Pianotech

Expand all | Collapse all

A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

  • 1.  A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-07-2016 22:10

    I have a 1904 Weber 7’4” Grand piano in the process of restoration in my shop. Below is a look at the string and rib scale relationship.

    This piano had a cracked soundboard that was flat, a short sustain, however, the tone had a nice fullness to it, which showed lots of potential.

    The string scale was basically 10 notes for one gauge and the tension curve showed that in between gauges would benefit for smoother transitions. I went with a 6 /4 pattern which worked well. Altering the scale only added another 40lbs to the downbearing.

    This piano had been rebuilt before, and the bass string scale was aweful and uneven. The lowest bass string had a 4.3 tension to length ratio 286lbs/66in.  Since the lowest tenor string was 160lbs, I scaled the bass section like this-  8 Unichords 286 – 322,8  bichords 244-276, 6 trichords 203- 230. This way each was in the 39- 50 breaking percent range.

    So next, I examined the rib scale to see if it could support the downbearing.

    The rib scale was beautifully engineered and precise. Only a little improvement could be found. Ribs 8 and 13 were the hard working ribs and needed to be a little larger to bring down the stress level to match the others. The rib profile was at 76% originally, and with a little adjustment, I was able to get it down to 73%. This will give the piano tone a little more depth. I accomplished this by raising the average stress from 1,977 to 2,007 lbf (still within acceptable range)and changing the rib profile to a little wider and not as tall.

    Here’s the specs:

    Force …………948Lbs

    Resistance….. .10.72 Sq.In.

    Board Sq.Ft  ....15

    Rib Count ……15

    Rib Profile……73%

    Rib Stress…….2,007 lbf

    Now with the assurance that the string scale is supported by the rib scale, the rebuild is off on a solid foundation.

    I particularly like this Weber design as it is well engineered, inexpensive compared to known brands, but on equal footing in my opinion

    .

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-09-2016 19:40

    Mr. Chernobieff,

    It looks to be a fine project for sure.  The numbers you include seem to come from a very specific protocol.  Would you mind explaining them to those of us who don't know how they were arrived at ? Thanks in advance.

    ------------------------------
    Karl Roeder
    Pompano Beach FL



  • 3.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-10-2016 12:54

    Hi Karl,

    Thank you for the inquiry.

     First the bass string scaling method is heavily inspired by the 3-part articles “Some Thoughts on the Design of Bass Strings” by Richard M. Brown   August 1988

    The rest is a practical system I came up with to analyze a soundboard that will pinpoint the problems it has (if any), improve its resonance, and make sure it can properly support the downbearing.  I came up with six elements- Force, Resistance, Board Square Feet, Rib Count, Rib Profile, Rib Stress.  After comparing several boards to one another a clear picture begins to form. Most boards are not engineered properly! Because of that the tone suffers. For example boards that “sound” stiff have ribs that are too large with a high Rib Profile. I’m finding boards in the 93-98% range. Boards with a low tone and plenty of resonance have a rib profile in the 70% range. A Steinway O that came in had a rib profile of 83%, with leaves much room for improvement. I have a piano in my shop with a 68% profile and it has a fantastic deep boom sound. It is a large upright with a 12 sq. ft. board that really sounded much “bigger”. And I found that it really just came down to good engineering.

    The six elements are not independent from each other, but interrelate. So if one element is changed, it has an effect on the others. As an example, a common ailment is having one rib short. This creates a situation in which all the ribs are larger than they should be, and at the same time, they are over stressed and under-engineered. Let me tell you that it is an amazing feat of engineering for that designer (Jacob Gross) to get such a low rib profile of 68%, all while maintaining the other elements in the proper proportion.

    My system evolved by asking myself two questions that kept coming up.

    Why copy soundboards with tonal problems and obvious design flaws and bad engineering?

    How did some boards achieve such a low tone resonance, and most do not?

