<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   John Hartman wrote <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>What I said is that the crowning process does not damage the panel as long >as it is kept within the elastic range. Your putting the ceiling at 11% >(witch is equivalent ot 60% RH) is exactly what I said earlier.   <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives"></a> </blockquote> Given that we are dealing with 5.5 % instead of 4.5 % this either all gets adjusted upwared to 12 %,  which pushes RH up a bit as well, Or you are looking at a 0.8 % overall compression, which what...needs to be modified to take into consideration the effect bending via crowning has. I am under the impresseion that the 0.8 % compression rate is really just what is the compression level at the interface with the rib, and that as you move towards the top side of the panel this is significantly less... tho I dont see yet how to figure this damage. This would seem to lower the overall damage threshold further.... tho I am not sure yet as to how much. Still trying to figure where Ron got 580 psi as perpendicular to grain FSPL for Sitka when it says 710 psi in the table on page 79 of Hoadly's book. Thats about a 20 percent increase strengthwise. RicB     -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>  </html>