HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Structures

12/01/2019 HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Structures
Cost Effectiveness of HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete

Structures Over Galvanised Metallic Ducts – A Study
S.G. Bapat, Chief Engineer (Civil-Designs) Retd; Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Addl. Chief Engineer (Civil) Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
Mumbai, and Mr. Umesh K. Rajeshirke, Spectrum Consulting Engineers, Navi Mumbai.
Introduction
Prestressing duct is one of the vital elements of total prestressing system.
The main functions of the duct are:

To create cavity / void in the concrete, along the profile of the prestressing cable so that the cable can be threaded into it after the concrete gets
hardened.
To provide the protection against the corrosion to the prestressing steel.
Different types of ducts are available and they can be classified depending upon their surface profile, such as plain or corrugated, and depending on
the material from which these ducts are manufactured, such as metallic or non-metallic.
Metallic ducts made from steel strips with corrugations are being used over long period for bonded post tensioning tendons. Plastic ducts have been
used for many years in the industry, but mostly in the form of smooth pipes for applications involving unbounded cables like external prestressing,
ground anchors etc. Only recently, the corrugated thick-walled HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) ducts have become popular internationally for other
applications of post-tensioned tendons like bridges etc. They offer excellent features over metallic sheathing such as improved corrosion protection of
the tendons, reduced friction losses during stressing of the tendons, increased fretting fatigue resistance of the tendon, their feasibility for corrosion
monitoring and the durability of the ducts themselves. Many times it is found that, when there is large time gap between the concreting of the structure
and prestressing operations, the metallic duct gets corroded and then leads to a major problem of leakage of grout from one duct to the adjacent ducts.
This problem can be completely avoided if the HDPE ducts are used.
The cost of corrugated plastic ducts for bonded post-tensioning was strongly influenced by the production method. These ducts were typically produced
by extrusion & then spiral winding process requiring significant investment. Since they were produced in relatively small quantities, corrugated plastic
ducts for bonded post tensioning system were typically more expensive, by 15–20% higher when compared with corrugated thin walled steel ducts till
late 2000. But with era of enormous use of PE ducts in large quantities coupled with modern speedy processing methods, made PE ducts very
competitive since then. The price gap further became not only narrow but also made metallic ducts costly due to skyrocketing prices of metallic strips
since 2002. The PE ducts since then are becoming very competitive & cost effective than metallic ducts. Ducts represent about 5% of the total post-
tensioning cost, which is about 10% of total construction cost of a bridge structure.
In addition, significant improvement of durability and quality of the main reinforcement of a structure can be achieved. Long tendons with significant
friction losses due to tendon deviations will benefit from the reduced friction coefficient of PE ducts and show an economy due to a more effective use
and therefore, a reduction of the required amount of prestressing steel leading to an overall economy of the structure. The value of prestressing force
available at a particular section of the structure (e.g. superstructure of the bridge) to resist the tensile stresses depends on the loss in the cable force
https://www.nbmcw.com/tech-articles/case-studies/19616-hdpe-sheathing-for-post-tensioned-prestressed-concrete-structures.html 1/11
due to friction between the cable and duct during stressing operation. If the coefficient of friction is small, more is the force available and less is the
prestressing steel required. This results in saving in cost, especially for the structures like long span bridges, continuous and curved girders,
prestressed concrete silos, water tanks, pipe lines, etc.
This report aims at providing a quantitative assessment of the cost saving in prestressing system for some of the typical prestressed concrete
structures.
The theoretical background on loss in cable force due to friction between cable and duct is presented followed by the losses due to wobble of duct. The
case studies are presented, which are simply supported I girders for various spans, box girders, continuous box girder, simply supported curved box
girders and continuous curved box girders.
Theoretical Background
The physical phenomenon of frictional loss of a cable around a curve is well known [1]. For a ready reference, a derivation for the same is given below.
Figure 1: Frictional loss along length dx
Curvature Effect: Consider an infinitesimal length dx of a prestressing tendon which follows the arc of a circle of radius R, (Ref. Fig. 1). Then the
change in angle of the tendon along its length dx is
dα = dx / R
For this infinitesimal length dx, the force in the tendon may be considered constant and equal to F; then the normal component of pressure N produced
by the force F bending around an angle dα is given by
N = Fdα = Fdx / R
The amount of frictional loss dF around the length dx is given by the pressure times a coefficient of friction µ, thus,
dF = -µN
dF = -µFdx / R = -µFdα
Transposing, we get
dF / F = -µdα
Integrating this on both sides, we have
logeF = -µα -----------(1)
Using the limits F1 and F2, we have the conventional friction formula
F2 = F1e-µα = F1e-µL/R
Since α = L/R for a section of constant R.
For tendons with a succession of curves of varying radii, it is necessary to apply this formula to the different section in order to obtain the total loss.
Wobble effect: Wobble coefficient, b depends physically on the rigidity of the duct which mainly depends on the duct diameter and the intermediate
supports provided while laying the duct. Typically, the value varies from 0.5o / m for smaller ducts to 0.3o / m for big stiff ducts. The wobble effect can
also be directly expressed in term of length using parameter K, which is K = bµ. To compute frictional loss due to wobble or length effect, KL can be
substituted for ìá in formula 1, and then we have,
LogeF = -KL F2 = F1e-KL
If the length and curvature effects are combined, we get
LogeF = -µα -KL
For limits F1 and F2,
F2 = F1e-µα-KL
Or, in terms of unit stresses,
ƒ = ƒ e-µα-KL
https://www.nbmcw.com/tech-articles/case-studies/19616-hdpe-sheathing-for-post-tensioned-prestressed-concrete-structures.html
2 1 3/11
Figure 2: Approximate frictional loss along circular curve
The friction loss is obtained from this expression. Loss of prestress is given as FR = F1 – F2. The stress in cable at the jacking end is ƒ1, and length to
the point is L where the stress is ƒ2, (Ref. Fig 2) Then,
FR = ƒ1 – ƒ2 = ƒ1 - ƒ1e-µα-KL = ƒ1 (1 - e-µα-KL) --------------(2)
Case Studies
Equation (2) shows the influence of µ on the net effective prestressing force available for resisting the Table showing values of μ & k
μ k
externally applied forces. Lower the value of the µ, higher is the prestressing force available and less
a) As per IRC 0.17 0.002
is the prestressing steel required. To assess the extent of this benefit, four case studies are carried b) As per fib 0.10 – 0.14 Not specified
out, the summary of which is presented in following sections. c) As per Experiment* 0.068 *0.00116
*The experiment was carried out by IIT for NPCIL for Kaiga
Atomic Power Project pre-qualification exercise.
The cost comparison is made between the conventional bright metal sheathing and the HDPE
sheathing. In case of HDPE, two sets of values for µ & k are used, first is based on the values specified in IRC-18 [2] and other is based on average
value specified in fib bulletin No. 7 [2].
Girder Bridges
For this study the standardized design of the girders of various spans viz. 30, 35, & 40 ms published by MoST [4] are used as the base design, i.e. the
same cable profile, number of cables, type of cables are used for the comparison.
In MoST design, the number of cables and their profile is arrived at using µ & K values of bright metal Span Saving in prestressing steel
sheathing which are 0.25 and 0.0046 respectively. In this study, it is tried to find out that what could IRC Coefficients fib Coefficients
30 m with footpath 2.78% 2.78%
have been the reduction in cable/strands if the HDPF sheathing would have been used instead of 30 m without footpath 2.38% 3.57%
white metal sheathing. Brief calculations are presented in Table No. 1 to 3 for girders with span of 30, 35 m without footpath 5.21% 6.25%
35, & 40 m respectively and summary of the results are tabulated below: 40 m with footpath 6.25% 7.29%
It can be seen that the saving in prestressing steel is of the order of 6.25 to 7.3% for span of 40 m by just changing the white metal sheathing to HDPE
sheathing.
Box Girder (Simply Supported)

