Structural Behaviour of Bubble Deck Slab: November 2015

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/284646514
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB
Research · November 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3287.6885
CITATION READS
1 20,143
1 author:
Ajay Joseph
Amal Jyothi College of Engineering
4 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Structural Audit View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ajay Joseph on 25 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

M-TECH. SEMINAR REPORT
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB

Submitted by
AJAY V JOSEPH
REG. NO: 202181
Under the guidance of
Mr. MANISH JOSE
Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
ST.JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PALAI
CHOONDACHERRY P.O, BHARANANGANAM.
2014-2016
ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY, PALAI
(Approved by AICTE and affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University)
An ISO 9001: 2008 Certified College
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the seminar report entitled “STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF
BUBBLE DECK SLAB ” submitted by “AJAY V JOSEPH”, Register No: 202181 to the
Department of Civil Engineering, St. Joseph’s College of Engineering & Technology, Palai, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Technology in Civil
Engineering from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala, is an authentic report of the
seminar presented by him.
Prof. B. V. Mathew Mr. Rinju Rajan Mathew Mr. Manish Jose

Head of the Department Seminar Coordinator Seminar Guide
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and the foremost, I shall thank God Almighty who gave me the inner strength,
resource and ability to complete the work successfully, without which all my efforts
would have been in vain.
I express my sincere gratitude to our chairman, Msgr. Philip Njaralakkatt and our
project director, Dr. P. J. George for giving me the opportunity to do the seminar. I am
grateful to our principal, Dr. C. J. Joseph for providing me good facilities and proper
environment for developing my seminar and to do it in the required way. I am thankful to
Prof. B. V. Mathew, Head of Department of Civil Engineering, for his valuable advice
and motivation.
I wholeheartedly thank my seminar guide Mr. Manish Jose (Asst. Professor, Dept. of
Civil Engineering) for his valuable advice and support. Also I express my heartfelt thanks
to our seminar coordinator Mr. Rinju Rajan Mathew (Asst. Professor, Dept. of Civil
Engineering), for his helpful feedback and timely assistance.
I convey my sincere thanks to all other faculties for their help and encouragement. I thank
all my friends who have helped me during the work, with their inspiration and co-
operation. I truly admire my parents for their constant encouragement and enduring
support, which was inevitable for the success of this venture. Once again I convey my
gratitude to all those persons who had directly or indirectly influenced on the work.
Ajay V Joseph
i
ABSTRACT
Bubble deck slab is a method of virtually eliminating all concrete from the middle of a
floor slab, which is not performing any structural function, thereby dramatically reducing
structural dead weight. High density polyethylene hollow spheres replace the in-effective
concrete in the center of the slab, thus decreasing the dead weight and increasing the
efficiency of the floor. By introducing the gaps, it leads to 30 to 50% lighter slab which
reduces the loads on the columns, walls and foundations, and of course of the entire
building. The aim of this paper is to discuss about the various properties of Bubble deck
slab based on various studies done abroad. The paper also gives a brief idea about the
different Bubble deck slabs, their production and advantages over conventional concrete
slabs.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Title
No. No.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………...………… i
ABSTRACT …………….……………………………………………………………. ii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………… vi
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………...…………………… vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / SYMBOLS…………………………..……….... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 3 TYPES OF VOIDED FLAT SLABS
3.1 AIRDECK 6
3.2. COBIAX 6
3.2. U BOOT BETON 6
3.2. BUBBLE DECK 7
CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND TYPES
4.1 MATERIALS 9
4.1.1 Concrete 9
4.1.2 Steel 9
4.1.3 Plastic spheres 10
4.2 TYPES OF BUBBLE DECK SLABS 11
4.2.1 Type a- Filigree elements 11
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd…)
Section Page
Title
No. No.
4.2.2 Type b- Reinforcement Modules 12
4.2.3 Type c- Finished Planks 13
CHAPTER 5 PRODUCTION AND CARRYING OUT
CHAPTER 6 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF BUBBLE DECK SLABS
6.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND FLEXURAL CAPACITIES 19
6.2 SHEAR STRENGTH 19
6.3 DURABILITY 20
6.4 SOUND INSULATION 21
6.5 FIRE RESISTANCE 21
6.6 VIBRATION 22
CHAPTER 7 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
7.1 MATERIALS 23
7.2 TEST SPECIMENS 24
7.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 27
7.3.1 Ultimate Load Capacity 27
7.3.2 Load Versus Deflection Relationship 28
7.3.3 Load Versus Concrete Compressive Strain 29
7.3.3 Crack Patterns 30
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd…)
Section Page
Title
No. No.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TEST 32
CHAPTER 8 ADVANTAGES
8.1 MATERIAL AND WEIGHT REDUCTION 33
8.2 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES 33
8.3 CONSTRUCTION AND TIME SAVINGS 33
8.4 COST SAVINGS 34
8.5 GREEN DESIGN 34
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES 38
DISCUSSIONS 39
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table Title
No.
4.1 Different types of Plastic Bubbles available in market 11
6.1 Properties of Slab Specimens 20
7.1 Concrete Mixture Design 23
7.2 Test Result of Reinforcing Bars 23
7.3 Properties of Slab Specimens 24
7.4 Test Results 27
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure Title
No.
2.1 Cut through section of Bubble deck slab 3
3.1 Section of Bubble deck slab 8
4.1 Construction of Biaxial hollow core slab 10
4.2 Plastic spheres along with reinforcement 11
4.3 Type A- Filigree Elements 12
4.4 Type B- Reinforcement Modules 12
4.5 Type C- Finished Planks 13
5.1 Bubbles at stock 14
5.2 Welding the reinforcement 14
5.3 Diagonal girders 15
5.4 Preparation of bottom layer concrete 15
5.5 Lowering bubble lattice 16
5.6 Compaction process 16
5.7 Finished filigree elements 17
5.8 Finished filigree elements transported 17
5.9 Finished filigree elements placing 18
5.10 Concreting and finishing the bubble deck slab 18
7.1 Details and Dimensions of Test Slab Specimens 25
7.2 Test Configuration of Two-Way BubbleDeck Slab 26
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (Contd...)
Page
Figure Title
No.
7.3 Positions of Dial Gages and Demec Discs 26
7.4 Load Vs Deflection Relationship (H=100mm) 28
7.5 Load Vs Deflection Relationship (H=125mm) 29
Load Vs Maximum Concrete Compressive Strain Curve

