My new tabletop is made up of 7 red oak boards 42" long by 10" wide; so the
tabletop measures 42" long by 70" wide; well, actually an oval that size.
It is 1" thick, if that matters.
(I had a big pile of 50" long 5/4 oak, and no 70" oak...)
If this is not clear, a picture of it (well of the bottom) is at:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/tabletop.jpg
I planned on making the base 60" by 32" and attaching the top with metal
clips set in groves. But I just did the math and it is horrifying. My
reference says that red oak will move 0.31"/ft, so 5' will move 1.6". That
seems rather too much for clips.
How do I deal with this? My only thought is to use clips on the apron along
the movement, and leave the perpendicular aprons free, but that doesn't seem
right.
Any advice would be appreciated.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:58:07 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That (1.6") seems like a lot. I built an entertainment center with an
>>Oak top 50" long and the most seasonal expansion I'm seeing is about
>>3/8". I used clips in slot all around without a problem
>
>It's probably on the high side, but not by a lot.
>
>Note that his table is 70 inches *wide*; length is irrelevant.
>
Now I'm confused. I always thought (maybe erroneously) that the
primary expansion was in the direction of the grain,not cross grain
and not uniformly in both directions. That would be, on the OP's
top, in the 42" direction, across the table. Have I got it backwards?
Frank
>FPL's Wood Handbook gives the expansion coefficient of red oak at 0.00369 per
>1% change in moisture content (MC). 0.00369 * 70 inches * 4% seasonal
>variation in MC = 1.03 inches; with a 6% variation, the expansion would be
>1.55".
>>
>>I think it may be variable based on the change in relative humidity in
>>the final environment. Maybe that figure is a worst case.
>
>No doubt it *is* a worst case, or close to it -- but even a best case figure
>(say 2% seasonal change in MC) is still over half an inch of movement in a
>panel that wide. Better to plan for the worst case, IMO, and have it move less
>than expected, than to wind up with broken joints when the panel expands more
>than anticipated.
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>That (1.6") seems like a lot. I built an entertainment center with an
>Oak top 50" long and the most seasonal expansion I'm seeing is about
>3/8". I used clips in slot all around without a problem
It's probably on the high side, but not by a lot.
Note that his table is 70 inches *wide*; length is irrelevant.
FPL's Wood Handbook gives the expansion coefficient of red oak at 0.00369 per
1% change in moisture content (MC). 0.00369 * 70 inches * 4% seasonal
variation in MC = 1.03 inches; with a 6% variation, the expansion would be
1.55".
>
>I think it may be variable based on the change in relative humidity in
>the final environment. Maybe that figure is a worst case.
No doubt it *is* a worst case, or close to it -- but even a best case figure
(say 2% seasonal change in MC) is still over half an inch of movement in a
panel that wide. Better to plan for the worst case, IMO, and have it move less
than expected, than to wind up with broken joints when the panel expands more
than anticipated.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:17:46 GMT, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>My new tabletop is made up of 7 red oak boards 42" long by 10" wide; so the
>tabletop measures 42" long by 70" wide; well, actually an oval that size.
>It is 1" thick, if that matters.
>(I had a big pile of 50" long 5/4 oak, and no 70" oak...)
>If this is not clear, a picture of it (well of the bottom) is at:
>http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/tabletop.jpg
>
>I planned on making the base 60" by 32" and attaching the top with metal
>clips set in groves. But I just did the math and it is horrifying. My
>reference says that red oak will move 0.31"/ft, so 5' will move 1.6". That
>seems rather too much for clips.
>
>How do I deal with this? My only thought is to use clips on the apron along
>the movement, and leave the perpendicular aprons free, but that doesn't seem
>right.
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>
That (1.6") seems like a lot. I built an entertainment center with an
Oak top 50" long and the most seasonal expansion I'm seeing is about
3/8". I used clips in slot all around without a problem
I think it may be variable based on the change in relative humidity in
the final environment. Maybe that figure is a worst case.
Frank
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:17:53 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>> >
>>> Now I'm confused. I always thought (maybe erroneously) that the
>>> primary expansion was in the direction of the grain,not cross grain
>>> and not uniformly in both directions. That would be, on the OP's
>>> top, in the 42" direction, across the table. Have I got it backwards?
>>
>>Yes, you do. Expansion along the grain is, for all practical purposes,
>>zero. The principal dimensional change with changing moisture content is
>>tangent to the growth rings; that is, in the width of a flatsawn board,
>>or in the thickness of a quartersawn board. Radial dimensional change
>>(perpendicular to the growth rings) is typically approximately half of
>>the tangential change.
>
>
>Well thanks gentlemen, learn something new every day.
That's what the wRECk is for. Glad to help.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> Now I'm confused. I always thought (maybe erroneously) that the
> primary expansion was in the direction of the grain,not cross grain
> and not uniformly in both directions. That would be, on the OP's
> top, in the 42" direction, across the table. Have I got it backwards?
Yes, you do. Expansion along the grain is, for all practical purposes,
zero. The principal dimensional change with changing moisture content is
tangent to the growth rings; that is, in the width of a flatsawn board,
or in the thickness of a quartersawn board. Radial dimensional change
(perpendicular to the growth rings) is typically approximately half of
the tangential change.
Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now I'm confused. I always thought (maybe erroneously) that the
>primary expansion was in the direction of the grain,not cross grain
>and not uniformly in both directions. That would be, on the OP's
>top, in the 42" direction, across the table. Have I got it backwards?
Yes.
And depending on species, tangential movement due to moisture content
changes is anywhere from 50% to 150% greater than radial.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
In article <[email protected]>, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipp
>How do I deal with this? My only thought is to use clips on the apron along
>the movement, and leave the perpendicular aprons free, but that doesn't seem
>right.
May not "seem" right, but it is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>My new tabletop is made up of 7 red oak boards 42" long by 10" wide; so the
>tabletop measures 42" long by 70" wide; well, actually an oval that size.
>It is 1" thick, if that matters.
>(I had a big pile of 50" long 5/4 oak, and no 70" oak...)
>If this is not clear, a picture of it (well of the bottom) is at:
>http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/tabletop.jpg
>
>I planned on making the base 60" by 32" and attaching the top with metal
>clips set in groves. But I just did the math and it is horrifying. My
>reference says that red oak will move 0.31"/ft, so 5' will move 1.6". That
>seems rather too much for clips.
>
>How do I deal with this? My only thought is to use clips on the apron along
>the movement, and leave the perpendicular aprons free, but that doesn't seem
>right.
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
Using the factors quoted in Doug Miller's post to this thread, it
looks like this is assuming 7% change in moisture content, WAY more
than you would ever get in an air-conditioned home. However, I still
think you are smart to allow for this much movement--who can tell when
a future generation my store it in a garage for a few years before
getting it back out for the grandkid's new house?
I'd use the clips on the side rails. Use one screw in the center of
each rail, so that wood movement is balanced at each side. So now you
are dealing with only .8" at the end rail. Despairing of trying to
explain it, I offer the following ASCII art:
____________________________________________________________
T O P
____________________________________________________________
| A |YYYYY| |XXXXX|
| P |YYYYY| |XXXXX|
| R |YYYYY| |XXXXX|
| O | ______|XXXXX|
| N | |XXXXXXXXXXX|
| | |XXXXXXXXXXX|
X is a block of wood screwed to the top, with a tongue that serves a
purpose similar to the metal clips. Grain should run the direction of
the tongue for strength. Y is a block glued to the inside of the
apron, on which the tongue rides. Alternatively, the tongue could go
into a mortise in the apron, but you might not have enough depth.
Remember the side clips slide along a groove, while this tongue moves
in and out of a mortise or under the block glued to the inside of the
apron.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:17:53 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >
>> Now I'm confused. I always thought (maybe erroneously) that the
>> primary expansion was in the direction of the grain,not cross grain
>> and not uniformly in both directions. That would be, on the OP's
>> top, in the 42" direction, across the table. Have I got it backwards?
>
>Yes, you do. Expansion along the grain is, for all practical purposes,
>zero. The principal dimensional change with changing moisture content is
>tangent to the growth rings; that is, in the width of a flatsawn board,
>or in the thickness of a quartersawn board. Radial dimensional change
>(perpendicular to the growth rings) is typically approximately half of
>the tangential change.
Well thanks gentlemen, learn something new every day.
Frank
Toller wrote:
> My new tabletop is made up of 7 red oak boards 42" long by 10"
> wide; so the tabletop measures 42" long by 70" wide; well, actually
> an oval that size. It is 1" thick, if that matters.
> (I had a big pile of 50" long 5/4 oak, and no 70" oak...)
> If this is not clear, a picture of it (well of the bottom) is at:
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/tabletop.jpg
>
> I planned on making the base 60" by 32" and attaching the top with
> metal clips set in groves. But I just did the math and it is
> horrifying. My reference says that red oak will move 0.31"/ft, so
> 5' will move 1.6". That seems rather too much for clips.
>
> How do I deal with this? My only thought is to use clips on the
> apron along the movement, and leave the perpendicular aprons free,
> but that doesn't seem right.
So don't use commercial clips. I used pieces of oak about 1 1/4"
square by "as needed" and cut a notch in the end. The notch fits over
a piece on the back of the rails; there is a slot in the "as needed"
portion of the oak clips and they are bolted to inserts in the bottom
of the table top. The slot can easily accomodate any movement, make
as long as you need. The oak clips at the end grain ends have no
slots, they just slide on the piece on the back of the rails.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico