Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
With the vast growth in complexity of designs of buildings, the existence of new
and improved structural systems is needed to let safety stays the top priority on these
posting higher dead load to be carried by structural components. To abide with this
change, bubble deck system had been patented to reduce the dead loads by the removal
of non-carrying part of the concrete and replacement of hollow spheres with them.
Bubble deck slab system is a revolutionary biaxial concrete floor system that was
traditional bubble deck technology uses spheres made out of recycled materials to
achieve a significant reduction of dead weight by as much as 50%, allowing longer spans
and lesser supporting structure than traditional solutions. Therefore, bubble deck slabs
possess handful advantages compared to traditional concrete slab, such as lower total
cost, reduced material use, and enhanced structural efficiency, decreased construction
Yet despite this breakthrough in the field of engineering, people never cease to
ponder on this system and innovate for its optimization. One of such movements is the
2
From the website of Science Omnexus (2019), Cellulose Acetate has toughness
of 400 J m 2 while HDPE only has maximum toughness of 220 J m 2 . CA is also non
porous and corrosion inhibitors, characteristics that are ideal as alternative for HDPE.
This study aims to evaluate the flexural strength of different bubble deck slab
stakeholders.
only, this study could ignite a breakthrough in local businesses should the concept be
adopted. On the 600 plus bubble deck projects in the world, no known construction
industry in the Philippines has this technology but with the promising results of this
system, the community could have wider array of safe and strong building designs with
longer spans between columns while enjoying a cut down in the expenses in the
information valuable in the fabrication of bubble deck slab. Should they gain the
interest on this system, the recommendations indicated in the last part of this paper
shall enable them to eclipse the study and bring this technology in greater heights.
Researches as this are ways by which those endowed with intellectual prowess
can better the construction technologies that the world has been using until now. It is
therefore the end goal of this study that the information presented in this paper serve as
guide for the innovation of new technologies that shall solve the hindrances and
spheres in the construction of bubble deck slab. Three designs were devised that come
with codes as BO, BI, and BA. As control sample, a batch of conventional slabs (CS)
After 28 days of curing period, the researchers recorded the flexural strength of
the samples, took their respective weight and solved for their strength-weight ratios.
Expenses listed during the manufacture of the slabs were also analyzed.
At the finale, the researchers chose the best design of bubble deck slab
Definition of Terms
ASTM C78. This test method which utilizes third-point loading is used to determine the
BA. This serves as code for the bubble deck slab with bubbles scattered along its entire
BI. It is a representation for the bubble deck slab with bubbles allocated at the sample's
BO. This refers to bubble deck slab with bubbles patterned at the sample's outer area.
See Figure 5.
5
BDS or Bubble deck slab. This is an engineered floor system with an aim of reducing
the dead load carried by the structure by the removal of non-carrying concrete and the
Flexural Strength. It is the measure of the tensile strength of the slabs. Flexural
strength identifies the amount of stress and force an unreinforced concrete slab, beam
or other structure can withstand such that it resists any bending failures.
Hollow spheres or hollow bubbles. These are, obviously, hollow spheres made from
specified kind of plastic. The removed non-carrying concrete from the slab are replaced
Strength-Weight Ratio. This is the quotient of the flexural strength and weight of
each of the slab. This will be used in the assessment of the pattern allocations used.
UTM. This stands for Universal Testing Machine that is used in testing of the flexural
CHAPTER II
when the first slab small structure was erected in Maryland, however, the first reinforced
concrete bridge in the state dates to 1903. Consequently, small slab structures were most
assuredly built in the first decade of the twentieth century. By 1912, the State included the
reinforced concrete slab in their Standard Plans for structures from 6 feet to 16 feet in length.
Between 1912 and World War II, the concrete slab was specified as Maryland’s standard
structure type for small spans from 6 feet to 18 feet. Consequently, many of these small slab
Concrete plays a major role in the construction field. The usage of concrete is high
in slab construction. Slab which is one of the largest structural member consuming it
because of its good durability and it has been used for many years to build a variety of
structures.
Reinforced concrete slabs are structural components that are commonly used in
floors, ceilings, garages, and outdoor wearing surfaces. According to Lai (2010), there are
several types of concrete floor systems that are in use today. Some of these are:
a. Two-way flat plate (biaxial slab) – There are no required beams that shall support
the floor in between columns. Instead, the slab is heavily reinforced with steel in
both directions and is connected to the columns in order to successfully transfer the
loads.
b. Two way flat slab with drop panels – This system differs from the two-way flat
plate system by the drop panel, it is used to provide an extra thickness around the
7
column. This strengthens the column and floor connection in respect with the
punching shear.
c. One-war beam and slab – This is the most typical floor system used in construction.
