Next Article in Journal
Design and Manufacturing of Adaptive Facades in a Life Cycle Approach: A Survey on Challenges and Solutions in the Italian Building Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Pavilions in Architecture Studio—Assessment of Design-Build Approach in Architecture Education
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preliminary Design Proposals for Dovetail Wood Board Elements in Multi-Story Building Construction

by
Hüseyin Emre Ilgın
* and
Markku Karjalainen
School of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 25 August 2021 / Revised: 15 September 2021 / Accepted: 17 September 2021 / Published: 22 September 2021

Abstract

:
Adhesives and metal fasteners play important roles in the composition and connections of engineered wood products (EWPs) such as cross-laminated timber and glue-laminated timber in the building construction industry. However, due to their petroleum-based nature, adhesives can cause toxic gas emissions, while metal fasteners compromise the end-of-life disposal and reusability of EWPs. These issues adversely affect the sustainable material properties of EWPs. Numerous studies have been conducted in the literature on the technological, ecological, social, and economic aspects of EWPs in construction with different construction solutions, but no studies have been conducted to evaluate the technical performance of dovetail wood board elements (DWBE) in multi-story or tall building construction. This study focuses on adhesive- and metal fastener-free DWBE as sustainable material alternatives for ecologically sensitive engineering solutions. Various preliminary design proposals are presented for DWBE using architectural modeling programs as an environmentally friendly approach intended for use in the timber construction industry. The research findings are based on a theoretical approach that has not yet been practically tested but is proposed considering existing construction practices that need further investigation, including technical performance tests. It is believed that this paper will contribute to the promotion and diffusion of DWBE for more diverse and innovative architectural and structural applications, particularly in multi-story timber building construction, as one of the key tools in tackling climate change challenges.

1. Introduction

Due to their many technical advantages such as uniform strength, stiffness, and dimensional stability and environmental features such as low carbon and high thermal insulation, EWPs are increasingly competitive, especially in multi-story, even tall, wooden buildings [1,2,3,4,5,6] as in the cases of the 85 m and 18-story Mjøstårnet (Brumunddal, 2019) [7,8] (Figure 1), the 84 m and 24-story HoHo (Austria, 2020) [9] (Figure 2), and the 49 m and 14-story Treet (Bergen, 2015) buildings [10].
Adhesives and metal fasteners, with the standardization of the construction industry, are often employed as a connection in EWPs for contemporary timber buildings replacing conventional wood-to-wood assemblies [11]. In this context, adhesive bonding is among the key factors, and adhesives play an important role in EWPs, especially by helping to protect the wood, enabling the structure to be strong and light, and preventing shrinkage and expansion caused by natural humidity [12,13,14,15]. However, the use of adhesives raises some concerns about sustainability, recyclability, further processing, and wider environmental impact due to toxic gas emissions (e.g., VOC emissions and formaldehyde) during their lifetime and when burning from their petroleum-based ingredients [16,17,18,19,20]. Additionally, despite ongoing advances in this research area, critical questions still remain about environmentally friendly bio-based adhesives [2,21,22]. Metal fasteners, as well as adhesives, are of great importance to EWPs [23,24], but they harm the end-of-life disposal, reusability, and recyclability of EWPs [20,25,26].
In the literature, numerous studies have been conducted on the technological, ecological, social, and economic aspects of EWPs in the construction industry with different building solutions; however, no studies have attempted to evaluate the technical performance of DWBE in multi-story or tall construction [27]. Moreover, there is very limited research on DWBE, and state-of-the-art technology has studied DWBE on a per-member basis only, or at most on a small-scale prototype level—no more than a connection detail—from a limited structural perspective and mostly in a theoretical framework [28].
This study focuses on dovetail wood board elements as sustainable material alternatives for ecological engineering solutions. Based on one of the oldest joining methods (Figure 3), these elements can offer an adhesive- and metal-fastener-free sustainable solution: solid and completely pure wood that provides as healthy indoor air as possible [28]. On the other hand, various potential difficulties and drawbacks (e.g., dimensional stability) can be encountered when using only dovetail elements, i.e., glueless boards. In this sense, a large decrease in the equilibrium moisture content compared to the equilibrium moisture content during the manufacture and assembly of the boards can lead to greater shrinkage of the wood and thus the appearance of airiness between the individual boards, which can lead to an undesirable reduction in wall stiffness. Another potential disadvantage of using DWBE can result from the greatly reduced strength of the wood in the radial and tangential directions in certain configurations. However, it is thought that these potential problems can be eliminated with the optimization and improvements to be made in the light of the results of the performance tests, e.g., structural performance, moisture transfer resistance, and airtightness.
The research aimed to create higher value-added circular economy opportunities to promote the competitiveness of large-scale industrial timber construction at the local level and to support European climate policy as part of bio-economy and sustainable development. To achieve this purpose, the plan to develop DWBE for multi-story buildings for the global market has been proposed as a replacement for conventional EWPs (e.g., CLT, Glulam) by enabling the confidence of its technical performance and suitability within the interdisciplinary collaborations among architecture, structure, and building physics. To bring this idea to life, as a first but important step towards realizing it, this research presents different initial design proposals for DWBE through architectural modeling programs as an eco-friendly approach in the timber construction industry.
It is believed that this study will contribute to the dissemination of DWBE for different and innovative architectural and structural applications, especially in multi-story timber building construction, as one of the key tools in tackling climate change challenges.
In this study, wood or timber refers to engineered timber products (EWPs), e.g., cross-laminated timber (CLT—a prefabricated multi-layer EWP, manufactured from at least three layers of boards by gluing their surfaces together with an adhesive under pressure), glue-laminated timber (Glulam—made by gluing together several graded timber laminations with their grain parallel to the longitudinal axis of the section), laminated veneer lumber (LVL—made by bonding together thin vertical softwood veneers with their grain parallel to the longitudinal axis of the section, under heat and pressure), Massiv-Holz-Mauer® (MHM—a timber wall construction material consisting of dried softwood joined with fluted aluminum nails that require neither glue nor chemical treatment). Furthermore, in this study, ‘multi-story building’ and ‘tall building’ are defined as a building with over two stories and eight stories, respectively.
In the literature, many studies have been carried out on the technological aspects of wood with different construction solutions based on the use of EWPs products such as CLT (e.g., [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]). There is an extremely limited number of research on DWBE, and the literature about ‘DWBE’ is based on inadequate structural analysis and model testing of several types of jointing details rather than even evaluating the performance of a structural component, e.g., a shear wall or a whole structure. This prevents us from understanding the potential to break new ground in multi-story building construction, particularly in terms of environmental impact and recyclability, and reduces the ‘innovative dovetail concept’ to the level of connection detail. For this reason, it can be clearly said that there is no research on the use of DWBE in buildings, and it is thought that this research will contribute to filling this gap, especially in terms of design.