7.6 29
(H=100mm)
Load Vs Maximum Concrete Compressive Strain Curve

7.7 30
(H=125mm)
7.8 Crack Patterns (H=100mm) 31
7.9 Crack Patterns (H=125mm) 31
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / SYMBOLS
Fy - Characteristic compressive strength of steel
HDPE - High Density Polyethylene
BD - Bubble Deck
SD - Solid Deck
MEP - Mechanical Electrical Plumbing
ix
Structural Behaviour of Bubble deck Slab
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
For decades, several attempts have been made to create biaxial slabs with hollow cavities
in order to reduce the weight. Most attempts have consisted of laying blocks of a less
heavy material like expanded polystyrene between the bottom and top reinforcement,
while other types included waffle slabs and grid slabs.
Due to the limitations in hollow-core slabs, primarily lack of structural integrity,

inflexibility and reduced architectural possibilities, focus has been on biaxial slabs and
ways to reduce the weight. Several methods have been introduced during the last
decades, but with very limited success, due to major problems with shear capacity and
fire resistance as well as impractical execution.
Of these types, only waffle slabs can be regarded to have a certain use in the market. But
the use will always be very limited due to reduced resistances towards shear, local
punching and fire. The idea of placing large blocks of light material in the slab suffers
from the same flaws, which is why the use of these systems has never gained acceptance
and they are only used in a limited number of projects.
Bubble deck eliminates up to 35% of the structural concrete. When coupled with the
reduced floor thickness and facade, smaller foundations and columns, construction costs
can be reduced by as much as 10%.
With virtually no formwork, no downturn beams or drop heads, and fast coverage of
typically 350ft2 per panel, using Bubble deck means floor cycles up to 20% faster than
traditional construction methods. Regardless of project size, shape or complexity; simply
shore, place, and pour to quickly install concrete decks.
The Bubble deck system offers a wide range of advantages in building design and during
construction. There are a number of green attributes including; reduction in total
construction materials, use of recycled materials, lower energy consumption and reduced
1|Page
Semester I, M-Tech, Dept. of Civil Engg., SJCET Palai
CO2 emissions, less transportation and crane lifts that make Bubble deck more
environmentally friendly than other concrete construction techniques.
Bubble deck can achieve larger spans as compared to a site cast concrete structure
without the need for post-tensioning or pre-stressed sections. The total construction time
for the structure was reduced and allowed the consultants to fast track the design without
the interior design finalized. The total time from design inception to completion of
structure was less than 12 months. The contractor was able to set over 60,000ft2 in a
month and allowed the concrete structure to be complete before the start of fall classes.
The Bubble deck, on the other hand, creates such a cushion of air between layers of
concrete with the reinforcement of both the metal grid and the weight distribution across
the plastic spheres. Now that’s a rather innovative concept that you don’t often see. True
enough, you might not initially see many differences between a building that has been
constructed using in-situ casting and one that uses Bubble deck technology, but the
differences are significant.
One notable difference about Bubble deck technology is that it allows for stronger, and
often thicker, slabs of concrete that span larger areas, as well as the opportunity to
architecturally design larger cantilevers. According to the Bubble deck Group, the hollow
spheres at the core of this technology allow for an approximately 35% reduction of dead
weight from the building’s concrete slabs. When those slabs cover a larger area, there is
also no requirement for supporting columns, walls, and down stand beams. These latter
elements can often generate great limitations for an architect, not allowing them to create
wide, open spaces with minimal supporting features.
2|Page
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the 1990's, Jorgen Breuning invented a way to link the air space and steel within a
voided biaxial concrete slab. The Bubble Deck technology uses spheres made of
recycled industrial plastic to create air voids while providing strength through arch
action. See Fig 2.1 for a section cut of a Bubble Deck. As a result, this allows the
hollow slab to act as a normal monolithic two-way spanning concrete slab. These
bubbles can decrease the dead weight up to 35% and can increase the capacity by
almost 100% with the same thickness. As a result, Bubble Deck slabs can be lighter,
stronger, and thinner than regular reinforced concrete slabs.
Fig 2.1: Cut through section of Bubble deck slab

Currently, this innovative technology has only been applied to a few hundred residential,
high-rise, and industrial floor slabs due to limited understanding. For this investigation,
the structural behavior of Bubble Deck under various conditions will be studied in order
to gain an understanding on this new technique and to compare it to the current slab
systems. This technology will then be studied about the applicability to create lightweight
3|Page
bridge decks since a significant portion of the stress applied to a bridge comes from its
own self-weight. By applying the knowledge gathered during the behavioral analysis, a
modular deck component for pedestrian bridges that is notably lighter but comparable in
strength to typical reinforced concrete sections will be designed.
A study has been conducted by Amer M Ibrahim, Nazar K Ali, Wissam Di Salman in
2012 on the flexural capacities of reinforced two way Bubble deck slabs. A Bubble deck
slab has a two dimensional arrangement of voids within the slabs to reduce self-weight.
The behavior of Bubble deck slabs is influenced by the ratio of bubble diameter to slab
thickness. To verify the flexural behavior of Bubble deck slab such as ultimate load,
deflection, concrete compressive strain and crack pattern, two dimensional flexural tests
were tested by using special loading frame. Results have shown that the crack pattern and
flexural behavior depend on the void diameter to slab thickness ratio. The ultimate load
capacities for Bubble deck slabs having bubble diameter to slab thickness of 0.01 to 0.64
were the same of solid slabs, the ultimate capacities were reduced to about 10%.
From the studies conducted by Sergui Calin, Roxana Gintu and Gabriela Dascalu on the
tests of Bubble deck slab inferred that Bubble deck slab is conceived to omit a significant
volume of concrete in the central core where the slab is principally un-stressed in flexure.
In slabs, the depth of compressed concrete is usually a small proportion of the slab depth
and this means that it almost always involve only the concrete between the ball and the
surface, so there is no sensible difference between the behavior of a solid slab and Bubble
deck slab.
In 2012, Prabhu Teja, P Vijay Kumar studied the durability of Bubble deck slab and is
explained on the basis of creep and shrinkage. A Bubble deck element with two spherical
hollows was compared with a solid concrete block of the same dimension and of the same
concrete. The difference between the shrinkage strains of these two was measured. The
results show that Bubble deck element has a negligible larger marginal shrinkage strain
4|Page
than a solid slab with equivalent dimensions and the same concrete perfomances, under
the same exposure to environmental conditions. The influence of carbonation shrinkage
can be neglected in the design of concrete structures with Bubble deck system, because
only a small part of the concrete cross- section is exposed to this kind of shrinkage.
In 2010 S Anusha, C.H Mounika and Purnachandra conducted studies on the fire
resistance of Bubble deck slabs. The analysis was first done on a hollow core slab without
fire, for two charges one that leads to elastic dynamic response and the other that causes
plastic behavior and severe concrete cracking. The same blast analysis had been subjected
to fire. There were many difficulties in obtaining a reliable result. A discussion of the
experimental setup and experimental results are compared with simplified numerical
models solved with the software LS-DYNA. Fire does not change the material and
structural properties that fast as compared to an explosion. The most important
conclusion of the analysis is that crack patterns and blast load dynamic responses are
indeed altered by fires with temperature up to 4500C. Yet within the limitations of
assumptions concerning boundary conditions, the examined slabs keep their blast bearing
capacity after blast load scenarios up to 1.5kg C4 with at 1m standoff distance.
In 2009, Tina Lai discussed about the acoustic behavior of Bubble deck slabs in
“Structural behavior of Bubble deck slabs and their applications” and found that Bubble
deck performs acoustically in a better way than any other hollow or solid floor surfaces.
Because of the three-dimensional structure and the graduated force flow, the hollow
spheres have a positive influence on sound insulation. The tests reveal that the airborne
sound insulation is even higher than expected. This indicates the bubbles have a positive
influence on sound insulation. The main criteria for reducing noise is the weight of the
deck and therefore Bubble deck evidently will not act otherwise than other deck types
with equal weight.
5|Page
CHAPTER 3
TYPES OF VOIDED FLAT SLABS
3.1 AIRDECK
The Airdeck concept was patented in 2003 and comprises an inverted plastic injection
moulded element which is vibrated into the lower slab during the production process by a
robotic arm. The advantage of this system is that no retaining mesh is required to hold
down the voiding elements during on site pouring of the second layer. As the boxes can
be nested there are transport advantages versus other voiding systems. The static
calculations are according to standard Eurocode 2 norms.
3.2 COBIAX
The Cobiax system makes use of the same voided slab principles of creating voids within
the concrete slabs to lighten the building structures. Elliptical and torus shaped hollow
plastic members, termed as void formers, are held in place by a light metal mesh for easy
installation between the top and bottom reinforcement layers of a concrete slab.
3.3 U-BOOT BETON

