Antiquted STR'L Systems Series Part-3

Antiquated Structural Systems Series
This article is the third in a series that is intended to provide a resource of

information to structural engineers for projects that involve the repair, restoration
or adaptive reuse of older buildings for which no drawings exist. Part 2 of the
series can be found in the December 2007 issue of STRUCTURE magazine
(www.STRUCTUREmag.org/archives).
The purpose of this series is to compile and disseminate a resource of information
to enable structural engineers to share their knowledge of existing structural systems
that may no longer be in use, but are capable of being adapted or reanalyzed for safe
reuse in the marketplace of today and the future.
One- and Two-Way Clay

Tile and Unit Masonry
Joist Systems
In one- and two-way clay tile and unit
masonry joist systems, individual units
were laid in such a way as to form trenches
that allowed reinforcing bars to be placed
in the bottom of the resulting joist cross
sections. This method of construction is
very similar to the more recent pan joist
system; however, unlike steel pans, the
clay and masonry units were left in place
for added strength and fire resistance,
and to provide a flat ceiling surface.
Proprietary one-way floor systems
included the Natcoflor and Republic
Slagblock systems. Proprietary two-way
floor systems included the Schuster,
Smooth-Ceiling, Sandberg and Republic
Slagblock systems. All of these employed
regularly shaped units of varying size
and depth that resulted in a uniform
modulation of joist sizes and spacings.
However, during the 1930s, a patented
wide-center system was introduced
for both one-way and two-way framing
that allowed for wider clay tile units to
be placed at the center of the span and
narrower units to be placed at the end
of the span. This resulted in wider joists
near the supports, which in turn resulted
in greater shear capacity at the end of the
span, similar to the more recent tapered
end pan joist system.
With the exception of the SmoothCeiling and Sandberg systems, the clay tile
and unit masonry could be constructed
to span between steel beams, concrete
beams or loadbearing walls. In addition,
most of the systems could be placed with
or without a concrete topping. When a
monolithic concrete topping was used,
the thickness typically varied from 1
inches to 3 inches. Joists were typically
analyzed as T-beam sections when a
monolithic topping was used. With the
R
T
S
U
T
exception of the Natcoflor

system, joist
t
righ from 4 inches to
widths typicallypyvaried
o
6 inches. C
Typically, -inch clear cover was
provided between the square or round
deformed reinforcing bars and the adjacent tile or masonry units or the top and
bottom of the exposed concrete surface
of the joist. It was typical to use straight
bottom bars and trussed top bars bent
down to align with the bottom bars near
the center of the span. When a concrete
topping was used, it was typical for temperature/shrinkage reinforcement to be
provided orthogonal to the joist span.
The amount of this steel was typically
0.0025 times the gross cross-sectional
area of the topping, and it was spaced at
no more than 18 inches on center.
One-way systems were very efficient for
spans over 12 feet, and were used very
frequently for spans up to 24 feet with Plaster
C
U
a
e
n
Ground
Flashing
Flashing
Plaster
Wood Sleepers
Ground
Cinder Concrete Fill

Wood Sleepers
Cinder Concrete Fill
E
R
i
z
a
g
Engineers Notebook
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB
aids for the structural engineers toolbox
Part 3
loadings that ranged from 40 to 125

PSF, and up to 18- and 20 foot spans for
heavier loadings. For two-way systems,
and at the end of the span for one-way
systems, it was common for the open
webbed ends of clay tiles (or masonry
units) to be filled with cardboard or metal
inserts to prevent concrete from flowing
into the voids, in order to minimize the
dead load of the slab.
The Natcoflor system used specially
manufactured clay tiles with curved
flanges that allowed only the bottom
of the tiles to be exposed as the ceiling
soffit. Other one- and two-way clay
tile systems could be formed and cast
either with the bottom of the concrete
joist exposed or with tile soffit pieces
along the bottom of the trenches that
resulted in a uniform tile ceiling soffit.
The Natcoflor joists were no more than
2 inches in width, spaced at 13 inches on
center, with a depth that varied from 4
inches to 12 inches (Figure 1). The joists
were typically cast using cement grout
consisting of one part cement and two
and one-half parts sand. A composite
concrete topping was not required above
the tiles, in order to attain the maximum
load-carrying capacity of the system.
The Schuster two-way system (Figure
2), which was patented in 1915, used
clay tiles that were 12 inches x 12 inches,
or 16 inches x 16 inches, and had depths
of 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 inches. The joists
were typically spaced at 16 inches on
center or 20 inches on center; however,
Base
Flooring
Base
Flooring
Finished Top
Finished Top
Wood Forms
Wood Forms
Figure 1.
STRUCTURE magazine
45 March 2008
Figure 2.
tiles could be doubled up to allow for joist

