I’m thinking about what materials I want to use for kitchen cabinets. This a project totally for my own enjoyment as a woodworker and a cook. Time is not an issue.
I don’t have a problem with plywood, I use it all the time in my carpentry, and I know that it goes into some very high quality work, but I just can’t get excited about making nice cherry face frames and doors and attaching them to a plywood or melanine carcass. I also know the stability problems with solid wood, but that’s part of the challenge that I enjoy.
Does anyone have any suggestions on designing kitchen cabinets with a solid wood carcass?
Replies
My kitchen cabinets are all solid wood except for the tops and shelving. All the sides are made of panel construction thus eliminating a lot of the wood expansion problems. However in the winter when the humidity in the house drops very low for several weeks I can see visible shrinkage of the panels, about a 1/16 inch on the stile sides. Come summer, all disappears. I would use panel construction again.
The advice that I received when I asked this very same question a while back was, don't do it.
Plywood's stability and strength lend well to carcass construction. The number of factors that have to be considered, wood movement primarily and the tenon work / slot work for that movement, are significant.
Simply put, it's a very significant challenge... if you're up to it.
In either case, g'luck.
michael
I built a couple of cabinets (two cabinets with a center plate rack) for my kitchen with solid pine. I've been keeping an eye on them to make sure there are no structural problems as this was one of my first projects. They have been up for over a year and I have no complaints. can't say that I've really noticed any changes from when they were installed...
Rosco,
Obviously, it can be done in any number of ways and you should go with whatever feels right for you. My shop produces a lot of custom made kitchens. We always make the basic box (carcase) from ply, but wherever the cabinet sides are exposed, it gets an outer wall of solid wood, usually frame and panel to match the doors. The face frames of the cabinet, typically 2 1/2" wide, are attached to a double wall - the ply inside wall is flush with the inside, and the solid outside wall flush with the outside edge. It may seem like extra work but it actually goes quite easily and solves any number of problems. The solid part can move as it pleases without affecting drawer slides, etc. Mounting Euro-hinges and drawer slides is simplified because the face-frame is always flush with the cabinet wall. You get the look of real solid construction on the outside, and the stability of ply construction on the inside. The inner surfaces can be veneered or laminated with whatever the customer wants, without affecting the "look" of the exterior.
DR
I appreciate everyone's input. As I get further into the design I'm sure I'll have more questions. Basically I'd like to use frame and panel for the sides, leaving out the panels between adjacent modules. Stretchers across the back - I don't think the back needs to be fully enclosed. Float the floor, maybe tongue and groove.
I agree wit Ring on this one. The cost is a toss up and ultimately not a factor. The look you are going can be solved by overhanging the face frames. With an over hang of anywhere from 1" 1/4 - 2"1/4 you can plane and belt sand when actually installing. Especially when you hit the end of a run on uppers. Anyone who has worked wood, or around construction, especially those terrible architects know how "plum,true and square" everything is. A tip, don't make you're upper cabinets from the measurements of the lower cabs. You will definitely have a discrepancy, but if you allow for that in the overhang you have no problem. If you have the knack for all wood go for strength and hope they don't warp!
Rosco,
Again, in my own humble experience, a fully enclosed box is more sanitary, less prone to moisture problems, etc. In the long run, a better kitchen cabinet. We don't offer our customers any choice but fully enclosed cabinets.
DR
Your humble opinion is greatly appreciated and starting to sway me. One question - how is thickness of the side frame and panel plus the plywood equal to the width of the face frame stile? The designs I've seen have the stile flush with the inside of the carcass on one side or the other, but not both.OK, another question. On cabinets with inset doors is there a bottom rail to cover the edge of the plywood?
Rosco,
1. There's no reason at all to have the combined thicknesses add up to the width of the face frame. Typically, we use 3/4" for the ply and also for the outer wall, which leaves about 1" of air between them. Just use a pine spacer of the right thickness, or anything else that comes to hand, to join them at an appropriate place, usually in the back next to the wall. They are both attached to the face frame at the front and there's no need for anything more.
