## 3 Results
This ended with the loss of the load-carrying capacity of the friction joint in this model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Force F** [**N**]} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Screw Tension Forces F\({}_{1}\) in the Model**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Relative Strain at Strain Gauge Sensor**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Linear Displacement at Inductive Sensor Points \({}^{*}\)**} \\  & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**[**N**]} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**[**N**]} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Points [\%]**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Sensor 1**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Sensor 2**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Sensor 3**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Sensor 4**} \\ \cline{2-13} \cline{6-13}  & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F5** & **F6** & **P1** & **P2** & **P3** & **P4** & **Dir. H** & **Dir. V** & **Dir. H** & **Dir. V** \\ \hline \multicolumn{13}{|c|}{Model of node III in load tests} \\ \hline
120.0 & 80.9 & 80.1 & 92.2 & 89.3 & – & – & 0.012 & 0.010 & 0.000 & \(-0.002\) & \(-0.773\) & \(-0.097\) & \(-0.780\) & \(-0.125\) \\ \hline
160.0 & 81.1 & 80.3 & 98.1 & 94.5 & – & – & 0.017 & 0.016 & 0.001 & \(-0.002\) & \(-1.049\) & \(-0.136\) & \(-1.065\) & \(-0.169\) \\ \hline
200.0 & 81.6 & 80.7 & 104.5 & 100.4 & – & – & 0.022 & 0.022 & 0.002 & \(-0.001\) & \(-1.320\) & \(-0.171\) & \(-1.341\) & \(-0.211\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{13}{|c|}{Model of node III in destructive tests} \\ \hline
240.0 & 82.0 & 79.0 & 114.5 & 109.2 & – & – & 0.031 & 0.031 & 0.002 & \(-0.001\) & – & – & – & – \\ \hline
280.0 & 84.0 & 79.5 & 118.4 & 113.3 & – & – & 0.033 & 0.034 & 0.003 & 0.000 & – & – & – & – \\ \hline
320.0 & 88.8 & 80.4 & 123.6 & 120.0 & – & – & 0.037 & 0.040 & 0.004 & 0.002 & – & – & – & – \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Model of node IV in load tests} \\ \hline
40.0 & 16.9 & 17.2 & 21.1 & 22.9 & 25.3 & 25.8 & 0.0101 & 0.0077 & 0.0052 & 0.0048 & \(-0.322\) & \(-0.045\) & \(-0.350\) & \(-0.059\) \\ \hline
50.0 & 16.8 & 17.1 & 21.2 & 23.1 & 25.9 & 26.7 & 0.0121 & 0.0098 & 0.0062 & 0.0056 & \(-0.393\) & \(-0.044\) & \(-0.422\) & \(-0.062\) \\ \hline
60.0 & 16.6 & 17.0 & 21.4 & 23.4 & 26.8 & 27.6 & 0.0142 & 0.0120 & 0.0072 & 0.0063 & \(-0.467\) & \(-0.039\) & \(-0.495\) & \(-0.061\) \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Model of node IV in destructive tests} \\ \hline
70.0 & 16.5 & 16.9 & 21.7 & 23.8 & 27.9 & 28.6 & 0.0166 & 0.0143 & 0.0080 & 0.0070 & \(-0.545\) & \(-0.027\) & \(-0.573\) & \(-0.054\) \\ \hline
90.0 & 14.2 & 15.6 & 22.3 & 25.4 & 31.0 & 30.1 & 0.0216 & 0.0185 & 0.0093 & 0.0092 & – & \(-0.138\) & – & 0.006 \\ \hline
110 & 12.5 & 15.6 & 22.7 & 30.0 & 34.2 & 32.2 & 0.0265 & 0.0238 & 0.0116 & 0.0086 & – & \(-0.438\) & – & \(-0.235\) \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Model of node V in load tests} \\ \hline
40.0 & 25.6 & 24.3 & 31.3 & 30.7 & – & – & 0.009 & 0.008 & 0.008 & 0.0001 & \(-0.281\) & \(-0.0191\) & \(-0.2548\) & \(-0.0287\) \\ \hline
50.0 & 25.5 & 24.3 & 32.0 & 31.5 & – & – & 0.011 & 0.010 & 0.000 & 0.001 & \(-0.2945\) & \(-0.0178\)This dilation undoubtedly reduces the form-factor contact of the load-bearing elements with the lower bolted friction joints; namely, the spacer-bearing rings with the connected elements. This is apparent in the surfaces of the connected elements-angles, with barely visible traces of tooth imprints from the spacer-bearing rings, as shown in Figure 4a. This dilation also undoubtedly reduces the shear capacity of these joints in the connecting bolt nodes in question. However, pressing increases the shaped contact of the load-bearing upper elements of the bolted friction joints. Their working surfaces are then frictionally coupled, which is also evident in the surfaces of the connecting elements-angles, with apparent imprint marks from the distance-bearing teeth of the rings (Figure 10b). This undoubtedly increases the shear capacity of these joints and significantly compensates for the negative effect of dilation in the upper joints on the capacity of the connecting bolt nodes in question.