In 2001 an Italian engineer, Roberto Il Grande, developed and patented a new system of
void formers, in order to decrease the transportation costs (and CO2 production). The
product is U-Boot Beton, and its biggest advantage is that it is stackable. A truck of U-
boot means approximately 5000 m2 of slab, once void formers are laid down at building
site. The second innovation is the shape: U-Boot Beton creates a grid of orthogonal "I"
beams, so the calculation of the reinforcement can be effected by any static engineer
according to Eurocode, British Standards or any local standard.
U-Boot Beton is a recycled polypropylene formwork that was designed to create two-way
voided slabs and rafts. The use of U-Boot Beton formwork makes it possible to create
mushroom pillars, with the possibility to have the mushroom in the thickness of the slab.
6|Page
Thanks to the conic elevator foot, immerging the U-Boot Beton formworks in the
concrete casting will create a gridwork of mutually perpendicular beams closed from the
bottom and the top by a flat plate that is created with a single casting; this results in
considerable reduction in the use of concrete and steel.
U-Boot Beton is used to create slabs with large span or that are able to support large
loads without beams. Light and quick and easy to position, thanks to their modularity the
designer can vary the geometric parameters as needed to adapt to all situations with great
architectural freedom. U-boot earliest projects were executed in 2002 and since that time
it has been used all over the world.
3.4 BUBBLEDECK
In the 1990s, a new system was invented, eliminating the above problems. The so-called
Bubble deck technology invented by Jorgen Breuning, locks ellipsoids between the top
and bottom reinforcement meshes, thereby creating a natural cell structure, acting like a
solid slab. A voided biaxial slab is created with the same capabilities as a solid slab, but
with considerably less weight due to the elimination of superfluous concrete.
Bubble deck slab is a biaxial hollow core slab invented in Denmark. It is a method of
virtually eliminating all concrete from the middle of a floor slab not performing any
structural function (Fig 3.1), thereby dramatically reducing structural dead weight.
Bubble deck slab is based on a new patented technique which involves the direct way of
linking air and steel. Void forms in the middle of a flat slab by means of plastic spheres
eliminate 35% of a slab's self-weight, removing constraints of high dead loads and short
spans. It’s flexible layout easily adapts to irregular and curved plan configurations. The
system allows for the realization of longer spans, more rapid and less expensive erection,
as well as the elimination of down-stand beams. According to the manufacturers, Bubble
deck slab can reduce total project costs by three percent. Bubble deck slab is a new
innovative and sustainable floor system to be used as a self-supporting concrete floor.
The application of the Bubble deck slab floor system in the Netherlands is manifested as
the world-wide first application. The Bubble deck slab floor system can be used for
7|Page
storey floors, roof floors and ground floor slabs. A Bubble deck slab floor is a flat slab
floor, therefore without beams and column heads. The principal characteristic is that
hollow plastic spheres are incorporated in the floor, Clamped in a factory-made
reinforcement structure. This reinforcement structure constitutes at the same time the
upper and lower reinforcement of the concrete floor.
Fig 3.1: Section of Bubble deck slab
The reinforcement structure with spherical shapes and possibly a thin concrete shell as
precast slab floor are supplied to the construction site in factory-made units with a
maximum width of 3 meters; they are installed on site and are assembled by installing
connecting rods and by pouring concrete. After the concrete has set, the floor is ready to
be used. The ratio of the diameter of the plastic spheres to the thickness of the floor is
such that a 35 % saving is achieved on the material or concrete consumption for the floor
in comparison with a solid concrete floor of the same thickness. The saving on weight
obtained in this way has the result that a Bubble deck slab floor can provide the required
load-bearing capacity at a smaller thickness this leads to a further advantage, resulting in
a saving of 40 to 50 % of the material consumption in the floor construction. This is not
the last of the advantages of the Bubble deck slab floor system: because of the lower
weight of the floor system itself, also the supporting constructions such as columns and
foundations can be less heavy. This can results eventually in a total weight or material
saving on the building construction of up to 50 %. Since the weight of the structure
reduced, this type of structure can useful to reduce earthquake damage.
8|Page
CHAPTER 4
MATERIALS AND TYPES
4.1 MATERIALS
Bubble deck slab is composed of three main materials; they are steel, plastic spheres and
concrete:
4.1.1 Concrete
The concrete is made of standard Portland cement with max aggregate size of 20 mm.
No plasticizers are necessary for concrete mixture. Tests have proved that the
characteristic compressive strength of concrete is achieved by bubble deck slabs in the
same manner as that of solid slabs. In certain type of bubble deck slab a thin layer of
concrete at the bottom is precast at the manufacturing plant. This is done so as to place
the bubbles as per the specifications. These are achieved by placing concrete in platforms
and lowering the bubbles into concrete. This concrete will be compacted by platform
vibrator or formwork vibrator. The remaining concreting is done at site, and it can be
compacted with needles vibrators and surface vibrators.
4.1.2 Steel
The steel reinforcement is of grade Fy60 (Fy=60ksi) strength or higher. The steel is
fabricated in two forms -meshed layers for lateral support and diagonal girders for
vertical support of the bubbles. Fig 4.1 shows the arrangement of steel and bubbles in a
Bubble deck slab. Steel reinforcement is mainly arranged as soon as the bubbles are
prepared. Proper locking of bubbles are only possible by placing them in reinforcements.
The spherical shape makes it non-stackable. Thus the bubbles are held in place in the
lattice by proper steel reinforcement. Generally reinforcement is provided in mesh type
along the top and bottom. The top and bottom reinforcements are then held together by
welding with the help of diagonal short length bars. The steel reinforcement is designed
9|Page
as per the design procedure. Suitable extra bars and shear reinforcements are to be
provided as and when required.
Fig 4.1: Construction of Biaxial hollow core slab
4.1.3 Plastic spheres

