All:

In laying out the wall locations for a storage shed, I'm checking my
layout for squareness and need some real-world insight on the
tolerances, if any, I should take into account when peforming my
measurement check. I'm trying to avoid my inherent tendency to be
mathematically anal, as I'm used to working on smaller furniture or
shelving pieces where tolerances are more critical.

For a building that is just under 10' square, I have my diagonals
matching down to about 3/16" difference. I've squared the corners
using a conventional 3-4-5 technique, and each corner shows square.

As I measured my diagonals for the umpteenth time, I started realizing
that over a 14-foot distance, it may be a foolish proposition to try
to reconcile out those last three sixteenths (heck, I was able to show
1/16" inch difference at one point just in the deflection of one piece
of wood from not being absolutely flat, to say nothing of any subtle
sags in the measuring tape.)

In terms of specifics, at 117" (9'9") square, my diagonals should be
165-7/16". I have one diagonal to 165-1/2", and the other to 165-1/4".
That's one sixteenth one way, three the other. Do I pursue an
absolutely perfect diagonal measurement and chase those 16ths, or have
I reached the point where it is close enough to press on?

Sorry if this is a naive/stupid question, but I figure I won't know
unless I ask...

Thanks,
intrepid

wrote:

All:

In laying out the wall locations for a storage shed, I'm checking my
layout for squareness and need some real-world insight on the
tolerances, if any, I should take into account when peforming my
measurement check. I'm trying to avoid my inherent tendency to be
mathematically anal, as I'm used to working on smaller furniture or
shelving pieces where tolerances are more critical.

Get the diagonals with in +/- 1/16" and get a beer.

It is the easiest way to get 90 degree corners.

The earlier you get a good set of measurements, the easier life will
be at the end of the project.

Have fun.

Lew

In article . com, wrote:

As I measured my diagonals for the umpteenth time, I started realizing
that over a 14-foot distance, it may be a foolish proposition to try
to reconcile out those last three sixteenths (heck, I was able to show
1/16" inch difference at one point just in the deflection of one piece
of wood from not being absolutely flat, to say nothing of any subtle
sags in the measuring tape.)

In terms of specifics, at 117" (9'9") square, my diagonals should be
165-7/16". I have one diagonal to 165-1/2", and the other to 165-1/4".
That's one sixteenth one way, three the other.

To put it another way: that's 3/16 out of 2647/16, or an accuracy of a little
bit worse than one part in nine hundred.

Nobody will notice unless you tell them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
All:

In laying out the wall locations for a storage shed, I'm checking my
layout for squareness and need some real-world insight on the
tolerances, if any, I should take into account when peforming my
measurement check. I'm trying to avoid my inherent tendency to be
mathematically anal, as I'm used to working on smaller furniture or
shelving pieces where tolerances are more critical.

For a building that is just under 10' square, I have my diagonals
matching down to about 3/16" difference. I've squared the corners
using a conventional 3-4-5 technique, and each corner shows square.

As I measured my diagonals for the umpteenth time, I started realizing
that over a 14-foot distance, it may be a foolish proposition to try
to reconcile out those last three sixteenths (heck, I was able to show
1/16" inch difference at one point just in the deflection of one piece
of wood from not being absolutely flat, to say nothing of any subtle
sags in the measuring tape.)

In terms of specifics, at 117" (9'9") square, my diagonals should be
165-7/16". I have one diagonal to 165-1/2", and the other to 165-1/4".
That's one sixteenth one way, three the other. Do I pursue an
absolutely perfect diagonal measurement and chase those 16ths, or have
I reached the point where it is close enough to press on?

Sorry if this is a naive/stupid question, but I figure I won't know
unless I ask...

Thanks,
intrepid

If your "square" measurements are exactly 9'9" along the top, bottom, and each
side of the same wall, then you should be able to get your diagonals exact.

