Moravian Bench Build

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I know you all like bench build threads. And now fate has chosen me. It is my turn to take up the mantle and please the crowd!

Anywhoo, I hope this thread will address some of the little decisions to be made and details of bench building that I didn't absorb through any books or other forum threads. Though this is not my first woodworking project in general, it is the first big project I am taking on primarily with hand tools so there will be a lot to learn. Probably a lot of small details included in supposedly basic operations. I am always appreciative of advice and constructive criticism so lay it on me.

I started out with a bunch of boards that were around 8-9" wide, 2" thick, and 76-80" long. In addition I got a a beam that is about 8" wide, 4" thick, and 80" long. All in all about 80 board feet. All yellow pine from the same tree.

I did start a thread a few weeks ago asking about the best way to dimension boards to get the benchtop (like I said, decisions to be made and details involved in operations that may appear simple from the outset). There is a lot of great advice and information in that thread but it got pretty long and has been inactive for a couple weeks or more, so I figured it would be better to start another thread than to turn that last one into a 10-page ordeal.


Here's what I started with:
IMG_5209.jpg IMG_5296.jpg

The plan is for a Moravian bench along the lines of Will Myers' with a couple modifications. His bench has a 13-1/2" wide benchtop and a 10-1/2" wide tool tray. I'm planning on a 16" wide benchtop and 8" wide tool tray. Haven't gotten that far yet but I think that will be ideal for me. A 13-1/2" wide benchtop seems a little narrow to me and I don't need that much space in a tool tray. It'll only fill up with shavings and tools that I should put away.

A few lessons:

1) Buying a power planer was a good decision. I absolutely would not want to do this all by hand. Jointing one edge on these long boards by hand takes me at least an hour and maybe two.

As I learned in my previous thread, a board also doesn't have to have a perfect face or edge before you put it through the planer. A few of these boards went straight to the planer without any prior work and came out pretty flat. That said, the planer does not take out gradual bows or twists so there's still a lot of handwork to be done. What I found to work best (so far) is to get one face relatively flat, plane the board (both sides) just enough to get fresh faces on either side, then go back to the hand planes to take care of imperfections the planer won't correct on one face, then do the final planing to thickness.

I also built 36" infeed and outfeed tables for my planer (12" Delta) and have found those to be very helpful in getting rid of snipe and making the planer a little more effective in eliminating bows.

2) Though I'd love a nice 14" bandsaw and will certainly get one someday, a circular saw with a fence has worked just fine for making the long rips. As long as the edge that the fence is registering on is straight the setup seems to be plenty accurate.

These are the only power tools that I have used so far and I don't think I'll be needing any more for this project. I bought the planer for $100 and the circular saw for $30. Throw in the circular saw fence and materials to make planer tables and I still have only around $200 in those tools.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Here's where I am at now:
IMG_5351.jpg
I ripped all but one board (wasn't sure I would need to use that last one for the top but it's looking like I will) after jointing one edge and planing the faces close to their finished thickness.

I cut, planed, and laminated the legs. Figured it would be easier to get good glue joints on 36" leg pieces than 76+" top pieces, so it was kind of a rehearsal and practice for laminating the top which will be a far more climactic event.
IMG_5354.jpg
They turned out great and the glue joints are all satisfactory.

So here's the next big decision I have to make:
IMG_5352.jpg IMG_5353.jpg
How to orient the boards that will make up the top. Specifically, should the exposed top be edge grain thus making the growth rings more like vertical lines (left) or should the work surface be more face grain and the growth rings more horizontal?

My initial impulse was to do the latter but in thinking it through, I don't think either method would be more difficult in terms of glue-up. Since wood expands/contracts more along growth rings (tangential) than against them (radial), if I went the latter route the top would theoretically experience more seasonal movement in thickness than in width which could be better. That said, the tangential and radial shrinkage rates for southern yellow pine are around 7.5% and 5% respectively so this might a null issue.

Thoughts on this one? Does end grain orientation even matter in a big lamination like this?

Also on the subject of board orientation, is there any rhyme or reason to where I should place the two bigger beams? Both next to each other? On opposite ends? Both in the middle?

