JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

OF
AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, CONSTRUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING

ECE 2505
FINAL YEAR PROJECT

TITLE
APPLICATION OF U-BOOT TECHNOLOGY IN KENYA

NJUGUNA ANNE WANJIKU

E25-0126/04

PROJECT SUPERVISOR
ENG. MANGURIU

DECLARATION
I declare that this is my original work. I also confirm that to the best of my knowledge, this
report has not been presented in this or any other university for examination or for any other
purposes. This work forms part fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering of the Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology.

Signed (Author) _______________________Date________________

Njuguna Anne Wanjiku

CERTIFICATION
I have read this report and approved it for examination.

Signed (Supervisor) ____________________ Date______________

Eng. Manguriu

ii

DEDICATION
To almighty God for the life and strength he has granted me.
To my family and friends for their treasured encouragement and support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to sincerely acknowledge the contributions of all those who assisted me either directly
or otherwise towards the undertaking of this study.

The success of this research is attributed to Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology for providing material and financial support and all the staff of the department of
civil, construction and environmental engineering for their invaluable contribution.

Special thanks to Eng. Manguriu, my supervisor, for rigorously guiding me through the
research process. To my classmates, thank you for your creative criticism and ideas.

Any errors or omissions that may be contained in this research report do not in any way reflect
the contributions of the parties mentioned above and I would take full responsibility for the
same.

iv

ABSTRACT
Developments in the building industry are geared toward cost effective and environmentally
sustainable construction. Concrete is the most common construction material used in the
world and cement is the main ingredient in concrete. However, cement manufacturing is a
source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 7% to 8% of CO2 globally.
In view of these facts, it is important to reduce the environmental impacts of cement
production by reducing the quantity of concrete that is used in construction. This paper seeks
to find out whether the u-boot slab is cheaper compared to traditional solid slab used in
Kenya, and to find out the amount of concrete reduction that is achieved by use of u-boot slabs
and its impact on the environment, and also compare the strength characteristics of u-boot slab
and traditional solid slab.

The study involved the design and analysis of two-way spanning solid slab, and u-boot slab.
Structural detailing was carried out for the slabs and bar bending schedules and bill of
quantities were prepared. The u-boot slab and a solid slab were also cast and strength tests
were carried out on them.

From the study, it was found that the use of u-boot slab resulted in a saving of concrete of
about 10%, and up to 25% decrease in carbon dioxide emissions when compared to a solid
slab with internal beams. The u-boot slab was also found to have bigger spans of up to 18m,
while solid slabs had a maximum span of 9m for a given load. For fixed spans the u-boot slab
had a higher bearing capacity compared to solid slabs. A comparison of the total cost for the
two slabs showed that the u-boot slab was more expensive and this is mainly due to the cost of
importing the u-boots which are currently not produced in the country.

From the study it was concluded that the u-boot slab is most suitable for slabs with high
loading, with live loads of 5kN/m2 and above and where large open spaces are required. Use
of the u-boots was also encouraged for the sake of environmental preservation. To cut down
on costs of acquiring the u-boots, it was recommended that local production of the units
should be considered.

CONTENTS
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................... ii
CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ iv
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... v
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 POLYPROPYLENE ............................................................................................................ 2
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................. 3
1.5 PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................. 3
1.6 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.6.1 General Objectives .................................................................................................. 4
1.6.2 Specific objectives ................................................................................................... 4
1.7 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................... 4
1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 4
1.9 EXPECTATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 5
2.2

PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE...................................................................................... 5

2.3

HOLLOW-CORE SLABS ............................................................................................ 5

2.4

BI-AXIAL SLABS ....................................................................................................... 6

2.5

WAFFLE SLAB ........................................................................................................... 6

2.6

BUBBLE DECK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 7

2.7

U-BOOT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 7

2.8

BENEFITS OF U-BOOT SLAB................................................................................... 9

2.9

RAFT FOUNDATIONS. ............................................................................................ 10

2.10

SHEAR REINFORCEMENT OF SLAB .................................................................... 11

2.11

FIRE RESISTANCE ................................................................................................... 12

2.12

CONCRETE MIX ....................................................................................................... 13

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 14
3.1

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 14

3.2

SLAB DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 14

3.3

U-BOOT FORMWORK ............................................................................................. 14

3.4

SIEVE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 15

3.5

SLUMP TEST............................................................................................................. 15

vi

3.6

U-BOOT LAYOUT .................................................................................................... 16

3.8

STRENGTH TESTS ................................................................................................... 18

3.9

MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES ....................................................................... 19

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 20

4.1

SIEVE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 20

4.2

SLUMP TEST............................................................................................................. 22
4.5.1

CONCRETE .................................................................................................. 27

4.5.2

STEEL REINFORCEMENT ......................................................................... 27

4.5.3

SPAN COMPARISON .................................................................................. 27

4.5.4

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS .................................................... 28

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 30
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 31
APPENDIX 1: DESIGN CALCULATIONS ....................................................................... 31
APPENDIX 2: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS ..................................................................... 34
APPENDIX 3: BAR BENDING SCHEDULES ................................................................... 35
APPENDIX 4: MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES & BILL OF QUANTITIES ........ 36
BUDGET ................................................................................................................................. 41

