*
Both are hardwoods, but which wood is denser and harder or are they fairly close? The wood experts have the specific gravities of these woods in books… does anyone know the specific gravity of walnut and maple? Thanks in advance.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
*
Black walnut.59
Hard Maple from.44 to .63
Bigleaf.44-.48
Black ..52-.57
Red .49-.54
Silver.44-.47
Sugar .56-.63
*Hmmmmm.... as I understand it, rock maple is surgar maple... well, at least its from the tree that yields the yummy syrup.But here is the rub. The cost of maple where I live is slightly more per BF than black walnut. So, in building a new workbench, the choice has come down to useing maple or walnut. This is a traditional workbench with a single tail vise and a regular face vise.The top is about 30 inchs deep and about 6 feet long. The back side has a full length tool well and the working portion is about 3 in thick using butcher block lamination construction.What are the pros and cons of using these woods? Would maple be the better choice even though its a wash cost wise? Or is the hardness of the two woods so close that it doesn't really matter.Thanks in advance for your opinions.
*Dev, the average specific gravity for hard maple (Acer saccharum, AKA: sugar maple) is 0.56, using the green volume, ovendry weight method of calculation. American black walnut (Juglans nigra) is only 0.51. Maple is harder and has better wear properties, but walnut is quite strong for its weight and absorbs shock well (one of the important reasons it is a favorite for making gunstocks.)
*Dev, maple would be the better choice for a work bench top, both because of its better wear properties and also because it is finer textured and diffuse-porous. walnut is coarser textured and semi-ring-porous, so it has a tendency to absorb spills and trap sawdust, making it harder to keep clean. Also, its dark color doesn't reflect light as well and good light around the work surface helps. if the cost of these two premium cabinetwoods are proving to be a bit of a turn off, there are some other good woods. Ipe is relatively inexpensive and would be excellent, especially if you can select it for lighter color. Personally though, I think the best wood in the world for this purpose is pau marfim, from South America. It's a member of the citrus family, very light in color, even slightly finer textured and more dense than hard maple and a bit more reflective (lusterous.) It's usually not any more expensive than hard maple, but it takes a little searching to find a source.
*Jon... Do you know of any sources for this pau marfim?
*Dave,I bought a stack of walnut years ago. There was enough non- cabinet quality wood that I wasn't sure what to do with it. I glued it into 3x3 posts and mortise and tenoned them into a bench. I lag bolted thru the MT joints and glued it. The top is ash. The walnut has held up well. You have to intentionally try to harm it with a steel tool to hurt it. I wouldn't use pretty walnut to make a bench, but the pieces with knots, small checks and a little sapwood will work just fine.Frank
*I used black walnut to make saw horses. 4"x4" is strong enough to set 10 9"x6" x18 foot long white oak beams on while I slowly turned them into rafters. Sturdy enough for you?
*Dev, I haven't shopped for pau marfim in years, but if I needed some, the first guy I'd call would be Jeff Arnold at Paxton. (800)-325-9800.
*Jon, in a bit of searching around, I'm finding several sources listing pau marfim as also being commonly named guatambu. That might be a more common common name these days. Balfourodendron riedelianum seems to be the scientific name.Just learned that this wood is popular among the bobbin crowd. :-)Dave
*Dev, I don't know where you are but if you have small local mills you may find beach or possibly persimmon. I made my bench top using beach and the jaws of the end vice are persimmon. They have been very satisfactory.I don't have the specific gravity, only the wt. per qubic ft. Persimmon,52 lbs; beach and hard maple, 44 lbs; walnut,39 lbs.BJ
*Mark, guatambu is the Argentine name for it. This is not a rainforest species. It's native to southern Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. Given Argentina's financial problems, I'd suspect a lot of it is getting exported from there and at bargain prices. I really haven't shopped for it in 20 years, since it is considered a maple substitute and maple is very plentiful here in the U.S. I suspect most of it is going to Europe or the Orient.
