Treated lumber – adjusting for nominal thickness

Home Bar Forum Forums General Site News & Updates General Questions Treated lumber – adjusting for nominal thickness

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19100 Score: 0

    Building an L-shaped 45 plan, and after laying everything out things were off. Determined the problem is that the treated lumber I got is 1-9/16″ rather than the typical 1-1/2″. I’ve been looking into compensating for this since many of the measurements are based on the assumed 1-1/2 thickness of the 2x4s. Didn’t take long for me to become confused so would appreciate some guidance/validation.
    I won’t be using treated on the uprights, so they’ll be 1-1/2″ thick.

    It looks to me like, based on the lumber being 1/6″ thicker, the plans would be corrected by trimming 1/16″ from part 1, 1/8″ from part 2, 1/4″ from part 3, and 1/16″ from part 4. Sound right so far?

    Assuming that is correct, and the proper approach to compensating for the non-standard thickness, and I won’t have problems further down the road with the plans, I’m struggling if I should also need to compensate parts #5 (-3/16″) and #6 (-1/8″). Maybe I’m being to anal, and then I thought about just writing off my losses on the treated lumber and just using untreated to not have to deal with. The bar will be placed on bare cement.

    Just a note, for the complete bar I’m using 2 B-sections (so the above corrections x 2) and an A section that will potentially need similar corrections. But no C section. What a pain in the ars. Any advice is greatly appreciated!!

    ***edit***
    I resolved the situation easy enough using my table saw and ripping the treated lumber to the correct 1-1/2″ thickness. So glad I ended up taking this approach since all of the plan measurements are based on 1-1/2″ thick 2×4’s. So if anyone runs in to this same problem, I highly recommend ripping to the proper thickness rather than trying to adjust by modifying the length of the boards.
    ***edit***

    #20958 Score: 0
    mckdelbu
    4 pts

    sorry for the delay getting to this one…looks like you found a logical solution. Great job & good thinking!

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.