# Milled the 26' Douglas Fir 8 X 12 beam today



## Brmorgan (Mar 17, 2010)

First off my neighbor came over around noon to help me get the log up onto the supports. It wasn't too difficult with a couple jack-alls and my floor jack.

Since I took so many pictures I kept them down to 800 X 600 for you dialup folks. 






Those blocks look undermatched to the log! But it's so bloody heavy it isn't going anywhere.





From the "high" end with all the machines out of the way.





I marked out the 8X12 I wanted to cut with the heart boxed in the center. I marked the lines using a level instead of a square; I find it more accurate.





Debarking took less than 10 minutes with my little offset broadaxe because the tree had been dead standing for a while.


And here are the little buggers responsible:


----------



## wigglesworth (Mar 17, 2010)

Looks like fun. Keep them pics coming


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 17, 2010)

Got the end blocks on and the string pulled taut from end to end to find the level.





All the lag bolts are driven in to the level. I only have an 8 foot 2X10 right now for a guide, since the longer 14' 2X8 I was using last year didn't make it through the winter in usable condition. This was the first time I've had to really make sure I put the lag bolts in certain intervals. I had to position the guide four times to make the cut.





Guide board is secured down for the first 7' of cut.





Thought I'd give the 041G a try on the mill. It sure looks good mounted on the mill, eh? It felt good too, but wouldn't cut worth a dime with the chain that was on it. It was sharp but was a bit loose in the bar, and was cutting super rough too. So, since I was a bit pressed for time, it was back to the tried-and-true 066 & 24" low-pro combo.





Just a little over halfway through the first cut. The wood had a bit of tension and the top cutoff piece was wanting to spring up from the log as it was cut off. Not wanting this to throw off the cut accuracy, I bolted it down to the log right away.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 17, 2010)

Top cut complete! Just flipping that slab off was no easy task. :help:






Damn, that's some nice wood, if I may say so myself. I love opening up these Fir logs.





The chain was cutting unbelievably smoothly. The diagonal mark across the center of this picture is a stop/start mark where I had to shut down and move the guide board. Otherwise it was a flawless cut, minus the foot or so that I tried at the beginning with the 041G.





Just to see how accurate the cut was, I stretched a string from end to end. It has about 3/16" of deflection over the length. Well within the tolerances of a 26" beam in my opinion, and plenty good enough for what I'll be doing with it.





I found a bunch of random lengths of 2" X 4" aluminum rectangle tubing in a scrap bin a while ago. A couple 8-9' sections are straight as a die, so I thought they would make good guides for the vertical mill. They're very similar to the RipSaw guide pieces. They worked very well, much better than the boards I'd been using before, and I don't have to worry about them. warping etc. as long as I take care of them.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 17, 2010)

Now it's starting to look like something! You can see my offset axe in the foreground support block. It's an antique 2lb broad head that's offset and flat on one side, to use for squaring timbers etc. I found it in a scrap bin as well, just had to buy a $10 handle for it. It's great for one-hand use for taking knots and high points (and bark!) off of logs. I have to be really careful with it though. It's very sharp.





The third side was a little bit trickier to cut since I was pushing uphill. I was too lazy to turn the saw around in the mill. :bringit: It wasn't really that bad though. The mill slides really well on the aluminum rail, and the chain was cutting like a hot knife in butter and was almost self-feeding even slightly uphill. I was wearing a heck of a lot of sawdust after that cut though. 





All done! I was trying to stand the beam up on the bottom slab using a cant hook, but it started to roll off and there was no way I was going to stop it! It's a pretty nice chunk of timber though. I don't know how long it will be until I get around to actually installing the beam in the shop, but it'll probably be a month or two minimum. I have to wait for the ground to dry out and the weather to warm up a bit more so I can drag some of the stuff I have stored in there (boat etc.) right now outside for the summer.






I cut to my lines pretty accurately. It'll be interesting to see how much it cracks and moves since it's been dead for a fair while already. It isn't super dry, but I've had pretty good luck milling dead standing wood as far as movement is concerned. There's a little bit of dry rot in the lower-left, but the beam is more than two feet longer than what I need, so there's lots of room to trim that off.


----------



## BobL (Mar 17, 2010)

Dang that looks like fun day out! (especially from behind this desk I'm sitting at)


----------



## SilverBox (Mar 17, 2010)

Looks good!


----------



## huskyhank (Mar 17, 2010)

Good job and thanks for the pictures and words.


----------



## FJH (Mar 17, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> Now it's starting to look like something! You can see my offset axe in the foreground support block. It's an antique 2lb broad head that's offset and flat on one side, to use for squaring timbers etc. I found it in a scrap bin as well, just had to buy a $10 handle for it. It's great for one-hand use for taking knots and high points (and bark!) off of logs. I have to be really careful with it though. It's very sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice beam ! But Judging by the look of that log and the fact that the slab was curling up, chances are shes goina twist on ya abit . Your likly not buildin fine furniture with it so its likly going to work out.

Good job!


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 17, 2010)

Nice work, Brad!


----------



## blsnelling (Mar 17, 2010)

Is it difficult to keep the vertical mill vertical throughout the length of the cut? It seems to me that it would be easy to tilt the saw. Of course, I've never even seen a vertical though. Just curious.


----------



## Can8ianTimber (Mar 17, 2010)

Good job man. I like your idea of the string line and bolts to make sure it is level. You just have to make sure you don't put them too deep. I remember the first time I milled I cut through 2 nails that I placed in my support block.

I have some dead standing at my place that I want to do the same thing with so I really appriciate the detailed pictures and naritive.


----------



## rarefish383 (Mar 17, 2010)

I remember the first time I milled I cut through 2 nails that I placed in my support block.

Me Too, Joe.


----------



## mtngun (Mar 17, 2010)

blsnelling said:


> Is it difficult to keep the vertical mill vertical throughout the length of the cut? It seems to me that it would be easy to tilt the saw. Of course, I've never even seen a vertical though. Just curious.


The two brands of vertical mills that I have tried -- the HF, and the Granberg Mini-mill -- are indeed top heavy and tippy, and you have to make a conscious effort to push the mill flat against the guide board.

That said, the vertical mills are timesavers, and Bmorgan's beam is a case in point. After making the initial slabbing cut with the Alaskan, the other three edges could be cut by the vertical mill without any setup -- and setup is the big time-eater for chainsaw milling. 

To make the same beam using only an Alaskan would require two setup operations rather than one, plus readjusting the depth of cut on the Alaskan. 

Good thread, Bmorgan, and thanks for the 800x images. 

Gotta love Douglas Fir -- it's not a sexy wood, but it sure is useful.


----------



## blsnelling (Mar 17, 2010)

mtngun said:


> The two brands of vertical mills that I have tried -- the HF, and the Granberg Mini-mill -- are indeed top heavy and tippy, and you have to make a conscious effort to push the mill flat against the guide board.
> 
> That said, the vertical mills are timesavers, and Bmorgan's beam is a case in point. After making the initial slabbing cut with the Alaskan, the other three edges could be cut by the vertical mill without any setup -- and setup is the big time-eater for chainsaw milling.
> 
> To make the same beam using only an Alaskan would require two setup operations rather than one, plus readjusting the depth of cut on the Alaskan.


Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 17, 2010)

mtngun said:


> The two brands of vertical mills that I have tried -- the HF, and the Granberg Mini-mill -- are indeed top heavy and tippy, and you have to make a conscious effort to push the mill flat against the guide board.
> 
> That said, the vertical mills are timesavers, and Bmorgan's beam is a case in point. After making the initial slabbing cut with the Alaskan, the other three edges could be cut by the vertical mill without any setup -- and setup is the big time-eater for chainsaw milling.
> 
> ...



You forgot the most important part - trying to turn a log that weighs over a ton by hand! Wouldn't be such a big deal if it was on a bandmill's rails but there was no way I was going to turn it on the support blocks I had it on. 

My little homebrew vertical mill jig does have SOME movement, but it's not too bad. Once you're into the cut, it kinda wants to stay fairly straight anyway. Having never used an actual Granberg mini-mill, I can't make a comparison, but mine LOOKS like it might be a bit more stable, just because of the longer supports which I designed to ride on 2X stock (or in this case aluminum tube) instead of the little inverted V-rail that the Granbergs use. I can adjust it to ride on anything from 3" to 12" wide if I need to, depending on what I have to use as a guide. If my guide board is longer than the log, I can slab the sides off the log using the vertical mill even before the top cut is taken with the Alaskan, because I can just run the vertical mill on the guide board up one side and down the other. That saves me a LOT of setup time since I don't have to snap a chalkline and line up guides for it.



Can8ianTimber said:


> Good job man. I like your idea of the string line and bolts to make sure it is level. You just have to make sure you don't put them too deep. I remember the first time I milled I cut through 2 nails that I placed in my support block.
> 
> I have some dead standing at my place that I want to do the same thing with so I really appriciate the detailed pictures and naritive.



Quite a while ago I cut clean through a 3/8" lag with the 090's milling chain. Hardly slowed the saw down at all but it sure slowed the cut! Didn't actually hurt the chain too much, all things considered.

I hit one my first summer with the mill though with the 3/8" ripping chain on the 395, and it annihilated about half a dozen teeth. Two were gone and the rest were bent or chipped beyond use. :censored: 

In this case I was taking a deep enough cut that I didn't need to worry about the bolts. I was cutting almost 7" deep on the top cut, and the bolts I used were about 3-4" depending on the depth from the guide board to the log.


----------



## stipes (Mar 17, 2010)

*Great job!!!!*



Brmorgan said:


> First off my neighbor came over around noon to help me get the log up onto the supports. It wasn't too difficult with a couple jack-alls and my floor jack.
> 
> Since I took so many pictures I kept them down to 800 X 600 for you dialup folks.
> 
> ...



Thats a long cant!!!! Wow!!!! Thanks for the pics!!!


----------



## DRB (Mar 17, 2010)

Nice work thanks for posting


----------



## Kicker_92 (Mar 17, 2010)

Nice job, now you just need to find a better way to move them around!


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 17, 2010)

Kicker_92 said:


> Nice job, now you just need to find a better way to move them around!



You suck, you know that? 

LOL. I can dream of having something like that someday. I'd like to see you navigate the trails behind my house with it though! I think I'd still end up using the quad quite a bit. It would have done it a lot easier if I'd had my log arch and a tail bunk on an axle, but those projects aren't done enough for a log that size yet.


Today I went up and salvaged what boards I could out of the side slabs from that beam:





I got a good literal 2X12 from the remainder of the bottom of the cant after the beam was cut off. I also took a 2" flitch out of the top slab which has anywhere from 11-14" of good wood in it. I managed to get another 1" board out of that slab, and two and a half more 1" cuts from the side slabs. They're knotty and not the best grade but I'll find a use for them somewhere. The 2" boards are pretty nice though. After milling a couple other logs (pics below) I spent the last bit of the afternoon getting the last Fir log I had here up on the blocks so it's all ready to go when I get time to mill next. I didn't get time to set up the guide or anything; it's just sitting there on top.





I also milled this 10' long 6X6 post out of the smaller Fir log that's underneath the old green plywood in a few of the pictures of cutting that beam. It's been sitting there for two seasons now and was quite dry. The 6" cant that's underneath it is one of the first I ever milled. I let it sit too long before slabbing it up, and it's warped now beyond where I could mill it and keep things straight. Not sure if it'll end up in the firewood stack or what yet. The Birch logs are also too far gone to be of much use. It's too bad because they're spalted really well, but they're just too soft. If I had a few gallons of CA glue I could soak them and harden them up but that's not worth the effort!





I milled these 1" WR Cedar flitches out of two logs that I'd brought back from my aunt's house down south in the Okanagan a couple years back. They're bone-dry, and boy did they cut up fast!

Here's the offset axe I was talking about earlier:






It's not very big, but it's really sharp and well balanced on that short ~20" handle. The cutting edge is about 5" wide, and it's light enough that it can be swung with one arm fairly comfortably.

A head-on view to show the offset of the head:





It takes some getting used to swinging it right so that it actually bites in and doesn't just glance off the log. I've swung a normal axe thousands of times so I'm not used to approaching the log on a steeper angle when I'm trying to just skim it. When I get it right though, it cuts really smooth and fast.


----------



## Kicker_92 (Mar 18, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> You suck, you know that?



I'd almost rather have the quad! With this machine everything is more work than play.

One trick that we've started doing is to do the top cut first, then bottom cut second. Keep the bottom slab and cant in place while you do the side cuts. What you end up with then is three D shaped offcuts that are already edged.

The only one you'll need to edge is the first top cut. This saves two extra setups of vertical cuts.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 18, 2010)

Kicker_92 said:


> I'd almost rather have the quad! With this machine everything is more work than play.
> 
> One trick that we've started doing is to do the top cut first, then bottom cut second. Keep the bottom slab and cant in place while you do the side cuts. What you end up with then is three D shaped offcuts that are already edged.
> 
> The only one you'll need to edge is the first top cut. This saves two extra setups of vertical cuts.



Normally I edge my slabs with the circular saw if it's under 3" thick. With a narrow-kerf Freud Diablo blade, it cuts faster than a chainsaw with much less waste, and it's faster to set up. Then they go through the tablesaw to take the other side off. These ones might be a bit on the long side for the tablesaw though!


----------



## losttheplot (Mar 18, 2010)

FJH said:


> Nice beam ! But Judging by the look of that log and the fact that the slab was curling up, chances are shes goina twist on ya abit . Your likly not buildin fine furniture with it so its likly going to work out.
> 
> Good job!



There are two kinds of spiral twist, one of which is acceptable for building purposes, while the other may produce major distortions with potential for structural problems. If the twist runs counter to the sun (i.e., right hand),the old-time dictum of the Bavarian carpenter was that this wood would retain its shape when felled. If it runs with the sun, however (i.e., left hand), the bundles of fibers attempt to twist back during drying and in the dried state.This process, which may go on for years, is so powerful that it may force log walls out of plumb and loosen or even force apart roof framing.

