I’m a contractor in the American Midwest. In the beginning of my career, I did a lot of interior demolition, and we would always take the time to save framing lumber harvested in the 1970ies and before, as it was invariably straighter and stronger than contemporary lumber of the same dimensions. Building codes changed over time to make up for the reduced load-bearing capacity of lumber harvested more recently. But as a side note, many framing innovations- hardware, fasteners, engineered lumber, to name just a few- also mean that houses built to code today are often stronger than older homes were, and more resistant to environmental damage, even if the individual pieces of lumber are weaker.
'engineered wood' lol, yeah like the kind of cheap quality furniture and bed frames from IKEA and Amazon, et al. made with wood chips and glue but not a solid piece of lumber.
The silver lining of today's weaker lumber is that it is endlessly sustainable. Almost all lumber today comes from planted trees and will never run out. The stronger lumber from the past was cut from old growth clearcutting that decimated ancient forests.
@janeblogs324 nitrogen has been synthetically manufactured since before ww1 using natural gas, coal etc before we could do that, it was bones and excrement.
@@kiwihunter3476 they used wood to make the gun powder. "In 1863, Prussian artillery captain Johann F. E. Schultze patented a small-arms propellant of nitrated hardwood impregnated with saltpeter or barium nitrate."
The thing is, originally lumber was simply cut from old growth forests that already existed. Environmental considerations led to the current system where old growth forests are left alone and new trees are grown for the purpose of harvesting. There is a trade-off in having less dense wood for building but it is a compromise probably worthwhile.
Lower density in itself can be better. You're more thinking of the lower strength that comes with the lower density. What I'm really curious about is if the lower strength and lower weight actually means that it would be smarter to increase the standard size of a 2x4 from 1.5x3.5 back to 2x4. Another commenter who was a contractor said that it took less time to build with the older wood because you didn't need as much.
In college they warned us to always keep our tables for wood products up to date, and showed us that the tables from the past and present were already noticeably different.
PNW remodeler, here, the old lumber is not only stronger and much heavier, but, I believe, also more rot resistant. I read in a timber framing book that the old millers would soak harvested logs in salt marshes for a few years before milling, in order to slow drying and produce more stable wood. Would love to see your results on decay as well…
I have a friend who’s building a water wheel for a mill restoration. To stabilize the wood he’s soaking the lumber for two weeks drying and repeating multiple times. Apparently this results in very stable lumber even under those condo
I don't know about salt water but everyones heard of "the mill pond". They didn't do it just for conveniance. My guess is they used what they had. Salt or fresh water.
I first heard about the salt marshes during a 5th grade field trip to one of the historical houses in Concord, MA. The guide pointed out the main room and its flat floor, saying that when the family built it, they had the time to soak the wood for 2 years. Then, he pointed to the badly warped floor in the addition, and explained that it hadn't been soaked. Maybe the kiln drying and better isolation from the ground used in modern construction makes the soaking less necessary, but it's interesting that it made such a difference.
@@pcno2832 Logging and transport of timber was almost entirely by water in the spring when huge floats of timber moved to the mills and railheads. When you got all your timber for the entire year in a couple days the easiest way to store and keep fresh was in the pond. The old timers were smart and it must've made a great difference. Some of the old growth was so dense it sank out of the rafts. That's why the bottoms of the rivers are littered with old logs.
We demolished an old barn on our property and saved all the lumber. When using the lumber we found it was MUCH more difficult to drive nails through it! Not only was the size true, the hardness of the lumber was substantially harder than the "balsa like" crap now available.
Been building for 49 years now, the growth rings keep getting younger and younger. And friend recycled lumber from an old church, I remember that the 2x6’s had anywhere from 40to 70 years of very tight growth rings! And were pine.
You don't realize it until you touch old growth 2x4s but they are absolute beasts. They are so dense. I have a 150 year old house and we have some old wood we removed from a wall, and will be donating to heritage builders, but I cur some of them and re-used them where I could, and cutting them was a significant difference experience. Even just the reduced splitting, they cut perfectly flat on the ends. I'm no lumber expert, just a DIYer, but even I could tell these older pieces were excellent quality compared to newer wood. Straighter too. Agreed though that newer wood is far more sustainable.
@@elim7228You have no idea what you’re talking about. No wood, old or new just crumbles. If kept dry and free of termites any wood can last for hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years.
@@elim7228 Even if it did, it would still be more effective long term. Better to repair every 40 years than to lose forests that require literal millennia to grow into their natural state. Already, there's nearly no place on the planet where you'll see a true old growth forest that looks the way forests would have 2000 years ago.
Here in New Zealand, framing timber is, almost exclusively, plantation grown Pinus Radiata, originally sourced from California. It seems to grow particularly well in our climate and provides a rotation time of 30 years or less. That short rotation time is probably one of the biggest drivers of it's use because it's other qualities are not so great. It requires kiln drying to stabilise it and chemical treatment to avoid premature decay and insect damage. Pruning is also required up to around 10 years of age to get any timber without large knots. There is also a programme of selective breeding and cloning to produce faster growing and straighter trees. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in density and is often scathingly referred to as balsa wood. Old growth forests here are only remnants of what was once an 80% cover. Beginning with the first big wave of European colonization in the mid-1800s, deforestation was extremely rapid - probably the fastest in the World - with the wholesale burning to provide farmland. Clean green New Zealand, anyone? Split logs of the Totara tree would last up to a hundred years as a post in the ground and the timber was used extensively for exterior joinery. A piece of untreated Radiata lying on damp ground will turn to mush in two of three years
I salvaged some lumber from a mansion that was torn down that was built in 1915 quality of the Douglas fir lumber was just fantastic 20 ft long full dimension 2x4 that were still straight as an arrow with no knots very tight growth rings. I used it to build furniture Really beautiful wood to work with
Good video on an interesting subject. Hello from British Columbia. As someone in the comments below has already mentioned, plantation forests in the southern hemisphere have been successfully growing radiata pine. In the southern USA, Southern Yellow Pine seems to be the most common plantation species. In BC, the vast majority of 2x4 construction lumber comes from SPF, spruce/pine/fir - consisting of mostly Engelmann Spruce, Lodgepole Pine, Douglas Fir - mixed with that some of similar SPF species. There is also a section of this market that sells a Fir/Larch mix. These species and lumber products come from the interior areas of BC (and USA) between the coast mountains and the Rocky Mountains. Unfortunately, 20 years ago, this area was hit by a Pine Beetle infestation that killed almost all the pine forests in the province. This was a huge loss of volume, due mostly to warmer winters, that naturally kept the beetle population at bay. The big old growth Western hemlock tree used in your example would have come from a coastal forest ranging from Alaska to Oregon. These large trees are/were not normally used for 2x4 as there is a high volume of defect free clear fibre. This species was commonly used for window, door and ladder stock. Japan uses this wood for 90x90 and 105x105 “baby squares” as sill plates in the traditional wood frame construction. The higher quality vertical grain lumber is also sliced into veneers and used as overlays in Japan and other markets. Similarly, coastal Douglas Fir, Cedar and Sitka Spruce were used in products where their large sizes yield clear lumber. That being said, the old growth Douglas Fir from BC, WA, OR and CA was used extensively in housing construction in the 20th century. The quality of the wood is stunning - hardness and strength. It’s true that the forest industry is changing to smaller logs coming from second growth trees. This is such a huge subject to take on in a comment… :-) In your studies, please be sure to include all the different stresses on a 2x4, and how the faster growing wood is affected. I will have a look and if I find some information I will pass it along. FYI - I am in the BC forest/lumber industry for over 35 years and this subject is very dear to me. I’m about to start a new series of videos discussing such topics, focusing on cedar shingles and shakes, to start… I’m a new subscriber. Well done. Cheers.
Hi fellow Canadian! Your in-depth comment is very welcomed and appreciated. It's clear that you have vast knowledge in this subject. I will check out your channel! I come from a structural engineering background although now I am working in academia hence my research based approach. I lived in Williams Lake and Prince George for a combined of 10 years (living in Denmark now for the last 4 years). I worked as a laborer at a West Fraser mill throughout highschool and university and later as a structural engineer in the forestry sector. BC and its forests are so stunning, an absolute gem of a province. But it's sad to see how in recent years some of the northern communities (and their mills) have declined. The pine beetle + the major forest fires in recent years do not make it any easier for the forest industry. I hope things will turn around. Cheers
@herzogsbuick wow, thank you for the compliment and motivation to keep sharing! Just putting that last coat of paint on my new video studio today. And thank you for your subscription!
I recently did a remod of a century structure. We fought hard to break the framing members free while the heads pulled clean through any new plantation lumber we nailed to it while demo'ing. Night & day. I have some samples I can send you.
I am an electrical engineer and I love videos about civil and mechanical engineering. I want to say that your videos are really good quality and this is hard to find on youtube these days. Could you share some of your process about how you research your videos? maybe a video about this topic. Thanks
Driving a 3 1/2" nail into modern lumber would usually take me 2 to 3 strikes with a framing hammer. In old growth lumber it takes 6 good solid strikes. If you hit the nail sloppy it will bend much more readily in old growth lumber too, and it holds like crazy.
