STRENGTH EVALUATION OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB

UTILIZING CELLULOSE ACETATE SPHERE

VINCENT JAY V. ANCHETA

JERONEL BRYAN C. BRAVO
EMIL JAY V. CAJUDOY
CHARLES KYLE T. CEREZO

PROJECT STUDY

Department of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
City of Batac 2906 Ilocos Norte

May 2019

i
ii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Comprehension before action. Silent but deadly.

The sun first hit the skin of a baby boy on the 13th of January 1997. It was a

normal cold day in this early part of the year but a memorable one to Mr. Vicente and

Mrs. Fevic. He is the second child of the tree children.

Growing up, this boy turned to be normally quiet. This is not because he is shy

but he prefers to stay silent before attending to the things that require his response,

comprehension before action.

He finished his elementary education at Cavit-Araniw Elementary School,

graduating as the fourth best. During high school years, he studied at Northwestern

University-Laboratory High School, graduating with distinction.

Priotr to pursuing his tertiary education, he learned that mathematics and design

are his real passions. Thus, he enrolled at Mariano Marcos State University taking

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Now on the brink of getting his degree that

he worked hard for in five years, he is highly delighted.

VINCENT JAY V. ANCHETA

iii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jeronel Bryan C. Bravo, a Libra and left-handed from Pugaoan, Pinili, Ilocos

Norte, his comfort place with his parents Rey P. Bravo and Marlene C. Bravo.

He took his primary education at Petra Q. Pimentel Elementary School and

Pugaoan-Bungro Elementary School. It was yet another place for him. He made good

friends and memories, too; the kid he never knew he could be.

As an only child, he wasn’t used with the crowd – the phase of growing up.

Thus, Pinili Institute molded him as a resilient person; to face the greater heights and

pursue what was once a dream. To which, he enrolled at Mariano Marcos State

University for a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree.

Well, it wasn’t really his dream – to be an Engineer.

Jeronel Bryan was 13 years old when he have known the internet. He was in

high school, having the hormonal changes a teenager normally experienced – but he

didn’t have like he was got hit by truck. It was okay..., it felt like nothing really

change in him physically. But through the help of internet, he thought he might have

matured enough, mentally.

Financially unstable his family was, he wouldn’t get the best of his weekend

through indulging the virtual world. He would complain how poor the internet

service he experienced. He was always on the mood to throw his phone away. But

iv
sometimes when fortunate was in his side, he could search and explore without

buffering. He’d be happy at the end of the day, but sleep hours was compromise.

That’s when he realize, it requires a little sacrifice for an ample amount of

happiness from trivial things. For him, it was an encouraging perspective. He didn’t

mind at all, because it became his fortress. It motivates him to go through the day. He

would feel accomplished.

He was contented, at first. Until he knew, his mind was playing games with

him. His brain tricked him that it was okay of what he was doing. But in fact, it

wasn’t. He, then outgrew the viewpoint when Ging Freecss once said, “You should

enjoy the little detours to the fullest. Because that’s where you’ll find the things more

important than what you want.”

Finally, he learned that being happy wasn’t his finish line anymore and the

only goal he looked up to, but to feel he’d done something worthwhile.

JERONEL BRYAN C. BRAVO

v
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for me, beneath the surface, there's

more beauty on it.”

Summer. The all-time favorite season of the year. On April 26, 1998 a cute

babe was born. They named him after his great great grandfather, Emilio Cajudoy but

to make it modernized they named him Emil Jay Cajudoy. Beloved by his caring

mother, Virgie Cajudoy and his protective father, Patricio Cajudoy. Not only the

family rejoices as this baby was born but all the villagers of Pagsanahan Sur, Badoc,

Ilocos Norte where he lives at present.

Back when he was on elementary playing with his classmates and accidentally

got stumbled, he was amazed by his wound and thought "One day I'll become a

medical practitioner, perhaps a general surgeon". He then graduated as class

valedictorian in Pagsanahan Elementary School Batch 2010.

Just a simple day it could be on his high school days, simply sitting near the

window where the sun beam strike his eyes and once again wondered, "What's

beyond with this hot-ginormous and well-shaped spherical shining object? And that

day ended asking his mum and dad if they would support him all through out to

become an explorer of the cosmos. He enjoyed himself as a graduate at Sinait

National High School.

vi
 Things changed when college came where he took Bachelor of Science in

Civil Engineering at Mariano Marcos State University. He was challenged with the

course he took up. Listening to the complexity of numbers and variables with regards

to his course is quite excruciating for him. Nevertheless, he console his self with "all

hardwork pays off".

Heartily grateful enough with all the blessings bestowed to him by Lord God

Almighty. All glory for Him!

EMIL JAY V. CAJUDOY

vii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The night is young and full of wonders.

Rain falls and the cold wind blows and whistles, but with the hang of the

Christmas feels, every day is as just warm as during summer season. These set the

ambiance of the early hours of the 22nd day of January 1998 in Turod, Luna, Apayao.

While another day was starting to take over, God also heralded a baby boy’s

journey on earth. Chinky eyes, light fair complexion with all body parts working

perfectly, God surely graced papa Roy and mama Leoning with their fourth child.

This baby who is also the youngest, received so much love and attention from

his family. Growing up, he explored the world with his same-aged neighbor friends

who eventually became his classmates.