The slab loads are transferred to the beams, which are then transferred to the
columns.
d. One-way joist slab – The joists act like small beams that support the slab. This
system is economic since the formwork is readily available and less reinforcement
is required.
e. One-way wide module joist slab – This system is variation on the one0way joist
f. Two-way joist slab (waffle slab) – This floor system is the stiffest and has the least
buildings. Horizontal slabs with steel reinforced concrete, typically between 4 and 20 inches
thick, are most often used to construct floors and ceilings. On the other hand, thinner slabs can
8
also be used for exterior paving. Sometimes, the thinner slabs which range from 2 inches to 6
inches thick are called mud slabs, particularly when used under the main floor slabs. Lafarge
Holcim also specified the desirable properties of industrial floors which are its high water
resistance, good compressive and flexural strength, overall dimensional stability, zero cracking
and zero curling or warping. According to Lafarge Holcim, the following are the advantage of
industrial floor concrete: high performance floor; increased abrasion resistance; increased
ability of load transfer at saw cut joints; reduced potential for plastic shrinkage cracking;
reduced potential for drying shrinkage cracking; lower risk of curling; increased dimensional
concrete compressive strength is entertained. That is, this prediction enables to know quickly
about the concrete and its probable weakness for the engineers to go full gears in the
prediction of the compressive strength of concrete has been an active area of research. Several
methods for early estimation have been introduced in some previously published studies.
These attempts were made to predict the 28 days concrete compressive strength from early
days test results but those had some limitations. Going further, as cited by Selcuk, L. & Gökçe,
H. S. (2015), the Point Load strength Test (PLT) is also intended to be used as index for
strength classification of earth materials. PLT may also be used to predict uniaxial tensile
strength and compressive strength of intact rock (Broch and Franklin, 1972). However, a study
of Yao, W. et. al (2017) strongly disagrees with this. They protested that the real value of the in
situ tensile and compressive strengths of concrete deteriorated under authentic environments
for long time provides a necessary basis for the evaluation of structures, especially for those
With the evolution of construction, in 1990’s Jorgen Bruenig invented the first
biaxial hollow slab, known popularly as the Bubble Deck Slab which originated in
lighter slab which reduces the loads on the columns, walls and foundations, and of the
entire building allowing heavier loads than a solid slab. Also, the innovative floor system
have many numerous advantages such as it lowers the total cost, use of material is reduced,
It offers a more sustainable construction option by using less concrete than tradition
phase.
The concept of bubble-voided flat slabs involves placing hollow recycled plastic
shapes typically spheres in-between two layers or rebar, in the middle of a concrete slab.
Due to the replacement of concrete with air, the slab will have a lower dead load and a
Bubble Deck Slab contributes less CO2 to the atmosphere in the manufacturing
process. It meets sustainable goals through the use of recycled plastic spheres. Therefore,
even after the building has been demolished or renovated the spheres could be recycled.
The reduction in dead load makes the long-term response more economical for the building
Bubble Deck Slab was proven to be superior to the traditional solid concrete slab.
Thus, in the study of Tina Lai (2009), the structural behavior of Bubble Deck Slab is
verified through the application to a bridge deck. After verifying the validity of the prior
research through a finite element analysis of an office floor in SAP 2000, the Bubble Deck
Slab was tested for a pedestrian bridge deck. It is stated that a bridge design is dominated
by the dead weight of the structure and by concentrated stresses from vehicular traffic.
11
Hence, the Bubble Deck Slab can solve both of the problems by reducing weight with the
The Bubble Deck Slabs is influenced by the ratio of bubble diameter to slab
thickness. The effects of various factors to the behavior of Bubble Deck Slab are
considered such as concrete strength, the shape and diameter of plastic balls, the size of
reinforcing mesh at top and bottoming order to demonstrate the superiority and advances of
mentioned technology (L.V. Hai, 2009). It was concluded by using the hollow elliptical
balls, the better load-bearing capacity in the Bubble Deck Slab can be achieved. M.A.
Terec et al conducted also a study on the Bubble Deck floor system. It was concluded that
the Bubble Deck Slab obtaining a much improved flexural capacity and stiffness and a
shear capacity of at least 70 percent from that of a solid slab realizing 30 to 50 percent
concrete economy in comparison with the solid slab.
and unconstructed elements. This type of Bubble Deck is optimal for new construction
projects where the designer can determine the bubble positions and steel mesh layout.
