# The Influences of Selected Factors on Bending Moment Capacity of Case Furniture Joints
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Effects of Material Type and Joint Type on BMC
#### 3.2.2 Comparisons of BMC Considering Joint Type and Material Type  
Figure 8 shows the data distributions of BMCs of L-shaped joints constructed by various joint types and materials. It was observed that the joint made of PL and BB constructed by TE was much higher than others. The BMC of joints constructed by TE tended to be greater than others made of the same materials. Additionally, for the same joint type, the BMCs of joint made of PL were still higher than those of BB followed by PB. Concerning joints made of BB, the median line is higher than mean values and variations are higher than others. This indicates the solid wood core causes high variations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Face Member**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Edge Member**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Joint Shape**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **L-Shape** & **T-Shape** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PB} & PB & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 (14.9)Bc & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.8 (7.9)Ab \\  & PL & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 (13.2)Bc & 9.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 (11.7)Ab \\  & BB & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 (7.0)Bc & 10.0 \(\pm\) 1.1 (11.0)Ab \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PL} & PB & 11.2 \(\pm\) 0.9 (8.0)Aa & 11.9 \(\pm\) 1.5 (12.3)Aa \\  & PL & 11.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 (7.6)Aa & 11.8 \(\pm\) 1.7 (14.7)Aa \\  & BB & 10.8 \(\pm\) 0.8 (6.4)Aa & 12.3 \(\pm\) 0.9 (7.2)Aa \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{BB} & PB & 8.1 \(\pm\) 1.1 (13.3)Bb & 10.8 \(\pm\) 1.2 (11.2)Aa \\  & PL & 7.6 \(\pm\) 1.3 (16.6)Bb & 11.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 (9.9)Aa \\ \cline{1-1}  & BB & 7.6 \(\pm\) 0.7 (8.6)Bb & 11.0 \(\pm\) 1.2 (11.0)Aa \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The mean values in the same row not followed by a common upper-case letter are significantly different from one another at the 5% significance level. The mean values in the same column not followed by a common lower-case letter are significantly different from one another at the 5% significance level. The values in the parenthesis are coefficients of variance (COV).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean comparisons of bending moment capacity for joint shape with each combination of face member and edge member materials. Figure 7: Typical load–deflection curves and failure modes of L-shaped joints constructed by various joint types. Table 4 shows the ANOVA results of material type and joint type effects on BMC of L-shaped joints. It indicated that the material type, joint type, and their interactions all had significant effects on BMC of L-shaped joints. Therefore, two-way post comparisons were further conducted using LSD. Table 5 presents the comparison of BMCs constructed by each combination of material type and joint type. It suggested that, for material type, the BMCs of joints made of PL constructed by TE and ED were significantly greater than those of BB followed by PB. However, for BMC joints assembled by TD, there was no significant difference among three types of materials, since all samples failed because of wood dowel fracture. In case of the joint type, for all evaluated materials, the joints constructed by TE were significantly greater higher than those of ED followed by TD. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Sources** & \(F\) & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Material type & 131 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ Joint type & 128 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ Material type \(\times\) Joint type & 32 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* means that significance level is less than 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: ANOVA results of bending moment capacity of L-shaped corner joint. Figure 8: Bending moment capacity of L-shaped corner joint constructed by different joint types and material types.