Posts: 1,174
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
(04-03-2025, 04:18 PM)BrentDH Wrote: I agree with Joe. Your movement is not front to back if the grain of your boards is running front to back. Your movement is side to side. Not sure it is as much as Joe suggested, but over 8’ of width it would be significant.
The boards are 8 ft long and running parallel to the wall. It will take about 4 boards to cover the 22” depth of the the top. By my estimates wood movment will be about 1/2 inch.
Posts: 13,091
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Lewiston, NY
(04-03-2025, 12:49 PM)joe1086 Wrote: I might not understand this correctly, but if his table surface is 8' long constructed of 6" wide boards joined side to side, isn't the 5% movement closer to 4-5"?
Don has it right. It's about 1.5" over the 96 width. HUGE. This is one of those applications where veneer makes a lot more sense. In solid wood, you're going to need to plan for all that movement. Dovetailed or t-shaped cleats would be a good choice, IMO, pinned at the middle so there would be about 3/4" movement front and back from the center.
John
Posts: 351
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Rochester, MN
Randy C, you have us all a little confused. Your original post said 2” x 6” x 22” boards laid side by side to make an 8’ top. Then later you said you gave up on the 2” plan and planed down some 4/4 boards but never said any thing about changing the lengths and direction. So are you using 22” long boards laid side by side to make 8’, or are you using four 8’ long boards that are 5.5” wide? There is a big difference in anticipated movement between those two plans.
Posts: 1,174
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
(04-03-2025, 11:55 PM)BrentDH Wrote: Randy C, you have us all a little confused. Your original post said 2” x 6” x 22” boards laid side by side to make an 8’ top. Then later you said you gave up on the 2” plan and planed down some 4/4 boards but never said any thing about changing the lengths and direction. So are you using 22” long boards laid side by side to make 8’, or are you using four 8’ long boards that are 5.5” wide? There is a big difference in anticipated movement between those two plans.
You’re right Brent. I changed the orientation of the top after I learned that I would have a much worse wood movement issue if I built the top like the plans called for and lay them side to side. My apologies.
Posts: 1,694
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
(04-03-2025, 06:42 PM)Randy C Wrote: The boards are 8 ft long and running parallel to the wall. It will take about 4 boards to cover the 22” depth of the the top. By my estimates wood movment will be about 1/2 inch.
OK – I think I am getting a little better picture of the “project”. Foregoing the 22” boards oriented like the sketch I previously provided and switching to 1 by’s running parallel to the front would work better (at least from a wood movement/shrinkage POV). Affixing the front edge of the bench to the MDF underlayment and allowing movement from front to back using a slotted screw system should work. Maybe not the most elegant solution – but it doesn’t sound like this is exactly fine furniture. If it were then cleats or dovetailing (as mentioned by jteneyck) might be more fitting. The x-grain movement front to back should not be too significant (again, depends on the factors I previously mentioned – but, as you have estimated, should be less than ½” ). If need be, you could certainly address this “gap” with trim stock or as you suggested plywood. Good luck. D
Posts: 1,694
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
And not to belabor this – but if you wanted to minimize front to back movement (and have a REALLY solid bench top) you may want to consider a “butcher-block” assembly for the top. Even 1” th. edge oriented material (say with Maple or similar hardwood) on top of the MDF would provide a tougher surface then say flat-sawn material and the front to back movement with the material oriented in this fashion would be minimal. A bit more work to build (might even be cost effective to buy one - they are readily available) – but (IMO) a better surface for this application. Just my $.02. D
Posts: 1,174
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
(04-04-2025, 10:16 AM)Don_M Wrote: OK – I think I am getting a little better picture of the “project”. Foregoing the 22” boards oriented like the sketch I previously provided and switching to 1 by’s running parallel to the front would work better (at least from a wood movement/shrinkage POV). Affixing the front edge of the bench to the MDF underlayment and allowing movement from front to back using a slotted screw system should work. Maybe not the most elegant solution – but it doesn’t sound like this is exactly fine furniture. If it were then cleats or dovetailing (as mentioned by jteneyck) might be more fitting. The x-grain movement front to back should not be too significant (again, depends on the factors I previously mentioned – but, as you have estimated, should be less than ½” ). If need be, you could certainly address this “gap” with trim stock or as you suggested plywood. Good luck. D
Thanks Don as well as everybody else who tried to help me. I’m sorry for the confusion I caused by not explaining the change in plans.