The hollow spheres are made from recycled high-density polyethylene or HDPE. Fig 4.2
shows the hollow plastic spheres which are ready to be transported to site. Plastic bubbles
are available in different sizes based on the size of stucture and it is tabulated in Table
4.1. The main disadvanatge of bubbles is dat it is not stackable. These HDPE bubbles can
be slavaged and reused again or recycled. This conctributes to the Green properties of
bubble deck slab.
10 | P a g e
Fig 4.2: Plastic spheres along with reinforcement
Table 4.1: Different types of Plastic Bubbles available in market

Cantilever
Slab Site
Bubbles - Completed
thick Span , concrete
Version diameter maximum slab mass
ness, m quantity
Mm length KN/m2
mm m3/m2
m
BD230 230 180 <=2.8 5-6.5 4.26 0.112
BD280 280 225 <=3.3 6-7.8 5.11 0.146
BD340 340 270 <=4.0 7-9.5 6.22 0.191
BD390 390 315 <=4.7 9-10.9 6.92 0.219
BD450 450 360 <=5.4 10-12.5 7.85 0.252
BD510 510 410 <=6.1 11-13.9 9.09 0.298
BD600 600 500 <=7.2 12-15.0 10.30 0.348
4.2. TYPES OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB
4.2.1 Type a- Filigree elements

Bubble deck Type A is a combination of constructed and unconstructed elements. A
60mm thick concrete layer that acts as both the formwork and part of the finished depth is
precast and brought on site with the bubbles and steel reinforcement unattached. The
bubbles are then supported by temporary stands on top of the precast Layer. Additional
11 | P a g e
steel may be inserted according to the reinforcement requirements of the design. Fig 4.3
shows the cross-section of a typical filigree element.
Fig 4.3: Type A- Filigree Elements
4.2.2 Type b- Reinforcement modules

Bubble Deck Type B is a reinforcement module that consists of a pre-assembled
sandwich of steel mesh and plastic bubbles, or "bubble lattice". These components are
brought to the site, laid on traditional formwork, connected with any additional
reinforcement, and then concreted in place by traditional methods. Fig 4.4 shows the
cross-section of a typical reinforcement module.
Fig 4.4: Type B- Reinforcement Modules
12 | P a g e
4.3.3 Type c- Ffinished planks

Bubble Deck Type C is a shop-fabricated module that includes the plastic spheres,
reinforcement mesh and concrete in its finished form.The module is manufactured to the
final depth in the form of a plank and is delivered on site. Unlike Type A and B, it is a
one-way spanning design that requires the use of support beams or load beams. Fig 4.5
shows the cross-section of finihed planks.
Fig 4.5: Type C- Finished Planks
13 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5
PRODUCTION AND CARRYING OUT

Stage 1: Pre-fabricated plastic bubbles are made of recycled plastic. These plastic
bubbles are made in certain moulds. Plastic bubbles are available in different
diameters. Fig 5.1 shows the bubbles which are ready to be placed.
Fig 5.1: Bubbles at stock
Stage 2: Production of the bubble-lattice by welding the top and bottom

reinforcement together. The bubbles are kept in place by locking them inbetween the
top and bottom reinforcements. To prevent the escape of bubbles the top and bottom
reinforcements are suitably welded together. Fig 5.2 shows the welding of rebars.
Fig 5.2: Welding the reinforcement
Stage 3: The diagonal girders keep the bubbles fixed between the top and bottom
reinforcement. Short length diagonal bars are used to connect the top and bottom
14 | P a g e
reinforcements. Fig 5.3 shows the connection between top and bottom reinforcement
by diagonal girders.
Fig 5.3: Diagonal girders
Stage 4: Preparation of concrete for filigree-bottom at the assembly line. For the
bubble lattice to be kept in place a thin layer of concrete is prepared. These may be
prepared in platforms or tables. Fig 5.4 shows the preparation of concrete bed for the
lower part of the slab.
Fig 5.4: Preparation of bottom layer concrete
Stage 5: The bubble-lattice is lowered into the concrete. Bubble lattice consists of the
top and bottom reinforcement along with the bubbles. In filigree elements the bubble
lattice is placed into the concrete layer. But in reinforcement modules the bubble
lattice as such is transported to the site. Fig 5.5 shows the lowering of bubble lattice
into the concrete.
15 | P a g e
Fig 5.5: Lowering bubble lattice
Stage 6: Vibration of the concrete. The vibration of the bottom layer of concrete may
be done by platform vibration, table vibration etc. Compaction of concrete is an
inevitable part of the manufacturing of concrete. Fig 5.6 shows compaction of lower
layer of concrete.
Fig 5.6: Compaction process
Stage 7: Finishing of a filigree-element and Finished Bubble Deck filigree-element.

Now the filigree elements are finished and stocked. Fig 5.7 depicts finished filigree
elements.
16 | P a g e
Fig 5.7: Finished filigree elements
Stage 8: Bubble Deck filigree-element at stock and transportation of Bubble Deck

filigree elements on trucks. As the elements are finished they can easily be
transported to the site by trucks. Fig 5.8 show the conveyance of bubble deck filigree
elements on truck.
Fig 5.8: Finished filigree elements transported
Stage 10: Transport in the air through tower cranes and fitting the filigree elements in
place. This requires skilled labours. Care should be taken that the joints are attached
tightly and chamfered. Fig 5.9 shows the placing of filigree elements.
17 | P a g e
Fig 5.9: Finished filigree elements placing
Stage 12: Concreting, compacting and surface finishing of the bubble deck slab.
Needle vibrators are used for compaction during concreting. And suitable surface
vibrators are used for finishing the surface so as to gain a pleasant appearance. Fig
5.10 depicts the concreting work on bubble deck slab.
Fig 5.10: Concreting and finishing the bubble deck slab
18 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6
STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF BUBBLE DECK SLABS

6.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND FLEXURAL CAPACITIES
Bubble deck slab is conceived to omit a significant volume of concrete (compared to a
solid slab) in the central core where the slab is principally un-stressed in flexure. In slabs,
the depth of compressed concrete is usually a small proportion of the slab depth and this
means that it almost always involves only the concrete between the ball and the surface
so there is no sensible difference between the behavior of a solid slab and Bubble Deck.
The only elements working are the outer 'shell' of concrete on the compression side and
the steel on the tension side. In terms of flexural strength, the moments of resistance are
the same as for solid slabs provided this compression depth is checked during design so
that it does not encroach significantly into the ball refer Table 1 (a 20% encroachment
has been shown to be insignificant).
6.2 SHEAR STRENGTH

In any flat slab, design shear resistance is usually critical near columns. The shear
stresses remote from the columns diminishes rapidly and outside the column zones it has
been demonstrated by testing and calculation the transverse and longitudinal shear
stresses are within the capacity of the Bubble deck slab system. Near the columns,
bubbles are left out so in these zones a Bubble deck slab is designed exactly the same
way as a solid slab. Shear resistance of Bubble deck slab is 0.6 times the shear resistance
of a solid slab of the same thickness. If this is exceeded by the applied shear, at a column
for example, we leave out the balls and use the full solid shear values. Using Euro code 2,
we would calculate the applied shear at 2d and subsequent perimeters from the column
face as per the code requirements, as well as at the column face itself. We would then
compare this to our calculated resistance. If the applied shear is less than the un-
reinforced hollow slab resistance, no further check is required. If the applied shear is
greater than the hollow slab resistance we omit balls and make it solid and then check the
19 | P a g e
solid part. The shear capacity is measured for two ratios of aid (distance from imposed
force to support divided by deck thickness). The results are shown in table 6.5. If the
resistance is still greater than the solid slab resistance and less than the maximum
allowed, we provide shear reinforcement. For these reasons, it is demonstrated that the
design may be carried out in every way treating the slab as a solid slab, with the
provisions mentioned above, which are all taken account of in the design process. We
therefore use Euro code 2, which is fully compatible with the system, for our design and
which is somewhat more up to date than BS811O. Punching shear the average shear
capacity is measured to 91 % compared to the calculated values of a solid deck.
Table 6.1: Properties of Slab Specimens

Shear capacity ( in % of
a/d = 2.15 a/d = 3
solid deck)
Solid deck 100 100
Bubble deck secured
91 78
girders
Bubble deck loose girders 77
6.3 DURABILITY
The durability of bubble deck slab is not fundamentally different from ordinary solid
slabs. The concrete is standard structural grade concrete and combined with adequate bar
cover provides most control of durability commensurate with normal standards for solid
slabs. When the filigree slabs are manufactured, the reinforcement module and balls are
vibrated into the concrete and the standard and uniformity of compaction is such that a
density of surface concrete is produced which is at least as impermeable and durable,
arguably more so, to that normally produced on site. Bubble deck slab joints have a
chamfer on the inside to ensure that concrete surrounds each bar and does not allow a
direct route to air from the rebar surface. This is primarily a function of the fire resistance
but is also relevant to durability.
20 | P a g e
Cracking in Bubble deck slab is not worse, and probably better, than solid labs designed
to work at the same stress levels. In fact Bubble deck slab possesses a continuous mesh,
top and bottom, throughout the slab and this ensures shrinkage restraint is well provided
for and that cracking is kept to a minimum whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic cracking.
Unlike an off-the-shelf product, this is a system that is bespoke designed for each and
every project. All the peculiarities of a project are therefore taken into account in the
design; therefore there is no risk of the product being misused by applying it to uses for
which it is not intended.
6.4 SOUND INSULATION

A comparison was made between Bubble Deck and one-way prefabricated hollow deck
of similar height. The noise reduction with Bubble Deck was 1db higher than the one way
prefabricated hollow deck. The main criterion for reducing noise is the weight of the deck
and therefore Bubble Deck will not act otherwise than other deck types with equal
weight. The Bubble deck slab construction is following every usual criterion, and can be
calculated according to usual principles.
Bubble deck performs acoustically in a better way than any other hollow or solid floor
surfaces. Because of the three-dimensional structure and the graduated force flow, the
hollow spheres have a positive influence on sound insulation. The tests reveals that the
airborne sound insulation is even higher than expected. This indicates the bubbles have a
positive influence on sound insulation. The main criteria for reducing noise is the weight
of the deck and therefore Bubble deck evidently will not act otherwise than other deck
types with equal weight.
6.5 FIRE RESISTANCE

The fire resistance of the slab is a complex matter but is chiefly dependent on the ability
of the steel to retain sufficient strength during a fire when it will be heated and lose
significant strength as the temperature rises. The temperature of the steel is controlled by
the fire and the insulation of the steel from the fire. In any case, all concrete is cracked
21 | P a g e
and, in a fire, it is likely that the air would escape and the pressure dissipated. If the
standard bubble material is used, the products of combustion are relatively benign,
certainly compared to other materials that would also be burning in the vicinity. In an
intense prolonged fire, the ball would melt and eventually char without significance or
detectable effect. Fire resistance depends on concrete cover nearly 60-180 minutes.
While Bubble deck slabs are not designed to provide thermal insulation due to
encapsulation of the air bubbles within the center of the concrete slab Bubble deck
achieves between 17% to 39% higher thermal resistance than an equivalent solid slab of
the same depth. Bubble deck slabs can therefore make a useful contribution towards the
thermal insulation achieved by the overall construction.
Designers attention is drawn to the fact that non-insulated concrete slabs forming part of
the external building envelope can produce cold surfaces where certain conditions,
dependant upon the relative humidity and dew point, may result in formation of
condensation. It is recommended a condensation risk analysis is undertaken where
Bubble deck slabs form part of the external building envelope.
6.6 VIBRATION
Reinforced concrete slab structures are generally less susceptible to vibration problems
compared to steel framed and light weight skeletal structures, especially is not immune
from vibration in all cases so this light must be checked just as it should be in appropriate
solid slab applications. Where deflections are large, as indicated by the static design, it is
often an indication that the structure is sensitive to vibration. The lighter weight of the
bubble deck slab may be exploited if it can usefully alter the modal frequencies of a slab.
The most effective weapons against vibration particularly resonant vibration, are stiffness
and damping. If we consider damping to be similar to solid slabs and concentrate on
stiffness, we may observe that a bubble deck slab can be provided over 2 times the
stiffness obtained from a solid slab for the same quantity of concrete used. This can be
22 | P a g e
exploited in vibration sensitive applications. At the present time, the static modification
to the flexural stiffness is applied.
23 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
7.1 MATERIALS
For the slab specimens, the design compressive strength of 33MPa was used. The
concrete mixture proportions are presented in Table 7.1. For each series of casting, the
specified compressive strength is measured by testing three concrete cylinders. Different
sizes of reinforcing bars, 4 and 5mm were used in the specimens. For each bar size, three
samples were tested under tension. The yield and ultimate strength of different bars are
given in Table 7.2.
Table 7.1: Concrete Mixture Design.
Aggregate (kg/m3) w/c ratio to

