The height of the web is more important than the thickness of the web. The whole idea is to have some compressive strength in the top of the beam and tensile strength in the bottom of the beam, and to separate the two flanges accordingly. The further apart the top, compressively stressed flange is from the bottom, tensile stressed flange, the stronger the beam will be. That said, if you are limited in the height you can use because of the design, a thicker web will provide some benefit, but the height of the web does more than its thickness.
That is right. Thanks for that elaborative explanation. I recently made a similar concept but this time out of solid wood to act as a beam that sits on two columns above a sofa . The beam is also fastened to the wall. It holds an amazing amount of stuff the height of the web as you call it in this case is about 10 inches high .
What type and amount of load is this intended to support? Drywall screws are known to be brittle and prone to breaking under more than drywall load bearing. They are not structural connectors.
Monkeys Uncle I walked on these beams with no flex , and I weigh about 180lbs and I could put hundreds of pounds on . Now this is made to serve as an assembly platform for furniture projects that will weigh way less. I believe it would be weak only if load is set on individual edges of the beam and not over the central area where there is just too much material for it to fail
@@monkeysuncle2816, actually... While you're right? You're forgetting that the drywall screws are just acting as a clamp until the glue dried in this application. Unless the glue was absolute garbage, which is doubtful considering the craftsmanship that's been used, the screws used are immaterial. Some digging here on TH-cam will show you that the lumber used in a joint like this will tear before the glue joint itself can fail. He could literally remove all fasteners and have the same strength, many woodworkers who employ pocket hole jointery will go back and remove the screws once the glue has dried just to get more mileage from their investment, because they serve no purpose for typical weight bearing applications.
@@gary24752 be fair. You're talking about it being under constant load. If he was parking a truck on his wooden I-beams for a year? Sure. He build them for a flat work table to build a credenza on. They won't survive a trip to the moon on the outside of a rocket either.
They would have to have a very strong connection that would rezist sagging . I would try to get longer material and then make the center piece wider so that the beam would be taller
creativobuu sorry I’m responding so late. I believe that you are right . You will encounter some movement over time . But a 2 by 6 would deffinetely work as far stability goes . It will be way more work because you would have to square your parts. The price is lower but I’d go the plywood route for this project 🙏🏻
The design is structurally wrong - you want the top and bottom sections of the beam thick and short, while the central section rather thin and tall. Watch th-cam.com/video/zSz0kV0BPDY/w-d-xo.html fot the science behind. Basically, the central section of an I-beam mainly holds the top and bottom (where the stress actually occurs) together.
As you can clearly see from the video presentation , I am using them as an assembly table not for a structure. However I sat and walked on them , I transported a large piece of furniture that was too long for my pickup truck bed , and it did not deflect at all. You are showing me a beam made of steel , to hold way more heavier loads. I conducted my own testing by building and using this in real world situation personally. Thanks for watching however .
@@artofgontea-artist5718 First of all, thank you for your reply and please, don't take it as a criticism - it's rather a suggestion. Whether it works, sure it does. You just don't get all the resistance the material offers you. :) Btw, whether it's a steel or wood, it does not matter. The I-beam design comes from the cross-sectional analysis. Neverthless, it's apparently nice and precisely made, well done! :)
@@NemamZadnejKanal I believe that the top and bottom pieces (flanges) are for lateral (sheer) strength. The load is on the wide center piece, just like a steel I beam. so the top flange and bottom flange prevent the center (load carrying portion) from moving at an angle. Without the top and bottom flange, if the center plywood changed position or moved at an angle, then the load transfer would be changed and the I joist would fail Thats why its so important when using I joist to install beam spacers between the joist to keep them stable, perpendicular and uniform. The actual load is on the center or vertical piece of plywood. If you go to a manufacture's web site and look at their engineered structural calculations, when increasing the load capablities, the only thing they change is the width of the center perpendicular plywood, not the flanges. The more weight and span, the wider the center plywood. :-)
@@WillyBouy It's not really as you say... The compression/tension occurs in top and bottom "flanges". The centerpiece is, on the other hand, responsible for shear resistance. The deformation you talk about is probably torsion, that is what you avoid by spacers and overall thickness. If you pretend to increase joist resistance by adding width (only), you're going to be inefficient. The height of the cross-section gives you the resistance, the width gives you the stability (prevents flection).
It appears to be cabinet plywood which would have to be rated structural to use as a beam and with the use of PVA glue I would not trust it even if it were.
The height of the web is more important than the thickness of the web. The whole idea is to have some compressive strength in the top of the beam and tensile strength in the bottom of the beam, and to separate the two flanges accordingly. The further apart the top, compressively stressed flange is from the bottom, tensile stressed flange, the stronger the beam will be. That said, if you are limited in the height you can use because of the design, a thicker web will provide some benefit, but the height of the web does more than its thickness.
That is right. Thanks for that elaborative explanation. I recently made a similar concept but this time out of solid wood to act as a beam that sits on two columns above a sofa . The beam is also fastened to the wall. It holds an amazing amount of stuff the height of the web as you call it in this case is about 10 inches high .
Should have groved the top and bottom, by 1/8" then glue and screw that would have been stronger
What type and amount of load is this intended to support? Drywall screws are known to be brittle and prone to breaking under more than drywall load bearing. They are not structural connectors.
Monkeys Uncle I walked on these beams with no flex , and I weigh about 180lbs and I could put hundreds of pounds on . Now this is made to serve as an assembly platform for furniture projects that will weigh way less. I believe it would be weak only if load is set on individual edges of the beam and not over the central area where there is just too much material for it to fail
I applaud your inventiveness, but in the future I recommend using a slightly better grade of fastener than drywall screws. Just sayin'!
@@monkeysuncle2816, actually... While you're right? You're forgetting that the drywall screws are just acting as a clamp until the glue dried in this application.
Unless the glue was absolute garbage, which is doubtful considering the craftsmanship that's been used, the screws used are immaterial.
Some digging here on TH-cam will show you that the lumber used in a joint like this will tear before the glue joint itself can fail.
He could literally remove all fasteners and have the same strength, many woodworkers who employ pocket hole jointery will go back and remove the screws once the glue has dried just to get more mileage from their investment, because they serve no purpose for typical weight bearing applications.
@@russellborrego1689 The glue although wood glue is PVA and is not rated as a structural glue in any sense of the word.
@@gary24752 be fair. You're talking about it being under constant load. If he was parking a truck on his wooden I-beams for a year? Sure.
He build them for a flat work table to build a credenza on.
They won't survive a trip to the moon on the outside of a rocket either.
I just subbed. I hope all is well and that you have time for more videos. Such a peaceful and informative video.
Thank you very much
If you wanted to make them longer, could you overlap multiple pieces?
They would have to have a very strong connection that would rezist sagging . I would try to get longer material and then make the center piece wider so that the beam would be taller
Can I use 2x6, 2x4 etc. instead of plywood or do you think the expansion and contraction will cause problems on that 'T' shape join?
creativobuu sorry I’m responding so late.
I believe that you are right . You will encounter some movement over time . But a 2 by 6 would deffinetely work as far stability goes . It will be way more work because you would have to square your parts. The price is lower but I’d go the plywood route for this project 🙏🏻
WOW!!! You helped me with my 4th grade science fair project ALOT thanks
I am very glad to know that ! good luck !
Very cool, definitely enjoyed this video. Thanks!
Thank you for sharing
Thankyou Bro for sharing
The design is structurally wrong - you want the top and bottom sections of the beam thick and short, while the central section rather thin and tall. Watch th-cam.com/video/zSz0kV0BPDY/w-d-xo.html fot the science behind. Basically, the central section of an I-beam mainly holds the top and bottom (where the stress actually occurs) together.
As you can clearly see from the video presentation , I am using them as an assembly table not for a structure. However I sat and walked on them , I transported a large piece of furniture that was too long for my pickup truck bed , and it did not deflect at all. You are showing me a beam made of steel , to hold way more heavier loads. I conducted my own testing by building and using this in real world situation personally. Thanks for watching however .
@@artofgontea-artist5718 First of all, thank you for your reply and please, don't take it as a criticism - it's rather a suggestion.
Whether it works, sure it does. You just don't get all the resistance the material offers you. :)
Btw, whether it's a steel or wood, it does not matter. The I-beam design comes from the cross-sectional analysis.
Neverthless, it's apparently nice and precisely made, well done! :)
@@NemamZadnejKanal I believe that the top and bottom pieces (flanges) are for lateral (sheer) strength. The load is on the wide center piece, just like a steel I beam. so the top flange and bottom flange prevent the center (load carrying portion) from moving at an angle. Without the top and bottom flange, if the center plywood changed position or moved at an angle, then the load transfer would be changed and the I joist would fail Thats why its so important when using I joist to install beam spacers between the joist to keep them stable, perpendicular and uniform. The actual load is on the center or vertical piece of plywood. If you go to a manufacture's web site and look at their engineered structural calculations, when increasing the load capablities, the only thing they change is the width of the center perpendicular plywood, not the flanges. The more weight and span, the wider the center plywood. :-)
@@WillyBouy It's not really as you say... The compression/tension occurs in top and bottom "flanges". The centerpiece is, on the other hand, responsible for shear resistance. The deformation you talk about is probably torsion, that is what you avoid by spacers and overall thickness. If you pretend to increase joist resistance by adding width (only), you're going to be inefficient. The height of the cross-section gives you the resistance, the width gives you the stability (prevents flection).
It appears to be cabinet plywood which would have to be rated structural to use as a beam and with the use of PVA glue I would not trust it even if it were.