Interesting article on joinery tools

[Al Willits]

The Better homes and Garden, WOOD magazine for July has a (to me) interesting article on joinery tools and compares the BeadLOCK, Dowelmax, PC biscuit, and Domino, and compares them to M&T joints
For those who price is no object, probably nothing worth reading, but for the hobbyist I thought it was pretty informative.

For those who can't or don't get WOOD mag, I'll give ya the highlights.
M&T was the strongest in shear and pull a part tests
and the dowelmax was second.
Biscuit was the quickest of the none M&T joints with the Domino just a hair behind it.

As a hobbyist, it left me with the impression I might bypass the $700 Domino and look into the $240 Dowelmax, even though it has a bit less than half the speed of the Domino.
Especially considering I have more time than money...:)

fwiw.

Al

[Bruce Benjamin]

I'm curious to hear how or why the BeadLOCK didn't do better in the test. Any comments on how it did or where it was lacking? I've always been under the impression the a properly glued loose tenon is just as strong as a traditional M & T. Did you see any errors or room for error in their testing methods?

Bruce

[Andrew Williams]

July? Is that the current issue for subscribers?

[Al Willits]

Errors? Haven't a clue.

They did use the Iowa State Univerity testing facility, so it wasn't a back yard shoot from the hip kinda thing.
The only one that did really bad was the bisquit in shear and pull a part testing.
# to force break were as follows

Shear
M&T= 1017
Dowelmax=609
Beadlock= 541
Domino= 464
bisquit= 187

pull a part
M&T 2525
Dowel 1866
Domino 1486
Beadlock 1170
bisquit 766

Wood magazine has a online website that may have this on it.

I'm not sure where copyright comes into play here, so if the mods think I'm getting close, please correct...thanks

Yes current issue, just got it yesturday.

Al

[Andrew Williams]

I have the dowelmax and think it is an amazing product, especially if you used compressed dowels.

[Terry Fogarty]

Hmmmm. Intyeresting;)

I wont have a bar of tha Domino comming 4th and 3rd in the tests aye Bruce;).

Did the Mag say how they glued up the joins?

Those of us who have had Domi for months know strangely their is a great difference in the strength according to glueing one or both sides of the mortice and tenon.

Strange but true.

But at the end of the day this is great fodder for the AFB to have their moment of glory;):)

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

get or make a slot mortiser. You'll like it a whole lot.

The $125.00 X-Y milling table Grizzly sells is excellent for making one all you'll need is some heavy duty angle iron and some nuts and bolts. I think Lowes sells some large heavy angle.
Strip the dials replace 'em with fast handles and mount a big router on it and it's perfect.

[Al Willits]

At work, but as I remember, yellow glue was used on all.
But I'm sure they used more/better glue on whatever was their favorite:D :D :D

Al

[Greg Peterson]

I've always considered any strength added by a biscuit to merely be an added benefit. Biscuits as I see it, are primarily alignment aides, especially when assembling large flat surfaces made up of multiple boards.

Loose tenon joinery is more a necessity for production work than it is for the hobbyist where time doesn't cost as much.

As a hobbyist, I prefer to to just chop true M&T joinery.

If I made a living making furniture and such I may have a different attitude.

But it really comes down to what is the best tool and method for your needs. The needs of a professional and hobbyists have a wide degree of divergence.

[Mark Singer]

There are a lot of bisquit , domino , kreg systems available and that is fine. I don't have the domino, I do have a bisquit joiner and a slot mortiser which I use often... . One thing I have stessed in my threads is the ability to design and make joints that work and look good as well. These are not constructed by any of the machines or quick techniques mentioned, yet they are the key that opens the door to hand crafted woodworking. The dominos and busqiut joiners are fine for production work and if you have developed the ability to use both hand and power tools to craft exposed joinery then you have the option to use either... I do not reccommend that anyone depends on the quick techniques for all joints and all your work.....it will limit the quality and with the practice you will chose other metods that will keep your work from reaching the levels it otherwise could ....so get that hand saw out....a chisel...maybe a rasp and make a nice joint:rolleyes:

[Bruce Benjamin]

Hmmmm. Intyeresting;)
I wont have a bar of tha Domino comming 4th and 3rd in the tests aye Bruce;).



I have no idea what you are saying. Is this some sort of code? :confused:

Bruce

[Bruce Benjamin]

Well....it didn't take long for someone to take it personal, did it? My My
Gary K;)


I haven't seen any posts where the poster appeared to take anything personally. Where you referring to my post? I have the BeadLOCK but I've only used it on a few projects. It worked quite well for me. I'm just surprised that there was much of a difference between loose and traditional tenons. I've read reviews about numerous products in WW magazines and it's not uncommon to see methods of testing that would introduce error or bias into the results. That's why I asked about this one.

Bruce

[Tim Sproul]

The only one that did really bad was the bisquit in shear and pull a part testing.

There was a FWW article several to many years ago that looked at joint strength. In that test, biscuited rail to stile door (passage door, IIRC) was just as strong as the strongest - traditional mortise and tenon - but the failure mechanism was quite different. I think it was just shear/racking testing.

The biscuited joint had 2 or 3 #20 biscuits.

I would also surmise that how the force is applied will affect the results. Abrupt application versus slowly increasing and other variables too.

All that to say that the actual joint itself likely doesn't matter too much. More important is the craftsman's ability to form the joint properly. A well made and assembled X joint is going to outperform a poorly done Y joint.

[jason lambert]

intresting, I am not defending anything here but I have to wonder how a dowl has about 33% more strength than a Domino. They are similar items and the domino (being the same with as the dowl) should have alot more sheer strength and glue area for a pull apart test. Wonder if it is a materal thing with the donimo?

[Andrew Williams]

The Dowelmax uses expanding dowels made from beech. They increase in size upon contact with water and remain at that size. This gives them some mechanical strength as well as the glue.

[Greg Funk]

intresting, I am not defending anything here but I have to wonder how a dowl has about 33% more strength than a Domino. They are similar items and the domino (being the same with as the dowl) should have alot more sheer strength and glue area for a pull apart test. Wonder if it is a materal thing with the donimo?
The dowelmax jig is intended to machine multiple uniformly spaced dowels.

Greg

[Allen Grimes]

That is interesting. I still plan on getting a domino, because I plan on using it a lot on smaller furniture, but it is nice to get a better idea of what its limitations are.

I'd still like to read the article for myself to see exactly how they did the testing and all that. Has this hit the newsstands yet?

Thanks for posting Al

[Al Willits]

Not sure if its on the news stands or not, no problem on the posting this Allen, (nice name btw) but my point was just to show different alternatives.
I found that the bisquits I like so much, maybe shouldn't be used where a lot of strenght is need, and for me the dowelmax may be a viable alternative to M&T or bisquits, bisquits especailly.
Cost being a concern and time was not.

I thought maybe other newbies might enjoy it as the learning curve in this hobby is pretty long, and it may help other newbies help figure out what they may like to use.
Anyway, glad some enjoyed it...:)

Al

[Art Mann]

Thanks for the info Al. I think I will go out and buy that magazine just to get all the details.

[richard poitras]

In regards to the best joint that can be debated all day and all have their place , but how much strength do you really need for most joints? I think any would work just fine for most applications and will stand the test of time in regards to the piece you are working on and how long it will last in use in a regular envierment. …

[Gary Keedwell]

In regards to the best joint that can be debated all day and all have their place , but how much strength do you really need for most joints? I think any would work just fine for most applications and will stand the test of time in regards to the piece you are working on and how long it will last in use in a regular envierment. …
I have to write this fast because I'm heading to the Brimfiedl Antique show where people have brought old, old furniture from around the world in vans, trailors, car trunks etc. Some of the pieces are held together with original mechanical joinery, where the glue has been gone for years. Most of it is mortise & tenon....dovetail etc.
Alot of them are 50- 100 years old......proven stuff.....BYE
Gary K.

[Bruce Benjamin]

I have to write this fast because I'm heading to the Brimfiedl Antique show where people have brought old, old furniture from around the world in vans, trailors, car trunks etc. Some of the pieces are held together with original mechanical joinery, where the glue has been gone for years. Most of it is mortise & tenon....dovetail etc.
Alot of them are 50- 100 years old......proven stuff.....BYE
Gary K.

If it's a M&T and the glue is gone...So is the function of the joint in most cases. Dovetails would do better but those weren't part of the article or this topic of discussion. The, "Proven stuff" in this case is old fashioned glue that has proven that it doesn't stand up to time the way modern glues will.

Bruce

[Aaron Beaver]

The Dowelmax uses expanding dowels made from beech. They increase in size upon contact with water and remain at that size. This gives them some mechanical strength as well as the glue.

Wow, I did not know that. Thanks for the info. I have looked at Dowelmax for a long time but never pulled the plug on one. After seeing the article Al mentions I would consider more now over the Domino for the type of hobby work I do.

[Bruce Benjamin]

The dominos and busqiut joiners are fine for production work and if you have developed the ability to use both hand and power tools to craft exposed joinery then you have the option to use either...

By, "Exposed joinery" I'm assuming you are referring to through tenons? Sometimes I see that on fine furniture but usually the joints are hidden. With a chair or other typical piece of furniture a biscuit, Domino, BeadLOCK, or Dowelmax would usually be just as hidden as a traditional M & T. The only difference in the finished product would be in the strength and longevity of the joint, and that's the debate.


I do not reccommend that anyone depends on the quick techniques for all joints and all your work.....it will limit the quality and with the practice you will chose other metods that will keep your work from reaching the levels it otherwise could

There aren't too many joints that can be done with a traditional M & T that can't be done with a BeadLOCK, Domino, or Dowelmax. Provided the joinery technique is hidden inside of the finished product and it stands the test of time, I don't see how making a joint using a M & T equals better quality in the finished piece. Well, except in the mind of the builder, but nobody else will know what is inside of that joint. The only way they would is if the joint fails. And that's the real debate in my opinion.

I'm just having trouble understanding the magazine test that says a properly glued loose tenon, whether it's BeadLOCK or Domino, or even multiple dowels, is weaker than a similarly sized M & T that still relies on the same glue on half of the joint.

I have watched David Marks make dozens of pieces of furniture using loose tenons. He's certainly capable of making any joint he wants. I consider him to be a maker of some fine quality work. The only difference between his loose tenon joints and one made with a BeadLOCK or Domino is the price of the equipment. His horizontal router, (Can't remember the name right now) costs in the neighborhood of $3000. My BeadLOCK with router bits cost me under $150 plus an old electric drill that will last practically forever. If you don't consider much of the work that David Marks does to be quality work then I guess we are never going to agree on that and that's fine. But if you see his work as I do then how is something made with a BeadLOCK, Domino, or even Dowelmax equal to lessor quality?

....so get that hand saw out....a chisel...maybe a rasp and make a nice joint:rolleyes:

I do agree that the ability to use hand tools can be valuable and I do just that once in a while. I'm far from being an expert though. But so far my choice of joint making tools hasn't kept me from making anything I've wanted to make. I've seen pics of some of your work and it is impressive. With the exception of through tenons, how much of your work would have suffered if you had used one of the faster joint makers in the eyes of the person using the furniture?

To me it boils down to two things. Joint strength/durability and whether or not you think that quality joinery requires the use of only hand tools and sweat. If the latter is true then using anything electric such as a TS, jointer, planer, band saw, etc. is cheating too. If you believe that the BeadLOCK, etc. methods limit the types of furniture you can make then I would concede that there are a very few places where the fast method might not fit. Not many but maybe a few.

Bruce

[Steve Rowe]

The Better homes and Garden, WOOD magazine for July has a (to me) interesting article on joinery tools and compares the BeadLOCK, Dowelmax, PC biscuit, and Domino, and compares them to M&T joints
For those who price is no object, probably nothing worth reading, but for the hobbyist I thought it was pretty informative.

For those who can't or don't get WOOD mag, I'll give ya the highlights.
M&T was the strongest in shear and pull a part tests
and the dowelmax was second.
Biscuit was the quickest of the none M&T joints with the Domino just a hair behind it.

As a hobbyist, it left me with the impression I might bypass the $700 Domino and look into the $240 Dowelmax, even though it has a bit less than half the speed of the Domino.
Especially considering I have more time than money...:)

fwiw.

Al
I had given a little thought to doing my own testing although I don't have the equipment to do this. As a design engineer, I specify testing and acceptance criteria as well as review results frequently. One of the considerations is; how do you accurately compare the relative strength of the joints fairly? Another consideration is just what is the real world simulation that gives confidence that the joint will survive the expected loads/stress?