However, as how a child normally behaves, this boy turned green with envy. The

recognition his elder siblings received from their academic pursuit as well as the

skills they’ve honed in years had pushed him to start working his fingers to the bone,

burning the candles at both ends.

He then finished his nursery and elementary education satisfactorily at Luna

Central School but he barely made it to the list of top performing students. Hungrier

for more, he dived deep and explored the ocean of literature and mathematics. He

viii
even entered the doors to his soul where his genuine passion and unraveled skills stay

hidden.

Pursuing his secondary education at Luna National High School, his gem that he

tirelessly polished through the years has finally shown its beauty. He found his way

into dance troupes, mathematics quiz bees, volleyball team (and alternately,

badminton team), arts club and graduated as his batch’s third best.

Now on the verge of completing his tertiary education at Mariano Marcos State

University, he is composed, proud and happy for what his hard works have lead him

into. He somehow managed to make the cut in his college’s volleyball team and

triumphantly bagged the highest position in his university’s student publication as the

Editor-in-Chief. Most of all, he is just one month shy from realizing his dream of

becoming a degree holder of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

CHARLES KYLE T. CEREZO

-Human Parachute

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“To make an omelet is to break the egg first.”

Peaking pleasure and deepest gratitude occupy this space to share the

limelight to all kinds of sacrifice made by the people behind the pillar and beneath

the bedrock of this success.

To Engr. Vasco Vic G. Valdez, by whose experience and knowledge has

pushed the researchers to their limits, awakening their technical skills that seem to

have napped for quite a time.

To Engr. Kenneth L. Edra and Engr. Charles A. Mateo, members of the

panel, for their fair contribution to the improvement of the undertaking of this

research.

To Engr. Kei John Cyril G. Baria, Engr. Kristian Felix R. Pasigui and

the rest of Vikings Construction and Supplies team, who provided the researchers

with technical assistance starting from the manufacture of the samples to the use of

their testing machine.

To the parents of the students, for whose strong moral support never ran

thin, giving confidence to the researchers to gain sturdy composure.

x
 Above all, to the one living God, who never fails to attend to each and every

needs of the authors, and by whose divine guidance had lead them to this righteous

completion of this paper.

Also, the researchers wish to extend their sincerest gratitude to those whom

the authors had failed to acknowledge and give credits to. Thank you so much!

-Vincent, Jeronel,
Emil, Charles

xi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x
TABLE OF CONTENTS xii
LIST OF TABLES xiv
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
ABSTRACT xvii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study 1
Objectives of the Study 3
Significance of the Study 3
Scope and Delimitation of the Study 4
Definition of Terms 5

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Evolution of Concrete Flooring System 7
Types of Reinforced Concrete Slabs 7
Bubble Deck Slab 10
Advantages of Bubble Deck Slab 11
Types of Bubble Deck Slab 13
Flexural Strength of Bubble Deck Slab 14
Cellulose Acetate 15
Research Paradigm 17

METHODOLOGY
Research Design 18
Locale of the Study 18
Research Procedures 19
Designing of Bubble Deck Slab 19
Purchase of Materials 21

xii
 Fabrication and Curing of Slabs 22
Weighing and Testing of Samples 25
Statistical Treatment of Data 26

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Evaluation of the Flexural Strength of the Slabs 27
Determination of Strength-Weight Ratio of the Slabs 29
Cost Matrix Analysis in the Fabrication of the Slabs 30

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary of Findings 32
Conclusion 33
Recommendation 34

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A Sample Computations
B Test Results
C ASTM C78
D Communication Letter
E Forms

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Material Property of Cellulose Acetate… 16

2 Volume of Bubbles of the spherical voids in percent 21

3 Mean Strength-Weight Ratio of the Slabs 29

4 Cost Matrix of the Slabs 30

5 Weight reduce in the Bubble Deck Slabs 48

6 Individual Strength-Weight Ratio of Conventional Slabs 48

7 Individual Strength-Weight Ratio of Bubble Deck Slabs 49

8 Cost Matrix of Conventional Slabs 50

9 Cost Matrix of Bubble Deck Slab Outer (BO) 50

10 Cost Matrix of Bubble Deck Slab All (BA) 51

11 Cost Matrix of Bubble Deck Slab Inner (BI) 51

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Types of Reinforced Concrete Floor System 9

2 Typical Lay-out of Bubble Deck Slab 11

3 Stress Diagram of Bubble Deck Slab 12

4 Types of Bubble Deck Slab 13

5 Research Paradigm 17

6 Proposed Design of BA 19

7 Proposed Design of BO 20

8 Proposed Design of BI 20

9 Proposed Design of CS 21

10 Tamping and Positioning of Samples 22

11 Bubble Deck Slab (All) 23

12 Bubble Deck Slab (Inner) 23

13 Bubble Deck Slab (Outer) 24

14. Curing of Samples 24

15. Weighing of Samples 25

16 Testing of Samples 25

17 Ultimate Load of Samples 26

18 Flexural Strength of the Slabs 28

19 Ultimate Loads that the Slabs can Carry Before Yielding 52

20 Individual Flexural Strength of the Slabs 53

xv
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

A Sample Computations 38

B Test Results 47

C ASTM C78 54

D Communication Letter 58

E Forms 60

xvi
 ABSTRACT

ANCHETA, VINCENT JAY V., BRAVO, JERONEL BRYAN C.,

CAJUDOY, EMIL JAY V., CEREZO, CHARLES KYLE T. 2019. Strength
Evaluation of Bubble Deck Slab Utilizing Cellulose Acetate Spheres.
Undergraduate Project Study. College of Engineering. Mariano Marcos State
University. City of Batac 2906 Ilocos Norte. 64 pp.
Adviser: Engr. Vasco Vic G. Valdez