It's possible the increased growth in the plantation logs was due to the plantation having been thinned just before that spurt in growth rate. Increased rainfall in those years, or vegetation management could also contribute to that.
I salvaged some old growth pine from my Grandparent’s 100 plus year old home. Old pine is amazing! It’s so hard and very heavy. Today’s pine lumber doesn’t compare. Old growth is more like oak wood than pine. And it has a wonderful aroma. I’m going to repurpose my stack of old pine lumber to make furniture. Wish I had more of it.
Started in carpentry 45 years ago. Lumber is crap now. LVL is about equivalent to Select Structural of long past days. Back then we would sort absolutely clear vertical grain studs and joists from fresh units.
Thank you for the comment, Jim. It's always great to hear from someone who has lived and actively worked through a big chunk of the history of dimensional lumber!
@@TheEngineeringHub Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad we're not back in the late '70's, decimating the last stands of old growth fir and redwood. You would need a pin and magnifying glass to count rings in some of that. Imagine painted facia or even (gasp!) rot resistant mudsills cut from trees 1,000+ years old with at least 50 rings per inch (0.5mm) But the spongy stuff we have today, with boxed heart, wane 3/4" or more and loose knots the size of a tennis ball is just not a quality building material. Do you have a post office box or some other delivery address? I don't see anything in the video description,.
@jimurrata6785 Yeah, rot resistance is a huge point!! I didn't include that into the video, but it's just as important, if not more important than the strength. If you provide an email, I will reach out to you, or you can send one at: theengineeringhub2019@gmail.com. We can have a talk, I'll provide a shipping address, you can share your experience, and I will include (if you'd like) a 15-30 sec section of our talk in the next video. Cheers
@@TheEngineeringHub I've seen CCA come and go. Now we have ACQ but it eats even hot dip fasteners. Stainless sill bolts, straps and hardware are stupidly expensive. Redwood sills and facia are a moot point today but were written into the AIA specs back then.
Another reason for 24" stud spacing in older homes is the use of lath and plaster which adds strength and stability. Studs with narrow growth rings shrunk and twisted less, in my opinion.
What should also be taken into consideration is that a 2 by 4 used to actually be 2 by 4 inches. So by decreasing the thickness from 2 inches to 1.5 your stud is obviously not going to support the same weight. All old houses have true 2 by 4s. Not to mention that brick masonry houses are essentially extinct in North America in the 21st century. Double or triple brick houses utilized the brick as the structural component that actually supported the joists from both ends and the framing on load bearing walls supported them in the middle.
The majority of new homes are not built to last (at least in North America). They're built just scraping the bar of building code standards as quickly and cheaply as possible. There really isn't even an argument here lol
@@JOIHIINI Yes, I agree, no argument.. I assume you must be seeing houses falling in on themselves all the time. Myself, I do renovations on all ages of houses and don’t see that at all. Probably I’m just in a better area.
A lot of things were incredibly under framed back then. Rafters were chopped out with a hatchet and held in place with 24d spikes None of it would meet current seismic or hurricane codes.
@@jimurrata6785 But that is my point. Those 2x4's were so strong they lasted almost 75 year under some insane wind storms and even an earthquake in 2002. Due to all the crappy wood we use now, they have to over engineer the sizes and use tie downs, etc.
@@DesignRhythm Coming from the trades I'm going to say it's not only 2nd &3rd growth timber but contemporary society's aversion to risk and assumption/expectation of safety. Stuff is not overbuilt, but engineered to a minimum. We had rules of thumb for spans, carrying capacity, nailing schedules, whatever. But we also -knew- thought that the house we built _today_ was going to be replaced in the event of catastrophe. Nobody in their right mind expected that a structure would survive a tornado, 6+ earthquake, etc.. 15' 2x4 rafters might work in some climates and also know the roof deck was T&G 1x8, not 1/2" OSB.... Today you have tension ties from the foundation to the rafters and coded insulation requirements that necessitate minimum 2x6 exterior walls and 10-12" rafters. Energy mandates are pushing past structural requirements in current wood frame buildings.
In e.g. France,the pine they use for external window shutters is/should be of a much higher grade-different species,slow-grown from a colder climate for strength(security) and durability.@@TheEngineeringHub
Dont think that matter much for indoor use the would shouldnt get wet anyway and for outdoor use way better treatment products and building technics like concrete foundations with metal ankers.
We had a roof problem in 2010/11 that required firring up a bunch of roof joists that had no fall for the habitable deck, to have a 1/4 in 12 fall with 22 foot long joists cut diagonally. When I had the solution engineered the engineer said that the added lumber 6” tall tapering to zero at the other end did not add strength to the existing joists, only weight and he could not get it to calc as safe given the span. Then he added, I can’t get it to calc out even without the added firring!. That scared me. I asked him to run the numbers again. He called back about 4 hours later and said he looked up specs for joist spans from 1981, when the building was built, and it calced out fine with lumber that old. So a roof that was safe to build in 1981 would not be safe to build today with modern lumber. Sheesh.
I've been doing a little building with some salvaged lumber, a mix of stuff that judging by the nails used and the overall size of the boards, ranges from around the 1910s to the 1970s. The difference is immediately noticeable when picking up the boards, just the weight alone. It is also notable that driving a modern nail through old boards is actually significantly more difficult, the wood is a lot harder.
I'm not directly involved, but my Dad has been a GC for 40 years in central Canada. He remembers the project he decided to swap to new growth from old, and he often doubles studs for compensation, and still comes out ahead. Overall he says that it's better for the OG forests, so he's willing to do it, even if it would result in a bit less of a profit, and the strength hit isn't as bad as he expected.
In my personal experience, old lumber tends to hold nails much better than new lumber. One hand nail seemed to hold as well or better than two soft nail gun nails. Tearing old builds apart can be harder than modern builds if you don’t just smash it all
Old-growth wood is also harder to mount screws in. I suppose that's not necessarily a bad thing, but with modern lumber I can plant screws without tapping holes first. On old wood it's more than likely that the screw will snap if I do that.
In one of our old farm sheds we had a bunch of old lumber that previous generations had held on to. A lot of it has been used up for various projects in the past 20 years. It definitely appears to be noticeably denser, straighter and more resistant to bugs and moisture. Now I am not sure if there is an element of selection bias here where the old timers kept only the best wood or if the generational difference really was that huge. Perhaps a bit of both. The old stuff also seems to burn hotter.
They treated the shit outa that old wood too with some wacky chemicals. But it worked! Old wood is definitely denser/stronger. No doubt about it. That's what she said.
Having salvaged a lot of old pine floor boards, I've seen pieces that have 100+ growth rings over 3-4 inches. Super old "softwood" like heart pine can be so dense that its as hard as oak.
unlike in animals and crops, which are bred intentionally for more desired traits, lumber traits have been taken for granted as static, not least due to the fact a tree often needs decades of growth before it's suitable for harvest. through the desire for the most useful lumber, mankind has been culling the straightest and strongest trees for millennia. the best examples of the tree "breeds" are thus artificially disadvantaged. this selection pressure adds up.
I hope one day i can procure some old growth wood for my new home. I'm already planning on laying some roman cement now that the recipe hot cracked. It'll be a large home for the ages.
First, thank you for the interesting video. As someone mentioned in the comments, tree management is a great thing, we are all thankful for that. As for the quality and integrity of a structure going forward, we will adapt. Construction is a constant changing thing. People will have to take measures to stabilize the inferior lumber.
I am Structural Engineer and have been working in the construction industry in Australia for over 20 years. One thing for sure is Radiata Pine (Pine from Australia and NZ) is a lot more dense and heavier than the Pine imported from the Baltic Regions. Please note that I am referring to Pine of the same Timber Grade. The performance of Radiata Pine is second to none 👌🏼. These differences in Pine is directly related to the climate, average temperatures during the growth and drying process of the Pine. Trees.
I have 100 - 120 year old salvaged 2x4's from Chicago, not sure of the species, have some nail holes from prior installation and lath nail holes on one or both sides. - Update - looks like the building was built in 1867, so they are likely around 156 years old and almost certainly old growth.
So our current lumber pool is from the same group of species as the old growth, but the main difference is the age and growth rates of the trees? Fascinating.
my home in minneapolis was built in 1946 and i can't really drive in a nail but use deck screws.and when i did a fix on a wall outlet i found a 1946 penny the electrician left there. all the 2x4's are 2x4.
I live on a 300 year old farm in Sweden all wooden houses and barns. In my livingroom the loggwalls are completely exposed. Not corkdry, the whole house 'breathes' through the seasons. But that old growth pine is incredibly hard, very tough to drill through. Whenever old wood gets removed for a renovation or something I always salvage it in a separate dedicated barn.
I would point out the difference in the dimensions of those 2x4s … it looks to me to be about a 10% decline which would (does) seriously effect the overall strength of ANY Structural Element made of ANY Material. I’d suggest as part of the testing that some of the “Old Growth” material be shaved down to match “New Standards” and then be tested against some “Control” or Original Dimension 2x4s I’m sure that they will continue to remain stronger than similarly sized New Dimension 2x4s but they will be quite a bit weaker than the Original Dimensions.
It all depends on the grading of the timber and how strictly that grading system is applied. So long as the timber used is graded within known parameters then the structure can be engineered accordingly. It seems that in the US the grading of timber is fairly lax. Unless there is an independent authority enforcing these standards then you're gonna get so called structural timber that doesn't measure up. As Neil Young once said "You pay for this but they give you that."
The 2X3s in my interior walls (it's a 1959 brick & block house, and they are not load bearing) are definitely not old growth; they only have a few rings. But when I had an electrician in to replace the fuse box, he was complaining that they were almost impossible to cut. I've found the same thing just trying to drill through them; it's hard to avoid cooking a drill bit. Is it possible that the sapwood in modern lumber hardens enough over a few decades to make up for some of the loss of strength caused by the shorter harvest cycle of modern growers?
How much old 2x4 are you wanting, I have some 110+ years old. They were just removed during a remodel in my 113 y/o home. They are beautiful wood and will be saved for a special furniture project.
Hi fly fish! 1 board is fine, I plan to saw it in smaller samples and test each one of them. But if they are really beautiful maybe destructive testing shouldn't be their life journey 😅
@@TheEngineeringHub how big do you plan on the samples being, what sizes can I cut it down to? I’m looking at how to ship it, I’m located in south central Idaho.
Another problem with wood from the juvenile core of the tree is the angle of the microfibrils that make up the cell walls. In the more supple juvenile cells the fibrils are laid down on a bias to the axis of the stem. Later as the tree matures the MFA, microfibril angle begins to straighten up and run with the axis of the tree. When we say wood does not shrink lengthwise, mature wood does not. As the angled fibers of the juvenile wood shrink, the board loses length , or tries to. Much warp is associated with unbalanced mature/juvenile wood in the board subsequently drying and one side or face shrinking only across grain and part shrinking with the grain. When you see cross grain checking in weathered radius edge decking, look for the mature and juvenile wood both in that part of the board. When the lengthwise shrinking juvenile grain is trapped by non lengthwise shrinking mature wood, the weaker juvenile wood checks cross grain. I'm in the Blue Ridge where most of the old house framing is oak. They are ring porous hardwoods and something interesting happens with them. The old growth, tight ringed oak and similar wood contains more low density vessels per section compared to fast grown trees of the same species. When I cut a "modern" oak it is wider ringed but considerably denser wood than old growth. I try not to be trapped by which is best, the slow growth tree is weaker in that instance... or in your conifer when the ring counts get above 40/inch or so, the density goes down. With faster grown ring porous hardwoods or normal rate of growth conifers the density is higher... and generally denser wood shrinks more. But if dropped in the middle of nowhere and knowing nothing more, all else being equal use the heavy stick where you need strength. Density, percentage of latewood, is more important than ring counts for strength.
Very interesting! Here in the UK, until maybe 15 or so years ago it used to be possible to buy rough-sawn softwood at a timber yard that actually measured 4” x 2”. But this was usually lower-grade stuff (called carcassing timber) and significantly cheaper than a PAR 4” x 2” that had been prepared (Planed All Round) and was thus noticeably smaller. But usually of better quality. But now it’s only possible to buy them PAR at the higher prices, and they measure 1¾” x 3¾” and have rounded corners too. But I would only ever buy them from a proper timber yard rather than a big DIY store, where the quality is invariably dreadful…
I believe the graphic at 1:30 is inaccurate, as trees don't form the new growth at the center of the trunk, but rather at the periphery. The rings closest to the center are actually the oldest/they were formed when the tree was the youngest. The outermost ring is the newest, most recent growth.
That is correct, the rings at the pith are the oldest. So, each spring/summer, a new ring is added to the outside (periphery). What the graph at 1:30 is showing is that an old growth tree would have that many growth rings compared to a new-growth that is of much smaller diameter. But I see that the labeling makes it confusing and appears as if the outside is the older part.
Hi All I have an Oregon post that I recovered from a job it measures 3.5x 2.5 inches approx across and has about 200 growth rings, the rings are that close together it’s almost impossible to count them.
One thing i would correct is older standard was 16 inch stud spacing while the 24 inch stud spacing is from the 1980s on called value engineering. Ps at 24 inch stud spacing you can build walls double the nominal width ie 2x4 =8 foot wall 2x6 12 foot walls 2x8= 16 foot walls between floors in platform framing
I'm an old timberframerand done my share old salvage and milling. Today's lumber is trash but it's all most have access to. Most modern homes IMHO are not built to last anyway. Disposable like most things in our society. I use rough cut larch and pine almost exclusively. Air dried for the most part and save salvaged 2x4s for replacement parts in remodeling. My home is built in the new "smart framing" style that I did 20 years before I first heard the term in Fine Home Building magazine. SPF common everywhere can be ok except you'll have to go through 100 sticks to find 10 usable , imo. I recommend buying pt and stickering for a year or two. It won't be dry enough for interior but close.
Thank you so much for sharing Timothy! The research seems to agree with your opinion about today's lumber. Luckily, modern gadgets like steel brackets, gussets, screews, hangers, etc, make up to some extent for some of the loss in wood quality.
@@TheEngineeringHub Yes there have been a lot of great do-dads invented lately. If one knows how to grade and sort their lumber you can get by with what's availble. This seems to be lacking in builder ed to some extent.
The lumber cut for the 1927 example was from a time when the Earth was colder. The new example was from an era that is warmer. Look at the wood used to make Stradivarius violins. Same tree ring composition.
A while back, I scored 980 board foot of old walnut that was from 1970s and it was free. Was in a barn, off the ground on ties and covered and non damp. But to your point, yes I think it’s not as good now.
I live in a county where there are many 80 year old single wall homes that once in a blue moon face 200mph wind situations and earthquakes of decent magnitude. Always thought the older carpenters must be doing something better to make homes that seem soo weak by current codes to stand up to such extreme adversity. I often pull out 80 year old cast iron tubs whose finish is dulled but barely a sheen of rust on the underside. After your wood video, I wonder if the older things were all superior just from the materials themselves?
The lumber industry has been ruining its own supply with unsustainable practices for well on hundreds of years now. Twentieth century consumerism just accelerated that, but the problem's been growing for a long time.
Might be okay for houses but if you want to build an airplane or boat you want dense wood. Once you get past 20 rings per inch in old growth wood it starts becoming brash/ brittle. So shock and toughness applications suffer. I have a few videos on testing aircraft quality wood for strength here in you tube if you look for them.
looks like its suffering from shrinkflation along with everything else. They just need to leave the plantations alone for longer. The current reduction in housing starts seems like a good time to start.
In early 1990's, I could buy oak molding for 10% more then pine molding. But the difference rapidly increased. And I could still buy hardwood flooring. Today, you cannot find the hardwood flooring, and it's much much more expensive. So, this transition to fairly much factory tree farming, has been going on at least for more then 30 years. And a hickory tree, worth perhaps $800 at one time, was stolen. Someone came in, took it down. Tree theft is real, because real money was standing there. So, even if you are waiting to harvest, someone somewhere, is looking at the dollar signs of that tree standing there, and valuable trees get stolen. (someone comes on your property, and cuts the tree down, then hauls out the logs). If they are really good, they even take the large branches for firewood.
OK, the growth in linear millimeters of diameter goes down, but if you consider the pure cubic volume of wood gained by year, does that go down that drastically as well? And if the growth is denser, if you consider the net weight gained by year, does it still drop off drastically? I wonder if someone's already done the measurement and calculations on this... I mean, you _could_ possibly sell the old growth for more per board meter/cubic meter and thus even gain more money per year if you let the trees grow longer before you cut them down.
That's a great point! The surface area of an older tree is for sure larger, so an old tree might be producing more volume per year than a young tree. Good research question, I am sure many have looked into it and optimized the perfect harvest age that maximizes profit.
@@TheEngineeringHubRegarding the lifetime profit, yes... that's true, and sadly an issue of our world as well in many aspects. You'd want to have enough forest that you can cut different part of it down every ~20 years or so and still have the forest ~100 years old when it's cut down and still profit. But that doesn't really happen :(
Supposing you could do that, you're still talking time value of money. So if you let the tree grow twice as long and it becomes twice as (inflation-adjusted) valuable, you still lose the opportunity cost/interest value for the difference, AND, because we're talking decades, it will be a later generation realizing the gains AND you assume N addional years of risks like fire, parasites, wind damage AND tbe additional expense of harvesting a longer, heavier tree. Probably well worth it for fine hardwoods, but for pine and the like, you probably need a superlinear premium to grow longer and stronger. And then, can you still beat engineered lumber? Today's technology can give structural products out of what was once only good for paper pulp. I will say that, had I 80 acres in good tree growing country in my twenties, I would seriously consider fostering mature tree growth over 3/4 of the land and trying to grow any needed crops, and live, on the remainder. An additional 40 years of growth might furnish a nice retirement.
