Please see the attached, left of the diagonal beam. Construction is from 1920s. I saw 10" deep S sections spaced 10' oc. In between these beams is infill of clay tiles. But what I can't figure out is the thin straps in between the tiles. Could this be WTs used to support the clay tiles?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What type of construction is this?
- Thread starter WWTEng
- Start date
grantstructure
Structural
Aren't the S beams supporting the tiles already on their bottom flanges--and if those lines in between the tiles are the end of a steel tee, wouldn't the tee orientation be the opposite of what you'd expect?
Maybe it was obvious that those 'lines' are steel when you visited the site, but if I just saw the photo I would have assumed they were grout.
Maybe it was obvious that those 'lines' are steel when you visited the site, but if I just saw the photo I would have assumed they were grout.
racookpe1978
Nuclear
Probably stiffeners (spacers) between the webs of the S-beams.
But I can't figure why they'd stuff tiles (heavy, non-structurally-strong, non-mortared bricks, non-insulated bricks?) between the S-beams.
But I can't figure why they'd stuff tiles (heavy, non-structurally-strong, non-mortared bricks, non-insulated bricks?) between the S-beams.
WWTEng:
There were a whole bunch of proprietary systems which looked essentially like that, from that era. Most beams in that era were more like today’s S shapes, as were the Tees of that time, so not likely WT’s. The clay tiles were just dropped onto the Tees dry, and then several inches of concrete, with some reinforcing would be cast on top, and btwn. the tiles, depending upon their upper shapes. The whole floor system acted as some sort of a loose composite system, in two directions, but it had good depth and was relatively light with the clay infill. The best thing to do is find someplace with min. loading, and/or min. slab shear and no slab tension; gently open up a 2 or 3' square area from above, and study what you’ve got as you go down. Maybe try to save the bottom half of the clay tiles. Then fill the hole with light weight concrete.
I’d look in a good local engineering library and see if you could find some old catalogs, or some good old structural engineering textbooks or handbooks. Take a look at SlideRuleEras’s web site, here on E-Tips, he has a bunch of good old stuff on file there. Many of those systems had special tiles which fit around and under the steel, because part of the selling point was fireproof floor system construction. So, in that respect, what you show is a bit unusual.
There were a whole bunch of proprietary systems which looked essentially like that, from that era. Most beams in that era were more like today’s S shapes, as were the Tees of that time, so not likely WT’s. The clay tiles were just dropped onto the Tees dry, and then several inches of concrete, with some reinforcing would be cast on top, and btwn. the tiles, depending upon their upper shapes. The whole floor system acted as some sort of a loose composite system, in two directions, but it had good depth and was relatively light with the clay infill. The best thing to do is find someplace with min. loading, and/or min. slab shear and no slab tension; gently open up a 2 or 3' square area from above, and study what you’ve got as you go down. Maybe try to save the bottom half of the clay tiles. Then fill the hole with light weight concrete.
I’d look in a good local engineering library and see if you could find some old catalogs, or some good old structural engineering textbooks or handbooks. Take a look at SlideRuleEras’s web site, here on E-Tips, he has a bunch of good old stuff on file there. Many of those systems had special tiles which fit around and under the steel, because part of the selling point was fireproof floor system construction. So, in that respect, what you show is a bit unusual.
IsaacStructural
Structural
A little hard to make out from the image, but is this a clay tile arch system? I've seen these in Chicago in buildings from this era.
Here is an article from Structure Magazine from their antiquated structural systems series from a few years back.
M.S. Structural Engineering
Licensed Structural Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer (Illinois)
Here is an article from Structure Magazine from their antiquated structural systems series from a few years back.
M.S. Structural Engineering
Licensed Structural Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer (Illinois)
msquared48
Structural
- Thread starter
- #11
Isaac, It doesn't look like arched construction to me as the ceiling was fairly flat and so is the roof from above. See attached for more clear pictures.
The project has to do with some renovations to a smoke stack and luckily nothing changes where this tile construction is located. I just want to refer to these on my drawings so that the documents look complete/professional.
BTW this is the third tile construction I have run into in the last few months. The first was a clay tile load bearing wall (had a post here about that), second one was concrete floor construction with tile infill and now this. All are from 1890-1920 era.
The project has to do with some renovations to a smoke stack and luckily nothing changes where this tile construction is located. I just want to refer to these on my drawings so that the documents look complete/professional.
BTW this is the third tile construction I have run into in the last few months. The first was a clay tile load bearing wall (had a post here about that), second one was concrete floor construction with tile infill and now this. All are from 1890-1920 era.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
