Minimal table design - strength?

[Chris152]

I've been looking for design examples of tables that work with minimal substructure as I like the clean lines and found this.

and this

as ones that interest me. What I wonder is how in the absence of an apron or any other parts that could function as an apron, the legs - top connection can be strong enough to withstand movement (dragging into position, for example). What kind of joints might they be using? Might there be additional support hidden underneath?

Any thoughts much appreciated.

Chris

 

[MattRoberts]

I suspect that they're both 3D renders of fictional tables. Neither has sufficient strength to avoid racking or the abuse that a table will reasonably receive. The tops are also terribly unsupported and would likely bow horribly over time

 

[Jacob]

Metal sockets or other concealed metalwork of one sort or another.

 

[Chris152]

They seem to be real - or at least for sale...
https://www.anothercountry.com/products ... table-four
and
https://www.designboom.com/design/taiyo ... 2-25-2016/
(at the bottom of that page).

 

[AndyT]

I agree that those tables can't be very strong.

The first table must be weak as the thin top is not supported by rails. Ok on a tiny side table but not on something full size. The second one could be a little stronger but will still need a sheltered life.
I think this comes down to your decision about what is important for your table, in your house.

If you want something to put at the end of your ballroom with a vase of orchids on it, the first design could look like a nice clean, simple altar - ideal.

But if you need something for family meals, homework, games, strong enough to climb on for putting up Christmas decorations or papering the ceiling, a more conventional design will suit you better.

 

[MattRoberts]

I too like the minimal design and clean lines - however this style works only as long as it lasts. The minute the top starts to sag or the joints are loose due to racking, the minimal aesthetic is lost and it just starts to look wonky

 

[Sheffield Tony]

To me, that second one looks more crude than minimal ?

 

[profchris]

I have a thought which might be useful (or not ...)

In recent years, luthiers have been stiffening guitar necks with carbon fibre, usually rectangular section, epoxied into a channel routed into the neck. The unsupported span of a bass guitar neck is around 24 inches, and a pair of 9mm x 3mm stiffeners seems to do a good job, so I read.

Could this help with the longitudinal sag problem? Of course, it would do nothing to prevent cupping or warping laterally.

 

[Chris152]

That sounds like one for people with way more understanding and skill than me - I'm still trying to begin to get the basics of working with wood, introduce another medium and it could all go horribly wrong!
I like this design, too (Peter Lowe design)

Would you say this would be pretty stable for typical family use (the kind of uses AndyT named above)?

 

[Beau]

Deleted due to not reading the question carefully

 

[custard]

Would you say this would be pretty stable for typical family use (the kind of uses AndyT named above)?

More than adequate, properly made that would last for generations.

 

[Beau]

Metal sockets or other concealed metalwork of one sort or another.

I would go with this.

 

[custard]

I suspect that they're both 3D renders of fictional tables. Neither has sufficient strength to avoid racking or the abuse that a table will reasonably receive. The tops are also terribly unsupported and would likely bow horribly over time

Bowing or sagging wouldn't be any problem. Assume a 30mm thick Oak top that's 700mm wide and has a 1500mm span between the legs. Even without any apron rail support an 80 kilo man standing in the middle putting up the Christmas decorations would result in less than 3mm of sag.

http://www.woodbin.com/calcs/sagulator/

As to racking, a lot's down to the quality of the joinery, but I think both designs could be made to deliver a service life of at least twenty years or so. More if clever photography is concealing a central cross member immediately beneath the top. The killer for most furniture (I mean the structure as opposed to the finish) isn't usually abuse in situ, the real problem is house moves. I seem to remember being told Ikea aim for two house moves post assembly. I appreciate that's often KD design, but it's generally accepted that removals cause far more damage than use.

 

[Beau]

Custard is probably right but I am a belt and braces man. On the top design I would fix a 2-3mm stainless plate to the top of the rail with epoxy and screws. The plate would be wider than the rail by at least 100% if not more and then have the plate recessed flush into the underside of the top and screwed on. I have used this idea on the tables below with no substructure other than the visible legs. The second one would probably suffice as is with quality joinery.

 

[MattRoberts]

Another thing to bear in mind is the angle that a table will realistically be viewed at.

Beau's table could have a 6 inch stretcher running through the middle to provide support, and you'd never see it unless you sat on the floor

 

[Chris152]

Yes, I guess each of them could have supports that would be visible just below the edge of the table in the photos, but since

a lot's down to the quality of the joinery

I'll leave the first two alone for the moment!

If I were to aim for a build similar to the third table, given my lack of experience, would it be a good idea to start with a much smaller version to test things out and finalise my own version of the design? I thought to use un-steamed beech as I have a nice 3 metre piece here that would make a decent top for a coffee table (the house is starting to fill with them) and can easily get some more suitable for the legs etc. I'm assuming it's mortice and tenon for all those joints.

 

[custard]

If I were to aim for a build similar to the third table, given my lack of experience, would it be a good idea to start with a much smaller version to test things out and finalise my own version of the design? .

That would be really smart. Something like a matching occasional table would be a very nice addition plus it would give you confidence in the main challenges involved.

Rectilinear dining tables, such as the ones you've linked to, aren't particularly complicated, but the scale of the thing will introduce it's own problems. For example, a hardwood top that's say 6' 6" x 3' x 1 1/4", well that's about as much as you can manage single handed, and even then it's an awkward brute. The hardest job technically will be jointing up the top. For these contemporary designs you really want a really flat, clean appearance. So your glue lines need to be impeccable and your timber needs to be very dry and the sort of straight grained stuff that will likely stay flat.

Yes, it's M&T joinery for the frame, but you want every joint to be really good. So if one's a bit loose think about tightening it up with a bit of scrap veneer glued to the tenon cheeks, and don't hesitate to use a gap filling, slow setting UF glue like Cascamite. Draw out the joints full size on paper so you've got the dimensions fully resolved before picking up your tools, and make sure you have a dry glue up to check for square or irritating gaps before committing to the real thing.

Good luck!

 

[Chris152]

That's great - thanks Custard. I can see the greater challenges of scale and will have to reorganise my work space to fit the full-size version and me in, let alone managing to work on the top itself. Maybe if I build the legs etc first I can cover and use that to glue and finish the top on (my bench won't work, against the wall and too narrow). I'm hooked on the idea now and think I have to try, maybe I'll do a WIP starting with the smaller version so everyone can tell me where I'm going wrong! Thanks again for your thoughts.