spacings of 28 or 30 inches on center. This
two-way system was typically used in square
bays or rectangular bays in which the longer
span was not more than 50% greater than the
shorter span.
The Republic Slagblok system could be installed in either a one-way or two-way configuration. The Slagblok unit measured 8 inches
x 16 inches, and came with one open end
and one closed end. Each unit was placed in
combination with another Slagblok to form
closed cells that were 16 inches x 16 inches.
Slagbloks came in 3-, 4-, 6-, 7- and 8-inch
depths. The concrete ribs or joists were typically 4 inches in width and spaced at 20 inches
on center. Typical spans for this system var-
R
T
S
ied from 15 to 25 feet.

The author has seen
similar one-way joist
systems constructed as
recently as the 1970s
using regular concrete
masonry units.
The Smooth-Ceiling
system, which was patented in the 1930s, and
the similar Sandberg
system both eliminated
the need for beams or
drop panels by employing embedded internal
steel shear reinforcement around either struct
tural steel or reinforced
concrete columns.
righ
y
p
As with other
Co two-way systems, standard tile
units were placed in a modular layout in order
to establish a uniform two-way grid of concrete joists. Typically, both systems eliminated
all tiles from around the column to enable this
area to be cast as solid concrete.
Although load tables, which included considerable factors of safety, were provided
by the manufacturers of most of the above
systems, the actual design of the joists was
accomplished using conventional working
stress methods of analysis that were available
at the time. Moment and shear coefficients
were typically employed to establish the
maximum positive and negative moment
C
U
and end shear design envelopes; however,

continuous beam analysis was also used to
establish the required design parameters.
Moment and shear coefficients were also
used for two-way analysis.
Even though load tables and methods of
analysis are available for all of the above clay
tile and unit masonry systems, when
one
encounters any of these same systems in an
existing building, and there are no original
drawings available, it is difficult to determine
what the internal reinforcement is, and
subsequently the load-carrying capacity of
the system. However, hopefully this article,
by identifying the many different types of
systems that were in use at one time or other,
will assist readers in their investigation of the
structural framing when any of the abovedescribed systems are encountered in an
existing building.
U
T
E
R
e
n
D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE,

SECB is licensed in 20 states and has over
30 years experience as a structural consulting
engineer. He currently works as a Senior
Project Manager at the main office of CMX
located in New Jersey and may be contacted
at [email protected].
i
z
a
g
References
Analysis andTesting of Archaic Floor Construction,
John P. Stecich, Standards for Preservation and
Rehabilitation, ASTM STP 1258, 1996, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1925
Principals of Tile Engineering, Handbook of
Design, Harry C. Plummer and Edwin F.
Wanner, Structural Clay Products Institute,
1947, ACI Journal Proceeding, 1918
Architects and Builders Handbook, 18th Edition,
Frank E. Kidder, Harry Parker, John Wiley
and Sons, 1956
Example of an existing one-way clay tile joint system.
Future installments of the archaic structural systems series will cover one- and two-way clay tile and unit masonry joist systems; prefabricated
clay tile and concrete block framing systems; precast concrete framing systems; antiquated post-tensioning systems; and outdated structural
steel stub-girder construction. If there are other topics along these lines that you would like to see addressed, please send your suggestions
and any relevant information that you have to the author ([email protected]).
STRUCTURE magazine
46
March 2008

Antiquted STR'L Systems Series Part-3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiquted STR'L Systems Series Part-3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiquted STR'L Systems Series Part-3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiquated Structural Systems Series

This article is the third in a series that is intended to provide a resource of

One- and Two-Way Clay

exception of the Natcoflor

Cinder Concrete Fill

By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB

aids for the structural engineers toolbox

loadings that ranged from 40 to 125

tiles could be doubled up to allow for joist

ied from 15 to 25 feet.

and end shear design envelopes; however,

D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE,

Example of an existing one-way clay tile joint system.

You might also like