# stile & rail without gaps - help with design



## Helvetica (15 Feb 2020)

I'm making doors for a sideboard - cherry with wenge handles. Trying to allow for seasonal movement but hide the expansion gaps. My idea is to make a stile & rail panel that functions like breadboard ends. Here is what I mean: the handle is deeper than the rest of the door, so the centre panel can expand into the handle. The frame is standard stile & rail, but the right-hand rail is actually the handle. I will post a sketchup file if anyone cares to look, and attach a few images of the sketchup. It's tricky to describe and even harder to draw. Basically wondering is it likely to work or has it been done successfully before.

The door will be 19mm thick (to work with Blum hardware). The handle is also 19mm thick, and 32mm wide where it meets the panel. It has a wider area for a grip. 

My house has a thermostat set at 19 degrees all year round in this room. The house is well insulated. The room has large south facing windows and gets lots of light (the cherry has darkened beautifully in no time). Seasonal humidity changes shouldn't be very large. I have made a 5 foot wide mahogany table that hasn't moved more than a millimetre, then again it is mahogany. Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Helvetica (15 Feb 2020)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eyk8fiq93sxe8 ... d.skp?dl=0

link to download the .skp


----------



## MikeG. (15 Feb 2020)

Why are you re-inventing the wheel? Woodworkers have been making panels successfully for thousands of years.


----------



## Helvetica (15 Feb 2020)

Because panels have gaps, and I don’t want gaps. Is that ok?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MikeG. (15 Feb 2020)

Panels don't have gaps. I'm at a loss to understand why you would think they do.


----------



## Mrs C (16 Feb 2020)

Helvetica":3ozbdr8w said:


> Because panels have gaps, and I don’t want gaps. Is that ok?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You possibly need to look at using tongue and grove.

I have found that storing wood in the same humidity as where the end product will eventually live before you start working on it really helps preventing movement. Mine lives under the stairs for a while!

The other option if your panels are flat is to use veneered mdf, in which case the problem goes away altogether.


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

I don't even understand that. Expansion in panels is taken up within the groove the panels sit in. They are loose fitted into channels in the edge of the stiles and rails, and can float about to their hearts content. Whatever style of panel you want (flat, raised, t&g, carved, latticework...whatever) there are no gaps, and no movement issues. Just make up orthodox panels and glue your handles to the outer edge of the stiles. I'm honestly not seeing the issue here.


----------



## Mrs C (16 Feb 2020)

I am assuming the problem is that the panels themselves are made of several vertical pieces. If the pieces shrink you get gaps unless you ether glue them together or use tongue and grove. The complete panel itself can then float between the styles.


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

Of course you glue them together. The way it has always been done.


----------



## Helvetica (16 Feb 2020)

The panel shrinks and expands inside the frame. So where the panel meets the frame you get a gap (or a routed detail to hide the gap). Unless the panel is flat and sits lower than the frame. I want the frame and panel to be flat, with no gaps, and no decoration. 

If I just glue it together with no expansion the boards will cup. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Helvetica (16 Feb 2020)

Mrs C":1lbju4zc said:


> You possibly need to look at using tongue and grove.
> 
> I have found that storing wood in the same humidity as where the end product will eventually live before you start working on it really helps preventing movement. Mine lives under the stairs for a while!



So the inside panel will be tongue and grooved, with the growth rings alternating to minimise cupping. 

The Cherry has been in the room since summer. I thicknessed them to rough size a few weeks ago. When I work on the board in the shed, I bring them back to the house when I’m done. But they will still cup a little. 

The dividing panels separating the shelves are tongue and groove panels, and the centre will raise 1mm after being planted dead flat. I’m trying to avoid this warping in the doors. 

My understanding of a frame and panel is that the panel is not glued to the frame, or maybe glued to one side to restrict movement in one direction. If it was all glued up would it not break the frame open when it expands? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## That would work (16 Feb 2020)

What you are saying is that you want the panel to be flush with the front faces of the stiles and rails. ?
If this is the case then you would need something like a bead and butt principal.
So the movement across the grain is disguised in the bead against the stiles. The end grain of the panels is rebated to fit in the grooves in the rails.


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

Flush? Then you should be veneering.


----------



## That would work (16 Feb 2020)

It's not unusual to have a panel set flush in a frame. Hence the bead and butt type methods.
I _think_ the OP wanted to have a flush panel with no movement provision around the panel edge. (What you refer to as gaps?)
Not really possible with a solid panel.


