# Drying in 4-row stacks



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2019)

I’ve been stacking in 2-row formation for, well.. forever.  It has always dried well, but taken up too much space for my 30 cords.   It would also not favor storing under a roof, which is my latest plan. 





As you can see, I have a lot of empty racks right now, so it’s my chance to reconfigure.  I have 20 cords in logs staged to be processed this fall. 

I’m thinking of building six 6’W x 16’L sheds, which are accessible from both sides, and would allow me to stack in quadruple row form with my 18” length splits down the length of each shed.  In other words, four 18” wide rows of 16’ length each.

I’m doing all dense hardwoods, most often red oak, so drying is a concern.  Who has experience with drying wood this way?  Will 2-3 summers under roof in four rows still get the job done?


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2019)

Oh, and I guess it would be possible to hang some plastic down each side as a curtain, to turn each into a backyard kiln.


----------



## Sawset (Sep 8, 2019)

Everything here is in 3 rows of 23". Mostly oak and cherry. 3yr (summer) rotation. Uncovered, SE Wisc. Full sun, open to the wind, stacks run east-west. So far everything dries down, lights easy, burns clean.
3x23 would be close to 4x18.
Winter supply is brought in under cover mid august.
This summer I did cover some with tarpaper just as insurance against rain before being brought in. Usually we get a pretty good mid summer drought, not so much this year. The tarpaper was cheap and easy, and didn't blow around, kind of softened and molded into place.
Permanent structures would be nice, but at least here not necessary. Also, 2yr rotation might be an issue with oak, not sure, I have not tried it. I know the rain situation in philly, and bet your itching to end all that. I'm thinking under cover, 4 rows would do ok.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 8, 2019)

If it can get the better part of 3 years drying time you will be fine IMO. Many people do as you are suggesting, only by top covering instead of an actual roof...I think your roof plan will flow air even better, sooo...


----------



## Bushels20 (Sep 8, 2019)

I do rows of 3 (not 4) with about 3-4 inches in between each row on pallets. 16” splits. 3 years of seasoning backed up to an open 100 acre crop field. No sun until mid afternoon but a steady breeze almost every day off the field.

I top cover the current years splits about this time of year. Do not top cover anything until then.

I think adding one extra row (making it 4) in my case like you propose would have no effect on drying. I simply don’t because pallets only hold 3 rows of 16 inch splits for me.

Added some photos of 2021’s splits and this years. Been stacking this way for 8 years now with good success. I think airflow in between each row is key.

I saw on a thread the other day someone mentioned using pallets as separators for each row. A very good idea I think I will start using when I start stacking this winter.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2019)

Bushels20 said:


> I saw on a thread the other day someone mentioned using pallets as separators for each row. A very good idea I think I will start using when I start stacking this winter.


Actually, that just settled it, for me.  I can do 2 rows + pallet + 2 rows, which will give me good airflow up the center of the stack. 

Now we just need to debate the orientation of the pallets.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 8, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Now we just need to debate the orientation of the pallets.


Bark up...oh, wait...what?!


----------



## Sawset (Sep 8, 2019)

When us kids would be messing around in the corn cribs, and get cobs down in the center air shafts, dad would threaten to make us clean them back out. We never had to, but we sure stopped screwing around. Cobs would rot without air, bad deal.
Just that it gets some air. I leave 6 or so inches between stacks. Keeps the air moving it seems.


----------



## Bushels20 (Sep 8, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Actually, that just settled it, for me.  I can do 2 rows + pallet + 2 rows, which will give me good airflow up the center of the stack.
> 
> Now we just need to debate the orientation of the pallets.



I wish I could orient mine from west to east to allow the air to pass through more effectively. But that would run the stacks way out into the yard since our lot runs east to west. So I have to run north to south. Stacking along the back yard (long ways).

If possible, I would try and capitalize on the direction of the prevailing wind and let it pass through the stacks.

Ultimately, I still have great firewood. But maybe i could do it in 2 years instead of 3 if I could run west/east.


----------



## Woody Stover (Sep 11, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Now we just need to debate the orientation of the pallets.


Funny you should mention that. These cheesy non-Oak pallets I've been scrounging don't last long. I've been thinking that orienting the pallets with the 2x4s perpendicular, they might hold up better. Plus, I'd have a full 48" width to stack three rows wide. I found out that a guy I know works at a pallet place, and I'm thinking maybe I can get some better pallets, Oak or something. Or even plastic..although I abhor plastic from an environmental standpoint..
A shed is definitely in my future though..


----------



## shoot-straight (Sep 11, 2019)

For what it's worth I have an 8x32 wood storage shed. My rows are 4 deep, no issues. Stack loosely.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 12, 2019)

Sketch of shed plan coming in next day or two, but in the meantime, what do you guys think of placing this on a leveled gravel base?  I’ve been stacking on pallets elevated on pavers, and they always just sink into the dirt and rot, even the treated ones.

