# Thoughts about my plans for a Dining Table



## Daddy's Cool (Jul 12, 2010)

My next project is to build a new dining table with a matching bench for one side. My wife found the basic look that she wanted, and we are modifying the size to meet our needs/desires.

We ended up with a dimension of 100 x 52. I know that is big, but we laid cardboard on our current table at those dimensions to see how it would look in our dining room. Besides being just an eating table, it is used everyday for school work as we home school all 4 kids. The large size will be beneficial when we have family over for dinner, which is a regular occurrence.

Anyway. I am planning to build out of walnut. If the legs are spread out to the corners, will a 4/4 x 4" apron be enough support? I am planning on the top being 4/4, but should it be 6/4 to lessen the sag? Or do I need to add a center cross support, like the attached?










The top will be made 6" solid walnut boards. We both prefer the look without breadboard ends, so that is what I have planned.










I am open to any thoughts or suggestions that anyone might have at this time.


----------



## epicfail48 (Mar 27, 2014)

I can think of one problem: Holy crap thats a huge table. 

Now that ive got that out of my system, the first issue i can think of is sag. Youve got a little under 8 feet of unsupported boards making up the aprons, which themselves are supporting a fairly massive load near the middle. 6/4 material would probably help, and youll decidedly want the extra crossmember in the middle. Possible a 6/4 or 8/4 top as well. 

The second issue i can see is price. Even if you just went with 4/4 material for the top, thats still 37 board feet just for the top. in my neck of the woods, thats a $400 top, double that if you went with 8/4 material. Normally id recommend plywood, but the dimensions youre looking for you couldt get from a single sheet anyway. 

The third possible issue i can see is crap thats a big table. Personally, i wouldnt want to have to walk around an 8 foot long 4.5ish wide table every time my pencil rolled to the other side. Passing the salt would be quite the adventure as well. Id recommend shrinking the size down, or at least the width if ytou wanted to keep the length the same. A pretty common rule of thumb ive seen for determing the size of a dining table is 24 inches of width for each diner, with 15 inches of depth plus 5 inches of public space. As an example, using that recommendation a table to seet 4 should be 4 feet long, 35 inches wide. Personally, im pretty well inclined to think that 36 inches wide is the ideal width for a dining table unless you regularly host massive thanksgiving dinners every night or really, really hate the person sitting across from you


----------



## Steve Neul (Sep 2, 2011)

With a table top that large you might consider a fifth leg in the center of it. If that isn't an option you might laminate three layers of 4/4 to make the skirts going down the length of it. The inner layers would be better if you used a harder wood like hickory or maple. When you finish the table be sure to finish the underside of the table. This will help prevent it from warping. To mount the table top I would recommend running a dado on the back side of the skirts and use table top clips. http://www.rockler.com/table-top-fasteners The fasteners will allow for wood movement which could split the top if fastened too tightly. 

As far as the cross pieces, I would put at least three of them. This would help strengthen the skirts.


----------



## Daddy's Cool (Jul 12, 2010)

Steve Neul said:


> With a table top that large you might consider a fifth leg in the center of it.



The fifth leg was shot down before I could even finish suggesting it (which I am not surprised by).





Steve Neul said:


> If that isn't an option you might laminate three layers of 4/4 to make the skirts going down the length of it. *The inner layers would be better if you used a harder wood like hickory or maple.* When you finish the table be sure to finish the underside of the table. This will help prevent it from warping.


So you are suggesting the skirts to essentially be 3" thick with the middle layer being either hickory or maple? If the visible skirt is 4", would I make the additional layers at 3" so they are not easily visible? Should the cross skirts be made the same?





Steve Neul said:


> To mount the table top I would recommend running a dado on the back side of the skirts and use table top clips. http://www.rockler.com/table-top-fasteners The fasteners will allow for wood movement which could split the top if fastened too tightly.



It is not visible in the pictures, but I was intending to attach a board to the skirts, was thinking 1"x1", and drill elongated holes and then screw into the top.




Steve Neul said:


> As far as the cross pieces, I would put at least three of them. This would help strengthen the skirts.


So you are suggesting the skirts at each end, and then 3 additional cross members?


----------



## Steve Neul (Sep 2, 2011)

The fifth leg would be an easy solution but if you can't you can't

Eight foot is a long span for wood to sit for day after day. If you don't use substantial framing over years it will sag. A person could use steel to prevent this or use heavier timbers. This is the reason I suggested using three layers of wood for the long skirts. Since it is only going to be 4" tall I think it should be anywhere from 2 1/4" to 3" thick. Structurally walnut is a mid range wood is why I suggested you might use maple or hickory for the other two layers. 

That would work alright to use the 1"x1" strips to mount the top. It would maybe be a little easier and look a little more professional to use the clips. 

The additional cross members are needed because you have a lot of solid wood on the top that will be wanting to warp on you. I think you need the additional wood to keep it flat. If the top was plywood then all the cross piece would be needed for is to brace the long skirt pieces and one would be enough.


