Issue 46

M. L. Puppio et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 46 (2016) 190-202; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.46.18 200 FLS PLS OLS Figure 16 : Flows condition, limit state A, B and C. Figs. 1 and 2 respectively indicate the upstream and the downstream section of the bridge. N° Denomination Q A Q B Q C FLS PLS OLS 1 Tre Ponti 80 125 195 2 Chioma 85 105 160 3 Limoncino 340 465 525 [m 3 /s] [m 3 /s] [m 3 /s] Table 7 : Limit flow rates for the three study cases examined. Figure 17 : Coefficients α and β for the three study case examined. Normalizing the flow rates Q B and Q C according to the flow rate Q A , the following coefficients are calculated. These are higher than the unit, being Q B and Q C always higher than Q A and represent the further outflow capacities that the bridge can have in unusual conditions. These are represented in the histogram of Fig. 17 for the three study cases examined. As it can be seen, the bridge 1 (Tab. 7) shows higher outflow capacity than the study cases 2 and 3. This does not prove the safety of the bridge, since in case of overlap the resistance to unusual and erosive actions has always to be considered [9]. 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 1,63 1,29 1,12 1,88 1,53 1,18 Cases of study α β