Since I’ll be stacking on the base of these portable sheds, to keep a hurricane or winter storm from taking them away, I want them to be well-supported. Ground is not presently level, but could be easily leveled with 2 yards = 16’ x 6’ x 6” + perimeter of crushed stone beneath each.

Only remaining question is keeping a base that deep of gravel in place, but I suspect 3/4” modified may compact well enough to mostly hold together.  If not, I need to think about a form or wire.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 12, 2019)

Get #304 crushed stone mix from your local stone/aggregate supplier...it will compact well and eventually turn hard almost like concrete. If the hill is steep and you need it to be deep on one side, maybe consider digging out the high side a bit, or yeah, may have to make a "retention wall" out of treated 2x material...or something...


----------



## Ashful (Sep 12, 2019)

Land is actually reasonably flat, but there is one low spot at the end of the row.  I may do a little leveling of the dirt in that area, before bringing in gravel.

In any case, here's the shed concept.  Haven't added any cross-bracing to the model yet, will get to that tomorrow.  Will be building one prototype to make final adjustments, then at least a half dozen of these.  Footprint is 16' x 6', with 14.5' x 6' of that usable for wood.  Roof is 16' x 7' 2", for 7" - 9" overhang all-around.


----------



## mar13 (Sep 13, 2019)

Would it be floating or would you have beams connected to earth either by cemented in ground orlag bolted to cemented braces? (A question I can't seem to decide on for my own future shed)


----------



## Ashful (Sep 13, 2019)

Needs to be portable, since I’m infringing on a few zoning ordinances.  Even the gravel base is causing me some concern.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 13, 2019)

So I assume when you say portable, you mean that you will be able to hook on with your truck or tractor and just drag it to a new location?


----------



## Ashful (Sep 13, 2019)

brenndatomu said:


> So I assume when you say portable, you mean that you will be able to hook on with your truck or tractor and just drag it to a new location?



You got it.  I figure if it’s portable, like that, I can argue it’s not even technically a building.  It’s just a large “cupboard”.

For the base, I’m leaning toward making my own custom-thickness pavers to go under this thing.  Four-foot spacing of 16” diameter, so five across and three deep.  I’d make them by cutting sonotubes to the length required, and setting them in the desired locations.  Pour up to level depth, and voila... custom thickness “paver” footings.

The key is that they’re floating on surface, not dug to any depth.  Yes, they will seasonally heave and sink, but I think that’s likely okay, just as a gravel bed would do.  The point is that I can always drag the shed off them, and pick them up, if I have to prove it’s portable.


----------



## Bushels20 (Sep 13, 2019)

brenndatomu said:


> Get #304 crushed stone mix from your local stone/aggregate supplier...it will compact well and eventually turn hard almost like concrete. If the hill is steep and you need it to be deep on one side, maybe consider digging out the high side a bit, or yeah, may have to make a "retention wall" out of treated 2x material...or something...




+1 on the 304. I have used this many times both on the farm as a kid and also now at my own home. If tamped down, it sets very hard.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 16, 2019)

Okay guys, decision time.  Ordering some lumber.  Base and uprights will be in direct contact with firewood, and will  be pressure-treated, but the rest is up for debate.  The ridge and other eight 2x6x16' beams, the rafters, and the roof sheathing are all non-contact.  Reducing weight up high would be attractive, and not having to figure out what rafter connectors can stand up to PT contact would also be nice.  I'm thinking of going with non-treated lumber for all or several of those overhead components.

Thoughts?

View attachment 247625


----------



## Bushels20 (Sep 16, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Okay guys, decision time.  Ordering some lumber.  Base and uprights will be in direct contact with firewood, and will  be pressure-treated, but the rest is up for debate.  The ridge and other eight 2x6x16' beams, the rafters, and the roof sheathing are all non-contact.  Reducing weight up high would be attractive, and not having to figure out what rafter connectors can stand up to PT contact would also be nice.  I'm thinking of going with non-treated lumber for all or several of those overhead components.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> View attachment 247625



I may have missed a post on the type of roofing you will be using. But ultimately, if you’re using a “real” roofing system that won’t leak, pressure treated lumber aside from what you already plan on using would be a waste of funds and would make the structure very heavy, which you elude to. 

I did just re-roof my 3 seasons room this month and would say (although it contradicts making the structure light) that using 3/4 CDX plywood for your sheathing will make a big difference over 1/2 inch. I had to remove 1/2 inch off my roof and upgraded to 3/4 and the “sturdiness” I feel afterwards is so much more reassuring.


----------



## maple1 (Sep 16, 2019)

I would orient the stacks so prevailing winds blow at the ends of the stacks, rather than at the side of the stacks.

The wind going across the ends of the splits will pull moisture out of the stacks. And when the wind carries rain, it won't drive that into the sides of your stacks. I can look out the window when its raining and most times I can see dry ends of splits.

