Sideboard Strategies?

[Swingman]

There was an article (have a copy, thanks) many years ago in FWW, by the subject name, whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction - basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached (although, sans legs, not unusual in many *cabinet* casework methods).

Having sought out, seen, and paid particular attention to the construction used in many old and antique sideboards these past few years, and having consistently noted problems that seem to be commonly shared among even the best made of the bunch(cracks/racking/sagging, etc.), there are many things I like about the author's ideas: wood's dimensional instability is pretty well nullified as an issue, many fewer joints needed, pretty much sag proof, etc.; and a few things I don't know whether I would like, or at least be able to overcome and not nullify the benefits of using the method: in particular, and despite the author's claim to the contrary, it appears difficult to imitate with this method the "panel and rail" sides that are a traditional design element of the type of sideboard I'm interested in designing/building.

Sort of a shot in the dark ... but I'm wondering if any of the more advanced wooddorkers here have any personal experience using this particular strategy/method and what they did, if anything, to overcome what appear to be the inherent limitations in design choices, such as the above mentioned?

Thanks in advance ...

[Swingman]

The first part of this experiment with an alternate method of designing and building a sideboard, the casework, is basically complete:

quite fussy to effect, I am impressed with the "method" thus far, as this dovetailed case, with the partitions being housed as well as joined with through tenons, and the laminated end panels, makes for unbelievably strong basic framework.

Another advantage, which has become more apparent as the project progresses, is the relative low cost for a project of this size due to the amount of secondary wood being utilized.

Here's hoping the surprises continue to be pleasant.

[nailshooter41]

I seem to remember earlier discourse from you on this method. Now seeing it on your site makes it easier to understand.

So... let me see if I do. You are building a dovetailed box, then veneering it with the appearance grade wood of your choice. You are then using hidden mechanical joints as needed in the final assembly. Yes? No?

The CAD sketch looks >quite< elegant, but in the construction phase it looks like a gun safe. How much will that weigh when it is finished?

One more thing... I see the detail of the tenon sticking out top and bottom to attach the legs. Will those be the only points and means of attachement?

(Think of Artie Johnson's voice here...) Veeeeery intersting....

Robert

[Swingman]

Side panels only are "veneered" with the primary wood.

In this case, the primary QSWO veneer is 5/8" thick, and, with the 3/4" thick secondary wood that it is veneered to the oak (poplar, containing the dovetails that hold the top and bottom to the sides), the sides give you a 1

3/8" thick, long grain-long grain, glue surface for the legs.

I chose those particular dimensions to allow a 1/4" reveal on the 1 5/8" thick legs when all is assembled.

The legs are joined as below ... all other components use traditional joinery methods, but way fewer "joints" are necessary with this method than with traditional frame and panel sides.

A bit more than traditional frame and panel construction.

The extra will come from a double top, (the real one, which will be fastened to the casework top ... which, BTW, also acts as a kicker for the top drawers), and the thicker, laminated sides,

All other components of the sideboard (web frames, drawers, doors, etc) would be there any way, plus the frame/casework construction is of secondary wood, which is lighter than the primary wood.

... and cheaper. ;)

The additional weight should be offset by a marked decrease in susceptibility to wood movement (all grain in the basic "frame" of the piece runs in the same direction), plus a huge increase in structural strength, with less susceptibility to the racking and sagging that plagues these wide, four legged pieces over time.

Those mortise and tenons you mention, plus 2 more on each leg (the ones you don't see yet are an addtional M&T joint attaching the front and side bottom aprons to the legs), PLUS a long grain to long grain glue joint between the legs and the 1 3/8" thick case sides, running the full height of the case work.

... actually more leg joint strength than what you get with traditional frame and panel construction.

I thought so too ... this is a big piece (63" long) and other than making it

8 legged, which has traditionally been the method to keep long sideboards from sagging and racking, I was looking for another method.

That said, it is an experimental piece, but with the same degree of planning and thought that goes into a more traditional project, and with the hope that it turns out as well in final appearance/design as if it were more traditional construction.

We'll see ...

[nailshooter41]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I am probably thinking about the process and mechanical design wayyyy more than I should, but I see from your post you too were thinking of the savings when using more secondary appearance materials.

A design like that could also be a great answer help with the low quality of woods that seem to be the norm. Every time I go the hardwood store it seems that they either have really good material (rare) at unbelievably high prices, or they have so so material at unbelievably high prices.

