## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Test** & **Dependence** & \(V_{stat}\) **[-]** & \(V_{stat\;crit}\) **[-]** & \(p\)**-Value [-]** & **Result** \\ \hline A-D & \(p\)=\(f(t)\) & 0.3844 & - & 0.3651 & normality \\ A-D & \(\Delta\sigma_{t}\)=\(f(\Delta p)\) & 0.1963 & 0.7208 & 0.8827 & normality \\ A-D & \(\Delta\sigma_{m}\)=\(f(\Delta p)\) & 0.2143 & 0.7208 & 0.8349 & normality \\ G-Q & \(p\)=\(f(t)\) & 1.0026 & 5.0503 & x & homoscedasticity \\ G-Q & \(\Delta\sigma_{t}\)=\(f(\Delta p)\) & 1.7988 & 3.7870 & x & homoscedasticity \\ G-Q & \(\Delta\sigma_{m}\)=\(f(\Delta p)\) & 2.1562 & 3.7870 & x & homoscedasticity \\ D-W & \(p\)=\(f(t)\) & 1.4088 & x & - & non-correlation \\ D-W & \(\Delta\sigma_{t}\)=\(f(\Delta p)\) & 1.9585 & x & 0.4048 & non-correlation \\ D-W & \(\Delta\sigma_{m}\)=\(f(\Delta p)\) & 1.6015 & x & 0.0915 & non-correlation \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Parameters of correlation analyses of applied polynomial models of individual regression dependencies \(p\) = \(f(t)\), \(\Delta\sigma_{t}\) = \(f(\Delta p)\) and \(\Delta\sigma_{m}\) = \(f(\Delta p)\). at the measurement point can be assumed. It is concluded that this could probably be caused by a different change in the pipe diameters in the horizontal and vertical direction by changing the circular cross-section to an elliptical one due to the effect of the pressure in the pipe. Taking into account the maximum stress increments of 2-3 MPa caused by shocks during construction work to stresses from operating pressures \(p\), values of 377 and 283 MPa were obtained for the stresses \(\sigma_{t}\) and \(\sigma_{m}\) with the corresponding equivalent stress \(\sigma_{q}\)\({}^{Y\!M}\) at the level of 340 MPa. The structural material of the original structure from the early 1970s corresponded with its material characteristics to today's L485 ME EN ISO 3183 steel with stress values--onventional yield strength \(R_{\text{p0,2}}\) at least 490 MPa and conventional ultimate strength \(R_{\text{m}}\) at least 550 MPa. The analyses carried out clearly showed that the construction works carried out in connection with the construction of the future river crossing had no impact on the condition of the existing crossing and on the possible emergence of an undesirable limit state. Further, the results of the mentioned analyses eventually allowed for the successful rectification of the bridging and contributed to the gradual replacement of bridging P1 (self-supporting pipe - arch) and later also P2 (truss three-jointed arch), as can be seen in Figure 14a by the underground solution of the river crossing. The current situation at the site of the former overhead bridges P1 and P2, therefore, has the form according to the satellite image in Figure 14b [24]. In the case of solving similar problems of other types of structures, it is difficult to accurately estimate the resulting effect of the action. Each case would have to be considered individually in view of its particularities. The type of construction of the original solution would play an important role here. Other influencing factors here could be the distance between the original and the new solution, the type and intensity of preparatory construction work, etc. However, it is possible to express an assumption or hypothesis that  
Figure 14: (**a**) Original gas pipeline bridges P1 and P2 over the Laborec river, (**b**) Current underground solution for crossing all 4 branches of the gas pipeline (the blue arrow indicates the direction of water flow, the yellow arrows indicate the direction of gas flow in the pipe, and the red arrow indicates north). in the case of structures where the pipe is not self-supporting but is placed on a supporting structure, the resulting effect is smaller.