I am more glad the price of lumbers is very cheap under the current system (except for the beginning of pandemic), so i can start shed or play house or whatever anytime without needing to save money for months if not longer for the materials.
Sawdust was a component of TNT through the 60s and acts to absorb nitroglycerin and allows it to be formed into sticks. Cheaper to obtain than Diatomaceous I guess. In the 60s thousands of rail cars carried the roots of cut trees to factories making dynamite.
I guess the faster growth was caused by thinning. Generally you plant more trees than will reach the maturity. Some will die of competition, insect or other natural causes, later on you can use different thinning techniques to further enhance the wood quality and volume.
Im a arborist so i dont have access to 2x4s but i do have access to alot of old trees we either cut down or trim, i take some to my brothers brother in law and he mills them or makes cool furniture so if u ever wanna do some milling experiments with old wood or something let me know or get into contact with a arborist near you
Softwoods are stronger with stronger larger gaps in growth rings. The Lumber Industry update just did a great Podcast on pine. You can get a lot of information from Shannon.
Didn't know today's lumber was all planted in the 80's. Figured trees would have been engineered to grow faster by now. On the other paw, there is far less construction now than 100 years ago.
The old.. if you have to ask, what do you think the answer is. 100% it’s weaker when you’re forcing growth with fertilizers vs waiting longer for the same tree unfertilized to get to size.
My 1925 house is built of old-growth LOBLOLLY PINE the STRONGEST structural wood according to the American Lumber Grading Society when dried. Seven to TEN TIMES stronger than Douglas fir, which hardly anything is made of Douglas fir framing today. Termites CAN''T eat seasoned loblolly. "Investors" want to buy mine and other old houses around me to tear down FOR THE LUMBER! I've had my front porch recently enclosed, and the contractor had to use HILTI explosive fasteners to drive into to 1925 studs!!! I used Hilti's to drive fasteners into 7500 PSI concrete I poured for a foundation when I made my Model A sized garage big enough for a modern pick-up 25 years ago. There's a sawmill east of town that sells loblolly pine. For Full 2"x 4" x12 foot-$53.98 EACH!!! Air-dried and aged 5-7 years. $5000 even for bundles of 100 FOB their yard.
Lumber is not and will never be as strong as it once was. I've framed for the last 25 years and have noticed the difference in that short amount of time. The lumber today may be sustainable but it takes 2-3 times as much to be as strong as lumber from days gone by. Did a remodel on a home from the 30's everything had to either be screwed or predrilled because it was so hard and tight grained. Something else I've noticed is the amount of sap wood used today that would have never been used structurally. It would have been used for blocking or lathing or firewood. Today's lumber is cut from junk trees at a premium price and home quality suffers because of it. That's why we have homes with all these straps and bolts collapse when homes built out of real wood ( Pensacola) have been around for well over a hundred years and taken direct hits from hurricanes , sitting on block piers, no straps or bolts, and stand firm.
Old groth trees without human interference grew closer to each other and had less light available. Nowadays the stands are thinned periodically to open up the canopy and allow more light in.
Not just weaker, but getting thinner, too. I've been finding 1x stock that's now only 5/8" instead of the usual 3/4", which is no big deal for strapping and such, but how long until they're sneaking in 2x lumber that's only 1-1/4 thick and all the span tables have to be thrown out the window? And why? So some shareholders can sit on their fat lazy asses and "earn" an extra 1/4 cent on each stick sold. 🙄
I'm sure communist scarcity of anything and everything is so much better. I'm also sure that you lived under Communism to know about that from experience. Right?
2" x 4" framing forms a skeleton only. All that matters is compression strength of this skeleton. Current structural panels are more than capable of creating axial strength when correctly attached to this skeleton. "Strength" of individual 2 x 4s is mostly irrelevant. Solid core & proper curing to maintain straightness is the primary concern.
@iridium8341 really. He's correct. Concentrated point loads in compression are a very small percentage of what king studs in a light framed construction house actually accomplish. Most share a relatively a negligible load from roof and floor, and hold drywall. If a point load is high enough to make mention on a blueprint (girder, floor header etc) it will just call out a certain number of kings studs or jacks. There are different load capacities for different varieties of soft woods. So, in the case of a weaker strain (modern day SPF) the chart may just call out for one or more extra nailed to the side. Framing these days is more concerned with sheer forces, as that is the most destructive failure type imo. The compression stuff is easily overkilled, and is a non issue. Cheers Edit: I should add that the sheer strength typically comes from a wood structural panel such as osb, and it's rigid attachment to the studs. Then the attachment of the panel itself to the foundation.
When 2x4's _started_ 3 storie buildings were ballon framed and sheathed with 1x8 t&g. Density and natural resistance to shrinkage that came from old growth was crucial to a building's stability. Now, with shear panel products made from what would have been mill waste and nailing schedules only achievable from magazine fed guns we have platform framing with much smaller modules. It's a new paradigm. You're comparing apples to oranges.
@@mattmag3089Thank you. As a custom builder I was waiting for someone to make these very points. Right from the beginning I was thinking to myself that most loads are in compression and negligible. Someone here actually tried to compare engineered lumber with particle board furniture.
Yes. Companies are Greedy. I seen a cardboard product used for sheeting now... Where's the bracing that old plyboard provides? New home buyers, beware. Check on the job site. Research materials before they build you a lemon.
Very interesting. I'm of split trains of thought regarding that 5 year fast growth span... is it something that happens when a tree gets that old, or did something happen in the 1950s?...
@@jimurrata6785 The trees are not GMOs lmao you idiot, you *do* realize that you can look up which species have been genetically modified on Google, right? I'll give you a hint: it's mostly commodity crops. Very few fruits/vegetables, very few animals of any kind. No trees.
All trees will exhibit the same traits. The difference is that we used to clear cut large swaths of old growth timber much more often. These days, instead of permanently destroying thousands of years of growth that we'll never get back, we've moved to tree farms, which are harvested much younger compared to the hundreds of years old wood we used to work with. That's the only real difference, the type of timber harvested.
Seeing the title I expected a video on climate change and how the increased CO2 levels affect the faster growth. I guess it explained all other things I did not think of and made the thing I did think of a question for us to guess ;)
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m a contractor in the American Midwest. In the beginning of my career, I did a lot of interior demolition, and we would always take the time to save framing lumber harvested in the 1970ies and before, as it was invariably straighter and stronger than contemporary lumber of the same dimensions.
Building codes changed over time to make up for the reduced load-bearing capacity of lumber harvested more recently. But as a side note, many framing innovations- hardware, fasteners, engineered lumber, to name just a few- also mean that houses built to code today are often stronger than older homes were, and more resistant to environmental damage, even if the individual pieces of lumber are weaker.
This. We’ve transitioned away from any one point of failure, be it material or structural, with each architectural generation.
That's so true and a very good point! It shows how we can go past the biological limitations with technological ingenuity!
Saved me from watching the misleading title, that's
'engineered wood' lol, yeah like the kind of cheap quality furniture and bed frames from IKEA and Amazon, et al. made with wood chips and glue but not a solid piece of lumber.
Lol no 50 year old stud gonna be straight
The silver lining of today's weaker lumber is that it is endlessly sustainable. Almost all lumber today comes from planted trees and will never run out. The stronger lumber from the past was cut from old growth clearcutting that decimated ancient forests.
Decimated only means reduced by 10%, during WWII alone the UK and USA cut down 40% of their forests to make munitions
@@janeblogs324this makes no sense, the only wood required in munitions is the shipping crates and boxes
@@kiwihunter3476 nitrogen to make explosives.
@janeblogs324 nitrogen has been synthetically manufactured since before ww1 using natural gas, coal etc before we could do that, it was bones and excrement.
@@kiwihunter3476 they used wood to make the gun powder. "In 1863, Prussian artillery captain Johann F. E. Schultze patented a small-arms propellant of nitrated hardwood impregnated with saltpeter or barium nitrate."
The thing is, originally lumber was simply cut from old growth forests that already existed. Environmental considerations led to the current system where old growth forests are left alone and new trees are grown for the purpose of harvesting. There is a trade-off in having less dense wood for building but it is a compromise probably worthwhile.
Lower density in itself can be better. You're more thinking of the lower strength that comes with the lower density.
What I'm really curious about is if the lower strength and lower weight actually means that it would be smarter to increase the standard size of a 2x4 from 1.5x3.5 back to 2x4. Another commenter who was a contractor said that it took less time to build with the older wood because you didn't need as much.
In college they warned us to always keep our tables for wood products up to date, and showed us that the tables from the past and present were already noticeably different.
PNW remodeler, here, the old lumber is not only stronger and much heavier, but, I believe, also more rot resistant.
I read in a timber framing book that the old millers would soak harvested logs in salt marshes for a few years before milling, in order to slow drying and produce more stable wood.
Would love to see your results on decay as well…
Doug fir is some amazing stuff. It's such an awesome tree to see covering the landscape too
I have a friend who’s building a water wheel for a mill restoration. To stabilize the wood he’s soaking the lumber for two weeks drying and repeating multiple times. Apparently this results in very stable lumber even under those condo
I don't know about salt water but everyones heard of "the mill pond". They didn't do it just for conveniance. My guess is they used what they had. Salt or fresh water.
I first heard about the salt marshes during a 5th grade field trip to one of the historical houses in Concord, MA. The guide pointed out the main room and its flat floor, saying that when the family built it, they had the time to soak the wood for 2 years. Then, he pointed to the badly warped floor in the addition, and explained that it hadn't been soaked. Maybe the kiln drying and better isolation from the ground used in modern construction makes the soaking less necessary, but it's interesting that it made such a difference.
@@pcno2832 Logging and transport of timber was almost entirely by water in the spring when huge floats of timber moved to the mills and railheads. When you got all your timber for the entire year in a couple days the easiest way to store and keep fresh was in the pond. The old timers were smart and it must've made a great difference. Some of the old growth was so dense it sank out of the rafts. That's why the bottoms of the rivers are littered with old logs.
We demolished an old barn on our property and saved all the lumber. When using the lumber we found it was MUCH more difficult to drive nails through it! Not only was the size true, the hardness of the lumber was substantially harder than the "balsa like" crap now available.
Been building for 49 years now, the growth rings keep getting younger and younger. And friend recycled lumber from an old church, I remember that the 2x6’s had anywhere from 40to 70 years of very tight growth rings! And were pine.
You don't realize it until you touch old growth 2x4s but they are absolute beasts. They are so dense. I have a 150 year old house and we have some old wood we removed from a wall, and will be donating to heritage builders, but I cur some of them and re-used them where I could, and cutting them was a significant difference experience. Even just the reduced splitting, they cut perfectly flat on the ends. I'm no lumber expert, just a DIYer, but even I could tell these older pieces were excellent quality compared to newer wood. Straighter too. Agreed though that newer wood is far more sustainable.
Please stop with sustainable nonsense. The new boards will crumble sooner and require another repair. And so on on and on.
@@elim7228You have no idea what you’re talking about. No wood, old or new just crumbles. If kept dry and free of termites any wood can last for hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years.
@@elim7228 Even if it did, it would still be more effective long term. Better to repair every 40 years than to lose forests that require literal millennia to grow into their natural state. Already, there's nearly no place on the planet where you'll see a true old growth forest that looks the way forests would have 2000 years ago.
Here in New Zealand, framing timber is, almost exclusively, plantation grown Pinus Radiata, originally sourced from California. It seems to grow particularly well in our climate and provides a rotation time of 30 years or less. That short rotation time is probably one of the biggest drivers of it's use because it's other qualities are not so great. It requires kiln drying to stabilise it and chemical treatment to avoid premature decay and insect damage. Pruning is also required up to around 10 years of age to get any timber without large knots. There is also a programme of selective breeding and cloning to produce faster growing and straighter trees. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in density and is often scathingly referred to as balsa wood. Old growth forests here are only remnants of what was once an 80% cover. Beginning with the first big wave of European colonization in the mid-1800s, deforestation was extremely rapid - probably the fastest in the World - with the wholesale burning to provide farmland. Clean green New Zealand, anyone? Split logs of the Totara tree would last up to a hundred years as a post in the ground and the timber was used extensively for exterior joinery. A piece of untreated Radiata lying on damp ground will turn to mush in two of three years
I salvaged some lumber from a mansion that was torn down that was built in 1915 quality of the Douglas fir lumber was just fantastic 20 ft long full dimension 2x4 that were still straight as an arrow with no knots very tight growth rings. I used it to build furniture Really beautiful wood to work with
Good video on an interesting subject. Hello from British Columbia. As someone in the comments below has already mentioned, plantation forests in the southern hemisphere have been successfully growing radiata pine. In the southern USA, Southern Yellow Pine seems to be the most common plantation species. In BC, the vast majority of 2x4 construction lumber comes from SPF, spruce/pine/fir - consisting of mostly Engelmann Spruce, Lodgepole Pine, Douglas Fir - mixed with that some of similar SPF species. There is also a section of this market that sells a Fir/Larch mix. These species and lumber products come from the interior areas of BC (and USA) between the coast mountains and the Rocky Mountains. Unfortunately, 20 years ago, this area was hit by a Pine Beetle infestation that killed almost all the pine forests in the province. This was a huge loss of volume, due mostly to warmer winters, that naturally kept the beetle population at bay.
The big old growth Western hemlock tree used in your example would have come from a coastal forest ranging from Alaska to Oregon. These large trees are/were not normally used for 2x4 as there is a high volume of defect free clear fibre. This species was commonly used for window, door and ladder stock. Japan uses this wood for 90x90 and 105x105 “baby squares” as sill plates in the traditional wood frame construction. The higher quality vertical grain lumber is also sliced into veneers and used as overlays in Japan and other markets. Similarly, coastal Douglas Fir, Cedar and Sitka Spruce were used in products where their large sizes yield clear lumber. That being said, the old growth Douglas Fir from BC, WA, OR and CA was used extensively in housing construction in the 20th century. The quality of the wood is stunning - hardness and strength.
It’s true that the forest industry is changing to smaller logs coming from second growth trees. This is such a huge subject to take on in a comment… :-)
In your studies, please be sure to include all the different stresses on a 2x4, and how the faster growing wood is affected. I will have a look and if I find some information I will pass it along.
FYI - I am in the BC forest/lumber industry for over 35 years and this subject is very dear to me. I’m about to start a new series of videos discussing such topics, focusing on cedar shingles and shakes, to start… I’m a new subscriber. Well done. Cheers.
Hi fellow Canadian! Your in-depth comment is very welcomed and appreciated. It's clear that you have vast knowledge in this subject. I will check out your channel! I come from a structural engineering background although now I am working in academia hence my research based approach. I lived in Williams Lake and Prince George for a combined of 10 years (living in Denmark now for the last 4 years). I worked as a laborer at a West Fraser mill throughout highschool and university and later as a structural engineer in the forestry sector. BC and its forests are so stunning, an absolute gem of a province. But it's sad to see how in recent years some of the northern communities (and their mills) have declined. The pine beetle + the major forest fires in recent years do not make it any easier for the forest industry. I hope things will turn around. Cheers
@woodroofguy fascinating comment! i just subscribed to your channel, looking forward to these new videos
@herzogsbuick wow, thank you for the compliment and motivation to keep sharing! Just putting that last coat of paint on my new video studio today. And thank you for your subscription!
Yeah, now you got 2 more subs so you gotta start cranking em out 😊
@@visualsynthesis heyyy I also subbed. Make that 3 😬
I recently did a remod of a century structure. We fought hard to break the framing members free while the heads pulled clean through any new plantation lumber we nailed to it while demo'ing. Night & day. I have some samples I can send you.
Now this is what I call HIGH QUALITY CONTENT! This is how stuff should be taught and explained.
I am an electrical engineer and I love videos about civil and mechanical engineering. I want to say that your videos are really good quality and this is hard to find on youtube these days. Could you share some of your process about how you research your videos? maybe a video about this topic. Thanks
Driving a 3 1/2" nail into modern lumber would usually take me 2 to 3 strikes with a framing hammer. In old growth lumber it takes 6 good solid strikes. If you hit the nail sloppy it will bend much more readily in old growth lumber too, and it holds like crazy.
sometimes you even have to lubricate the nail with spit to get it to hammer into the old growth.
older nails are better too and less likely to split wood.
@@zombieblaster5754 hit the tip to dull the nail it won't split the board.
It's possible the increased growth in the plantation logs was due to the plantation having been thinned just before that spurt in growth rate. Increased rainfall in those years, or vegetation management could also contribute to that.
My exact thoughts.
I salvaged some old growth pine from my Grandparent’s 100 plus year old home. Old pine is amazing! It’s so hard and very heavy. Today’s pine lumber doesn’t compare. Old growth is more like oak wood than pine. And it has a wonderful aroma. I’m going to repurpose my stack of old pine lumber to make furniture. Wish I had more of it.
I didn't know how interesting 2by4s history could be, but here I am really enjoying this video lol, keep it up man!
Started in carpentry 45 years ago.
Lumber is crap now.
LVL is about equivalent to Select Structural of long past days.
Back then we would sort absolutely clear vertical grain studs and joists from fresh units.
Thank you for the comment, Jim. It's always great to hear from someone who has lived and actively worked through a big chunk of the history of dimensional lumber!
@@TheEngineeringHub Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad we're not back in the late '70's, decimating the last stands of old growth fir and redwood.
You would need a pin and magnifying glass to count rings in some of that.
Imagine painted facia or even (gasp!) rot resistant mudsills cut from trees 1,000+ years old with at least 50 rings per inch (0.5mm)
But the spongy stuff we have today, with boxed heart, wane 3/4" or more and loose knots the size of a tennis ball is just not a quality building material.
Do you have a post office box or some other delivery address? I don't see anything in the video description,.
@jimurrata6785 Yeah, rot resistance is a huge point!! I didn't include that into the video, but it's just as important, if not more important than the strength. If you provide an email, I will reach out to you, or you can send one at: theengineeringhub2019@gmail.com. We can have a talk, I'll provide a shipping address, you can share your experience, and I will include (if you'd like) a 15-30 sec section of our talk in the next video. Cheers
@@TheEngineeringHub I've seen CCA come and go. Now we have ACQ but it eats even hot dip fasteners.
Stainless sill bolts, straps and hardware are stupidly expensive.
Redwood sills and facia are a moot point today but were written into the AIA specs back then.
Another reason for 24" stud spacing in older homes is the use of lath and plaster which adds strength and stability.
Studs with narrow growth rings shrunk and twisted less, in my opinion.
Yup, juvenile wood i.e. the new-growth boards are much more prone to warping
What should also be taken into consideration is that a 2 by 4 used to actually be 2 by 4 inches. So by decreasing the thickness from 2 inches to 1.5 your stud is obviously not going to support the same weight. All old houses have true 2 by 4s. Not to mention that brick masonry houses are essentially extinct in North America in the 21st century. Double or triple brick houses utilized the brick as the structural component that actually supported the joists from both ends and the framing on load bearing walls supported them in the middle.
@@JOIHIINIAnd yet, modern houses don’t fall in on themselves under weight.
The majority of new homes are not built to last (at least in North America). They're built just scraping the bar of building code standards as quickly and cheaply as possible. There really isn't even an argument here lol
@@JOIHIINI Yes, I agree, no argument.. I assume you must be seeing houses falling in on themselves all the time. Myself, I do renovations on all ages of houses and don’t see that at all. Probably I’m just in a better area.
Absolutely. We demo'd a house from 1949 in Seattle which had 2x4 roof joists spanning 15ft!
Yeah, there is no way that would be a 2 by 4 today. At least a 2 by 6 or larger, I would say.
A lot of things were incredibly under framed back then.
Rafters were chopped out with a hatchet and held in place with 24d spikes
None of it would meet current seismic or hurricane codes.
@@jimurrata6785 But that is my point. Those 2x4's were so strong they lasted almost 75 year under some insane wind storms and even an earthquake in 2002. Due to all the crappy wood we use now, they have to over engineer the sizes and use tie downs, etc.
@@TheEngineeringHub Yep, that is what I am saying, they were incredibly strong and still in great shape.
@@DesignRhythm Coming from the trades I'm going to say it's not only 2nd &3rd growth timber but contemporary society's aversion to risk and assumption/expectation of safety.
Stuff is not overbuilt, but engineered to a minimum.
We had rules of thumb for spans, carrying capacity, nailing schedules, whatever.
But we also -knew- thought that the house we built _today_ was going to be replaced in the event of catastrophe.
Nobody in their right mind expected that a structure would survive a tornado, 6+ earthquake, etc..
15' 2x4 rafters might work in some climates and also know the roof deck was T&G 1x8, not 1/2" OSB....
Today you have tension ties from the foundation to the rafters and coded insulation requirements that necessitate minimum 2x6 exterior walls and 10-12" rafters.
Energy mandates are pushing past structural requirements in current wood frame buildings.
The much more porous nature of the modern timber will also greatly reduce longevity due to being significantly more vulnerable to fungal attack.
Great point! Also a very important piece of information that did not make it into the video. Thanks for the comment!
In e.g. France,the pine they use for external window shutters is/should be of a much higher grade-different species,slow-grown from a colder climate for strength(security) and durability.@@TheEngineeringHub
Dont think that matter much for indoor use the would shouldnt get wet anyway and for outdoor use way better treatment products and building technics like concrete foundations with metal ankers.
We had a roof problem in 2010/11 that required firring up a bunch of roof joists that had no fall for the habitable deck, to have a 1/4 in 12 fall with 22 foot long joists cut diagonally. When I had the solution engineered the engineer said that the added lumber 6” tall tapering to zero at the other end did not add strength to the existing joists, only weight and he could not get it to calc as safe given the span. Then he added, I can’t get it to calc out even without the added firring!. That scared me. I asked him to run the numbers again. He called back about 4 hours later and said he looked up specs for joist spans from 1981, when the building was built, and it calced out fine with lumber that old. So a roof that was safe to build in 1981 would not be safe to build today with modern lumber. Sheesh.
Great follow up video! Appreciate you doing that research and presenting it to us
My pleasure!
I've been doing a little building with some salvaged lumber, a mix of stuff that judging by the nails used and the overall size of the boards, ranges from around the 1910s to the 1970s. The difference is immediately noticeable when picking up the boards, just the weight alone. It is also notable that driving a modern nail through old boards is actually significantly more difficult, the wood is a lot harder.
I'm not directly involved, but my Dad has been a GC for 40 years in central Canada. He remembers the project he decided to swap to new growth from old, and he often doubles studs for compensation, and still comes out ahead. Overall he says that it's better for the OG forests, so he's willing to do it, even if it would result in a bit less of a profit, and the strength hit isn't as bad as he expected.
In my personal experience, old lumber tends to hold nails much better than new lumber. One hand nail seemed to hold as well or better than two soft nail gun nails. Tearing old builds apart can be harder than modern builds if you don’t just smash it all
Old-growth wood is also harder to mount screws in. I suppose that's not necessarily a bad thing, but with modern lumber I can plant screws without tapping holes first. On old wood it's more than likely that the screw will snap if I do that.
It's great to come across an old house tear down and recover the old wood. The quality doesn't compare.
In one of our old farm sheds we had a bunch of old lumber that previous generations had held on to. A lot of it has been used up for various projects in the past 20 years. It definitely appears to be noticeably denser, straighter and more resistant to bugs and moisture. Now I am not sure if there is an element of selection bias here where the old timers kept only the best wood or if the generational difference really was that huge. Perhaps a bit of both. The old stuff also seems to burn hotter.
They treated the shit outa that old wood too with some wacky chemicals. But it worked! Old wood is definitely denser/stronger. No doubt about it. That's what she said.
Having salvaged a lot of old pine floor boards, I've seen pieces that have 100+ growth rings over 3-4 inches. Super old "softwood" like heart pine can be so dense that its as hard as oak.
unlike in animals and crops, which are bred intentionally for more desired traits, lumber traits have been taken for granted as static, not least due to the fact a tree often needs decades of growth before it's suitable for harvest. through the desire for the most useful lumber, mankind has been culling the straightest and strongest trees for millennia. the best examples of the tree "breeds" are thus artificially disadvantaged. this selection pressure adds up.
I hope one day i can procure some old growth wood for my new home. I'm already planning on laying some roman cement now that the recipe hot cracked. It'll be a large home for the ages.
First, thank you for the interesting video. As someone mentioned in the comments, tree management is a great thing, we are all thankful for that. As for the quality and integrity of a structure going forward, we will adapt. Construction is a constant changing thing. People will have to take measures to stabilize the inferior lumber.
I am Structural Engineer and have been working in the construction industry in Australia for over 20 years. One thing for sure is Radiata Pine (Pine from Australia and NZ) is a lot more dense and heavier than the Pine imported from the Baltic Regions. Please note that I am referring to Pine of the same Timber Grade. The performance of Radiata Pine is second to none 👌🏼. These differences in Pine is directly related to the climate, average temperatures during the growth and drying process of the Pine. Trees.
Liked and subscribed. I love videos like this. So much effort put into this.
Thank you raddad 🙏
I'm glad there's actual research to back up what I've always felt to be true 👍
I have 100 - 120 year old salvaged 2x4's from Chicago, not sure of the species, have some nail holes from prior installation and lath nail holes on one or both sides. - Update - looks like the building was built in 1867, so they are likely around 156 years old and almost certainly old growth.
So our current lumber pool is from the same group of species as the old growth, but the main difference is the age and growth rates of the trees? Fascinating.
my home in minneapolis was built in 1946 and i can't really drive in a nail but use deck screws.and when i did a fix on a wall outlet i found a 1946 penny the electrician left there.
all the 2x4's are 2x4.
I live on a 300 year old farm in Sweden all wooden houses and barns. In my livingroom the loggwalls are completely exposed. Not corkdry, the whole house 'breathes' through the seasons. But that old growth pine is incredibly hard, very tough to drill through. Whenever old wood gets removed for a renovation or something I always salvage it in a separate dedicated barn.
I would point out the difference in the dimensions of those 2x4s … it looks to me to be about a 10% decline which would (does) seriously effect the overall strength of ANY Structural Element made of ANY Material.
I’d suggest as part of the testing that some of the “Old Growth” material be shaved down to match “New Standards” and then be tested against some “Control” or Original Dimension 2x4s
I’m sure that they will continue to remain stronger than similarly sized New Dimension 2x4s but they will be quite a bit weaker than the Original Dimensions.
Most of the extant Victorian to 1918 houses in the San Francisco Bay area use old growth dimensional lumber on 16" spacing.
It all depends on the grading of the timber and how strictly that grading system is applied. So long as the timber used is graded within known parameters then the structure can be engineered accordingly. It seems that in the US the grading of timber is fairly lax. Unless there is an independent authority enforcing these standards then you're gonna get so called structural timber that doesn't measure up.
As Neil Young once said "You pay for this but they give you that."
Renovated my home built in 1916 when 2x4's were 2x4. Framing was 24" on center. The lumber was like rock.
It's good to hear that the academic research actually coincides with first-hand experiences. Thanks for the comment 🙏
I love your review article approach here!
The 2X3s in my interior walls (it's a 1959 brick & block house, and they are not load bearing) are definitely not old growth; they only have a few rings. But when I had an electrician in to replace the fuse box, he was complaining that they were almost impossible to cut. I've found the same thing just trying to drill through them; it's hard to avoid cooking a drill bit. Is it possible that the sapwood in modern lumber hardens enough over a few decades to make up for some of the loss of strength caused by the shorter harvest cycle of modern growers?
This channel is awesome.
Nice work! great channel!
How much old 2x4 are you wanting, I have some 110+ years old. They were just removed during a remodel in my 113 y/o home. They are beautiful wood and will be saved for a special furniture project.
Hi fly fish! 1 board is fine, I plan to saw it in smaller samples and test each one of them. But if they are really beautiful maybe destructive testing shouldn't be their life journey 😅
@@TheEngineeringHub how big do you plan on the samples being, what sizes can I cut it down to? I’m looking at how to ship it, I’m located in south central Idaho.
Another problem with wood from the juvenile core of the tree is the angle of the microfibrils that make up the cell walls. In the more supple juvenile cells the fibrils are laid down on a bias to the axis of the stem. Later as the tree matures the MFA, microfibril angle begins to straighten up and run with the axis of the tree. When we say wood does not shrink lengthwise, mature wood does not. As the angled fibers of the juvenile wood shrink, the board loses length , or tries to. Much warp is associated with unbalanced mature/juvenile wood in the board subsequently drying and one side or face shrinking only across grain and part shrinking with the grain. When you see cross grain checking in weathered radius edge decking, look for the mature and juvenile wood both in that part of the board. When the lengthwise shrinking juvenile grain is trapped by non lengthwise shrinking mature wood, the weaker juvenile wood checks cross grain.
I'm in the Blue Ridge where most of the old house framing is oak. They are ring porous hardwoods and something interesting happens with them. The old growth, tight ringed oak and similar wood contains more low density vessels per section compared to fast grown trees of the same species. When I cut a "modern" oak it is wider ringed but considerably denser wood than old growth. I try not to be trapped by which is best, the slow growth tree is weaker in that instance... or in your conifer when the ring counts get above 40/inch or so, the density goes down. With faster grown ring porous hardwoods or normal rate of growth conifers the density is higher... and generally denser wood shrinks more. But if dropped in the middle of nowhere and knowing nothing more, all else being equal use the heavy stick where you need strength. Density, percentage of latewood, is more important than ring counts for strength.
Someone using their video description for useful links. love it
Very interesting!
Here in the UK, until maybe 15 or so years ago it used to be possible to buy rough-sawn softwood at a timber yard that actually measured 4” x 2”.
But this was usually lower-grade stuff (called carcassing timber) and significantly cheaper than a PAR 4” x 2” that had been prepared (Planed All Round) and was thus noticeably smaller. But usually of better quality.
But now it’s only possible to buy them PAR at the higher prices, and they measure 1¾” x 3¾” and have rounded corners too.
But I would only ever buy them from a proper timber yard rather than a big DIY store, where the quality is invariably dreadful…
The old timers used up all the good wood for themselves and all we have left is the trash today. It's a first come first serve world.
That and now wood has become a McDonald’s fast food business
I believe the graphic at 1:30 is inaccurate, as trees don't form the new growth at the center of the trunk, but rather at the periphery. The rings closest to the center are actually the oldest/they were formed when the tree was the youngest. The outermost ring is the newest, most recent growth.
That is correct, the rings at the pith are the oldest. So, each spring/summer, a new ring is added to the outside (periphery). What the graph at 1:30 is showing is that an old growth tree would have that many growth rings compared to a new-growth that is of much smaller diameter. But I see that the labeling makes it confusing and appears as if the outside is the older part.
@@TheEngineeringHubperhaps old age growth/young age growth would be a better choice for future labeling?
@@brbr66 Agreed!
Maybe wind stress over time contribut to strength development within the the wood fiber.
Hi All
I have an Oregon post that I recovered from a job it measures 3.5x 2.5 inches approx across and has about 200 growth rings, the rings are that close together it’s almost impossible to count them.
One thing i would correct is older standard was 16 inch stud spacing while the 24 inch stud spacing is from the 1980s on called value engineering. Ps at 24 inch stud spacing you can build walls double the nominal width ie 2x4 =8 foot wall 2x6 12 foot walls 2x8= 16 foot walls between floors in platform framing
Thanks for these videos! Really entertaining, and informative.
Thanks for taking the time and writing this feedback Dwayne 🙏🙏 means a lot
I'm an old timberframerand done my share old salvage and milling. Today's lumber is trash but it's all most have access to. Most modern homes IMHO are not built to last anyway. Disposable like most things in our society. I use rough cut larch and pine almost exclusively. Air dried for the most part and save salvaged 2x4s for replacement parts in remodeling. My home is built in the new "smart framing" style that I did 20 years before I first heard the term in Fine Home Building magazine. SPF common everywhere can be ok except you'll have to go through 100 sticks to find 10 usable , imo. I recommend buying pt and stickering for a year or two. It won't be dry enough for interior but close.
Thank you so much for sharing Timothy! The research seems to agree with your opinion about today's lumber. Luckily, modern gadgets like steel brackets, gussets, screews, hangers, etc, make up to some extent for some of the loss in wood quality.
@@TheEngineeringHub Yes there have been a lot of great do-dads invented lately. If one knows how to grade and sort their lumber you can get by with what's availble. This seems to be lacking in builder ed to some extent.
The lumber cut for the 1927 example was from a time when the Earth was colder. The new example was from an era that is warmer.
Look at the wood used to make Stradivarius violins.
Same tree ring composition.
A while back, I scored 980 board foot of old walnut that was from 1970s and it was free. Was in a barn, off the ground on ties and covered and non damp. But to your point, yes I think it’s not as good now.
I live in a county where there are many 80 year old single wall homes that once in a blue moon face 200mph wind situations and earthquakes of decent magnitude. Always thought the older carpenters must be doing something better to make homes that seem soo weak by current codes to stand up to such extreme adversity. I often pull out 80 year old cast iron tubs whose finish is dulled but barely a sheen of rust on the underside. After your wood video, I wonder if the older things were all superior just from the materials themselves?
The lumber industry has been ruining its own supply with unsustainable practices for well on hundreds of years now. Twentieth century consumerism just accelerated that, but the problem's been growing for a long time.
Might be okay for houses but if you want to build an airplane or boat you want dense wood. Once you get past 20 rings per inch in old growth wood it starts becoming brash/ brittle. So shock and toughness applications suffer. I have a few videos on testing aircraft quality wood for strength here in you tube if you look for them.
looks like its suffering from shrinkflation along with everything else. They just need to leave the plantations alone for longer. The current reduction in housing starts seems like a good time to start.
In early 1990's, I could buy oak molding for 10% more then pine molding. But the difference rapidly increased. And I could still buy hardwood flooring. Today, you cannot find the hardwood flooring, and it's much much more expensive. So, this transition to fairly much factory tree farming, has been going on at least for more then 30 years. And a hickory tree, worth perhaps $800 at one time, was stolen. Someone came in, took it down. Tree theft is real, because real money was standing there. So, even if you are waiting to harvest, someone somewhere, is looking at the dollar signs of that tree standing there, and valuable trees get stolen. (someone comes on your property, and cuts the tree down, then hauls out the logs). If they are really good, they even take the large branches for firewood.
OK, the growth in linear millimeters of diameter goes down, but if you consider the pure cubic volume of wood gained by year, does that go down that drastically as well? And if the growth is denser, if you consider the net weight gained by year, does it still drop off drastically?
I wonder if someone's already done the measurement and calculations on this...
I mean, you _could_ possibly sell the old growth for more per board meter/cubic meter and thus even gain more money per year if you let the trees grow longer before you cut them down.
That's a great point! The surface area of an older tree is for sure larger, so an old tree might be producing more volume per year than a young tree. Good research question, I am sure many have looked into it and optimized the perfect harvest age that maximizes profit.
A bigger problem could be the fact that few people would want to invest into something that would not yield profits in their lifetime.
@@TheEngineeringHubRegarding the lifetime profit, yes... that's true, and sadly an issue of our world as well in many aspects. You'd want to have enough forest that you can cut different part of it down every ~20 years or so and still have the forest ~100 years old when it's cut down and still profit.
But that doesn't really happen :(
Supposing you could do that, you're still talking time value of money. So if you let the tree grow twice as long and it becomes twice as (inflation-adjusted) valuable, you still lose the opportunity cost/interest value for the difference, AND, because we're talking decades, it will be a later generation realizing the gains AND you assume N addional years of risks like fire, parasites, wind damage AND tbe additional expense of harvesting a longer, heavier tree. Probably well worth it for fine hardwoods, but for pine and the like, you probably need a superlinear premium to grow longer and stronger. And then, can you still beat engineered lumber? Today's technology can give structural products out of what was once only good for paper pulp. I will say that, had I 80 acres in good tree growing country in my twenties, I would seriously consider fostering mature tree growth over 3/4 of the land and trying to grow any needed crops, and live, on the remainder. An additional 40 years of growth might furnish a nice retirement.
Construction industry :
Timber/Lumber industry :
The Internet : “WhY aRe 2x4’s NoT aS gOoD aS tHeY uSeD tO bE??”
Haha well said, well said!
I am more glad the price of lumbers is very cheap under the current system (except for the beginning of pandemic), so i can start shed or play house or whatever anytime without needing to save money for months if not longer for the materials.
Once 3D printed homes become widespread,demand for lumber will probably drop significantly.
Sawdust was a component of TNT through the 60s and acts to absorb nitroglycerin and allows it to be formed into sticks. Cheaper to obtain than Diatomaceous I guess. In the 60s thousands of rail cars carried the roots of cut trees to factories making dynamite.
I guess the faster growth was caused by thinning. Generally you plant more trees than will reach the maturity. Some will die of competition, insect or other natural causes, later on you can use different thinning techniques to further enhance the wood quality and volume.
Doesn't matter. Lumber is strength class sorted. Engineer calculates lumber size and spacing. You do what the engineer says. No problems.
Just to note, this is for conifers. The case for hardwoods is different. Ash grown quick is stronger than slow grown
wood companies use 2x4 to stack up piles of wood onto. they always got some around, can't be expensive
Im a arborist so i dont have access to 2x4s but i do have access to alot of old trees we either cut down or trim, i take some to my brothers brother in law and he mills them or makes cool furniture so if u ever wanna do some milling experiments with old wood or something let me know or get into contact with a arborist near you
And how does this mass /volume ratio affect the installed strength of the construction?
No mention of the fact that we only use pine now instead of Douglas for/Oregon etc?
Softwoods are stronger with stronger larger gaps in growth rings.
The Lumber Industry update just did a great Podcast on pine. You can get a lot of information from Shannon.
Didn't know today's lumber was all planted in the 80's. Figured trees would have been engineered to grow faster by now. On the other paw, there is far less construction now than 100 years ago.
Engineered to grow fast does not make it durable look at GMO foods which theres no nutrient density
The old.. if you have to ask, what do you think the answer is. 100% it’s weaker when you’re forcing growth with fertilizers vs waiting longer for the same tree unfertilized to get to size.
My 1925 house is built of old-growth LOBLOLLY PINE the STRONGEST structural wood according to the American Lumber Grading Society when dried. Seven to TEN TIMES stronger than Douglas fir, which hardly anything is made of Douglas fir framing today. Termites CAN''T eat seasoned loblolly. "Investors" want to buy mine and other old houses around me to tear down FOR THE LUMBER! I've had my front porch recently enclosed, and the contractor had to use HILTI explosive fasteners to drive into to 1925 studs!!! I used Hilti's to drive fasteners into 7500 PSI concrete I poured for a foundation when I made my Model A sized garage big enough for a modern pick-up 25 years ago. There's a sawmill east of town that sells loblolly pine. For Full 2"x 4" x12 foot-$53.98 EACH!!! Air-dried and aged 5-7 years. $5000 even for bundles of 100 FOB their yard.
Neat! Thanks for doing this
This is what happens when you harvest 40 year trees, it's that simple, remember, "code" is a minimum standard, just use larger dimension lumber...
Yeah, old stuff is just different. You can tell it when you see it. I have some if you want samples :) it seems so much harder
Lumber is not and will never be as strong as it once was. I've framed for the last 25 years and have noticed the difference in that short amount of time. The lumber today may be sustainable but it takes 2-3 times as much to be as strong as lumber from days gone by. Did a remodel on a home from the 30's everything had to either be screwed or predrilled because it was so hard and tight grained. Something else I've noticed is the amount of sap wood used today that would have never been used structurally. It would have been used for blocking or lathing or firewood. Today's lumber is cut from junk trees at a premium price and home quality suffers because of it. That's why we have homes with all these straps and bolts collapse when homes built out of real wood ( Pensacola) have been around for well over a hundred years and taken direct hits from hurricanes , sitting on block piers, no straps or bolts, and stand firm.
The five year extra fast growth seems to me it must be climate related. Maybe a particularly strong el Nino event?
I'm assuming the increase of growth was due to better weather conditions and increased water availability.
Nope, it was something else 😬
Old groth trees without human interference grew closer to each other and had less light available. Nowadays the stands are thinned periodically to open up the canopy and allow more light in.
Not just weaker, but getting thinner, too. I've been finding 1x stock that's now only 5/8" instead of the usual 3/4", which is no big deal for strapping and such, but how long until they're sneaking in 2x lumber that's only 1-1/4 thick and all the span tables have to be thrown out the window? And why? So some shareholders can sit on their fat lazy asses and "earn" an extra 1/4 cent on each stick sold. 🙄
*It's the reason EVERYTHING is smaller, chineseier, and weaker. MORE PROFIT!!!*
You showed the change in actual cross section over the years, but you didn't talk about it at all.
Who here is old enough to have 2×4s that were actually 2×4
Whole capitalism work like that. Less quality bigger price. It's a paradox and capitalistic freedom of choice of course.
I'm sure communist scarcity of anything and everything is so much better. I'm also sure that you lived under Communism to know about that from experience. Right?
2" x 4" framing forms a skeleton only. All that matters is compression strength of this skeleton. Current structural panels are more than capable of creating axial strength when correctly attached to this skeleton. "Strength" of individual 2 x 4s is mostly irrelevant. Solid core & proper curing to maintain straightness is the primary concern.
@iridium8341 really. He's correct. Concentrated point loads in compression are a very small percentage of what king studs in a light framed construction house actually accomplish. Most share a relatively a negligible load from roof and floor, and hold drywall. If a point load is high enough to make mention on a blueprint (girder, floor header etc) it will just call out a certain number of kings studs or jacks. There are different load capacities for different varieties of soft woods. So, in the case of a weaker strain (modern day SPF) the chart may just call out for one or more extra nailed to the side. Framing these days is more concerned with sheer forces, as that is the most destructive failure type imo. The compression stuff is easily overkilled, and is a non issue. Cheers
Edit: I should add that the sheer strength typically comes from a wood structural panel such as osb, and it's rigid attachment to the studs. Then the attachment of the panel itself to the foundation.
When 2x4's _started_ 3 storie buildings were ballon framed and sheathed with 1x8 t&g.
Density and natural resistance to shrinkage that came from old growth was crucial to a building's stability.
Now, with shear panel products made from what would have been mill waste and nailing schedules only achievable from magazine fed guns we have platform framing with much smaller modules.
It's a new paradigm. You're comparing apples to oranges.
@@mattmag3089Thank you. As a custom builder I was waiting for someone to make these very points. Right from the beginning I was thinking to myself that most loads are in compression and negligible. Someone here actually tried to compare engineered lumber with particle board furniture.
Yes. Companies are Greedy. I seen a cardboard product used for sheeting now... Where's the bracing that old plyboard provides?
New home buyers, beware. Check on the job site. Research materials before they build you a lemon.
Weather and climate of the early 1950s lead to the rapid growth and diminish meant of that growth.
That’s why all the lumber I buy even premium is crooked, bowed, and junk
Very interesting. I'm of split trains of thought regarding that 5 year fast growth span... is it something that happens when a tree gets that old, or did something happen in the 1950s?...
Trees are gmo and managed to have plenty of sunlight instead of growing slowly in a mature forest understory.
@@jimurrata6785 The trees are not GMOs lmao you idiot, you *do* realize that you can look up which species have been genetically modified on Google, right? I'll give you a hint: it's mostly commodity crops. Very few fruits/vegetables, very few animals of any kind. No trees.
All trees will exhibit the same traits. The difference is that we used to clear cut large swaths of old growth timber much more often. These days, instead of permanently destroying thousands of years of growth that we'll never get back, we've moved to tree farms, which are harvested much younger compared to the hundreds of years old wood we used to work with. That's the only real difference, the type of timber harvested.
Boost of growth rate may be due to roots expantion!
Seeing the title I expected a video on climate change and how the increased CO2 levels affect the faster growth. I guess it explained all other things I did not think of and made the thing I did think of a question for us to guess ;)
Not just 2by4. Wood for fence is near like veneer not like fence planks I purchased 40 years ago.
I haven't seen a straight board in over 20 years.