Due to my yard layout, I have two rows, at 90° to each other. The one with its end facing prevailing winds always seems to do better. In my case, prevailing wind comes from the south, so I also get sun exposure on each side of that stack.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 16, 2019)

Ashful said:


> I'm thinking of going with non-treated lumber for all or several of those overhead components.


That's what I would do...


----------



## maple1 (Sep 16, 2019)

I don't think I would be too hesitant about using non-PT for uprights either.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 16, 2019)

Thanks, guys. I think we all agree, treated below, non-treated above.

Those uprights are up for debate. My thinking was to go PT, because I want them to last 20+ years, they are exposed to weather, and in contact with potentially-infested wood. But you’re free to tell me I’m wrong!


----------



## maple1 (Sep 17, 2019)

My thought is, they are also exposed to open air and sheltered by the roof. So should last a long time. As long as they are off the ground at the bottom. No doubt PT would last longer though.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 17, 2019)

Good argument, you might be right, but the world will never know! I submitted the lumber order last night. Base and uprights are PT, everything overhead is fir.


----------



## Poindexter (Sep 18, 2019)

Chemicals  in pressure treated lumber are poisonous to catalytic combustors.  

Been in my shop getting ready for that four letter word that stats with an S, sorry for late entry.  Wood that has good airflow on all sides should be able to get wet and dry out and get wet and dry out through several hundred cycles.  Think shaker shed or Old Ship Church in Hingham, Mass.  

For mine I did ground contact PT for the floor framing, then a  double layer of plastic, then regular plywood flooring.


----------



## maple1 (Sep 18, 2019)

I don't think he plans on burning his wood shed in his stove.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2019)

I suspect you have less an issue with wood boring insects than we do down here, Poindexter. Even my white oak pallets succumb after just five years as wood cribs, there’s no way framing lumber would give me the kind of lifetime I need.

I went non-PT for everything overhead, which I know means I’ll be battling the carpenter bees every summer. But going non-PT on those components saves me a few $100’s, a few hundred pounds, makes the roof sheathing easier (one man operation), and means I can use some of the thousands of regular iridite roofing nails I already have.


----------



## mar13 (Sep 18, 2019)

"But going non-PT on those components saves me a few $100’s, a few hundred pounds, makes the roof sheathing easier "

I always think of wet vs dry wood weights with firewood, but I never thought of applying that thought to PT wood.  Learn something new every day...   https://roofonline.com/weight-of-pressure-treated-lumber


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2019)

mar13 said:


> "But going non-PT on those components saves me a few $100’s, a few hundred pounds, makes the roof sheathing easier "
> 
> I always think of wet vs dry wood weights with firewood, but I never thought of applying that thought to PT wood.  Learn something new every day...   https://roofonline.com/weight-of-pressure-treated-lumber


Yeah.  These lumber racks will weight roughly 3200 lb. when first built, and I'll be loading them up with another 20,000 lb. of oak.  That'll make a dent in the earth, sitting there for three years, if anything can.

By the time the firewood and the racks are dried, we'll be down from 23,000 lb. to roughly 16,000 lb.


----------



## Sawset (Sep 18, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Yeah.  These lumber racks will weight roughly 3200 lb. when first built, and I'll be loading them up with another 20,000 lb. of oak.  That'll make a dent in the earth, sitting there for three years, if anything can.
> 
> By the time the firewood and the racks are dried, we'll be down from 23,000 lb. to roughly 16,000 lb.


Lay down a dozen 8x16 patio pavers under each one. I built a good sized shed, 14x20, built on a set of 8x8 beams, underlain with patio blocks as footings, with a deep gravel base. It's not sinking or floating away, plenty of frost and rain.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2019)

I'm on the edge of wetlands and violating my property line set backs, so likely no gravel base here.  But I do plan to put fifteen 16" round pavers under each unit.  That's 7 psi initial load, if I remember my math right.  I haven't checked as to whether that's high or low for my soil conditions, tho.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2019)

Update, according to [1], it appears I should be okay.  I have to admit, I haven't don't much research to understand what this means, and I'm not a structural engineer, but a quick glance at this table indicates my anticipated loading is only half of the softest soil type listed.  I'm at 23,000 lb / (15 x 1.4 sq.ft.) = 1100 lb/sq.ft.

I'm on the edge of wetlands, so our soil is likely toward the bottom of that list.

*Soil Bearing Capacities*

*Class of Materials**Load-Bearing Pressure
 (pounds per square foot)*Crystalline bedrock12,000​Sedimentary rock6,000​Sandy gravel or gravel5,000​Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel, and clayey gravel3,000​Clay, sandy clay, silty clay, and clayey silt2,000​_Source: Table 401.4.1; CABO One- and Two- Family Dwelling Code; 1995._

[1] - https://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/footing_fundamentals/why_soils_matter.htm


----------



## Sawset (Sep 19, 2019)

Not that your probably too worried about things sinking out of sight, but a couple observations:
Son inlaw has several campgrounds along the fox river. Central Wisconsin, all deep sand and silt, near flood planes. When I said I was pouring footings for the shed here, he mentioned that in 50yrs, they hadn't poured a footing yet for a non permanent structure. Cabins, trailers, decks etc, 100s.  Got me thinking. The worst that can happen is frost heaves, saturated soil subsides, the beams below even the load, in the end it evens out back to square one.
There are buildings down the road from here that were built 100 years ago. Been driving by them long time, yet just now realized they were built on shallow piers with beams. They look no worse for wear as far as straight and level. Storage sheds doing what they do.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 19, 2019)

Exactly. I’m doing this on “shallow piers” as well, essentially 16” round piers poured on grade, no digging.


