Erman, E (2002) Timber joint design: The geometric breakdown method. Building Research & Information, 30(6), pp. 446-469. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A large number of joints are developed as a result of various timber construction techniques, structural efficiency and cultural differences. Many joints are not used because they are not adapted or are inconvenient for modern manufacturing and construction technologies. Nonetheless, this construction heritage can be harnessed and adjusted for contemporary use. Significant cultural and social differences in timber jointing and construction technologies are reviewed. The Geometric Breakdown Method is developed to analyse the geometry of timber joints for structural, carpentry and construction considerations. Using this method, traditional and modern joints can be understood better and designers can use accumulated construction knowledge to create new joint designs in a systemic manner.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | components; connections; design; jointing; tacit knowledge; timber construction |
| Index terms: | timber construction, tacit knowledge, construction technology, efficiency, geometry, cultural difference, designer |
| Subjects: | professional development, design practice, performance management, cross-cultural studies, profession, mathematical modelling, digital engineering |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice, International Construction, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here