Issue 51

C. Anselmi et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 51 (2020) 486-503; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.51.37

Features

Compared cases

Increase %

Decrease %

(a)

1-5 2-7 3-9

68.637

(a) (a) (a) (b) (b) (b) (b) (c) (c) (c) (c) (d) (d) (d) (d)

77.73

45.570 55.188

4-11

5-6 7-8

34.940 140.693

9-10

7.012 9.936

11-12

1-2 3-4 5-7 1-3 2-4 5-9 9-11 7-11

41.049 10.074 58.141 25.964

34.171 104.672 132.853 311.843

Table 2 : Compared cases.

Diagram alpha vs Lf (sT=1,5m) failure at ribs no failure at ribs

Diagram alpha vs Nh (Lf=2m)

Diagram alpha vs sT (Lf=2m)

30

10 12 14 16

35

no failure at ribs

30

25

25

20

20

15

0 2 4 6 8

15

alpha

alpha

alpha

10

10

failure at ribs alpha vs Nh

failure at ribs no failure at ribs

5

5

sT

Lf

Nh

0

0

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Figure 12 : Variability of α  multiplier as a function of Nh, Lf and sT.

Fig. 12 shows the variability of α multiplier as a function of Nh, Lf and sT parameters. Furthermore, some compared cases of Tab. 2 are shown in the following subparagraph 7.1 together with the relative collapse mechanisms. Finally, in subparagraph 7.2, some results obtained by examining the most famous pavilion dome in the world, that of S. Maria del Fiore by Brunelleschi in Florence, are illustrated. Some compared cases with relative collapse mechanisms We refer to compared cases shown in bold in Tab. 2. Only for practical display reasons the comparisons relating to the four features listed above with (a), (b), (c) and (d) will be illustrated below in order (c), (a), (b) and (d). As previously mentioned, Figs. 13-17 show the collapse mechanism of a quarter of a dome, represented through axonometric and zenithal views, and a section.

496