12
reinforcement module that consists of a pre-assembled sandwich of steel mesh and plastic
bubbles, or bubble lattice. This category of Bubble Deck is optimal for construction areas
with tight spaces since these modules can be stacked on top of one another for storage until
needed. A shop-fabricated module that includes the plastic spheres reinforcement mesh in
its finished form is the Bubble Deck Type C. Unlike Type A and B, it is one-way spanning
design that requires the use of support beams or load bearing walls. This class of Bubble
A study of Salman, W. D. (2013) presented the flexural capacities of reinforced concrete two-way
bubble deck slabs with common plastic spherical voids. It has been verified that the flexural behavior of the
bubble deck slab such as good ultimate load, small deflection, and significantly low concrete compressive
Also, according to seminarsonly.com published at their website, Bubble Deck Slab is conceived to
omit a significant volume of concrete (compared to 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 portion 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 slid 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 the solid slabs provided this compression depth is checked
during design so that it does not encroach significantly into the ball.
Cellulose Acetate
than cellulose acetate, and has an extremely high-impact strength (McKeen, 2012).
13
b. High Flexibility
c. High Gloss
e. Biodegradable
Ping-pong balls
(Cellulose
Acetate) as
Hollow Spheres Flexural Flexural Strength
Steel Strength Test of Voided Slab
reinforcement (ASTM C78) using Ping-pong
o 8-mm Ø of Voided balls as Hollow
RSB Slab Beam Spheres
o #16 Samples Light-weight
Tie-wire concrete
Concrete mixture
14
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a discussion of the research design, locale of the study,
Research Design
This study followed the experimental type of research. Thus, an actual batch of
slabs was made and had been evaluated in consonance with the objectives included such as
the flexural strength, strength-weight ratio and the cost in the manufacture of such samples.
15
The fabrication and curing of slabs as well as the weighing and testing are
conducted in cooperation with Viking Construction and Supplies at Brgy 53 Rioeng, Laoag
Research Procedures
The study followed four principal procedures. These are the designing of bubble
deck slab, purchase of needed materials, fabrication and curing of the samples, weighing
The researchers prepared three designs of BDS. Each design differs in the number
and allocation of the sphere or bubbles along the span of slab, but the number of
reinforcements present in them are of the same number and installed in the same manner.
This design, BA, consists of 36 spheres in total, 18 each for the top and bottom
of the reinforcing bars. This is nearly similar to the the design used by construction
industries in actual BDS projects, yet the latter only have one layer of spheres.
The other two designs of BDS are patterned on the first but the second design, BO,
only has bubbles at the outer area of the slab while the third, BI, has bubbles in its inside or
Aside from designing the bubble deck slab, the researchers adopted the design for
conventional slab but with the same number of reinforcing bars that are installed in the
All the needed materials in the fabrication of slabs such as the bubbles, reinforcing
bars, tie wire, cement, sand and gravel are purchased from the New India General
The four batches of conventional and bubble deck slab were fabricated on
February 16. Steps included in this procedure are slump test of the concrete used, and
tamping for a much solid and less unwanted voids in the sample. After which, the
After the curing stage, the samples were subjected to third point loading to
determine each ultimate yielding load and flexural strength. The machine used in the
testing is the Universal Testing Machine. Also, the weight of each samples were recorded
CHAPTER IV
This chapter of the study focuses on the discussion of the results obtained during
the testing of the samples along with the other objectives that this research had addressed
to. Detailed figures and tables as well as summarized ones are provided to better present
bubble deck slabs to be tested, the researchers also fabricated conventional slabs that
21
served as the control sample and basis in the interpretation of the results of the bubble deck
slab designs.
35.72
BA 37.98
37.12
45.02
BI 48.82
SLAB CODE
45.76
42.16
BO 40.72
38.65
47.32
CS 57.33
55.67
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ULTIMATE LOAD, KN
Figure 9. Summary of Ultimate Loads that the Slabs can Carry Before Yielding
After subjecting the slabs to loads on its 28th day of curing, the data in Figure are
obtained. CS resisted the highest ultimate load as much as 57.33KN. It is followed by BI,
BO and BA with highest resisted loads of 48.82KN, 42.16KN and 37.98KN respectively.
22
10000
9000 8389.18
8000 8639.33
4000
7130.88 6784.28
3000 6353.29
5382.82
2000
1000
8053.13 6104.64 7011.83 5566.66
0
CS BO BI BA
Consequently, Figure 10 reveals that the conventional slabs recorded the highest
flexural strength with the ceiling of 8639.33MPa and mean strength of 8053.13MPa.
Following the CS are the Bubble deck slabs II - Inner with the top strength reading of
This result is often the case for bubble deck slab as the conventional slabs obtain
higher strength since the former undergoes stiffness reduction as a result of the bubbles in
the slab.
From the above figure, it can be observed that there is a drastic reduction in weight
of the bubble deck slabs compared to the conventional one. The reduction in weight for
BO, BI and Ba are recorded to be 9.84%, 5.14% and 10.97% respectively of the original
Aside from recording the strength of the slabs, the researchers also determined the
strength-weight ratio as manifestation that the slabs had achieved the deduction of self
Deducing from the table above, despite being heavier compared to the bubble deck
slab which have voids within them, the mean strength-weight ratio of conventional slab,
276.08, remains the highest since it recorded higher flexural strength than the bubble deck
slab. This figure served as the target ratio for the bubble deck slabs. As discussed, higher
bubble deck slab in the above table to the CS's, it can be observed that the weight of the
slabs do not reach 28 kg. This is the expected result for this study since the bubble deck
Table 4 also shows that despite being the heaviest design, BI acquired the highest
mean flexural strength, 7011.83MPa, resulting to the highest mean strength-weight ratio,
253.41.
However, BA, the design nearly similar to what construction companies have been
using is recorded to have the lowest strength and strength-weight ratio despite recording
According to the man who patented this slab technology, the use of bubble deck
slab is advantageous in terms of the total cost of projects as compared to conventional slab.
In this section of this chapter, the researchers conducted an analysis of the expenses
Total Cost,
per batch
BA 1,896.95
BI 1,183.74
SAMPLES
BO 1,363.62
CS 325.741
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
MANUFACTURE COST, Php
Obviously from the figure, conventional slab recorded the lowest manufacture
cost amounting to Php325.741. This is the most economical slab design among the four as
However, this data do not imply that bubble deck slabs are much more expensive
compared to the conventional slabs. In this study, the researchers utilized commercially
The cut down in expenses with the use of bubble deck slab technology could be
35%.
Detailed in the tables that follow the breakdown of expenses in both conventional
and bubble deck slab. Also included in the attached appendices the computations in the
Referring to the breakdown of expenses for the three designs of bubble deck slab,
conventional slab used more amount of cement, sand and gravel because they are solid
slab, thus, consuming higher cost in these materials but at minimal rise. However,
conventional slab still recorded the lowest total cost of Php 325.741.
With the spheres used as costly material, it is observed that the more spheres
needed in the slab, the total cost increases. Thus, it is safe to say that in this study only, the
Ordered
RSB, pcs Php 85.00 2 Php 170.00
TIE WIRE, pcs 20.00 1 20.00
CEMENT, kg 6.25 13 81.25
SAND, cubic meter 365.00 0.0099 3.614
GRAVEL, cubic meter 440.00 0.0199 8.756
Bubbles, pcs 15.00 72 1,080.00
TOTAL Php 1,363.62
With 24 bubbles or spheres used in each sample or 72 bubbles for the whole batch, the
expense tallied for the bubbles only reached the Php1,000.00 mark with total cost
amounting to Php1,363.62. However, this design of bubble deck slab can be observed to
had used lesser amount of cement, sand and gravel compared to CS but only in minimal
amount.
The above table shows that this design used the least total number of bubbles
with 60 pcs. With this factor, it is expected that compared to the first design of bubble deck
With this design of putting spheres in all the span of the slab, BA used the greatest
number of bubbles, causing its total cost to rise to nearly Php2,000.00. But also because of
the design,
CHAPTER V
This chapter presents the summary of the findings generated, the conclusions
drawn from these findings and the recommendations offered through this study.
Summary
respectively.
2. After a 28-day curing, the conventional slab recorded a mean flexural strength
5566.66MPa .
29
4. For the mean strength-weight ratio, conventional slab obtained 276.08 while BI,
Conclusion
1. The bubble deck slabs were not as efficient as the conventional slabs in terms of
recorded the highest ultimate load among the other BDS designs with
48.82KN.
2. As for the flexural strength, the conventional slab registered the highest value
4. Despite being heavier than the bubble deck slabs, the conventional reinforced
253.41.
5. In this experiment alone, the conventional slab costs lesser compared to the
bubble deck slabs due to the high cost of the bubbles used in them.
30
6. With all the criteria siding with conventional slab, CS performed better than
Bubble Deck Slab. However, BI is the most ideal for Bubble Deck Slab
construction projects.
Recommendation
Based from the results of the study, the following recommendations are offered:
4. Using mesh in the bubble deck slabs is also suggested to have improved
restriction and stability and in the placement of the bubbles during the pouring of
concrete.