vii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

FIG 1: SECTION OF SLABS WITH U-BOOT ........................................................................ 1
FIG. 2: BUBBLE DECK SLAB ................................................................................................ 7
FIG. 3: U-BOOT UNIT ............................................................................................................. 8
FIG. 4: U-BOOT SLAB LAYOUT............................................................................................ 9
FIG. 5: SECTION OF RAFT FOUNDATION WITH U-BOOT ............................................. 10
FIG 6: THE U-BOOT ELEMENT USED FOR THE SLAB. .................................................. 14
FIG 7: SIEVE ARRANGEMENT ........................................................................................... 15
FIG 8: CASTING OF THE U-BOOT SLAB ........................................................................... 16
FIG 9: CURING OF THE U-BOOT SLAB ............................................................................. 17
FIG 10: CURING OF THE SOLID SLAB .............................................................................. 17
FIG 11: COMPRESSIVE TEST .............................................................................................. 18
FIG 12: SLAB TESTING ........................................................................................................ 19
TABLE 1: FINE AGGREGATE GRADING .......................................................................... 20
FIG 13: GRAPH OF TABLE 1 ................................................................................................ 21
TABLE 2: COARSE AGGREGATE GRADING ................................................................... 21
FIG 14: GRAPH OF TABLE 2 ................................................................................................ 22
TABLE 3: SLUMP TEST. ....................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 4: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST .................................................................... 23
TABLE 5: SOLID SLAB TEST RESULTS ............................................................................ 24
TABLE 6: U-BOOT SLAB TEST RESULTS ......................................................................... 24
FIG 15: DEFLECTION CURVES FOR THE SOLID AND U-BOOT SLABS ...................... 25
FIG 16: STRAIN CURVES FOR THE SOLID AND U-BOOT SLABS ................................ 25
FIG 17: FAILURE IN SOLID SLAB, CRACKS .................................................................... 26
FIG 18: FAILURE IN SOLID SLAB, SHEAR ....................................................................... 26
FIG 19: FAILURE IN U-BOOT SLAB, CRACKS ................................................................. 26
TABLE 7: COMPARISON OF QUANTITIES ....................................................................... 27
TABLE 8: COST COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 28
FIG 20: COST COMPARISON BETWEEN A U-BOOT SLAB AND A SOLID SLAB....... 28

viii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
With the current global economic recession and deterioration of the environment, Engineers
and researchers worldwide are seeking to introduce technology that is environmentally
friendly and cost efficient. With regard to building technology, efforts are being made to
reduce the concrete requirement in construction, increase the load bearing capacity of
structures and cut on construction costs.

In case of horizontal slabs, the main obstacle with concrete constructions is the high weight,
which limits the span. For this reason major developments in reinforced concrete have focused
on enhancing the span, either by reducing the weight or overcoming concrete's natural
weakness in tension. Pre-stressed concrete was invented to overcome concretes weakness in
tension, thereby enabling longer span. To reduce the weight of the slabs, voided slabs were
introduced. The voids reduce the amount of concrete in the slab thereby reducing the weight
of the slab enabling longer spans to be built. Depending on the method used to create the
voids, it may also serve to reduce the cost of construction.

The u-boot formwork is the modular element made of recycled polypropylene for use in
building lighter structures in reinforced concrete cast in the work site. This new lighter
structure is achieved by enclosing the u-boot within the concrete cast to create voids. Slabs
built with u-boot can form the structural elements of various building systems, such as floors,
rafts and so on, for both civil and industrial buildings.

Fig 1: Section of slabs with U-boot

S1 and S2 represent the lower and upper concrete layers respectively, while h is the height of
the u-boot and Ht is the total slab thickness.

1.2 POLYPROPYLENE
Polypropylene is a thermoplastic polymer, made by the chemical industry and used in a wide
variety of applications, including packaging, textiles, stationery, plastic parts and reusable
containers of various types, laboratory equipment, loudspeakers, automotive components and
polymer bank notes. It is commonly used for plastic moldings where it is injected into a mould
while molten, forming complex shapes at relatively low cost and high volume. This process is
used to make the u-boot formwork.

The u-boot is made of polypropylene, which unlike polystyrene, is not toxic even if it is burnt.
Polystyrene releases toxic styrene monomers at room temperature. Polypropylene is resistant
to many chemical solvents, bases and acids, and does not deteriorate with time or lose its
characteristics. PP is normally tough and flexible, especially when copolymerized with
ethylene. This allows polypropylene to be used as an engineering plastic. Polypropylene is
economical and has good resistance to fatigue. It has a melting point of approximately 160oC
(320oF).

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Benefits associated with the u-boot slab are mainly environmental in nature, the main one
being the cutting down on the amount of concrete used in construction. Concrete is the most
common construction material used in the world, in fact it is the second most used product on
the planet, after water. Cement is the principal ingredient in concrete. The production of one
tonne of cement results in the emission of approximately one tonne of CO2, created by fuel
combustion and the calcination of raw materials. Cement manufacturing is a source of
greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 7% to 8% of CO2 globally.
An additional benefit of the u-boot slab is the reduction of plastic waste in the environment,
since the u-boot units are made from recycled plastic. The considerable growth in use of
plastics is due to its beneficial properties that include extreme versatility. They are lighter than
competing materials, their transportation is easier and cheaper, they are extremely durable,
and they have good resistance to chemicals, water and impact, are safe and hygienic for food
packaging, possess excellent thermal and electrical insulation properties and are relatively
cheaper to produce.

This has made them popular and the reverse is that more than half of the plastics end up as
solid waste, contributing to the biggest challenge to municipal solid waste management all
over the world. In view of the magnitude of the plastic waste and the resultant environmental
ramifications, the Government has identified plastic waste as a major solid waste problem in
urban centers.

1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT

With depleting natural resources, deteriorating environmental conditions and tough economic
times, it is important to find construction technology that is environment-friendly and cost
effective.

1.5 PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION

In an effort to achieve vision 2030, Kenya is trying to keep up with technological
developments that are taking place worldwide. In construction industry, we seek to apply
methods that save on cost and cement especially with the diminishing quantity of natural
resources available. Preservation of the environment is now a key issue in all aspects of life
and finding an environmental-friendly technology is of great advantage.

The cement industry has made significant progress in reducing CO2 emissions through
improvements in process and efficiency, but further improvements are limited because CO2
production is inherent to the basic process of calcinating limestone. Cement is needed to
satisfy basic human needs, and there is no obvious substitute, so there is a trade-off between
development and sustainability. In view of these facts, it is important to reduce the
environmental impacts of cement production by reducing the quantity of concrete that is used
in construction.

The u-boot technology encourages recycling of plastic waste is one approach that has positive
ramification in creating informal employment among the youth and offering an
environmentally sound solution to plastic waste management.

1.6 OBJECTIVE
1.6.1 General Objectives
To investigate the practicability and benefits of the U-boot technology in Kenya, and establish
whether it is necessary to encourage its local production and use in the country.

1.6.2 Specific objectives

To find out whether the u-boot slab is cheaper compared to traditional steel reinforced
slab used in Kenya.

To investigate the amount of concrete reduction that is achieved by use of u-boot slabs
and its impact on the environment.

To compare the strength characteristics of u-boot slab and traditional slab.

1.7 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

If the U-boot technology is applied in Kenya, it will save on the cost of construction and help
preserve our environment among other benefits.

1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Time factor: the time allocated may not be adequate for a comprehensive coverage of
the study. That notwithstanding, major effort will be put in place to ensure a
comprehensive coverage of the same within the stipulated time.

Financial constrain: the funds available may not be sufficient to cater for the financial
needs of the study.

1.9 EXPECTATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study seeks to determine whether the U-boot slab is appropriate for use in Kenya and the
significance it will have. If it is beneficial, its local production and use will be encouraged in
the construction work.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete slabs are used in floors and roofs of buildings and as decks of bridges.
Slabs may span in one direction or two directions and may take many forms such as in-situ
solid slabs, ribbed slabs or pre-cast units. They can be supported on monolithic concrete
beams, steel beams, walls or directly by the structures columns (Morsley, 1990).

While concrete has been used for thousands of years, the use of reinforced concrete is a
relatively recent invention, usually attributed to Joseph-Louis Lambot in 1848. Joseph Monier
a French gardener, patented a design for reinforced garden tubs in 1868, and later patented
reinforced concrete beams and posts for railway and road guardrails.

In his book Concrete slabs, Analysis and design (1984), L. A Clark describes developments
of reinforced concrete as mainly focusing on enhancing the span, either by reducing the
weight or overcoming concrete's natural weakness in tension. Some of the inventions include
Pre-stressed concrete, hollow core slabs and waffle slabs.

2.2 PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE

Pre-stressed concrete was invented by Freyssinet in 1928 to overcome concretes weakness in
tension, thereby enabling longer spans. The technique of pre-stressing has several applications
in civil engineering but the most common is in pre-stressed concrete where a pre-stress is
applied to a concrete member and this induces an axial compression that counteracts all or part
of the tensile stress set up in the member by applied loading (Hurst, 1989).

Compared to normal reinforced concrete for a given span and loading, a smaller pre-stressed
concrete member is required (Hurst, 1989). This saving of dead load of a structure is
particularly important in long span structures such as bridges where dead load is a large
proportion of total load. Pre-stressing also helps to save on concrete material for members.

2.3 HOLLOW-CORE SLABS

To reduce the weight of the slabs, voided slabs were introduced. Voided slabs reduce the
amount of concrete by introducing voids in the slab. This is achieved by removing part of the
concrete below the neutral axis, where concrete has a limited effect, and in some cases
replacing it with some lighter form of construction. Solid sections are maintained in top and
bottom where high stresses can exist. Hence, the slab is fully functional with regards to both
positive and negative bending (Morsley, 1990).

Hollow floor slabs are prefabricated, one-way spanning, concrete elements with hollow
cylinders. Due to the prefabrication, these are inexpensive, and reduce building time, but can
be used only in one-way spanning constructions, and must be supported by beams and/or fixed
walls.

2.4 BI-AXIAL SLABS

Due to the limitations in hollow-core slabs, primarily lack of structural integrity, inflexibility
and reduced architectural possibilities, focus has been on biaxial slabs and ways to reduce the
weight. Several methods have been introduced during the last decades, but with very limited
success, due to major problems with shear capacity and fire resistance as well as impractical
execution.

For decades, several attempts have been made to create biaxial slabs with hollow cavities in
order to reduce the weight. Most attempts have consisted of laying blocks of a less heavy
material like expanded polystyrene between the bottom and top reinforcement, while other
types included waffle slabs and grid slabs. Of these types, only waffle slabs can be regarded to
have a certain use in the market.

2.5 WAFFLE SLAB

The waffle slab may be visualized as a set of crossing joists, set at small spacing relative to the
span, which supports a thin top slab. The recesses in the slab, often cast using either
removable or expendable forms, decrease the weight of the slab and allow the use of a large
effective depth without the accompanying dead load. The large depth also leads to a stiff
structure. Waffle slabs are generally used in situations demanding spans larger than perhaps
about 10m. They may be designed as either flat or two way slabs (Roper, 1991).

However, the use of waffle slabs will always be very limited due to reduced resistances
towards shear, local punching and fire. The idea of placing large blocks of light material in the
slab suffers from the same flaws, which is why the use of these systems has never gained
acceptance and they are only used in a limited number of projects in Spanish-speaking
countries.

2.6 BUBBLE DECK TECHNOLOGY

In the 1990s, a new system was invented, eliminating the above problems. The so called
Bubble Deck technology invented by Jorgen Breuning, locks ellipsoids between the top and
bottom reinforcement meshes, thereby creating a natural cell structure, acting like a solid slab.
For the first time a voided biaxial slab is created with the same capabilities as a solid slab, but
with considerably less weight due to the elimination of superfluous concrete. However, the
ellipsoids are not easy to layout and are not stackable which results in high transportation
costs.

Fig. 2: Bubble deck slab

2.7 U-BOOT TECHNOLOGY

The u-boot formwork is the modular element made of recycled plastic for use in building
lighter structures in reinforced concrete cast in the work site. It has a truncated pyramid shape
and a lower base 52 x 52 cm. it is composed of feet, lateral flaps and upper tips used as
spacers in order to create alveolar voids in concrete massive slabs. Units need to be laid out on
site on predisposed deck or in a factory on a precast slab. They come in element height of 16,
20, 24, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48 cm; feet of 0, 5, 7, 10 cm; flaps of 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 cm.

Axonometric projection

Single u-boot

Double u-boot

Plan
Fig. 3: U-boot unit

In these figures, B represents the width of the u-boot, h is the height and I is the height of the
u-boot feet.

The lighter structures is made up of two layers, one on top of the other, separated and
connected to each other by a grid of beams at right angles which are formed when the u-boots
are put in place. The beams transfer stresses to the pillars of the structure, which allows slabs
of long spans to be built. The slabs are able to take high loading and do not need internal
beams, a perimeter edge beam is sufficient. All that is needed is to leave a massive area
around the column- called mushroom pillar- which is thick as slab and varies on a shear stress
basis.

Slabs built with u-boot can form the structural elements of various building systems, such as
double floors, floors, rafts and so on, for both civil and industrial buildings. With its high
inertia levels, this building system makes it possible to build large scale constructions.

The biggest advantage of the u-boot is that it is stackable. The second innovation is the shape:
U-boot creates a grid of orthogonal "I" beams, so the calculation of the reinforcement can be
effected by any static engineer according to the Euro code, British standards or local norms.

Fig. 4: U-boot slab layout

2.8 BENEFITS OF U-BOOT SLAB

1.
2.

The open created by the slab give greater design freedom, and makes change of use
easier
Reduced amount of concrete in the slab thereby reducing the environmental impacts
of cement production.

3.

Reducing the weight of the slab enabling longer spans to be built.

4.

Reduction of plastic waste in the environment, since the u-boot units are made from
recycled plastic.

5.

The u-boot slab does not require internal beams. This results in reduced storey
heights and smooth ceilings.

6.

The u-boots are light and stackable making them easy to transport, stockpile and
layout.

7.

The slab is easy to smooth once the formwork is taken off and if false ceiling is
required the layout is faster.

2.9 RAFT FOUNDATIONS.

Amongst foundations of different kinds, raft foundations are the most common. This is due to
advantages like high stiffness due to static bi-directional behavior, good load distribution
capacity on the ground, it absorbs stresses coming from the building with differential
subsidence close to zero and they are easy and quick to layout. When stresses increase or
ground bearing capacity decreases, a thick raft foundation is needed. This means more
concrete and more pressure on the ground, and therefore building costs increases.

U-boot formwork is designed to create a lightened Fig slab and raft foundations. Once placed
in concrete, it creates an alveolar structure, with two slabs of different thickness, linked
together by an orthogonal grid of beams of different width. In doing so, an ideal light structure
for raft foundations is carried out. Statistically it is considered as a grid of I beams which
rationally distributes masses for the purpose of inertia in order to obtain high stiffness with a
minimum concrete quantity. In some special cases, foundation piles are not needed due to the
combination of lightness and stiffness.

Fig. 5: Section of raft foundation with U-boot

In the figure above, S1 and S2 represents the lower and upper concrete layer respectively,
while h is the height of the u-boot and Ht is the total height of the raft foundation.

10

2.10

SHEAR REINFORCEMENT OF SLAB

The direction of principal compressive stresses across the span of a homogeneous concrete
slab take the form of an arc, while the tensile stresses take the form of a catenary or suspended
chain. Towards the mid-span, where the shear is low and the bending stresses are dominant,
the direction of the stresses tends to be parallel to the beam axis. Near the supports, where the
shearing stresses are greater, the principal stresses are inclined at a steeper angle, so that the
tensile stresses are liable to cause diagonal cracking (Morsley, 1990). For this reason, hollow
slabs are made solid near the supports and if the slab is supported by a monolithic beam the
solid section acts as the flange of a T-section. The slabs are also made solid under partitions
and concentrated loads because they cause punching shear.

The main difference between a solid slab and a voided biaxial slab refers to shear resistance.
Due to the reduced concrete volume, the shear resistance will also be reduced. Other types of
voided biaxial slabs have reduced resistances towards shear, local punching and fire. In
practice, the reduced shear resistance will not lead to problems in the u-boot slab, as the units
are simply left out where the shear is high, at columns and walls.

According to William L. Gamble and Robert Park (2000), slabs may be divided into two
major categories: beamless slabs and slabs supported on beams located on all sides of each
panel. There are many hybrid variants, and many otherwise beamless slabs have beams at the
edges of the structure and around large openings, such as those made for elevators and
stairways.

The u-boot slab is a form of flat, beamless slab as its weight is totally supported directly on
columns. The strength of a beamless slab is often limited by the strength in punching shear at
sections around the columns. The limited depth of the slabs makes the anchorage of the shear
reinforcement difficult. Because of this problem, spearheads of structural steel have been
developed for slabs at interior columns.

Spearheads consist of crossing steel arms welded together at a common level, to pick up both
some shear and moment load from the concrete. These arms which are totally within the slab
thickness pick up shear and moment beyond the column and bring the load to bearing on the
column. The bottom flanges of the steel shapes are extended beyond the top flanges to pick up
shear load that will exist low in the slab. The critical section for shear on the concrete is thus
moved to a larger perimeter (Ferguson, 1979).

11

Beams reduce headroom and impose restrictions on the use of space beneath (Oladapo, 1981).
The absence of beams results in more spacious rooms with greater architectural freedom and
easier change of use. In addition to these advantages, beamless slabs have an economy of
formwork and once the formwork is removed the plane surface makes false ceilings
unnecessary.

2.11

FIRE RESISTANCE

J. M Davis defines fire resistance as the ability of an element of construction to resist collapse,
to resist penetration of flames and hot gasses while at the same time maintaining structural
integrity and to keep the unexposed face sufficiently cool so as not to ignite materials in
contact with it. Determination of fire resistance involves the exposure of the element to severe
standard fire and the resistant time determined used to prevent fire spread from one
compartment to another.

The fire resistance is a matter of the amount of concrete layer. The fire resistance is dependent
on the temperature in the rebars and hence the transport of heat. As the top and bottom of the
u-boot slab is solid, and the rebars are placed in this solid part, the fire resistance can be
designed according to demands.

BS 8110 provides tabulated values of minimum dimensions and nominal covers for various
types of concrete members which are necessary to permit the member to withstand fire for a
specified period of time.

According to some studies carried out by the Polytechnic of Milan, slabs lightened by means
of polystyrene explode after only 20 minutes when exposed to fire load. This is due to the
presence of warm air in cavities which increases pressure and partially due to styrene
sublimation. In order to avoid slab explosions, vents are to be placed into slabs to maintain
constant pressure into cavities. CSI laboratories carried out a fire test on a slab lightened by
means of u-boot with a 3cm concrete cover and the structure was certified REI 180 minutes.

12

2.12

CONCRETE MIX

The u-boot slab requires concrete grade 30 (1:1:2) with a slump of between 150mm-200mm to
enable it to flow between the u-boots. This high slump is achieved by using high-range water
reducing admixtures (superplastisizers)

Superplastisizers are used to increase the workability of the concrete mix. These are modern
types of water reducing admixtures which are very effective. Chemically, they are sulphonated
melamine formaldehyde condensates and sulphonated naphthalene formaldehyde condensates.
The admixtures are adsorbed on the cement particles, giving them a negative charge which
leads to repulsion between the particles and results in stabilizing their dispersion. Air bubbles
are also repelled and cannot attach to the cement particles. In addition, the charge causes the
development around each particle of a sheath of oriented water molecules which prevent a
close approach of the particles to one another. The particles have a greater mobility and water
freed from the restraining influence of the flocculated system becomes available to lubricate
the mix so that the workability is increased.

At a given water/ cement ratio, this dispersing action increases the workability by raising the
slump from 75mm to 200mm. the resulting concrete can be placed with little or no
compaction and is not subject to excessive bleeding or segregation. Superplastisizers produce
workable concrete with extremely high strength due to the reduction of water-cement ratio
(Neville, 1989).

It is important for the flowing concrete mix remains cohesive and suitable for pumping. One
way of doing this is to increase the fine aggregate content by 4 to 5 percentage points: and
more for very coarse sand. This ensures cohesion and prevents segregation. Another approach
involves the adjustment of fines relative to maximum aggregate size and cement content.
Some water reducing agents are more effective when used in mixes containing pozzolanas
(natural or artificial material containing silica in a reactive form) than in plain mixes.

13

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The study will deal with the design and casting of both the u-boot slab and the traditional steel
reinforced slab so as to compare their strength and economic characteristics. In all design
calculations, a two way spanning slab panel of dimensions 6m x 8m was used.

3.2 SLAB DESIGN

For the purpose of design, a two way spanning slab panel of side 6m x 8m was used. Design
procedure was done in accordance to BS 8110 (1997): Part 1, section 3.6. A traditional simply
supported reinforced concrete slab, a flat slab and a u-boot slab were designed. The objective
of this was to determine and compare dimensions and reinforcement that would be required
for the slabs. Bar bending schedules and structural drawings were produced for the slabs.

3.3 U-BOOT FORMWORK

The formwork that will be used for the study has lower base 520 x 520 mm. The element
height is 160 mm and has 100 mm feet, with 120 mm lateral flaps. This will produce a slab of
260mm thick. However, u-boot elements of different dimensions can be used depending on
the structure being constructed and the intended loading.

Fig 6: The u-boot element used for the slab.

14

3.4 SIEVE ANALYSIS

Sieve analysis test was carried out on the fine and coarse aggregates used to determine the
relative proportions of different aggregate sizes as they are distributed among certain size
ranges.

A representative sample of the aggregates was taken and weighed. A stack of sieves was
prepared, with the sieves having larger opening sizes being placed above ones with smaller
opening sizes. The aggregate was poured onto the stack of sieves from the top and shaken.
The mass of the aggregate retained in each sieve was taken and the data collected was
tabulated.

Fig 7: Sieve arrangement

3.5 SLUMP TEST

A slump test was carried out to determine the workability and consistency of the concrete used
for casting the slabs.

First, one third of the slump cone was filled with concrete then tamped 25 times using a steel
rod. More concrete was added to the two thirds mark and the taming was repeated as before.
The whole cone was then filled up with excess concrete and tamped again 25 times. The
excess concrete was removed from the top of the cone using a rolling motion of the tamping
rod until flat. The cone was then slowly lifted and the concrete was allowed to slump. After it
had stabilized, its height was measured. This was done for six samples and the results were
tabulated.

15

3.6 U-BOOT LAYOUT

First, a flat and complete surface was prepared with a wooden deck. Then inferior steel
reinforcement was laid out in the two orthogonal directions as designed. Lattices were then
placed in order to space out upper reinforcements.

Afterwards, the u-boot was put in place. The u-boots cone shaped feet raise them above the
lower surface and concrete can therefore be cast to fill the lower slab. Upper bending steel
bars were placed in two directions- shear and punching reinforcement- to complete
reinforcement.

The concrete grade 30 (1:1:2), with a water-cement ratio of 0.6 was used for the slab. An
admixture (superplasticizer) was used to achieve a slump of between 150mm-160mm to
enable the concrete to flow between the u-boots. The slump test was carried out on the
concrete that was used for the casting of the slab to detect variations in the uniformity of the
mix.

Due to the floating pressure exerted on the u-boots, concrete was cast in two different phases.
In the first phase, a thickness equal to feet height was filled and compacted. The second
casting was carried out only when the first concrete layer began to set. Finally the casting was
leveled up in the traditional way.

Fig 8: Casting of the u-boot slab

16

Fig 9: Curing of the u-boot slab

3.7 SOLID SLAB

First, the formwork was prepared with using timber. Then steel reinforcement was laid out in
the two directions as designed. The concrete grade 30 (1:1:2), with a water-cement ratio of 0.6
was also used for the slab. An admixture (superplasticizer) was used to achieve a slump of
between 150mm-160mm. The slump test was carried out on the concrete that was used for the
casting of the slab to detect variations in the uniformity of the mix. The concrete was put in
layers and compacted using a poker vibrator. Finally the casting was leveled up in the
traditional way.

Fig 10: Curing of the solid slab

17

3.8 STRENGTH TESTS

Concrete cubes were cast alongside the u-boot slab and then subjected to crushing under
compression in order measure the concrete strength in its hardened state to ensure that it was
above the minimum strength specified.

For this test, the cube moulds of 150mm sides where cleaned and a thin layer of oil was
applied on their inner surface. A sample of the concrete was placed in the cubes in three layers
of equal depth and each layer was compacted by a poker vibrator. The surface was then
leveled off using a trowel. The cubes were labeled and after 24 hours they were transferred to
a curing tank. The cubes were allowed to cure for 28 days after which they were tested on a
cube crushing machine.

Fig 11: Compressive test

18

For the slabs tests, the slab center was marked after the slab was put in place. A sensor was
fixed on the side of the slab to sense the strain and a transducer was fixed to measure the
deflection. A hydraulic jack was used to apply a point load at the center of the slab and a data
logger produced the output. The loading applied was gradually increased to a point where
cracks developed. The loading at this point was noted then increased again to a point of
complete failure. The setup for the experiment was as shown below.

