History of Yard Lumber Size Standards (1964) [pdf]
fpl.fs.fed.us
fpl.fs.fed.us
I have heard it, but only in the way of inferring that it was being used in an abnormal or "flat" orientation, such as for a floor truss assembly
> Size standards, maximum moisture content, and nomenclature were agreed upon only as recently as 1964. The nominal 2x4 thus became the actual 1½ x 3½, imperceptibly, a fraction of an inch at a time. It was a 34 percent reduction in actual volume; as those in the trade would say, it’s “selling air.”
> Today, everyone in the construction industry knows that nominal size is not actual size—despite the fact that the 2x4 designation persists in the marketplace. So, why does the awareness about the “slimming” of its actual size matter? For one, we must dispel any notion that the current size is a perfect utility equation of structural performance in terms of strength-to-size ratio.
> Instead, let’s recognize that the evolution of the 2x4 resulted from economic compromise based on simplifying differences and creating a nationwide standard for customers. It is utility optimized for construction speed—speed in shooting together single-family light-stick stud homes which represent more than 90 percent of the residential housing market.
I don't know why HN even permits the linking of pdf's if they can be a vector for arbitrary execution and privilege escalation.
> Lumber size standards came into being almost a century ago to meet the need for a common understanding between the mill and markets that were separated by increasing distances of rail or water transportation. Early concepts called for rough lumber to be of full nominal size, often in the dry condition. After World War I, the increasing demand for construction lumber led to the first national size standard in 1924. This was revised in 1926, 1928, 1939, and 1953, while still another revision is proposed for adoption in 1964.
> Demand for lumber in World War II led to the shipment and use of large quantities of lumber dressed green to standard sizes. That use has continued to the present time, while experience has accumulated on how to deal with the seasoning and shrinkage of lumber in place in a structure. The proposed new lumber standard recognizes both green and dry lumber, requiring the former to be of larger size so that both will be of the same size when they reach the same moisture content in use.
> Economic pressures among the regional areas of lumber production have resulted in a decrease of standard lumber sizes over the period covered by this history.
Plywood is fantastic. Look at the Mosquito! But more seriously, it was a designers dream from the day they got it "right" for tensile strength and glue/moisture issues.
MDF is kind of meh. It weighs a tonne, and it sucks paint up like a builder in the bar after work. But it has it's place. Damp.. nightmare.
(had work done on a wooden house in Qld, it made extensive use of GlueLam for structural support, Plywood for rigidity and wind shear load bearing, and MDF for routed patterns: walls and ceilings in Qld used (and still often are) made of (vertically joined, in the case of walls) Tongue-and-Groove or "vee-jay" and is very hard to get at old dimensions, and lumber from a "restoration station" (recycling centre) is very exy now. So for mixing new build with old build, MDF+router == same width pattern of VJ grooves.
If its structural and hidden (or not, if you like it's look) then manufactured wood is really great stuff.
Down in Tasmania there are thousands of tonnes of flooded forest woods, which are being dredged up 50 or 60 years down in the cold dark dam-water, and being turned into exquisite furniture and musical instruments. I'm told almost petrified Kauri Pine can be the same, other woods turn into something magical when left alone for a long time. Put GluLam to the same test, It's probably not happy outcome.
Good story about the Kauri Pine, that looks like a pretty cool tree!
considering the inputs, modern lumber is a stunningly consistent and reliable product.
Am pleased to see that effective hacking has a long history:
> Dimension was fitted into place by the carpenter, more often than not with his hatchet.
You can frame a wall with 2x3s 16" on center as long as it's not load bearing. That seems pretty reasonable to me, since it doesn't need to do more than hold up the drywall, partition the space, and stand up to people bonking into it.
Except now they've found a new way to cheat by putting excessively large radii on the corners of construction grade lumber.
I would assume two possible reasons: the radius reduces stress concentration, and facilitating handling and packaging (think splinter fall-off debris, and likelyhood to bind up on a sharp edge)
> it'd be the waste between rectangles.
> The 2x4 you purchase at the Amish sawmill is considered wet lumber and is full size but will shrink while drying. The 2x4 from an Amish sawmill will measure a true 2 inch x 4 inch measurement on a tape measure.
L. W. SMITH, Wood Technologist and
L. W. WOOD, Engineer
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Strangely appropriate.