    Now with the ability to answer those questions and make the necessary adjustments, allows me to rebuild a clients piano to exceed their expectations.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 4.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-10-2016 13:03
    I am with Karl on this one.? Your reasoning sounds good and well thought out.? However, some of us don't understand what you mean when you say, " For example boards that ?sound? stiff have ribs that are too large with a high Rib Profile. I?m finding boards in the 93-98% range. Boards with a low tone and plenty of resonance have a rib profile in the 70% range."? And how you determine that.??? Clark









  • 5.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-10-2016 13:15

    I apologize.  When I just hit reply, it seems to insert all those pesky Question marks.  I don't know whay, but being an ex-teacher,  it bothered me enough to come on the website and reply that way.  Sorry.   Clark

    ------------------------------
    Clark A. Sprague, RPT
    Bowling Green, OH
    www.clarkspianoservice.com



  • 6.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-10-2016 13:19

    Hi Clark,

    By sound I am referring to the the Tap test that is used when the strings and plate are removed. The Rib Profile element is the "sum of the Height to Width ratio" of the ribs. As a crude example, if all the ribs were 1/2" tall and 1" wide that would be 50% Rib Profile.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 7.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-10-2016 13:32
    Thank you, Chris. I get it. How do you determine that a board sounds
    "stiff"? Clark
    --
    Clark A. Sprague, RPT csprague4@woh.rr.com www.clarkspianoservice.com




  • 8.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-10-2016 13:56

    I guess that's learned through experience. Comparing one to another. Most common are the high pitched boards with their engineering problems.
    I'll be posting examples of soundboards with problems to correspond to the chapter presentations.






  • 9.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 11:33

    I think you should teach this at national next year.

    Sheffey Gregory, RPT






  • 10.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 11:53

    Sheffey,

    Speaking as an executive of Westpac Regional Conference it is understood that any person teaching classes must have some credentials of professional peer review. I would think this would  apply to the national conferences.

    Roger Gable

    ------------------------------
    Roger Gable
    Gable Piano
    Everett WA
    425-252-5000



  • 11.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 12:08

    Hello Sheffer I am submitting the paperwork.

    Roger, I find your statement offensive, insulting, and unbecoming of a professional. Not something that inspires other people to become members.






  • 12.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 12:29

    Curious as to why you find it so. Your name is one of many in this wonderful invisible world that we call the Internet. Like my name is to you, I'm sure. :)

    If I'm going to a national piano technician convention, I would expect to find teachers who are qualified and have been vetted. There are people who do not really know their subject matter. And there are people who know but cannot teach well. I am not saying either applies to you, BTW.

    Teaching at chapter levels, then at regional, then at national seems to make perfect sense to me. Hopefully by then anyone not qualified has been weeded out by then. 

    ------------------------------
    John Formsma, RPT
    New Albany MS



  • 13.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 12:50

    Hi John,
    You are right and I am currently going through the steps that I have been encouraged to do by some very nice people here.

    Roger and I have a history, and that was nothing but an example of a bully pulpit.

    I am getting wonderful emails from techs around the country so I will continue contributing.






  • 14.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 13:07
    I agree. I also think that anyone hoping to be taken seriously would
    provide some real information, rather than vague hints without
    dimensions or formulae. Even a general outline of method. For instance,
    we not only don't have rib lengths, but we don't have any but
    circumstantial evidence as to whether he's making compression crowned,
    or rib crowned boards. With no mention of crown radii, I presume
    compression crowning. But he hasn't said anything useful to indicate
    either way.

    Also, I think it's very sad that we have come to needing to enumerate
    what we aren't saying when we try to say something because someone is so
    sure to interpret anything we say as personally offensive. We spend more
    time dancing around something than just saying it.

    Ron N




  • 15.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 14:14

    Hi Ron,

    With all due respect to you, i have been very precise, and not dancing around the topic. This is basic engineering. Engineering 101.  In fact, I would not dare go onto an engineering forum with this simple stuff. But since soundboards are engineered,  and my specialty, in my opiniion worthy of discussion with other piano experts willing to learn.

    I realize you may be having trouble with the engineering principles. I assure you, i have not invented anything new here. i simply have put in the hard work (research) and have eliminated the unnessecary terms from one trade and made it presentable to another trade. 

    For example;  I have already posted twice, the formula for stress. It is Moment divided by Section.  Bending Moment divided by the Section Modulus.  Google those. By the way, you use those two principles every time you tune a piano. Or to be a little more precise Moment of Torgue and Section Modulus. As a rough guess, you are probably using 5-10 lbs of force and exerting 200lbf of torgue.

    Hope that's a little more clear. I will go into a little more about Moment, Section, and Stress on my next post.

    P.S. I have not discussed compression or downbearing because of non relevance. I've been discussing principles, not constants and methods.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 16.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 14:35
    Edited by Chris Chernobieff 04-15-2016 14:48

    Here is an exercise/challenge if someone out there wants to try it.

    Given the Height, Width,Stress load, Force, and soundboard thickness of the rib below, solve algebraically for the length.

    I'll confirm it if you are right.

    Heighth- .43

    Width- .82

    Stress- 1.854 lbf

    Force in Center- 60lbs

    soundboard thickness- .30

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 17.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 15:18

    Mr Chernobieff: Great post! Could not find formula quick on Google (Eng.101) but am inspired. 2 ?s for now please. 15sq ft seems too small for board size on a 7 ft piano. How is this figured? Can panels routinely be reused replacing only ribs?

    ------------------------------
    Paul Klaus



  • 18.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 15:33

    Thank You Paul.

    Is that small? Thats 2,160 sq, inches and it looks big when I stand next to it. LOL 

    Regarding reusing a panel. Good question, I have never done it. The problem is getting it out of the piano without half destroying it. With some of that beautiful Adirondack Spruce that used, it sure would be nice.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 19.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 15:43

     Maybe turn piano upside down and put wet cloth around rim overnight. Have not tried.Thank you.Thought sq.ft. measurement only included part of the panel.

    ------------------------------
    Paul Klaus



  • 20.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 16:03

    Hey Paul,

    Calculating soundboard area can be complex using math formulas trying to figure out odd shapes. So i ended up coming up with a crude way that works for me. After popping out the board, i get 1/4 masking tape and physically map out each square foot. It makes it so easy that you can figure out the square foot from a photo.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 21.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-17-2016 20:46

    the length

    Chris Chernobieff,  2 days ago

    =27"

    ------------------------------
    Paul Klaus



  • 22.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-17-2016 22:32

    The length of what is 27"? There are 15 ribs. This conversation is non productive.

    ------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320



  • 23.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 09:34
    Please refrain from personal and testy remarks on this forum.  The knowledge and understanding of what is being discussed and the application of that knowledge runs from total comprehension to complete mystification.  Remember that.  Do not assume your comments are automatically understood and when questions are asked, please present an answer in a polite manner.  What may seem elementary to you may stretch the understanding of others - who just may want to learn.  We may need to hear some engineering 101 before we can grasp the significance of the discussion.  

    Bill Davis, RPT, SERVP
    2315 Rocky Mountain Rd NE
    Marietta GA 30066-2113
    HP: 770-485-6430
    CP: 770-778-6881
    bill@pianoplace.net
    www.pianoplace.net






  • 24.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 12:14
    George,
    Personally, I'd rather see real science and engineering than social
    nicety that isn't instructive. He still hasn't answered my questions
    about the construction of his boards. He either doesn't understand the
    question, or is evading. I think he just doesn't understand.

    Chris,
    You are apparently making high panel compression boards, since rib
    (beam) support alone won't work with the rib dimension and load figures
    you posted. I asked what you were using for rib crown radius and you
    replied that downbearing didn't matter. I assume that means you didn't
    understand what crowned ribs are. With the figures you posted, even a
    rib of 5 meter radius machined crown would be pushed flat by the load
    you indicated unless it was supported by considerable panel compression.
    A rib that is wider than it is tall is characteristic of a compression
    crowned soundboard, rather than a rib crowned or rib crowned and
    supported board. Since you haven't specified this basic information, I
    assume you are making compression crowned soundboards with straight
    ribs. Is that correct? At what panel MC are you ribbing your boards, and
    with what sort of press?
    Ron N




  • 25.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 13:31
    Edited by Paul Klaus 04-16-2016 13:38

    testy remarks on this forum

    George W. R. Davis,  3 hours ago

    George; I count 1 possible testy remark by one and at least 6 elsewhere. Refers where? Rhetorical question better suited for PTG-L.or ignored as usual.