*Bee Jay, the average specific gravity of beech is identical to that of hard maple; 0.56. It's a little coarser textured and darker in color than maple, but a pretty good choice for a workbench top. They use it a lot in Europe for that purpose, since their more plentiful native maples are more like our soft maples.The specific gravity of persimmon is 0.64, so it ranks with the hickories as one of our denser domestic species. It's a pretty wood, but very unstable. A couple of other domestic heavyweights are; Hop hornbeam (AKA: ironwood) at 0.63 and black locust; 0.66. They are a little coarser textured than maple, but they do have the advantage of being relatively light in color. Hop hornbeam is actually a member of the birch family, so it's diffuse-porous. Black locust is ring-porous, but its pores are so clogged with tyloses and it is so dense that it wears well and would be relatively easy to keep clean.Personally, I don't use the traditional type of work bench Dev is looking to make. They were designed in the Age of Handtools and while I think they're a thing of beauty, there are better designs for the way most modern wood workers practice the craft...But I guess there's no right or wrong when it comes to what kind of bench you prefer. It's what you accomplish on it that really matters.
*Jon...I do use hand tools and could be classified as a post-modernist galoot. When it comes to using handtools, the bench is the most important of all tools. The post-modernist refers to my addiction to oliver machines.:)
*Dev, I didn't mean to slam hand tools. I use them all the time and think it is a shame that younger wood workers rely so much on power tools...to the point of spending a half hour to set up a power tool for a one-time process that could be done with a hand tool in ten minutes. It's just that the planing and shaping functions that were once performed on the bench with hand tools are now more typically done by machine and the bench is most often used for assembly. The traditional bench, with its hold down features, tool bin, dog sockets and limited work surface doesn't lend itself well to assembly. To me, tools and benches are just a means to an end. Whether you use hand or power tools or even the kitchen table as a bench, it's what you produce that counts.
*Jon, your right. And for many of us, if not most of us, the end is as much the trip as anything else. Its the enjoyment of making something and feel-good we get when folks we admire complement us on it. But its also the fun you get from studying the older ways. Sure, one can toss an insert panel rasier from Lietz or Guido or Lieser with their insert carbide blades onto a shaper and off we go. But its as much fun to play with the old ways as the new ways. What is really amazing is how many speciality planes were out there and how these were used to make virtually everything we all take for granted today. I find this all fascinating beyond compare.
*Jon, I hadn't much experience with persimmon, except for the jaws for my workbench end vice. I had supposed, from its traditional use as shuttles for power looms and for golf club heads, that it was pretty stable. I didn't recommend locust because it is so dark. Besides it's hard to find good boards from locust logs. It is one of my favorite woods and I wouldn't use my small stash for a workbench. I can imagine what a fine bench either American Hornbeam or Hop Hornbeam would make, but I've never seen them of a size worthy of harvest for lumber.I don't have a reference for densities of various species. Peattie always comes naturally to hand for the pleasure of reading his descriptions, but he uses the old fashoned weight per qubic foot. Could you please post the conversion factor? ThanksBJ
*Bee Jay, I enjoy reading Peattie too. He obviously loved trees and describes them in such poetic language.As for converting weight in pounds to specific gravity, all you have to do is divide the quoted weight by the weight of water. Water weighs about 62 pounds per cubic foot. The problem is, when an author quotes the weight of a wood as so much per cubic foot, typically it refers to air dried wood which has a moisture content of about 12%, but could vary from perhaps 6% to 18% (or more) depending upon climate and season. Also, these weight quotes are usually rounded to the even pound, or at best in half pound increments...so, the accuracy isn't all that tight.There are several ways to measure specific gravity. The one I usually quote is calculated using the wood's green volume and its ovendry weight. Because wood takes on and gives up moisture with changes in humidity...and expands and contracts as it does so, the data vary quite a bit with the method used. For example, Bruce Hoadley usually quotes specific gravity figures based on the wood's volume at 12% moisture content. I suppose his logic is that this method best reflects the weight of wood when it is in the condition most wood workers deal with it. I use the green-ovendry stats, just because they are the most available in the references and I don't have a lab where I can perform my own tests. It really doesn't matter which you use, since specific gravity figures are used primarily to compare one wood to another, so long as you don't mix the two.The best source for the specific gravity of woods is the Forest Products Laboratory's WOOD Handbook #113. I've heard you can now get this info on their website, which I think is: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us
*Jon...Followed up on your lead. In short, I have had more fun at a dentist's office. No one knows what pau marfin is and no one is willing to follow through on it. At this point, I think I am going with maple.
*Well Kiddies!I found my cat's meow. Its a brown colored wood from south american that is many times harder than maple and actually costs less than maple. Will post the beast when done.
*Dev, why not make it out of OAK? I mean it's a heavy stable wood that takes abuse and is ring porous so it won't stain very easy. In additon white oak is only slightly more expensive then pine! Just wondering...