[Stew Denton]

Matthew,

I hope someone like Ken, who has built a lot of work benches will chime in, as he will have much better advise than I will, but I would consider the lumber desire to cup as it gains or looses moisture. If you run it with the tangential going up and down each piece will have a greater desire to cup, whereas if you run the growth rings horizontal each piece of lumber will have much less desire to cup.

I realize the lumber is already cut, so your options are few, but it is worth thinking about.

A bigger issue, from my view is to run the lumber so that when you plane the top to flatten it that all of the lumber is running in the same direction, with regards to being easy to plane. I would do a quick test planing of each piece of lumber, and clearly mark each piece as to the direction that it likes to be planed, and make dead certain when I did the glue up that every one ran that same direction so the top would be a joy to plane.

Stew

[Robert Zschoche]

Hi Matthew

This is a timely thread because I was planning to start milling my lumber for the bench this weekend. I have been corresponding with Will Myers and have bought a tail vise from him (scheduled to arrive tomorrow !).

I'll be interested to see what the more experienced folks here say about orienting the growth rings for the top. I was planning to make mine with the quartersawn showing on the surface of the bench because I like the appearance. I bought up a bunch of douglas fir 4x4's that were really very nice looking that's what I will glue up for the top. I'm debating going with the tool tray in the rear like Will's plans show versus a solid top all the way to the back of the bench.

If you're interested in a tail vise, Will might have some more. He just cranked out a large batch for everyone who was on his waiting list.

Good luck with your project.

[Christopher Charles]

I'd recommend glueing face grain to face grain, so the top appears as ~ quartersawn. I would put the most rift sawn boards in the back, as you'll want the front as stable as possible, the back matters less.

Good luck and you'll love having a solid bench!

Best,
Chris

[ken hatch]

I'd recommend glueing face grain to face grain, so the top appears as ~ quartersawn. I would put the most rift sawn boards in the back, as you'll want the front as stable as possible, the back matters less.

Good luck and you'll love having a solid bench!

Best,
Chris

Christ's answer is a good one. There are good reasons why most slabs are either a single hunk of wood or glue ups of strips cut from thinner but wider boards.

ken

[ken hatch]

Hi Matthew

This is a timely thread because I was planning to start milling my lumber for the bench this weekend. I have been corresponding with Will Myers and have bought a tail vise from him (scheduled to arrive tomorrow !).

I'll be interested to see what the more experienced folks here say about orienting the growth rings for the top. I was planning to make mine with the quartersawn showing on the surface of the bench because I like the appearance. I bought up a bunch of douglas fir 4x4's that were really very nice looking that's what I will glue up for the top. I'm debating going with the tool tray in the rear like Will's plans show versus a solid top all the way to the back of the bench.

If you're interested in a tail vise, Will might have some more. He just cranked out a large batch for everyone who was on his waiting list.

Good luck with your project.

Robert,

An option I've found that works very well is a split top. In reality most folks only need about 300mm to 400mm (12" to 16") work surface. The rest is there for side to side stability. What a split top brings to the table vs. a single slab is ease of build, there is a big difference in westling a 300mm wide hunk of timber instead of 600mm one. Add in a split top can be run through most home shop planers and you almost have enough reason to go split without other reasons. The split also gives tool tray like function without the mess and is easier to build than a tool tray.

I'm like a broken record on bench builds, most folks over think their build, especially first time builders. Make it easy, quick, and strong, then go to work making furniture.

Good luck with your build,

ken

[Robert Zschoche]

Ken, thanks for your input. A split top would be nice, especially for being able to clamp items without using a holdfast. If what I build looks decent enough to pass the scrutiny of the pros here, I'll be sure to follow up with some pictures.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I'd recommend glueing face grain to face grain, so the top appears as ~ quartersawn. I would put the most rift sawn boards in the back, as you'll want the front as stable as possible, the back matters less.

Good luck and you'll love having a solid bench!

Best,
Chris

Chris,
I can understand why the rift sawn boards ought to be towards the back but I don't understand why it would be better to have the growth rings horizontal rather than vertical. Can you elaborate on this?

As I get the boards closer to final dimension I have been considering how to orient the boards for the top. I've been thinking it might be advantageous to orient the growth rings vertically because that way there would only be 3 glue joints visible in the top.

I've also noticed how much softer the early wood is than the late wood. Combine that with the fact that having the growth rings oriented horizontally as you suggested would make the top mostly face grain, which would mean bigger sections of early wood. The photo below shows what I mean.
IMG_5372.jpg

Though edge grain still has early wood and late wood alternating, there seems to be less visible early wood.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

It has been a stressful, busy couple months for me but I finally have a little free time again to get moving on this workbench. One thing I did figure out recently was that I was gonna need more lumber to make the top as wide as planned. The supply from the tree that the original lumber came from (in the pics in earlier threads) is down to small boards or boards with problematic knots so I had to get some yellow pine from a different supplier. The new stuff is kiln-dried, straight, and knot-free. It actually looks and feels pretty different from the lumber I got originally. Nice as the new stuff is, it is kinda boring and characterless compared to the boards I got a few months ago but that's another story.

The new stuff has straighter grain than all my other boards, and can be planed along its full length in one direction unlike most of the boards I originally got so I thought maybe it would be better to incorporate the new stuff into top instead of using it for the big stretchers like I originally intended. So here's where my question comes in. The new stuff is plain-sawn and the old stuff is quarter-sawn.

Old board on the left and new stuff on the right:
IMG_5452.jpg
Some new stuff and some old stuff will have to be laminated for the top. I was debating how best to laminate the old stuff up above in this thread and given the input from experienced fellows here I settled on laminating all the boards face-to-face. Note that the "face" of the old, quartersawn boards is edge grain so I'm really laminating edge grain to edge grain, and the work surface of the benchtop would then be face grain. Growth rings will be horizontal like = rather than vertical like ll. To be honest I still don't completely understand the reasoning behind board orientation in laminating a benchtop but virtually all the benches I see being built are have the tops made by laminating face-to-face and I trust the opinions of folks who have a lot more experience than me.

But now that I have some boards that are plain-sawn if I laminate those face-to-face the growth rings will be oriented the other way. Should I still laminate the new boards face-to-face like in the picture above? Or should I rotate those new boards over 90* so that the growth rings are more horizontal like on all the other boards?

[Robert Hazelwood]

Ideally they would all be the same orientation, and the best orientation would be to glue flatsawn boards face to face so that the result is like a large quartersawn slab. That would look better as well, instead of having a mix of edge grain and face grain in the top. But functionally I think you can get away with mixing and matching as long as the lams aren't too thick or wide. My benchtop is laminated from doug fir boards 1.5" thick and 3.5" wide. Most of the lams are flatsawn but a few are rift or closer to quartered. I have not noticed any issues in the two years I've been using it.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Ideally they would all be the same orientation, and the best orientation would be to glue flatsawn boards face to face so that the result is like a large quartersawn slab. That would look better as well, instead of having a mix of edge grain and face grain in the top. But functionally I think you can get away with mixing and matching as long as the lams aren't too thick or wide. My benchtop is laminated from doug fir boards 1.5" thick and 3.5" wide. Most of the lams are flatsawn but a few are rift or closer to quartered. I have not noticed any issues in the two years I've been using it.

Thanks for the reply, Robert.

Flatsawn boards face-to-face was what I figured would be ideal so that all the growth rings were vertical. That's why I was originally curious about laminating the quartersawn boards I have edge-to-edge and then having two layers, like this:
IMG_5352.jpg

But wiser, more experienced men than I have not recommended this orientation and that is part of what I am still trying to understand, out of curiosity more than anything else. Is there a particular reason to laminate boards face-to-face rather than edge-to-edge? Strength of the joint perhaps?

[Robert Hazelwood]

Edge to edge is more common in furniture making than face to face. I don't think there is a difference in strength that amounts to anything.

But, gluing face grain to edge grain could be a problem if the T/R shrinkage ratio is high and the surface area is large. Hard to imagine a situation where that would be an issue though.

I cannot see what is wrong with the way you have the lams arranged in the picture, except that it takes more work and extra steps. I think it will produce a fine benchtop.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Okay, the time is (finally) (close to) nigh! I made all the necessary rips and have the boards for the top picked out. I even got it narrowed down to two potential configurations which is probably unbelievable to anyone who has been following this thread and realizes how indecisive and unnecessarily-meticulous I can be.

