load capacity of wood columns

Does anyone have a reference for the load that various wood columns (rounds) can carry? My searching on the Net gives me all kinds of info, but nothing I can understand; too much engineering language. I just want to know how many POUNDS (not "kips", whatever they are) a 10' peeled aspen log will carry when stood up, unsupported, and is 10' long, etc. Info for store-bought 8x8's, etc, would be nice, too. Thanks. john

Thanks for the replies. I figured kips was kilo something. Exactly what are the initials for? Just KIloPoundsS? Yes, it was for doug fir. As for unsupported, yes, if I have my nomenclature correct. I want to have a 10' clear height for a room, so I'll be walking around some naked (unsupported) posts. I don't see that as particularly odd, but maybe 10' is pushing it????

I've looked at larger beams, but there is always a point where increasing beam size gets prohibitive, either because of cost or beam height. Cutting a span into pieces, though a PITA to walk around a post or two, is sometimes all you can practically do. For right now, the "span" is 42'. I am adding a roof along the side of my house so we can park there, out of the weather. I'll be putting 4 posts along the length, each side, and running a beam on top. The width, 12', will be spanned w/ 2x10's, 16" O.C. For this job, I am sure that 6x6 posts would be very adequate, but for down the road I want to know what 8" and 10" logs will carry.

Words. If you use the right ones in the wrong place, it sure confuses things. Sorry about that. For my "roof", for lack of a better term, which will be 42' long by 12' wide, I will use the aspen logs as columns to support a 42' beam (4 logs under a 42' beam). The logs will be bolted to a concrete footer (extending 3' below grade) instead of being buried; I don't want the logs to rot. I'll have some serious steel well embedded in the concrete and well anchored to the logs. Certainly, 6x6s would work fine, but then I'd have to buy them; logs a free.... sort of.... if I ignore my labor. By "unsupported" I meant that the logs will have no lateral bracing to minimize flexing under load; that is my understanding of what an "unsupported column" is..... but, I could be confused, and more than likely a term like "unbraced" or "un-wtf" would be better. Dunno. I hope that clears up the confusion. Basically, I'm building a deck and replacing the typical 6x6s w/ logs. Down the road, I'd like to know what load these logs will carry, if properly supported and properly braced against lateral deflection. Man, I gotta take a nap and clear my head for the next job.... j

Stee: It sometimes takes me a while, but I can usually get it all explained clearly. Next time, I'll send in a sketch. Yes, the 36" footer should raise flags, and code here is also 42" (to the top of the footer). However, I cheated 35 yrs ago and put my deck posts down only 2', and so far, so good. I also built my addition, about 25 yrs ago, slab on grade, no foundation wall. I get by, I feel, because I work hard at sloping the earth real hard and fast away from any structures. Maybe I am just lucky, but dry dirt does not heave. That said, my house has a "by code" foundation wall, and the new house will go down 48" because it is going to be about 90' long. That's a whole new bag, though. All that said, I can not guarantee that my deck, on the side 12' from the house, does not float up and down a tad. After 35 yrs it is no longer "perfectly" level, but you have to work at it to notice. So, I think I'll just go down 3' on the new "deck", though if I hire my neighbor's Bobcat w/ a hole driller, then 4' won't hurt so much. I don't like going beyond 3' with a regular old post hole digger, as you have to dig a trench so you can open the handles to bite, etc; major PITA! Thanks for the input; suggestions/questions are always welcome. john

Disco: Thanks. That makes approximate sense, as the ratio of the area of a square, with side 2r, to that of a circle w/ radius = r, is 4 to 3.14. Surely there are other factors involved besides purely area, too.

As far as I know.... Yes, for beams, the load capacity is inversely proportional to the cube of the span. For posts (columns), it is a matter of material, or square inches. That book you referenced was very informative, btw. Read page 29, section 44 (if I recall. It is right above the section you referenced). That section discusses calc'ing the necessary post diameter with a given load. The book looks "old", too. Good to see that math and physics worked back then; dang stuff may NEVER go out of style! Thanks. john

Good God. Here it is, 0100 hrs, and I'm reading this book. Problem is, I am reading it backwards, as the more I scroll up the more good info I find. I may just have to up and buy the thing.... j