    ------------------------------
    Paul Klaus



  • 26.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-17-2016 15:10

    Chris:

    Most people I know are calculating rib scales based on beam formulas which require length,width height and load in addition to the modulus. I would also find it helpful to know if you're using fixed ends or simple ends.  I use fixed ends but some don't.  Center loading is the typical format even though the upper end of the piano deviates quite a bit from that.  

    There will be variations based on the fact the board designers use somewhat different criteria in their decision making and sometimes include things like how much crowning of the ribs is done and to some extent the EMC of the panel at glue up, though it should be noted that the range other than NY Steinway is pretty small, probably 5-6% EMC.  All panels under normal conditions have some compression. Some, as in the case of NY Steinway traditional methods, have more. The actual amount of compression, of course, will vary with the ambient humidity and the panel's ability to withstand compression loads. Load distribution between the ribs does vary from designer to designer.  The panel does add some stiffness but since it the panel contribution is cross grain it doesn't deliver the same stiffness as you would see if you were to increase the rib height by the same amount along the grain.  But it does add some stiffness.  At the same time the rib scalloping will reduce the effective strength of the beam at the edge since most designers use beam formulas with a constant cross sections.  Some will treat those two things (scalloping and the added stiffness of the panel) as offsetting and therefore use the constant beam cross section as the basis for their design..

    It would be simple enough if you (Chris) were to provide complete rib dimensions and the species modulus to determine under a narrow range of parameters how your design compares with others'.  I assume you posted this as a basis for discussion.  Rather than shroud the data in mystery why don't you just post it.  For me that means L, W, H and species at least. I'm not really interested in being quizzed. If you are crowning the ribs more than, say 16-18 M radius that might matter.  Also if you are crowning the ribs are you accounting for the reduced volume as the rib tapers away from the center height?  If so, how?  For me it doesn't really matter whether you are relying on pure compression crowning or building some in in terms of my ability to analyze the rib scale on its own merits.  If it's under engineered then it will be easy to see and conclude that you may need more supporting compression.  Likewise If it's over engineered.

    That being said I do think that for these types of construction there is a "sweet spot" that gives a balance between power and sustain. But as we've seen that can vary some and still produce a satisfactory result.  At some point, however, I believe you can personalize the designs to where they begin to sound strange. Downbearing settings are a separate, though related, discussion.   

    Let's just post the relevant data and see how our ideas compare.  There's room for differences.  

    ------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320



  • 27.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-17-2016 15:58

    Hi David,

    Thank you for the good questions.

    First I have avoided talking about methods of construction because that is not the point. I believe in high compression boards, but not as a 'make up for' any bad engineering.  What I am doing and have done is come up with a simple way to compare soundboards from one make to another. Discover their mistakes if any and fix them with small improvements.  What conditions or methods those boards were made under doesn't matter. Just comparing the boards physical attributes.

    The Weber is the first I posted and i pointed out possible mistakes and how they can be corrected. As more boards get analysed I will have more useful data. I have observed so far that boards that are under engineered are flat  a 100 years later. The two that are over engineered still have full crown and sound great a 100 years later. So I think the engineering matters.

    I am soon to be popping a board out of a M&H BB. I will post the rib data side by side with the rib data of the Weber for your study.

    Center loading beam formula is the least useable. More useable and accurate is the One off center formula (I already posted an example), and the two force beam formula. 

    On the open vs fixed beam test to determine the proper MOE. Both are incorrect for soundboards, and will give you an incorrect deflection amount. Iv'e done both and rejected both. MOE for Spruce is roughly 1.9 Million on an open end. For fixed it is roughly 3.6 million. I actually applaud you for noticing and checking into that. As for soundboards the MOE is roughly 3 times that, and vary to size. 

    You asked me a lot of questions so I dont know if i got them all or not. Its much easier to convey the info in a class setting with actual soundboards to compare and look at, along with their data.

    Again I will post the rib data on two rib scales side by side mid may.

    Thank you David.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 28.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-17-2016 16:15

    And on the question of rib shape.