Design of buildings has been experiencing vast growth of complexity such as

expansion of span between columns, posting higher dead load to be carried by
structural components. To abide with this, 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.
This study is aimed to evaluate the strength of the three (3) designs of Bubble
Deck Slab utilizing cellulose acetate spheres and compare them with conventional
slab. The strength-weight ratio of bubble deck slabs and conventional slab is also
recorded while analyzing the cost in the manufacture of these slabs.
To meet these objectives, the researches fabricated 12 bubble deck slabs and
3 conventional slabs at the Viking Construction and Supply where they are also
subjected to ASTM C78 flexural testing after 28 days of curing. The samples
fabricated have dimensions of 6x6x21 with reinforcing bars of 8mm diameter and
spheres having 40mm diameter.
After the analysis of the results, it is concluded that the three (3) designs of
bubble deck slabs were not as efficient as the conventional slab in terms of their
flexural strength and weight-strength ratio. It is also recorded that the cellulose
acetate spheres utilized in the bubble deck slabs were costly, thus, resulting in an
increased fabrication cost compared to the conventional slab.
From the conclusions drawn from this study, it is therefore recommended that
more bubble deck slab designs shall be devised to acquire higher flexural strength. It
is also advised that the shear capacity of the slab shall be determined to see if it is fit
to be a diaphragm.

Keywords: Concrete Flooring System, Bubble Deck Slab, Cellulose Acetate,

Flexural Strength

xvii
 1

STRENGTH EVALUATION OF BUBBLE DECK SLAB UTILIZING

CELLULOSE ACETATE SPHERES

Undergraduate thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the Mariano Marcos State
University, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte. Prepared under the guidance of Engr. Vasco
Vic G. Valdez.

ANCHETA, VINCENT JAY V.

BRAVO, JERONEL BRYAN C.
CAJUDOY, EMIL JAY V.
CEREZO, CHARLES KYLE T.

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

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 advancements. One of such advancements is the expansion of span between

columns, 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.
 2

Bubble deck slab system is a revolutionary biaxial concrete floor system that

was developed in Europe on the 1990’s by Jorgen Breuning (BubbleDeck- UK

2008). The 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 time, and is a green technology.

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 proposal of the replacement of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bubbles with

locally available high strength plastic, say Cellulose Acetate (CA).

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.

Inspired by the challenged imposed by this breakthrough, the researchers

decided to utilize locally commercialized cellulose acetate spheres alongside an aim

of designing new patterns of sphere allocation in the bubble deck slab.

 3

Objectives of the Study

This study aims to evaluate the flexural strength of different bubble deck

slab designs utilizing hollow cellulose acetate.

Specifically, it tends to address the following:

1. Test the flexural strength of the bubble deck slabs;

2. Determine the strength-weight ratio of the bubble deck slabs; and

3. Analysis of the cost matrix in the fabrication of the slabs.

Significance of the Study

The researchers believed that this study could be beneficial to different

stakeholders.

Although the manifest function of this study is restricted to academic

purposes only, this study could ignite a breakthrough in local businesses should the

concept be adapted. 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 study, people could see better days.

Hypothetically, should the Philippines undergo this big leap in construction

system, the community could have wider array of safe and strong building designs
 4

with longer spans between columns while enjoying a cut down in the expenses in

the construction of these buildings.

To future researchers, this study could provide them with accessible

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 restrictions that complex buildings presently have.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study focuses on the use of commercially available cellulose acetate

spheres in the construction of bubble deck slab. Three designs were devised that come

with codes as BO, BI, and BA. As a control sample, a batch of conventional slabs (CS)

were also manufactured. A total of 12 samples of 6” x 6” x 21” slab specimen has been

prepared, 3 repetitions at each three designs of experimental samples as well as of

control sample.
 5

In this study, the researchers used a 40mm diameter size of commercially

available sphere in the slab specimen which is not proportioned to the actual bubble

deck slab (BDS). The slab samples were reinforced with 8mm diameter RSB and a tie

wire of gauge 20, positioned between the two layers of spheres instead of the typical

placement at the bottom and top of spheres in the actual BDS.

The researchers followed only the 28-day water curing process with the

concrete mix proportion of 1:2:4 to test and analyze the variations of the flexural

strength of different BDS design in a fully cured sample. The test conforms to the

ASTM C78 standard and proceeded with the analysis of strength-weight ratio of each

sample. Only expenses allotted in the purchase of materials needed was included for

the cost matrix analysis. The researchers neglected the labor cost.

At the end of the experiment, the researchers chose the best design of bubble

deck slab considering both the strength-weight and the cost.

Definition of Terms

ASTM C78. This test method which utilizes third-point loading is used to determine the

flexural strength of simple beams or slabs.

BA. This serves as code for the bubble deck slab with bubbles scattered along its

entire span.
 6

BI. It is a representation for the bubble deck slab with bubbles allocated at the

sample's inner area.

BO. This refers to bubble deck slab with bubbles patterned at the sample's outer

area.

