© September 2016 | IJIRT | Volume 3 Issue 4 | ISSN: 2349-6002
Study on Structural Behaviour of Bubble Deck Slab using
Indian Standards
Er. Immanuel Joseph Chacko1,Er.Sneha M. Varghese2
1,2
Dpartment of Civil Engineering, Saintgits College of Engineering,Kottayam
Abstract—Bubble deck slab is an in-situ slab which is
created by inserting voids in the form of bubbles which
reduces dead weight and is an eco-friendly practice.
Plastic waste is non – degradable and its disposal has
become a matter of great concern to the environment.
Bubbles can be created in various forms using recycled
plastic. Recycling of plastic waste is of utmost
importance to create an eco-friendly atmosphere.
Bubble Deck technology is implemented in this project
using Indian Standards and Indian codal Provisions (IS
456:2000) which has not been experimentally tested to-
date. The major benefit of this project is that it makes
useof non-degradable waste plastic thus a very eco-
friendly practice. The project conducts trial on varying
diameter of balls,. Since trials was done using the
Indian Codes as benchmark, successful results can
provide for provisions in Indian Code for creating
Bubble Deck slab using plastic waste. The above
technology is first of its kind using Indian Code as
benchmark for design of Bubble Deck Slabs.
Experimental results of the above project shows that
there is no much reduction in strength and various
aspects compared to normal reinforced concrete slab.
Hence this is a highly innovative practice that can be
implemented using Indian Standard codes which has
not yet implemented in the Indian scenario.
Index Terms—bubble deck slab, voided slab, biaxial
slab, slab design.
I. INTRODUCTION
Bubble deck slab is a kind of slab in which voids are
created in it in order to reduce the dead weight by
placing of balls in the slab. Bubble deck eliminates
up to 35% of the structural concrete. This type of
bubble deck slab has been implemented in various i.
parts of the world using international codes of
practice in construction. In European countries, this ii.
type of slab has been practically implemented and iii.
has found to be successful. This project emphasis on iv.
implementing the Bubble Deck Technology using the v.
IS code of design in construction. Normal Reinforced
concrete slabs are designed using IS code and balls
IJIRT 143950 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY
are implemented into it for creation of Bubble Deck
effect. The insertion of balls creates voids, which
reduces the dead weight.
On studying the Literature reviews, various studies
have been conducted on the structural behaviour of
bubble deck slab. The various factors of a two way
slab such as flexural capacities, acoustics, fire
resistance, creep shrinkage etc. were studied. But all
these studies are based on International Standards and
not based on the Indian Code of Design for slab. The
proposed project aims at conducting studies based on
Indian Standard Codes. Also the project studies the
ball diameter variation and the load vs. deflection
pattern and load vs. strain pattern
II. OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this project is
i. To study the structural behaviour of Bubble Deck
Slab using Indian Standards by varying parameters
like ball diameter variation
ii. To study various factors, load vs.deflection
characteristics and load vs.strain characteristics and
ultimate load
III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The project was done using specimens of size 1.5m *
1.5m. The support conditions provided were simply
supported. Balls of two sizes were only used; 65mm
diameter and 60mm diameter. Mix of M25
proportion was used after mix design.
IV. METHODOLOGY
Basic test on cement, fine aggregate and coarse
aggreagate
Mix design for M25 grade concrete
Test on fresh and hardened concrete
Design of slab and preparation of slab specimens
Testing of specimen & Result comparison
193
 © September 2016 | IJIRT | Volume 3 Issue 4 | ISSN: 2349-6002

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

Initial Setting 2% Material Quantity

Cement Time
Cement 462.12Kg
(OPC 53 Final Setting 50 mins Fine Aggregate 742.1 Kg
Grade) Time
Coarse Aggregate 1194.3 Kg
Fineness 275 mins Weight of Water 194.082 Kg

7day 40 N/mm2 Water Cement Ratio 0.42

Compressive Cement : FA : CA 1: 1.6 : 2.58
Strength
C. Design of reinforcement
Specific Gravity 2.95 Reinforcement was designed using 8mm diameter
Fine
Aggregate bars with a spacing of 150mm c/c. Cover of 15mm
Sieve Analysis Zone I
was given on each side. The main bars were placed in
the form of a mesh as shown in figure. Balls were
Specific Gravity 2.91
tied to the reinforcement using tie strings.(Fig 1 ).
Coarse
Aggregate Water 0.1 %
absorption
(Max size
20mm) Crushing 28.58%
Strength

VI. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

A. General outline of experimental investigation
The aim of the present investigation is to study the
basic strength difference, strain, defection, crack Fig 1 : Reinforcement details of full ball
pattern, dead weight and cost analysis of Bubble D. Casting of specimens& Curing of Specimens
Deck slab with that of Normal Reinforced Concrete
Slab. Study on bubble deck slab was based on the Table 3: Quantity of Cement required per specimen
placing balls across the entire slab and comparing the No
Slab Specimen Total Total
properties with Normal RCC Slab (NRC). The same of
Notation type volume Quantity
included comparison with variations in ball Balls of
diameters. The two ball diameter variations were

IJIRT 143950 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY 194

 © September 2016 | IJIRT | Volume 3 Issue 4 | ISSN: 2349-6002

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)

near the right support. Loading was done as 60

uniformly distributed load with 8 point load placed at 40 NRC
equal intervals. The figures below show the various 20
test setups. S65
0
S60
0 2 4
Deflection (mm)

Fig 3: Load vs. Central Deflection

B. Ultimate Load And Crack Load
The ultimate load capacity and maximum deflection
was studied for various specimens. Load was applied

IJIRT 143950 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY 195

 © September 2016 | IJIRT | Volume 3 Issue 4 | ISSN: 2349-6002

till the specimen failed and the load at which the 60KN 60KN (To
specimen failed was noted as Ultimate load. The (mm) (mm) n)

maximumdeflection was noted for a specific load. NR 11.

3.64 2.85 2.85 8.5 4.3
Table 4, illustrates the results obtained. C 5
S6
It was observed that while the NRC had an ultimate 8 1.93 1.11 1.55 5.5 1.51
5
load capacity of 11.5 ton, the Ultimate load capacity
S6
of S65 & S60 was 8ton & 9ton respectively (Figure 4 9 2.51 1.15 2.09 5.5 2.19
0
and 5). This shows that NRC can take more load. On
comparing all the slab specimens, S60 was found to C. Strain
have a less reduction in ultimate load and can be The Load vs. Strain graph was plotted taking strain
implemented as bubble deck slab. It can be along the X axis and Load along the Y axis. The
recommended at places whereslabs does not require curve was plotted for strain along the horizontal line
much load bearing capacity like roof slabs etc. (A) and vertical line (B) for each slab separately. On
studying the characteristics, it was found that during
Ultimate Load the initial stages the strain was proportion to load
which shows that the slab is in the elastic stage. After
15 certain loads, the strain increased suddenly indicating
11.5
the slab has reached the plastic stage.
9
load (Ton)

10 8

5 Ultimate
Load
0
NRC S65 S60
Specimen

Fig 4: Ultimate Load Comparison

Load At First Crack

10 8.5
Load (ton)

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.

Fig 5 : Load at First Crack comparison

Table 4:Ultimate Load and Maximum Deflection
Max Max Max Loa Centra
Ma
Centra Deflect Deflect d l
Sla x
l ion ion At Deflect
b Lo
Deflect Near Near Firs ion at
Typ ad
ion @ Right left t first
e (To
60KN Suppo Suppo Cra crack
n)
(mm) rt @ rt @ ck (mm)

IJIRT 143950 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY 196

 © September 2016 | IJIRT | Volume 3 Issue 4 | ISSN: 2349-6002

Load vs. Strain - NRC Load vs. Strain - S60

150 100
Load (KN)

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 vs. Strain - NRC Load vs. Strain - S65

150 100
Load (KN)

Load (KN)
100
50
50
B A
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0 0.005 0.01

Strain Strain

Fig 8: Load vs. Strain of NRC (Horizontal)

Fig 11: Load vs. Strain of S65 (Vertical)

Load vs. Strain - S60

Load vs. Strain - S65
100
100
Load (KN)

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

Fig 9: Load vs. Strain of S60 (Vertical)

Fig 12: Load vs. Strain of S65 (Vertical)

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

IJIRT 143950 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY 197

 © September 2016 | IJIRT | Volume 3 Issue 4 | ISSN: 2349-6002

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.

IJIRT 143950 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY 198