     From an engineering point of view (and simplicity),it made sense to use an unaltered rib profile as a basis. I assume that anything that is taken away from that, goes to what i call an "uncertain engineering" and has a further weakening effect.  So if the rib resistance upon design is "just" strong enough, then it had been severely weakened when planed by hand.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 29.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-17-2016 19:39

    Actually all I've asked is dimensions, materials (modulus), and load, several times now. I'll assume you don't want to give that information. But without it I can't participate in the discussion. 

    ------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320



  • 30.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-15-2016 18:04

    John Formsma wrote:

    "If I'm going to a national piano technician convention, I would expect to find teachers who are qualified and have been vetted. There are people who do not really know their subject matter. And there are people who know but cannot teach well. I am not saying either applies to you, BTW.

    Teaching at chapter levels, then at regional, then at national seems to make perfect sense to me. Hopefully by then anyone not qualified has been weeded out by then."

    John, that sounds like a good way to go. However, I am not sure that what you have outlined is how instructors for the national convention are chosen, either now, or in the past. In fact, I am often frustrated at how so many in our organization do not seem to have a clear notion as to what constitutes a good teacher, particularly when we have so many great instructors among our members. (For example, if you look it up "teacher" in the dictionary--and your dictionary is any good--you should see a picture of LaRoy Edwards!) 

    ------------------------------
    Alan Eder, RPT
    Herb Alpert School of Music
    California Institute of the Arts
    Valencia, CA
    661.904.6483



  • 31.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 13:40
    Edited by Chris Chernobieff 04-16-2016 13:44

    Hi Ron,

    Thank you for your questions, I appreciate them. I admit I was taken somewhat aback by your aggressiveness and so I shortened my replies, and because of that, my response may have had a harsh tone. So I apologize for any mis-spoken words on my part.

    George I am sure meant well, as any good leader would.

    My system of analysis, (as would any system) has built-in assumptions. It would be impossible to calculate every nuance.  Nor would that be practical. I have kept it to 6 basic elements (Force, Resistance,Board sq ft, Rib Count, Rib profile, Rib Stress) that I feel are the most important for analysis. It also keeps it simple and makes analysis quick.

    For your concerns on compression, how would you quantify that? And input that strength value into a computer? How would that be helpful?

    I do measure the thicknesses of each board, and that becomes part of the Height of the ribs.

    Downbearing for analysis purposes, I feel is a constant and not an element. In my software, I keep an eye on 3 downbearing types. The actual downbearing, the Max downbearing, and the % between downbearing.   

    I also wanted to avoid methods of construction as there are most likely many “recipes” and systems to construct soundboards. And people get protective of their methods. I believe that I have created a valuable tool that is all inclusive not exclusive. Believe it or not, I respect all those methods. I just love soundboards all together.

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 32.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 14:17
    On 4/16/2016 12:39 PM, Chris Chernobieff via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > Hi Ron,
    >
    > Thank you for your questions, I appreciate them. I admit I was taken
    > somewhat aback by your aggressiveness and so I shortened my replies, and
    > because of that, my response may have had a harsh tone. So I apologize
    > for any mis-spoken words on my part.

    Just the problem of lack of basic information. Aggressive? Because I ask
    specific questions and expect logical answers? If so, we could use a lot
    more aggressiveness in these discussions.


    > My system of analysis, (as would any system) has built-in assumptions.
    > It would be impossible to calculate every nuance. Nor would that be
    > practical. I have kept it to 6 basic elements (Force, Resistance,Board
    > sq ft, Rib Count, Rib profile, Rib Stress) that I feel are the most
    > important for analysis. It also keeps it simple and makes analysis quick.

    Yes I understand, bur calculating the gross weight of the rivets in a
    bridge doesn't give you the bridge's load capacity without a few more
    details.


    > For your concerns on compression, how would you quantify that? And input
    > that strength value into a computer? How would that be helpful?

    No, I asked at what panel moisture content you ribbed your boards. This
    is important to the method and the result of any soundboard type. It's
    also the only way we have to estimate the compression levels in the
    panel. The actual number depends on the density of the wood in the
    individual panel.