Cellulose Acetate or CA. This is a nonflammable thermoplastic polymer made by

acetylating celluose, used as basis of artificial fibers and plastic.

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 replacement of hollow spheres or bubbles.

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 with these hollow spheres or bubbles.

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 strength of slab samples.

 7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Evolution of Concrete Flooring System

In Maryland, according to Maryland State Highway Administration, it is not known

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 workhorse structures were built on the state’s roadways.

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.

Types of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

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
 8

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 column. This strengthens the column and floor connection in respect with

the punching shear.

c. One-way 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

slab with wider spaces between joists.

f. Two-way joist slab (waffle slab) – This floor system is the stiffest and has the

least deflection of those aforementioned since the joists run in two direction.
 9

Figure. 1 Types of Reinforced Concrete Floor System

Garber, G. (2006) said that a concrete slab is a common structural element of

modern 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 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 stability; and overall lower maintenance costs.

In a study conducted by Kabir, A. et. Al (2012), the concept of early prediction of

concrete compressive strength is entertained. That is, this prediction enables to know
 10

quickly about the concrete and its probable weakness for the engineers to go full gears in

the continuation of the construction or management of the destruction program. Therefore,

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 that have existed for long period.

Bubble Deck Slab

With the evolution of construction, in 1990’s Jorgen Bruening invented the first

biaxial hollow slab, known popularly as the Bubble Deck Slab which originated in

Denmark. This innovatory floor system of reinforced concrete leads to a 30 to 50

percent 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, structural efficiency is enhanced, construction time is decreased, and is a

 11

green technology. It offers a more sustainable construction option by using less

concrete than tradition concrete floor systems.

Figure 2. Typical Lay-out of Bubble Deck Slab

Advantages of Bubble Deck Slab

The advantages of Bubble Deck become apparent when it comes to the

deformation calculation; bending-strength design; penetration design; load transfer to

supports, walls and foundations; crack-reinforcement design; earthquake design;

determination of resonant frequencies and determination of auxiliary supports during

the construction 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 higher allowable span up to 55 feet without using beams.
 12

Figure 3. Stress Diagram of Bubble Deck Slab

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. According to the Bubble Deck, 100 kg of concrete is replaced by 1 kg of

recycled plastic. The reduction in dead load makes the long-term response more

economical for the building while offsetting the slightly increased deflection of slab.

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. Hence, the Bubble Deck Slab can solve both of the problems by

reducing weight with the plastic spheres and by applying to limit the high stress.
 13

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.

Types of Bubble Deck Slab

As such innovations improved overtime, types of Bubble Deck Slab have been

developed like filigree elements, reinforcement modules, and finished planks.

Figure. 4 Types of Bubble Deck Slab

 14

Filigree Elements or called Type A Bubble Deck is a combination of

constructed 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. Moreover, Bubble Deck Type B or also known as Reinforcement

Modules, is a 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 Deck is best for shorter spans and limited

construction schedules.

Flexural Strength of Bubble Deck Slab

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 strain and few crack

pattern.

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
 15

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

Cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) is a mixed ester of cellulose. CAB, commonly

known as butyrate, is resistant to ultraviolet rays, has a lower moisture absorption

than cellulose acetate, and has an extremely high-impact strength (McKeen, 2012).

Physical Properties of Cellulose Acetates is as follows:

a. Soft, smooth, natural feel

b. High Flexibility

c. High Gloss

d. Good chemical resistivity

e. Biodegradable

f. Moderate ability to protest friction

g. Good elongation at break

h. Protective against insect

i. Poor abrasive ability

 16

j. Poor breaking tenacity

Table 1. Material Property of Cellulose Acetate compared to different plastics

CA PLA
Material PHA (Mirel PP (Copolymer
(Celanese (3810
Property 1003-F1005) Lyondell Basel)
XACE 122) X)
Tensile Strength
54.24 25.9 25 16
(MPa)
Elongation At
9.47 8.1 4 31
Break (%)
Tensile Modulus
2598 2980 3000 1122
(MPa)
Flexural Modulus
2737 2850 2000 1109
(MPa)
Flexural Strength
59.5 44 40 24.3
(MPa)
Notched Izod
Impact Strength 96 144 26 81
(J/m)
DTUL At 0.45
77 65 77 90
MPa (°C)
 17

Research Paradigm

The researchers applied the input-process-output method (IPO method) in the

identification of the flexural strength of the proposed design of the Bubble Deck Slab

utilizing cellulose acetate in the presence of ping-pong balls.

INPUT

 Ping-pong balls
(Cellulose OUTPUT
Acetate) as PROCESS
Hollow Spheres  Flexural
 Steel  Flexural Strength of
reinforcement Strength Voided
o 8-mm Ø Test Slab using
RSB (ASTM Ping-pong
o #16 Tie- C78) of balls as
wire Voided Hollow
 Concrete mixture Slab Spheres
o Sand (S1) Beam  Light-
o Gravel Samples weight
(¾”) concrete
o Portland
cement
Type A

Figure 5. Research Paradigm

 18

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents a discussion of the research design, locale of the study,

research procedures, and statistical treatment of the data gathered.

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.

An experimental type is best fit for this research since this deals with assessing

the designs that the authors proposed with the objectives stated and scope and

delimitations set can only be met by the actual experimentation.

Locale of the Study

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 City. A total of 12 samples were subjected to this study.

 19

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 and testing of the samples.