The history of the dovetail technique goes back to before Christ. Some of the earliest known examples of this technique are ancient Egyptian furniture embedded in First Dynasty mummies, stone pillars from Temples in India, as well as in Chinese ancient architecture [38,39]. In Europe, the dovetail joint is also called a swallowtail joint, a culvertail joint, or a fantail joint. Early residential constructions with timber-framed structures, dating from the 13th century, consisted of mortise and tenon joints, strengthened with wedges, notched joints with tenons, and dovetail joints [40]. Moreover, based on the familiarity of skilled woodworkers with design and manufacture, carpentry-type wood-wood joints were broadly utilized in the construction industry until the mid-20th century [41]. Although the various dovetail designs in Europe and Asia were generally ruled by practical considerations [42], inefficiencies resulting from overly conventional designs as well as high labor costs made these connections uncompetitive. Today, advances in CNC woodworking technology have re-established the cost-efficiency of carpentry-type wood-to-wood joints [28].
Among the most important studies on wood-to-wood connections such as dovetail wood joints in the last decade, Xie et al. [43] investigated the contact characteristics of mortise and tenon joints in the traditional timber structures by using structural modeling software including ABAQUS through UINTER interface. The simulation results were confirmed by the experimental results. The results showed that the user-defined normal elasto-plastic contact finite element model was more in line with the actual force state and mechanical behavior of mortise and tenon joints.
Gamerro et al. [11] presented a new concept of building components through tenon joints based on the idea of portable flat packs delivered directly and assembled on-site. They aimed to develop a computational model suitable for application to predict the semi-rigid behavior of joints and the effective bending stiffness of such structural elements. The results indicated the proposed calculation model was a practical methodology to obtain the stress distribution and the global displacements of interconnected elements using through tenon joints. Nevertheless, complementary studies should be carried out for the design of these elements, considering the building codes and construction market conditions.
Sha et al. [44] attempted to determine the effect of the damage of mortise-tenon joints on the cyclic performance of a traditional Chinese timber frame using the finite element method, in which the model was subjected to lateral cyclic loading and validated based on the results of an experiment. Three types of damage were proposed and idealized, including the gap between the mortise and tenon and damage at the top and the end of the tenon. The results indicated that the proposed damages to the joints have negative effects on the lateral behavior of the timber frame. Both the rigidity and energy dissipation capacity of the wooden frame is weakened by these damages.
Jeong and Song [45] evaluated the structural properties of dovetail connections under tensile load using three methods of data analysis. In the research, initial stiffness, yield load, yield displacement, and the ductility ratio values were determined according to the three different methods. The results underlined that the slope of the initial load-displacement curve is greatly affected by the gap of the dovetail joint, and the yield load and yield displacement values of dovetail connections are highly subject to the initial slope depending on the method used.
Branco and Descamps [46] presented several carpentry joints (e.g., tenon, notched, lap, and scarf joints) with some calculation rules and possible reinforcement techniques. The results are mainly highlighted as follows: (1) if the decay of wooden components is too great, then obviously the only solution is replacement; (2) if repair is necessary, certain reliable in situ assessment techniques are used to determine the level of intervention required; (3) there is still a noticeable lack of scientific results and design guidelines for retrofitting old carpentry joints, which obviously demonstrates the lack of research in this area; (4) to achieve competence, engineers need specialized tools for the design of doweled connections.
Jeong et al. [47] investigated the effects of geometric variables on the mechanical behavior of the dovetail connection and estimated its allowable load carrying the capacity through the finite element method with different stress distributions associated with geometric parameters. Results showed that shear and tension perpendicular to the grain stresses were found to be the most critical stresses. In addition, the strength of the dovetail connection estimated from the structural models was validated from the results of the experimental tests.
Ozkaya et al. [48] aimed to determine the effect of the number of joints in frames produced from Oriented Strand Board and the type of adhesive on the diagonal tensile strength of the frame using 152 samples from OSB following EN 2470 and ASTM-D 1037 test standards. The results showed that adhesive should be used in the corner joining of the dovetail joints.
Besides the studies mentioned above, other similar research [40,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] focused more on the structural analysis and model testing of various connection details in different geometric configurations, rather than evaluating the performance of a structural component, a floor slab, or the entire structure.