    > I do measure the thicknesses of each board, and that becomes part of the
    > Height of the ribs.

    Yes, you said, though a cross grain panel is far different from the
    similar thickness of additional rib depth. I understand what you have
    said you do. What I'm after is the lacking information.


    > Downbearing for analysis purposes, I feel is a constant and not an
    > element. In my software, I keep an eye on 3 downbearing types. The
    > actual downbearing, the Max downbearing, and the % between downbearing.

    Yet again, I made no request for downbearing, and am not concerned with
    it. I asked if you were using flat ribs or ribs with a machined in
    crown. Crown is not downbearing. Are you crowning your ribs?


    > I also wanted to avoid methods of construction as there are most likely
    > many ???recipes??? and systems to construct soundboards. I believe that I
    > have created a valuable tool that is all inclusive not exclusive.
    > Believe it or not, I respect all those methods. I just love soundboards
    > all together.

    MC at assembly is an absolutely necessary factor to any type of
    soundboard assembly. Do you dry your panel down when you glue the ribs
    on? Is the clamping caul flat, or dished? What you are doing is
    absolutely specific to these things, just as what I do is. You may well
    have a good way to design a compression crowned board, if there is such
    a thing. A compression crowned board, for instance, is dried to
    4%-4.5%MC, a flat rib glued on, and usually pressed into a curved caul.
    A rib crowned board is dried to about 5%, a crowned rib glued on, and
    pressed into a caul of a radius similar to that of the rib. A rib
    crowned and supported board is typically dried to about 6%MC, a crowned
    rib glued on, and pressed into a caul of a crown radius similar to that
    of the rib. The difference is that the CC board is entirely panel
    supported, with the flat ribs resisting the formation of crown. The RC
    board is partially panel supported, and a relatively light rib scale is
    acting as a structural support member, supporting rather than resisting
    crown. An RC&S board is almost entirely rib supported, as if the panel
    wasn't even there, though in fact, the panel does supply some small
    degree of support.

    Each of these types of construction require different rib scaling, so my
    questions aren't arbitrary or aggressive. I'm attempting to get basic
    information that is meaningful in some sort of context.
    Ron N




  • 33.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 14:24

    If you really believe that a CC board is totally panel supportive, then don't put any ribs on the next one. I'd like to see that.






  • 34.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 14:29
    I see you don't understand. I'll quit bothering you.
    Ron N




  • 35.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 16:00

    Chris: Sorry. I do not get you on this (CC?) either. Thanks Ron for explaining difference with 6% and board support as that was another ? for me. Chris: Still mostly on taxes but will try your formula eventually. I also wonder how species of wood figures in calculations. Any old wood would do. Ha,ha Balsa/hickory ok? 

    ------------------------------
    Paul Klaus



  • 36.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 16:21

    Hi Paul,

    CC was Rons abreviation for Compression Crown. He and i believe differently on compression theory and the strength of it to support downbearing. From an engineering perspective mass is mass. An arch an arch.  Sure there are fluctuations. For example, could a 2x4 of the same species and size be stronger than another?

    Sure.

    I think of compression like that as far as added strength is concerned.  I think one should make a soundboard in the way that they are compfortable with the results. Engineering has built in safety factors to compensate. 

    My system will simply show if a board is under engineered. I suppose you have to assume that the invisible compression force is performing when the mass is under performing.  But gravity and the downward force will eventually overcome an under engineered board. Will that take 5 years? 50 years? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? 

    Different species would only matter in the deflection formula. Each species has its own MOE so make sure that you are using the correct one in the deflection formula.

    Good luck with the balsa wood soundboard! LOL

    ------------------------------
    ChrisChernobieff
    Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
    Lenoir City TN
    865-986-7720
    chrisppff@gmail.com
    www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG



  • 37.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    Posted 04-16-2016 20:53
    Edited by Paul Klaus 04-17-2016 17:41

    Chris: I know CC stands for compression crowned but one needs the ribs to form the crown by restraining one side of the panel as it re-hydrates from being dried to 4%. 

    ------------------------------
    Paul Klaus



  • 38.  RE: A Weber Semi-Concert Grand Piano Analysis

    0