Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract—Bubble deck slab is an in-situ slab which is are implemented into it for creation of Bubble Deck
created by inserting voids in the form of bubbles which effect. The insertion of balls creates voids, which
reduces dead weight and is an eco-friendly practice. reduces the dead weight.
Plastic waste is non – degradable and its disposal has
become a matter of great concern to the environment. On studying the Literature reviews, various studies
Bubbles can be created in various forms using recycled have been conducted on the structural behaviour of
plastic. Recycling of plastic waste is of utmost bubble deck slab. The various factors of a two way
importance to create an eco-friendly atmosphere. slab such as flexural capacities, acoustics, fire
Bubble Deck technology is implemented in this project resistance, creep shrinkage etc. were studied. But all
using Indian Standards and Indian codal Provisions (IS
these studies are based on International Standards and
456:2000) which has not been experimentally tested to-
not based on the Indian Code of Design for slab. The
date. The major benefit of this project is that it makes
useof non-degradable waste plastic thus a very eco- proposed project aims at conducting studies based on
friendly practice. The project conducts trial on varying Indian Standard Codes. Also the project studies the
diameter of balls,. Since trials was done using the ball diameter variation and the load vs. deflection
Indian Codes as benchmark, successful results can pattern and load vs. strain pattern
provide for provisions in Indian Code for creating
Bubble Deck slab using plastic waste. The above II. OBJECTIVE
technology is first of its kind using Indian Code as The main objective of this project is
benchmark for design of Bubble Deck Slabs. i. To study the structural behaviour of Bubble Deck
Experimental results of the above project shows that
Slab using Indian Standards by varying parameters
there is no much reduction in strength and various
like ball diameter variation
aspects compared to normal reinforced concrete slab.
Hence this is a highly innovative practice that can be ii. To study various factors, load vs.deflection
implemented using Indian Standard codes which has characteristics and load vs.strain characteristics and
not yet implemented in the Indian scenario. ultimate load
III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Index Terms—bubble deck slab, voided slab, biaxial
slab, slab design. The project was done using specimens of size 1.5m *
I. INTRODUCTION 1.5m. The support conditions provided were simply
supported. Balls of two sizes were only used; 65mm
Bubble deck slab is a kind of slab in which voids are diameter and 60mm diameter. Mix of M25
created in it in order to reduce the dead weight by proportion was used after mix design.
placing of balls in the slab. Bubble deck eliminates
up to 35% of the structural concrete. This type of IV. METHODOLOGY
bubble deck slab has been implemented in various i. Basic test on cement, fine aggregate and coarse
parts of the world using international codes of aggreagate
practice in construction. In European countries, this ii. Mix design for M25 grade concrete
type of slab has been practically implemented and iii. Test on fresh and hardened concrete
has found to be successful. This project emphasis on iv. Design of slab and preparation of slab specimens
implementing the Bubble Deck Technology using the v. Testing of specimen & Result comparison
IS code of design in construction. Normal Reinforced
concrete slabs are designed using IS code and balls
60mm and 65mm (S65 & S60). For the testing of the
V. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
same, various properties of the materials used in
Table 1: Test on cement concreting were also studied. The basic test on
cement and aggregates were done.
Observed
Test for B. Mix design
Value
Mix design was done for M25 grade concrete using
Specific Gravity 3.2 IS 10262: 2009 for a slump of 86mm and water
cement ratio 0.42.Quantity of materials as per M25
Standard 34% mix design is given in table 2.
Consistency
Table 2: Quantity of materials per m3
m3 cement
Req. for
each slab
(Kg)
Normal 124.77
NRC 0.27
RCC kg
Slab with
103.51
S65 full ball – 100 0.224
kg
60mm
Fig 2: Test setup – simply supported (NRC)
Slab with
VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
S60 full ball – 100 0.212 97.96 kg
65mm A. Load Vs. Deflection
The load vs. deflection graph was plotted taking the
Specimens of size 1.5m x 1.5 m x 0.12m was casted deflection along the X axis and the load along the Y
as given in table 3. Wooden form works were used axis. The graphs were compared with different
for concreting. Braces were given to formwork for specimens as deflection near right support, deflection
extra support. Concreting was done on flat concrete near left support and deflection at centre. It was
floor. Plastic sheets were provided along the sides to observed that deflection increased as the load
prevent bleeding. A needle vibrator was used for increased that is the load and deflections were
compaction. Curing was done by method of ponding directly proportional. Figure 3 shows the load vs.
deflection characteristics of various ball diameter
E. Testing of Specimen variation and ball arrangement variation. In the
The specimens were tested on a 50 ton loading frame comparisons it can be noted that the deflection is
with a load cell of capacity 50 Ton. The specimens proportional to load applied during the initial load
were tested under simply supported condition. Dial and after which there is a sudden increase in
gauges were place at three positions; at the centre, deflection. This shows the deflection increases after
near the left support and near the right support forming of the crack.
respectively to note the deflection. Deflections were
taken using a dial gauge of least count 0.01mm and
10 mm range. Strains were measured along four Load vs. Deflection - Central
different directions. Along the centre line Deflection
horizontally, along the centre line vertically, along
diagonal near the left support and along the diagonal 80
Load (KN)
till the specimen failed and the load at which the 60KN 60KN (To
specimen failed was noted as Ultimate load. The (mm) (mm) n)
10 8
5 Ultimate
Load
0
NRC S65 S60
Specimen
5.5 5.5
5
Load At First
0 Crack
NRC S65 S60 Fig 6 :Strain Arrangement
The Load vs. Strain graphs of NRC, S65, S60, 2S65
Specimen
& 3S65 are shown in Fig7 to Fig 12.
Load(KN)
100
50
50
0 A B
0
0 0.002 0.004 0 0.002 0.004
Strain Strain
Fig 7 : Load vs. Strain of NRC (Vertical) Fig 10: Load vs. Strain of S60 (Horizontal)
Load (KN)
100
50
50
B A
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0 0.005 0.01
Strain Strain
50 80
Laod (KN)
60
A 40
0
20 B
0 0.01 0.02
0
Strain 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Strain
VIII. CONCLUSION
Bubble deck slab technology has been experimented
in many parts of the world using international codes
and standards. The Indian Standard Code was used
for the design of two way slab and bubbles
wereimplemented into it. The results of the project
show that there is only comparable difference in
properties compared to normal RCC slab which
concludes that Bubble Deck slab can be implemented [8] Chung J.H., Choi H.K., Lee S.C, “Shear
using the Indian Standard code (IS 456 : 2000). Capacity of Biaxial Hollow Slab with Donut
On studying the Ball diameter variation, it can be Type Hollow Sphere”, Procedia Engineering,
concluded that Vol. 14, Pp. 2219 -2222, 2011.
The load vs. deflection of S60 showed a smooth
curve comparing to NRC and S65
The strain characteristics was also comparatively
same with that of normal RCC
From the above conclusions S60 is preferred as a
suitable Bubble Deck slab.
On overall comparison, slab with full ball of 60mm
(S60) was concluded good as there was a
proportionality between the decrease in ultimate load
and decrease in dead weight while all the other
characteristics and properties remained almost same.
This slab can be implemented in case where the load
bearing capacity is less and where the dead weight
needs to be reduced.
REFERENCES
[1] SergiuCalin and CiprianAsavoaie, "Method for
Bubble deck slab concrete slab with gaps", The
BuletinulInstitutuluiPolitehnic din Iaşi, LV
(LIX), f. 2,2009.
[2] SergiuCǎ lin, Roxana Gi ̂ ntu and Gabriela
Dasǎ lu, "Summary of tests and studies done
abroad on the Bubble deck slab system ", The
BuletinulInstitutuluiPolitehnic din Ias ̧ i, t. LV
(LIX), f. 3, Pp 75-84, 2012.
[3] 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.
[4] L R Terec, M ATerec, “The bubble deck floor
system: A brief presentation”, Construction, Vol
2, Pp 33-40, 2013.
[5] Bubble Deck International, Rösevangen 8, DK
3520 Farum. The Lightweight Biaxial Slab.
[6] Asst.LectureShaimaa Tariq Sakin, “Punching
Shear in Voided Slab”, Civil and Environmental
Research www.iiste.org, ISSN 2224-5790
(Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online), Vol.6, No.10,
2014.
[7] A. Churakov, “Biaxial hollow slab with
innovative types of voids”, Construction of
Unique Buildings ad structures, Vol. 6(21), Pp.
70-88, 2014.