----------



## Helvetica (16 Feb 2020)

That would work":12ah0v8v said:


> It's not unusual to have a panel set flush in a frame. Hence the bead and butt type methods.
> I _think_ the OP wanted to have a flush panel with no movement provision around the panel edge. (What you refer to as gaps?)
> Not really possible with a solid panel.



This sounds interesting. Is it different to breadboard ends? Is it where you have a backing board with a sliding dovetail or something to keep it straight but allow for expansion? 

Yes I am after a flush panel and frame, but I thought the movement could be allowed for in the handle. You would have to look at my attached drawings to see why I think this would work. Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## deema (16 Feb 2020)

You can do it by allowing the whole panel thickness to slip inside the handle, however the handle would have to be thicker in order for it accommodate the entire thickness of the panel to slide inside. (You could rebate the panel on the back also, to reduce the width of the groove, however you will still need a thicker handle.


----------



## That would work (16 Feb 2020)

No not breadboard ends... that's for when the tImber is independent of a frame.
As you know the panel (if solid timber) will move across the grain but practically nothing along.
You won't completely stop this regardless of what second seasoning you employ. Today's 8% centrally heated air can't be relied upon to be consistent for the pieces lifetime.
So if you want the panels face to be flush with the frames face you will need to have a way of disguising the inevitable movement across the grain. So a straightforward tongue (barefaced so like a rebate) goes along the end grain of the panel and into the rails to sit flush on the front.
The vertical with grain edges on the panel also have the same tongue but because the panel WILL move you need a way of disguising it so a bead moulding with the tongue on the edges (that meet the stiles) will do that. A solid panel of around 400mm say can easily gain or loose 3 or 4 mm.


----------



## Trevanion (16 Feb 2020)

I didn't really understand what I was looking at yesterday but looking at it again I see where you're coming from, you're going to put a rebate on three edges of the panel so that it's flush with the external face but leave one edge that goes into the handle full size so your expansion and contraction happens there rather than the other end where you'd inevitably get a gap?

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work so long as the panel is fixed to the gapless side, just be aware that the stiles and rails are also liable to move slightly which may lead to a gap on that side as well as top and bottom so it might be worth having a shadow gap of say 1mm to hide that movement.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Feb 2020)

deema":ahavdor9 said:


> You can do it by allowing the whole panel thickness to slip inside the handle, however the handle would have to be thicker in order for it accommodate the entire thickness of the panel to slide inside.



I think he's incorporated a groove in his proposed handle (see attached image) wide enough to accept the full thickness of the panel. But, looking at the rest of the construction, I'm not altogether sure the simple tongue and groove joint holding the corner of the handle/stile to the top and bottom rail is strong enough. It could theoretically work for a solid wood panel glued to the opposite stile and all the expansion and contraction taking place within the panel wide groove in the handle. 

Having said that, I'd probably first explore the veneered panel option (as already suggested by others) to achieve an end result of the panel and framing of the same thickness, similar to veneered table tops, plus lipping. Using that technique, the handle could be simply attached to the door's front face, perhaps using biscuits or similar for alignment, plus adhesive, or even just glue and screw, although this leaves a visible screw head on the door's inside face, which I suppose could be covered with a pellet or similar. Slainte.


----------



## That would work (16 Feb 2020)

But... is the movement of the panel going to be taken up only on the handle side? How can that be?


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

By gluing the opposite side to the stile, and allowing everything else just to float. Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve sitting the un-glued, un-pinned panel in a rebate and just hoping that it stayed there.


----------



## woodbloke66 (16 Feb 2020)

That would work":erzlj49x said:


> It's not unusual to have a panel set flush in a frame. Hence the bead and butt type methods.
> I _think_ the OP wanted to have a flush panel with no movement provision around the panel edge. (What you refer to as gaps?)
> Not really possible with a solid panel.


What you're trying to do here is to go counter to centuries of perceived wisdom and good practice. A solid panel will move; indeed solid timber will move (as discussed yesterday in the thread about mitred corners on a 600mm wide solid wood top) alarmingly and you need to make allowances for that movement. If you want the panel to be entirely flush, with no 'gaps' where it meets the rails and stiles then the easiest and simplest way is to use veneered panels. The caveat of course, is that you need to know how to cut your own bandsawn veneers, join them and then lay them to produce the panel.
When I'm doing a project I usually always say to myself ...."_what's the easiest way to do this bit and get a decent result_'' You appear _not _ to be asking that question but substituting '_easiest_' for '_most difficult_' which is almost bound to see you running into difficulties. Why make life more difficult than it already is? :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## deema (16 Feb 2020)

I hadn’t noticed the wide groove in the handle! I think it’s a very clever idea, one I’ve not seen before. I agree that the rail and style joint probably needs making more robust. A full tenon, pegged (and glued) from the inside and not showing on the outside would I believe give it sufficient strength.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Feb 2020)

MikeG.":3em1gsfm said:


> By gluing the opposite side to the stile, and allowing everything else just to float. Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve sitting the un-glued, un-pinned panel in a rebate and just hoping that it stayed there.


I don't see it quite that way, Mike. Both ends of the panel and one edge could be held in place with a centred tongue fitting a similarly centred groove in the the stile and both rails. The tongue of the panel's edge could be glued into the stile, and the ends left to float unglued. On the other edge of the panel, the full thickness of the panel can float in the groove that matches the panels thickness worked on the inside edge of the handle/stile. As I said earlier, I think this could work, in theory at least, and quite probably in reality. But there are other issues, e.g., the strength of the limited joinery (T&G) between the rails and stiles, that I would look harder at, particularly on the handle side, where there's more likely to be issues to ponder, e.g., grabbing the handle and opening the door, and perhaps other potential causes of joint failure. 

However, the whole assembly as proposed is relatively complex requiring precision, and if anything doesn't quite work out it could be a bit of a dog's breakfast with gaps or overly tight joints, etc. As I said in my earlier post, my thoughts for such a desired finished appearance would move straight towards a simpler solution, i.e., something involving a veneered panel captured within a framework ... plus an applied handle or pull. Slainte.


----------



## That would work (16 Feb 2020)

woodbloke66":273b0zeb said:


> That would work":273b0zeb said:
> 
> 
> > It's not unusual to have a panel set flush in a frame. Hence the bead and butt type methods.
> ...


I'm not sure if you are condradicting what I said or not? Bead and butt condradicts centuries of good practice? Really? It has developed over centuries!


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

Sgian Dubh":2d0kl4hu said:


> MikeG.":2d0kl4hu said:
> 
> 
> > By gluing the opposite side to the stile, and allowing everything else just to float. Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve sitting the un-glued, un-pinned panel in a rebate and just hoping that it stayed there.
> ...



We're saying precisely the same thing in different ways.


----------



## woodbloke66 (16 Feb 2020)

That would work":37x8bi2e said:


> [
> I'm not sure if you are condradicting what I said or not?


Nope, not really but agreeing with you - Rob


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Feb 2020)

MikeG.":2s9q6den said:


> We're saying precisely the same thing in different ways.


Now you point it out I see what you mean. 

Sorry for misreading what you said. I think what threw me was where you said the "the panel pieces are rebated", as quoted below. For some reason I didn't catch on that you were probably saying to create a matching rebate at each edge on both faces of the panel, which would, of course, form a, err, uhm ... tongue, the term I used. Slainte.



MikeG.":2s9q6den said:


> Unless all _the panel pieces are rebated_ and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

Yep, that's what I meant. *I* knew what I meant, but communicated it in a way which meant I was the only one who had a clue what I was saying.... Apologies.

I wouldn't suggest rebating both sides of the panel. Just have the panel back finish flush with the back of the frame grooves. So actually not quite a tongue. A bare faced tongue, if you like.


----------



## Helvetica (16 Feb 2020)

deema":3llbiew1 said:


> I hadn’t noticed the wide groove in the handle! I think it’s a very clever idea, one I’ve not seen before. I agree that the rail and style joint probably needs making more robust. A full tenon, pegged (and glued) from the inside and not showing on the outside would I believe give it sufficient strength.



That’s it! Thank you. It’s clearly hard to explain though! I will do exactly that. Each door is roughly 570x400mm and I have the frame at 70mm wide - would you suggest I go wider here? My thinking is, if it’s too wide then the frame verticals are prone to movement themselves. 

This has turned into an interesting discussion, a lot to parse. Going to read properly now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Helvetica (16 Feb 2020)

Thought I’d add some photos of the carcasses for context. I didn’t mention that it was built, and I’m making the partitions now (one glueing up in the photo). And a sketchup view of the finished design. 























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Feb 2020)

MikeG.":102znn1f said:


> Yep, that's what I meant. *I* knew what I meant, but communicated it in a way which meant I was the only one who had a clue what I was saying.... Apologies.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest rebating both sides of the panel. Just have the panel back finish flush with the back of the frame grooves. So actually not quite a tongue. A bare faced tongue, if you like.


That would make sense from a technical point of view, Mike to allow for a panel that's the same thickness as the distance between the front face of the frame to the back edge of the groove on the inside narrow edge of the frame. 

On the other hand, Helvetica produced drawings that show the panel is the same thickness as the framing, so to accommodate that I naturally thought of a centralised tongue on the edge of the panel. I made the assumption that, for whatever reason, Helvetica wanted or needed a door that's the same thickness all across its width and height. 

After all is said and done though, I'd still explore the veneered panel within a frame method because I'd be working on the KISS principle, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## MikeG. (16 Feb 2020)

Sgian Dubh":13mhn214 said:


> ........ I'd still explore the veneered panel within a frame method......



Absolutely. Anything else would be a pain in the neck.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Feb 2020)

Helvetica":2oq96tqc said:


> Thought I’d add some photos of the carcasses for context. I didn’t mention that it was built, and I’m making the partitions now (one glueing up in the photo). And a sketchup view of the finished design.


I rather like that. I'm not 100 percent convinced yet with the feet, as they link the carcase to the floor - it might work when I see the finished piece. I do like the cabinet carcase and the mix of doors and drawers along with the nicely mismatched protruding horizontals and verticals. Given that visually strong motif, I'd rather not add additional vertical and horizontal lines that your panelled doors will create. I'm even more convinced that a plainer (i.e., joint free) veneered door approach would look better, being cleaner lined and less distracting from the protruding handle elements, if you see what I mean. Slainte.


----------



## Helvetica (16 Feb 2020)

Sgian Dubh":g2eycde4 said:


> I rather like that. I'm not 100 percent convinced yet with the feet, as they link the carcase to the floor - it might work when I see the finished piece. I do like the cabinet carcase and the mix of doors and drawers along with the nicely mismatched protruding horizontals and verticals. Given that visually strong motif, I'd rather not add additional vertical and horizontal lines that your panelled doors will create. I'm even more convinced that a plainer (i.e., joint free) veneered door approach would look better, being cleaner lined and less distracting from the protruding handle elements, if you see what I mean. Slainte.



Thank you. I got the idea for the feet from a george nakashima piece - it’s definitely a Japanese solution. I liked the idea that it supported the 3 metre length at 3 points. There are also two rails that go full length and are held in place by the three feet. I thought 4 traditional legs might be weak and look weak. We’ll see!

I’m tempted to give it a shot purely for the challenge, but I will definitely give strong consideration to a veneer. To be honest I feel like it’s the more difficult solution, although maybe more reliable. I have a Startrite bandsaw but the original fence is only 50mm high - I might need some modification to cut a veneer 400x570mm. This would be a first attempt. 

Anyway thanks so much (everyone) for taking the time to understand the idea and giving me advise. This is just a hobby and while I love design I lack the experience to know how to build things in a way that will last. 

Slán leat a chara


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake (16 Feb 2020)

If you are going to do the legs, they need to line up with the dark accent dividers, as that'll that make them unequal all the better looks wise.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (17 Feb 2020)

Helvetica":2owx2ney said:


> I’m tempted to give it a shot purely for the challenge, but I will definitely give strong consideration to a veneer. To be honest I feel like it’s the more difficult solution, although maybe more reliable. I have a Startrite bandsaw but the original fence is only 50mm high - I might need some modification to cut a veneer 400x570mm. This would be a first attempt.


I can't think of a good reason to make your own veneer when perfectly good commercial veneer (0.6 mm thick) can be purchased from veneer merchants, with the added bonus that you can buy enough to execute things like random, slip and book matches if desired. You seem to have a mix of doors and drawers where you can arrange some grain vertically and some horizontally if you prefer, or all of it diagonally ... or whatever suits you really, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## Adam9453 (23 Feb 2020)

Just to add another layer of complication to the mix, you could do a rail and stile veneer layon which would look like your original joinery design but in veneer with concealed lippings. Alternatively orientate the veneer in an unusual way to give more visual interest to the doors, a sunburst pattern is visually striking but can be difficult to achieve. Worth having a chat with a veneer supplier such as reliance veneers as they can produce layons for you which you then just need to press onto your panels, alternatively you could get a veneered panels specialist to produce the doors for you however this kind of defeats the object of making this as your hobby. I like the design though and look forward to seeing it completed.


----------