----------



## johneh (Sep 19, 2019)

I live in Eastern Ontario Canada. We have built 5  15 X 25 
sheads the foundation we use is a 30 x30 2 ft. deep hole 
filled with crushed stone and a 24-inch paver set on top.
Our frost line normally is 4 Ft. never had a  frost heave 
in all the sheds we have built


----------



## mar13 (Oct 15, 2019)

Is this shed production still in progress?  Once done, I'd enjoy seeing the pictures and what your ultimate (required) lumber order was.  One of these summers, it'll be my turn to build one.


----------



## JohnDolz (Oct 15, 2019)

Ashful said:


> I’ve been stacking in 2-row formation for, well.. forever.  It has always dried well, but taken up too much space for my 30 cords.   It would also not favor storing under a roof, which is my latest plan.
> 
> View attachment 247387
> 
> ...


Just curious, what are you heating that requires 30 cord or is it multiple years worth? I was thinking 30 face cord but based on you photo it would appear 30 full cord - that's a lot of wood!  I was actually up to 25 or so cord when my neighbor put in a pool.


----------



## billb3 (Oct 16, 2019)

Ashful said:


> I suspect you have less an issue with wood boring insects than we do down here, Poindexter. Even my white oak pallets succumb after just five years as wood cribs, there’s no way framing lumber would give me the kind of lifetime I need.
> 
> I went non-PT for everything overhead, which I know means I’ll be battling the carpenter bees every summer. But going non-PT on those components saves me a few $100’s, a few hundred pounds, makes the roof sheathing easier (one man operation), and means I can use some of the thousands of regular iridite roofing nails I already have.



Woodlife Coppercoat Green Water based wood preservative - 1 gallon
Is absorbed by well seasoned wood better than the fresh kiln dried lumber you'll likely purchase.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 16, 2019)

mar13 said:


> Is this shed production still in progress? Once done, I'd enjoy seeing the pictures and what your ultimate (required) lumber order was. One of these summers, it'll be my turn to build one.



Yeah, I framed it up pretty quickly, but then contractors I had been awaiting on two other house projects finally came around, which pulled me away from this. One is now done, got another few days working with the second, and then I’ll be back on this. Just need to get roof sheathing and shingles on it.

Will try to post a photo if I can get one tonight, but we’re supposed to see very heavy rain this afternoon and tonight, so it may be another day or two. Here’s an older photo mid-framing, to give you an idea how it looks.







The old boat axle is part of my plan to move it to it’s final location. I’ll be building six of these, with the intention of using two per year.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 16, 2019)

JohnDolz said:


> Just curious, what are you heating that requires 30 cord or is it multiple years worth? I was thinking 30 face cord but based on you photo it would appear 30 full cord - that's a lot of wood! I was actually up to 25 or so cord when my neighbor put in a pool.



I’m only using 10 cords per year, 30 cords gives me room to store 3 years’ worth of wood under roof. I’m burning a lot of red oak, and I really do try to season all of it for 3 summers before using.


----------



## FIDLER (Oct 16, 2019)

Ashful said:


> I’m only using 10 cords per year, 30 cords gives me room to store 3 years’ worth of wood under roof. I’m burning a lot of red oak, and I really do try to season all of it for 3 summers before using.


How do you source 30 cords of red oak?!


----------



## MrWhoopee (Oct 17, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Actually, that just settled it, for me.  I can do 2 rows + pallet + 2 rows, which will give me good airflow up the center of the stack.
> 
> Now we just need to debate the orientation of the pallets.



2x4s vertical to allow unobstructed air flow.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 17, 2019)

FIDLER said:


> How do you source 30 cords of red oak?!



Geez... never been a problem, here. We just had over 200 cords of white oak and hickory blow down at my church this summer. Prior to that, I was dragging out red oak-blow down from Hurricane Sandy, from a friend’s property a few towns over. Now he has a few dozen large ash trees ready to come down, thanks to EAB. I can get a full cord out of the trunk of most of his ash trees, without even touching branch wood.


----------



## jaoneill (Oct 17, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Since I’ll be stacking on the base of these portable sheds, to keep a hurricane or winter storm from taking them away, I want them to be well-supported. Ground is not presently level, but could be easily leveled with 2 yards = 16’ x 6’ x 6” + perimeter of crushed stone beneath each.
> 
> Only remaining question is keeping a base that deep of gravel in place, but I suspect 3/4” modified may compact well enough to mostly hold together.  If not, I need to think about a form or wire.