I. Designing of Bubble Deck Slab

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.

Figure 6. Proposed Design of BA

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.
 20

Figure 7. Proposed Design of BO

Figure 8. Proposed Design of BI

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 inner area. BO consists of 24 bubbles while BI has 20.

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 same manner as the BDS.

 21

Figure 9. Proposed Design of CS

Table 2. Volume of Bubbles of the spherical voids in percent

Sample Code Volume of Spherical Voids,
%

BO 6.49
BI 5.41
BA 9.74

Aside from the placement of the spheres, the bubble deck slabs are also

designed to conform to the volume of voids specified for each design as shown in Table

2.

II. Purchase of Materials

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 Merchandise and Viking Construction and Supplies both at Laoag City.
 22

III. Fabrication and curing of slabs

Figure 10. Tamping and Positioning of Samples

 23

Figure 11. Bubble Deck Slab (All)

Figure 12. Bubble Deck Slab (Inner)

 24

Figure 13. Bubble Deck Slab (Outer)

Figure 14. Curing of Samples

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
 25

tamping for a much solid and less unwanted voids in the sample. After which, the

manufactured slabs underwent a 28-day curing process.

IV. Weighing and Testing of Samples

Figure 15. Weighing of Samples

Figure 16. Testing of Samples

 26

Figure 17. Ultimate Load of Samples

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 after the testing.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data gathered from both weighing and flexural strength testing of the

samples underwent simple averaging.

 27

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

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.

Summarized figures and tables as well as summarized ones are provided to

better present the data gathered but the more detailed ones are inserted at the appendices

section.

Evaluation of the Flexural Strength of the slabs

As previously discussed in the previous chapters, aside from the 3 batches of

bubble deck slabs to be tested, the researchers also fabricated conventional slabs that

served as the control sample and basis in the interpretation of the results of the bubble

deck slab designs.

The flexural strength data presented in the table that follows are computed

using the ultimate loads obtained from the testing machine.

 28

9
8.05
8
FLEXURAL STRENGTH, MPa

7.01
7
6.1
6 5.57
5

0
CS BO BI BA
Sample Code

Figure 18. Flexural Strength of the Slabs

Figure 18 reveals that the conventional slabs recorded the highest flexural

strength with the ceiling of 8.05MPa. Following the CS are the Bubble deck slabs II -

Inner with the mean strength of 7.0MPa.

This implies that conventional slabs which have higher flexural strength are

more efficient in resisting higher ultimate loads.

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.

 29

Determination of Strength-Weight Ratio of the Slabs

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-weight without huge reduction in its flexural strength.

Table 3. Mean Strength-Weight Ratio of the Slabs

Sample Code Flexural Weight, Strength-Weight
Strength, MPa kg Ratio
CS 8.05 29.17 0.276
BO 6.10 26.3 0.232
BI 7.01 27.67 0.253
BA 5.57 25.97 0.214

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, 0.276, 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 ratio implies better strength and weight correlation.

Comparing the summarized data of strength-weight ratio of the three designs of

bubble deck slab in the above table to the CSs, it can be observed that the weights of

the slabs do not reach 28 kg. This is the expected result for this study since the bubble

deck slab is at most a light-weight technology.

 30

Table 3 also shows that despite being the heaviest design next to CS, BI

acquired the highest mean flexural strength, 7.01MPa, resulting to the highest mean

strength-weight ratio, 2.53MPa.

This result could be attributed to the founding concept of bubble deck slab

system which requires that only the middle section of the slab that are inactive shall be

eliminated and only the BI must have satisfied this criterion. The other BDS designs

must have removed essential load-carrying concrete in the more critical part outer

section of the slab.

Cost Matrix Analysis in the Fabrication of the Slabs

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 allocated in the fabrication of each batch of three samples.

Table 4. Cost Matrix of the Slabs

Sample Code Cost/batch of samples
CS 284.491
BO 1, 363.62
BI 1, 183.74
BA 1, 896.95
 31

Obviously from the table, conventional slab recorded the lowest manufacture

cost amounting to Php325.741. This is the most economical slab design among the four

as the other three reached cost of higher than Php1,000.00.

However, these data do not imply that bubble deck slabs are much more

expensive compared to the conventional slabs. In this study, the researchers utilized

commercially available cellulose acetate in forms of pingpong balls which are costly.

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 total cost of the fabrication of slab is sphere-dependent.

The cut down in expenses with the use of bubble deck slab technology could

be greatly felt in actual construction projects. As cited in www.bubbledeck.com,

savings in the materials by up to 50%, transportation cost, and concrete consumption

by as much as 35%.

Conventional slab also 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.
 32

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of the findings generated, the conclusions

drawn from these findings and the recommendations offered through this study.

Summary of Findings

The findings in this study are summarized below.

1. After a 28-day curing, the conventional slab recorded a mean flexural

strength of 8.05MPa, while BI, BO, and BA obtained 7.01MPa, 6.10MPa,

and 5.57MPa .

2. For the mean strength-weight ratio, conventional slab obtained 0.279 while

BI, BO and BA recorded 0.253, 0.232 and 0.214 respectively.

3. Batch CS tallied an expense of Php284.491 while BI, BO and BA have total

fabrication cost of Php1,183.744, Php1,363.62, and Php1,896.952

respectively for a batch of three samples per design.

 33

Conclusion

In the light of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The bubble deck slabs were not as efficient as the conventional slabs in

terms of flexural strength, the conventional slab registered the highest

value with 8.05MPa, while the best bubble deck slab, BI, obtained

7.01MPa.

2. Despite being heavier than the bubble deck slabs, the conventional

reinforced slab gives the highest strength-weight ratio of 0.279 while BI

registered 0.253.

3. 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.
 34

Recommendation

Based from the results of the study, the following recommendations are

offered:

1. To achieve economic advantages and eco-friendly product, the utilization of

manually recycled plastics in the manufacture of the bubbles is highly

advised.

2. Samples should be design in proportion to the ones used in actual

construction projects.

3. More designs of bubble deck slab should be created with varying sphere

sizes.

4. The utilization of finer coarse aggregate is recommended to lessen chances

of having unwanted voids and improve the strength of the slabs.

5. 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.

6. The concept of using bubbles as replacement to concrete to achieve weight-

reduction might also be adopted in the manufacture of walls.

 35

7. Samples should also be tested after 7 days and 21 days of curing to compare

which testing period with respect to the design gives the highest flexural

strength.

8. Determination of the shear capacity of the slab is also advised to see if it is

fit to be used as diaphragm.

 36

REFERENCES

ASTM C78 / C78M-18, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete
(Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2018, www.astm.org

Chako, I and Varghese S. (September 2016). Study on Structural Behaviour of Bubble

Deck Slab using Indian Standards. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY, 3(4), 193, 197-198.
Retrieved February 12, 2019 from
http://ijirt.org/master/publishedpaper/IJIRT143950_PAPER.pdf

Dheepan, K., Saranya, S. abd Swini, S. (2017). Experimental Study on Bubble Deck
Slab using Polypropylene balls. International Journal of Engineering
Development and Research, 5(4), 716-717. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from
https://www.ijedr.org/papers/IJEDR1704116.pdf

Dwivedi, A., Joshi, H., Raj, R., Mishra, P., Kadhane, M., and Mohabey, B. (2016).
Voided Slab Design: Review Paper. International Journal of Research and
Scientific Innovation, 4(1), 220-226. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from
https://www.academia.edu/30686331/Voided_Slab_Design_Review_Paper

Fatma, N. and Chandrakar, V. (February 2018). Specification Comparative Analysis

Between Conventional and Bubble Deck.International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 5(2), 605. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from
https://iarjset.com/upload/2018/january-18/IARJSET%2011.pdf

Jain, D. and Gupta, N. (March 2017). Review Paper: Study on a Comparative Study of
Bubble Deck Slab and Conventional Deck Slab. International Journal of
Advanced Technology and Engineering Sciences, 5(03), 565-566. Retrieved
February 12, 2019 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ijars
e.com/images/fullpdf/1507204839_IETEBanglore_239.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj
nue3RuIriAhUQrVkKHW7pAa0QFjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2kUPWd
e7JT6PqHClC_sKFt

Mahmood, M and Thanoon, H. (April 2013). Flexural Strength of Reinforced Concrete

Slabs Strengthened and Repaired by High Strength Ferrocement at Tension
Zone. Al-Rafidain Engineering, 21(2), 79. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from
https://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&ald=72859

Singh, S. and Narayan, K. (May 2018). Comparative Study of Bubble Deck Slab Using
Different Materials. International Journal of Engineering Research in
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 3(5), 61-63. Retrieved February 12, 2019
 37

from
https://www.technoarete.org/common_abstract/pdf/IJERMCE/v5/i5/Ext_6953
2.pdf

Skaggs, K. (2017). An Introduction to Bubble-Voided Concrete Flat Slabs. Ohio, USA:

University of Cincinnati. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from
http://seaoo.org/downloads/BED/an_introduction_to_bubble_voided_flat_slab
s___kamron_skaggs__university_of_cincinnati___seaoo_education_award_es
say_2016.pdf

Surendar, M., Ranjitham, M. ( May 2016). Numerical and Experimental Study on

Bubble Deck Slab. International Journal of Engineering Science and
Computing. DOI 10.4010/2016.1445

The Concrete Centre. (2004). CASE STUDIES ON APPLYING BEST PRACTICE

TO IN-SITU CONCRETE FRAME BUILDINGS. Retrieved February 12,
2019 from https://www.construct.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Strength-Assessment.pdf
 38

APPENDIX A
SAMPLE COMPUTATIONS
 39

APPENDIX A1
COMPUTATION FOR CONCRETE MIX

I. COVENTIONAL SLAB
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 6 × 6 × 21
3
1 𝑓𝑡 3 756
= 756 𝑖𝑛 × ( ) = 𝑓𝑡 3
12 𝑖𝑛 1728

𝑊 = 𝛾𝑐 𝑉

𝐾𝑁 𝑙𝑏
; 𝛾𝑐 = 24 3
= 145 3
𝑚 𝑓𝑡
𝑙𝑏 756
= 145 3 × 𝑓𝑡 3
𝑓𝑡 1728
1 𝑘𝑔
= 63.438 𝑙𝑏 ×
2.205 𝑙𝑏
𝑊 = 28.77 𝑘𝑔