To test which joint is truly stronger, it would seem that the test must consider the glued surface area. Clearly, the M&T, Beadlock, Domino, dowel, biscuit, or whatever have different glued surface areas and therefore, would have different load capacities all other things being equal. Given the fixed dimensional characteristics of most of these joinery methods, this is not an easy item to overcome for comparison. To further complicate matters, since properly prepared glue joints are stronger than the wood itself (in most cases) the source of the failure must also be considered. Was it the base material that failed or the glue joint itself? Should the stress in psi (or N/m2 depending on your location) be the comparative factor? Lets say with a 4" rail to leg joint, I would use a 3", 1/4" wide M&T. Comparing this to the available glue surface area and thickness of a biscuit, dowel, or Domino, it is clear to me how there can be variations in joint strength.

With respect to the second consideration. I believe that most joinery is challenged by racking (a moment being applied) the joint. Most joinery applications will not have pure shear or straight pullout forces applied. Testing needs to simulate the real world situation.

In the final analysis, it all boils down to whether the joinery method we select is good enough for the specific application it is applied to. The joinery method selected is either sufficient to handle the applied loads or not. Often, woodworkers will default to the philosophy of "when in doubt, build it stout". I suspect that most of our joinery is probably gross overkill for the loads that they actually see. I certainly do not perform stress analyses on my furniture projects. Experience is our teacher and, when the joinery method used is not sufficient to handle the applied loads, we find out real quick. Considering this, it is not really all that important what joinery method you use, what is important is that it is good enough.

Rant off.
Steve

[Joe Jensen]

For those who can't or don't get WOOD mag, I'll give ya the highlights.
M&T was the strongest in shear and pull a part tests
and the dowelmax was second.
Biscuit was the quickest of the none M&T joints with the Domino just a hair behind it.

As a hobbyist, it left me with the impression I might bypass the $700 Domino and look into the $240 Dowelmax, even though it has a bit less than half the speed of the Domino.
Especially considering I have more time than money...:)

fwiw.

Al

The strength tests always get my attention and initially they get me thinking. But, when I think back on 30 years of serious hobby woodworking, I can only remember one biscuit joint that failed, ever. A goldne retriever ran full speed around a corner and slid into the kitchen table. I cheaped out and used biscuits and the glue failed. This happened 8 years ago, and I still haven't bothered to fix it as it's only a slightly lose and not noticable in daily use.

Now I'm sure I'm an anomoly, and I tend to over build everything and my joints are alway nice and tight without a lot of clamping pressure. I never use biscuits or any other joint when glueing up panels and I've never had a failure. Maybe this is because I make sure every board is prefectly flat and straight before I glue up. Once I take a board out of the clamps I rarely need more than 120 grit orbital as a starting point. Also, I rely almost exclusively on joints and glue. I only use fasteners where I may need take something apart in the future.

How many of you have had any of your joints fail?...joe

[Matt Lentzner]

The story I alway heard was that, over time, dowels shrink unevenly and become oval shaped and greatly weaken the joint. It is true that every chair I've seen that was falling apart was made with dowels.

I'm really surprised at the results of the test since I was always told that inserted tenons were just as good (better even) than M&T.

Anybody have any comments on that?

Matt

[Rod Sheridan]

Hi reviewing the Fine Woodworking Issue # 148, M & T joints, round and square edge floating tennon joints, biscuits and dovetail joints were tested at the Wood Science and technology Center of the University of New Brunswick. Article author is Bruce Gray.

Working Load and Average failure load in pounds are indicated below.

Mortise and tenon 5,000 6,000

Floating tenons 3,500

2 # 20 biscuits 2,500 (aprox)

The complete article makes for some very interesting reading, and includes a section where dovetails are tested to failure.

I personally use standard mortise and tenon joints for frames simply from habit. I have a hollow chisel mortiser, and I cut tenons on the tablesaw, or by hand if the piece is too large.

If I owned a router, or a slot mortiser, I would probably use those as well.

Regards, Rod.

[Ben West]

Part of the problem with many of the strength tests published in magazines is that they rely on tests that aren't replicated. The recent Wood Magazine article, for example, evidently paid a wood products lab at Iowa State to test each of these joints. To do that research the right way, a researcher would need at least a couple dozen testing replications of each joint on randomly selected wood samples, which would be expensive (I'm in academia -- in a Forestry College with a Wood Products department, no less -- and know for certain that Professors don't do research for small amounts of $$$!). Magazines obviously don't want to spend the amount of $$$ required to produce reliable research; they want an interesting article for publication.

So, what you have with the latest Wood magazine is an article that is relying on poor research methodology and, as such, can't be relied on reliable knowledge. Obviously, we all know and would agree that a M&T joint is stronger than a biscuit, and the article demonstrates that, but to conclude that a dowel joint is 33% stronger than a Domino or that a Domino is 21% stronger than Beadlock conveys a level of accuracy and precision that just isn't allowed by this research.

[Al Willits]

I guess you could say that about 99% of opinions that get posted here, not enough studies to warrant it being factual or correct.

Personally I'd use it as a general guide and not try to be quite so analytical (sp?).
You read the article btw?
They said they used the equiptment there, no mention of hiring a proffessor or staff.
Which does bring up the question, how many tests should they do to represent a large enough section to be considered vaild?
Thinking that there are probably millions of M&T joints out there, what's a proper percentage?

You have a better study btw?

Al

[Art Mann]

I am going to reserve judgement on the Wood Magazine article until I have read the whole thing. In addition to the inadequate sample size, there are several other unspecified factors I can think of that would have an effect on the outcome. OTOH, I think the article is potentially vey useful even if it will not pass rigorous standards of experimental procedure. Based on the sketchy information provided by the OP, it seems to confirm my own hunch that multiple dowels properly glued can have similar strength characteristics as M&T or floating tenons. Just that much information is valuable and is worth knowing. Deriving an exact figure of relative strength is not necessary and in the best case is only valid for one particular glue, wood type and joint geometry.

[Greg Peterson]

There are obviously numerous perspectives on the validity of the testing.

M&T has stood the test and that is all the proof I need. As for the other methods, materials and techniques, I think it would be difficult to categorically exclude any of them without considering several factors.

Not all joints have to last several generations nor do they need 5k of sheer resistance. The individual craftsman should be the sole arbiter of what joint represents the best solution.

Thankfully we have many different techniques and materials from which to choose.

[Ben West]

As Art and Al mention, I think the Wood Magazine article is great as a guideline and discussion piece. My comments were meant to shed light on some other postings (here and elsewhere) that attempted to make very specific conclusions based on this article (e.g., that dowel joint is "33% stronger than a Domino", for example). We really can't make those kind of specific conclusions based on this article.

The question about how many test replications should be conducted is a tough one. In general, less than 30 replications makes a researcher raise his eyebrow. As you drop below 30 replications, individual variation (in this case, variation in the wood and construction of each joint) exerts an increasing influence on the results. The purpose of most research methodology is to account for individual variation by sampling and thus allowing the researcher to make general conclusions.

I don't personally have a better study. I'm not a wood technologist, so I'm not familiar with the literature in that field. It's probably out there, though.

[Sam Shank]

I saw a post on this group of someone who built a chair with a Z shaped frame. He used the Domino, and had a photo of 3 adults standing on it.

That tells me that the joints it makes are strong enough for me. I'll probably never own one, seeing as I could buy a cabinet saw or an 8" jointer for a few dollars more.

[Al Willits]

Point is, any of this is or can be, up for speculation, most of us understand that different tests will or may result in different results and react accordingly.
The authors here don't appear to be pushing any agenda or product (please read the article and correct me if I'm wrong) but what they do show is that with "their" testing, these are the numbers that they get.

Example, a bit closer to my forte is welding, a certain rod can be tested and rated at a certain strength.
By playing with the welder, angle of rod, temp of day, and a host of of other options I/anybody can alter the strength of the weld, any welder worth his salt knows this, and picks the rod he feels best fits his needs for what he's doing.

You can pick this or any article like it to pieces, or you can say that the article probably comes close enough to warrant some thought to the joinery you may be deciding on.

Personally I'll go with their close enough to warrant some thought, and understand my results may vary a little.

Considering that MIT has probably not putting joinery testing number one on their hit parade of things to do this week, Wood magazines testing seems to be one of the few games in town right now...:D

I understand where your coming from Ben, but I doubt we'll see much of the testing in this industry that your looking for.

Al...who just seen his gov't research grant topic....:D

[Ben West]

OK, Ok. I'll take one for the team. I'll volunteer to do a comprehensive, scientifically rigorous evaluation of every joint known to man. For free! Of course, I'll need the appropriate manufacuturers to send me a DowelMax, Domino, Woodrat, set of saws and chisels, Beadlock...and the list goes on!!!

I didn't mean to criticize Wood magazine with my earlier comments. I love the mag and this particular article. I just wanted to suggest that we shouldn't read it as the conclusive statement of joint strength.

[Al Willits]

Now your gonna take my gov't grant....nice guy.

:D :D :D :D :D

Al...there goes the retirement house on the lake....;)