Concrete floor in Victorian flat - How is it held up ?

Just started re-fitting the bathroom in my 1910ish first floor flat. After removing the carpet I find that what I expected to be a wooden floor (as all the other rooms in the flat are) appears to be concrete. Previously the bathroom would have been the kitchen when the flat was originally built.

Closer inspection under the floor in the adjacent bedroom reveals that just before the joists disappear under the solid wall into the bathroom the gap between the joists has been filled with concrete. This appears to continue on into the bathroom. I am guessing the bathroom has then had a layer of concrete skimmed over the top to give the solid floor appearance.

My question:

1) How on earth is this held up? If you poured concrete between the joists onto a lath and plaster ceiling surely it would collapse almost immediately. Would the concrete have been supported from below during construction with the support being removed once the concrete had set ? 2) Was it a requirement that kitchens of the time had to have a solid floor for fire protection hence this construction otherwise why bother ?

Just curious to know if this type of construction was common on older properties ? Also, on a similar subject, how would the slab of concrete in front of each fireplace have been held up in an upstairs room ?

Reply to
Andy Hide
Loading thread data ...

Can't answer your first question but for this one in our case it was on a wing and a prayer. The two joists had been shortened, then 'cross-joists' attached between the ones outside at the wall and 18" back, then the wood hollowed out at an angle and the slab dropped in it.

How it stayed there for at least 50 years, possibly longer is beyond me.

Removed the slab and replaced the joists.

Reply to
G&M

My mum's house, built in about 1800, has a similar sort of arrangement, the difference is its laid on top of the joists rather than down between them. All the upstairs floors are solid. How it seems to have been done was that bundles of hay were laid onto the joists, then layers of plaster (apparently not concrete in this case) were poured on top gradually, allowing each layer time to set before the next was poured on. Even after 200 years its still amazingly strong. When the house was rewired about 15 years ago the electrician had to drill cylindrical plugs of the stuff out of the floor every few feet and feed the cables through bit by bit (the original wiring had been clipped to the exposed beams on the ceiling below). It took him days and he said afterwards if he'd known how long it would take he would never have taken the job on. We saved a couple of the cylinders of floor he drilled out, its about

6 inches of plaster on top of an inch or so of 200 year old hay!

Nick

Reply to
Nick Read

That will probably be lime/sand mix actually. Sort of between plaster and concrete on the strength scale.

Reply to
G&M

Yes you're probably right, its certainly stronger than conventional plaster, but it seems a lot finer and a bit more 'crumbly' than concrete.

Reply to
Nick Read

I didnt follow your setup description at all, but it might be supported at the ends by some wall bricks being removed when the crete was put in, or it might sit on wood joists. Or perhaps even bits of cast iron in the wall.

There were no building regs in 1910, they came in in IIRC 1916 or

1917. The worst houses from then have all been demolished. So every surviving house from that period has various extras over and above the most basic builds of the time. Many have concrete kitchen floors, for 3 reasons:

- a respectable 1910 house would have contained a coal or wood range, which constituted a fire risk,

- and a washing machine (nothing at all like those of today, rather this was a brickwork bucket and fire type arrangement) that used a caustic for washing, which doesnt go well with wood,

- the lack of antibiotics and very high death rates (around 25% child mortality) meant a positive obsession with cleanliness, so kitchen floors would be scrubbed frequently.

All of these just dont go with wood floors.

The ones I've seen are mostly that way.

I think wood joists in most cases.

Regards, NT

Reply to
N. Thornton

Building Byelaws came in after the Public Health Act 1875

Reply to
Tony Bryer

But without Part P :-)

Reply to
G&M

Really? I hadnt heard of those. Do you have a ref or any info on them? I wonder what they cover, as 1890 properties dont seem to conform to many construction standards - and whether they were really enforced. I believe there was a regulation covering foundation depth before WW1, but it was routinely not followed.

Regards, NT

Reply to
N. Thornton

enforced. I

WW1,

There a bit on them in the online version of the encyclopedia britanica from 1911.

formatting link
no of the figures display for me.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Ingram

Around that time lightweight breeze blocks were used between the joists and cement laid on top. There were different ways of securing the breeze block between the joists. In some cases it was a sort of tapered wedge.

Reply to
IMM

Around that time lightweight breeze blocks were used between the joists and cement laid on top. There were different ways of securing the breeze block between the joists. In some cases it was a sort of tapered wedge.

Reply to
IMM

Around that time lightweight breeze blocks were used between the joists and cement laid on top. There were different ways of securing the breeze block between the joists. In some cases it was a sort of tapered wedge.

Reply to
IMM

Thanks Jim. I think the figures were just OCRed along with the rest, theyre not the old prestel type graphics. Shame, maybe some day they'll get the pics there as well.

Regards, NT

Reply to
N. Thornton

"The two joists had been shortened, then 'cross-joists' attached between the ones outside at the wall and 18" back, then the wood hollowed out at an angle and the slab dropped in it."

This was a standard method of construction. The ends of the joists were built usually into the walls. The joists were not built into the chimney breast, containing the flues from the floor below, for obvious reasons. A trimmer joist was fixed parallel to the chimney breast and the 'shortened' joists and the concrete hearth were supported from that. See Barry, 'Construction of Buildings' or similar textx.

" Removed the slab and replaced the joists."

Did you really? Oh dear.

Reply to
Aidan

Wouldnt that be contrary to the Building Regulations Act 1924, which specified a minimum disance from hot flue gases to any woodwork?

Regards, NT

Reply to
N. Thornton

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.