The humble 2 by 4

I grew up with metric measures, but it wasn’t until I started working with dimensional lumber that I came to appreciate the value of the imperial system of measures. Some people believe that just because something comes in multiples of 10, that it must be inherently better. I don’t believe so. Let’s take the case of the humble 2×4, the standard piece of building lumber in North America. In Australia a similar piece of lumber would be classified as 45mm ×90mm. The reality is that in metric measures, everything is typically expressed in millimetres. The problem is that mm are so small that it is hard to visualize, it is much easier to understand what an inch is. Go to a lumber store and order a 2×4×8, and everyone understands what that is.

The humble 2×4 is of course not actually 2 inches by 4 inches. This is the nominal dimension used when a tree is cut into dimensional lumber after it is felled. Dry the wood in a kiln, and it shrinks, less so in length, but considerably in the other two directions. Then the wood is dressed, by planing. The result is that a 2×4 becomes a 1½×3½. Easier to remember 2×4 than 1½×3½ though. Other dimensions of lumber dry differently. Typically a 1×6 is actually ¾” by 5½”.

An old vs new 2×4 (in Toronto). The old 2×4 is 3-11/16 x 1-3/4

In the early years of the lumber industry in North America, each region had its own specifications for lumber size, largely because lumber was sourced locally. As lumber began to be produced for different markets (e.g. domestic cities, export), a standard had to be considered. The Forest Service of the U.S. Dept of Agriculture produced an article in 1964 titled History of Yard Lumber Size Standards. It discusses the historical aspects of lumber dimensions, and is quite complicated.  In the early 1900s, the common thickness for a dressed 1″ board was 13/16″. By 1929 this had changed to a standard 25/32″. Then on April 30, 1956, the American Lumber Standards Committee voted to establish ¾ inch as the standard dressed dry thickness, where it has remained to this day (there was an attempt in 1964 to modify the thickness again to 5/8″).

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The humble 2 by 4

  1. Damien says:

    Here we could classify a modern American 2 by 4 (that’s before the round over is cut away) as 38mm by 89mm (visualized it’s 4 by 9 cm). Meaning two together don’t square up. There must be another good story behind the 45mm ×90mm idea

    • spqr says:

      Yes, I wonder what the story is? Likely someone made the decision to allow two together to square. I also imagine the market in Australia is smaller – Incidentally a 4x9x240cm piece of “structural pine” is A$8.59 (C$8.47) as opposed to C$3.88 for a similar 2x4x8 SPF in Canada. Likely because most structural lumber is plantation farmed, in the form of Radiata Pine (introduced from California).

  2. Joe says:

    Recently I started reading by Hand and Eye. It’s a very good book. In it, it talks about how dividers throughout history played a huge role in design proportions. This is where the imperial measurement really shines. A 12 based system (vs 10 based metric) allows for more simplified whole number ratios.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.