But having said that, I am getting ready to build a 10x12 shed myself. I'm
thinking that if all of my other measurements are exact (for example, exactly
144" width measured on the top of the wall, bottom of the wall, and exactly 96"
high on both ends) I am anal enough that I would try for a little while to see
if I could nail the diagonal too. I wouldn't spend much time on it though and
if I couldn't get it in say 15 minutes, 1/8" would be plenty close enough and I
would nail that sumbich down. Probably even 3/16 would be good. Like someone
else said, no one would ever know and even I wouldn't remember for long.

Wayne

Wayne

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:25:03 -0700, wrote:

In terms of specifics, at 117" (9'9") square, my diagonals should be
165-7/16". I have one diagonal to 165-1/2", and the other to 165-1/4".
That's one sixteenth one way, three the other. Do I pursue an
absolutely perfect diagonal measurement and chase those 16ths, or have
I reached the point where it is close enough to press on?

The percentage difference in your diagonals is only 0.151% - that's
less than two tenths of one percent, about 2 parts in a thousand. For
my money, you've chased the 16ths enough. Press on!
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

In article . com,
wrote:
All:

In laying out the wall locations for a storage shed, I'm checking my
layout for squareness and need some real-world insight on the
tolerances, if any, I should take into account when peforming my
measurement check. I'm trying to avoid my inherent tendency to be
mathematically anal, as I'm used to working on smaller furniture or
shelving pieces where tolerances are more critical.

For a building that is just under 10' square, I have my diagonals
matching down to about 3/16" difference. I've squared the corners
using a conventional 3-4-5 technique, and each corner shows square.

As I measured my diagonals for the umpteenth time, I started realizing
that over a 14-foot distance, it may be a foolish proposition to try
to reconcile out those last three sixteenths (heck, I was able to show
1/16" inch difference at one point just in the deflection of one piece
of wood from not being absolutely flat, to say nothing of any subtle
sags in the measuring tape.)

In terms of specifics, at 117" (9'9") square, my diagonals should be
165-7/16". I have one diagonal to 165-1/2", and the other to 165-1/4".
That's one sixteenth one way, three the other. Do I pursue an
absolutely perfect diagonal measurement and chase those 16ths, or have
I reached the point where it is close enough to press on?

Sorry if this is a naive/stupid question, but I figure I won't know
unless I ask...

The closer you are to 'exact' measurments, the easier things are later on.

I grew up in a house built by an ex-Navy Seabee, with help from a bunch
of his friends (who were paid mostly in beer). Everything was done 'by eye',
if it _looked_ square,that was good enough. This resulted in walls that
were as much as 3/4" different in length, if mesured at the floor or
ceiling. and a wall that was well over 1" shorter than the one on the
other side of the room. Made life _really_ interesting when taking up
and relaying perimeter 'shoe', to accomodate carpet. Doing wallpaper
with a strong vertical pattern was a *disaster*.



FWIW, your measureents indicate you need to move one of the 'long' corners
by about 3/32nds. fix one side firmly in position, measure the diagonals,
note which end of the parallel side has the 'long' diagonal, and which has
the short one. move it that 3/32nds towards the 'short' end.

*OR*, given that the 'error' is less than 1/8", in "rough carpentry"
construction, just "don't worry about it".

Putting things in perspective, your current 'accuracy' is equivalent to
slightly better than 1/64" on a 10" measurement.

*OR*, given that the 'error' is less than 1/8", in "rough carpentry"
construction, just "don't worry about it".

As my Brother In Law (who is usually the anal one) says: "thats why the
title of the chapter is called 'rough framing'".

+/- 3/16" and it's going to wiggle more than that when you lift it into
place.

Put on your first piece of sheathing before you raise the wall and use the
factory edges and nudge to fit.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Intrepid,

In laying out the wall locations for a storage shed, I'm checking my
layout for squareness and need some real-world insight on the
tolerances, if any, I should take into account when peforming my
measurement check. I'm trying to avoid my inherent tendency to be
mathematically anal, as I'm used to working on smaller furniture or
shelving pieces where tolerances are more critical.