Hermann Phelps.
The craft of log Building. (1982)

If the but is towards the camera in the bark less picture it looks like your going against the sun. So it should stay pretty good according to the Bavarian carpenters 
It would be interesting to know if it moves over time.


----------



## FJH (Mar 18, 2010)

Hope he's correct!
When I see them slabs curling up when I saw It makes me think!
Timber bound!


----------



## Ted J (Mar 18, 2010)

Brad
Great thread
Good set-up area and beam.
Thanks for the pics.

Ted


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 18, 2010)

losttheplot said:


> There are two kinds of spiral twist, one of which is acceptable for building purposes, while the other may produce major distortions with potential for structural problems. If the twist runs counter to the sun (i.e., right hand),the old-time dictum of the Bavarian carpenter was that this wood would retain its shape when felled. If it runs with the sun, however (i.e., left hand), the bundles of fibers attempt to twist back during drying and in the dried state.This process, which may go on for years, is so powerful that it may force log walls out of plumb and loosen or even force apart roof framing.
> 
> Hermann Phelps.
> The craft of log Building. (1982)
> ...


Most of the knowledgeable log craftsmen I know say he's full of crapola.

First of all, Hermann Phelps wrote his book in the 40s, not the 80s. I have heard this twist is nothing more than a wives tale, and it continues to get passed on...Also, it was written in German and translated, so some of the translation could be off from what was meant in reality. Robert Chambers also preaches about this twist, most likely from reading it in Phelp's book, but he continues to pass it along as well...

Ask yourself, why in the world would a tree that has spiral going in one direction, not have the same tendency to do the same in the other direction? I believe it's wives tales also.


----------



## DRB (Mar 18, 2010)

losttheplot said:


> There are two kinds of spiral twist, one of which is acceptable for building purposes, while the other may produce major distortions with potential for structural problems. If the twist runs counter to the sun (i.e., right hand),the old-time dictum of the Bavarian carpenter was that this wood would retain its shape when felled. If it runs with the sun, however (i.e., left hand), the bundles of fibers attempt to twist back during drying and in the dried state.This process, which may go on for years, is so powerful that it may force log walls out of plumb and loosen or even force apart roof framing.
> 
> Hermann Phelps.
> The craft of log Building. (1982)
> ...


 

So how can you tell if it's right or left twist when the bark is on? I have been cutting down a lot of fir lately and it is hard to tell when the bark is on. The furrows in the bark don't seem to follow the twist.


----------



## losttheplot (Mar 19, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> Most of the knowledgeable log craftsmen I know say he's full of crapola.
> 
> First of all, Hermann Phelps wrote his book in the 40s, not the 80s. I have heard this twist is nothing more than a wives tale, and it continues to get passed on...Also, it was written in German and translated, so some of the translation could be off from what was meant in reality. Robert Chambers also preaches about this twist, most likely from reading it in Phelp's book, but he continues to pass it along as well...
> 
> Ask yourself, why in the world would a tree that has spiral going in one direction, not have the same tendency to do the same in the other direction? I believe it's wives tales also.



Perhaps the rule is reversed in the southern hemisphere


----------



## Hddnis (Mar 19, 2010)

Nice beam!



Mr. HE


----------



## BobL (Mar 19, 2010)

This twist thing is interesting. I don't get the sun method method for working out twist - someone care to explain this?

Here in Oz we say that if the grain twists to the right going up - then leave it, if it twists to the left going up it'll be OK to mill, but I have no idea how real this is. As I walk through old growth forest I definitely see more twisted than straight old trees left behind.


----------



## Andrew96 (Mar 19, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> Most of the knowledgeable log craftsmen I know say he's full of crapola.
> 
> Ask yourself, why in the world would a tree that has spiral going in one direction, not have the same tendency to do the same in the other direction? I believe it's wives tales also.



Traditional......I'm not going to bite my tongue on this one, but I also don't intend on flaming you, enlighten you maybe. 
You strike me as the kind of guy who believes old guys (dead or alive) didn't know anything about anything (not just this post). I don't know anything about spiral twist...but...how many of your knowledgeable craftsmen you know...wrote a book? Felt so strongly about a concept that they tried hard to pass on the valuable information to future generations (ahh...that's you). Maybe they were wrong...but chances are pretty good, they proved this fact over and over again somehow. 
Maybe you're asking yourself the wrong question...Instead of just believing (with one - two minutes of thought) it's a load of crap because a few guys in your geographic area don't understand..figure out why these old guys thought it was fact. By your own admission, more than one guy went out of his way to publish what they thought were facts (ya...maybe plagiarism but also...maybe not). There must be some truth to it all...something...even if it turns out to be only certain types of trees....soil content, local geographical anomaly. Publishing information in those days took a lot more work, and money, with little return other than the satisfaction of knowing they are 'helping you'... than typing on a forum today.


----------



## sbhooper (Mar 19, 2010)

Great beam! That really makes you feel good to make that yourself and use for your building. REP


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 19, 2010)

Andrew96 said:


> Traditional......I'm not going to bite my tongue on this one, but I also don't intend on flaming you, enlighten you maybe.
> You strike me as the kind of guy who believes old guys (dead or alive) didn't know anything about anything (not just this post). I don't know anything about spiral twist...but...how many of your knowledgeable craftsmen you know...wrote a book? Felt so strongly about a concept that they tried hard to pass on the valuable information to future generations (ahh...that's you). Maybe they were wrong...but chances are pretty good, they proved this fact over and over again somehow.
> Maybe you're asking yourself the wrong question...Instead of just believing (with one - two minutes of thought) it's a load of crap because a few guys in your geographic area don't understand..figure out why these old guys thought it was fact. By your own admission, more than one guy went out of his way to publish what they thought were facts (ya...maybe plagiarism but also...maybe not). There must be some truth to it all...something...even if it turns out to be only certain types of trees....soil content, local geographical anomaly. Publishing information in those days took a lot more work, and money, with little return other than the satisfaction of knowing they are 'helping you'... than typing on a forum today.


No, so far there hasn't been anything proven that backs up what Phelps wrote about twist, and there was a study done in Montana.

The only correlation most people can find is that medieval Christianity associated anything "left" with Satan, while the things "right" where righteous.

The one single study that has been done in Montana determined that "most" trees that started out with a left hand spiral, either straightened or turned right. Most is key and why I quoted it, because some stayed the same. The conclusion was that the grain became straighter and produced a stronger log in the end as the grain did actually straighten.

There is nothing in the grading rules about left hand vs. right hand twist, if this was such a phenomena, why is it that it was left out of the grading rules? The wood handbook (I linked to in another thread) doesn't mention anything about left or right hand twist, nor does Hoadley in Understanding Wood. Why do you believe a book that states it from the 40s?

Most of the knowledgeable log craftsmen I know build with logs and don't write books at all. Most could write a book though. What's your point? These are craftsman that do not live in my area, but thousands of miles away. They have built great homes. How many log structures have you built? How many logs have you peeled and crafted into anything? Believe what you want, it won't change my thinking on this subject, I don't believe there is any difference between left and right have twist until someone can prove it.


----------



## Andrew96 (Mar 19, 2010)

Traditional, Well...I'd like to take back 1/2 of what I said. Sorry. Looks like you have spent more than 2-3 minutes on the subject. I didn't suggest to blindly 'believe' something in print, but to deeply consider why it was deemed important enough 'to' print in that era. The fact that it is in print tells me it's more than just a footnote. The fact that it doesn't show up in literature of today tells me there is no conclusive evidence to make a rule, or it happens so infrequently that it's not worth bothering with. That doesn't prove the phenomenon doesn't exist. 
So now we're getting somewhere. Twist direction affects strength...but doesn't happen enough to be statistically relevant. The montana study was deemed non conclusive (in order to create a rule regarding grade....for the USA). That doesn't mean an individual cannot use the twist method to locate or reject a different strength material. Just because 'today' a few studies cannot prove it conclusively. 
Lots of people 'could' write a book..and it's much easier today. You must really feel strongly about it to actually do it though. Big difference....bigger difference in years past. 
I cannot get into a pissing contest with you since I've seen (photos around here)the 'houses' you have built. I have however completed two what I would call cabins (20X 10), (24x12). Yup..peeled a lot of bark with a hatchet, yup..actually made stuff out of trees..hardwood ones to boot. Admittedly not in your league but I'm not a novice either...I didn't have a BSM, it was CSM and come along. 
None of that however changes that though you will wait for someone to prove to you something, I'll see if I cannot understand why it used to be so important. Twist could equal strength is all I've got so far.


----------



## DRB (Mar 19, 2010)

TT. Does this apply to beams as well ? In the past I have cut some FOHC fir beams that have split apart. I can't remember if they were left or right but maybe it was ring shake instead. This sort of thing does not seem to matter as much for logs as it would for beams. I have some fir to cut into FOHC this spring I will have to pay more attention.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 19, 2010)

Andrew96 said:


> Traditional, Well...I'd like to take back 1/2 of what I said. Sorry. Looks like you have spent more than 2-3 minutes on the subject.


I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this with 3 different log craftsmen, all of which have been building log homes for 25+ years. My mentor has been building for 31+ years. These are people that have been around this craft for much of the time since it has come back with Mackie's revival in the 70s.

This is a subject talked about amongst log craftsmen, especially since Robert Chambers started to preach such thoughts on the subject, as I suggested above.

Nobody I know believes that twist is any different either way, left or right. Consequently I don't believe it either, not only because of their views/opinions, but because it doesn't make sense.


Andrew96 said:


> I didn't suggest to blindly 'believe' something in print, but to deeply consider why it was deemed important enough 'to' print in that era.


Trust me when I say this has been thought about much more deeply by more knowledgeable craftsman than myself. Further, I have not read the Phelps book and consider Mackie to be a much better guide to building. Keep in mind that the Phelps book was written in a foreign language and translated to English. That is primarily why I have no desire to read much of it, the translation could be bad in many area (I see that all the time with Japanese and English, as my wife is Japanese).


Andrew96 said:


> So now we're getting somewhere. Twist direction affects strength...but doesn't happen enough to be statistically relevant. The montana study was deemed non conclusive (in order to create a rule regarding grade....for the USA). That doesn't mean an individual cannot use the twist method to locate or reject a different strength material. Just because 'today' a few studies cannot prove it conclusively.


I think your missing one of the most important points though. This is not whether twist is good or bad, this is about one twist being ok and the other twist not, that's pooey, IMO. No question given the choice of using trees without twist vs trees with twist, most all craftsmen would pick the straight grain any day of the week. I know that I would myself.


Andrew96 said:


> I cannot get into a pissing contest with you since I've seen (photos around here)the 'houses' you have built.


First, I have not built a lot of homes, and building my first, so you might be misunderstand something. I do know craftsmen that have built 100s of homes. It shouldn't need to be a p!$$ing contest, IMO, I am merely presenting facts. The Montana study is the only study anyone I have talked to knows about, and the study was only done on lodgepole pine. Most sawyers/craftsmen know that most species react differently, SYP as an example has an extraordinary amount of twist, with enough force to push entire log walls up. What I'm saying is that it should also be taken with as large a grain of salt as reading Phelp's book which dates back to the 40s. I have another book from the 40s that recommends creosote for staining log homes, so just because it is/was in print means nothing, it is a known fact that creosote is harmful.


Andrew96 said:


> None of that however changes that though you will wait for someone to prove to you something, I'll see if I cannot understand why it used to be so important. Twist could equal strength is all I've got so far.


Please do find the reason, I will wait to hear your reply. I have spent a fair amount of time on it and can't find anything conclusive. 


DRB said:


> TT. Does this apply to beams as well ? In the past I have cut some FOHC fir beams that have split apart. I can't remember if they were left or right but maybe it was ring shake instead. This sort of thing does not seem to matter as much for logs as it would for beams. I have some fir to cut into FOHC this spring I will have to pay more attention.


It has to do with all wood in general, and how the beam is cut will determine some of that. If you look at the beam that was cut in this thread, it wouldn't meet grade as it has a split from the end up about 5 or 6 feet from the looks of it, and even grade #2 is not allowed that type of split on the end. In order to allow that timber to meet grade, the entire split would need to be cut off, so you would loose at least half the timber.

In regards to cants/beams, in Hoadley's book he talks about Hemlock that was used for the floor of a home he was living in. He doesn't put anything positive on the fact that left would be any different than right, only mentions that some wood has a tendency to twist. Where the Phelps text says that left hand twist is bad but right is ok.


----------



## WesternSaw (Mar 19, 2010)

*Brad's Beam*

Brad what a great thread.I didn't know you had that project going on up in the North Country.For me the pictures with the write up made it easy to follow,as I do not know anything about the topic of milling.Keep up the good work!
Lawrence


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 19, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> No, so far there hasn't been anything proven that backs up what Phelps wrote about twist, and there was a study done in Montana.
> 
> The only correlation most people can find is that medieval Christianity associated anything "left" with Satan, while the things "right" where righteous.
> 
> ...



LOL the crazy Evangelical types still have that left/right paranoia going on. 

I'm only ticketed to grade structural lumber and "commons" (1" fencing, sheathing, siding etc.) so I don't know anything about grading beams per se. I do have the materials and info and have glanced over it a couple times, but it wasn't taught in the grading courses up here because there's no demand for it. I do remember the instructor telling us that if a Douglas Fir is twisted one way it will only be in the outer few inches of wood, but if it twists the other way it will be like that right to the heart. I can't remember which direction was which, and I certainly don't know if it's a fact or not. Having said that, I've cut many a big Fir for firewood, and some are twisted right through to the pith, while others have a "layer" of twisted wood a few inches thick with perfectly straight, normal wood inside. Don't ask me what it means! :help: My hypothesis is that the more severe type of twist is just an inherent defect in the tree due to either genetics or environment, so it's affected from the time it starts growing, while the other is the result of an injury etc. that the tree survived; perhaps a lightning strike or something.



TraditionalTool said:


> It has to do with all wood in general, and how the beam is cut will determine some of that. If you look at the beam that was cut in this thread, it wouldn't meet grade as it has a split from the end up about 5 or 6 feet from the looks of it, and even grade #2 is not allowed that type of split on the end. In order to allow that timber to meet grade, the entire split would need to be cut off, so you would loose at least half the timber.



Err... You're talking about the little 6X6 post that I milled later in this thread, not the big beam I milled at the beginning, right? Because there isn't even a hint of a crack anywhere in that one! That 6X6 will just be used as a general support and/or skid around the yard to hold things up off the ground so its integrity isn't a big issue. However, I've yet to see a well-dried timber / beam / post that never developed any cracks or splits, so exactly how does one go about producing merchantable pieces in that case? Especially box-heart, which always gets at least one good crack right to the center somewhere.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 19, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> LOL the crazy Evangelical types still have that left/right paranoia going on.





Brmorgan said:


> I do remember the instructor telling us that if a Douglas Fir is twisted one way it will only be in the outer few inches of wood, but if it twists the other way it will be like that right to the heart.


Would like to know more about that.


Brmorgan said:


> My hypothesis is that the more severe type of twist is just an inherent defect in the tree due to either genetics or environment, so it's affected from the time it starts growing, while the other is the result of an injury etc. that the tree survived; perhaps a lightning strike or something.


That makes sense but certainly couldn't relate to right or left, IMO.


Brmorgan said:


> Err... You're talking about the little 6X6 post that I milled later in this thread, not the big beam I milled at the beginning, right?


Oh, thanks for pointing that out, I thought it was the same beam turned over. Now I see it is quite a bit smaller.


Brmorgan said:


> However, I've yet to see a well-dried timber / beam / post that never developed any cracks or splits, so exactly how does one go about producing merchantable pieces in that case? Especially box-heart, which always gets at least one good crack right to the center somewhere.


I have also heard that box heart is hard to dry, I guess I'll get some experience with that soon. Per the grading rules, I thought only splits were allowed inside the cant, and not to the ends? Do you know if that is so? I'm no grader, but trying to learn. I need to cut some #2 or better for the rafters.


----------



## DRB (Mar 19, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> :I have also heard that box heart is hard to dry, I guess I'll get some experience with that soon. Per the grading rules, I thought only splits were allowed inside the cant, and not to the ends? Do you know if that is so? I'm no grader, but trying to learn. I need to cut some #2 or better for the rafters.



If you cut box heart beams they will likely split to the center. I have seen were timber framers will put a saw cut the length of the post to control the crack in a box heart post or beam on the hidden side. If you cut free of heart center (FOHC) cracking will likely be reduced. This is were twist direction is supposed to come in. I have cut doug fir box heart beams and they almost always split. I have cut FOHC doug fir it seems the crack less most of the time than box heart. 

I am try to learn how to cut straight crack free posts and beams. This is good info for my next beam milling project.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 20, 2010)

Last night I did some figuring on the weight of the log I skidded home that I cut this beam out of. It was between 18-20" diameter at the butt and about 16" at the top, so I figured the log volume based on 18" diameter and 26' length as a rough estimate. This gave me just a hair over 3.6 cubic meters of wood. Air-dried Douglas Fir density seems to be in the 520 KG per cubic meter neighborhood, which gives me 1872 KG. Multiply by 2.2 and I get 4113 LBS, or a little over TWO TONS! This log wasn't particularly dry, either!




TraditionalTool said:


> I have also heard that box heart is hard to dry, I guess I'll get some experience with that soon. Per the grading rules, I thought only splits were allowed inside the cant, and not to the ends? Do you know if that is so? I'm no grader, but trying to learn. I need to cut some #2 or better for the rafters.



I'd like to be able to scan the applicable section of the NLGA rule book but it's got copyright all over it.  Or do you already have a copy?

At any rate my rule book has the following for No. 2 structural joists:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Knots - Too complicated to list everything but the sizes are between 50-55% of the width of the widest face of the piece, the size changes proportionately the closer they are to the centerline of the wide face, or the ends of the piece, because such knots are less structurally damaging than ones near/at the edges or in the middle of the span where the most stress will be on the piece.

Unsound knots - limited to half of allowable knot size

Checks - not limited

Honeycomb/peck - firm; spots or streaks to 1/6th width of the piece

Pitch streaks - not limited

Pockets (pitch or bark) - not limited

Slope of grain - 1 in 6 (actually quite steep, I thought)

Skips - Heavy; 1/8" deep up to 2' length or up to 1/16" deep full-length

Stain - not limited

Torn grain - not limited

Unsound wood - small scattered spots, limited to 1/6th width of the piece

Wane - 1/3rd of any face or average equivalent; or 1/2 of any face for 1/4 length of the piece.

Whitespeck - Firm; limited to 1/3rd volume of the piece.

Shake - 1/2 length of the piece by 1/2 width of the piece (meaning from the edge to the pith on a box-heart-center piece); if through at the end of the piece, considered as a Split (below)

Splits - Medium or equivalent end checks. 

Medium is defined as "Equal in length to twice the width of the piece and in no case exceeds 1/6th the length". This means that on an 8" X 8" beam, the maximum split length would be 16". However if the piece was less than 96" long (6 X 16 = 96) the split must be proportionately shorter. A 72" piece would be 3/4 the length, so the maximum split length would be 12" in that case.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, clear as mud? LOL. Going by these numbers, No. 2 is essentially the "Stud" grade of timbers and beams. Stud grade itself where lumber is concerned is really a combination of No. 3 / Utility structural defect rules and No. 2 / Standard edgewane/skip rules (to guarantee a good nailing edge).



I just got back to work grading lumber at the mill yesterday after being laid off a year ago at the end of February. It's good to be back at it, and the pace is a little more laid back with a better log quality than before, so it's easier for the most part. I'm pretty sure the lumber inspector will be in sometime next week to make sure I didn't forget everything in the last year, so if I manage to talk to him I'll try to remember to ask about the twist thing. He's conveniently the same fellow that was my instructor all three times I've gone to get/renew my grading ticket. Super nice guy. One time he wanted me to come help him go through a couple of my slings of lumber because "it'll go faster with two people, and if we go faster I might not be as picky!". LOL. I've never failed a check yet though in 7 years.


----------



## BobL (Mar 20, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> Last night I did some figuring on the weight of the log I skidded home that I cut this beam out of. It was between 18-20" diameter at the butt and about 16" at the top, so I figured the log volume based on 18" diameter and 26' length as a rough estimate. This gave me just a hair over 3.6 cubic meters of wood. Air-dried Douglas Fir density seems to be in the 520 KG per cubic meter neighborhood, which gives me 1872 KG. Multiply by 2.2 and I get 4113 LBS, or a little over TWO TONS! This log wasn't particularly dry, either!.



I can't see how you got 3.6 cubem

18" diam = .454 m or radius = 0.227 m
26' length = 7.88 m

Cross sectional area = PI x 0.227^2 = 0.162 m^2
x length = 1.27 m^3

= 1.27 x 520 = 664 kg


----------



## Ted J (Mar 20, 2010)

BobL said:


> I can't see how you got 3.6 cubem
> 
> 18" diam = .454 m or radius = 0.227 m
> 26' length = 7.88 m
> ...



MAN..... Don't make this complicated... I only gots 10 fingers and ten toes. :biggrinbounce2: ...and that metric stuff doesn't help either  :bang:


*This is easier:*

Species: Douglas-fir, Interior north
Small End Diameter: 16.00
Large End Diameter: 20.00
Length: 26.00'
Quantity: 1.00
Estimated Weight: 2290


Species: Douglas-fir, Interior north
Small End Diameter: 18.00
Large End Diameter: 18.00
Length: 26.00'
Quantity: 1.00
Estimated Weight: 2265


I usually look at the Sherrill log weight chart *(PDF FILE)* but Douglas Fir isn't listed????

Later,
Ted

PS: I understand this is for green cut weights, so it could possibly be the max weight. I calcualted it two ways also as shown


----------



## losttheplot (Mar 20, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> Slope of grain - 1 in 6 (actually quite steep, I thought)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I am only assuming, and we all know what that does, but wouldn't twist be covered by slope of grain ?


----------



## BobL (Mar 20, 2010)

Ted J said:


> MAN..... Don't make this complicated... I only gots 10 fingers and ten toes. :biggrinbounce2: ...and that metric stuff doesn't help either  :bang:



That's funny because that the easiest way for me but I can think in Imperial or Metric so I'll do it again and leave the metric out completely:

Diameter of tree = 18"
Radius of tree = 9"
Radius of tree in ft = 9/12 = 3/4 ft
Length = 26 ft

Volume = PI x (3/4)^2 x 26 = 46 cubic feet

Density of Green DF = 35 lb/cubic feet
Weight =Density x Volume = 35 x 46 = 1610 lbs

Density of Dry Df = 30 lb/cubic feet
Weight =Density x Volume = 30 x 46 = 1380 lbs
(This is slightly less but similar to my previous answer in kg)

Either way they are a some way from being a ton, more like about 3/5 ton.


----------



## mtngun (Mar 20, 2010)

That other Forest & Tree forum that we are not allowed to link to has a log weight calculator. It claims an 18" x 26' doug fir weighs 1746 pounds green.

Then I tried the calculator at Woodweb, it says 2290 pounds ! ! ! Presumably green.

Let's see if AS will let me link to Woodweb. log weight calculator


----------



## olyman (Mar 20, 2010)

mtngun said:


> That other Forest & Tree forum that we are not allowed to link to has a log weight calculator. It claims an 18" x 26' doug fir weighs 1746 pounds green.
> 
> Then I tried the calculator at Woodweb, it says 2290 pounds ! ! ! Presumably green.
> 
> Let's see if AS will let me link to Woodweb. log weight calculator



ive posted the woodweb calc wherever i could--its very close to accurate,as ive weighed a few at the elevator scale--


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 20, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> Multiply by 2.2 and I get 4113 LBS, or a little over TWO TONS! This log wasn't particularly dry, either!


That sounds right...most of my logs that are 32 feet long are in the same range as they have the sides milled off of them.


Brmorgan said:


> I'd like to be able to scan the applicable section of the NLGA rule book but it's got copyright all over it.  Or do you already have a copy?


No, I don't have a copy, wish I did. This info is very helpful.


Brmorgan said:


> Slope of grain - 1 in 6 (actually quite steep, I thought)


I agree, that's about 16 percent, but still when your cutting quarter sawn they also allow quite a variance in the angle of what is considered vertical (i.e., quarter sawn).


Brmorgan said:


> Wane - 1/3rd of any face or average equivalent; or 1/2 of any face for 1/4 length of the piece.


Geez, I can't believe that. We had 3 logs flagged for too much wane, and they were just along the edge by the milled face...no where near 1/3rd, that's for certain.


Brmorgan said:


> So, clear as mud? LOL. Going by these numbers, No. 2 is essentially the "Stud" grade of timbers and beams. Stud grade itself where lumber is concerned is really a combination of No. 3 / Utility structural defect rules and No. 2 / Standard edgewane/skip rules (to guarantee a good nailing edge).


This is a lot clearer than the ext that I have, which is just the Norwood supplied sawmill book and the lumber calculator from Cooks.


Brmorgan said:


> I just got back to work grading lumber at the mill yesterday after being laid off a year ago at the end of February.


WooHoo! Congrats Brad, I've been out of work for over a year myself, although I worked a short job a few weeks ago...I'm looking forward to getting back to work myself...Let's all have a toast for Brad, getting work is not so easy to come by these days! 


losttheplot said:


> I am only assuming, and we all know what that does, but wouldn't twist be covered by slope of grain ?


No, I don't believe so. The angle of the grain will basically determine how it is sawn, but twisted grain will spiral and cause the wood to twist if it straightens out. Most likely grain that is slopped would only cause the wood to bow or cup, depending on which way it is running.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 20, 2010)

OK so I figured out that I accidentally plugged the diameter into the volume calculator instead of the radius, which explains why my log weight numbers were so high. I thought they seemed a bit steep to be honest, especially since I _can_ lift one end of the cut beam off the ground at a time, though barely. Still, I come up with well over 500 lbs for the weight of the beam either way, so maybe I'm in better shape than I thought...

Alan, "slope of grain" doesn't refer to the angle of the growth rings re: being quarter/flat/rift sawn. It basically refers to grain runout from either the piece being cut off-axis from the log, or from spiral grain that is growing off-axis. Here's a page from my grading training materials PDF that I uploaded here a while ago:







There's nothing in those materials about copyright and nobody's complained yet, so I think they're OK to post. In resinous trees like the Spruces, Pines, and Douglas Fir (but not the True Firs e.g. Amabilis, Grand, Noble, Subalpine etc.) you can usually see "resin ducts" (like pores in hardwoods, but smaller) that will always follow the grain and let one measure the slope angle. There's also a saying, "Stain follows the grain, rot does not" - meaning that things like the blue stain fungus in beetle killed Pines will follow the direction of the grain as well, because it is spread through the water-carrying channels in the sapwood of the tree and feeds off the moisture and sugars in the sap. Rot, on the other hand, feeds off of the wood cellulose itself and will spread across the grain at random. Lastly, seasoning checks (but NOT necessarily splits) will usually follow the grain direction as well. 

In the case of the 6X6 I cut:





The shake visible on the top extends approximately half the length of the piece, in this case about 5'. In that length, it covers about 4.5 inches of the width of the piece (guessing from the photo here). So that would be 60"L / 4.5"W = 13.33333, so the slope of grain is about 1 in 13; well under the 1 in 8 allowable in a No. 2 structural beam according to my rule book. 

A higher slope of grain ratio equals a lot less load bearing capacity because the grain will want to shear across the piece. In Stud grade lumber, the allowable slope of grain is 1 in 4 - meaning that in a 2X4, the grain can go completely across the piece within only 14" of length. This is because Studs are graded to hold a vertical compressive load, so there isn't such a worry about shear stress on the board. 

I think I have a couple short Pine 2X4 blocks with a steep slope of grain and stain to show it; if I do I'll take a couple pictures and try to get a shot of resin ducts too.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 20, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> Alan, "slope of grain" doesn't refer to the angle of the growth rings re: being quarter/flat/rift sawn.


What I was trying to describe is where a log does have slope, opposed to twist. Just using the variance for ring growth as an example of how much they allow for quarter sawing, so it doesn't surprise me that they allow so much slope.


Brmorgan said:


> It basically refers to grain runout from either the piece being cut off-axis from the log, or from spiral grain that is growing off-axis. Here's a page from my grading training materials PDF that I uploaded here a while ago:


I remember you uploading that now, I have it squirreled away on the computer.


Brmorgan said:


> well under the 1 in 8 allowable in a No. 2 structural beam according to my rule book.


That is quite surprising also. It doesn't look as if it weakens the cant though.


Brmorgan said:


> A higher slope of grain ratio equals a lot less load bearing capacity because the grain will want to shear across the piece.


That does make sense also.

Do you know how graders charge for grading material? The last guy that did the grading on the logs in West Virginia was a real PITA, but I guess he had his reasons why the 3 logs needed to be replaced.

The better I understand the grading rules, the better chance I will stand of dealing with the next grader. I'm gonna have to get the rafters graded as well...


----------



## BobL (Mar 20, 2010)

I played around with the Woodweb log weight calculator and could not believe that my calculation of the weight of Brads log could be that far out from that obtained by the wood web log calculator .

I got between 1380 and 1610 lbs, while Woodweb shows 2290 lbs.

So I did a bit of digging around and found I was using a green douglas fir density that was too low (35 lbs/cuft) while Wood web uses a wood density that is on average slightly too high (46 lbs/cuft). Woodwed probably uses such a high value because they would prefer users to over estimate the weight of logs so they do not get into problems.

I also found this very interesting article by the USDA (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp347.pdf) on the density of Douglas fir and this interesting graph is presented.






What this shows is the density of DF varies with the height up the tree. At the base the Density is close to 50 lbs/cuft while half way up the tree it's around 37 lbs/cuft. The average density for DF is ~42 lbs/cuft.

It turns out that this variation in density is closely associated to the MC variability in trees. This means the MC content in lumber from any one tree will vary considerable and this has an impact on lumber drying.

So back to Brads log. Using an average density of 42 lbs/cuft, the most likely value is 1932 lbs so not quite a ton.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 21, 2010)

BobL said:


> It turns out that this variation in density is closely associated to the MC variability in trees. This means the MC content in lumber from any one tree will vary considerable and this has an impact on lumber drying.


This is key to know when calculating the weight of a log. On another forum, one of the members questioned a 9000 lb. weight I posted, saying the log would only weigh 7700 lbs. where they live. It's all relative as you can never calculate exactly how much moisture content a log has, unless one measures the MC.


BobL said:


> So back to Brads log. Using an average density of 42 lbs/cuft, the most likely value is 1932 lbs so not quite a ton.


Well, I have a doug fir that I figure is over 3,000 lbs. and it's less than 17 feet. It's about 36" in diameter. I estimate it by how it feels when lifting it on my forklift, which can lift 6000 lbs.

FWIW, your 1932 lbs is not far from what Ted calculated up in the thread, at 2290 lbs.


----------



## BobL (Mar 21, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> Well, I have a doug fir that I figure is over 3,000 lbs. and it's less than 17 feet. It's about 36" in diameter. I estimate it by how it feels when lifting it on my forklift, which can lift 6000 lbs.



Assuming it's 17 ft long and green I calculate that log to be 5000 lbs, which means under these conditions 3000 or even 4000 lb is a serious underestimation. Woodweb calculates this to more than 6000 lbs
When it's at 12% MC I reckon it will 3600 lbs
To be 3000 lbs at 12 % MC a 36" diam DF will need to be less 13 ft 6"



> FWIW, your 1932 lbs is not far from what Ted calculated up in the thread, at 2290 lbs.


 Ted looks like he just used the woodweb calculator.


----------



## Ted J (Mar 21, 2010)

BobL said:


> Assuming it's 17 ft long and green I calculate that log to be 5000 lbs, which means under these conditions 3000 or even 4000 lb is a serious underestimation. Woodweb calculates this to more than 6000 lbs
> When it's at 12% MC I reckon it will 3600 lbs
> To be 3000 lbs at 12 % MC a 36" diam DF will need to be less 13 ft 6"
> 
> Ted looks like he just used the woodweb calculator.



You bet.... I just copied the woodweb info after I punched in the numbers. If you look at my previous post I link to the Woodweb log weight calculator above my "copied" estimations.

You guys are using moisture content, the Pythagorean theorems, circle sectors, Binomial Coefficients, and transcendental numbers such as Pi. (I myself like coconut cream but also many other types of Pi too!) :hmm3grin2orange:

The only question I would ask is if Brad gave us the dimensions with or without the bark.
Woodweb gives me this weight if I subtract 2" for bark.

Species: Douglas-fir, Interior north
Small End Diameter: 14.00	
Large End Diameter: 18.00	
Length: 26.00'	
Quantity: 1.00	
Estimated Weight: 1817

I'm sure Brad gave us dimensions excluding the bark, this is not the first time he's done this....

Ted

PS: This IMO would be a "worse case scenerio" as far as weight, as Woodweb states "_Note: the assumed moisture content (MC) of the log(s) is 75%._"


----------



## BobL (Mar 21, 2010)

Ted J said:


> You bet.... I just copied the woodweb info after I punched in the numbers.
> 
> You guys are using moisture content, the Pythagorean theorems, circle sectors, Binomial Coefficients, and transcendental numbers such as Pi. (I myself like coconut cream but also many other types of Pi too!) :hmm3grin2orange:



I'm a fan of Pecan myself!



> PS: This IMO would be a "worse case scenerio" as far as weight, as Woodweb states "_Note: the assumed moisture content (MC) of the log(s) is 75%._"



In that case then their assumption of a density of 46 lbs/cuft is even "more worse case" since average green density is 42 lbs/cuft and 75% MC would make it 39 lbs/cuft.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 21, 2010)

BobL said:


> I'm a fan of Pecan myself!


:agree2:

Funny, Ted is in Texas, that is like the home of pecan pie, and he's eatin' coconut creame...


BobL said:


> In that case then their assumption of a density of 46 lbs/cuft is even "more worse case" since average green density is 42 lbs/cuft and 75% MC would make it 39 lbs/cuft.


Too many numbers...it's a friggin' log, weighs more than 100 lbs. and less than 10,000 lbs...


----------



## Ted J (Mar 21, 2010)

BobL said:


> I'm a fan of Pecan myself!
> 
> 
> 
> In that case then their assumption of a density of 46 lbs/cuft is even "more worse case" since average green density is 42 lbs/cuft and 75% MC would make it 39 lbs/cuft.



OH... now your tryin' to use logic on me HUH...... ?:jawdrop:

OK, what if we use Moisture content at 100%. With the Specific gravity of Douglas Fir being .53 and at 100% would bring it to a density of 65 lbs/cuft(red arrow).

If you use the same_Wood Handbook_ density chart it has the density at 57 lbs/cuft. for 76% MC. (blue arrow)

I guess most of everything is dependant on whose chart you want to look at. Woodwebs chart was the fastest and easiest for an answer at the time. According to the same chart 39 lbs/cuft would be a MC of 20% (green arrow).