 Use #2 clean crushed stone; taper the perimeter down to grade and tamp it in place, you'll be amazed how stable it will be and it will avoid having a "step" to trip you up every ime you turn around unexpectedly.


----------



## jaoneill (Oct 17, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Thanks, guys. I think we all agree, treated below, non-treated above.
> 
> Those uprights are up for debate. My thinking was to go PT, because I want them to last 20+ years, they are exposed to weather, and in contact with potentially-infested wood. But you’re free to tell me I’m wrong!


I would use the standard lumber yard .40 PT for the uprights but you should know that that crap is not rated for ground contact. FWIW, if it were me and I was looking for longevity, .60 foundation grade would be a no brainer for the ground contact stuff; the .40 won't last 10 years on the ground.


----------



## FIDLER (Oct 18, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Geez... never been a problem, here. We just had over 200 cords of white oak and hickory blow down at my church this summer. Prior to that, I was dragging out red oak-blow down from Hurricane Sandy, from a friend’s property a few towns over. Now he has a few dozen large ash trees ready to come down, thanks to EAB. I can get a full cord out of the trunk of most of his ash trees, without even touching branch wood.


Wow. That’s either A LOT of trees or HUGE trees. With the winds we are having right now you’ll probably be seeing some more come down!


----------



## Ashful (Oct 18, 2019)

FIDLER said:


> Wow. That’s either A LOT of trees or HUGE trees. With the winds we are having right now you’ll probably be seeing some more come down!



It was a lot of huge trees. [emoji3] This is the same property from which I took a 60” diameter downed white oak after Sandy.  There were a lot of trees in the 24”+ range, this time.  

A ship builder took the white oak, gave us about $5k for the privilege to harvest what blew down. He sent in a logging company, who took a full six days to load up what he was taking.  Another church member and I split half the hickory, spending about two days per week there all summer, and the rest just got piled up for another day.


----------



## FIDLER (Oct 20, 2019)

Ashful said:


> It was a lot of huge trees. [emoji3] This is the same property from which I took a 60” diameter downed white oak after Sandy.  There were a lot of trees in the 24”+ range, this time.
> 
> A ship builder took the white oak, gave us about $5k for the privilege to harvest what blew down. He sent in a logging company, who took a full six days to load up what he was taking.  Another church member and I split half the hickory, spending about two days per week there all summer, and the rest just got piled up for another day.


That’s dedication, my friend. I have a bunch of rounds on my driveway waiting to be split. I picked up a couple of cords of beech in Narberth this weekend, if you know where that is. I never realized how much work and time go into transporting, processing, stacking AND seasoning a cord of wood until I did it myself. Holy crap, a 60” oak.. a 1” slab would weigh around 100lbs. How did you even budge that thing? A crane? That’s a lot of wood to move around!


----------



## Ashful (Oct 20, 2019)

Yes, I know Narberth well, used to have family there. The 60” rounds were all hollow, unfortunately. All the solid stuff was 49” and smaller. A friend moved it with an excavator that has a thumb, into a dump truck, that dumped it in my yard.


----------



## mar13 (Feb 14, 2020)

Ashful said:


> Land is actually reasonably flat, but there is one low spot at the end of the row.  I may do a little leveling of the dirt in that area, before bringing in gravel.
> 
> In any case, here's the shed concept.  Haven't added any cross-bracing to the model yet, will get to that tomorrow.  Will be building one prototype to make final adjustments, then at least a half dozen of these.  Footprint is 16' x 6', with 14.5' x 6' of that usable for wood.  Roof is 16' x 7' 2", for 7" - 9" overhang all-around.
> 
> View attachment 247625


I saw pictures of one of your sheds filled with wood .... after several weekends of rain (*https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/good-day-to-hunker-in.180167/#post-2421724)  .*

Was the overhang enough to keep the wood dry?  Overall, what would you do differently?  What do you like best so far?  

I'm still thinking of shed plans....


----------



## Woody Stover (Feb 14, 2020)

mar13 said:


> Was the overhang enough to keep the wood dry?  Overall, what would you do differently?  What do you like best so far?
> I'm still thinking of shed plans....


Yeah, doesn't look like a lot of overhang, but it's no biggie if the ends get wet once in a while. You could even stack it with the outside rows' splits tilting out slightly to shed water.
I'm thinking of a shed too...it'll be nice. At least I was able to score a bunch of metal roofing, so that's an improvement over the mats I'm using, which wanna sag and fall down between the rows.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 14, 2020)

I’m stacking 6 ft wide, as four rows of 18” splits, so there’s only so much overhang I can get with two 4’ wide sheets of plywood , without getting into a ton of cutting and waste of sheathing.  Also, more overhang means more chance of bumping and destroying it as I try to turn my too-big tractor around in the wood splitting area.  With drip edge and 1/4” shingle overhang, the total overhang is almost exactly 12 inches, on these units.  