Fig 12: Slab testing

3.9 MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES

The measurement of material quantities for the slabs was done in accordance to the Civil
Engineering Standard Method of measurement. This was done for the sake of comparison. A
bill of quantities was prepared for concrete, reinforcement steel, and formwork and expressed
in monetary terms, according to the current market prices.

19

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS
From the sieve analysis test, the mass of the aggregate retained in each sieve was taken and
the data collected was tabulated as shown below. From the above graphs it can be seen that
both the fine and the coarse aggregates are uniformly graded meaning that the aggregates are
of approximately the same size.

Fine aggregate grading

Wt.

Wt.

retained

passing

(g)

(g)

5.00

42.00

1485.50

2.75

2.75

97.25

2.00

45.50

1440.00

2.98

5.73

94.27

1.18

219.00

1221.00

14.34

20.07

79.93

0.60

385.00

836.00

25.20

45.27

54.73

0.30

560.00

276.00

36.66

81.93

18.07

0.20

220.50

55.50

14.44

96.37

3.63

0.10

55.50

0.00

3.63

100.00

0.00

Total

1527.50

Sieve sizes
(mm)

% retained

Cumulative
% retained

% passing

Table 1: Fine aggregate grading

20

FINE
FINEAGGREGATE
AGGREGATEGRADING
GRADING

cum ilative % passing

cum ilative % passing

120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60

Series2
Series2

40
40
20
20
0

0.1
0.1

0.2
0.2

0.3
0.6
1.18
0.3
0.6
1.18
Sieve sizes
Sieve sizes

Fig 13: Graph of table 1

Coarse aggregate grading

Sieve

Wt.

Wt.

sizes

retained

passing

(mm)

(g)

(g)

20.00

1250.00

3362.50

27.10

27.10

72.90

14.00

992.00

2370.50

21.51

48.61

51.39

10.00

1672.50

698.00

36.26

84.87

15.13

5.00

653.50

44.50

14.17

99.04

0.96

2.36

35.00

9.50

0.76

99.79

0.21

1.18

9.50

0.00

0.21

100.00

0.00

Total

4612.50

% retained

Cumulative
% retained

% passing

Table 2: Coarse aggregate grading

21

Coarse aggregate grading

Coarse aggregate grading

% P assin g
% P assin g

80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0

Series2
Series2

1.18
1.18

2.36
2.36

10
5
10
Sieve size
Sieve size

14
14

20
20

Fig 14: Graph of table 2

4.2 SLUMP TEST

The results of the slump test were tabulated as shown below. From the table, we see that the
concrete mix was of uniform consistency with a slump varying between 150mm to 160mm.
this homogeneity improves the quality and structural integrity of the cured concrete. Average
slump for the concrete mix was 155mm.

SLUMP TEST RESULTS

Sample no.

Slump (mm)

155

157

160

154

150

156
Table 3: Slump test.

22

4.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGHT TEST

The data obtained for the compressive test was as tabulated below. The compressive strength
of the concrete varied between 29.04 N/mm2 and 32.36 N/mm2 which was suitable for the
specified concrete strength of 30 N/mm2. Ideal density for cured concrete is 2360 Kg/m3. The
density obtained for the cubes varied between 2315.33 Kg/m3 and 2565.60 kg/m3, with the
average density being 2393.59 Kg/m3. Average compressive strength for the concrete cubes
was 29.98 N/mm2.

CUBE TEST RESULTS (28 day strength)

Sample

Mass

Ave. Cube

Area

Volume

No.

(Kg)

dimensions

(mm2)

(mm3)

Ultimate
load
(KN)

Density
(Kg/m3)

Compressive
strength
(N/mm2)

8.225

152

23104

3511808

67.1

2342.18

29.04

8.546

154

23716

3652264

70.2

2339.97

29.60

8.659

150

22500

3375000

72.8

2565.60

32.36

8.456

154

23716

3652264

71.4

2315.33

30.11

8.562

153

23409

3581577

68.8

2390.68

29.39

8.456

152

23104

3511808

67.9

2407.76

29.39

Table 4: Compressive strength test

23

4.4 SLAB TEST RESULTS

As the loading on the slabs was gradually increased, the values of the deflection and
the strain was recorded and tabulated as shown below.
SOLID SLAB
LOADING
Load Load
Reading
()
(t)
50
106
146
207
262
313
371
420
479
540
590
642
702
751
810
865

0
56
96
157
212
263
321
370
429
490
540
592
652
701
760
815

0.00
1.01
1.73
2.83
3.82
4.73
5.78
6.66
7.72
8.82
9.72
10.66
11.74
12.62
13.68
14.67

Reading
17
31
45
64
78
93
108
121
137
153
166
181
199
215
235
255

DEFLECTION
Deflection
Deflection
()
(mm)
0
14
28
47
61
76
91
104
120
136
149
164
182
198
218
238

0.00
0.55
1.09
1.83
2.38
2.96
3.55
4.06
4.68
5.30
5.81
6.40
7.10
7.72
8.50
9.28

STRAIN
Strain
Reading
()
9
20
26
39
51
60
70
83
99
120
144
174
212
244
285
334

0
11
17
30
42
51
61
74
90
111
135
165
203
235
276
325

Table 5: Solid slab test results

U-BOOT SLAB
LOADING
Load Load
Reading
()
(t)

Reading

DEFLECTION
Deflection
Deflection
()
(mm)

STRAIN
Strain
Reading
()

38
100
153
202
265
317
374
425
488
539
593
662
708
755
849

0
62
115
164
227
279
336
387
450
501
555
624
670
717
811

0.00
1.12
2.07
2.95
4.09
5.02
6.05
6.97
8.10
9.02
9.99
11.23
12.06
12.91
14.60

26
54
78
98
126
144
163
181
199
217
233
255
271
291
358

0
28
52
72
100
118
137
155
173
191
207
229
245
265
332

0.00
1.09
2.03
2.81
3.90
4.60
5.34
6.05
6.75
7.45
8.07
8.93
9.56
10.34
12.95

6
9
12
18
28
35
43
46
31
16
10
8
8
10
4

0
3
6
12
22
29
37
40
25
10
4
2
2
4
-2

891

853

15.35

372

346

13.49

-1

Table 6: U-boot slab test results

24

Fig 15: Deflection curves for the solid and u-boot slabs

Fig 16: Strain curves for the solid and u-boot slabs

The value of deflections recorded for the two slabs was plotted against the loading applied to
the point of failure. The solid slab failed at a loading of 56.7 KN while the u-boot slab failed
at a loading of 79.5KN. Even though the u-boot slab was able to take higher loading, its
deflection was more than that of the solid slab as indicated in the graph above. The strain
curves for the two slabs show that the solid slab had higher strain values compared to the u-

25

boot slab, which indicated more deformation. From the figures below we notice that the solid
slab had more extensive cracks than the u-boot slab. From the test, it was concluded that the
strength properties of the u-boot slab were better than those of the solid slab.