The rule-of-thumb I always heard was to aim for 1/4" tolerances when doing
rough framing, and that's what I used when we framed our house a few years
ago.

Keep in mind, a lot of the lumber you use will be warped or twisted 1/4" or
more, so trying to obtain more exact tolerances will be an effort in
futility. Even if start with PERFECT lumber and make EXACT measurements,
the wood will likely shrink or twist at least 1/4" after you're done
building!

Of course, when laying out some of the basic lines, try to be as accurate
as you can. Our house is 40'x40' and I found I couldn't get better than
about 1/2" accuracy measuring the diagonal with a normal tape measure. You
might be able to get more accurate with a transit or something, but over
those distances the differences are almost insignificant.

Starting with a level foundation is also critical. Any errors here, and
you'll be fighting it all the way to the roof.

Most things in carpentry/house-building are about dealing with
imperfections. Check any room in your house and I can almost guarantee the
walls will be out-of-square and/or out-of-plumb. Whether you're hanging
cabinets, laying tile, or installing trim, it's all about dealing with the
inherent variations in the building.

Believe me, I was a bit "anal" with my measurements when we built our
house, and we still have walls that are out-of-plumb and out-of-square.

have I reached the point where it is close enough to press on?

I think you're reached that point and beyond...

Anthony

IME real-world framing carpenters don't read to 16ths, many don't read
to 1/4, and some don't read to 1/2" If you're within a 1/4" I say go
for it. Before the sheathing/siding goes on, you can shift a conventionally
framed 10X10' structure that much by leaning on it.


--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Make sure, first, that the dimensions of your sides are accurate.

I expect large commercial buildings to diagonal less than a 1/2",
dead on preferred.

Different issue: drop ceiling grid better diagonal at much less
than a 1/16.

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




wrote in message
ups.com...
All:

In laying out the wall locations for a storage shed, I'm
checking my
layout for squareness and need some real-world insight on the
tolerances, if any, I should take into account when peforming my
measurement check. I'm trying to avoid my inherent tendency to
be
mathematically anal, as I'm used to working on smaller furniture
or
shelving pieces where tolerances are more critical.

For a building that is just under 10' square, I have my
diagonals
matching down to about 3/16" difference. I've squared the
corners
using a conventional 3-4-5 technique, and each corner shows
square.

As I measured my diagonals for the umpteenth time, I started
realizing
that over a 14-foot distance, it may be a foolish proposition to
try
to reconcile out those last three sixteenths (heck, I was able
to show
1/16" inch difference at one point just in the deflection of one
piece
of wood from not being absolutely flat, to say nothing of any
subtle
sags in the measuring tape.)

In terms of specifics, at 117" (9'9") square, my diagonals
should be
165-7/16". I have one diagonal to 165-1/2", and the other to
165-1/4".
That's one sixteenth one way, three the other. Do I pursue an
absolutely perfect diagonal measurement and chase those 16ths,
or have
I reached the point where it is close enough to press on?

Sorry if this is a naive/stupid question, but I figure I won't
know
unless I ask...

Thanks,
intrepid

Intrepid,

I'm a Registered Architect and I'll tell you how I look at it...

'Anal' probably doesn't go far enough in describing me (I've had
tradesmen I haven't seen in 20 years *vividly* remember crossing my
path). In this day and age of computers and CAD, you can imagine how
I look at dimensional tolerance, etc.

However, one *does* have to be realistic and also consider not only
construction time (or, time lost trying for that n'th degree
accuracy), but also the final use / function of the space or building
item in question.

That said, it's reasonable and realistic to look at it this way:

Try for 1/8" - Settle for 1/4".

You're right in the middle of that ---- as someone else said "Carry
on".

-- john.

wrote:
snip

For a building that is just under 10' square, I have my diagonals
matching down to about 3/16" difference. I've squared the corners
using a conventional 3-4-5 technique, and each corner shows square.

snip

Sorry if this is a naive/stupid question, but I figure I won't know
unless I ask...

Thanks,
intrepid