2. Research Methods

The study was carried out through an extensive literature search given in the previous section, mostly including peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, and similar research projects. Furthermore, in this study, architectural modeling was employed as a research method that is commonly used in architectural research [58,59,60,61]. Features of using the main business applications used in modern architectural design practice, complex object modeling methods (e.g., AutoCAD, SketchUp, and Revit), parametric modeling, and information modeling methodology of buildings are taken into account in the studies [62,63].

3. Findings

The innovativeness of DWBE is based on a new way of combining the understanding of the characteristics of wood and its potential, traditional woodworking skills, the mechanical ability to mill efficiently and exactly large wood boards, digital machining control, and digital design. Thus, the architect, structural engineer, and production unit manufacturing the board can work on the same file, and the result is the same as desired. The number of layers can be wide ranging, and the wood’s width and thickness can be also varied according to the needs and the rigidity of the board is completely created without adhesive, nails, tap-punches, or other materials without size limits, unlike competition for CLT and LVL.
Based on existing construction practices of other EWPs such as the CLT as a first step in design and implementation, geometrically original and architecturally sound 2D and 3D horizontal (e.g., floor slab) and vertical (e.g., shear wall) frame models elements are presented below. For comparison with the CLT of equivalent dimensions, the optimal test size of the dovetail wood board will be mostly taken as follows: 200 mm thick (5-layer), 2500 mm wide, and 5000 mm long. On the other hand, the dimensions of the structural components may vary, especially in light of structural analysis followed by structural tests and other performance tests such as fire safety and sound insulation tests.

3.1. Preliminarily Design Proposals for the Horizontal Frame (Floor Slab)

As shown in Figure 4, the “solid/massive-type” can be used as dovetail wood board elements as an alternative to slab flooring. This was inspired by the dovetail [28], one of the oldest joining methods used in ancient temples and churches, shown in Figure 3.
The “key-type” (Figure 5) can also be used, which has similar structural working principles with key-laminated wood beams [64].
As shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the hollow-type can also be a good alternative because of its many advantages such as reducing the hollow load, improving the weight–strength ratio, low heat and sound transmission properties, ease of installing plumbing or electrical works, and thus savings in construction costs as in the cases of hollow concrete slab [65,66,67,68] and hollow-core cross-laminated timber [69,70,71,72].

3.2. Preliminary Design Proposals for the Vertical Frame (Shear Wall)

The alternative types of shear wall, shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, which have similar advantages as with reinforced concrete hollow shear walls [73,74,75] (hence also on floor slabs as mentioned above), can be utilized as shear walls from dovetail wood board elements.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

There are several non-adhesive and non-metallic wood panel solutions on the timber market (e.g., [76]), but there is no dovetail-based element for these solutions. Thus, it has not been possible to conduct a thorough discussion about the similarities and differences, nor the pros and cons of our proposals as compared with other works. This study aimed to present several preliminary design proposals for dovetail wood board elements as ecologically sensitive engineering solutions through architectural modeling programs as a first step to develop DWBE in the global market in place of conventional EWPs. The findings of this study are based on a theoretical approach that has not yet been tested practically but is proposed considering current construction practices. However, after the technical performance (e.g., structural, fire, and sound insulation considerations; moisture transfer resistance; and airtightness) of the developed products is tested and the necessary optimizations are made, the products can be finalized with market research.
Currently, although DWBE uptake for commercial and structural applications is very limited, due to new research, e.g., The DoMWoB project (Dovetailed Massive Wood Board Elements for Multi-Story Buildings—see Acknowledgments), the potential of the ‘innovative dovetail concept’, inspired by one of the oldest joining techniques, could be further exploited in building construction, for example, in multi-story or even high-rise buildings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.E.I. and M.K.; methodology, H.E.I. and M.K.; formal analysis, H.E.I. and M.K.; investigation, H.E.I. and M.K.; data curation, H.E.I. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.E.I.; writing—review and editing, H.E.I. and M.K.; visualization, H.E.I.; supervision, H.E.I. and M.K.; project administration, M.K.; funding acquisition H.E.I. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No [101024593].
Architecture 01 00006 i001

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stepinac, M.; Šušteršic, I.; Gavric, I.; Rajcic, V. Seismic Design of Timber Buildings: Highlighted Challenges and Future Trends. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Karjalainen, M. A Study of the Finnish Multi-story Timber Frame Buildings 1995–2018 S. ARCH 2019. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Architecture and Engineering, Havana, Cuba, 5–7 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ramage, M.H.; Burridge, H.; Busse-Wicher, M.; Fereday, G.; Reynolds, T.; Shah, D.U.; Wu, G.; Yu, L.; Fleming, P.; Densley-Tingley, D.; et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shahnewaz, M.; Tannert, T.; Alam, M.S. Popovski, M. In-Plane Stiffness of Cross-Laminated Timber Panels with Openings. Struct. Eng. Int. 2017, 27, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Harte, A.M. Mass Timber-The Emergence of a Modern Construction Material. J. Struct. Integr. Maint. 2017, 2, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sikora, K.S.; McPolin, D.O.; Harte, A.M. Effects of the thickness of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels made from Irish Sitka spruce on mechanical performance in bending and shear. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 116, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Abrahamsen, R.B. Mjøstårnet-Construction of an 81 m Tall Timber Building; Internationales Holzbau-Forum IHF: Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  8. CTBUH. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Illinois Institute of Technology, S.R. Crown Hall, 3360 South State Street, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Available online: http://www.ctbuh.org (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  9. HoHo. Available online: http://www.hoho-wien.at/ (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  10. Abrahamsen, R.B.; Malo, K.A. Structural Design and Assembly of“Treet”-A 14-Storey Timber Residential Building in Norway. In Proceedings of the WTCE 2014, World Conference on Timber Engineering, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 10–14 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gamerro, J.; Bocquet, J.F.; Weinand, Y. A Calculation Method for Interconnected Timber Elements Using Wood-Wood Connections. Buildings 2020, 10, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Solta, P.; Konnerth, J.; Gindl-Altmutterb, W.; Kantnerc, W.; Moser, J.; Mitterd, R.; van Herwijnen, H.W.G. Technological performance of formaldehyde-free adhesive alternatives for particleboard industry. Int. J. Adhes. Adhesives 2019, 94, 99–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Frihart, C.R. Introduction to special issue, wood adhesives: Past, present, and future. For. Prod. J. 2015, 65, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pizzi, A. Synthetic adhesives for wood panels: Chemistry and technology—A critical review. Rev. Adhes. Adhes. 2014, 2, 85–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stoeckel, F.; Konnerth, J.; Gindl-Altmutter, W. Mechanical properties of adhesives for bonding wood—A review. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2013, 45, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kozicki, M.; Guzik, K. Comparison of VOC Emissions Produced by Different Types of Adhesives Based on Test Chambers. Materials 2021, 14, 1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khoshnava, S.M.; Rostami, R.; Zin, R.M.; Štreimikienė, D.; Mardani, A.; Ismail, M. The Role of Green Building Materials in Reducing Environmental and Human Health Impacts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 10, 2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Summary, E. WHO Housing and Health Guidelines; WHO-CED-PHE-18.10-eng; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Guan, Z.; Sotayo, A.; Oudjene, M.; El Houjeyri, I.; Harte, A.; Mehra, S.; Haller, P.; Namari, S.; Makradi, A.; Belouettar, S.; et al. Development of Adhesive Free Engineered Wood Products-Towards Adhesive Free Timber Buildings. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2018, Seoul, Korea, 20–23 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chang, W.-S.; Nearchou, N. Hot-pressed Dowels in Bonded-in rod Timber Connections. Wood Fiber Sci. 2015, 47, 199–208. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hemmila, V. Adamopoulos S, Karlsson O, Kumar, A. Development of Sustainable Bio-adhesives for Engineered Wood Panels-A Review. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 38604–38630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Norström, E.; Fogelström, L.; Nordqvist, P.; Khabbaz, F.; Malmström, E.; Xylan, A. Green binder for wood adhesives. Eur. Polym. J. 2015, 67, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schneider, J.; Tannert, T.; Tesfamariam, S.; Stiemer, S.F. Experimental assessment of a novel steel tube connector in cross-laminated timber. Eng. Struct. 