Approximate conversion of cord volume when stacked crisscross for drying

[keepItToasty]

Hello— I’m wondering if anyone knows an estimate of the volume of a cord when stacked for drying (3x3). I understand the answer will depend on split size but I don’t need exact precision just a ballpark if anyone has one.

 

[Woodsplitter67]

There is no variation. A cord is 128 cuft.. or 4x4x8=128 or 2x 4x16=128 or 1.5x4x21.5= 129 cuft.. A cord is a standard volume of wood .. no matter how its stacked or cut to length.. volume of area.. same thing for me.. I can tell you a cord in log lenth.. WxLxH= volume of area

 

[keepItToasty]

There is no variation. A cord is 128 cuft.. or 4x4x8=128 or 2x 4x16=128 or 1.5x4x21.5= 129 cuft.. A cord is a standard volume of wood .. no matter how its stacked or cut to length.. volume of area.. same thing for me.. I can tell you a cord in log lenth.. WxLxH= volume of area

Yea I get that but it all assumes the wood is stacked compactly. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I have a volume of wood that is stacked in columns to dry--crisscross, with each layer perpendicular to the layer below. So there's tons of air, and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the volume if the same amount of wood were stacked compactly.

 

[Woodsplitter67]

I think we all go by a medium stack.. not super tight.. not loose.. If you have a cord stacked and its a little loose.. isn't that close enough to a cord to say you have a cord.. My point being if a cord is 128 cuft and you actually have 120 cuft in the pile.. isnt that close enough.. Im sitting on 14 cords.. maybe some is a little loose.. so in all actuality I may have 13.5 cords.. does it really make a difference..

 

[keepItToasty]

I just want to triple check because this seems very counter-intuitive to me and I want to make sure my slow brain is understanding correctly.

Are you saying that the volume of wood per cubic foot in a pile stacked like the pile on the left isn't significantly different from the wood in a cubic foot of a pile stacked like the one on the right?

My understanding is the point of stacking a pile like the one on the right is to significantly increase the amount of airflow through the pile, so I was thinking it would have to follow that there's significantly less wood.


I've burned out in the country but I'm now burning on a small city lot for the first time. I'm just starting to build a stock of wood and don't have much space, so >10% difference would be significant to me.

 

[stoveliker]

You are correct; the crisscross stacked wood has less BTUs per 128 cu ft of stack volume.

I don't know how much though.

A cord is defined as 128 cu ft of parallel sta ked wood.

 

[Woodsplitter67]

If this is how your stacking.. It looks like this will average out to me.. The top pick looks tight as can be.. the bottom is extremely loose.. Id probably stack the ends a lottle tighter.. . but over all the average should work out..

I go by this rule of thumb... this is not an exact science.. to me close enough is just that.. Ill stack my sheds full.. After 2 summers the woods about 8 inches down from the original stacked pile.. Im not going to refill the shed to say.. this is exactly 3 cords.. if it dries out to be 2.92 cords .. to me its not really making that much of a difference..

I could see if your entire stacks loose and your worried about it not even being close at all.. like you stacked it 4x4x8 and theres only like .6 cords in it . Thats worth trying to figure out.. but from the pictures.. thats not the case

 

[Eman85]

I didn't and won't ever bother to calculate the difference but it is pretty significant. We cross stacked like your picture to get good airflow and we have plenty of space and it really spreads out the stacks compared to just straight stacking. The reason we did it was for drying and it really seemed to make a difference, also we don't cover the stacks except in winter.
If it really matters break a stack down and straight stack it and compare the volume. For us the wood dried quickly and it worked well but it was more work and took more space.

 

[brenndatomu]

I'd think that stacking like that you'd gain 25% pretty easily...but really it all varies on the person stacking, so...it depends

 

[keepItToasty]

If it really matters break a stack down and straight stack it and compare the volume

Yes of course ... was definitely hoping someone else had done this and I could just plug in their results. My back is already angry at me for doing so much wood-moving in the last few days I can't bear the thought of unstacking anything right now.

 

[keepItToasty]

I'd think that stacking like that you'd gain 25% pretty easily...but really it all varies on the person stacking, so...it depends

25% is a real good guess.
I just measured one stack-- one 9 cubic foot criss cross stack (18x18x48) was 6.83 cubic feet when stacked straight, which comes out to a 0.758:1 ratio. I'd want to have data on several stacks to put much faith in that number but it works for me as a ballpark figure.