They also sell crap that should probably be burned.

I like the whole strength consideration, and looking at the design I am wondering why it took so long for someone to come up with it. But you are certainly the first one I know to try it. I remember seeing that mag with the guy's article, but I think your site explains it better. I had no interest when I saw the article.

I sure hope you let us know (me especially!) how this piece progresses and how your hands on time compares to the more traditional way.

Robert

[Swingman]

~Pro's: Wood cost Strength Mitigation of wood dimensional instability Overcome racking and sag Fewer joints

~Con's (thus far) Weight Design limitations (?) Fussy to obtain RCH square on casework

... and I am a _square_ freak!!

The secondary material is poplar, which is ubiquitous, can be bought at midnight at a BORG, and, compared to the primary stock, is reasonable priced even at those prices.

I was originally interested because I wanted a long sideboard, but with four legs instead of eight, and most of the old ones I see have ill fitting doors and drawers because of racking and sag over time.

Don't worry ... I'll bore the crap out of everyone with the details as it goes along. ;)

[Andrew Barss]

: In this case, the primary QSWO veneer is 5/8" thick

That ain't veneer.

, and, with the 3/4" : thick secondary wood that it is veneered to the oak : The additional weight should be offset by a marked decrease in : susceptibility to wood movement (all grain in the basic "frame" of the piece : runs in the same direction)

Is the rate of expansion for QSWO the same as for flatsawn poplar? if not, you're likely going to have some problems.

-- Andy Barss

[Leon]

If it is not structural and is attached over another material it's a veneer. Most brick homes are Brick Veneer.

Hummm,,, might be a good reason the rebate the legs.

[Andrew Barss]

:> : In this case, the primary QSWO veneer is 5/8" thick :>

:>

:> That ain't veneer.

: If it is not structural and is attached over another material it's a veneer. : Most brick homes are Brick Veneer.

Yeah, okay. But veneer construction has a property that solid wood construction doesn't: you don't need to worry that the veneer and its substrate will differentially expand and contract, breaking the piece of furniture.

When one is gluing one 5/8" thick board to another 3/4 thick board of a different species and cut differently (QS vs. flatsawn), you really do need to worry about this.

: Hummm,,, might be a good reason the rebate the legs.

Might be a good idea to redesign the entire case, actually.

-- Andy Barss

[nailshooter41]

I cannot think (unless it is San Antonio) of a better aquarium to test the tangenital differences of the two attached products than Houston. Average humidity... 1,040%, give or take. A drought for Houston is 3 weeks without rain. However, they have the distinct addition to this mix of getting hotter than hell in the summer. So da Swinger has a perfect lab to test.

It should be interesting. Say both woods are dried down to between 8

- 12% then laminated. The piece is completed, then finished - inside and out.

The unknown variable is the addition of the finish and the location of the piece in the house. I work on a lot of old houses, and have been told time and time again "that old table likes that spot". Meaning, when it is put in an area of heavy airflow they see joints open and drawers stick. Back in its happy place (a less drafty, more temperature stable area), it will reagain itself after a period of time. Jon Vogt of Vogt antiques had to confirm this not rare at all phenomenon, because I believed a little movement was possible, but not THAT much.

As far as the finishing goes, today's finishes can really grind down the gears of expansion and contraction. The lacquers I shoot come in the can around 22% solids, and I understand others are even more. Some of todays polys are no less than 30% solids! About three coats of that and you have encased your project in plastic! (But remember Karl uses his own witches brew and method.... bubble bubble... toil and trouble...). If this is the protocol he describes on his website, it will be well sealed, indeed.

While It may not prevent movement altogether, but it will make a huge difference in mitigating it.

He might be asking for it, but to me it is a toss leaning towards there being no problems. Sealed properly I don't think the climate for expansion and contraction will be that drastic since it wll be inside a home. For him, it is a great science experiment that we will all benefit from.

Just my 0.02.

Go Swing Go!

Robert

[Swingman]

I wouldn't have seen that if you hadn't replied to it, but I'm sure that d*****ad would just love for his dire prediction to be the case.

FYI, both woods were carefully selected in cut to have almost identical movement values, .0016 and .0018, respectively. Check out:

for the judge.

While there is still the possibility of slight movement over the 16" span, sealing will most likely take that out as a factor.

d*****ad, still batting zero, should have learned his lesson by now.

[Swingman]

I used the term "veneer", because Robert did. You will note that it is first in quotes in my reply to Robert ... that was done on purpose.

On the website it is "laminated".

... d*****ad is still batting zero.

[Andrew Barss]

You really are one class act.

: FYI, both woods were carefully selected in cut to have almost identical : movement values, .0016 and .0018, respectively. Check out:

:

... for the judge.

If you had bothered to read my first reply in this thread, I asked the appropriate question.

: While there is still the possibility of slight movement over the 16" span, : sealing will most likely take that out as a factor.

Time will tell, as they say. (Whether you will is another question).

: d*****ad, still batting zero, should have learned his lesson by now.

Aren't you a tough guy! And what lesson should I have learned there, sweetums?

Hey, speaking of lessons: have you figured out what a jointer is for yet?

-- Andy Barss

[Andrew Barss]

: As far as the finishing goes, today's finishes can really grind down : the gears of expansion and contraction. The lacquers I shoot come in : the can around 22% solids, and I understand others are even more. : Some of todays polys are no less than 30% solids! About three coats : of that and you have encased your project in plastic!

I always thought the solids percentage was the in-the-can ratio of solids to solvent (so once the solvent evaporates, the effective solids go up to 100%, regardless of what they started as). Does the stated solids amount affect transfer of water vapor? There was an old FWW article on how well finishes resist that, with thick wax coming out on top (really thick, not what you'd actually put on something), followed by shellac, followed by various varnishes, with oil at the bottom.

(But remember : Karl uses his own witches brew and method.... bubble bubble... toil : and trouble...). If this is the protocol he describes on his website, : it will be well sealed, indeed.

: While It may not prevent movement altogether, but it will make a huge : difference in mitigating it.

Could be -- as you say, it's an experiment.

-- Andy Barss

[nailshooter41]

SNIP

Sombitch... that got a loud guffaw. Whaddya really think?

Hah!

Robert

[nailshooter41]

That is true. However, look at it this way: If you put finish "A" on that has 20% solids, compared to "B" that is 30% solids, you will have an extra 10% more solids on the material with just one coat of B compared to A. With two coats of B, it is like having three coats of A. Lots more resin on the project.

In the end though, it is about mil thickness. They all dry to 100% solid resin if they are a curing product.

I didn't understand the question. Are you meaning resistance to outgassing vapor transfer from uncured wood, or vapor penetration through the finsh to the wood?

Robert

[Leon]

Joining the nit picking contest, ;~)

If can A has 20% solids and can B has 30% solids, you will have 50% more solids on the material coated with can B.

2 coats of B would indeed be like 3 coats of can A.

[Leon]

BTY the Bostitch gun worked great although I spent more time dealing with the tail which I have not had to deal with in the past. That however is no fault of the gun, it was my decision to go with air operated.

On a plus side, the guard teeth on the Bostitch gripped far better than the ines on the gas operated Paslode that I have used and toe nailing was never a tough task.

[nailshooter41]

Hey.... leeme 'lone. Let me pick right back at you, bub. =;^)

If you read it the way I wrote it in my head, I would be accurate because we were talking about solids in relation to a can, or volume. So 10% per can, or by volume.

Anyway, you are certainly right about the relation of the numbers.

Glad you like the new gun. They are a nice piece of equipment. I like the non-tailed too, but they don't deliver 100% consistent power throughout the life cycle of the cartridge which is imperative for some of the uses you detailed. You will get used to the tail when you realize you are getting 100% compression every shot, and when you don't have to replace cartridges.

Robert

[Leon]

When my son just started to talk he would say "leeme lone." I have never heard that anywhere else. He would also say, "Don't say me that".

I figgered you knew what you were talking about but I was bored. LOL.

I was much more impressed with the gun after using it for 2 days.

I

IIRC the Gas Paslode was pretty consistent. We never had any warning of a close to empty cartridge except when the gun would simply stop firing.

You will get used to the tail when you

Well, almost. The compressor that I am using will provide 12 shots before refilling. The last 2 shots are a bit light however I only had to follow up with a hammer once or twice.. That's using a 50' hose. I wonder if I connect another 75-100' to the 50 if the recharge cycle will be less often? I have to stay relatively close to a 20 amp circuit with a 25' 14 gauge extension cord. I am looking at another 105' fence job that runs directly away from my power source and I will need more hose or a much longer really HD extension cord. I suspect the hose would be cheaper. Got any advice?

Thanks again.

Leon