## 3 Results and Discussion
### Experimental Results
#### 3.1.3 Influence of Distances \(l_{b}\) and \(l_{c}\)  
The evolution of the maximum splitting load for the beams with one-dowel connections placed at different distances from the nearest support (\(l_{b}\)) is shown in Figure 12a. Figure 12b shows the load evolution for beams with two-dowel connections as a function of the spacing between the dowels (\(l_{c}\)). The results in both graphs are given for beams with \(h\) = 100 mm and \(h\) = 200 mm. Figure 11: Splitting failure loads for one- and two-dowel connections in relation to beam span, for \(h\) = 200 mm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of** & **Series** & **\(L\)** & **Slenderness** & **\(h_{e}\)** & **\(\alpha\)** & **\(P_{\text{exp}}\)** & **Load Increase** \\
**(no.dowels)** & **\(h\)/no.dowels/L/l\({}_{b}\)** & **(mm)** & **(L/h)** & **(mm)** & **\(h_{e}\)/\(h\)** & **(kN)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline
1D & 100/1D/450/0.5L & 450 & 4.50 & 64 & 0.64 & 32.5 & 51\% \\
2D & 100/2D/450/0.5L & & & & & & 49.0 & 51\% \\
1D & 200/1D/450/0.5L & 450 & 2.25 & 64 & 0.32 & 27.2 & 29.2 & 7\% \\
2D & 200/2D/450/0.5L & & & & & & & \\
1D & 200/1D/950/0.5L & & & & & & & \\
2D & 200/2D/950/0.5L & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Load increase in series with two-dowel connections compared to one-dowel connections. When looking at the evolution of the splitting capacity as a function of \(l_{b}\) for beech beams with one-dowel connections (Figure 12a), the series of \(h=200\) mm shows a decrease in splitting failure loads with the proximity of the dowel to the support, up to the distance \(l_{b}=240\) mm. However, the load increases again when the dowel is at the closest distance to the support of those studied (\(l_{b}=120\) mm). The specific \(l_{b}\) distance at which this trend change occurs is difficult to determine with accuracy as many tests would be necessary. However, a value of \(l_{b}\approx h\) seems a good approximation. This apparent increase in the splitting capacity of the beam may be due to the fact that, for distances of \(l_{b}\approx h\), part of the load is transferred directly to the supports [62]. However, the splitting failure is not negligible even if \(l_{b}<h\). A similar trend is observed for beams with \(h=100\) mm, with a decrease in ultimate load with decreasing \(l_{b}\), although in this case with no increase in load for the lowest \(l_{b}\). This observation may be related to the fact that the smallest value of \(l_{b}\) tested is greater than \(h\) and therefore the dowel is not close enough to the support to transfer the load directly to it. There are not many experimental studies in the literature focusing on the influence of \(l_{b}\). Some literature sources report that splitting capacity is independent of \(l_{b}\)[35, 61], contrary to the results of the present study, where the influence was evident. Other studies with off-centre dowel connections in sawn spruce, spruce gulham, Douglas fir gulham, or Radiata pine LVL can be found in [28, 69, 34]. However, due to the limited results and geometries addressed, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions. When comparing the test results between the two beam depths, it can be seen that the \(h=100\) mm series tends to attain higher splitting loads than the \(h=200\) mm series. This gain in load may be explained, to some extent, by the difference in the \(\alpha\) ratios, so that the higher the \(\alpha\), the higher the ultimate load. This influence of the parameter \(\alpha\) is in line with the findings described in Section 3.1.1. Regarding the evolution of the ultimate splitting loads as a function of \(l_{c}\) for beech beams with two-dowel connections (Figure 12b), it can be seen that the loads increase with the dowel spacing, which is in agreement with the test results reported in [34, 36, 66, 67, 70].