----------



## Daddy's Cool (Jul 12, 2010)

epicfail48 said:


> I can think of one problem: Holy crap thats a huge table.


Thanks for not disappointing. Before I posted the original message, I told my wife that the first response I was going to get was going to be about how big the table is. I knew I could count on you guys. :thumbsup::yes:





epicfail48 said:


> Now that ive got that out of my system, the first issue i can think of is sag. Youve got a little under 8 feet of unsupported boards making up the aprons, which themselves are supporting a fairly massive load near the middle. 6/4 material would probably help, and youll decidedly want the extra crossmember in the middle. Possible a 6/4 or 8/4 top as well.


My plan is for mortise and tenon joints between the aprons and legs. Would I do the same to attach the additional cross member(s)?





epicfail48 said:


> The second issue i can see is price. Even if you just went with 4/4 material for the top, thats still 37 board feet just for the top. in my neck of the woods, thats a $400 top, double that if you went with 8/4 material. Normally id recommend plywood, but the dimensions youre looking for you couldt get from a single sheet anyway.


I hadn't even started thinking about price yet. I chose walnut because of the desire for the darker look. I may change to oak and then stain it to get the darker look. I know how many of you feel about stain, but the dark look is what she wants.





epicfail48 said:


> The third possible issue i can see is crap thats a big table. Personally, i wouldnt want to have to walk around an 8 foot long 4.5ish wide table every time my pencil rolled to the other side. Passing the salt would be quite the adventure as well. Id recommend shrinking the size down, or at least the width if ytou wanted to keep the length the same. A pretty common rule of thumb ive seen for determing the size of a dining table is 24 inches of width for each diner, with 15 inches of depth plus 5 inches of public space. As an example, using that recommendation a table to seet 4 should be 4 feet long, 35 inches wide. Personally, im pretty well inclined to think that 36 inches wide is the ideal width for a dining table unless you regularly host massive thanksgiving dinners every night or really, really hate the person sitting across from you


We knew it was big. Our current table is roughly 40"x86". I laid some cardboard pieces on top to get to the size we are now looking at. We put chairs around it, and looked it over. We both concluded that it looked good. The width would allow for 2 people to sit at each end and have the legs and apron pushed out to the edges. She doesn't really like the idea of pushing the legs in and having the top hang over the ends. If we did that, we could cut the width down to 44" and still seat 2 at the ends. 

After your reply, we talked about it some more and decided that we needed to lay the cardboard again, and this time, actually sit down at the table.


----------



## epicfail48 (Mar 27, 2014)

Glad I didnt disappoint then. A mortise and tenon would work fine for attaching the cross member to the middle of the apron, although with a span that long you'd have to be careful about mortise sizing so as not to weaken the apron too much. Going with a less cost prohibitive wood like oak isnt a bad idea, but even then be prepared for some sticker shock. Also, I know some people don't like stain, but personally, I think its awesome. Done right its the best way there is to make cheap wood look expensive. 

If you do decide to rethink the dimensions, I'd lay out a 4x8 sheet of cardboard to get a feel for it. Its not much of a decrease in size, but you could make a torsion box out of plywood for the top and save a rather huge amount of money, as well as shave off a lot of weight


----------



## nbo10 (Jan 26, 2011)

Daddy's Cool said:


> The fifth leg was shot down before I could even finish suggesting it (which I am not surprised by).



Sometimes compromises have to be made. 

I would look online at some of the engineering resources. There are calculators that will calculate the amount of deflection in a beam. You can use http://www.wood-database.com to find the properties of the wood that you intend to use.


----------



## Ange (Oct 3, 2011)

I have constructed a few tables in the sizes you are talking about without any issues, with one main difference from your design, and that's more reveal or 'overhang' on the ends/sides, this cuts down the span of the aprons (less likely to sag), one thing to pay attention to is spacing, usually 15" is good on each end (in my experience), allows the folks sitting at head/heel to slide in and out of table without leg interference, folks on sides wind up sitting next to a leg but forces them far enough away from head/heel they arent 'playing footsie' trying to eat....just my 2cents...


----------



## Woodenhorse (May 24, 2011)

Have you considered a trestle design instead of the four legs? It would offer the ability to use an arch from one end to the other to support the middle without the addition of another leg. A good compromise I have found for the width is around 42"-44" and I usually end up at 43 1/2" for some reason. It offers enough space without seeming too huge. And people don't have a hard time reaching across to pass the salt. Beyond 44" you're going out for a long pass and will need a good arm and perfect aim.


----------



## SeniorSitizen (May 2, 2012)

I think I would build a more standard size table and then a second square table to seat 4. Much easier to arrange, move if ever and still have the seating capacity.


----------



## Daddy's Cool (Jul 12, 2010)

epicfail48 said:


> Glad I didnt disappoint then. A mortise and tenon would work fine for attaching the cross member to the middle of the apron, although with a span that long you'd have to be careful about mortise sizing so as not to weaken the apron too much. Going with a less cost prohibitive wood like oak isnt a bad idea, but even then be prepared for some sticker shock. Also, I know some people don't like stain, but personally, I think its awesome. Done right its the best way there is to make cheap wood look expensive.
> 
> If you do decide to rethink the dimensions, I'd lay out a 4x8 sheet of cardboard to get a feel for it. Its not much of a decrease in size, but you could make a torsion box out of plywood for the top and save a rather huge amount of money, as well as shave off a lot of weight



We finally looked at the size again yesterday. We decided that the width of our current table, which is 43", is what we want. We are still wanting the 96" length. If the skirts are 3" thick, do we still have sag concerns?

I have considered the plywood option, but really prefer the solid wood. I know it adds to the weight and cost, but it gives us the look that we want.


I built a bed for my son out of oak, and stained it to get the color that we wanted to match a dresser. She really likes the look of that, so we have changed the wood choice to oak, and will stain it to get the color desired. From what I can tell, that will cut the cost some.


----------



## Rebelwork (Jan 15, 2012)

A 144" table will require either an 8/4 top or a torsion box design for self supporting top. You could easily go 12' with a torsion design. I build 12'+ tables with the torsion design for restaurants. You can stand on them without deflection..As far as it being 43x96 your top won't need be 8/4 but heavier than 4/4. Bottom line...either your top supports the legs or the leg design supports the top or a combination of the two..


----------



## epicfail48 (Mar 27, 2014)

If aesthetics are the reason you want solid over plywood, I'd reconsider going with a plywood torsion box. 9 times for 10 if you can't see the edges you won't know if a wood is plywood or not. If you're still determined to go with solid wood, it depends on how you build the support. If you just go with an epron and no bracing in the middle, you'll want to go with 8/4 stock to avoid deflection. If you add some bracing to the center to reduce the amount of unsupported top, you could go with 4/4.

Going with oak will cut the costs by a lot vs going with walnut. Assuming $3bf oak, tyoure looking $100-200 for just the top. Still a decent hunk of change, but less than walnut. One thing to look for though, if you plan on staining anyway, use ash. Its generally cheaper and has a nearly identical grain structure. It also stains well


----------



## GeorgeC (Jul 30, 2008)

Daddy's Cool said:


> My next project is to build a new dining table with a matching bench for one side. My wife found the basic look that she wanted, and we are modifying the size to meet our needs/desires.
> 
> We ended up with a dimension of 100 x 52. I know that is big, but we laid cardboard on our current table at those dimensions to see how it would look in our dining room. Besides being just an eating table, it is used everyday for school work as we home school all 4 kids. The large size will be beneficial when we have family over for dinner, which is a regular occurrence.
> 
> ...


That table is rather wide but not particularly long. I am assuming that your dimensions are in inches.

4/4 wood for the top should be ok. I would not go over 1 1/2' thick if you must.

The 4" apron may also be too tall. Depends upon total height of table and ability of people to get their legs underneath.

I would use cross brace in center and center support. Not one on each side, but in center.

Remember to design fastening of top for wood movement.

George


----------



## GeorgeC (Jul 30, 2008)

Daddy's Cool said:


> We finally looked at the size again yesterday. We decided that the width of our current table, which is 43", is what we want. We are still wanting the 96" length. If the skirts are 3" thick, do we still have sag concerns?
> 
> I have considered the plywood option, but really prefer the solid wood. I know it adds to the weight and cost, but it gives us the look that we want.
> 
> ...


I should have read all the way down before I started answering.

Your dimensions here and wood sizes seem fine to me.

Good luck on the project. Oak will cut the cost a lot.

George


----------



## Daddy's Cool (Jul 12, 2010)

epicfail48 said:


> If aesthetics are the reason you want solid over plywood, I'd reconsider going with a plywood torsion box. 9 times for 10 if you can't see the edges you won't know if a wood is plywood or not. If you're still determined to go with solid wood, it depends on how you build the support. If you just go with an epron and no bracing in the middle, you'll want to go with 8/4 stock to avoid deflection. If you add some bracing to the center to reduce the amount of unsupported top, you could go with 4/4.
> 
> Going with oak will cut the costs by a lot vs going with walnut. Assuming $3bf oak, tyoure looking $100-200 for just the top. Still a decent hunk of change, but less than walnut. One thing to look for though, if you plan on staining anyway, use ash. Its generally cheaper and has a nearly identical grain structure. It also stains well


Can you expound on the torsion box. Are you suggesting a torsion box with the top out of a thinner solid? Are you suggesting a torsion box with the body of the top being plywood and edging of a solid? 

If the latter, how do you make the ends look like it is the ends of solid boards glued together?


----------



## epicfail48 (Mar 27, 2014)

Do a standard torsion box, plywood sides and all, and then slap on some solid wood edging. I'll post some pics later of my workbench to show what I'm talking about. The point though, is all you really need to do is glue a solid board to the side and nobody will know it isnt solid. If you wanted to get really fancy you could go torsion box side -> thin layer (1/4 maybe) of say walnut -> 1/2-3/4 layer of oak and boom, fancy inlay


----------

