Requesting design advice

[devonwoody]

Now I think the frost is over and I will be able to spend some time in the workshop again, would someone please give me some advice on what dimensions to make the depths of the five centre drawers for this new 13 drawers cabinet I have got in mind. Wanting the reducing drawer depth effect and I think there is a bog standard ratio to use.

(there are 4 drawers each side of the centre portion to match in size but not reaching the top)

 

[Offcut]

Devonwoody,
Can you clarify what you mean by depth. I take depth as in how far the drawer extends into the cabinet or the thickness of the drawer front.

You probably mean the height of each drawer front reducing from bottom to top

Andy

 

[devonwoody]

Yes Andy, I did mean the height of each drawer, top to bottom.

 

[Colin C]

Devonwoody, thereis on hard and fast rule :-k Try to do a cardboard mockup or a scale one to see what looks right to you .
I hope that helps 8-[
Ps you could try to sizes your small draw and your big one. and go from there is one way

 

[StevieB]

DW, The bog standard ratio you are referring to is called the Golden ratio, or golden section. It equates to 1:1.618, where each drawer is 1.618 times larger than the preceeding drawer. It follows a Fibonacci sequence (read the Da Vinc Code for further info in a fun format, or browse the web for some very dry mathmatical references) and was originally identified by Euclid in Ancient greece as a ratio.

This ratio can also be used to produce a pleasing rectangle size where the width is 1.168 times the height.

Of course you need to decide what the depth of either the deepest or the shallowest drawer is and work out the rest from that. This is the easiest way. If your overall height is fixed then it becomes a little more difficult since you will not necessarily have an even number of mm to work with and the maths is a little trickier.

HTH,

Steve.

 

[StevieB]

OK, having a play with a calculator to the nearest tenth of a mm, you may need to alter your overall height of 716mm slightly.

Starting with 40mm, the next is 64.7, then 104.7, then 169.4, and finally 274.1 to give a total height of 652.9mm.

Starting with 45mm, the next is 72.8, then 117.8, then 190.6 and finally 308.4 to give a total height of 734.6mm.

This would give a pleasing to the eye effect but for a small structure such as a needlework box it may look odd to have the bottom drawer almost half the depth of the piece, particularly as you have 3 tiers of drawers. If you look at a chest of drawers usually the bottom two are deeper and even than the rest, which then decrease in size. It may look better on your piece if you apply the ratio to the top 3 drawers for example and average the bottom 2 over the remaining distance, or apply the ratio to the top 3 and keep drawers 4 and 5 the same size as the third so only the top 2 decrease in size.

Guess as Colin says a mockup in cardboard (or sketchup or similar) would be helpful here!

Cheers,

Steve.

Edit to add image:

Steve.

 

[Offcut]

Had a wee go at this before the 1.618 was quoted.

Started with 200 and removed 25mm off the height.

Andy

 

[devonwoody]

Thanks above, by the way its eventual use this time is a sideboard or whatever they are called in the hall; with a flying top, built with framework as the embroidery cabinets.

I must be an oddball, that Euclid ratio doesn't work for me or its practicality on this occasion. Perhaps its the width of the whole piece not being agreeable to the eye. Most probably go with the staggered step of equal deductions each time.

 

[Wanlock Dod]

Devon,

My tuppen'orth on this is that I think I would tend towards an arithmetic progression (as used by Offcut) rather than a geometric one (e.g. the golden ratio). Why? Because I think that the drawer sizes get very big very quickly with the geometric progressions. You end up with a very small one at the top, and a very big one at the bottom.

When trying to fit the tower of drawers into a predefined height I had immense trouble and eventually gave up (my maths isn't great ). You may well fare better than I.

Cheers,

Dod