Using 1:2:4 mix,

1. Concrete
1
= (28.77)
7
𝑘𝑔
= 4.11 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 12.33 𝑘𝑔
≈ 13 𝑘𝑔
2. Sand
3
1𝑚 3
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 756 𝑖𝑛 × ( ) = 0.0124 𝑚3
39.37 𝑖𝑛
2
= (0.0124)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0035 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0106 𝑚3
3. Gravel
4
= (0.0124)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0071 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0213 𝑚3
 40

II. BUBBLE DECK SLAB OUTER (BD)

4
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 0.0124 𝑚3 − 24 𝑝𝑐𝑠 ( ) (𝜋)(0.02)3
3
= 0.01160 𝑚3
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑐 𝑉

𝐾𝑁
= 24 (0.0116 𝑚3 )
𝑚3
= 0.2784 𝐾𝑁
1 𝑘𝑔
= 278.4 𝑁 ×
9.81 𝑁
= 28.38 𝑘𝑔
Using 1:2:4 mix,
1. Cement
1
= (28.38 𝑘𝑔)
7
𝑘𝑔
= 4.05 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 12.16 𝑘𝑔
≈ 13 𝑘𝑔
2. Sand
2
= (0.0116)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0033 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0099 𝑚3
3. Gravel
4
= (0.0116)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0066 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0199 𝑚3

III. BUBBLE DECK SLAB INNER (BI)

4
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 0.0124 𝑚3 − 20 ( ) (𝜋)(0.023)
3
= 0.0117 𝑚3
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑐 𝑉

𝐾𝑁
= 24 (0.0117)
𝑚3
 41

= 0.2808 𝐾𝑁
1 𝑘𝑔
= 280.8 𝑁 ×
9.81 𝑁
= 28.62 𝑘𝑔
Using 1:2:4 mix,
1. Cement
1
= (28.62 𝑘𝑔)
7
𝑘𝑔
= 4.09 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 12.27 𝑘𝑔
≈ 13 𝑘𝑔
2. Sand
2
= (0.0117)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0033 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.01 𝑚3
3.Gravel
4
= (0.0117)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0067 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0201 𝑚3
IV. BUBBLE DECK SLAB ALL (BA)
4
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 0.0124 𝑚3 − 36 ( ) (𝜋)(0.023)
3
= 0.0112 𝑚3
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑐 𝑉

𝐾𝑁
= 24 (0.0112)
𝑚3
= 0.2688 𝐾𝑁
1 𝑘𝑔
= 280.8 𝑁 ×
9.81 𝑁
= 27.4 𝑘𝑔
Using 1:2:4 mix,
1. Cement
1
= (27.4 𝑘𝑔)
7
 42

𝑘𝑔
= 3.91 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 11.74 𝑘𝑔
≈ 12 𝑘𝑔
2. Sand
2
= (0.0112)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0032 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0096 𝑚3
3. Gravel
4
= (0.0112)
7
𝑚3
= 0.0064 × 3 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
= 0.0192 𝑚3
 43

APPENDIX A2
COMPUTATION FOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH

I. Conventional Slab
1. Ultimate Load= 55.67 KN
𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
55.67 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 5.41 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 8.39 MPa

2. Ultimate Load= 57.33 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
57.33 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 5.57 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 8.64 MPa

3. Ultimate Load= 47.32 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength =
𝑏𝑑2
47.32 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 4.60 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 7.13 MPa

4. Mean Ultimate Load= 53.44 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
53.44 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 5.20 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 8.05 MPa
 44

II. Bubble Deck Slab Outer (BO)

1. Ultimate Load= 38.65 KN
𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
38.65 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.76 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 5.82 MPa

2. Ultimate Load= 40.72 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
40.72 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.96 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 6.14 MPa

3. Ultimate Load= 42.16 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
42.16 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 4.10 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 6.35 MPa

4. Mean Ultimate Load= 40.51 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
40.51 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
=
6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.94 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 6.10 MPa

III. Bubble Deck Slab Inner (BI)

1. Ultimate Load= 45.76 KN
𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 2
𝑏𝑑
45.76 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 4.45 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 6.90 MPa
 45

2. Ultimate Load= 48.82 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 2
𝑏𝑑
48.82 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 4.75 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 7.36 MPa

3. Ultimate Load= 45.02 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
45.02 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
=
6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 4.38 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 6.78 MPa

4. Mean Ultimate Load= 46.53 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
46.53 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 4.52 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 7.01 MPa

IV. Bubble Deck Slab All (BA)

1. Ultimate Load= 37.12 KN
𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
37.12 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.61 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 5.59 MPa

2. Ultimate Load= 37.98 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 2
𝑏𝑑
37.98 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.69 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 5.72 MPa
 46

3. Ultimate Load= 35.72 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 2
𝑏𝑑
35.72 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
= 6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.47 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 5.38 MPa

4. Mean Ultimate Load= 36.94 KN

𝑃𝐿
Flexural Strength = 𝑏𝑑2
36.94 𝐾𝑁 (21 𝑖𝑛)
=
6𝑖𝑛 (6𝑖𝑛)2
𝐾𝑁 1𝑖𝑛 1𝑐𝑚 1000𝑁
= 3.59 𝑖𝑛2 x (2.54𝑐𝑚)2 x (10𝑚𝑚)2 x 1𝐾𝑁
Flexural Strength = 5.57 MPa
 47

APPENDIX B
TEST RESULTS
 48

APPENDIX B

TEST RESULTS

Table 5: Weight reduce in the Bubble Deck Slabs

Sample Code Weight, Weight Reduced,

Kg %

CS 29.17 -

BO 26.3 9.84

BI 27.67 5.14

BA 25.97 10.97

Table 6: Individual Strength-Weight Ratio of Conventional Slabs

CONVENTIONAL SLAB

Sample Code Flexural Weight, Strength-Weight

Strength, MPa kg Ratio

CS1 8.39 29.5 0.284

CS2 8.64 29.0 0.298

 49

CS3 7.13 29.0 0.246

Mean 8.05 29.17 0.276

Table 7: Individual Strength-Weight Ratio of Bubble Deck Slabs

BUBBLE DECK SLAB

Sample Code Flexural Weight Strength-Weight

Strength, MPa kg Ratio

BO1 5.82 27.0 0.216

BO2 6.14 25.5 0.241

BO3 6.35 26.4 0.241

BI1 6.90 27.5 0.251

BI2 7.36 28.0 0.263

BI3 6.78 27.5 0.247

BA1 5.59 26.0 0.215

BA2 5.72 25.5 0.224

BA3 5.38 26.4 0.204

 50

Table 8: Cost Matrix of Conventional Slabs

CONVENTIONAL SLAB

Unit price Amount Actual Price

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 0.0106 3.869

GRAVEL, cubic meter 440.00 0.0213 9.372

Bubbles, pcs 15.00 0 0

TOTAL Php 284.491

Table 9: Cost Matrix of Bubble Deck Slab Outer (BO)

BUBBLE DECKS SLAB OUTER (BO)

Unit price Amount Actual Price

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

 51

GRAVEL, cubic meter 440.00 0.0199 8.756

Bubbles, pcs 15.00 72 1,080.00

TOTAL Php 1,363.62

Table 10: Cost Matrix of Bubble Deck Slab All (BA)

BUBBLE DECKS SLAB ALL (BA)

Unit price Amount Actual Price

Ordered

RSB, pcs Php 85.00 2 Php 170.00

TIE WIRE, pcs 20.00 1 20.00

CEMENT, kg 6.25 12 75.00

SAND, cubic meter 365.00 0.0096 3.504

GRAVEL, cubic meter 440.00 0.0192 8.448

Bubbles, pcs 15.00 108 1,620.00

TOTAL Php 1,896.952

Table 11: Cost Matrix of Bubble Deck Slab Inner (BI)

BUBBLE DECKS SLAB INNER (BI)

Unit price Amount Actual Price

Ordered

RSB, pcs Php 85.00 2 Php 170.00

 52

TIE WIRE, pcs 20.00 1 20.00

CEMENT, kg 6.25 13 81.25

SAND, cubic meter 365.00 0.01 3.65

GRAVEL, cubic meter 440.00 0.0201 8.844

Bubbles, pcs 15.00 60 900.00

TOTAL Php 1,183.744

35.72
BA 37.98
37.12

45.02
BI
SLAB CODE

48.82
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

Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1

Figure 19. Ultimate Loads that the Slabs can Carry Before Yielding
 53

10

9 8.63
8.39

8
7.36
FLEXURAL STRENGTH, MPa

7.13
6.9 6.78
7
6.35
6.14
5.82
6 5.59 5.72
5.38

0
CS BO BI BA

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Figure 20. Individual Flexural Strength of the Slabs

 54

APPENDIX C
ASTM C78 / C78M – 18
 55

APPENDIX C

ASTM C78 / C78M – 18

Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with

Third-Point Loading)

Significance and Use

4.1 This test method is used to determine the flexural strength of specimens prepared

and cured in accordance with Test Methods C42/C42M or Practices C31/C31M or

C192/C192M. Results are calculated and reported as the modulus of rupture. For the

same specimen size, the strength determined will vary if there are differences in

specimen preparation, curing procedure, moisture condition at time of testing, and

whether the beam was molded or sawed to size.

4.2 The measured modulus of rupture generally increases as the specimen size

decreases.3,4,5

4.3 The results of this test method may be used to determine compliance with

specifications or as a basis for mixture proportioning, evaluating uniformity of mixing,

and checking placement operations by using sawed beams. It is used primarily in

testing concrete for the construction of slabs and pavements.

4.4 For identical test specimens, the modulus of rupture obtained by this test method

will, on average, be lower than that obtained by Test Method C293/C293M.

 56

1. Scope

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the flexural strength of concrete by

the use of a simple beam with third-point loading.

1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately

as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore,

each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two

systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any,

associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish

appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability

of regulatory limitations prior to use.

1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally

recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for

the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by

the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

2. Referenced Documents

ASTM Standards

C31/C31M Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field

C42/C42M Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of

Concrete
 57

C125 Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates

C192/C192M Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the

Laboratory

C293/C293M Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam

With Center-Point Loading)

C617/C617M Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimen

C670 Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test Methods for

Construction Materials

C1077 Practice for Agencies Testing Concrete and Concrete Aggregates for Use in

Construction and Criteria for Testing Agency Evaluation

E4 Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines

E6 Terminology Relating to Methods f Mechanical Testing

ICS Code

ICS Number Code 91.100.30 (Concrete and concrete products)

DOI: 10.1520/C0078_C0078M-18

Citation Format

ASTM C78 / C78M-18, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete

(Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West

Conshohocken, PA, 2018, www.astm.org

 58

APPENDIX D
COMMUNICATION LETTER
 59

APPENDIX E
FORMS