Fig 17: Failure in solid slab, cracks

Fig 18: Failure in solid slab, shear

Fig 19: Failure in u-boot slab, cracks

26

4.5 QUANTITIES

COMPARISON
Solid slab

U-boot slab

Concrete (m3)

12.42

11.2

Formwork (m2)

68.25

56.86

Steel reinforcement (Kg)

1614

1597

Table 7: Comparison of quantities

4.5.1

CONCRETE

Data obtained from the measures of quantities (Appendix 4) shows that for the slab panel
chosen for design and for the given loading the u-boot slab requires less concrete than the
solid slab with internal beams. The difference of concrete used was 1.1 m3 which amounts to
a saving of 8.76% of concrete when u-boot slab is used in place of a solid slab with internal
beams. This translates to a reduction of 0.653 tonnes of carbon dioxide produced through the
process of cement production. For an entire structure, this reduction in carbon dioxide released
to the atmosphere is significant in conserving the environment.
In cases where a solid flat slab is required for the same loading and span, the saving in
concrete is increased to about 25% as the thickness of the flat slab is more than that of a slab
with internal beams (Appendix 1- flat slab design).
4.5.2

STEEL REINFORCEMENT

The difference in the quantity of steel used for the two slabs was not significant. The steel
reinforcement for the u-boot slab was less than that for the solid slab by 1.1%
4.5.3

SPAN COMPARISON

At the design stage, different spans of the slab were tried. The design of the u-boot slab was
possible for spans as high as 18m, with an increase of the slab thickness. This is up to 50%
further than traditional structures. This makes the u-boot slab ideal for building slabs of big
spans with a high bearing capacity and is suitable for structures that require significant open
spaces like industrial or commercial buildings. Design of the solid slab failed for spans greater
than 8m.

27

4.5.4

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Cost comparison (Ksh)

Solid slab

U-boot slab

Concrete

121,716

111,054

Formwork

31,800

24,928

Steel reinforcement

193,680

191,640

Labour

41,664

48,607

U-boots

34,200

Total cost

388,860

410,429

Table 8: Cost comparison

200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

solid slab
u-boot slab

steel

formwork

Fig 20: Cost comparison between a u-boot slab and a solid slab
The total cost of materials used for the u-boot slab is higher than that used for an equivalent
solid slab by Ksh 14,262, which is 4.2% higher. This higher cost is due to the acquisition of
the u-boot units which currently have to be imported. The cost of the 76 u-boot units required
for the slab panel is Ksh 34,200, which includes the cost of importation. This can be reduced
if in future the u-boots are produced locally, and since they are produced from recycled
materials the cost will be reduced significantly. The cost of labour is also slightly higher for
the u-boot slab and this is attributed to the extra input in laying out the u-boots and placing of
the upper reinforcement. The cost of all other materials is lower for the u-boot slab which
implies that this method of construction can be more economical in future with local
production of the u-boot units.

28

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the study, it was found that the use of u-boot slab resulted in a saving of concrete of
about 10%, and up to 25% decrease in carbon dioxide emissions when compared to a solid
slab with internal beams. The u-boot slab was also found to have bigger spans of up to 18m,
while solid slabs had a maximum span of 9m for a given load. For fixed spans the u-boot slab
had a higher bearing capacity compared to solid slabs. A comparison of the total cost for the
two slabs showed that the cost of u-boot slab was higher by 4.2%.

Additional benefits of the flat u-boot slab over the beam and slab floor include the simplified
formwork and the reduced storey height. Windows can extend up to the underside of the slab
and there are no beams to obstruct the light and circulation of air. The absence of sharp
corners gives greater fire resistance as there is less danger of the concrete spalling and
exposing the reinforcement. The u-boots are light and stackable making them easy to
transport, stockpile and layout.
The u-boot is recommended for slabs with high loading, with live loads of 5kN/m2 and above
and where large open spaces are required. Use of the u-boots is also encouraged because it is
environmentally green and sustainable as it results in reduced energy & carbon emissions. To
cut down on costs of acquiring the u-boots, it was recommended that local production of the
units should be considered. This will result in reduced plastic waste in our environment and
also create employment opportunity in the production industry.

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.

Corley, W. G. (1968). Spearhead reinforcement for slab. ACI, 65 , 14.

2.

Ferguson, P. M. (1979). Reinforced concrete fundamentals, fourth edition.

3.

Gamble, W. L. (2000). Reinforced concrete slabs. John Wiley & Sons.

4.

Hanson, N. W. (1968). Shear and moment transfer between concrete slabs and
columns. PCA research and developement laboratories , 10.

5.

Hurst, M. K. (1989). Pre-stressed concrete design. Chapman and Hall.

6.

J, C. R. (1984). Concrete slabs analysis and design. Elsevier applied science

publishers.

7.

karger-Kocsis, J. (1995). Polypropylene copolymers and blends. Technology and

engineering.

8.

Morsley, W. (1990). Reinforced concrete design. Macmillan press LTD.

9.

Neville, A. (1989). Concrete Technology.

10. Oladapo, O. (1981). Fundamentals of the design of concrete structures. Evans

brothers LTD.
11. Roper, D. C.-A. (1991). Concrete structures. Longman publishers.

30

APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1: DESIGN CALCULATIONS
U-boot slab calculations
Slab dimensions
Long span= 8m
Short span=6m
Imposed load= 5kN/m2
Finishes= 0.5kN/m2
Number of u-boots in slab= 76
U-boot dimensions: 0.52 x 0.52 x 0.16
Volume of void in slab: 0.52 x 0.52 x 0.16 x 76 = 3.288 m3
Volume of slab: 8 x 6 x 0.26 = 12.48m3
Volume of concrete in slab: 12.48 3.288 = 9.192 m3
Slab self weight: 24 kN/m3 x 9.192 = 220.608 kN
Finishes: 0.5 kN/m2 x 48 = 24 kN
Live load: 5 kN/m2 x 48 = 240 kN
Ultimate load: 1.4(220.608 + 24) + 1.6(240) = 726.451 kN
Moments: 0.083 x 726.451 x 8= 482.364 kNm
Shear:
Edge column: 0.45 x 726.451 = 326.903 kN
First interior support: 0.6 x 726.51 = 435.906 kN

31

BEAM LOADING - U-BOOT SLAB

Beam A
Dead load
Slab: 235.152/ (8 x 6) x (3 (6/8)2) = 4.899 kN/m
Self weight: 0.5 x 0.3 x 24 = 3.60 kN/m
Total = 15.544 kN/m
Imposed load = 12.19 kN/m

Beam 1
Dead load
Slab: 235.152 / (8 x 6) x 6 /3 = 9.798 kN/m
Self weight = 3.60 kN/m
Total loading = 13.3 kN/m
Imposed load = 10 kN/m

32

BEAM LOADING SOLID SLAB

Beam A
Dead load
Slab: 4.7 x 6 (3 (6/8)2) / 6 = 11.459 kN/m
Self weight: 0.45 x 0.30 x 24 = 3.24 kN/m
Total dead load = 14.70 kN/m
Imposed load
5 x 6 (3 (6/8)2) / 6 = 12.19 kN/m

Beam B
Dead load
Slab: 11.459 x 2 = 22.918 kN/m
Self weight: 0.55 x 0.30 x 24 = 5.28 kN/m
Total = 28.198 kN/m
Imposed load
12.9 x 2 = 24.38 kN/m

Beam 1
Dead load
Slab: (4.7 x 6) / 3 = 9.40 kN/m
Self weight = 3.24 kN/m
Imposed load
(5 x 6) / 3 = 10 kN/m
Beam 2
Dead load
Slab: 2(4.7 x 6) / 3 = 18.8 kN/m
Self weight = 5.28 kN/m
Imposed load
2(5 x 6) / 3 = 20 kN/m

33

APPENDIX 2: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS

34

APPENDIX 3: BAR BENDING SCHEDULES

35

APPENDIX 4: MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES & BILL OF

QUANTITIES

36

MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES- SOLID SLAB

Item

Quantity

Units

Provision of concrete grade 30 (1:1:2), 20mm

8.000

aggregate in slab 175mm thick

6.000
0.175

Provision of concrete grade 30 in beam 1 & 2,

450 x 300 mm

0.450

(450 x 300) mm

1.62

8.000
0.450
0.300

Provision of concrete grade 30 in beam B,

8.4

6.000

0.300
Provision of concrete grade 30 in beam A ,

Total

(550 x 300) mm

1.08

8.000
0.550
0.300

1.32

High yield strength steel bars

R8

27

12

324

Y10

22

12

264

Y12

74

12

888

Y16

12

48

Y20

15

12

180

Formwork, fair finish, plane horizontal

8
6

Formwork, fair finish, plane vertical

6.000
0.450

1.65

8.000
0.275

4.4

6.000
0.275

3.6

8.000
0.550

5.4

8.000
0.450

48

2.2

8.000
0.375

3.0

37

MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES- U-BOOT SLAB

Item

Quantity

Provision of concrete grade 30 (1:1:2), 20mm

Units

Total

aggregate in slab 260mm thick (hollow)

9.322
Provision of concrete grade 30 in beam 1

(450 x 300) mm

6.000
0.450
0.300

Provision of concrete grade 30 in beam A ,

(500 x 300) mm

0.81

8.000
0.500
0.300

1.2

High yield strength steel bars

R8

34

12

408

Y10

76

12

912

Y12

60

12

720

Y16

12

36

Y20

12

72

Formwork, fair finish, plane horizontal

8
6

Formwork, fair finish, plane vertical

8.000
0.500

2.7

0.240
8.000

0.450
6.000

48

1.92

0.04
6.000

0.24

38

SOLID SLAB BILL OF

QUANTITIES
QUOTATION

Item

No.

Description

Qty

Unit

Rate

Amount

(All Provisional)

Concrete works
Vibrated

Reinforced

Concrete

mix

(1:1:2) as described in : -

175 mm thick slab

8.4

C.M

9,800

82,320

Beams (450 X 300)

2.7

C.M

9,800

26,460

Beams (500 X 300)

1.32

C.M

9,800

12,936

Sawn formwork as described in :

Soffits of slab

48

S.M.

400

19,200

Edge of slab 175 mm high

4.9

S.M

400

1,960

Beams

26.6

S.M

400

10,640

1614

K.G.

120

193,680

Reinforcement

Assorted reinforcement

TOTAL

FOR SLAB CARRIED TO

SUMMARY

347,196

39

U-BOOT SLAB BILL OF QUANTITIES

QUOTATION
Item

Description

No.
Qty

Unit

Rate

Amount

260 mm thick u-boot slab (hollow)

9.322

C.M

9,800

91,356

Beam (500 X 300)

1.2

C.M

9,800

11,760

Beam (450 X 300)

0.81

C.M

9,800

7,938

(All Provisional)
Concrete works
Vibrated Reinforced Concrete mix
(1:1:2) as described in : A

Sawn formwork as described in

Soffits of slab

48

S.M.

380

18,240

Edge of slab 260 mm high

7.28

S.M

380

2,766

Beams

10.32

S.M

380

3,922

Assorted reinforcement

1597

K.G.

120

191,640

U-boot units

76

No.

450

Reinforcement

34,200

TOTAL FOR SLAB CARRIED TO

SUMMARY

361,822

40

BUDGET
Item
1

Field work Cost

Stationery, photocopying/printing, Binding

Cost
2,000

1,500
3

Labour

1,500

Materials

4,000

Contingencies

1,000

Total Budget

10,000

41