So, I think I found the best compromise for me, I honestly can’t think of anything Iwould change. I have built two so far, with more in the way, as soon as I finish a few other projects. 
The wood stays dry in most rain conditions, just not when it gets real windy.  But I’m not sure if a few more inches of overhang would change that.


----------



## maple1 (Feb 14, 2020)

Ashful said:


> But I’m not sure if a few more inches of overhang would change that.



Not likely.  Orienting so prevailing winds are down its length rather into the sides of the stacks might help though.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Feb 14, 2020)

Jealous of all you guys who have areas of full sun and wind.  I have the wood but just no good areas for it to get sun and wind.  I'm pretty much stacking top covered in the middle of the woods.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 14, 2020)

Sun and wind are both overrated, unless you’re sailing.


----------



## mar13 (Feb 14, 2020)

Ashful said:


> I’m stacking 6 ft wide, as four rows of 18” splits, so there’s only so much overhang I can get with two 4’ wide sheets of plywood , without getting into a ton of cutting and waste of sheathing.  Also, more overhang means more chance of bumping and destroying it as I try to turn my too-big tractor around in the wood splitting area.  With drip edge and 1/4” shingle overhang, the total overhang is almost exactly 12 inches, on these units.
> 
> So, I think I found the best compromise for me, I honestly can’t think of anything Iwould change. I have built two so far, with more in the way, as soon as I finish a few other projects.
> The wood stays dry in most rain conditions, just not when it gets real windy.  But I’m not sure if a few more inches of overhang would change that.



I'm happy to read that you are so satisfied with your shed design.  Would you be generous enough to share the details/draft of your design?I'd have to modify it so it that meets my city's 120 square foot limitations.  (Correction, I see your design is 16'x6' =96 sq ft foot print)  Also, what carpentry skill level would you judge is required for your design?

I know you had the requirement for the shed to be portable shed, but nevertheless - and there are advantages to not permanently being stuck with the originally decided on location - but would have you otherwise worked with posts attached-to/stuck-in the ground otherwise?

Thanks.


----------



## mar13 (Feb 14, 2020)

I just did some quick (hopefully correct) calculations on your shed.  I'm assuming stacks are 5ft high, 15 feet usable space long, and 4 pieces of wood wide:  With wood cut to 16" it comes to 3.125 cords.  With 15" (sometimes sold around here) it's 2.93 cords.   One place is even selling wood at 14", which would allow 5 across (no pallet in between) giving 3.4 cords.

Regardless, 16", 15", or 14", they'd all just about meet my desire for a 3 cord shed.

No tractor, however, so it'd have to built in place or have a lot of good friends to help shove it.


----------



## Woody Stover (Feb 14, 2020)

mar13 said:


> I just did some quick (hopefully correct) calculations on your shed.  I'm assuming stacks are 5ft high,


You can go higher than that..


----------



## Ashful (Feb 15, 2020)

Hey mar,

yes, I can dig up the plans I have. I think I did a 3D model, but never bothered snapping any dimensions on it, since I designed it to use all standard 8 ft and 16 ft pieces, with nearly zero cutting or waste. The only thing on this entire design that might be a little beyond the average homeowner with a miter saw would be the way I notched the rafters, but you could simply use steel ties to avoid that (albeit with more cost).

Excluding those rafter notch cuts, the only tools I used were a miter saw for cutting the rafters and vertical studs to length, framing nailer, a roofing nailer, a utility knife for trimming shingles, a hand saw for flush cutting the diagonal cross braces, and some long bar clamps for drawing stubborn pressure treated lumber into square, as it’s often a little twisted.  You could easily substitute a hammer and elbow grease for the roofing nailer, and an impact driver with 3” deck screws for the framing nailer, if you don’t have those. 

I just so happen to have a freshly built empty one in my back yard now, and will be dry stacking and leveling block for its foundation piers today.  I will get some photos for you, and can check my CAD stations next week to see what plans I may have saved.

I cut to 18”, and can stack the four onboard rows to 7’-4” h x 7’-1” w, and the four outboard rows to 7’ h x 7’-1” w.   So that should be 312 + 298 cu.ft. =  4.76 cord per rack.  Adjust as necessary for your lengths.


----------



## mar13 (Feb 15, 2020)

Ashful said:


> Hey mar,
> 
> yes, I can dig up the plans I have. I think I did a 3D model, but never bothered snapping any dimensions on it, since I designed it to use all standard 8 ft and 16 ft pieces, with nearly zero cutting or waste. The only thing on this entire design that might be a little beyond the average homeowner with a miter saw would be the way I notched the rafters, but you could simply use steel ties to avoid that (albeit with more cost).
> 
> ...