Ted


----------



## Ted J (Mar 21, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> :agree2:
> 
> Funny, Ted is in Texas, that is like the home of pecan pie, and he's eatin' coconut creame...
> 
> Too many numbers...it's a friggin' log, weighs more than 100 lbs. and less than 10,000 lbs...



That's 'cause they don't make pecan creame pie..... most people I know who make pecan pie seem to like alot of sugar or own a sugar plantation.

That's like brownies... How many people like brownies with fudge icing on top? Well, I don't like the icing on top of brownies at all. I've been called weird and other names...


----------



## Ted J (Mar 21, 2010)

Oh.. it could be that the higher up the tree the less MC the tree has, as it was previously stated........ probably 'cause water weighs more and the wicking properties are less in a douglas fir than say.................. wait for it.......................... a cottonwood...! :blob4: 



That's funny, I don't care who you are!!!


Ted


----------



## BobL (Mar 21, 2010)

Ted J said:


> Oh.. it could be that the higher up the tree the less MC the tree has



In part yes - check this out - it's from the same article I quoted above.




Looking firstly at the top line of the lower striped area on the graph, at the base of the tree the water content of green DF reaches a maximum of 21 lbs/cuft, about 1/3 of the way up the trunk the max water content is 14 lbs/cuft and then it increases again and on average it is about 17 lbs/cuft 



Ted J said:


> OH... now your tryin' to use logic on me HUH...... ?:jawdrop:
> OK, what if we use Moisture content at 100%. With the Specific gravity of Douglas Fir being .53 and at 100% would bring it to a density of 65 lbs/cuft(red arrow).



Sorry it doesn't work like that. Green or standing DF never gets to be 100% MC or densities above 50 lbs/cuft.

From real measurements shown on the graph (bottom line of the solid grey area), the average overdry dry density of the wood is 28lb/cuft. 
The average water content is 17lb/cuft, so the max MC is 17/(28+17) x 100% = 38 %MC

The 75% MC referred to in Wood web is not a 75% MC - but 75% of the maximum MC so 75% of 38% = 28.5% MC, even on your chart this show up as a density of 42 lb/cuft. 

I think the original post from Brad was that his piece of wood weighed more than 4000 lbs and I think we have established that it's not quite that. Whether its 2300 lb or 1600 lb or somewhere in between I'd go with 2300 lb to be on the safe side.


----------



## Ted J (Mar 21, 2010)

BobL said:


> In part yes - check this out - it's from the same article I quoted above.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



........................OK, you win Bob?

Can we just say it's damn heavy and Brad can't pick it up by himself? 

Ted


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 21, 2010)

From what I understand there aren't many softwoods that can reach 100% MC. Subalpine Fir is one that can, and it can get up to 120% or so. Which explains why it's heavy as lead green but feels like balsa wood once dried (and smells like year-old used cat litter no matter what).

If I had to guess, I would say this log would have averaged about 30-40% MC since it had been dead but was also down over the winter - I'm sure the top was wetter under the bark along with any points contacting the ground. 19% is considered "dry" (at least as far as kiln-dried structural wood goes), and 23% is the fiber saturation point. This means that the wood will not continue to shrink as it is dried past 23% MC since at this point the wood's cell cavities are no longer saturated with "free" water which causes them to swell; the remainder is "bound water" that is chemically bound to the wood fibers themselves. More info at wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_drying

What causes casehardening when kilning is drying too hot and too fast to begin with, and then not drying for a long enough period to finish it properly. This causes all the free water to be lost quickly, which results in a rapid shrinking of the wood fibers on the outsides of the piece, but the inside doesn't dry out properly. When you go to cut such a piece down later, the tension created is released quickly, which is why casehardened wood can pinch a tablesaw blade and bind or kick back. The other issue is that the parts of the wood that weren't properly dried in the first place can now dry and shrink further after being worked, resulting in an irregular or warped surface.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 21, 2010)

Ted J said:


> ........................OK, you win Bob?
> 
> Can we just say it's damn heavy and Brad can't pick it up by himself?
> 
> Ted



No worries now - I can pick up the individual parts by themselves! The beam is a bit of a workout and I certainly wouldn't be taking it anywhere by hand, but I _can_ lift it one end at a time.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Mar 22, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> No worries now - I can pick up the individual parts by themselves! The beam is a bit of a workout and I certainly wouldn't be taking it anywhere by hand, but I _can_ lift it one end at a time.


Sounds like one of the pieces I cut last week, it was about 3" thick, 15" wide, and 16.5 feet long...I *could* also lift it one end at a time, and slide/leverage it around using a pivot point, but I don't want to be lifting wood like that all the time, and in that case the forklift is your friend.

That is a nice looking log, I went back and looked at it. I always admire the minimal taper in fir, I need to get some more I think. Curious though, how did you get it on the stumps? Looks like you have a ATV in that pic...do you use a tractor or forklift? I personally wouldn't be surprised if that log had weighed in the 3,000 lb. range. Interesting way to get the bark off. I also have a broad hatchet I use for some stuff...


Ted J said:


> ........................OK, you win Bob?
> 
> Can we just say it's damn heavy and Brad can't pick it up by himself?


Or can we just say, "I don't want to be lifting pieces like that". It's not a matter if you can or can't, but who wants to?

In fact, I've seen some sawmill beds that do not have the raised cross members, and quite honestly that would be very annoying if one couldn't get forks under the wood.

Here's to machines for lifting logs! (tractor, lift, loader, etc...)


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: getting it on the stumps, since it was already on the trailer at one end, we just kept jacking the other end up with a floor jack and a Jack-All and supporting it until it was on the block at the tail end. Then we just put two jack-alls under the side rails of the trailer and jacked the whole works up onto the other one. It was a bit tedious and I couldn't have done it alone, but we got the job done. When I get the bandmill built, I'll figure out some sort of crane or hoist to move logs, possibly using a living tree nearby. Who knows. I have a lot of stuff to process and re-arrange up there on the top level before I get doing anything that ambitious.


----------



## Brmorgan (Mar 22, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> Do you know how graders charge for grading material? The last guy that did the grading on the logs in West Virginia was a real PITA, but I guess he had his reasons why the 3 logs needed to be replaced.
> 
> The better I understand the grading rules, the better chance I will stand of dealing with the next grader. I'm gonna have to get the rafters graded as well...



Sorry I missed this question somehow; I was re-reading the thread tonight and found it.

If you're getting someone to grade an entire LOG, then you need to find a "Log Scaler". That's an entirely different ticket from lumber grading. I wouldn't mind getting that ticket sometime. I know a little bit of the theory but that's about it.

There could have been many factors in his decision to cull the three logs. Knot size and/or density, grain runout due to crook or taper, rate of growth (number of rings per inch), splits/checks and edgewane as discussed earlier...

As for the apparent discrepancy in the #2 grades, I should ask, what was the species? Hardwood rules are a whole other ball of wax and I know nothing about them. There are also "appearance" grades in softwood beams though, the one I listed was just Structural #2 - it doesn't have to be pretty, just hold things up, since I guess it's assumed it will later be covered and finished over. Hence the edgewane allowance.


----------