*If you use Black Walnut, they your small tools will get lost on the workbench.
*I'm not sure that link still works, but here is the newer one.http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/techmenu.htmlThis is a great web resource for finding information on many woods around the world. Ironically many of the books available today that provided technical data for different wood species get there date from this source or the old printed version which is no longer available to the best of my knowledge. They simply add color pictures and convert things to a little more user friendly format and add some useful tidbits they've acquired over the years. For me I always like to go to the "source" and the above link is it for wood in the US.
*Frenchy...I want a wood that is more durable than anything out there. In our age, we can move anything to anywhere so unlike the masters who were bound to using local lumber to make benches, we can choose the ideal lumber from around the world ... well almost.What I found was an industrial wood from south america that is up to EIGHT times as hard as red oak. Being from the rain forrest, it does not exhibit ring porous problems and its color is a wild version of walnut. Its also a close grain wood... in fact, it lacks grain pores so much that it does not float. You can drop a sledge hammer on it from three feet and leave almost no dent! And here is the best thing... its an industrial wood used for making pier pilings and flooring in machine shops so its relatively cheap.
*Now Dev, let's not go overboard here. Nothing is EIGHT times heavier than red oak, unless you get into the metals. The heaviest wood in the world is barely over twice the weight of red oak. From your description though, it sounds like you've discovered ipe (Tabebuia spp.) If so, it's not a bad choice.
*Jon...Careful here... Eight Times HARDER does not always mean 8 times heavier.:) YUP! Your right. Tabebuia! I put together a matrix and isolated Mayan Cherry, Saltos Mahagany, Braz. Walnut (IPE) and Maple. Oh, also Tamarind was on the list. I ran into a local gent who actually deals in the stuff right here where I live! The Juanka index (SP?) on this stuff is about 3600! Anymore and I am dealing with metal. Granted I will need to inspect the stuff, but it sounds just like the stuff I want. As for the dark color, I have shop lighting and do not see the darker color as an issue. Besides, I want an older, antique looking patina anyway. A fancy new bench would not fit in with all my "dinosaur" woodworking machines.:)
*Dev, congradulations on your choice. Hopefully your selection will lead to saving the rainforest, rather than the rape of the forest for those woods. Both arguements can be made and have validity. I honestly don't know so I'm not gonna make a judgement. For my own reasons what do you think of Oak as a workbench wood?
*Dev,How much $/BF? The Juanka Index? What is this? The only two hardness scales I've every heard of are Rockwell C Hardness for metals and Mohs scale for minerals. Do you have any references for this info? How is this tested?Much as I enjoy debating the rainforest issue I'll hold off. You almost got me going Frenchy.
*Frenchy, Ipe is cut from well over a dozen different species in the Tabebuia genus. This is a very plentiful and widespread group of timbers and many of them are not technically rainforest species. As we've learned over the past century or so, we don't have an unlimited supply of any wood anywhere in the world, but ipe is one of the least threatened of our major timbers.Also, the test Dev refers to here is the Janka test. Ipe is indeed very hard, with outstanding wear properties, and a very good choice for a work surface. It varies quite a bit in color, from light grayish green to dark chocolate brown, so it's not the most reflective wood...but that's about its only drawback as a work bench top. It contains a compound called lapachol that is a potential allergen, so I wouldn't recommend it for kitchen counter tops or cutting boards...but otherwise, it's about the next best thing to cast iron produced by the plant kingdom. In fact, it's suggested as a substitute for lignum vitae in some applications (not marine bearings though. It lacks the necessary self lubricating qualities.)
*Thanks JON, Nice to have a decent source of information. By the way what is your opinion of oak for a work bench? I mean it's inexpensive, dense, tough, hard to stain etc. hard maple is well over a buck a foot green rough at the mill and I can buy white oak for 30 cents.
