## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparison between Experimental, Numerical, and Theoretical Failure Loads
However, when there are two dowels (2D), it is FEM that stands out with theoretical loads closer to the experimental ones when applying the three design models, and it is precisely the Eurocode 5 base model and Jensen that offer the worst predictions this time, contrary to the previous case. This is consistent with the models that do not consider the number of fasteners in their formulation. When the connection is off-centre (\(l_{b}\) = 0.38L, 0.25L, and 0.13L) and considering 1D, the Eurocode 5 model is the one that gives the predictions least adjusted to the experimental values in most cases, although always on the safe side. The closer the dowel is to the support, the more conservative it is. It should be noted that the C\({}_{1}\) value used in the expression corresponds to beech. If the fixed value C\({}_{1}\) = 14 given in the Eurocode 5 expression (Equations (14)-(17)) for softwoods had been used, the predicted loads would have been even more conservative. In the case of off-centre connection, but focusing now on 2D, two assumptions have been considered for the analysis of results: each dowel as part of a separate connection (i.e., the beam would have two connections with 1D each) and the two dowels as part of the same connection. The results of this second assumption are marked with * in Table 6.  
According to the first scenario of two separate connections, the Eurocode 5 model seems to be too conservative again, this time with predictions below 63% of the experimental load. The FEM appears to give theoretical values closer to the experimental ones. Figure 15: Experimental failure loads versus values predicted by FEM (black symbols) and by the design models (symbols in colours) for the European beech. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Series**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. **} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Numerical**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Design Models**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Test** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Analysis**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Eurcode 5 [24]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**[PERSON] [46]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**[PERSON] and Quenneville [47]**} \\  & & & & & **Equations (14)–(17)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Equations (18)–(22)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Equations (23)–(26)**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **h/no_dowles/LL/b** & \(P_{\text{exp}  
Under the second assumption of considering the two dowels as part of the same connection, the theoretical failure loads predicted by the FEM and by the Eurocode 5 model double their value, but the ratio between these and the experimental ones is the same as that obtained under the first assumption, thus making the Eurocode 5 model quite conservative, as mentioned above. However, the load ratios resulting from applying the models of [PERSON] (Equations (18)-(22)) and [PERSON] (Equations (23)-(26)) differ between the two assumptions. Specifically, [PERSON]'s model leads to the same theoretical loads for both scenarios, and therefore, the ratios are halved when only one connection is considered, which means overly conservative predictions with theoretical values below 62% of the experimental load, similar to those obtained by applying the Eurocode 5 model (it should be remembered that both models disregard the number of dowels in the connection in their formulation). On the other hand, if the connections were considered independent, [PERSON]'s model gives results closer to the experimental ones but sometimes in a non-conservative way, as was the case for beams of \(h=100\) mm. Focusing on the [PERSON] and [PERSON] model, the difference in behaviour between both assumptions is the reverse: the consideration of independent connections is the one that gives conservative results, while the second assumption of considering a single connection with two dowels results for most of the cases unsafe, with some theoretical values far away from the experimental ones, especially in the beams of \(h=100\) mm.