I have scoured the internet and cannot find much in the way of detailed explanations for different lamination configurations. So here is a condensed version of the take-aways for anyone who comes upon this thread while trying to work through this issue.

(If anyone more knowledgable sees something inaccurate please correct me)

The consensus seems to be that laminating boards face-to-face, standing on edge, is the way to go. There was one bench build article by Garrett Hack in which he basically makes wide boards by gluing edge-to-edge and then layers those wider boards but that's pretty much the only example I found of someone doing things that way. Not much discussion of it in forums. People generally seem to laminate face-to-face whether the boards are flatsawn or closer to quartersawn. There are also plenty of examples of laminations in which the grain direction is inconsistent like this:
glulamtop.jpg

It also occurred to me that if you use a slab the growth rings will make almost a semi-circle so that it is close to quartersawn at either end of the width and close to flatsawn at the middle of the board's width like this:
kd_near_pith_img_0165.jpg
This seems like it should be a no-no for someone worried about dimensional stability-it should theoretically be prone to cupping-but a lot of people still like slabs for workbench tops and this doesn't seem to bother them.

So, moral of the story, if all the boards in a lamination have the same, consistent grain direction then great. Growth rings oriented vertically should be more ideal since wood experiences more shrinkage/expansion tangentially (along the growth rings) than radially (across growth rings). But if that isn't achievable it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Laminating face-to-face is the fastest, easiest way to get the necessary thickness for a bench top. As Robert pointed out above, my idea of laminating layering edge-to-edge laminations would be more difficult.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

And with that all said, here's I'm at:

With the theme of "screw it, just pick a configuration and go with it" in mind I laid out what I thought would be most aesthetically pleasing.

Before I get into that, though, one important detail about how my bench top will be made: it'll be in two pieces. The main reason I chose the Moravian design is its portability but my bench will have a wider top than the one Will Myers built. His bench top is a 76" x 13" x 3-1/2" oak slab and he says it probably weighs around 90 lbs. That's already quite a lot for a person to move single-handedly and my bench top will be both wider (looking like 16" right now) and possibly thicker (3-3/4") so I'm going to make the top in two 8" wide sections. I'll probably use dowels or loose tenons between the sections to keep it all flat and the plan is to connect them using either Zipbolts:
Zipbolt.jpg

Or bench bolts:
Bench Bolts.jpg

The bench bolts are definitely stronger but they would require me to drill all the way through one bench top section whereas the zipbolts would not require nearly as much wood to be removed. This whole idea could end up crashing and burning so removing less would be nice if I end up having to just glue the two sections together. If anyone has any input or advice, I am all ears (eyes, since this is a virtual conversation) as usual.

Onto the other big decision:

Option A:
IMG_5477.jpgIMG_5478.jpg
The two sections separated:
IMG_5481.jpg

Pros
-easier to do
-looks a little nicer in my purely-subjective opinion
-better chance that I'd be able to plane the section from one end to the other without having to switch directions. As it turns out virtually all of the older boards (on the ends) have some grain reversal that would require planing from two directions

Cons
-new boards in the middle of each section have growth rings mostly vertical while old boards on the ends have growth rings horizontal. But we went over this...and maybe it doesn't matter

Option B:
IMG_5482.jpg IMG_5483.jpg
Pros
-entire bench top would be as close as possible to quartersawn--all boards would have growth rings mostly vertical
-that's really it

Cons
-more work, more difficulty but not that much, the number of faces and edges that have to be planed would not change.
-maximum possible thickness would be less than 3-1/2" due to the dimensions of the boards on each end. It would still be 3-1/4" or more, though, so probably a negligible difference
-the old boards that would be on each end of the top definitely have some reversing grain in this case so the top would probably be more of a pain to flatten or there would be more tearout in the top
-the visible edge of the bench top would have a glue line instead of being a single face

I'm heavily leaning towards option A because the only real downside would be the lack of consistent grain orientation which seems to not be that big a deal apparently. I still have a couple days before I can get started on the lamination (waiting on some clamps) so I will continue to give it some thought but right now I see no reason to not go with option A.