for a rebuild, and I have some things I'd like to add. I just wondered if mechanical screw power would have more force pushing a piece of wood through the wedge than hydraulic power would.
 
A screw type driving a wedge would be cheaper to build so if it was better everyone would be making one and selling them. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a guinea pig or to try and invent a new wheel. Hydraulic will stand the test of time. The screw will eventually wear out from repetition of splitting the same length material. If you always cut 16" wood the initial splitting point will always be at the 15 1/2" or so spot on the threads. This mean lots of wear and eventually stripping of the threads. I have a couple of unicorns but never use them.
 
A screw type driving a wedge would be cheaper to build so if it was better everyone would be making one and selling them. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a guinea pig or to try and invent a new wheel. Hydraulic will stand the test of time. The screw will eventually wear out from repetition of splitting the same length material. If you always cut 16" wood the initial splitting point will always be at the 15 1/2" or so spot on the threads. This mean lots of wear and eventually stripping of the threads. I have a couple of unicorns but never use them.
Thats a good point, it would be relatively cheaper to build.
 
First of all, it's very good to think about creative ways to build a splitter and save $$. A threaded rod solution is feasible and in the early days of manufacturing there were many threaded presses and press type tools in service. Compared to hydraulics there are specific problems that you will need to consider.

First, the threads of the rod and whatever you use for a nut are going to be subject to force and friction. If you are going to apply 2000 lbs of force to the log then your threads have to be able to withstand 2000 lbs. Repeated use, back and forth, with pressure included will require a high quality extreme pressure lubricant on the threads to prevent siezing and galling. Oil rather than grease based lubricants are preferred. In the shop I have found that cleaning the threads of my ball joint press after each use and applying clean 90 weight gear oil provides good, long-lasting results.

Second, torque applied through the rod when splitting will tend to twist or bend the rod. A bearing at each end is ok for a shaft that is not under extreme torque but for high pressure it will be important to ensure the pusher block doubles as a guide to prevent the rod from bending when splitting load is high.

Third, the rod will be subject to both stretching and compressing which will actually cause it to change length. You should make sure one end is mounted in a way that will allow some change in length. Additionally, if the beam of your splitter deflects under a tough log then your drive screw mounting should allow for this if possible.

Fourth, assume some logs simply cannot be split and build accordingly. If you build a drive system for the threaded rod which has no clutch and no pressure relief, what will happen when your unstoppable force meets an immovable object? A pressure relief valve is easy to install in a hydraulic system but with a mechanical system you should have some type of clutch, preferably automatic, to allow the prime mover to be disconnected from the splitter. I have a funny story from my youth about a boy who powered a bicycle with a chainsaw engine but forgot to include a clutch.

Fifth, consider designing the splitter to both pull and push at a reasonable speed. A hydraulic ram's speed can be controlled by the volume of fluid allowed through the control valve. A simple, single speed drive system for a screw-type drive might provide reasonable splitting speed for a knotty piece of oak but when you hit nice, straight grain wood you might want to run a little faster. And when it's time to retract the pusher and put in another log, moving that slow speed pusing block will become the most frustrating experience ever.

Some other advice is to check the thread type on the threaded rod you're looking at. Some threads are better at carrying pressure than others. A typical thread on most fasteners is made of 60 degree angles and tapers to a point. The thread is strong at the base but gets significantly weaker near the tip. At one time square threads were used for high pressure but in most cases today, Acme threads are preferred due to ease of machining. Acme threads have less angle than UNC or UNF threads and are typically machined to tighter tolerances. They are commonly used when more pressure is expected and they're a first choice for pusher bolts in the US. Typical places to find Acme thread is on the bolt that moves a vice jaw, on the pusher bolt of a threaded a ball joint press, and on the bolt on a scissor jack.

Typical bolt thread:
threadgagemeasurementwire.jpg


Acme thread:
ACME.png


For price comparison, McMaster Carr would sell you a 1-1/4"-4 X 6' Acme ASTM A193 threaded lead screw for $216 and the matching mild steel coupling nuts could be had for $44 each.
 
I was thinking that a screw with 2TPI wouldn't offer much mechanical advantage...the wedge would move fast though! If you where gonna use a thread to split I'd think a machine tool type ball screw would work better , it addresses some of the friction problem you're going to have when the leading face of the thread sees 40,000 to 50,000 pounds of force.
 
I was thinking that a screw with 2TPI wouldn't offer much mechanical advantage...the wedge would move fast though!

That might actually be fun to watch.

If you where gonna use a thread to split I'd think a machine tool type ball screw would work better
It would but the cost goes up considerably. 6' Ball thread lead screw, same pitch as above, $400.
 
IMG_1320.PNG I should clarify a little about the rods I have. The middle rod in the picture is what I'm working with. They are extremely hard drill steels, 2 3/4 diameter. They are fully threaded and 2TPI isn't an exaggeration. The threads themselves are roughly 3/8" thick and in more of a rope configuration than a conventional thread. They are made to take the abuse of rock drilling, so wear isn't as big an issue as in normal steel. Deflection of the rod is an issue I've been thinking about, because given enough force they will bend, but being so hard they will break after too much bend, which will cause a dangerous situation.

Regardless of all this, you guys have given me something's to think about, and while it would be fun to build and experiment with, I think I will probably stick with conventional hydraulics.
 
I wish I was smart enough to figure out what kind of input torque it would take to generate 50,000 lbs. of "push" with the limited amount of advantage you'd get from 2TPI.

It wouldn't be much of a splitter if it took a 300 horse diesel and 36" dia. sprockets to build 10 ton of force.
 
I did a little research using some physics calculators and it looks like it would take around 1,100 ft lbs input torque to generate 18 ton of splitting force.

Sounds like the screw drive splitter is gonna need a gear reduction box hanging off it also.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top