Thanks! As I've read, every project deserves a new tool. During my swim and walk home yesterday, I was mentally going through your design and realized how your dimensions fit nicely into standard board lengths.  Summer isn't far off, so maybe I can actually commit to finally liberating myself from my elaborate tarping system.  

Clarification: swimming was not part of my commute home, although we definitely could use the rain.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 17, 2020)

Got some fresh photos of one.  Will look for plans and cut list one night this week.  

I also realized the quick numbers I gave in that last post were off, specifically the height of the outer rows, and even how high I can actually fill the middle rows.  I didn’t have a tape measure with me to re-measure, but I had once figured on this rack being exactly 4 cords,amf I think that is closer to the truth.


----------



## RandyBoBandy (Feb 17, 2020)

Ashful, why not metal roofing or clear corrugated roofing panels?


----------



## FTG-05 (Feb 17, 2020)

7'x7'x7' cubes or 7'x14'x7' rectangles.  It all dries in 3-4 years down here in south TN:
















Where the cells are full, that's 6 racks of wood tightly packed.  All of it is hardwoods, a mix of Maple, Hackberry, Hickory , Walnut and some Poplar.  I'm burning from the center of the corner stack in the first pic right now.  Even wood that's been covered by 2-3 racks in front of it is nice and dry and burns extremely well.  Next year will be 4 years old and be even better.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 17, 2020)

RandyBoBandy said:


> Ashful, why not metal roofing or clear corrugated roofing panels?


Clear corrugated is out for cosmetic reasons.  I considered metal, but each face of the roof is only 4’ high x 16’ wide.  The metal panels sold around here are all long, so I’d be cutting them into 4’ lengths, and they’re not evenly divisible into 16 feet widths, so I’d be ripping widths, too.  I decided it was easier, and likely better looking, to just shingle it.


----------



## mar13 (Feb 17, 2020)

Carpentry question: I notice that you have a lot of 2x4's put together instead of using 4x4's.  I wondered what drove this decision: cost? ease of construction?   I also wondered if this would provide a location for water to sit and eventually encourage rot?

One Google search led me to another possibility, that perhaps it was a structural decision.   Just any FYI for others, here is what I found: (https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92808)
" Anyway, I had originally planned to notch some 4x4s as legs. While I realize that sistering 2x4s is quite easier, I really like the look of a 2x4 frenched into a 4x4. 

Now, I knew two 2x4s sistered would be stronger than a 4x4 since you have opposing grains, what I didn't realize is that 4x4s are actually cut from the core of the tree which is the weakest part of the tree (thanks Dad for the lesson in lumber). So a standard 4x4 is actually much weaker than two 2x4s side by side. I bring this up because i have read a lot on this blog and no one has ever mentioned this. The only thing I have seen mentioned about the difference in doing 4x4's vs 2x4s is the ease of sistering vs notching. 

So, the moral of the story is sistered 2x4s are much stronger than 4x4s. Granted 4x4s when used vertically are still rather strong for most applications, but should never be used horizontally for something structural."     

Anyhow, what was your reasoning? 

Maybe the details of your shed will eventually become a sticky thread!


----------



## MissMac (Feb 17, 2020)

My stacks are 5 deep in my wood shed, and at the end of 2 full summers in there, the largest splits buried in the middle are around 18-19%.  The only issue i had was with some wood i left in rounds (white birch and ash) that weren't dry enough (lessons learned, especially re: the birch).  Now everything that goes in my shed gets split at least once, and i have no issues with a 3 year rotation having dry wood.  This is in sub-prime location ( east aspect, very little sun, backing onto bush).


----------



## Ashful (Feb 17, 2020)

mar13 said:


> Anyhow, what was your reasoning?


I was hoping to gather the info to post tonight, but instead spent 90 minutes needlessly battling a stupid old iPad (without success) to put a few PDFs into the Books app.  Damn, Apple can make some simple tasks needlessly complicated.

As to your question, assuming you mean the 16' stringers that make up the base, it came down to availability.  Yes, the 2x4x16's are stronger for those base stringers, but the 4x4x16's are quicker and easier in this application.  So, I designed for 4x4's, but have had trouble finding local stock on them, which is how the second unit ended up with sistered 2x4's in the base.  With eight stringers, and a max span of 4 feet between piers, I'm hoping it doesn't matter much.

I figure my max cord weight is 5000 lb. of fresh oak, with each of those 4x4 strings carrying a maximum 625 lb. evenly distributed over the 4' length of the span.  Perhaps if there's a structural engineer on the forum, they can translate to a "it's good" or "that's not good" conclusion for us.  I just ran my best understanding of the numbers in Cornell's wood beam calculator (4' span, 9" average spacing, 238 lb/sq.ft. dead load), and it says single 2x6's or doubled 2x4's should be good.  I'm gambling a bit on trading single 4x4's for doubled 2x4's on that one shed, I guess.

The vertical studs were always planned as 2x4's, with the outermost and innermost pairs fully-jacked, and the intermediate pairs with partial jacks (per a Highbeam or semipro recommendation).  It's just easier to lap jack studs, the way they're attached, than to cut tenons on 4x4's.


