thickness of timber for furniture

[marcros]

Is there a guide anywhere that suggests the thickness that looks correct for different sized pieces of furniture? In a similar way, to the magic ratio is used as a guide to proportions for many things.

I struggle to visualize what looks balanced.

 

[Benchwayze]

Hi Mark;


I don't lnow a great deal about this subject, other than a drawer chest is supposed to look better if the drawer depths are incrementally increased from top to bottom, and the 'Golden Mean', is much used; or at least spoken about. There are formulae to help you work out the ratios.

These links might help you:

http://www.rockler.com/how-to/using-the ... odworking/

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... proportion

As far as thickness of timber goes, I just get an instinct (Not always spot-on!) for what looks right, and what feels right.
Probably why so much solid wood furniture, mass produced today seems a bit 'chunky' and 'boxy' to me.

Hope this helps

Cheers

 

[jonnio]

As most furniture is designed to carry some sort of weight, I think wood thicknesses need to be thick enough not to bend under those weights and over time.
More than this would be a cosmetic choice. Cheers

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If you think the way I think, you'd probably do best to work out what you think is perfect - then make it lighter. I tend to make things too heavy.

 

[marcros]

I am the same, Phil.

The reason for the question was that I have a 40mm board, and want to make a bookmatched bedside table/cabinet from it. If I am careful, I think that I can maintain 2 boards at about 15mm each, and looking on a ruler, they looked about right. However, I think that they may work out well.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I presume you're thinking of the top? You could always (assuming the top overhangs the sides) lip the underside to give it a little more depth if needed. You'd need very little material if you just wanted to gain 3mm - 5mm.

 

[marcros]

it is the top and sides. There is no overhang, because I did wonder about doing as you suggest.

I think that it will work as I have it planned. When I get some time to get the planer cleared and the thicknesser out I should be able to get a proper view of it. A pre-dry fit stage.

 

[markblue777]

You can look at the golden ratio as well (1.61803398875)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=g...5.1751j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

It is said that by building to that ratio you get the best aesthetically pleasing result.

so if you had a width of 300mm then you times that by 1.61803398875 and that would give you the golden ratio height


EDIT
Sorry just re-read your post and noticed this is not what you was asking XD. I will leave it as it may help someone else

Cheers
Mark

 

[marcros]

i agree, but i dont think that it works with timber thickness proportions. Overall proportions, yes.

 

[markblue777]

yeah just put an edit in Marcros. After posting I re-read the question and was like whoops

Cheers
Mark

 

[Myfordman]

Before you get too excited about 2 x 15mm from 40mm stock, give one piece a trial cut and see it it moves.

I'd planned to make some small drawers by re-sawing some oak and after cutting the pieces looked like slices of toast so I have to use something else and effectively threw away the oak.

These days I very rarely plan to re-saw timber and instead take the hit on waste by planing down, equally on both sides to get the final thickness.

Bob

 

[marcros]

Bob,

I had similar fears, and cutting the first piece was a twitchy bottom moment. But it is lacewood, and by its definition is quarter sawn- it hasn't moved at all since cutting in a week. :lol:

If it wasn't lacewood, I would have taken the hit, but I felt that it needed the bookmatch to add balance to the design- I really dislike trying to join timbers with a strong figuring because the joint always seems to stand out a mile away.

Mark

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I am not aware of any guidelines for timber thicknesses and proportion and doubt very much there are any. In fact I would be very dubious if I ever came across such tables as to them having any use whatsoever! There are just simply too many variables involved. Something made to a thickness that looks too thin, might look too thick with just a change of timber used or even a change in the grain selection. Even the style of furniture will have a bearing on how thick or thin the members appear to be or need to be. Then add some edge detail and things change again, so an edge might appear thicker than it actually is with one moulding, but thinner with another. So it is just a judgement thing after structural demands have been taken into account. You need to be the judge, which is where the art comes in.

If it were me, I would slice the wood into 2mm thick veneer and glue it to plywood or something stable. This way, I can choose the thickness I want and not be dictated to by the thickness the wood just happens to be. I can then use the veneer to edge lip and get the lace on the edges too, since the edges of lacewood is pretty dull and the end grain worse.

Mike.

Edit,

Incidentally, I'm glad your wood has not moved after cutting, but quarter sawn timber in general has no garuntee that there will be no cupping. Differential moisture content will make even quartered timber move if you are not careful as the inner surface dries out once freshly cut. I'm sure you have been careful, though.

 

[mouppe]

This is one of the times I prefer thinking in imperial measurements. I like my tops to be about an inch thick, my case sides 3/4", and my drawer sides 1/2". Cabinet backs about 3/8". Generally, the larger the piece, the thicker the dimensions both for structural and aesthetic reasons.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I had similar fears, and cutting the first piece was a twitchy bottom moment. But it is lacewood, and by its definition is quarter sawn- it hasn't moved at all since cutting in a week.

You might consider doing the fork or prong test to determine if there are stresses in the wood, prior to committing to deep ripping or resawing - being quarter sawn means nothing at all if the wood's been stressed in the drying (case-hardened, etc), as woodbrains (Mike) has already said.

As to standard or accepted thicknesses for different furniture parts, I'm not aware of a specific rule, but it's convenient to machine 16 - 21 mm thick parts out of 1" rough sawn material, so 16 - 21 mm PAR is common for cabinet sides, tops, rails, etc. The same applies to table tops and rails, whereas legs are more likely to be machined to a convenient size from 2" or 3" thick rough sawn material, e.g., ~45 mm or ~68 - 70 mm. On the whole, most designer makers prefer not to send lots of shavings up the extraction system, if possible, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

I suppose the guidance that says: if it looks right, it probably is, has some merit, as does another one that states: if it looks like it'll break, it probably will. Slainte.

 

[marcros]

thanks all. i think/hope that I have been lucky this time.

Next time, I will try the fork test, and think of cutting veneers- I hadn't thought of doing either this time.

 

[Jacob]

...
I struggle to visualize what looks balanced.

What do you mean by balanced?
Best source of info on furniture is furniture. Have a look at stuff around you, take photos, measure things, copy stuff you like.