Workbench top lamination type

[Bodgers]

On my workbench build I'm shooting for a top thickness of approaching 60mm.

As I have mentioned previously, I have several beech slabs that vary from 32-36mm thick. After milling down I am expecting somewhere around 29mm thick boards.

I realise the standard way that this is done is the (EDIT: laminated) way with thin strips laminated with the edge (not end) grain up. But, I would like to keep things a bit simpler.

What I was thinking of doing is face gluing boards of about 150mm wide together and then laminate another layer beneath it in a brick pattern. Total width of around 600mm.

Is this too wide to glue in this direction i.e
Will it end up tearing itself apart? I would oppose the grain patterns to limit the movement.

2nd option I have is that I have been offered a 28mm thick beech (EDIT: laminated stave) style counter top (new). Would it make less sense to use this in conjunction with my boards?

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Beau]

Dont do the butchers block top. That would either tare itself apart or curve like a curvy thing with changes in humidity along it's length. Would have thought option 1 should work OK as long as the boards are fully dry before gluing it all up.

Edit. when you say "28mm thick beech butcher block style counter top" I read that as end grain exposed on the face but if its 28mm x 28mm square running along the length both ideas should be fine

 

[Roughcut]

Looks like an awful lot of work to me.
Could you not rip your 150mm width boards down the middle, which would give you a finished board of approximately 29mm x 70mm and then laminate them together edge up?

 

[Bodgers]

Looks like an awful lot of work to me.
Could you not rip your 150mm width boards down the middle, which would give you a finished board of approximately 29mm x 70mm and then laminate them together edge up?

That's what I mentioned in my post. That would give approx 21 pieces to plane, glue and clamp. Isn't that more work?

I could actually reduce it down further as my slabs a quite wide to just 3 on the top to around 200mm

 

[ED65]

I realise the standard way that this is done is the butcher block way with thin strips laminated with the edge grain up. But, I would like to keep things a bit simpler.

The so-called butcher block way (laminating face to face, which is not properly "butcher block") is actually simplest in certain respects. The strips don't have to be thin, it's just the orientation that matters.

In addition to possibly being a little easier it makes for a much more stable end result because it effectively makes the top quartersawn wood, so the major axis of movement is up and down and not across the width.

Anyway with regard to your drawings, I think both are acceptable ways of glueing up and I'm not sure one would be preferred over the other. One thing though, with the commercial beech counter top you'd want to check if it had been pre-oiled.

 

[Bodgers]

I realise the standard way that this is done is the butcher block way with thin strips laminated with the edge grain up. But, I would like to keep things a bit simpler.

The so-called butcher block way (laminating face to face, which is not properly "butcher block") is actually simplest in certain respects. The strips don't have to be thin, it's just the orientation that matters.

In addition to possibly being a little easier it makes for a much more stable end result because it effectively makes the top quartersawn wood, so the major axis of movement is up and down and not across the width.

Anyway with regard to your drawings, I think both are acceptable ways of glueing up and I'm not sure one would be preferred over the other. One thing though, with the commercial beech counter top you'd want to check if it had been pre-oiled.

Yes the solid beech kitchen top isn't end grain up 'true' butcher block, its running along the grain in 'staves'/strips, so the grain would be running with my boards.

I am pretty sure it's not oiled - but worth checking - good call.

Another thing I was thinking of doing is epoxying the two face layers with slow set epoxy so that it cuts down on moisture absorption from the glue (such as PVA) which may induce cupping etc. and will have the benefit of not needing a heavy amount of clamping.

 

[Ttrees]

Hello
What is this bench for Bodgers ?

 

[Bodgers]

Hello
What is this bench for Bodgers ?

Workshop woodworking bench.

Current plan is to do a Hayward style bench.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Ttrees]

I was asking because, it would be very strange to have a layer of endgrain for any use, other than chopping into it with a
cleaver...or possibly froe
If you could even attach it securely somehow (as glue does not bond well to end grain)
and left the slab to do its thing, say.. laying it flat on a bench while you made the legs...
You would be effectively be making a huge hygrometer. (look up wooden hygrometer)

If your stock is as flatsawn as you describe, you shouldn't have any bother with it moving much...
providing the grain runs straight along the length.
The timber expands/contracts in its width and height mostly ...not so much lengthwise
Just don't try to restrict the wood swelling/contracting
This means attached on one side (usually the front) and the other side of your bench (the back)
would be fastened in such a way that it could move ....elongated holes or "slots"

Hopefully I made sense
Tom

 

[Bodgers]

Yeah, I mislead with my butcher block style description of the worktop. It isn't an endgrain chopping block affair - it is one of the laminated/stave 30mm strip jobs.