 

[Garbanzo62]

Take 2 of your 3/3 stacks and stack them on the ground in a parallel stack manner and measure that. So lets say for arguments that it come out to 1.5 cubic feet. All you would need to do is count the number of 3 X 3 stacks you have and extend that amount, then divide by 128 to get the number of cords. e.g 2 (3 X 3) stacks = 1.5 CFT then 100 3 X 3 stacks would be 100 / 2 * 1.5 = 75 cft 75 / 128 = .59 cords

 

[Woody Stover]

My understanding is the point of stacking a pile like the one on the right is to significantly increase the amount of airflow through the pile, so I was thinking it would have to follow that there's significantly less wood.
I've burned out in the country but I'm now burning on a small city lot for the first time. I'm just starting to build a stock of wood and don't have much space, so >10% difference would be significant to me.

I'd think that stacking like that you'd gain 25% pretty easily...but really it all varies on the person stacking, so...it depends

25% is a real good guess.
I just measured one stack-- one 9 cubic foot criss cross stack (18x18x48) was 6.83 cubic feet when stacked straight, which comes out to a 0.758:1 ratio.

Initially, I thought "That's gotta be 10% at least," but 25% is big. Reasons to cross-stack for me would be if I was under the gun to get some wood dry as quickly as possible, or if I had room for only two years' worth so couldn't let Oak go for three years, or to get better air movement into stacks that are three rows wide on the stack bases.
I'll be getting some wood from a 24" dead Red Elm and I'm guessing the trunk wood might be mid-20s % MC. The wettest wood from the tree will get stacked in the outer row of SIL's shed, where is will be hit by the prevailing wind first. Stuff that's already drier will be stacked behind that in the second row. Her shed has two double-width racks with an aisle down the middle, so I'm thinking the windward row of the second rack will still get decent air movement, just not as good as the row that gets full force of the wind.
I guess you could split the difference, and do a cross-stack every four feet or whatever, stacking normally between those...that might help.

 

[cahaak]

As long as your stack has some reasonable air flow, you aren't going to gain any drying speed by cross stacking. The limiting factor is internal wood diffusion and tiny change you have in your surface boundary condition from stacking type won't matter much there.

In other words, stack normally with a top cover only, if you get much rain and your wood will dry.

 

[keepItToasty]

As long as your stack has some reasonable air flow, you aren't going to gain any drying speed by cross stacking. The limiting factor is internal wood diffusion and tiny change you have in your surface boundary condition from stacking type won't matter much there.

In other words, stack normally with a top cover only, if you get much rain and your wood will dry.

I would much rather stack normally for space and time considerations. Mostly space.

Most of the advice I've seen says stacking crisscross drys faster, have you tried both? Trying to wade through conflicting information and I'm open to believing the common, received wisdom is incorrect.

I know I can always stack a little each way and check them myself in a year ... but ya know that's extra work and I do plenty of work ...

 

[Garbanzo62]

Generally I only Crisscross stack when I want don't have adequate support on the ends. Crisscross seems a bit more stable than parallel stacking.

 

[Isaac Carlson]

We stack straight and crib the ends when needed. 6-7 ft high and 6-8 rows deep.

 

[Heart Rot]

Hey Keepittoasty, I was wondering the same thing last year as I criss-cross stack due to my wood shed setup to allow the wood to stand freely on pallets. Like yourself, I do 3 to 4 splits per row, like in that second picture you posted.

I took three samples of "standard" tight stack vs criss-cross-stack. They were small samples (each less than 1/2 a face cord) but it was enough to give me some data.

Of the three samples, going from tight stack to CCS, the increase in volume was 19%, 23%, and 21%. For my wood storage planning, I use a 22% increase figure. So for a 128 cu ft standard cord CCS I use 156 cu ft. Some of the guesses of 25% I saw here are pretty good. I'm sure there's variation by how carefully/tightly you stack each layer, etc.

I keep my wood on 3.5' x 4' pallets, crisscross stacked 5.5' high. That gives me half a cord per pallet (3.5 x 4 x 5.5 = 77) / (128 x 1.22 = 156) = 0.49, and is the max height I can do while keeping it comfortably stable.

So planning on your 128 cu ft cord "growing" by 20-25% when CCS with some finesse I think is a pretty safe bet.