Its been covered many time before over the years but
I have to bring it up again. What is up with the ever shrinking demensions of lumber. For most of the last 7-10 years I’ve been spoiled by working with engineered material thats consistant. A 2×10 LVL is either 9 1/4″ or 9 1/2 depending on the job. Trusses are very fixed in standardized sizes and thank God..
I did a side job recently and found that the actual depth of a 2×10 and 2x12s are now nearly true 2x9s and 2x11s give or take an 1/16 respectively… where did the 3/8″ + go? I had to rethink spans on my trusty span-tables for a garage with loft job I did.
Replies
I don't know much about trees.........
And I surely don't know modulus of elasticity.
but,
My main concern is that they are consistant. When a floor layout features 3/8's difference in height I get a bit rankled.
In 38 yrs of working with this stuff I can't say I've seen (or perhaps remembered) a 3/8's loss. I've grown used to the 9-1/4. In the 70's they were a healthy qtr................or 3/8's Never a half when above 2x6. If you're getting straight inches I guess someday I'll be surprised again.
Here's what I'll do. When I run across some of those big'uns in with the thin ones..........I'll rip some 1/8'ths off and send you some.
Might be a while-I don't frame houses anymore so the few I use won't help much.
I'll say this, the 2x4's I used this winter weren't going to get very stuck in a 3-1/2'' opening.............
The lumber people are always trying to cut things a little thinner. There was a period back ca 1970 when a 2x4 was lucky to be 1.25" thick, but the gubberment guys got on them and it got back to 1.5", more or less. But years earlier, when I was a fairly small kid, 1-5/8 was closer to the norm and 1.5" was the absolute minimum.
The width of your wider lumber does vary quite a bit, and it's not unusual to find a piece that's about 15/16" inch short of the "by" dimension, with 3/8" or so variation. Some of the variation is legit, in that wide lumber does shrink quite a bit in width (and unpredictably), but again the lumber guys always have their thumb on the scale.
It would be good to find the official industry standards for lumber size, and send back pieces that are undersize. If that were done a bit more consistently then they wouldn't try to get away with it so much.
I guess I got use to that fat quarter
LOL, I like your humor.
WelI, guess I got use to that fat quarter for too many years that current sizing in the Chicago area just made me shake my head. Well it is what it is, what can you do.
Not sure if I maybe misread, but a span table is based on a nominal size of lumber, isn't it?
but a span table is based on a nominal size
Yes it is, but he's commenting on the shrinking of the nominals.................
I said that because he said ... "I had to rethink spans on my trusty span-tables for a garage with loft job I did."
shrinking nominals
Don't ya just hate it when your nominlas shrink? ;-)
No anwers here, but I know the sizes have shrunk. A couple years ago, I scrounged a bunch of 2 x 6 doug fir from a guy who was remodeling. I think the stuff was about 60 years old. The thickness was a full 1-3/4". Gave me plenty of material to plane it down to 1-1/2-thick for doors that I made. The width was 5-3/4"
I think in the 50's
I think it was in the 50's or maybe early 60's that the size changed from 3 3/4 x 1 3/4 to 3 1/2 x 1 1/2. There was a lot of the old stock in the shop and it was necessary to get the two separated. Finally, all of the older stock got used up and it wasn't necessary to worry about it.