2. Yes, absolutely. Both the bottom and the top of the carcase get facings the same thickness as the sides. We always do these flush with the inside of the cabinet as well, and often 1 1/2" wide. Your next question... So what's with the countertop and the toekick, if these facings extend outwards from the carcase? The toekick is easy - it sits behind this facing piece and supports the box in any case. The countertop is another story. But we've come to prefer setting counters, especially marble and other heavy stone, on spacers and shims, and not directly on the carcase top. It makes fitting and levelling adjustments a lot easier without sacrificing any real support for the coutertop.
best of luck,
DR
Hello,
Myself and my partner built a large kitchen out of solid Ash. My advice is do not use Kiln dried wood. Apart from that a good sealant is good
Can you explain why not kiln dried? I have a some air-dried local cherry that I'd like to use but I've heard mostly recommendations for kiln drying and reservations about the suitability of air-dried.
Rosco- can I ask you why you would not want to use ply in your carcass construction other than the fact that it is ply?
If your making for example, maple cabinets with solid wood face frames and doors, then use maple 3/4" maple veneer plywood for your carcass. Only you know its ply, your friends and relatives who see your cabinets don't know its ply (and probably don't really care) and its more stable, less time in construction and less expensive. It will be truley flat and you will help the enviroment by not using up the natural resources that are becoming depleted everyday.
A lot of people get this mind set that plywood or chipboard covered with melamine is a bad thing or is not a premium cabinet. Thats hogwash. A box is a box is a box... Its the front of the cabinet that makes the statement. Good face frames and quality built doors and all the add ons like columns and corbels and decorative trim set your cabinets apart from the cheapy big box store cabinets that they sell on the shelves.
Just my .02 worth :-)
Good question, and it's one I'm trying to get to the bottom of myself. I guess I'd have to say that for me, it's more about the process than the finished product. Obviously I'm not a professional, and if I were I'd certainly use whatever product ensured the best appearance and performance at a price people were willing to pay. If quality was the issue, I'd pay someone much more skilled than myself to build the cabinets, and probably be glad I didn't have to pay for solid wood boxes.
Here's the deal. I'm restoring our 1880's Victorian farmhouse. I have a workshop full of my grandfather's c. 1950 Delta tools and fairly decent skills. I spent last winter making storm windows, replacing the aluminum ones as I went. Now with the cold weather I'm turning my attention to the kitchen.
My boss gave me a bunch of cherry planks that had been sitting stickered for about eight years. Some of it was junk and went in the stove, but the rest appears to be in good shape. I also have quite a bit of oak and maple and a ready supply of more from the local sawmill.
Working with wood for me is not about executing a procedure to arrive at the optimum product. That sounds a lot like work to me. It's about expressing a feeling for trees and wood and locale and heritage. You can probably chalk it all up to male menopause but it's gotta be cheaper than a red porsche and maybe a little safer.
Thanks everyone for their comments.
Tom
Rosco, I too find Pauls' exhortation to avoid kiln dried timber for internal furniture applications interesting. I'd also like to hear Pauls detailed analysis and description of the benefits of air dried wood over kiln dried timber for this application. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
While I don't have ANY experience yet using air dried lumber for furniture, I've read enough and heard enough to conclude that reasonable minds can disagree on the matter, if not come to blows.
I don't understand how kiln drying extracts moisture in such a way that it won't be reassimilated in time. I vaguely remember something about actual structural changes in the wood, and counter arguments to go with it.
I can imagine an argument for air drying that holds that if it sits for a decent amount of time in the environment where it will eventually be used as furniture, then the wood will have reached equilibrium, continuing the change with the ambient humidity, but no more so than kiln-dried lumber. On the other hand, kiln-dried lumber will have to absorb moisture before it reaches equilibrium.
Paul also mentioned using a good sealer. To what extent can this help? I've always held that something is either waterproof or not, halfway doesn't cut it. Kind of like being sort of pregnant
Both air dried and kiln dried timber make excellent choices for internal furniture given a few considerations.
Air dried timber is too wet for internal furniture if used straight after its drying process. Here in the UK it's impossible to buy air dried stuff in that state that's below about 15-16% MC. That's because atmospheric relative humidity (RH) in this country hovers around 65% to 85%. RH values may be different where you live, e.g., Arizona typically has periods of very low RH readings.
Air dried wood needs to be further conditioned to about 8% MC prior to use. This can be done in a couple of ways. It can be put through a short cycle in a kiln, or it can be stickered up in circumstances that are equivalent to typical internal condition, i.e., in an atmosphere with a relative humidity of about 40- 50% for a period that will bring the wood down to that 8% MC figure. Even if you do this, but your workshop is subject to exterior RH figures because you have no heating and cooling in it then the wood-- forever hygroscopic as it is- can change its MC again, and this has to allowed for in building the project.
Similarly, kiln dried wood that has been taken down to say 6% or 8 % MC can absorb moisture again at a microscopic (gaseous) level and become wetter (or even drier) over a period of time. This was the circumstance I found when I lived in Houston. I'd buy native US hardwoods kilned to these figures, but at the time I bought it weeks after the kilning process it was generally between 10% and 12% MC. My workshop had no air conditioning or (virtually unnecessary) heating for the winter, yet my customers kept their houses comfortable with air conditioning which brings residential and office buildings down to atmospheric RH values of about 40%- 50%. Furniture I constructed in these conditions needed allowances built into them for their eventual final location. That's a common requirement of all furniture makers, so nothing special there.
There are some occasions where I will choose green or air dried wood over kiln dried, and for good reason. Steam bending is one example where this stuff will become pliable or elastic more readily and quicker in the steamer than kiln dried stuff. Once bent the item dries down to its original MC quicker too which is useful.
Kiln dried pieces taken down to a very low level of MC-- 6% or so) experience certain physical changes to the cellular structure make the material perhaps somewhat less amenable to bending than air dried stock. It's more liable to suffer compression and tension failure in the bending process which is naturally undesirable.
There's a lot more to this subject than I have time for here, but I hope this is enough to go on with.
Moving on to your other point about finishes, it's important to remember that no finish is waterproof. Even the most effective film forming polish is only water resistant. Water vapour is a gas and will eventually pass through film forming polishes. Some polishes are more effective water vapour barriers than others, e.g., five coats of properly applied and unbroken varnish are a more effective barrier than just two. Most film finishes will prevent gross (liquid) water passing through for a reasonably short period, and again some polishes are better than others. Polishes prevent rapid (daily) variations of atmospheric RH affecting the wood much, but long term (seasonal) changes in RH will eventually pass through the polish to be reflected by changes in the wood's dimension. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
It doesn't matter how the wood is dried, air or kiln, the only thing that matters is the moisture content of the wood and the humidity of the planned location. You can get down to an acceptable moisture content either way, it's just that kiln drying is much faster... therfore more commercially viable. It seems you think that the kiln will "over dry" the wood and it will just absorb the moisture back. Perhaps, but who cares. Either way the wood will reach equilibrium with the environment it is in, and using a kiln will do it faster, air drying will do it fine if you have the space.
No finish is waterproof. The plan is to slow the path of the moisture. After cutting logs people seal the ends of the log to slow the path of moisture to prevent checking. It doesn't stop the drying, it slows it and reduces checking by giving the wood time to react to otherwise sudden changes in moisture content. The same goes for a finished tabletop... by slowing the path of the moisture you reduce the stresses on the wood.
It may be interesting to some, if you go here:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm
And take a look at chapter 15 it will answer all your questions. 15-2 has a neat table which shows the effectiveness of finishes on moisture.
Hope this helps, my .02 at least.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled