4.5 Article

Strength and stiffness of 3D-printed connectors compared with the wooden mortise and tenon joints for chairs

Journal

WOOD MATERIAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 870-883

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2022.2086065

Keywords

Wood; mortise-and-tenon joint; 3D printing; strength and stiffness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, 3D-printed connectors were developed, tested, and numerically analyzed to replace the typical L-shaped joints in chair construction. The experimental results showed that the 3D-printed joints achieved lower strength compared to traditional wooden mortise-and-tenon joints and need to be optimized and reinforced.
In this study, 3D-printed connectors to replace the typical L-shaped joints in the construction of a chair were developed, tested and numerically analysed. Different connectors were designed and manufactured with a fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printer using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) with the aim to find a simple shaped connector which could be used to build chairs and withstand standard chair loading requirements. The strength and stiffness of the joints were tested and compared with traditional beech mortise-and-tenon joints. Numerical stress and strain analyses were performed with the finite element method for an orthotropic linear-elastic model. The experimental results showed that joints with 3D-printed connectors achieved lower strength than the traditional wooden mortise-and-tenon joints with similar dimensions. The results indicate that the effect of reinforcement of the connector were not recognised due to the small thickness and inadequate geometric position and arrangement of the reinforcement ABS material. The chair assembled with 3D-printed connectors could withstand the loads for seating, but failed the backrest test according to standard EN 1728:2002. The connectors need to be optimised and reinforced to withstand standard loads.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available