*Hey, Jon, I just wanted to jump in and say that you are an invaluable resource for this board, and I'm glad you're around. If you have any intention of going to the FF show in Philly in April, look for me (I'll have a booth), I'd like to shake your hand.Scott
*Frenchy, I think white oak would be better than red oak for a bench top, because it's harder and, while still ring-porous, it's pores are smaller and clogged with tyloses (of the white oaks, live oak would be better still, since it is not ring-porous)...so, white oak would be easier to keep clean than red oak and live oak would be better still. Of our more common, less expensive woods, I think beech would be better than any of the ring-porous oaks, since it is diffuse-porous. Beech is equal it density to hard maple, but live oak is also diffuse-porous and much denser than beech, giving it slightly better characteristics than beech, overall. Unfortunately though, all of these woods have ray dominated anatomy, making them a bit too coarse and uneven textured to be ideal. They're definitely not as well suited as maple. I'm surprised, given the way he seems to readly do his homework, that Dev would have given up on pau marfim...All things considered, it really is the best there is for this purpose. It has everything going for it that maple does, except it is even denser and lighter in color. Pau marfim's average specific gravity is 0.73, compared to hard maple's 0.56, so it's more than 25% denser. Also, it is somewhat more wear resistant and elastic. It certainly will take an incredible beating...Got to admit though, Dev's choice of ipe is a pretty good one. Just hope he isn't allergic to lapachol.
*Thanks Scott. I don't attend the shows anymore. I've had some health problems that make it a little hard for me to travel and/or be on my feet for long (gettin' better though.) If you're ever coming to the Detroit area, E-mail me. I'm not hard to find.
*Jon.. Pau is a word for wood and marfin is the wood. I looked at pau marfin which is also known as braz. maple. ITs janka index is about 2600 ISH... dont recall the exact figure right now. I tried to source this stuff through paxton and got nowhere. ITs actually a pretty plentiful lumber. I do prefer the darker hue woods. If you know of a another reliable source for pau marfin, I would still consider it. I will not be purchasing any lumber for a couple of weeks..... like always, the fork lift renters /riggers are criminal in thier billing and I will need to pay off a forklift rental first. This was for the unloading of a 21,000 pound jig boring machine last week.Oak is a hardwood... but just barely. It seems to have one of the lowest janka numbers going... at least the red oak does. I did not check any of the white oaks. It would make a good bench top, but you do have the issue of pores to deal with (main reason for not choosing walnut) and its softer than both walnut and maple. Maple's relative hardness is about 1400 to 1600 on the janka scale whereas pau marfin is about 2600 and ipe (tabebuia/braz. walnut) is a mind blowing 3650. And to add to this picture, I have located a source within 30 minutes of my office that can supply me with all sorts of IPE timber. The guy deals in the stuff! And last but not least, the cost per board foot is less than rock maple at the local hardwood lumber yard. Oak also has that pore thing going with it making it hard to keep clean, etc.The janka test is very similar to the rockwell hardness test. It consists of driving a calibrated steel ball into the wood and measuring the force needed to achieve this. The ball is driven half way into the wood. So it is very similar to a rockwell test in principle and the in relative comparison.
*Dev, the common name is pau marfim (with an "m") and it is also known as; guatambu, pau liso and guatambu blanco. The latter is an Argentine name for it, suggesting light color, which would be a good thing. As someone mentioned earlier, the botanical name for it is Balfourodendron reidelianum and it is a member of the citrus family, Rutaceae. Its native range extends from about Sao Paulo, Brazil southward through Paraguay to northern Argentina.Where are you located? I checked a source listing at another website and found it available under the name of guatambu at about a half dozen places spread all over the country. I certainly don't mean to push you into pau marfim. If you have your heart set on ipe, it's also a good choice. You could be doing a whole lot worse.
*Dev,Why not use a big piece of 5/8 plate steel that has been milled dead flat. You could drop it ito a frame made of your exotic hardwood that has holes drilled or mortised for bench dogs.It would be like a huge tablesaw top. This might be pretty expensive if you don't have a buddy who is a machinist with the proper equipment. It's not very traditional, but it sounds like you are a heavy metal kind of guy.Franh
*Dev, Why do you need such a hard top? A traditional work bench should among other things be flat. You can't hand plane a board flat if you bench isn't. (unless the piece you are planing is thick enough to resist deflecting ) I think dimensional stabilty is more important than the hardness. There is also toughness. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it won't splinter.A traditional work bench is a tool, as was mentioned, and you take care of them. Unless you are rebuilding a engine on it any wood like oak or maple will be hard enough. That said if you want to use a different wood I am not saying not to, only that I don't think hardness is such a huge criteria. LVC
*Frank...I have a rockford openside 72 metal planer that I hope to get running this summer... needs new slab... as in 2 foot thick concrete slab foundation for this puppy. It would mill such an item.But this is a woodworking bench for traditional tools. Most of my machinist activities are geared (no pun intended) towards woodworking tools. I thought a nice traditional design works just fine here.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled