Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mortise-and-tenon joinery for modern timber construction: Quantifying the embodied carbon of an alternative structural connection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Architecture, Structures and Construction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The mass timber industry offers a compelling pathway for low-carbon structural systems in buildings, replacing carbon-intensive materials like concrete and steel with sustainably forested wood. However, conventional structural connections in mass timber construction are largely made of metallic materials, such as screws, nails, and plates. In contrast, joinery, or geometrically interlocking all-timber connections, is globally prevalent in historic timber construction. This paper investigates the potential of applying joinery, specifically the “Nuki” mortise-and-tenon joinery connection, to contemporary mass timber construction from perspectives of structural behavior and carbon savings. Considering single spans supporting one-way cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor systems at the mid-rise residential scale, carbon savings ranging from 7 to 40% are possible at the beam-joint scale by using Nuki joints instead of steel concealed beam hangers, a more conventional mass timber connection. While these savings are smaller at the building scale, the paper nevertheless demonstrates a methodology and results for quantitatively comparing the scale of savings achieved by implementing this historic but contemporarily alternative connection type.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Energy Agency (IEA) and Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC) (2018) 2018 Global Status Report: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector,” United Nations Environment Programme. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/2018%20GlobalABC%20Global%20Status%20Report.pdf

  2. Röck M et al (2019) Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107

  3. Jackson R (2018) Project focus: the TallWood House at Brock Commons, Vancouver. Struct Eng J Inst Struct Eng 96(10):18–25

    Google Scholar 

  4. Foliente GC (2000) History of Timber Construction. ASTM Int

  5. Page M (2017) A robotic fabrication methodology for dovetail and finger jointing: an accessible & bespoke digital fabrication process for robotically-milled dovetail & finger joints. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), Cambridge, MA, pp 456–463. [Online]. Available: http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?acadia17_456

  6. Böhme LFG, Zapata FQ, Ansaldo SM (2017) Roboticus tignarius: robotic reproduction of traditional timber joints for the reconstruction of the architectural heritage of Valparaíso. Constr Robot 1–8

  7. Takabayashi H, Kado K, Hirasawa G (2019) versatile robotic wood processing based on analysis of parts processing of Japanese Traditional Wooden Buildings. In: Robotic fabrication in architecture, art and design 2018, pp 221–231

  8. Think Wood (2014) Connection options for wood-frame and heavy timber buildings. Engineering News-Record 273(11)

  9. Tingley DD, Davison B (2011) Design for deconstruction and material reuse. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Energy 164(4):195–204

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fivet C, Brütting J (2020) Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is reused: structural design for a circular economy. Struct Eng 98(1):74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Falk B (2002) Wood-framed building deconstruction: a source of lumber for construction? For Prod J 52(3):8–15

    Google Scholar 

  12. Henrichsen C, Bauer R (2004) Japan culture of wood: buildings, objects, techniques, 1st edn. Birkhauser, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  13. The Bed (2018) Thuma. https://www.thuma.co/products/the-bed. Accessed May 04, 2020

  14. D’Ayala DF, Tsai PH (2008) Seismic vulnerability of historic Dieh-Dou timber structures in Taiwan. Eng Struct 30(8):2101–2113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li X, Zhao J, Ma G, Chen W (2015) Experimental study on the seismic performance of a double-span traditional timber frame. Eng Struct 98:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen Z, Zhu E, Pan J, Wu G (2016) Energy-dissipation performance of typical beam-column joints in Yingxian wood pagoda: experimental study. J Perform Constr Facil 30(3):04015028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen L et al (2017) Experimental study on the seismic behaviour of mortise-tenon joints of the ancient timbers. Struct Eng Int 27(4):512–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen J, Li T, Yang Q, Shi X, Zhao Y (2018) Degradation laws of hysteretic behaviour for historical timber buildings based on pseudo-static tests. Eng Struct 156:480–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu Y, Song X, Li K (2018) Compressive and racking performance of eccentrically aligned dou-gong connections. Eng Struct 175:743–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fujita K, Sakamoto I, Ohashi Y, Kimura M (2000) Static and dynamic loading tests of bracket complexes used in traditional timber structures in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, vol 30

  21. Hanazato T, Fujita K, Sakamoto I, Inayama M, Ohkura Y (2004) Analysis of earthquake resistance of five-storied timber pagoda, presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  22. Suzuki Y, Maeno M (2006) Structural mechanism of traditional wooden frames by dynamic and static tests. Struct Control Health Monit 13(1):508–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yeo SY, Hsu M-F, Komatsu K, Chung Y-L, Chang W-S (2016) Shaking Table Test of the Taiwanese Traditional Dieh-Dou Timber Frame. Int J Archit Herit 10(5):539–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu YJ, Song XB, Luo L (2017) Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Performance of a Chinese Traditional Wooden Pagoda. Appl Mech Mater

  25. Xue J, Xu D, Xia H (2018) Experimental study on seismic performance of through-tenon joints with Looseness in ancient timber structures. Int J Archit Herit 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1552996

  26. Xie Q, Wang L, Zhang L, Hu W, Zhou T (2018) Seismic behaviour of a traditional timber structure: shaking table tests, energy dissipation mechanism and damage assessment model. Bull Earthq Eng

  27. Maraveas C, Miamis K, Matthaiou ChE (2015) Performance of timber connections exposed to fire: a review. Fire Technol 51(6):1401–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-013-0369-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. American Institute of Timber Construction (ed) (2012) Timber construction manual, Sixth edition. Wiley, Hoboken

  29. Chang W-S, Hsu M-F, Komatsu K (2006) Rotational performance of traditional Nuki joints with gap I: theory and verification. J Wood Sci 52(1):58–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chang W-S, Hsu M-F (2007) Rotational performance of traditional Nuki joints with gap II: the behavior of butted Nuki joint and its comparison with continuous Nuki joint. J Wood Sci 53(5):401–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Guan ZW, Kitamori A, Komatsu K (2008) Experimental study and finite element modelling of Japanese ‘Nuki’ joints — Part two: Racking resistance subjected to different wedge configurations. Eng Struct 30(7):2041–2049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Komatsu K, Kitamori A, Jung K, Mori T  (2009) Estimation of the mechanical properties of mud shear walls subjecting to lateral shear force, presented at the 11th International Conference on Non-conventional Materials and Technologies, Bath, UK

  33. Fang D, Mueller C, Brütting J, Fivet C, Moradei J (2019) Rotational stiffness in timber joinery connections: Analytical and experimental characterizations of the Nuki joint. In: Structures and Architecture: Bridging the Gap and Crossing Borders, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 229–236

  34. Fang D et al (2019) Modern timber design approaches for traditional Japanese architecture: analytical, experimental, and numerical approaches for the Nuki joint, presented at the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures, Barcelona, Spain

  35. Fang D (2020) Timber joinery in modern construction: mechanical behavior of wood-wood connections. M.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/127868

  36. Sato H, Nakahara Y (1995) The complete Japanese joinery. Hartley and Marks Publishers

  37. American Wood Council (2017) National Design Specification 2018 for wood construction. American Wood Council

  38. McDonnell E, Jones B (2020) Performance-based engineering provides path to more compelling mass timber projects. Technol Des 4(1):9–13

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kaethner SC, Burridge JA (2012) Embodied CO2 of structural frames. Struct Eng 33–40

  40. De Wolf CEL (2017) Low carbon pathways for structural design : embodied life cycle impacts of building structures. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Accessed: Sep. 27, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/111491

  41. De Wolf C, Hoxha E, Hollberg A, Fivet C, Ochsendorf J (2020) Database of embodied quantity outputs: lowering material impacts through engineering. J Archit Eng 26(3):04020016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. KT Innovations, thinkstep, and Autodesk (2019) Tally(R) Life Cycle Assessment App. [Online]. Available: https://choosetally.com/

  43. Building Transparency (2019) Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3). https://www.buildingtransparency.org/en/ . Accessed May 07, 2020

  44. CORE Studio (2020) Beacon. [Online]. Available: https://core-studio.gitbook.io/beacon/

  45. Trussoni M, Simatic E, Raebel CH, Huttelmaier HP (2015) Life-Cycle Assessment Comparison for Long-Span Cable and Truss Structural Systems: Case Study. J Archit Eng 21(1):05014005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stern BG (2018) Minimizing embodied carbon in multi-material structural optimization of planar trusses. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Accessed: Dec. 02, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/119324

  47. Monahan J, Powell JC (2011) An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment framework. Energy Build 43(1):179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hens I, Solnosky R, Brown NC (2021) Design space exploration for comparing embodied carbon in tall timber structural systems. Energy Build 244:110983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Roynon J (2020) Embodied Carbon: Structural Sensitivity Study. BuroHappold Engineering

  50. Skullestad JL, Bohne RA, Lohne J (2016) High-rise timber buildings as a climate change mitigation measure – a comparative LCA of structural system alternatives. Energy Procedia 96:112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. De Wolf C, Yang F, Cox D, Charlson A, Hattan AS, Ochsendorf J (2015) Material quantities and embodied carbon dioxide in structures. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Eng Sustain

  52. Foraboschi P, Mercanzin M, Trabucco D (2014) Sustainable structural design of tall buildings based on embodied energy. Energy Build 68(Part A):254–269

  53. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP (2013) Timber Tower Research Project: Initial Research Report. [Online]. Available: http://www.som.com/ideas/research/timber_tower_research_project

  54. MTC Solutions (2020) Beam Hanger Design Guide

  55. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. (2020) Connectors & Fasteners for Mass Timber Construction (C-C-MASSTIMBER20)

  56. Nordic Engineered Wood (2013) Nordic Lam Beams and Headers

  57. Jones C, Hammond G (2019) Inventory of carbon & energy v3.0. Accessed: Mar. 26, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html

  58. FPInnovations (2018) Environmental Product Declaration: Nordic Lam. Environmental Product Declaration

  59. Mayencourt PL (2020) Mass reduction: opportunities and structural optimization methods to reduce material use in Mass Timber Buildings. PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

  60. O. US EPA (2015) Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator . Accessed Jan. 02, 2020

  61. Moradei J et al (2018) Structural characterization of traditional moment-resisting timber joinery, presented at the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures, Cambridge, MA, USA

  62. Raith K (2020) Why circular strategies?, presented at the Circular Strategies Symposium, University of Applied Arts Vienna, Oct. 20, 2020. Accessed Oct. 23, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://youtu.be/js1UF_VOaNo?t=701

  63. Pozzi LE (2019) Design for disassembly with structural timber connections. Master’s, Delft University of Technology, Amsterdam. [Online]. Available: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Ac8b85050-cd11-45eb-b3ac-c3624259654f?collection=education

  64. Hradil P, Talja A, Ungureanu V, Koukkari H, Fülöp L (2017) Reusability indicator for steel-framed buildings and application for an industrial hall.  ce/papers 1(2–3), 4512–4521. https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.511

  65. De Wolf C, Hoxha E, Fivet C (2020) Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: a case study. Sustain Cities Soc 61:102322

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank staff at MTC Solutions and Simpson Strong-Tie for answering questions and providing 3D models of their products. Additional input from Dr. Catherine De Wolf, Steve Shrader at Hundegger, and carpenter Dylan Iwakuni was valuable. This paper builds on work made possible by previous collaborators: Julieta Moradei, Aliz Fischer, Dr. Benshun Shao, Jan Brütting, Dr. Corentin Fivet, and Daniel Landez.

Funding

This work was generously supported by a fellowship, J.A. Curtis Fund from MIT School of Architecture + Planning.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Demi Fang & Caitlin Mueller

Authors
  1. Demi Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caitlin Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demi Fang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 60.6 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, D., Mueller, C. Mortise-and-tenon joinery for modern timber construction: Quantifying the embodied carbon of an alternative structural connection. Archit. Struct. Constr. 3, 11–24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-021-00018-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-021-00018-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation