Issue 38

P. Lonetti et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 38 (2016) 359-376; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.38.46

F   0.25

F   0.30

F   0.35

c

MODEL

LC1 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 2.00 1.84 1.72 1.70 3.36 3.61 2.08 1.89

LC2 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.63 1.53 1.49 1.48 2.56 2.46 1.91 1.66

LC1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 1.29 1.29 1.27 1.27 2.19 2.19 1.90 1.90 4.28 4.10 2.82 2.56 7.40 8.79 3.21 2.85

LC2 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.81 1.81 1.67 1.67 3.24 2.89 2.51 2.30 5.13 5.25 3.08 2.74

LC1 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 2.81 2.81 2.34 2.34 4.52 4.19 3.03 2.92 8.44 9.07 4.06 3.67

LC2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 2.40 2.40 2.14 2.14 3.51 3.18 2.72 2.63 5.84 5.49 3.70 3.35 9.23 9.89 4.53 4.06

EMB CMI

0.25

BMI FMI

EMB CMI

0.30

BMI FMI

EMB CMI

0.35

BMI FMI

EMB CMI

0.40

BMI FMI

EMB CMI

14.65 16.10

0.45

BMI FMI

4.69 4.11

0.40   .

25

r I 

Table 3 : Load multiplier as a function of c and F

 parameters for

and

Figure 10 : Variability of the cable-stayed system configuration.

371