Similar study has been carried out for box girders with different spans. The results are presented in Span Saving in prestressing steel
IRC Coefficients fib Coefficients
table No. 4 through 8 for 30, 35, 40, 45 & 50 m spans respectively. The table below gives the 30 m 2.57% 2.69%
summary of the results: 35 m 4.02% 4.10%
40 m 5.32% 5.69%
45 m 5.93% 7.01%
Box Girder (Continuous Over 3 Spans) 50 m 6.50% 7.86%
Three span continuous box girder with span arrangement of 40m + 40m + 40m has been considered for this case. For the comparison, longest cable in
the girder which is running from one end to the other is selected. The profile of this cable is shown in Fig. 3. The loss in prestressing force is worked out
at midpoint of cable i.e. center of the middle span. (The cables are to be stressed from both the ends.)
Figure 3: Span arrangement of cable layout for continuous box girder
The change in angle from the stressing end to the mid point of cable = 96.93° and cumulative length upto this point is 60.87 m. Hence the available
prestressing force at the mid point and saving in prestressing steel considering various values of µ & k is given below,
Of course not all the cables in the girder will be having similar profile and length. Some of the cables Available Prestressing
Saving in
Type of Duct force w.r.t force at
run locally over short distance having lesser change in angle having different values of prestressing stressing end
prestressing Steel
force available. The overall saving in prestressing steel for the girder is found to be about 14 to 16 % Bright metal 49.5 % 0.0 % (Reference)
HDPE (IRC) 67.6 % 36.6%
i.e. about 4.8 t, which in terms of cost is about Rs.3,60,000/- (Assuming Rs.75,000.0 / t, which HDPE (fib) 74.5 % 50.5%
includes the cost of installation, stressing, grouting, etc. complete)
Continuous Box Girder With Curvature in Plan

Similar study has been carried out for continuous curved box girder having similar span arrangement i.e. 40m +40m +40 m and the same cable profile
in elevation. The radius of curvature, in plan, is 60 m. Again for the comparison, longest cable in the girder which is running from one end to the other is
selected. The losses in prestressing force is worked out at midpoint of cable i.e. center of the middle span & the cable is to be stressed from both the
ends.
The change in angle from the stressing end to the mid point of cable = 136.4° and cumulative length, Available Prestressing
Saving in
Type of Duct force w.r.t force at
up to this point is 60.9 m. the available prestressing force at the mid point and saving in prestressing stressing end
prestressing Steel
steel, considering for various values of m & k, is given below, Bright metal 41.6 % 0.0 % (Reference)
HDPE (IRC) 59.0 % 41.7%
HDPE (fib) 68.6 % 64.62 %
Again not all the cables in the girder will be having similar profile and length. Some of the cable may
run locally over short distance having lesser change in angle and having different values of effective prestressing force available. The overall saving in
prestressing steel for the girder is found to be about 16 to 18 % i.e. about 6.25 t, which in term of cost is Rs. 4,68,750/-
Table 1.0 A : I Girder 30m span (without foot path)

Span 30m without FP 30m without FP 30m without FP
Type of Sheathing Bright Metal HDPE HDPE
Coeff. as per IRC Coeff. as per IRC Coeff. as per fib
Wobble and Friction coeff. k 0.0046 k 0.0020 k 0.0015
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
No of Cables 6 6 6
Frictional Losses
Cable No. Strands % loss Strands % loss Strands % loss
Cable no 1 12 9.67% 12 6.87% 12 6.57%
Cable no 2 12 9.67% 12 6.87% 12 6.57%
Cable no 3 12 10.14% 12 6.85% 12 6.56%
Cable no 4 12 10.14% 12 6.85% 12 6.56%
Cable no 5 12 9.67% 12 5.99% 12 5.81%
Cable no 6 12 10.35% 12 6.04% 12 5.90%
Total 72 9.94% 72 6.58% 72 6.33%
Jack End Force 1031.4 t 1031.4 t 1031.4 t
Loss of Force 102.5 t 67.9 t 65.3 t
Saving in force 0.0 t 34.7 t 37.3 t
Saving in strands in each Girder 0 2 2
Percentage Saving 2.78% 2.78%
Table 1.0 B : I Girder 30m span (without foot path)

Span 30m with FP 30m with FP 30m with FP
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
No of Cables 7 7 7
Frictional Losses
Cable no 1 12 9.67% 12 6.87% 12 6.57%
Cable no 2 12 9.67% 12 6.87% 12 6.57%
Cable no 3 12 10.14% 12 6.85% 12 6.56%
Cable no 4 12 10.14% 12 6.85% 12 6.56%
Cable no 5 12 9.02% 12 5.81% 12 5.72%
Cable no 6 12 9.67% 12 5.99% 12 5.81%
https://www.nbmcw.com/tech-articles/case-studies/19616-hdpe-sheathing-for-post-tensioned-prestressed-concrete-structures.html
Cable no 7 12 10.35% 12 6.04% 12 5.90% 6/11
Total 84 9.81% 84 6.47% 84 6.24%
Table 2.0 : I Girder 35 m span

Span 35m with FP 35m with FP 35m with FP
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
No of Cables 8 8 8
Frictional Losses
Cable no 1 12 11.96% 12 6.80% 12 6.36%
Cable no 2 12 11.96% 12 6.80% 12 6.36%
Cable no 3 12 11.17% 12 6.20% 12 5.88%
Cable no 4 12 11.17% 12 6.20% 12 5.88%
Cable no 5 12 12.65% 12 6.77% 12 6.33%
Cable no 6 12 13.83% 12 6.30% 12 6.74%
Cable no 7 12 13.17% 12 6.87% 12 6.02%
Cable no 8 12 12.31% 12 6.32% 12 5.29%
Total 96 12.28% 96 6.53% 96 6.11%
Table 3.0 : I Girder 40m span

Span 40m without FP 40m without FP 40m without FP
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
No of Cables 8 8 8
Frictional Losses
Cable no 1 12 12.97% 12 6.57% 12 5.86%
Cable no 2 12 12.97% 12 6.57% 12 5.86%
Cable no 3 12 12.18% 12 6.06% 12 5.34%
Cable no 4 12 12.18% 12 6.06% 12 5.34%
Cable no 5 12 13.65% 12 7.01% 12 5.87%
Cable no 6 12 14.82% 12 7.76% 12 6.30%
Cable no 7 12 14.16% 12 7.33% 12 5.72%
Cable no 8 12 13.13% 12 6.67% 12 5.18%
Total 96 13.26% 96 6.75% 96 5.68%
Table 4 : Box Girder 30 m span

Span 30m 30m 30m
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
No of Cables 11 11 11
Frictional Losses ( at midspan of the girder )
Cable no 1 19 7.95% 19 6.04% 19 5.90%
Cable no 2 19 7.95% 19 6.04% 19 5.90%
Cable no 3 19 7.95% 19 6.04% 19 5.90%
Cable no 4 19 7.95% 19 6.04% 19 5.90%
Cable no 5 19 7.95% 19 6.04% 19 5.90%
Cable no 6 19 7.95% 19 6.04% 19 5.90%
Cable no 7 6 7.95% 6 6.04% 6 5.90%
Cable no 8 19 9.33% 19 5.87% 19 5.76%
Cable no 9 19 9.33% 19 5.87% 19 5.76%
Cable no 10 19 9.67% 19 5.93% 19 5.81%
Cable no 11 19 9.67% 19 5.93% 19 5.81%
Total 196 8.55% 196 5.98% 196 5.86%
Loss of Force 240.1 t 167.9 t 164.5 t
Saving in strands 0 5 5
Table 5: Box Girder 35m span

Span 35m 35m 35m
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
Cable no 1 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 2 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 3 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 4 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 5 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 6 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 7 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 8 19 8.51% 19 4.98% 19 4.91%
Cable no 9 13 8.51% 13 4.98% 13 4.91%
Cable no 10 19 10.03% 19 5.07% 19 4.97%
Cable no 11 19 10.03% 19 5.07% 19 4.97%
Cable no 12 19 10.32% 19 5.12% 19 5.01%
Cable no 13 19 10.32% 19 5.12% 19 5.01%
Total 241 9.03% 241 5.02% 241 4.93%
Loss of Force 311.9 t 173.2 t 170.3 t
Table 6 : Box Girder 40 m span

Span 40m 40m 40m
Wobble and Friction coeff. Coeff. as per IRC Coeff. as per IRC Coeff. as per fib
k 0.0046 k 0.0020 k 0.0015
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
Cable no 1 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 2 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 3 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 4 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 5 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 6 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 7 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 8 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 9 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 10 19 9.55% 19 4.43% 19 4.35%
Cable no 11 15 9.55% 15 4.43% 15 4.35%
Cable no 12 15 9.55% 15 4.43% 15 4.35%
Cable no 13 19 11.44% 19 5.59% 19 4.47%
Cable no 14 19 11.44% 19 5.59% 19 4.47%
Cable no 15 19 11.69% 19 5.75% 19 4.51%
Cable no 16 19 11.69% 19 5.75% 19 4.51%
Total 296 10.07% 296 4.75% 296 4.38%
Jack End Force( Total) 4240.3 t 4240.3 t 4240.3 t
Loss of Force 427.0 t 201.3 t 185.9 t

Span 45m 45m 45m
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
Cable no 1 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 2 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 3 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 4 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 5 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 6 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 7 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 8 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 9 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 10 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 11 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 12 19 10.59% 19 4.86% 19 3.92%
Cable no 13 10 10.59% 10 4.86% 10 3.92%
Cable no 14 19 12.94% 19 6.37% 19 4.91%
Cable no 15 19 12.94% 19 6.37% 19 4.91%
Cable no 16 19 13.16% 19 6.59% 19 5.03%
Cable no 17 19 13.16% 19 6.59% 19 5.03%
Total 314 11.18% 314
https://www.nbmcw.com/tech-articles/case-studies/19616-hdpe-sheathing-for-post-tensioned-prestressed-concrete-structures.html 5.25% 314 4.17% 9/11
Loss of Force 503.0 t 236.4 t 187.6 t

Span 50m 50m 50m
μ 0.25 μ 0.17 μ 0.12
Cable no 1 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 2 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 3 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 4 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 5 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 6 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 7 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 8 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 9 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 10 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 11 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 12 19 11.61% 19 5.34% 19 4.05%
Cable no 13 17 11.61% 17 5.34% 17 4.05%
Cable no 14 17 11.61% 17 5.34% 17 4.05%
Cable no 15 19 14.31% 19 7.08% 19 5.47%
Cable no 16 19 14.31% 19 7.08% 19 5.47%
Cable no 17 19 14.51% 19 7.21% 19 5.57%
Cable no 18 19 14.51% 19 7.21% 19 5.57%
Total 338 12.24% 338 5.74% 338 4.38%
Loss of Force 592.7 t 278.1 t 212.2 t
Conclusion
The main benefit of using HDPE ducts in prestressing system is the enhancement in the durability of the prestressed concrete structure. It renders the
excellent protection of the prestressing steel, the most important element contributing to the safety of the structure against the corrosion. The users
may get this benefit at more of less the same cost of conventional metal sheathings.
Due to the lesser value of friction & wobble co-coefficients, the HDPE sheathing offers overall economy in prestressing system. This was an attempt
made to quantify and bring out this advantage with the help of few case studies. This would give rough idea to the user about the possible saving in
overall cost of the structure. The cost benefit increases with span of the girder. In addition to cost benefit, other advantages are user & friendly (i.e.
easy to handle and joining), high durability etc. this, indeed, makes HDPE corrugated sheathing an ideal material in prestressing industry.
A word of caution is necessary while describing and specifying the raw material to be used
https://www.nbmcw.com/tech-articles/case-studies/19616-hdpe-sheathing-for-post-tensioned-prestressed-concrete-structures.html in the manufacture of plastic ducts. Absolute care should
10/11 be
taken not to allow PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) as the material. The reason being that PVC, when exposed to heat or fire, is likely to give out chlorine gas
and/or hydrochloric acid. In fact, the formation of these two hazardous substances, namely chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid, occurs even at a
temperature of about 70°C when exposed to weather. In case of high strength concrete, concrete temperatures are reaching upto 70°C due to heat of
hydration. Obviously, the presence of chlorine and/or hydrochloric acid is extremely corrosive and detrimental to steel & concrete structures. Also these
two substances are environmentally most damaging. Thus care should be taken to ascertain that the prestressing ducts are not made of PVC.
References
Prestressed Concrete Structure by T Y Lin
fib Bulletin No. 7: Technical Report on Corrugated plastic duct for internal
bounded post-tensioning, June 2000
IRC:18-2000: Design Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Road Bridges (Post-Tensioned Concrete)
Standard Drawings for Road Bridges by MoST, 1990
NBMCW November 2010

HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/01/2019 HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Structures

Cost Effectiveness of HDPE Sheathing For Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete

The main functions of the duct are:

Figure 1: Frictional loss along length dx

Integrating this on both sides, we have

logeF = -µα -----------(1)

Since α = L/R for a section of constant R.

LogeF = -KL F2 = F1e-KL

If the length and curvature effects are combined, we get

LogeF = -µα -KL

For limits F1 and F2,

Or, in terms of unit stresses,

Figure 2: Approximate frictional loss along circular curve

FR = ƒ1 – ƒ2 = ƒ1 - ƒ1e-µα-KL = ƒ1 (1 - e-µα-KL) --------------(2)

Box Girder (Simply Supported)

Box Girder (Continuous Over 3 Spans) 50 m 6.50% 7.86%

Figure 3: Span arrangement of cable layout for continuous box girder

Continuous Box Girder With Curvature in Plan

Table 1.0 A : I Girder 30m span (without foot path)

Table 1.0 B : I Girder 30m span (without foot path)

Table 2.0 : I Girder 35 m span

Table 3.0 : I Girder 40m span

Table 4 : Box Girder 30 m span

Table 5: Box Girder 35m span

Table 6 : Box Girder 40 m span

Table 7: Box Girder 45m span

Table 8: Box Girder 50m span

NBMCW November 2010

You might also like