----------



## RandyBoBandy (Feb 18, 2020)

Not that it matters now but you could have built your roof 17-17.5’ wide to give bigger overhangs on the gable ends. This would help keep more rain out of the wood and eliminate the need to rip the metal roofing. Then when cutting lengths you can hide your cut edge under the cap.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 18, 2020)

RandyBoBandy said:


> Not that it matters now but you could have built your roof 17-17.5’ wide to give bigger overhangs on the gable ends. This would help keep more rain out of the wood and eliminate the need to rip the metal roofing. Then when cutting lengths you can hide your cut edge under the cap.


True, but then I’d be cutting and plywood and wasting off an awful lot of 2x6, unless I designed the roof support differently than I did.  The intentionally-undersized rafters are supported by eight 2x6x16’s that run east-west, similar time what is often seen in 18th century houses having mid-spam bracing under 4” or 6” rafters we would consider undersized by today’s standards, with four under each face of the roof.  This is what allows me to get away with the 8’ free span and a shallow roof pitch under our maximum snow loads while keeping the roof height as low as possible, at least by my amateur calculations.

There are many possible improvements to this design, and every design is a compromise.  But this one seems to hit the best balance of cost, manufacturability (I am making six of these), performance, and use or accessibility for me.  I have 12 inches overhang on the eves, and about 8.5 inches on the gables.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 24, 2020)

Hey mar,

Hadn't forgotten about you, just been real busy.  I did find the ordering info and cut lists, though.  Along with the photos posted in posts #42 (original 4x4 base design) and #64 (doubled 2x4 base design), this should be pretty much all the info you need.

First, the buy list for the latest one.  The original 4x4 base model would be the same, but sub (8) 4x4x16 for the (16) 2x4x16.




Here's the cut list for the studs.  Some of the original calculated numbers are crossed out and replaced with more accurate measured numbers, based on the PT 2x4's being a little fatter than 1-1/2". 




Finally, a detail of the rafter cuts.  If you have a radial saw this is easy, or even a table saw with a rolling table or slider.  Sort of that, I'd skip this step and just buy rafter ties to attach the rafters.  I get away with 2x3's because the spacing between joists upon which the rafters rest is so small.





The total cost of each unit is almost exactly $1000, plus whatever base you put it on.  I've been using concrete block, dry stacked on a leveled base of dry concrete mix.  The concrete soaks up moisture from the ground and sets up within a few days, and I usually wait a few days before placing the wood rack on the piers, anyway.

_edit:  Everything except the rafters, the cut list of studs above, and the angled ends of the diagonal braces is used at full 8' or 16' length.  All jacks are set at 5-1/2" from the end of each stud using a quick jig for locating them.  This makes the rafters come out flush with the studs on top (except the outermost pair), and the studs overlapping with the inside face of the fore-aft base timbers for best strength._


----------



## mar13 (Feb 25, 2020)

Ashful said:


> Hey mar,
> 
> Hadn't forgotten about you, just been real busy.  I did find the ordering info and cut lists, though.  Along with the photos posted in posts #42 (original 4x4 base design) and #64 (doubled 2x4 base design), this should be pretty much all the info you need.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the details.  I'm already beginning to do research on framing nailers as a potential future self gift.   For a beginner, can you explain what is meant by "bent 1& 8",  "bent 2 & 7", etc.  My Google searches failed.  Also, how far apart are your bottom beams to support your 18" splits?

When considering shed design, one frequent question I have has been the bottom construction.    I understand that you had very specific reasons (portability, code, etc) to build one that rests on blocks, rather than have piers in the ground.  This also allows you to have a structural floor, rather than mess with pallets, although not ruled out by a design with piers.   

So here's my question: If you didn't have code restrictions or the desire for portability, do you think you would have worked with piers?

I dug up some pictures from @Highbeam  and his shed (too huge for me )  : https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...read-part-3-everything-bk.167072/post-2269496

And then to go for longevity, use an 
	

		
			
		

		
	



	

		
			
		

		
	
above ground pier and post system such as show in the thumbnail drawing.

Once again, thank you for your opinions and info.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 25, 2020)

A “bent” is simply a framing section, in timber frame house, as in “girts and bents”.  However, they usually use the term to describe a framing section in the plane of the gable wall (I.e. side elevation), whereas I’m using it to describe the eight frames that are each 16’ wide and held up with three studs, in the front elevation.  Essentially, you cut six studs at each of those lengths, three for front face of roof and three for back face, and they support a 2x6 bean.  That is your bent.  The bents are counted from front to back, so that no. 1=8, and no. 4=5, if you follow me.  

As to the base, I would not be building this way at all, if I didn’t need to make it portable.  I’d just sink 6x6 PT posts, and build a roof on them.  Then I’d use disposable pallets for the floor.  The only reason I’m doing it this way is the portability requirement.


----------

