This seminar presentation discusses bubble deck slabs. Bubble deck slabs are a type of reinforced concrete slab that uses hollow plastic spheres instead of solid concrete in the center portion. This reduces weight by 50% compared to solid slabs while maintaining 90% of the strength. Other advantages include reduced concrete usage by 10-25%, larger spans, and lower construction costs. The presentation reviews several research papers that studied the load capacity and behavior of bubble deck slabs through experiments and finite element analysis. Most concluded that bubble deck slabs have lower punching shear capacity but similar overall performance to solid slabs.

1. SEMINAR PRESENTATION
ON
BUBBLE DECK SLAB
GUIDED
BY:
Dr. Shilpa
Pal
PRESENT
BY:
Shivani
Sharma
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

2. S.No
.
Topic
1.
1.1
1..2
1.3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Introduction-
 Solid slab
 Hollow core slab
 Bubble deck slab
Example of Project
Materials
Advantages and Disadvantages
Literature Review
Conclusion
Scope of future use
Reference
CONTENTS

3. 1. SOLID SLAB
Problems with inactive concrete-
• Large amount of concrete consumption
• Span limitation
• Material wastage
INACTIVE CONCRETE
(Central portion of RCC solid
slab)
Solution
NEED OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB

4. 2. HOLLOW CORE SLAB
 Pre fabricated one way spanning concrete elements
with hollow cylinders, replacing inactive concrete.
PROBLEMS-
 The elements are usually large and heavy.
 Rigid design and no flexibility of adaptation in the field.
 Large hoisting and erection costs.

5. 3. BUBBLE DECK SLAB
 The best solution for above two problems is Bubble
Deck Slab.
 This slab is invented by Jorgen Breuning in Denmark
1990’s.
 It’s 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.
INTRODUCTION

6. MATERIALS
PLASTIC SPHERES
(hollow spheres made from recycled
High Density Polyethylene).
 Enough strength (90% of solid slab)
& rigidity.
STEEL
 ( Steel reinforcement is of MS
or HYSD can be used ).
CONCRETE
Concrete is made up of
Standard
Portland Cement with
max

7. WORKING PROJECT OF BUBBLE DECK
SLAB
Longer span, fewer columns
Source- Google

8. ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGE
S
•Concrete usage is reduced as
1Kg of recycled plastic
replaces 100kg of concrete.
Hence this technology is green
technology.
•Reduces the overall dead load
of structure & leads to 30 %to
50% lighter slab which reduces
load on columns , walls and
foundations.
•Larger spans.
•Lower the cost of total
•Punching shear capacity is
low.
•Skilled labour required.
•Conventional slab is less
deflect than bubble deck slab.
•Load carrying capacity is less
than conventional slab.

9. S.N
O.
TITLE AUTHOR ABSTRACT CONCLUSION
1. An experimental
study on bubble
deck slab system
with hollow
elliptical balls.
Nagesh
Hanche and
Arati Shetkar
The author
studied the
use of Hollow
plastic balls in
the reinforced
concrete slab
and its
effects.
•They founded that 50%
dead weight reduction
compared to solid slab ,
less CO2 emission.
• Less concrete required .
•Load carrying capacity of
slab is depend on
arrangements of bubbles.
2. Experimental
study on bubble
deck slab
Prof. Nishant
Rajoria ,
Muhammad
Shafiq
Mushfiq
(IRJET)
To determine
load bearing
capacity and
to estimate
amount of
concrete
saved.
•Results shows bubble
deck slab carried less load
due to stiffness reduction
because of plastic balls
introduce in to the slab.
• 10.55-25% of concrete
saved as compare to solid
slab.
LITERATURE REVIEW

10. S.N
O.
TITLE AUTHOR ABSTRACT CONCLUSION
3. An
experimental
study on
bubble deck
slab.
Neeraj Tiwari ,
Sana Zafar
To increase the
strength of slab
by using
continuous and
alternative
bubble
arrangement in
the slab and to
determine the
deformation and
failing
mechanisms.
• Continuous
arrangement of bubbles
increase the strength
compare to alternate
bubble arrangement.
• volume of concrete in
bubble deck ( continuous
) are less required i.e.
25% approx.
•Conventional slab is
less deflect .

11. S.NO
.
TITLE AUTHOR ABSTRACT CONCLUSION
4. Punching shear
strength
development of
bubble deck slab
using GFRP
(Glass fiber
reinforced
polymer)
stirrups.
Reshma
Mathew,
Binu.P
This paper
compared the
punching shear
behavior of
bubble deck slab
to solid slab by
using ANSYS
software.
•Compared to solid
slab punching shear
capacity of bubble deck
slab is less .
• They used GFRP
strips with various
orientation as a
strengthening system
which increase load
carrying capacity up to
20%.
5. Finite element
analysis of
voided slab with
high density
polypropylene
void formers
Subramania
n, K* and
Bhuvaneshw
ari , P
Analysis is
performed using
ANSYS software
on 6 specimens
in which 3 are
solid and others
voided.
•Voided slabs
performed similar to
that of solid slab ,
either by plate analysis
or finite element
analysis.
•Voided slab V30
By using ANSYS SOFTWARE

12. CONCLUSION
 Weight reduction is 50% compared to solid slab.
 Concrete usage reduced up to 10.55-25% as 1Kg of
recycled plastic replaces 100 Kg of concrete, reduces
CO2 emission.
 Obtain large span with less supporting columns.
 Punching shearing capacity is less so GFRP(Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer) stirrups with various orientation is
used as a strengthening system for bubble deck slab.
 Reducing material consumption made it possible to make
the construction time faster and overall costs are reduced
by 8-10%.

13. SCOPE OF FUTURE USE
 Used for constructing all types of building
especially Sky Scrappers.
 Best of larger span halls like theatres and
auditoriums.
 Pedestrain bridge decks.
 Used in parking areas as less number of columns
are required.

14. REFRENCES
 Bhagyashri G. Bhade and S.M Barelikar An
Experimental study on two way bubble deck slab with
spherical hollow balls International Journal Of Recent
Scientific Research ISSN: 0976- 3031 Volume: 7(6)
June -2016.
 Churakov A.G., “Biaxial hollow slab with innovative types
of voids”, Construction of Unique Buildings and
Structures, ISSN 23004-6295.No.6(21).2014.
 Saifee Bhagat “ parametric study of R.C.C voided and
solid slab ” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering , Volume 11, Issue2, pp 11-21,2010.
 Kitjapat Phuvoravan and Elisa, D.Sotelino. “Nonlinear
Finite Element for Reinforced Concrete Slabs”. J. Struct.
Eng. 131(4).pp. 643-649. 2005.