My preference would be to not use it anyway, and go with my full length stock I have (top drawing).

Noted on your attachment advice - thanks

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Mr T]

Biggest problem my be clamping the two layers together. They will have to be pretty flat and then clamped with curved bearers perhaps. As you said the epoxy will help.

Chris

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I would rip the 150 mm stuff into 75 mm stuff and glue the staves so you end up with a 75 mm thick board, from only one set of edge up laminations. It is a pain getting the thickness by double stacking, unless you have some way if flattening the boards absolutely dead flat, and as Mr. T says, curved cramping cauls, to get some pressure towards the centre of the board. By the time you have made enough cauls to do the job, and these need to be fairly curved in themselves, or won't distribute the pressure right, you could have the boards ripped and glued and job done! If you don't want a 75mm thick top ( mine is a little thicker and wouldn't be without the stability and mass) then rip the boards into 50mm staves.

Mike.

 

[dzj]

+1 for the QS top.
Don't know much about the Hayward bench, but is 600mm width
the norm for this type?

 

[Bodgers]

Hello,

I would rip the 150 mm stuff into 75 mm stuff and glue the staves so you end up with a 75 mm thick board, from only one set of edge up laminations. It is a pain getting the thickness by double stacking, unless you have some way if flattening the boards absolutely dead flat, and as Mr. T says, curved cramping cauls, to get some pressure towards the centre of the board. By the time you have made enough cauls to do the job, and these need to be fairly curved in themselves, or won't distribute the pressure right, you could have the boards ripped and glued and job done! If you don't want a 75mm thick top ( mine is a little thicker and wouldn't be without the stability and mass) then rip the boards into 50mm staves.

Mike.

Yes, but that means all that ripping and planing! I suppose it's either that or the dodgy glue up...

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Bodgers]

+1 for the QS top.
Don't know much about the Hayward bench, but is 600mm width
the norm for this type?

The article in the woodworker states about 22" for this bench. Which is about 560mm I think. So I could do narrower than 600...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/39/2d/d4 ... 570769.png

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[dzj]

If you go without the tray, will not a third of the benchtop be unsupported?

 

[Fitzroy]

I’m not sure it’s that much more work to do it one way or t’other. You’ll have to take your boards to 4 square for your planned glue up. If you rip them in half you don’t need to refinish the sawn edge as you can have them all on the bottom face. Once the tops glued up you’ll have to flatten the top anyhow and just refinish the bottom where you have any joints. Or am I missing something.

 

[woodbrains]

I’m not sure it’s that much more work to do it one way or t’other. You’ll have to take your boards to 4 square for your planned glue up. If you rip them in half you don’t need to refinish the sawn edge as you can have them all on the bottom face. Once the tops glued up you’ll have to flatten the top anyhow and just refinish the bottom where you have any joints. Or am I missing something.

Hello,

No, your are exactly right.

I don't think anyone needs a working section of bench top wider than about 450 mm in fact, anything wider is a PITA to plane flat and is never used anyway. I think one of mine is 17 or 18 inches wide, has a removable tool well of about 8 inches and then a heavy rail at the back level with the bench top. The removable bottom to the well means that I can clamp things to the bench at the back. Any wider than 450 mm, it would not be useful to do this, or need deep throated clamps.

Mike.

 

[ED65]

Wider tops don't preclude clamping down away from the front, or any other, edge. You just do it differently, using holdfasts or something else that functions similarly.

If the need was felt for proper clamping to be possible anywhere within the field of a workbench top, of any size, clamps that run on bars such as F-clamps can be modified and the bar run through the dog holes.

 

[Bodgers]

If you go without the tray, will not a third of the benchtop be unsupported?

This is a good point. I was in two minds about the tray, and presented the 'worst case' scenario of having it solid all the way.

I thought the reason for the angled legs was to oppose any planing direction forces better, but obviously it is designed around just having light tools in the tray. Interesting...

I was going to have it against a wall but I don't want that to be a means of support really if anything heavy is sat on the back!



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk