need help estimating weight of blanket chest top

Nov 09, 2006 23 Replies

Hi,



I was going to buy one of those safety closure devices for a blanket chest I plan to build (they prevent the lid from slamming shut). The top will be solid oak, 16" X 48" by 3/4" thick. I need to estimate the wieght so I can get a properly rated safety closure thing. The lid is not built yet, so I can't just hold it and step on a scale :)



Thanks, as always.



What about lifting up 3 - 48" x 6" boards, and weigh them? It can't be THAT hard, can it?

Mike

Dry Oak has an SG of 0.92 gr/CC Some simple math will give you an exact weight for your top.

16 x 48 x 3/4 = 576 cubic inches = 1/3 cubic foot.

Common North American oaks range from about 38 to 45 pounds per cubic foot, kiln dried, with white oaks being generally heavier than red oaks. So figure a weight of 13 or 14 pounds if it's red oak, 14 or 15 if it's white.

Ball park figures: oak is 3.5 to 4 lbs. per board foot, making your lid no more than 20lbs. That should be close enough to determine the needs of your safety device.

I guess if you really wanted to split hairs, though, it would depend on the width and depth of the top. I'm not sure exactly what safety devices you are using, but if they are mounted on the hinge side, the load they must support will increase as the front-to-rear depth of the top increases, right?

No, it doesn't.

Specific gravities range from 0.59 to 0.72 (excepting southern live oak).

Thu, Nov 9, 2006, 3:14pm snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com (Mike=A0Mac) doth wonderingly auery: What about lifting up 3 - 48" x 6" boards, and weigh them? It can't be THAT hard, can it?

Apparently it can be that hard. Weighng was my first though too.

I'll be making a chest with a lid a bit shorter, wider, thicker, then his - about 40"x30"x1". I've no idea what the lid will weigh, and don't care. The "soft close" I'll use will be to not drop the lid.

JOAT Want cheap gas? Pull my finger.

gives 0.52 to 0.59 for red, and 0.6 to 0.68 for white

According to

formatting link
"live oak" or "Quercus virginiana", averages 0.88

Chris

read on the web. That's just flat wrong. It isn't even close.

Here are the *correct* figures from the experts, the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Refer to Table 4-3a. The data for various species of oak is on pages 5 and 6.

formatting link

Even that's harder than lifting up & weighing ONE 4' X 6" board & multiplying by 3. (Well, I guess for some people lifting may be easier than multiplying...) :)

Is that African oak, or European oak?

Just my 2 cents from a proffesional cabinet maker. You guys are building rocket parts here. All that is required is a ball park weight, to determine if the lid falls within the weight/load range of the desired hardware. Varience one way of the other is acceptable. Use the scale, it really works. Buy your hardware after you cut the raw stock for the lid to rough dimensions and weigh it. You won't need it until the lid is finished anyway, and the finished lid will weigh less than your rough cut stock.

Best regards, Butch Price

20 years > >

that African oak, or European oak?

formatting link

I didn't measure it but the last piece of live oak, dried for over 1 year approx 1 1/8" thick, sank to the bottom of a bucket of water. Seems like that would put it's specific gravity over 1.0 Joe

Thanks Joe, Doug, Chris, Butch, Charlie and everyone else who gave a useful answer. That's exactly what I was looking for. It's nice that there's still some people on this group that try to help instead of just making noise.

What, are you suggesting that Oaks migrate? ;-)

Since the rule of thumb for air-drying the "average" wood is "one year per inch, plus a year", I suspect it takes a good bit longer than one year to air-dry 1-1/8" thick live oak.

The 0.88 figure is specifically for KD 12%.

I wasn't aware that oaks were native to Africa... and neither are the authors of the encyclopedia on the shelf in my living room...

I am sorry Gentleman, but now I know why it is so complicated for some to change a light bulb.

Since you chose to quote my response, Woodman1, I feel compelled to defend my honor! LOL!

I totally agree with you that this isn't rocket science....and that's why I gave a very simple answer first. I merely included the second part because I felt certain that some of the more technically-minded here would be quick to point out that more than just the weight of the top figures into the equation.

Charlie

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required