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 ?

"Andy Hide" wrote in message
om...
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 ?

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.

"Andy Hide" wrote in message
om...
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 ?

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

"Nick Read" wrote in message
...
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,

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

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Nick Read" wrote in message
...
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,

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

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

(Andy Hide) wrote in message . com...
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
?

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.


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
?

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.


Just curious to know if this type of construction was common on older
properties ?

The ones I've seen are mostly that way.


Also, on a similar subject, how would the slab of
concrete in front of each fireplace have been held up in an upstairs
room ?

I think wood joists in most cases.


Regards, NT

In article , N.
Thornton wrote:
There were no building regs in 1910, they came in in IIRC 1916 or
1917.

Building Byelaws came in after the Public Health Act 1875

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , N.
Thornton wrote:
There were no building regs in 1910, they came in in IIRC 1916 or
1917.

Building Byelaws came in after the Public Health Act 1875

But without Part P :-)

Tony Bryer wrote in message ...
In article , N.
Thornton wrote:
There were no building regs in 1910, they came in in IIRC 1916 or
1917.

Building Byelaws came in after the Public Health Act 1875

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

"N. Thornton" wrote in message
om...
Tony Bryer wrote in message
...
In article , N.
Thornton wrote:
There were no building regs in 1910, they came in in IIRC 1916
or
1917.

Building Byelaws came in after the Public Health Act 1875

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.

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

http://62.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CA/CARPENTRY.htm

unfortunately no of the figures display for me.

Jim

"Andy Hide" wrote in message
om...
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 ?

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.

"Andy Hide" wrote in message
om...
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 ?

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.

"Andy Hide" wrote in message
om...
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 ?

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.

"Jim Ingram" wrote in message ...
"N. Thornton" wrote in message
om...

There were no building regs in 1910, they came in in IIRC 1916
or 1917.

Building Byelaws came in after the Public Health Act 1875


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

http://62.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CA/CARPENTRY.htm

unfortunately no of the figures display for me.

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

"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.

(Aidan) wrote in message . com...
"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.

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

Regards, NT