## 3 Results
Given the results of the load and damage tests on model I, it can be concluded that its shear load capacities were not less than the corresponding design capacity, according to [34]. Furthermore, the experimental values of its friction joint limit coefficient were not less than the maximum friction coefficient value of 0.5, according to this standard. Table 2 shows the results of the loading tests on the screw models of the joint nodes (models III, IV, and V), carried out in a manner analogous to the loading tests on models I and II, with different ranges and increments for the vertical external force and different initial screw tension values resulting from the different scales of these models. This primarily confirms the expected variation in the F\({}_{\text{i}}\) tension forces in the screws of these models  
resulting from different engineering calculation methods, as they were quasi-statically loaded with the vertical external force F.  
Accompanying this variation, changes in the relative strain and linear displacement values (marked in light and dark yellow in the boxes of Table 2) indicate the following:  
1. Dilation occurred in the lower friction joints (at points 3, 4, 5, and 6) in all bolted junction models (III, IV, and V). The highest values of F\({}_{\rm i}\) exceeded the values of F\({}_{\rm pM(\cdot)}\) with respect to preloading their bolts (M16 and M24 in the corresponding scales) but did not reach the values of the plasticizing forces for these bolts. 2. Tightening occurred in the top elements of the friction joints (at points 1 and 2) in all screw connection node models (III, IV, and V). The values of F\({}_{\rm i}\) fell (mostly after the first load tests) by 12% to 18% and, according to the averaged results, approximately 2% below the values of F\({}_{\rm pM(\cdot)}\) in the initial bolt tension values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Force FM16** & **Force Fi** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Relative Deformation of Strain Gauges [\%]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Inductive Sensor Linear Displacement [mm]**} \\
**[kN]** & **(Screw** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Point P1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Point P2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sensor 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sensor 2 *} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sensor 3**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sensor 4 *} \\
**[kN]** & **(Tension)** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Upper)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Lower)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Tension)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Tension)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Tension)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Tension)**} \\  & **[kN]** & **Direct. H** & **Direct. V** & **Direct. H** & **Direct. V** & **Direct. H** & **Direct. V** & **Direct. H** & **Direct. V** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Results of load tests} \\
30.0 & 95.4 & 0.0001\% & 0.0050\% & 0.0008\% & \(-\)0.0068\% & \(-\)0.022 & \(-\)0.080 & \(-\)0.019 & \(-\)0.055 \\
40.0 & 95.5 & 0.0001\% & 0.0065\% & 0.0011\% & \(-\)0.0093\% & \(-\)0.037 & \(-\)0.110 & \(-\)0.032 & \(-\)0.069 \\
50.0 & 95.6 & 0.0000\% & 0.0079\% & 0.0015\% & \(-\)0.0120\% & \(-\)0.052 & \(-\)0.138 & \(-\)0.049 & \(-\)0.087 \\
56.8 & 95.5 & \(-\)0.0002\% & 0.0085\% & 0.0020\% & \(-\)0.0140\% & \(-\)0.076 & \(-\)0.172 & \(-\)0.074 & \(-\)0.100 \\ \multicolumn{10}{c}{Results of destructive tests} \\
60.0 & 94.8 & \(-\)0.0006\% & 0.0083\% & 0.0024\% & \(-\)0.0152\% & - & \(-\)0.209 & - & \(-\)0.125 \\
70.0 & 94.6 & \(-\)0.0013\% & 0.0083\% & 0.0038\% & \(-\)0.0191\% & - & \(-\)0.361 & - & \(-\)0.274 \\
80.0 & 94.2 & \(-\)0.0021\% & 0.0079\% & 0.0058\% & \(-\)0.0243\% & - & \(-\)0.563 & - & \(-\)0.462 \\
90.0 & 93.4 & \(-\)0.0028\% & 0.0070\% & 0.0083\% & \(-\)0.0305\% & - & \(-\)0.805 & - & \(-\)0.681 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Selected results of load and destructive tests in I models. Figure 11: Example waveforms of the force F\({}_{\rm i}\) values; bolt tension in one example of model I; and the value of the force F\({}_{\rm M16}\), which slightly overloaded this model in one of the load tests.