2018, 177, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Loferski, J.R.; Bouldin, J.C.; Hindman, D.P. Development of a Methodology for the Visual Inspection of Engineered Wood Products and Metal Hangers in Residential Construction. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 778, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sotayo, A.; Bradley, D.; Bather, M.; Sareh, P.; Oudjene, M.; El-Houjeyri, I.; Harte, A.; Mehra, S.; O’Ceallaigh, C.; Haller, P.; et al. Review of state of the art of dowel laminated timber members and densified wood materials as sustainable engineered wood products for construction and building applications. Dev. Built Environ. 2020, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. O’Loinsigh, C.; Oudjene, M.; Shotton, E.; Pizzi, A.; Fanning, P. Mechanical behaviour and 3D stress analysis of multi-layered wooden beams made with weldedthrough wood dowels. Compos. Struct. 2012, 94, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Toivonen, R.; Lähtinen, K. Sustainability—A Literature Review on Concealed Opportunities for Global Market Diffusion for the Cross-laminated Timber (CLT) in the Urbanizing Society; BioProducts Business: Curitiba, Brazil, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ilgın, H.E.; Karjalainen, M.; Koponen, O. Review of the Current State-of-the-Art of Dovetail Massive Wood Elements; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ronquillo, G.; Hopkin, D.; Spearpoint, M. Review of large-scale fire tests on cross-laminated timber. J. Fire Sci. 2021, 39, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xing, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Ma, H. Comparative study on fire resistance and zero strength layer thickness of CLT floor under natural fire and standard fire. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 302, 124368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, M.; Zhang, S.; Gong, T.Z.; Ren, H. Gluing Techniques on Bond Performance and Mechanical Properties of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Made from Larix kaempferi. Polymers 2021, 13, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lukacs, I.; Björnfot, A.; Tomasi, R. Strength and Stiffness of Cross-laminated Timber (CLT) Shear Walls: State-of-the-Art of Analytical Approaches. Eng. Struct. 2019, 178, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chiniforush, A.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Valipour, H.; Xiao, J. Energy implications of using steel-timber composite (STC) elements in buildings. Energy Build. 2018, 176, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Ceallaigh, C.; Sikora, K.; Harte, A.M. The Influence of Panel Lay-Up on the Characteristic Bending and Rolling Shear Strength of CLT. Buildings 2018, 8, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Milner, H.R.; Woodard, A.C. Sustainability of engineered wood products. Sustain. Constr. Mater. 2016, 159–180. [Google Scholar]
  36. Karacabeyli, E.; Douglas, B. CLT Handbook: Cross-Laminated Timber; US Edition; FP Innovations: Quebec, QC, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jorissen, A.; Fragiacomo, M. General notes on ductility in timber structures. Eng Struct. 2011, 33, 2987–2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, J.; Yixiang, X.Y.; Mei, F.; Li, C. Experimental study on the fire performance of straight-line dovetail joints. J. Wood Sci. 2018, 64, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Linfeng, L.; Xu, Q. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of dovetail timber joints under fire exposure. Fire Saf. Journal. 2019, 107, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jasieńko, J.; Nowak, T.; Karolak, A. Historical carpentry joints. J. Herit. Conserv. 2014, 40, 58–82. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tannert, T.; Keller, N.; Frei, R.; Vallee, T. Improved Performance of Rounded Dovetail Joists, WTCE. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 15–19 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pang, S.-J.; Oh, J.-K.; Park, C.-Y.; Lee, J.-J. Effects of Size Ratios on Dovetail Joints in Korean Traditional Wooden Building, WTCE. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 15–19 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  43. Xie, Q.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, L.; Guo, L.; Wu, Y. Normal contact performance of mortise and tenon joint: Theoretical analysis and numerical simulation. J. Wood Sci. 2021, 67, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sha, B.; Wang, H.; Li, A. The Influence of the Damage of Mortise-Tenon Joint on the Cyclic Performance of the Traditional Chinese Timber Frame. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Jeong, G.Y.; Song, J.K. Evaluation of Structural Properties of Dovetail Connections under Tensile Load Using Three Methods of Data Analysis. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 06017011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Branco, J.M.; Descamps, T. Analysis and strengthening of carpentry joints. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 97, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Jeong, G.Y.; Park, M.J.; Park, J.S.; Hwang, K.H. Predicting Load-Carrying Capacity of Dovetail Connections Using the Stochastic Finite Element Method. Wood Fiber Sci. 2012, 44, 430–439. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ozkaya, K.; Burdurlu, E.; Ilce, C.; Ciritcioglu, H.H. Diagonal Tensile Strength of An Oriented Strandboard (OSB) Frame with Dovetail Corner Joint. BioResources 2010, 5, 2690–2701. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jeong, G.Y.; Park, M.-J.; Hwang, K.; Park, J.S. Effects of Geometry on Mechanical Behavior of Dovetail Connection, WTCE. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 15–19 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. Robeller, C.; Weinand, Y. Interlocking Folded Plate-Integral Mechanical Attachment for Structural Wood Panels. Int. J. Space Struct. 2015, 30, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pozza, L.; Scotta, R.; Trutalli, D.; Pinna, M.; Polastri, A.; Bertoni, P. Experimental and Numerical Analyses of New Massive Wooden Shear-Wall Systems. Buildings 2014, 4, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Pozza, L.; Scotta, R.; Trutalli, D.; Polastri, A. Behaviour factor for innovative massive timber shear walls. Bull Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 3449–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jeong, G.Y.; Hindman, D.P. Ultimate Tensile Strength of Loblolly Pine Strands Using Stochastic Finite Element Method. J. Mater. Sci. 2009, 44, 3824–3832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jeong, G.Y.; Hindman, D.P.; Zink-Sharp, A. Orthotrpic Properties of Loblolly Pine Strands. J. Mater. Sci. 2010, 45, 5820–5830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Park, C.Y.; Lee, J.J. Moment Carrying Capacity of Dovetailed Mortise and Tenon Joints with or without Beam Shoulders. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 2010, 137, 785–789. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sebera, V.; Šimek, M. Finite element analysis of dovetail joint made with the use of CNC technology. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2010, 58, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mashrah, W.A.H.; Chen, Z.; Liu, H.; Amer, M.A. Mechanical behaviour of a novel steel dovetail joint subjected to axial compression loading. Eng. Struct. 2021, 245, 112852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Groat, L.; Wang, D. Architectural Research Methods. Nexus Netw. J. 2004, 6, 51–53. Available online: https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s00004-004-0006-7.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  59. Groat, L.N.; Wang, D. Architectural Research Methods, 2nd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  60. Vasilenko, N.A. General System Principles of Architectural Systems Formation, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 753, 032048. [Google Scholar]
  61. Akšamija, A. Research Methods for the Architectural Profession; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fu, F. Design and Analysis of Tall and Complex Structures; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bhooshan, S. Parametric design thinking: A case-study of practice-embedded architectural research. Des. Stud. 2017, 52, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Miller, J.F.; Bulleit, W.M. Analysis of Mechanically Laminated Timber Beams Using Shear Keys. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Marcos, L.K.; Carrazedo, R. Parametric study on the vibration sensitivity of hollow-core slabs floors. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014, Porto, Portugal, 30 June–2 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ahmed, I.M.; Tsavdaridis, K.D. The evolution of composite flooring systems: Applications, testing, modelling and Eurocode design approaches. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 155, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Al-Shaarbaf, I.A.; Al-Azzawi, A.A.; Abdulsattar, R. A State of the Art Review on Hollow Core Slabs. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2018, 13, 9. [Google Scholar]
  68. Voth, C.; White, N.; Yadama, V.; Cofer, W. Design and Evaluation of Thin-Walled Hollow-Core Wood-Strand Sandwich Panels. J. Renew. Mater. 2015, 3, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Montgomery, W.G. Hollow Massive Timber Panels: A High-Performance, Long-Span Alternative to Cross Laminated Timber. Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson. 2014. Available online: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3017&context=all_theses (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  70. Van Aken, B. Hollow Core Cross-Laminated Timber Optimized for A More Efficient Use of Material. MSc Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, 2017. Available online: http://homepage.tudelft.nl/p3r3s/MSc_projects/reportVanAken.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  71. The CLT Handbook CLT Structures–Facts and Planning; Swedish Wood: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. Available online: https://www.svenskttra.se/siteassets/5-publikationer/pdfer/clt-handbook-2019-eng-m-svensk-standard-2019.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  72. Huang, H.; Lin, X.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Z.; Wang, C.; Brad, J.W. Performance of the hollow-core cross-laminated timber (HC-CLT) floor under human-induced vibration. Structures 2021, 32, 1481–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, Y.L.; He, M.X.; Zhou, X.J. Wall-Frame and Hollow Shear Wall Structural System and its Application. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 744, 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Lu, Z.; Xu, J. Experimental study on seismic performance of precast hollow shear walls. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2021, 30, e1856. Available online: https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/10.1002/tal.1856 (accessed on 15 September 2021). [CrossRef]
  75. Xu, G.; Li, A. Research on the response of concrete cavity shear wall under lateral load. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2019, 28, e1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. European Technical Assessment ETA-19/0066, Prefabricated Wood Slab Element Made of Mechanically Jointed Square-Sawn Timber Members to Be Used as a Structural Element in Buildings. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5dd6a33a354a76685e153039/t/5e18976b6cb0c9586a405bed/1578669934345/ETA-19-0066_ECopy_en.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
Figure 1. Mjøstårnet (Norway, 2019) (Source: Wikipedia).
Figure 1. Mjøstårnet (Norway, 2019) (Source: Wikipedia).
Architecture 01 00006 g001
Figure 2. HoHo (Austria, 2020) (Source: Wikipedia).
Figure 2. HoHo (Austria, 2020) (Source: Wikipedia).
Architecture 01 00006 g002
Figure 3. Dovetail joint as one of the oldest joining methods: (a) detail from a Romanian church; (b) detail from an Indian temple (Sources: Wikipedia).
Figure 3. Dovetail joint as one of the oldest joining methods: (a) detail from a Romanian church; (b) detail from an Indian temple (Sources: Wikipedia).
Architecture 01 00006 g003
Figure 4. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 1 (solid/massive-type): (a) isometric view, (b) side view, (c) with representative dimensions.
Figure 4. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 1 (solid/massive-type): (a) isometric view, (b) side view, (c) with representative dimensions.
Architecture 01 00006 g004
Figure 5. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 2 (key-type): (a) isometric view, (b) side view, (c) with representative dimensions.
Figure 5. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 2 (key-type): (a) isometric view, (b) side view, (c) with representative dimensions.
Architecture 01 00006 g005
Figure 6. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 3 (hollow-type-1): (a) isometric view with dimensions, (b) front view, (c) side view.
Figure 6. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 3 (hollow-type-1): (a) isometric view with dimensions, (b) front view, (c) side view.
Architecture 01 00006 g006
Figure 7. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 4 (hollow-type-2): (a) isometric view with dimensions, (b) front view, (c) side view.
Figure 7. Dovetail wood board elements as floor slab alternative 4 (hollow-type-2): (a) isometric view with dimensions, (b) front view, (c) side view.
Architecture 01 00006 g007
Figure 8. Dovetail wood board elements as shear wall alternative 1 (hollow-type 1) (isometric views with dimensions).
Figure 8. Dovetail wood board elements as shear wall alternative 1 (hollow-type 1) (isometric views with dimensions).
Architecture 01 00006 g008
Figure 9. Dovetail wood board elements as shear wall alternative 2 (hollow-type 2).
Figure 9. Dovetail wood board elements as shear wall alternative 2 (hollow-type 2).
Architecture 01 00006 g009
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ilgın, H.E.; Karjalainen, M. Preliminary Design Proposals for Dovetail Wood Board Elements in Multi-Story Building Construction. Architecture 2021, 1, 56-68. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/architecture1010006

AMA Style

Ilgın HE, Karjalainen M. Preliminary Design Proposals for Dovetail Wood Board Elements in Multi-Story Building Construction. Architecture. 2021; 1(1):56-68. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/architecture1010006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ilgın, Hüseyin Emre, and Markku Karjalainen. 2021. "Preliminary Design Proposals for Dovetail Wood Board Elements in Multi-Story Building Construction" Architecture 1, no. 1: 56-68. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/architecture1010006

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop