Mechanical Properties of Furniture Joints Using Loose Tenons and Connectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study offers valuable insights into mechanical properties of furniture joints using loose tenons and connectors.
Authors should check the quality of figures. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find in the attachment the responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

First of all, this a applicabale study on wood furniture joints, which contributes to the furniture industry. The aim of paper was to investigate the Domino wood dowel and dismountable connector when subjected to withdrawal and diagonal compression and tension load. However, the organization and writing of this paper must be improved according to the following suggetions.

1. Author information

1) Pay attention to the institute of the author, there is no third institute listed in your paper;

2. Abstract

1) The abstract should be concise and self-evidence. The common form includes aim of the paper, the methods used, and the factors investigated. Please modified your paper according to the above format;

2) The multiple sing is not the letter "x";

3) It is not necessary to declare the samples' prepareation in this section;

3. Introduction

The introduction should be improved according to the following suggestions. especially for the 3th paragraph, it should be reorganized according to the suggestion.

1) Line 41-45. The sentence " In the case of glued joints, the varieties of mortise and tenon, and dowel joints are the most common, while in the case of dismountable connections the cam fittings and the bolt and barrel nut connectors are the most widespread solutions. Due to their wide distribution, a significant part of the research focused on thesefurniture joint types [2,3]".

The literature should be cited right after the corresponding content ( in bold), do not cite them at the end. Meanwhile, more recent publications on this topic should be cited. In the case on mortise and tenon joint: Numerical and optimal study on bending moment capacity and stiffness of mortise-and-tenon joint for wood products; Numerical study on effects of tenon sizes on withdrawal load capacity of mortise and tenon joint; A methodology for optimizing tenon geometry dimensions of mortise-and-tenon joint wood products. In the case of the dowel joints: Study on the effects of selected factors on the diagonal tensile strength of oblique corner furniture joints constructed by wood dowel; Experimental and numerical studies on the mechanical properties and behaviors of a novel wood dowel reinforced dovetail joint. These  can also enrich and improve the literature review of the 3th paragraph. 

 

 

3) The third paragraph. Do not only list previous studies' results. but instead of further summarizing the main points and conclusions of these studies. For example, expend the literature review according to the joint type, mortise and tenon joint, dowel joint, and dismountable joint. Summarize the factors influencing the furniture joint strength, not list other's results one by one. Please refer to the format of this paper's introduction: "Study on tensile strength of single dovetail joint: experimental, numerical, and analytical analysis".

4. Materials and Method

It is suggested to reorganized this section according to followings: Materials, Sample preparation, Testing methods, and Experimental design, which will make the paper more readable.

1) The unit of the "m3" should be "m³", please also pay attention to other units;

2) In the review version, the resolution of the figure is pretty low. Please check it and replace. Ignore it if your word version is accepted;

3) Pat attention to the order of figures, most of them are disordered. Meanwhile, the figures should be present after its first citation in text, not ahaed of the first citation;

4) It is recommended that add repliction number in in the Table 2;

5. Conclusions

It is recommended that the conclusions should be listed point by point, and do not cite  reference in this part. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the valuable suggestions. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It is a interesting manuscript expanding the knowledge about  mechanical properties of wooden furniture joins. However, the manuscript requires a few minor corrections. I synthetically present my comments and suggestions.

Substantive comments:

Chapter: Materials and Methods

The description of the connected beech wood elements does not include information about the arrangement of annual rings, which may have a significant impact on the results of mechanical properties tests. Were the rings standing, lying or inclined (visible on the cross section of beech wood elements) in relation to the plane of action of forces?

Lines 151-152

What does "red heartwood" mean?
Beech wood is a hardwood species without heartwood (only sapwood). However, this wood quite often contains false heartwood with uneven outline and color.

Chapter: Results and Discussion and Chapter: Conclusions

The article describes the research results well, but the discussion element does not contain any references (comparisons) to other works in this field. Such references are included in the conclusions and should be moved to the discussion (i.e. to the chapter: Results and Discussion) and slightly expanded. The Conclusions chapter should focus on a synthetic summary of your own research results without references to other works in my opinion.

Editing minor corrections:

Figures 1 (line 155), 4 (line 275), 5 (line 286), 6 (line 322) and 7 (line 324)

The quality of these drawings is poor, the lines are blurred and the fonts and descriptions are too small and illegible. The font size and quality (resolution) of these drawings should be increased.

For figures, I also provided lines (placement in the text), because their numbering is partly incorrect and should be corrected (e.g. figure 2 (line 276) is not 2 but 4, etc.).

The numbering of the tables is also partly incorrect too. Table1 (line 296) is not 1 but 3.

Yours sincerely
Reviewer

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the valuable comments and recommendations. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The paper has been much improved after your careful revision. I recommended that it can be accepted and published.