Cement Water
Designation give slump
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)
Sand Coarse 140±10%
C33 425 735 1015 225 0.53
Table 7.2: Test Result of Reinforcing Bars
Nominal Diameter Measured Diameter fy fu

(mm) (mm) Area (mm2) (MPa)
(MPa)
4 4 12.566 557 835
5 4.994 19.588 663 817
The plastic spheres used in this test are manufactured in Iraq (at AL-SABAH factory),
from recycled plastic with different diameters of (64mm and 80mm and 100mm). The
purpose of using recycled material is to curb consumption of finite natural resources such
as oil and minimize the burden on the environment through the cyclical use of resources,
therefore the recycling martial reduces inputs of new resources and limits the burden on
the environment and reduces the risks to human health.
24 | P a g e
7.2 TEST SPECIMENS

Test specimens were designed of six types of slabs, two were a conventional two-way
R.C slab and the others were two-way Bubble deck slabs. The test parameters included
the ratio of bubble diameter (B) to slab thickness (H), (B/H). The parameters were as
follows, the ratio of bubble diameter to slab thickness were (0.51, 0.64 and 0.80). Details
and dimensions of the test specimens are illustrated in Table 7.3 and Figure 7.1.
Table 7.3: Properties of Slab Specimens.
Slab Bubble No. of
Specimen Length Width ρ
No. thickness diameter B/H plastic f′c (MPa)
name (mm) (mm) (%)
H (mm) B (mm) spheres
1 SD2 -- - -- 33.13
2 BD2-bu 64 100 64 0.64 144 34.66 0.44

3
3 BD2-bu 80 80 0.80 100 33.34

1000 1000
4 SD3 -- -- -- 32.14
5 BD3-bu 64 64 0.51 144 34.66 0.28

125
5
BD3-
6 100 0.80 64 33.34
bu100
(a) Top View of Tested Slab
25 | P a g e
(b) C
r
o
s
s
-Section in Solid Slab.
(c) Cross-Section in BubbleDeck Slab
Fig. 7.1: Details and Dimensions of Test Slab Specimens.
The slab was simply supported at all edges by four steel beams which had a hinge in the
upper surface to minimize fixed end moment and other errors from support condition
during the test.
Specimens were tested under a five-point load system using a five hydraulic jack and a
five loading plate to satisfy the actual loading condition (Fig 7.2). The reasons of using
special loading system which has five loading points with bearing were as follows. The
loading condition of two-way slabs is distributed load in general buildings. And one
point loading might cause punching failure at the loading point.
26 | P a g e
Fig. 7.2: Test Configuration of Two-Way BubbleDeck Slab.
The deflection of the specimens was measured at their mid-span beneath the lower face
of the tested slabs and the strain of the compressive side of the specimens was measured
using DEMEC Strain Gauges at nine points as shown in Fig 7.3. The load was increased
gradually at increments of (10kN) to record the deflection up to failure.
Fig. 7.3: Positions of Dial Gages and Demec Discs.

27 | P a g e
7.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
7.3.1 Ultimate Load Capacity

The ultimate load capacity and the other results are tabulated in Table 7.4. The
two-way Bubble deck slab with the plastic sphere showed good ultimate load and
ductility compared with the solid specimen. The ultimate total loads of solid slabs (SD2
and SD3) were (552kN and 707kN) with the deflections of (25.4mm and 21.1mm).
(BD2-bu64, BD2-bu80, BD3-bu64 and BD3-bu100) specimens showed (550kN, 491kN,
704kN and 634kN) with (27.0mm, 24.3mm, 23.0 and 20.5mm).
Table 7.4: Test Results.
Slab Weight %
Name (kg) Decrease Ultimate % ∆u,(mm),
∆0.7pu
in load Increase Ultimate
(mm)
weight Pu (KN) in ∆0.7pu defection (%)
SD2 253 - 552 9.8 - 25.4 100
BD2-
bu64 190 25 550 11.5 17 27.0 100
BD2-
179 29 491 12.5 28 24.3 89
bu80
SD3 314 - 707 9.1 - 21.1 100
BD3-
240 24 704 10.3 13 23.0 100
bu64
BD3-
221 30 634 12 32 20.5 90
bu100
The important difference between solid and Bubble deck slabs is stiffness. The
stiffness of Bubble deck slabs was slightly changed by the diameter of plastic sphere. As
expected, Bubble deck slab showed lower stiffness than solid specimen due to its lower
28 | P a g e
cross section area. On the other hand (BD2-bu80 and BD3-bu100) showed a lower
ultimate load than the solid specimen by about(10%) and (BD2-bu64 and BD3-bu64)
give the same ultimate load of the solid specimen, this due to reduce of concrete volume
by (30% and 25%) due to plastic sphere in Bubble deck slab specimens (BD2-bu80 and
BD3-bu100) and (BD2-bu64 and BD3-bu64), respectively.
7.3.2 Load versus Deflection Relationship

Figures 7.4 and 7.5 shows the load versus mid-span deflection relationship of the
slabs. It should be noted that the effect of the self-weight of the test slabs is not included
in the calculation of the test loads as it has negligible effect on the results. According to
these, at earlier stages (i.e. before flexural cracking), the load–deflection curves are close
to each other. With increasing load, the Bubble deck specimens exhibited smaller
stiffness. After yielding of reinforcing bars, the strength and stiffness of the Bubble deck
specimens were smaller compared to the control specimen (solid slab).
Fig. 7.4: Load Vs Deflection Relationship (H=100mm).
29 | P a g e
Fig. 7.5: Load Vs Deflection Relationship (H=125mm).
7.3.3 Concrete Compressive Strain

As shown in Figures 7.6 and 7.7, the Bubble deck specimens give an increase in
the concrete compressive strain over that of the reference solid specimen. This is due
reduced concrete volume in the compression zone due to plastic spheres in Bubble deck
specimens.
Fig.7.6: Load Vs Maximum Concrete Compressive Strain Curve (H=100mm).

30 | P a g e
Fig. 7.7: Load Vs Maximum Concrete Compressive Strain Curve (H=125mm)
7.3.4 Crack Patterns

Figures 7.8 and 7.9 illustrates the specimens’ crack patterns and failure mode
under ultimate load. All specimens showed flexural failure mode with diagonal flexural
cracks. Some small longitudinal cracks appeared in BD2-bu80 and BD3-bu100
specimens. This may be due to relatively thin bottom cover thickness between bottoms of
slab to bottom of void. As the thin part of the bottom cover concrete under the void was
detached from the plastic sphere, small longitudinal crack occurred.
(a) SD2 (b) BD2-bu64
31 | P a g e
(c) BD2-bu80
Fig.7.8: Crack Patterns (H=100mm)
(a) SD3 (b) BD3-bu64
(c) BD3-bu100
Fig. 7.9: Crack Patterns (H=125mm).
32 | P a g e
7.4 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TEST

Two-way Bubble deck slabs with plastic sphere voids were tested in two-
dimensional flexural experiments, the following conclusions can be drawn:-
1. The stiffness values of Bubble deck slabs were different from solid slab’. Especially,
(BD2-bu80 and BD3-bu100) specimens which showed some one-way flexural
cracks and lower stiffness. In view of the results so far achieved, two-way Bubble
deck slabs act like general solid R.C slabs basically and their flexural capacities were
good enough to use.
2. The use of plastic spheres in reinforced concrete slabs (B/H=0.51, 0.64 and 0.80),
had a result in comparison with reference solid slabs (without plastic spheres),
bubbled slabs has (100%, 100% and 90%) of the ultimate load of a similar reference
solid slab but only (76%, 75% and 70%) of the concrete volume due to plastic
spheres, respectively.
3. The deflections under service load of Bubble deck specimens were a little higher
than those of an equivalent solid slab.
4. The concrete compressive strain of Bubble deck specimens is greater than that of an
equivalent solid specimen.
33 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8
ADVANTAGES
8.1 MATERIAL AND WEIGHT REDUCTION

The dominant advantage of a Bubble deck slab is that it uses 30-50% less concrete than
normal solid slabs. The HDPE bubbles replace the non-effective concrete in the center of
the section, thus reducing the dead load of the structure by removing unused, heavy
material. Decreased concrete material and weight also leads to less structural steel since
the need for reinforcement diminishes. The building foundations can be designed for
smaller dead loads as well. Overall, due to the lighter floor slabs, the several downstream
components can be engineered for lower loads and thus save additional material (Wrap).
8.2 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES

Due to the lower dead weight of the slab and its two-way spanning action, load-bearing
walls become unnecessary. Bubble deck is also designed as a flat slab, which eliminates
the need for support beams and girder members. As a result, these features decrease some
of the structural requirements for the columns and foundations. Additionally, Bubble
deck slabs can be designed and analyzed as a standard concrete flat slab according to
research performed on its strength and ductility.
8.3 CONSTRUCTION AND TIME SAVINGS

On site construction time can be shortened since Bubble deck slabs can be precast. Type
A includes a 60 mm precast concrete plate as the base and formwork for the slab. This
type of slab would eliminate the need for onsite erection of formwork, thus significantly
cutting down construction time. Similar to modem precast concrete flooring modules,
Bubble deck can be fully shop fabricated and transported on site for installation as well.
Time savings can also be achieved through the faster erection of walls, columns and
MEPs due to the lack of support beams and load bearing walls for this innovative flat
34 | P a g e
slab. Addition time may be saved from the quicker curing time since there is less concrete
in the slab.
8.4 COST SAVINGS

In relation to the savings in material and time, cost reductions are also typical with the
Bubble deck system. The decreased weight and materials mean lower transportation
costs, and would by more economical to lift the components. With less on-site
construction from the full and semi-precast modules, labor costs will decrease as well. In
addition, money can be saved downstream in the design and construction of the building
frame elements (columns and walls) for lower loads. There is a slight rise in production
costs for the Bubble deck slab due to the manufacturing and assembly of the HDPE
spheres. However, the other savings in material, time, transportation and labor will offset
this manufacturing price increase (Stubbs).
8.5 GREEN DESIGN

The number of owners, designers and engineers who desire green alternatives is growing
exponentially. Bubble eck is a fitting solution for lowering the embodied carbon in new
buildings. According to the Bubble Deck company, 1 kg of recycled plastic replaces 100
kg of concrete. By using less concrete, designers can save up to 40% on embodied carbon
in the slab, resulting in significant savings downstream in the design of other structural
members. Carbon emissions from transportation and equipment usage will also decrease
with the use of fewer materials. Additionally, the HDPE bubbles can be salvaged and
reused for other projects, or can be recycled.
35 | P a g e
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the fact, that the structural behavior of this new kind of monolithic flat slab is the
same as for solid slab, excluding slab-edge column connection, we surely can talk about
appropriateness of use and advantages of the new technology.
1. Concrete usage is reduced – 1 kg of recycled plastic replaces 100 kg of concrete.

Reducing material consumption made it possible to make the construction time faster, to
reduce the overall costs. Besides that, it has led to reduce dead weight up to 50%, which
allow creating foundation sizes smaller.
2. The technology is environmentally green and sustainable. Avoiding the cement
production allows to reduce global CO2 emissions. The use of the Bubble deck system
qualifies for LEED points in North America.
3. This technology is very prospective in modern construction and perhaps future of civil
engineering belongs to this new kind of hollow slab.
4. Experience has shown that the most cost effective application of the technology is with
semi-precast panels. On most projects this approach eliminates over 95% of expensive
formwork compared with traditional concrete structures. With virtually no formwork, no
downturn beams or drop heads, and fast coverage of typically 350ft2 per panel, using
Bubble deck means floor cycles up to 20% faster than traditional construction methods.
Regardless of project size, shape or complexity; simply shore, place, and pour to quickly
install concrete decks.
5. Off-site manufacturing, fewer vehicle trips and crane lifts as well as simple installation
all combine to minimize operating risks, as well as lower health & safety risks. As a
result, major projects around the world have chosen the Bubble deck technology as the
low-risk way to build large and complex projects.
6. The Bubble deck system offers a wide range of advantages in building design and
during construction. There are a number of green attributes including; reduction in total
36 | P a g e
construction materials, use of recycled materials, lower energy consumption and

reduced CO2 emissions, less transportation and crane lifts that make Bubble deck more
environmentally friendly than other concrete construction techniques.
7. With the use of Bubble deck, mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) lines and
fixtures are easily installed within the floor. Individual through-hole areas can be
coordinated and installed within the precast panels rather than at the job site to speed
construction time.
8. Bubble deck panels are suitable for use in all building types especially open floor
designs such as commercial, educational, hospitals and other institutional buildings.
37 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. A. Churakov, “Biaxial hollow slab with innovative types of voids”, Construction of
Unique Buildings ad structures, Vol. 6(21), Pp. 70-88, 2014.
2. AmerM. Ibrahim, Nazar K Ali, Wissam D Salman, “Flexural capacities of reinforced

concrete two-way bubble deck slabs of plastic spherical voids”, Diyala Journal of
Engineering Sciences, Vol. 06,Pp 9-20, June 2013.
3. Chung J.H., Choi H.K., Lee S.C, “Shear Capacity of Biaxial Hollow Slab with Donut
Type Hollow Sphere”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 14, Pp. 2219 -2222, 2011.
4. L R Terec, M A Terec, “The bubbledeck floor system: A brief presentation”, Constructii,

Vol 2, Pp 33-40, 2013.
5. Martina Schnellenbach-Held and Karsten Pfeffer,"Punching behavior of biaxial hollow

slabs" Cement and Concrete Composites, Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 551-556, December
2011.
6. Sergiu Calin and Ciprian Asavoaie, "Method for Bubble deck slab concrete slab with
gaps", The Buletinul Institutului Politehnic din Ia i, L (LI ), f. , 9.
7. Sergiu Calin, Roxana Gintu and Gabriela Dascalu, “Summary of tests and studies done
abroad on the Bubble deck system”, The Buletinul Institutului Politehnic din Ia i, LV
(LIX), Pp 75-84
38 | P a g e
DISCUSSIONS
i. What about the size of plastic bubbles?
The plastic bubbles are available in different sizes as per the manufacturer standards. The
bubbles are also manufactured upon the specification laid by the client. The hollow
spheres are made from recycled high-density polyethylene. The main disadvanatge of
bubbles is dat it is not stackable. These HDPE bubbles can be slavaged and reused again
or recycled. This also conctributes to the Green properties of bubble deck slab.
ii. What about the thermal behaviour of Bubble deck slab?
The thermal behaviour can be explained by the fire resistance of the slab. The fire
resistance of the slab is a complex matter but is chiefly dependent on the ability of the
steel to retain sufficient strength during a fire when it will be heated and lose significant
strength as the temperature rises. In an intense prolonged fire, the ball would melt and
eventually char without significance or detectable effect.
iii. What about the strength and durability of bubble deck slab compared to
traditional slabs?
In terms of flexural strength, the moments of resistance are the same as for solid slabs
provided this compression depth is checked during design so that it does not encroach
significantly into the ball. In any flat slab, design shear resistance is usually critical near
columns. The shear stresses remote from the columns diminishes rapidly and outside the
column zones it has been demonstrated by testing and calculation the transverse and
longitudinal shear stresses are within the capacity of the Bubble deck slab system. Near
the columns, bubbles are left out so in these zones a Bubble deck slab is designed exactly
the same way as a solid slab. Shear resistance of Bubble deck slab is 0.6 times the shear
resistance of a solid slab of the same thickness.
39 | P a g e
iv. How is the concrete usage reduced?
Bubble deck slab is a biaxial hollow core slab. It is a method of virtually eliminating all
concrete from the middle of a floor slab not performing any structural function, thereby
dramatically reducing structural dead weight and usage of concrete in the structure.
40 | P a g e
View publication stats

Structural Behaviour of Bubble Deck Slab: November 2015

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

Structural Behaviour of Bubble Deck Slab: November 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB

Research · November 2015

Structural Audit View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB

Under the guidance of

Mr. MANISH JOSE

Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ST.JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PALAI

CHOONDACHERRY P.O, BHARANANGANAM.

This is to certify that the seminar report entitled “STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF

seminar presented by him.

Prof. B. V. Mathew Mr. Rinju Rajan Mathew Mr. Manish Jose

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………...…………………… vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / SYMBOLS…………………………..……….... ix

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3 TYPES OF VOIDED FLAT SLABS

3.2. U BOOT BETON 6

3.2. BUBBLE DECK 7

CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND TYPES

4.1.3 Plastic spheres 10

4.2 TYPES OF BUBBLE DECK SLABS 11

4.2.1 Type a- Filigree elements 11

4.2.2 Type b- Reinforcement Modules 12

4.2.3 Type c- Finished Planks 13

CHAPTER 5 PRODUCTION AND CARRYING OUT

CHAPTER 6 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF BUBBLE DECK SLABS

6.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND FLEXURAL CAPACITIES 19

6.2 SHEAR STRENGTH 19

6.4 SOUND INSULATION 21

6.5 FIRE RESISTANCE 21

CHAPTER 7 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

7.2 TEST SPECIMENS 24

7.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 27

7.3.1 Ultimate Load Capacity 27

7.3.2 Load Versus Deflection Relationship 28

7.3.3 Load Versus Concrete Compressive Strain 29

7.3.3 Crack Patterns 30

7.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TEST 32

8.1 MATERIAL AND WEIGHT REDUCTION 33

8.2 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES 33

8.3 CONSTRUCTION AND TIME SAVINGS 33

8.4 COST SAVINGS 34

8.5 GREEN DESIGN 34

4.1 Different types of Plastic Bubbles available in market 11

6.1 Properties of Slab Specimens 20

7.1 Concrete Mixture Design 23

7.2 Test Result of Reinforcing Bars 23

7.3 Properties of Slab Specimens 24

7.4 Test Results 27

2.1 Cut through section of Bubble deck slab 3

3.1 Section of Bubble deck slab 8

4.1 Construction of Biaxial hollow core slab 10

4.2 Plastic spheres along with reinforcement 11

4.3 Type A- Filigree Elements 12

4.4 Type B- Reinforcement Modules 12

4.5 Type C- Finished Planks 13

5.1 Bubbles at stock 14

5.2 Welding the reinforcement 14

5.3 Diagonal girders 15

5.4 Preparation of bottom layer concrete 15